Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEOPW OMNI CRA 1995-06-29 MinutesCIS Of tiAlAtA O i AREA � C��� OMB AM"CY aim EVD�N JujiE 299 1495 'OF MEETING H Op tHE Cli`f CLERK PREPARED 8Y THEC�TM���,L w�� are INDEX MINUTES OF OMNI/CRA MEETING 3 June 29,1995 ITEM SUBJECT LEGISLATION PAGE NO. NO. 1. OPENING REMARKS BY CHAIRPERSON DISCUSSION 2 DAWKINS. 6/29/95 2. RECONSIDER OMNI/CRA MOTION 95-2. M 95-3 2-3 FORMALIZE INTENT BY C.R.A. 6/29/95 MEMBERS TO MOVE SECOND OMNI/CRA PUBLIC HEARING TO GRAND CONDOMINIUM AND DOUBLETREE GRAND HOTEL. 3. STATEMENT BY VICE CHAIRMAN CLARK DISCUSSION 3-4 REGARDING VIEWING OF FIRST C.R.A. 6/29/95 PUBLIC HEARING OF 6/15/95 ON VIDEOTAPE DURING HIS ABSENCE. 4. DISCUSSION BY CHAIRMAN OF MEETING DISCUSSION 4 FORMAT. 6/29/95 5. (A) INQUIRY BY BOARD MEMBER DISCUSSION 4-8 PLUMMER AS TO CHAIRMAN'S 6/29/95 EXPECTATIONS OF SECOND C.R.A. PUBLIC HEARING. (B) RESPONSE BY CHAIRMAN REGARDING . CHRONOLOGY OF ACTIVITIES INVOLVING OMNI C.R.A. 6. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION GREETING BY DISCUSSION 9-20 THE GRAND CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION 6/29/95 PRESIDENT FRED JOSEPH -- COMMENTS ON TAX DOLLARS USAGE FOR AREA INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS -- _ PRESENTATION OF SHOPPING NEEDS FOR OMNI DISTRICT -_ ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF OMNI AREA RESIDENTS -- PRESENTATION BY DISTRICT RESIDENTS. 7. PRESENTATION BY DADE COUNTY DISCUSSION 20-30 COMMISSIONER ALEX PENELAS 6/29/95 REGARDING HOMELESS HOUSING ISSUE. 8. 9. 10. REBUTTAL BY AREA RESIDENT SHEILA DISCUSSION 30-32 ANDERSON REGARDING HOMELESS 6/29/95 HOUSING ISSUE. (A) CRA BOARD DISCUSSION AND M 95-4 32-45 ACTION REGARDING READJUSTING M 95-5 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT TO PLACE CAP 6/29/95 NOT TO EXCEED 10 MILLION DOLLARS FOR PERFORMING ARTS CENTER -- DECLAPATION BY BOARD TO PLACE ANY EXCESS INCREMENT WITHIN DISTRICT -- COMMITMENT BY BOARD TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT INCREMENT TO BOND UP TO THE TEN MILLION DOLLARS. (B) RECOMMENDATION BY BOARD TO CITY COMMISSION TO EARMARK HENCEFORTH MONIES, PREVIOUSLY DESIGNATED FOR TRUST FUND, FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE OMNI AREA DISTRICT. BOARD SET FUTURE MEETING DISCUSSION 46-48 AGENDA -- DIRECTS EXECUTIVE 6/29/95 DIRECTOR AND STAFF TO MEET WITH BOARD MEMBERS ONCE A MONTH TO APPRISE THEM OF STATUS OF OMNI C.R.A. ACTIVITIES. MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING OF THE OMNI AREA COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY On the 29th day of June, 1995, the OMNI Area / Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) 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 7:07 p.m. by Chairman Miller J. Dawkins with the following members of the Board found to be present: Chairman Miller J. Dawkins Vice Chairman Stephen P. Clark. Board Member J.L. Plummer, Jr. Board Member Wifredo Gort ALSO PRESENT: Herbert J. Bailey, OMNI/CRA Executive Director Walter J. Foeman, City Clerk Maria J. Argudin, Assistant City Clerk ABSENT: Board Member Victor De Yurre 1 June 29, 1995 ---............................................................................................................. 1. OPENING REMARKS BY CHAIRPERSON DAWKINS. Chairman Dawkins: We had last meeting, and because we did not have a quorum, Mr. Mayor - I mean Mr. Vice Chairperson - there's a little house cleaning that should be done, so I'll read it and I'll expect a motion. 2. RECONSIDER OMNI/CRA MOTION 95-2. FORMALIZE INTENT BY C.R.A. MEMBERS TO MOVE SECOND OMNI/CRA PUBLIC HEARING TO GRAND CONDOMINIUM AND DOUBLETREE GRAND HOTEL. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairman Dawkins: At the Omni/CRA meeting of May the 11th, the Board of Directors passed Omni/CRA Motion 95-2, which called for two public hearings; one to be held in the affected district, and the second to be held in the City Hall Commission Chambers. At the Omni/CRA meeting held on June the 15th, the above -mentioned second public hearing was rescheduled for Thursday, June the 29th at seven p.m. Its venue was changed to be held at the Grand Condominium and Doubletree Grand Hotel in the Key West and Key Biscayne Banquet Rooms. It would be in order for the Board of Directors of the Omni/CRA to reconsider its prior Omni Motion 95-2 to reflect that both public hearings are now being held here, and none at the City Hall, and I would accept such a motion. Mr. Plummer: I'll move it, but I want corrections and admission. Because of the statement that was made at the last meeting, both of the meetings originally were scheduled to be held at City Hall. It was my motion at the time at least one should be downtown, and the other one could be, but it was not my idea to hold both of them at City Hall, so I just wanted that corrected for the minutes. Chairman Dawkins: Any further discussion? Call the roll, Mr. Clerk. Mr. Foeman: We need a second, Mr. Chairman. Vice Chairman Clark: Second. 2 - June 29, 1995 N The following motion was introduced by Mr. Plummer, who moved its adoption: OMNI/CRA MOTION 95-3 A MOTION TO RECONSIDER OMNI/CRA MOTION 95-2 (WHICH CALLED FOR TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS, ONE TO BE HELD WITHIN THE OMNI REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND A SECOND ONE TO BE HELD IN CITY HALL COMMISSION CHAMBERS) AND FORMALIZE THE MEMBERS OF SAID CRA'S INTENT TO HOLD THE SECOND PUBLIC HEARING AT THE GRAND CONDOMINIUM AND DOUBLETREE HOTEL. Upon being seconded by Vice Chairman Clark, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Wifredo Gort Mr. Victor De Yurre Mr. J.L. Plummer, Jr. Vice Chairman Stephen P. Clark Chairman Miller J. Dawkins NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. STATEMENT BY VICE CHAIRMAN CLARK REGARDING VIEWING OF FIRST C.R.A. PUBLIC HEARING OF 6/15/95 ON VIDEOTAPE DURING HIS ABSENCE. Vice Chairman Clark: Mr. Chairman, may I have the floor for a moment? Chairman Dawkins: Yes, go right ahead, Mr. Vice Chairman. Vice Chairman Clark: I was - I really was - I was under the weather last meeting, but I saw the complete meeting on a tape that was made of that last meeting, from start to finish, and J.L. was right, that I looked worse than one of his customers that come into his- funeral home at that time. But I got to give you a little background. I'm the only member of the prior County Commission 3 June 29, 1995 that voted for this Omni Tax District, and I remember how strong you were in your opinion that all the money should stay right here. Now, if I would change my mind now, I would be a prostitute to my former motion, by telling you one thing and doing another. That's the way I stand right now. I'd have to be totally convinced to change my mind, because when the County Commission at that time... There's not a member present in that Commission that served on that - the present Commission that served on that Commission back when this Tax Increment District was formed. So I can tell you where I stand, and I think I have as much right to defend what I believe was the right thing to do at that time as to defend it here tonight, very strongly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ................... -............................................................................................ 4. DISCUSSION BY CHAIRMAN OF MEETING FORMAT. Chairman Dawkins: We will reverse the order. We heard from the homeless center and from the Performing Arts Theater the last time. I think we will, for one hour, we will listen to the homeowners. Then we will give 30 minutes or 15 minutes to each of the other groups, and then we will have 30 or 35 minutes of rebuttal, and then this body will take whatever action needs to be taken. ---.............. -...... -..... -... -...... -..... -............. -..................... -... ----................... -- 5. (A) INQUIRY BY BOARD MEMBER PLUMMER AS TO CHAIRMAN'S EXPECTATIONS OF SECOND C.R.A. PUBLIC HEARING. (B) RESPONSE BY CHAIRMAN REGARDING CHRONOLOGY OF ACTIVITIES INVOLVING OMNI C.R.A. Chairman Dawkins: Who's First? Mr. Plummer: Mr. Chairman, if I may? Chairman Dawkins: Yes, sir, Mr. Plummer. Mr. Plummer: For my information, and maybe others, at the conclusion of this meeting, what do we hope to accomplish? Are we going to be making a motion to do something, or are we going to continue it over to another meeting at City Hall? I'd like to know, what are we trying to achieve this evening, and what, if anything, will go beyond this meeting this evening. So I'm asking the Chairman to give me his thoughts on the matter. Chairman Dawkins: OK. My thoughts on the matter are that at the close of this meeting, we Will close the public hearing and the members of this Board will decide one of three things. We will abide by the original decision, which stated that the money was going to the County; or we will amend the... Or there will be a vote to amend the interlocal agreement, which would say that the money could be used for the Performing Arts Theater, or third, you would pass a motion to amend the interlocal agreement to split the money between the homeless shelter and the Performing Arts. Am I clear? Mr. Plummer: You are clear, but it's for my edification, also, and maybe some others, I have not heard anybody speak against Performing Arts, not one. So I am assuming that regardless of what happens, if that is to pass, which I think that it will, the plan has to be amended. Am I correct in that? In other words, the original plan does not show... 4 June 29, 1995 Chairman Dawkins: The interlocal agreement. Mr. Plummer: Does not show the Performing Arts. Chairman Dawkins: No, it does not. Mr. Plummer: So, if, in fact, this CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) is in favor of that money, or monies going to the Performing Arts, the plan must be amended. Am I correct? Mr. Herbert Bailey (Executive Director): That's correct. Mr. Plummer: OK. But if goes... It would have to be amended also, if it were to be split between two other - actually three - the District, the Performing Arts, and the homeless. There would be a three-way distribution of the monies. Vice Chairman Clark: This is confusing. Mr. Plummer: But anyhow, OK. Chairman Dawkins: Hold it, now. Commissioner. Mr. Plummer: Yeah. Chairman Dawkins: I mean Board Member Gort. Mr. Mort: My understanding was when we voted on the interlocal agreement... We voted on it once already, didn't we, as the City Commission? Chairman Dawkins: No, we never voted on it. Mr. Gort: I was under the impression that we did, we had voted on it and eliminated the five hundred thousand or the five million. Chairman Dawkins: Let me give you a chronological - a little chronological history here. 10/6/88, the City Commission reviews interlocal agreement. And I want... This is a short narrative, and this is not verbatim, but if you care to, I do have the minutes here, which are verbatim. OK. 10/6/88, City Commission reviews interlocal agreement, negotiated over the last few months by City and County staff, and authorizes the City Manager to execute it by Resolution Number 88-888. Similar approval by the Board of County Commissioners was requested. Resolution and agreement are sent to the County, where agreement is to be reviewed by the County's Finance Committee. City is still awaiting approval of an interlocal agreement. As the Mayor will tell you, this is where Joe Gersten held the interlocal agreement hostage, and would not even let it out of committee. Vice Chairman Clark: That's right. Chairman Dawkins: Since we're going to lay it out, let's put it all out here where it can be heard. OK? 11/3/88, Omni Area Tax Increment Trust Account is established by the City. 6/29/89, County Manager requests that the interlocal agreement negotiated over the period of many months be placed on the County Commission's agenda, and recommends its approval. Item is not heard by the Board of County Commissioners, 6/29/88. 11/30/92, City Commission passes Resolution Number 89-1055, authorizing City Manager to meet with the Dade County Commission to obtain the Board of County Commissioners' expeditious approval of the Omni 5 June 29, 1995 V A.: t 1 Tax Increment District Interlocal Agreement, previously approved by the City of Miami Resolution Number 88-888, and the approval of the Omni District Trust Fund for the year '88, and '89 budget, and the City's 1990 contributions to the fund. 3/19/92, County Manager requests that we consider inclusion of the Performing Arts Project as a redevelopment activity to be funded by redevelopment bonds. Project was added to the draft interlocal agreement for consideration. 2/8/93, City Manager advises the County Manager that without official CRA 1 designation through execution of a mutually acceptable interlocal agreement, it is not clear f whether the City has the authority to determine the future of the district. A legal opinion and r discussion at the Commission are necessary prior to issuing a definite answer. 2/14/94, i interlocal agreement inclusive of funding provisions for the Performing Arts Theater - I'm j sorry - Performing Arts Center is placed on the City Commission agenda. 2/16/94... Mr. Plummer: Excuse me. Did that pass? Chairman Dawkins: Nothing has... Mr. Plummer: It was placed on the agenda, but it didn't pass, did it? Chairman Dawkins: Nothing has ever passed. And you were sitting there. You know you didn't vote on it. Mr. Plummer: Yeah, yeah. Chairman Dawkins: OK? Well, you know it wasn't passed. Mr. Bailey: Mr. Chairman... Mr. Plummer: No, I'm arguing with Mr. Gort. Chairman Dawkins: OK. No problem. 2/16/94, after proposed agreement is placed on the City Commission agenda, County forwards another version of said interlocal agreement to the City with significant modifications, namely, the inclusion of the homeless component. And 2/16/94, the homeless component appeared in the interlocal. Specifically, said agreement called for provisions of five million from bond proceeds for the homeless component. Item was withdrawn for further consideration. 11/27/94, interlocal agreement is considered by the City Commission. Following public outcry and the will of the City Commission, the interlocal agreement was approved after funding provisions with a homeless component out of redevelopment proceeds were struck from the agreement. Mr. Plummer: By the City, by the City. Mr. Gort: That's what I was saying. We approved that. Chairman Dawkins: Huh? Mr. Plummer: We approved the interlocal on our side, but they did not. Mr. Gort: Right. OK. That was my question. Chairman Dawkins: 5/4/95, the City Manager received a letter from the County Manager with a draft interlocal cooperation agreement for the Omni Area Tax Increment District that once again includes the Performing Arts Center, homeless housing component. 5/4/94 (sic), the interlocal agreement revised by the County to include funding provisions for the homeless shelter out of the Omni Area Redevelopment District is placed on the agenda for consideration. 5/11/95, the 6 June 29, 1995 �N Board of the CRA meets to discuss the proposed Omni interlocal agreement. After listening to comments by the County official, City staff and members of the public, the CRA Board passed Resolution 95-2, instructing staff to schedule the two meetings that we're having now. Mr. Plummer: I have one further question, Mr. Chairman. Explain to me, either you or Mr. Bailey, if, in fact, the County does not approve the interlocal, where are we? Chairman Dawkins: If it doesn't preclude it? Mr. Plummer: No, no. If the County Commission does not approve the interlocal, which is my understanding they have not at this time... Vice Chairman Clark: No, they haven't. Mr. Plummer: We have approved it, but they have not. Vice Chairman CIark: With the exception... Mr. Plummer: If they do not approve the interlocal, where are we? Vice Chairman Clark: J.L., J.L., with the exception that that homeless deal was struck out of it. Chairman Dawkins: That's right. Vice Chairman Clark: Did you read that in there? Mr. Plummer: Yeah, but I don't think they've even... I don't think they've even approved an interlocal at all, have they? Vice Chairman Clark: No, they haven't. Mr. Plummer: Now, assuming they don't approve it - I can't imagine that they won't because of the Performing Arts - but if they don't approve it, where are we? Chairman Dawkins: Where are we? We are at the beginning of where the homeowners and taxpayers in the Omni area will be at the liberty of doing what they want to do. Mr. Plummer: OK. OK. Chairman Dawkins: In my opinion. Mr. Plummer: That sounds like a little murder and mayhem. Chairman Dawkins: So let's... Hey... Vice Chairman Clark: I think you've explained all right, Mr. Chairman. NOTE FOR THE RECORD: Commission de Yurre enters the meeting room. Chairman Dawkins: OK. Thank you. Any other discussion from members of the... Commissioner De Yurre here? All right. 7 June 29, 1995 Vice Mayor Plummer: We passed the interlocal, but not the five hundred thousand. Asir. Gort: Still... I know, they eliminated it. Chairman Dawkins: OK. When J.L. and Sheila Anderson finishes their private meeting, we will go on with our meeting. Mr. Plummer: We'll let you know when we're finished. Chairman Dawkins: OK. You all are thinking out loud. OK. Go ahead. Commissioner De Yurre - I mean, let the record reflect that all of us are here, Mr. Foeman. We do have a... Before they say we do not have a quorum, we do have a full Board here. Thank you. Mr. Gort: Do we have an Assistant City Attorney here tonight? Chairman Dawkins: No, we don't. Vice Chairman Clark: We're going to make our own law right here. Chairman Dawkins: That's right. And let me reflect... Let me say again... Commissioner De Yurre: God protect us all. Chairman Dawkins: This Board, this CRA Board was created as an independent agency. We are to have our own attorney, and our own director. We do not need the City Attorney's Office to do anything but. advise us as Commissioners. Is that the agreement? Is that the understanding? Vice Chairman Clark: You're right on target. You're right on target. Chairman Dawkins: OX Thank you. So we do not need an Assistant City Attorney. Commissioner De Yurre: We have no attorney, period, though. Chairman Dawkins: Oh, no... Mr. Plummer: We're better off. Vice Chairman Clark: We've got you. Mr. De Yurre: I don't get paid for this as an attorney, trust me. Mr. Plummer: We're better off. Vice Chairman Clark: Let us decide this... Chairman Dawkins: That's right, that's what we will do. 8 June 29, 1995 --------•------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION GREETING BY THE GRAND CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION PRESIDENT FRED JOSEPH -- COMMENTS ON TAX DOLLARS USAGE FOR AREA INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS -- PRESENTATION OF SHOPPING NEEDS FOR OMNI DISTRICT -- ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF OMNI AREA RESIDENTS -- PRESENTATION BY DISTRICT RESIDENTS. Chairman Dawkins: Go right ahead, sir. Mr. Fred Joseph: My name is Fred Joseph. I live at 1717 North Bayshore Drive, in the Grand Condominium. I'm the president of the Grand Condominium Association, and we wish to thank you for bringing this Board here today. I know that it's had a lot of discussion, but we would like to open with a few things that you left off at the last meeting. And we've gone through some painstaking efforts to bring them to a fine point for you to be able to see and for the neighborhood people, the people that live here and work here, who come home here every day would like to have you see and understand why we cannot understand how you can take one penny and use it for anything other than what it was originally derived for, and that was to improve on infrastructure... Vice Chairman Clark: You're right. Mr. Joseph: ... to improve on roads, water, sewer, parks, to improve on our ability to be able to have a place that people would be attracted to come back to that we have, unfortunately, worked very hard to drive people away from. Again, let me start with a few items that are on boards behind you. Chairperson Dawkins, fortunately, at the last one, asked that we come back with a shopping list. He said, "What does this area need?" Well, we're not going to just show you what we need. We're going to show you what another neighborhood has. We're going to call it their neighborhood, which is Southeast Bayshore Drive. And we're going to show you what our neighborhood has, which is North Bayshore Drive. If you'll look at the poster on the bulletin board behind you, it depicts items that may reflect, as you travel throughout the City. One is... If you'll look at their garbage can against our garbage can. If you'll look at their park against our park. If you'll look at their road - the same day, I shot this the same day - and our road, flooded. If you'll look at their private owner parcels that are not kept clean, that are left untidy, and look at their park areas where they definitely cleaned it up, which is all those Brickell buildings looking down. I don't think they'd want to look on a rat infested park. If you'll look at the Bayshore line over to your far right against the wall, or your left, you'll see that our bayfront over there, that's our bayfront, and that's City property. The one above it is their bayfront, and that's City property. Look at the contrast of the trash that they have left in ours, and same day, they didn't leave in theirs. If you'll look at the streets to the next poster, you'll see their street is very pristine, very nice, cars parked, no problem. Look at ours. People are afraid to park because your car will be vandalized. We've got photos to show you up there with glass laying on the ground where - snatch and grab, right there. Same... This is the same City. This isn't Beirut and London. This is Miami. So we want to show you. If you'll look at the next one, that's their park. The bottom one is our park. We have no nice benches, no lights. They have 57 lights. We have one. If you'll look to the right of that one, that's another of their park. There's nobody sleeping in there that day. There's photos of them sleeping in ours because nobody is going to sweep that park. Our park, nobody wants to sweep it, nobody wants to go through it, make noise, light it up. You might disturb somebody sleeping. They've got a bay view that we pay millions for. It's not that they don't deserve it. It's a City park. But I 9 June 29, 1995 parked my motor coach there one time. I have a 40-foot motor coach. And I got a three hundred dollar ($300) ticket. And it's about... really hard for me to understand. They park there nightly, and they get fed. I didn't even ask for breakfast, but I got the ticket. What I'd also like for you to reflect on is that these are people living here. I want to invite any one of you, if you will stay tonight after dark, and bring your wife or girl friend, and come and walk with me in this neighborhood. Or would you rather go walk in their neighborhood? I'll invite all of you to do it with me tonight, and I don't want NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) to go with us. I want just you and your wife or girl friend and me and my wife to go for a walk here tonight, and then go walk over on South Bayshore tonight. You'll know why we're upset. We can't leave. We're hostage here. We can't go out. We can't go to our own park. Now, I want to go back to one other item. The homeless shelter is coming. You've mandated it, you've allowed it, zoning is there. Camillus did the same thing three years ago. Look at Camillus House. Those were shot the same day. Those pictures are around Camillus House. That's what we're going to have around our house, because now that is going to be in our neighborhood, just a little further to the other side. And we're not saying that we're against it. We're just saying those stores are all closed. Those fences are around businesses that used to be viable. When I was a kid, there was Miami Diamond, there was all the T-shirt places, there was all kind of factories down there. People used to walk up and down the street. Nobody will walk there anymore. I bet you won't walk there, and I'm asking you. The new homeless shelter, if you'll look at the walls, all the walls are like prison walls. You can't see in or out from street level. If you'll look at the right to that photo, that's the way we thought you were going to make them build that building, with... where you see in and out. Where you see, instead of a lady walking down the street, she can be mugged without anybody seeing her there. A man can walk down the street and be mugged, and nobody would even know it. But you haven't done anything about it. And now, they want you to take this money for these items because if you remember now, they told us when they wanted to build it they had the money. They didn't ask for one penny. Now, they want to take money for operation. And it takes money for operation. It only means that they'll be able to use more of that money that they've got coming in to go to Homestead or to go somewhere else so that we're going to pay for them to build another one out of our fund in this area. Now, I want to ask you one question. When all the technical information starts coming out on the agreements that were set and were not set, everybody kept saying, well, if you shoot this down, you may be hurting the Performing Arts. Well, we heard politicians get up and make those threats, but those same politicians were voting for the sites, for the locations, but then they all came back and said, well, we've got a hundred and forty million dollars ($140,000,000), or we can get a hundred and forty million dollars ($140,000,000), or we can bond a hundred and forty million dollars ($140,000,000). They didn't say they were going to have to come into this district, which we passed with our tax money, to improve our neighborhood and our district for our people out of our pocket; not for you to be giving this money to a private fund homeless shelter. Infrastructure, yes. Infrastructure is what we said it could be for, and that's what it should be for, roads, water, sewer. If the Performing Arts needs it for roads, water, sewer, we're not opposed to it. But we know that the homeless shelter doesn't need it. The other items I want to speak about are a couple. Without a lot of fanfare, I would like for.you just to know the people of your neighborhood Would you all raise your hands. I thinly you've got a pretty good representation here of the people that you know and who live here. I would like to offer the mike now to some of our -other people in our neighborhood, and then if later, I'll try to present any rebuttal that we'll be able to. Thank you. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Chairman, before he sits down, I think it would be among us that we should say thank you for having us here and allowing us to use this facility this evening. Mr. Joseph: It's our pleasure, believe me. It's our pleasure. (APPLAUSE) 10 June 29, 1995 a�, Mr. Joseph: And if you have any questions, I'm willing to answer any if I can for you. Vice Chairman Clark: No, you've done good. Mr. De Yurre: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Dawkins: Yes, sir. Mr. De Yurre: I think that, obviously, you know, the point has been expressed of the feeling of the community here, and I'm sure if we hear five people, ten people, 20, 50 people... Chairman Dawkins: They're the same. Mr. De Yurre: it's basically going to be the same talk. I would suggest that based... to take what he said to be representative of the whole group, and we move on and see what we're going to do about this. And if there's some people who need to say something from the other side, to say it now so we can make a decision and we can move on so that, you know, so we don't waste time repeating the things time and time again. He's expressed it very well. Vice Chairman Clark: Here's a man that's going to have apoplexy if he doesn't get a chance to speak. Chairman Dawkins: OK. One minute, Commissioner. I mean... Yes, ma'am. Come to the mike so that we can record it, please, ma'am. Commissioner - I mean Board Member De Yurre is saying that rather than be repetitious, let's see if we can move the meeting. That's all he's saying. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Eleanor Kluger: I'd like to say that I was at the meeting last time, and you gave... Vice Chairman Clark: Would you give us your name, please. Ms. Kluger: My name is Eleanor Kluger, and I live and reside in this area, and I work in this area. Mr. Joseph: Could you speak a little louder, please? Is the mike even on? Ms. Kluger: Hopefully it is. Now, can you hear me? Unidentified Speaker: Yes. Ms. Kluger: All right. I live and work in this area, and I was at the meeting last time. We had two Commissioners at the meeting last time, and we had Mr. De Yurre, and we had Mr. Gort here, and they had to leave quickly. They stayed to listen to our opponents, but they didn't stay to listen -to the rest of us. Now, this is the second time that all of these people have come here tonig6L Vice Chairman Clark: Ma'am, I don't want to interrupt you, but we're going to stay here. Just go ahead. Ms. Kluger: OK. Well, I think... Vice Chairman Clark: We're going to be here. 11 June 29, 1995 Ms. Kluger: Thank you, sir. But I think that we have taken the time and effort to come here, and I think that you should at least give us our half an hour or our hour, even if it is a repeat, to listen to us. Vice Chairman Clark: All right. Ms. Kluger: So I'd like to speak. (APPLAUSE) Ms. Kluger: OK. My name is Eleanor Kluger. I was born in Miami right here in the downtown area, right where your new police station is, right on Northwest 4th Street. OK? I've attended all the schools in Miami, I've graduated from the University of Miami, I've taught in your schools. OK? Little River, Kendall. And when my children were born, I joined my husband in the downtown area in his business, and I've been there in the Omni area ever since, over 30 years. I can remember this area as one of the nicest parts of town. The Red Coach Grille, Betty's Lobo, the Mayfair Theater, Jordan Marsh in its heyday, and many of you oldsters in this area can remember the good times in this area. Mr. Plummer: You forgot the pony rides. Ms. Kluger: And the pony rides, which we both rode on. OK? Mr. Gort: And Les Violins. Ms. Kluger: A boulevard to proud of, a place for fun, a place for relaxation, naturally beautiful, the gateway to the City of the Beach, and the beaches. My God, what have we done to this part of town in these past years? As I look around the room at my neighbors, those of us that actually live and work here, those of us that vote, pay the taxes, and feel, I feel quite sad that we, in our City, the Omni area have reached this low, low ebb. Omni is depressed, it's blighted, it's deprived. Read your newspapers, they all talk about it. Why should a Performing Arts Center come to this area? As we, most of all, the residents and the businesspeople hate to admit it, because we live here, and we're the last to admit it, customers of our business, tourists and friends don't want to come to this area of town anymore. They're afraid. They don't want to come anywhere near here. But we have learned to cope. As a woman, we never walk anywhere by ourselves, only two or more; and make sure you leave your purse at home. No fancy clothes, no gold jewelry, and keep that mobile phone hidden. Never leave any packages in a car, and make sure you lock up everything. Wait till the coast is clear before you go out from your car. If alone, try to travel by day, as nights are dangerous. Most highway lighting are out, and there are beggars and muggers at every highway exit. I come home at night, eleven o'clock, from shopping areas, and my daughter comes home from shopping areas, and we are afraid. But most of us in this room are the lucky ones. We have good cars, plenty of good tires, and we have phones, and we know our way around. But even following all those rules, most of us have been mugged, including myself. As businesspeople, we are metal-doored, we are alarmed, we are barred; we are wired, and many of us are armed. How sad, my neighborhood, Omni. Why do we stay, you say? Got to be crazy. Many of us can't leave, but most of us stay because we have hope. We see a new Omni, a safe and vibrant international downtown, one that lives both day and night, an urban town, a tourist town. We are here tonight to fight for that dream before it's too late. Help us revitalize this area. Stop the County from stealing our dollars. Stop them from using this as a dumping ground. We are full up, and we are fed up. (APPLAUSE) Chairman Dawkins: Is there another homeowner who wishes to be heard? Yes, sir, come right forward, sir. 12 June 29, 1995 Vice Chairman Clark: Or a condo owner, whoever. Mr. Roland M. Howell: Mr. Chairperson and members of the Committee and friends, I happen to have been recently elected as a condo director at Venetia Building, which is a short block from here. Mr. Plummer: Your name, sir, for the record. Mr. Howell: My name is Roland Howell, retired hotel owner in the area. We own the Miramar Hotel across the street here for many years, and we know the area well. And in talking to a great many of our... By the way, we have 341 units over at Venetia, and the condo sales are within 30 of being completely sold out from the 341. And naturally, there's a lot of new people coming into the area, and they listen, and they talk, and they ask questions, and, of course, we try to tell them that this is a fine neighborhood, et cetera, et cetera. Without repeating much of what has already been said, it is distressing. We do not go out of our. building at night. We do not even walk a block to the Omni at night. We've had many, many instances of our people in the building being mugged, cars stolen, things being broken into. As I said a moment ago, so much has already been said by Mr. Joseph and others, I don't think it necessary that I repeat all that, and give time to others. But we plead and ask that we keep the money that we are going to pay in our tax dollars. There's just no... No one is voting for or even suggested that we give money, sharing with anybody else, namely, the homeless. We're not objecting to that, but we want to protect our own area. And I will relinquish my time here to someone else, which much of it has already been covered. And thank you very much. (APPLAUSE) Vice Chairman Clark: Judge Ader, you're a property owner in this area. Do you want to come down and say something? Judge Marshall Ader: Well, there's something I don't understand. Chairman Dawkins: Come to the mike, please, sir. How are you doing? Judge Ader: Good evening. Chairman Dawkins: All right. Judge Ader: Good to be with all you young fellows again. I don't understand this letter that was handed to me as I came in from Parker Thompson. It looks to me like the matter has been decided without your help or mine. Vice Chairman Clark: No, no, just relax. Judge Ader: Huh? We'll relax. Vice Chairman Clark: That's a letter. Judge Ader: Yes. Vice Chairman Clark: That's a suggestion. Judge Ader: I see. 13 June 29,1995 Vice Chairman Clark: It's not an obligation by any stretch of the imagination. Judge Ader: OK. That's the only question that I had in my mind. In other words, if you gentlemen see fit, we can tear these letters up. Vice Chairman Clark: Well, I won't say tear them up, but you might save them for posterity. Judge Ader: For something. Thank you. (APPLAUSE) Chairman Dawkins: Come right here, sir. Mr. Kenneth G. Neumann: Gentlemen, my name is Ken Neumann. I live in this building, the Grand, at 1717 North Bayshore Drive. I work for Dade County Public Schools at 1500 North Biscayne Boulevard, and I appreciate your being here and listening. I've lived in Miami, and worked in this area for eleven years, and lived in this building for the last five. I'm interested, and I'm involved, and I'm concerned, and incidentally, I'm a voter. I'd like to summarize from my perspective, which I think is slightly different than what you've heard beforehand, although I much concur with what I've heard so far. We, the residents and businesses of the area, pay more in taxes by our own vote to fund the Omni Tax District, which is probably not quite the right legal definition, but you know what I'm talking about, in order to improve the district, to make it a better place to work, to shop, to live, to be. We support the location of the Performing Arts Center, and the use of the Omni tax monies for just those reasons. We recognize the homeless was a City and County problem, but at the time, vigorously opposed establishing a homeless shelter in our area, who's just beginning to recover, and no small part of the recovery is due to the Performing Arts Center. Our expectation is that this location of the homeless center is likely to put more homeless people on our streets in a day-to-day in and day out basis. We recent the out of sunshine process that led to the forming or the location of the homeless shelter. Nevertheless, the City Commission, you guys approved the shelter based, I understand, in part on assurances that it was a private concern; "B," that the security would be provided at a significant level, both at the shelter and throughout the area; and finally, the funding was in place. Now, I understand the private enterprise wants public funding. Secondly, security has been emasculated to the point where the 24-hour security is barely enough for the building itself, to say nothing of the area. And finally, that the funding is not adequate. It raises questions about the veracity and the... Well, you get the picture. So now, they want five million dollars ($5,000,000) of public monies, Omni Tax District monies for operations. Given the foregoing, that takes to be so brazen, to say nothing of the fact that, as I understand it, the tax district law makes it operation - makes such operation and use illegal, especially for use by private enterprise. The proposed dodge that public expenses for this form would be used for nonoperational reasons, and that would free up money for operational purposes which otherwise, I think is... Well, it's devious chicanery, at best. I find this last straw is a threat in this forum at your last meeting by the same public official that said it was going to be for operational purposes - a County Commissioner, I might add - to withdraw the Metro -Dade support, or otherwise obstruct the Performing Arts Center if the transfer of the five million ($5,000,000) was not approved. That's blackmail in my book. I find it obnoxious, immoral and highly unprofessional. Don't allow these things to happen. (APPLAUSE) Mr. Plummer: Here we go. Here he comes. Mr. Mariano Cruz: Mariano Cruz,1227 Northwest 26th Street, Miami, Florida. 14 June 29, 1995 Vice Chairman Clark: Somebody said you moved to the Grand Hotel. Mr. Cruz: Well, I don't live... I live a block - a mile and a half from here, and I come here, used to come often to do something. I only come now to J.C. Penney. But I remember when we used to come Sears, Jefferson's... Mr. Gort: Well, we may get it back. Mr. Cruz: No, a lot of stores... Jordan Marsh. My wife used to work right here, right back there, Jordan Marsh. My son works in J.C. Penney. And I'd like to see this neighborhood come back the same way it was before. Now, if I want to do any shopping, I've got to go to... We bought a new range. We went to Coral Gables Sears, or the other places. It shouldn't be that way. We should spend our money that we earn in Miami. Vice Chairman Clark: You're right. You're right. Mr. Cruz: Spend it in Miami. We shouldn't be taking the money out of Miami to other places. (APPLAUSE) Mr. Cruz: It's very important, because we're getting like this country was... pay taxation without representation. That's what we're getting here. And even I got something... Not the games now, but just in case, with the Omni area, because they were in favor of relocating Camillus House to Allapattah, which still is within City limits. I always say, why, how come always the County have to penalize the City with the homeless problem, when Miami, the City of Miami didn't create the homeless problem? How come we got to be penalized? Everything now, asking more money. If you take the five million dollars ($5,000,000) away from here, there won't be money to renovate the Sears Building, or do something, or help somebody to bring a business here. It shouldn't be that way. And anyway, the County, the homeless program, they get so much money. And today, I had the opportunity to see for myself. I went to the County section, just in that triangle that's bordered on the north by 36th Street, on the east side by 27th Avenue, on the southwest by the Miami River, the Melrose area. And you go there, and right there, you can go, 35 and 35 on the corner, just east of the Jai -Alai, you see the people camping right there in the right-of-way, living right there. What's the County doing? They've got all kind of regulations there, zoning violations. They're not doing anything there. And they're right there west of my neighborhood, in the Melrose area, that little neighborhood there. They don't doing anything. And now, they, some of the County inspectors, they come and harass the businessman in the City of Miami, the gas station owner, because somebody left a toilet roll on top of the tank instead of on the roller. That happened. The guy told me that this morning. You were a witness there. He told me, they got the... You could get five hundred dollars ($500) fine for doing that. No, so you're supposed to have somebody follow everybody into the bathroom? Make sure you don't leave now, you know, the seat down. That's a law that's in the books. You got to have your toilet paper roll in the roller, you know. That's a County violation, it's there. So they use that to harass the people. I come... And because he got four old tires in the lot. What about the hundred thousands of tires there are all over the place? But in short, I spend money in Omni. I used to go, as you mentioned, the Mayfair Theater. Remember the last movie we saw there, "Soufle Au Coeur"? One of the last movies we saw there, a French movie, because she's French, and we used to go there and see a lot of French movies there at that place. And I'd like to see that same way. We pay, we pay taxes, and we are City residents, and don't... And remember, what happen in one neighborhood affects the other neighborhood. Just now was the trial of Barbara Jensen, right? And that happened in Little River, Edison/Little River, around there, in that neighborhood. It affects everybody, not in Miami, in Florida, all over, the tourists. Just now, I know a place that I deliver the mail there in Biscayne Boulevard, Florida Touring Service. They had to close because there's not any more German tourists 15 June 29, 1995 coming there. Business that's been there viable for years, they had to close the business. I'm talking about uniforms, I used to go there and buy my uniforms at Lou's Taylors, 17 and North Miami. They're not there anymore either. A bunch of business left. So remember, whatever you do, think of the City. We vote in the City. Mr. Penelas don't live in the City of Miami. I live in the City. (APPLAUSE) Mr. Robert Wright: Gentlemen, I've not spoken before to you, but welcome to our home here. My name is Robert Wright. I'm sure I'm the oldest person here. I'm 81. And I came to Miami in 1918. I was four years old. My aunt was the developer, one of the developers of Miramar, Ms. Peter Thomas Skaggs (phonetic). Dr. Skaggs was the partner of Dr. James M. Jackson. Remember the Skaggs Pavilion in the Jackson Memorial Hospital. My uncle was Buck Letterman (phonetic). He was my guardian. Vice Mayor Plummer: Oh, E.B. Buck. Mr. Wright: E.B. Buck Letterman, my guardian, brought me up. I went to Hollywood. I've written 60 motion pictures, over 2,000 songs, and a whole bunch of things. I've lived everywhere, London, Paris, New York, Hollywood. I chose to come home to Miami. I looked all over Miami, my partner and I. We tried Coconut Grove. When the traffic got so heavy on South Bayshore Drive where we had a home, where we could no longer turn right or left, between 22nd and Aviation Avenue, we sold it. We came here. We're on the tenth floor here. We love it, it's our home, we want to fight for it. Mr. Forrest (phonetic) would be here, but he had a triple bypass last week, so he can't be, so I'm speaking for the two of us. This was Miami's most beautiful area. Whether you realize it or not, the people who are building this Arts Foundation, you are coming home to the art center of Miami. Montezuka (phonetic), who really was the first lady to take an interest in my career, lived right here on this block. I met John Charles Thomas there when I was ten years old. I played the organ the opening night in the Mayfair Theater. I worked in the lounge. I played the piano for Sonny Shepherd (phonetic) in the Mayfair Theater. That was my background. The Wometco people developed me, brought me, encouraged me, got me to Hollywood, and I've had quite a career since then. Lucky, fortunate, good luck. But this is home. We've come home to live, to die here, and we are with everyone here... I don't know how anyone could possibly add anything to the eloquence that I've heard in the past few moments. This is America at its best. I had to say something. Thank you. (APPLAUSE) Vice Chairman Clark: Mr. Yaffa, why don't you wind this up for us, give us a real college yell, would you? Mr. Phillip Yaffa: I'm actually going to throw a wrinkle into all this now. Vice Chairman Clark: No, no. Mr. Yaffa: My name, for the record, is Phillip Yaffa. I live at 1717 North Bayshore Drive. I think that I am pleased to hear the kind of passion coming from my neighbors about how they feel about this area. As you gentlemen know, I've had that passion for a number of years, for the last ten years now, and I think that the arguments they put forth says it all. I don't think I have. to add anything to that. I think that you all have an opportunity, however, to really give' the neighbors a present tonight. You are the CRA. And at the last public hearing, I was remiss to tell you from a neighborhood standpoint how very, very happy we are that you have appointed yourself as CRA, and more so that you have elected Herb Bailey as the Executive Director. I 16 June 29, 1995 don't know... Herb, you haven't had a chance to introduce yourself, and I don't know if the neighborhood has really - the neighbors know who you are. I would appreciate him to just stand up. Herb Bailey, I've worked with. Mr. Herb Bailey (Executive Director) Thank you. Mr. Yaffa: I will tell you, my neighbors that Herb Bailey has been a champion of the Omni area for years, and years, and years. He is certainly one of the most respected people in the country in the areas of planning and development that he's working in, and we're very, very fortunate to have him as the Executive Director of the CRA. My understanding is that regardless of how the tax increment funds are going to be ultimately allocated, I think the neighborhood certainly has expressed a concern that the number one priority and project is the Performing Arts Center, for we all realize that the Performing Arts Center is exactly the kind of catalytic product that the Tax Increment District was designed to help, and will help the neighborhood. My understanding, however, is from the funding mechanism - and maybe somebody from the County Cultural Service Office could speak to this - the bonding will not take place until approximately 1997. We have been very good neighbors since 1988 in allowing the City and the County to defer their allocation of the increment into the trust. You are in a position now to give us a carrot immediately, and that is 1995 and 1996 will both - both years will produce an increment of somewhere between one point one and one point four million dollars ($1.1 million and $1.4 million) that is not allocated to the Performing Arts Center bonding, and is available for use right now. I know Mr. Odio is sweating over there, and... take a million dollars out of his budget right now, or half, seven hundred thousand dollars ($700,000) out of his budget right now. But I think that as the 1995 tax roll gets certified, that you and the County are in a position right now to fund the trust by each taking your share of the increment, the County and the City, and spending it right now in this neighborhood. And as I look at the pictures and I hear what has been said tonight, you can start by cleaning up Margaret Pace Park. We've heard women talk to you tonight. I will tell you that myself and my friends will not walk the one block to the 1800 Club. I feel foolish. I have to get into my car and drive one block. But to walk down Bayshore Drive after dark is absolutely to take your life in your hands. As that woman said, we certainly remove all of our jewelry, and if we're in a group, we might attempt that one block, but we would drive to the 1800 Club. My estimation is with a million -four ($1,400,000), we could do a beginning job of getting that park back together again. Your approved downtown master plan calls for a bay walk. That picture is so telling. If you look at the water's edge in the lower painting over there, and then just walk to Ball Point or walk down to Bayfront Park and look what the water's edge looks like down there. We need a baywalk over there, and rift -raft in the water, and that will do two things. One, it will commence the public usage of that park, and it will keep the homeless from bathing at the water's edge, and washing their clothes in the water's edge there. We have no lighting in that park at all. I see the police officers there tonight. I have talked... That park is so infested with drug dealers and prostitutes at night. There's no lights. A beautiful memorial to Margaret - to Mildred Pepper, a stand of palm trees on the north side of the park that was so beautiful was blown away during the hurricane and has not been replaced, and the lanscaping... And I think for a million -four ($1,400,000), we could start to get that park in shape with lighting, a baywalk, landscaping, irrigation. Secondly, I want to make you aware and sensitive to something. We have confidence in you. You are sitting as our CRA. You simultaneously put on another hat and sit as our City Commissioners, our City leaders. I want you to be... However the money is ultimately allocated, I want you to make sure that you don't give up control of how our funds are going to be spent. And I just want you to keep that... And as you read the interlocal agreement, if the funds are split, if County funds or City funds are split, I want to make sure that we don't have to go before the County Commission and ask them to spend money on this neighborhood. We want to meet with Herb Bailey and come to you as the CRA and tell you what our desires are, and how our money should be spent. I also... If there's an allocation of these funds, I also wanted to caution you that we don't want to see percentages. Whatever the ultimate decision is on the use of the tax increment funds, and 17 June 29, 1995 whether you decide to consent to the County's request that a portion of these funds be utilized for the HAC (Homeless Assistance Center), be aware not to use percentages, because this district is going to grow. And if you said something like 50 percent of the funds or 50 percent of the excess over the Performing Arts Center was going to go here, and 50 percent there, that might be two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) today, and it might be two million dollars ($2,000,000) three or five years from now. So I want you to keep in mind that I think that you ought to think in terms of dollars or caps on dollars, and not use percentages. We again thank you for coming here, and we have confidence that you'll do good by us. Thank you. (APPLAUSE) Chairman Dawkins: Mr. Goenaga, and then we will go to the other agencies. Mr. Manuel Gonzalez-Goenaga: My name is Manuel Gonzalez-Goenaga. I don't live, reside in the district, and I probably will not get in the next coming election one vote from this area. But I want to put a message on you, Commissioners. The essence is that we cannot have it both ways. If we do not help Dade County, don't blame them afterwards that they don't help us. And regarding the homeless, I see a lot of cynicism and hypocrisy here. I was born in a silver tray, but I was taught by my family to help the needy, to help the poor. And let me tell you, my grandfather - and I - was the richest man in Puerto Rico. Fidel Castro didn't take anything from him. He gave it voluntarily to the government. And what we need here, remember that we are sitting here, you guys are sitting here and I'm speaking here, thanks to a lot of Vietnam veterans and veterans of war, that because they sacrificed what we could not do, they are sick people, and we are going to abandon the real people who fought for us, for this country, for our country? Shame on you. Thank you. (APPLAUSE) Vice Chairman Clark: Well, there's got to be one everywhere. Mr. Patrick Prudhome: My name is Patrick Prudhomme. I'm from 8276 East Dixie Highway in Miami, Florida. I'm a member of Shorecrest Homeowners' Association, and I'm a member of the Federation of Upper East Side Homeowners' Association. We don't know how to say this. I hope tonight coming here that you were as uncomfortable as I was, having to come here again, because it didn't seem too long ago that 600 of my neighbors and I got together to come down and tell this Commission that we did not want this shelter, that we already had 97 percent of all ACLFs (Adult Congregate Living Facility) in our community, which is well known in the community. What showed up in support of it was 600 people from outside of our community - Coral Gables, Miami Shores, Miami Beach, and assorted social service agency representatives. I mean, they were there in force, 600 of them. I had to listen to a rabbi from Miami Beach lecture us on NIMBY (not in my back yard) issues, and brotherly love, when not a week prior to that, they had thrown the homeless out of Flamingo Park and into the City of Miami, but there was a nice little lie about that. We were being told they were being taken care of on Lincoln Road Mall in the Jewish Home. And what we found out was that they were having lunch there. They were- actually housed in our neighborhood. I also had to listen to the Archbishop lecture us on NIMBY issues. I'm real clear that my community, spends ten million dollars ($10,000,000) a year in rearrests of the people that are coming from 26 other municipalities in this County through the County Courthouse and then released to Camillus House, and being rearrested within four months. 'Ten million dollars ($10,000,000) a year comes out of my pocket in tax dollars. I just -wonder when it's all going to stop. When are you people going to realize that we are the foundation of this neighborhood and that we want... We want our neighborhood to be livable. Right now, it's not livable, and it's a real disgrace. I'm so angry about this, that I even have to be here, because believe me, this wouldn't be going on in Coral Gables. They're real clear that they want to help no one but themselves, and my neighborhood, who has bent over backwards to 18 June 29, 1995 be generous to other people, seems to be getting shafted every time we turn around. We are the dumping ground of this County, and I'm real sick of it. Also, what I see going on here is that you people have forgotten that what is the focus here is the quality of life for the people that live here. And I can't tell you how many people have told me that in spite of the beautiful weather, and the palm trees, and the water, the quality of life has become such a cesspool in our city that they are willing to move north, to North Carolina, and be in the cold six months out of the year, just to get peace of mind, where we can live in a place where we can put plants on our front porch and not see a plant thief carrying them away two days later. I don't know what to tell you other than the last time I saw you, I told you that our community in the Upper East Side was seriously considering going with Miami Shores and leaving the City of Miami. I found out a nifty trick, that you had to give us permission to leave. But I found out something even niftier than that from other homeowners' associations in the south section of the City who are also dissatisfied with what's going on in this City, that we can revoke the City Charter, and that that's probably what's going to wind up happening. So gentlemen, I'm telling you now, pay attention to the people who live and work in this community, because otherwise, we're going to take your power away, and we'll take our tax dollars, and we'll become our own municipalities. Thank you. (APPLAUSE) Chairman Dawkins: One more speaker and then... Do you have any more? Vice Chairman Clark: Yeah, one more. Chairman Dawkins: One more and... Vice Chairman Clark: And that's enough. Chairman Dawkins: Mm-hmm. Mr. William Ader: Hi. My name is Bill Ader, and I have the 1800 Club that Phil Yaffa was talking about before. And it has gotten to the point where... My dad opened the club, and he's sitting in the back of the room right now. He opened the club in 1955. He also built the building that I live in and he lives in. And it's gotten to the point where I'm seriously thinking about having to close the club at night time anyway, and not serve dinners there anymore. You know, I hope I can keep the place .open and serve lunch, but like Phil said, I mean, people... I mean, people, if they... When the boat show was here last year and the year before, some of the people that were staying at the Marriott, that walked from the Marriott to the club, they got mugged on their way over to the club or on their way back, and that just happens on a regular basis. So people that leave the Grand, they have to get in their car, deal with valet, to just... And we're less than a block away from the Grand. I mean, it is, it's a horrible situation and when you... I mean the prostitution that's taking place in the park, Margaret, I mean, there's at least, if you check out the park tonight, you'll probably see about 15 to 20 male prostitutes. For some reason, we're infamous for having that problem with the male prostitutes. And it's just gotten really bad. 'f mean, people... You know, we want to develop the property, eventually, and hopefully keep the 1800 Club there, or build another 1800 Club. And when I tell my friends that I live where the club is, I mean, they can't believe it. They say, "You live in that area?" I mean, I have two children, and they're just amazed that I haven't abandoned this area, but I believe in it, and I hope that it's going to come back, and... But it's... Right now, it's not a real good situation. And, I mean, I think at this point, the money, the five million ($5,000,000) that we're talking about has to go towards security for the area, if this area is going to make a comeback, because I mean, we have the Camillus House in this area, and now we're going to have the homeless shelter. And I think, you know, other parts of the County have to pitch in and help us out. So that's about all I wanted to really say. So. 19 June 29,1995 (APPLAUSE) ........................ -....................................................................................... 7. PRESENTATION BY DADE COUNTY COMMISSIONER ALEX PENELAS REGARDING HOMELESS HOUSING ISSUE. Chairman Dawkins: OK. Commissioner Penelas and the others with the homeless, and then we will hear from the individuals on the Performing Arts side of it. County Commissioner Alex Penelas: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board, good evening, and thank you for the opportunity to be here. I kind of feel that I'm in the middle of enemy territory and I'm getting ready to have my head handed to me. But, you know, the easy thing for me would have been not to come here today. I think we're pretty satisfied that the public feels a certain way. Furthermore, I guess it would have been even easier for me just to have stayed sitting over there, or walk out and not participate, but that's not my style. My style is to take on issues head on, and tell people what I think about an issue, and especially in light of some of the things that have been said here that I would like to have an opportunity to clarify and perhaps have the people of the Omni area, if nothing else, be a little bit more informed on my motives, even if the result may not be to my satisfaction. First of all, let me say that I don't care where the five million dollars ($5,000,000) comes from. I'm going to say that again. I don't care where the five million dollars ($5,000,000) comes from. you may ask, "Well, then, why are we here?" Well, let me give you a little historical background. In 1993 when this issue came before the Board of County Commissioners as a financing package for the Performing Arts Center - not the interlocal, the interlocal was not on the table that day - what was on the table that day was the issue of a financing package, which, by the way, included the siting of the facilities. In other words, if we agreed to this financing package, because of the dynamics of this area, because of the Tax Increment District, et cetera, along with that decision, we would have, in effect, sited the area. If you recall, the Board of County Commissioners never had a hearing on where to site it. That wasn't a hearing, per se. It came in the form of a financing package. We knew at that time... And also by way of historical background, in 1993, in July, when this issue came before the Board of County Commissioners, there wasn't a penny sales tax for homelessness, there wasn't a Homeless Assistance Center, there wasn't a Dade County Homeless Trust, but there was a serious homeless problem in this area. We all know that. I mean, we can't... We can't forget the fact that there was a very serious homeless problem in this area. The Board of County Commissioners believed at that time that if a hundred and seventy-two million dollars ($172,000,000) was going to be spent to build a beautiful Performing Arts Center on Biscayne Boulevard in this area that some of that money should be utilized to, "A," help improve neighborhood theaters and civic associations, primarily those that were culturally or art based, and those motions passed. Part of the financing package that was approved by the Board of County_ Commissioners included improvements to other facilities even in the City of Miami, like the Artime Center and others. It included monies to be spent on other facilities throughout Dade County as well. Another issue that came up during that hearing was the homeless, and whether we should utilize some of the monies from this pot of money to deal with homelessness. That was the intent of the motion. That's why I said a moment or two ago that I don't care where the five million dollars ($5,000,000) comes from. I don't believe, nor have I ever... My posid on has never been that it could solely come from the Omni Taxing District. In fact, it could also come from the private monies that the Performing Arts Center Foundation must raise to make this a reality. As you know, before this project will be a reality, before the day we open and cut 20 June 29, 1995 the ribbon, a little over forty million dollars ($40,000,000) in private monies must be raised to deal, to help fund this program. So the bottom line, gentlemen - ladies and gentlemen - is that the five million dollars ($5,000,000) could come from just about anywhere within that hundred and seventy-two million dollars ($172,000,000), and it would be the same five million dollars ($5,000,000) less that would be available to the Performing Arts Center. I say that because, you know, some comments were made a few moments ago that I wanted to obstruct the process. Let me tell you all something, and especially the people in the public. If I wanted to obstruct this process, I would never have voted to put the Performing Arts Center in the City of Miami. I would have never voted. There was tremendous pressure. There was tremendous pressure in July of 1993 when we were getting ready to site this facility to site it somewhere else. There was even talk about... You want to talk about being parochial? Someone said that, I don't vote (sic) in the City of Miami. I sure don't vote in the City of Miami, but I voted to put this in the City of Miami when there was a lot of pressure to take this facility elsewhere, and you all know that, because you all are very much familiar with the debate and all the issues. There was a lot of concern about this particular site. There were issues about who owned it and who didn't own it, what was Knight- Ridder's involvement, would the land revert back to Knight-Ridder, would the public be responsible for paying any operational deficit. All those were issues that were on the table that day. And you know what? No one really knew how that vote was going to come out. Many people were predicting that it was going to be unlikely that this package would have passed, and even more unlikely that the facility would have been cited in this area. I have bit the bullet. I didn't do like others did, demagogue the issue and bash the Miami Herald. I didn't partake in any of those debates, and I would welcome anyone to prove to the contrary. I sat there that day, and I voted to cite this facility here in the Omni area, a decision that will specifically benefit the people of this area. I voted for that. In further response to those who would say that I would obstruct this process, Mr. Joseph is here, and I'm sure he's going to be gentleman enough to get up and confirm everything that I'm just about to say. When this issue, Mr. Joseph, came before the Board of County Commissioners, although in an ancillary manner, I may admit, last Tuesday, I didn't make a motion to defer the issue. I didn't make a motion to postpone negotiations with the architect. I didn't make a motion that all processes be stopped until such time as this Omni issue be resolved. Quite to the contrary. Although I was firm in my belief and in my conviction that this commitment has to be lived with, I also said, clearly and on the record, that I did not want to obstruct this process, and that I wanted to vote to move this forward, and I did. I believe there was only one, at the end of the day, only one dissenting vote. The issue there was not the Omni tax. The issue then was whether to move forward with negotiating a contract with the architect. And if we don't get the architect hired, you're never going to get this thing built. I could have very easily have tried to block that. I could have been the obstructionist that some people have accused me of being, and I was not. And in fact, Mr. Parker Thompson, who was there... And by the way, I am very disappointed that Mr. Thompson is not here today, because I think this issue requires the leadership of the Performing Arts Center to address it head on with you all, who are the elected representatives of this City. I'm not on the Performing Arts Center, he is. And I think that... And Mr. Thompson is an honorable man, and I respect him for having stood up there on Tuesday and have said, like he did, that if the monies are not forthcoming from the taxing district, that he would make every good faith effort to make them available from the other pot. That letter, Commissioner Plummer, in my opinion, is just a very simple... You know, "We do what they say" basic letter. There is a true lack of advocacy here on behalf of the people from the Performing Arts Center, who pled with me, who begged me, who requested that I go along with them in July of 1993, to the point that a commitment was made to fund five million dollars ($5,000,000) from this pot of money to help with homelessness. If we are going to become the first class City, the world class City that everybody wants the City of Miami to become, if we're going to become one of the best counties in the United States, we'd better not only start building Performing Arts Centers, and we'd better not only start dealing with homelessness, but we'd better start living up to commitments. And I think the people to general, irrespective of this issue, are fed up with commitments that are made on a daily basis, and are broken by those very same people who make them. That's the critical 21 June 29, 1995 issue. It's a roundabout way of getting to my point about not caring where the money is coming from, but that's my point. I never insisted... Vice Chairman Clark: Alex, please. County Commissioner Penelas: Yes. Vice Chairman Clark: Alex, let me ask you a question. Now, you said you don't care where the money comes from. How was the penny tax passed? County Commissioner Penelas: By the Board of County Commissioners. Vice Chairman Clark: Solely? County Commissioner Penelas: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Clark: Is that... Can you bond that? Unidentified Speaker: Yes. Chairman Dawkins: He's not talking to you. County Commissioner Penelas: I believe so. I believe so. Vice Chairman Clark: What would seven and a half million... You mentioned seven and a half million? County Commissioner Penelas: Well, now, 15 percent of that goes to domestic violence, so the net to homelessness is about five point nine (5.9) a year. Vice Chairman Clark: What could that... What could you bond that out at? Thirty years. County Commissioner Penelas: I don't know. I've never been good at bonding. Mr. Gort: Fifty million dollars ($50,000,000). Chairman Dawkins: Fifty million dollars ($50,000,000). Vice Chairman Clark: Fifty million dollars ($50,000,000)? Can fifty million... Man, you'd have enough money, and nobody would be crying, and everybody would be on top of the world. They won't buy that? County Commissioner Penelas: Mr. Mayor, that may be... In my opinion, that's not an acceptable solution, because the point here was to take from the pot of money the hundred and seventy-two million dollars ($172,000,000). You're talking about a different pot of money. Vice Chairman Clark: I know, but who's on first? County Commissioner Penelas: So... ,And the other point, and again... Vice Chairman Clark: I just asked the question. County Commissioner Penelas: I am trying to be unemotional about this issue, and respectful to everyone involved, and I would certainly appreciate that that be reciprocated, as we've always 22 June 29, 1995 been accustomed to conduct ourselves. On this issue, I also wanted to say... So anyway, on the issue of being an obstructionist, I hope that I've satisfied you all, and especially the people in this area, that I will not be an obstructionist. I am committed to helping this area with a Performing Arts Center. There will be many, many pressures in days that are forthcoming for us to either change our mind on the siting or do other things. I'm not going to partake of that, because I am committed to making this a reality and making it a reality in this community, and I hope you all would at least respect me, if nothing else, for that. (APPLAUSE) County Commissioner Penelas: Some of the technical issues. There's been a lot of talk here about this pot of money, this eleven, fourteen million dollars ($14,000,000), whatever it is, called the Omni Tax District. Let me remind each of you, the reason why the Omni Tax District was identified as a viable pool to satisfy this five million dollar ($5,000,000) commitment was because there's not only City monies there. In other words, it's a pot of money. The Omni Tax District Ordinance sets a base year. I don't recall what it is, Mr. Chairman. I think it's '88, '80... Mr. Bailey: '87. County Commissioner Penelas: '87. That's the base year. Monies that are generated as a result of property values going up after that date go into this taxing district. The reason I say that is because those are monies that, under normal circumstances, wouldn't only go to the City, they'd also go to the County. And I say that because I don't want to take the "their/our" analogy that was used a little while ago, it's their money or our money. It's their community, it's our community. I think this is all our community. But if I wanted to take that position, I would note that approximately 40, 45 percent of that money would, if there were no taxing district, had that ordinance not been passed, would have, under normal conditions, have gone to the County. Chairman Dawkins: You know, that's fine. I just have to... I mean, if you would permit me to say to you that the County, it never did the City a favor. If you start with the Cellular One Building, you took that off the tax rolls. You come back to the Performing Arts Theater. Nothing contributed to the tax rolls. If you go to the homeless center, nothing contributed to the tax rolls. County Commissioner Penelas: For the County, either. Chairman Dawkins: And you can go down at the School Board Building, gave the Jefferson Building to the School Board. Nothing to the tax roll. But then you stand and tell me that the. County is doing great wonders for the City because the County and the City decided that the County and the City would work hand in hand to redevelop the Omni area because the City of Miami needed that. And now, you're going to tell me that if you wanted to, you could cut that off, but you will not do that, because you are benevolent and what have you. I mean, just say it like it is. We, you and I, have worked collectively for the betterment of Dade County. From this day on, .you and I will work for the betterment of Dade County. But don't continue to dump everything in the City of Miami. Now, if you had been as benevolent towards the City of Miami as you're telling me you are, you would have taken that homeless center, with all your money, someplace else. (APPLAUSE) Chairman Dawkins: But there again, working with what you had, and with all... And again, for the betterment of everyone, you stuck it here. Now, the next one was supposed to be... And I blame my - I don't blame you, now - I blame my fellow Commissioners. 23 June 29,1995 ;9 a :a Mr. Plummer: Wait, wait, wait. Slow down. Chairman Dawkins: Yes, ,sir. (APPLAUSE) Mr. Plummer: Go ahead. Chairman Dawkins: OK? I blame some of my fellow Commissioners, OK? Mr. Plummer: Ahl Chairman Dawkins: Because if they had the... OK? Mr. Plummer: Whewl Vice Chairman Clark: Wait a minute. Chairman Dawkins: If they had had the... Yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: That was the basketball game... That was the basketball game... Chairman Dawkins: If they had had the same thing that... Everybody in Hialeah said nothing. Every Commissioner said there'd be no homeless. The Coral Gables Commission said no homeless. Miami Beach Commission said no homeless. If the City of Miami Commission said no homeless, and do not give any variances and what have you, no homeless. But you came and - I'm sorry, you did not - Mr. Alvah Chapman came with his entourage, OK? And that's where this Commission buckled under and allowed another homeless center, along with all the others. So when you start talking about benevolence, start talking about how you're going to help me take care of all the homeless people in this area that come from Miami Rescue Mission, all the homeless people that come from Camillus House, all the homeless people that will be in this area from your new center, and all the homeless people in this area from the Salvation Army. I got enough, Alex. I got enough. Somewhere, you got to help me under... help me place them someplace else. And don't tell me that the services have to go where the people are. The people will go where the services are, if we place the services someplace else. (APPLAUSE) County Commissioner Penelas: Mr. Chairman, I respect your right to change the subject as you please, but that's not the issue I was talking about. And I'd be happy to respond to that issue. I was talking about the... Chairman Dawkins: OK- I apologize... County Commissioner Penelas: I was talking about... Chairman Dawkins: I apologize for bringing something up... County Commissioner Penelas: But I will respond to that. Chairman Dawkins: ...that was not in the issue. But just like you said, you have your right to speak, and I have my right to speak. County Commissioner Penelas: Absolutely, absolutely. The issue that I was talking about was the fact - and I just want to make it clear on the record - that of the monies that would be, that are 24 June 29, 1995 part of this increment, are monies that would also would - if the ordinance had not existed, then there would not be a district - going to the County, as well. That's all I'm trying to make a point. That's why the only way this money gets used is if there's a meeting of the minds of this Board and the Board of County Commissioners. So there will be, I would assume, at some opportunity, an additional forum at the County in order to discuss the usage of the money. And again, I'm just trying to get back to the issue of being an obstructionist. I don't... Chairman Dawkins: Just a minute, just a minute, just a minute. Mr. Bailey, explain to us in here the makeup or the agreement that came about as a conciliatory meeting of the minds to redevelop this area. Would you bring that out, because, see, Commissioner Penelas has a way of twisting words around, OK? OK? Very easily. OK? So now, he's going to bring his expert. Let me hear from his expert first. County Commissioner Penelas: No, this has nothing to do with that. Chairman Dawkins: Beg pardon? County Commissioner Penelas: This has nothing to do with that. Chairman Dawkins: OK. Go ahead, Mr. Bailey. Mr. Bailey: Well, Mr. Chairman, first of all, when the ordinance was passed permitting the City of Miami to designate the Omni as a Tax Increment District for redevelopment purposes, it was agreed to by the County. In fact, the County passed an ordinance because the City passed a resolution requesting that we capture the tax from the' grant so that we could improve the neighborhood. And that was always the intent. The dollars that Commissioner Penelas is talking about, when the County Commission made the decision to pass the ordinance, then the County Commission essentially said that that money no longer will be used for our purposes, it will be used for the purposes of the Omni. Vice Chairman Clark: That's what I voted on when I was the Mayor of the County. Mr. Bailey: Yes. And what that means is that the City of Miami and Dade County are supposed to contribute their portion of the tax revenue to a trust fund, and that trust fund is supposed to be used to secure financing for further development in the Omni. He's right, that if the County Commission had not agreed to pass the ordinance giving the City permission to carry out the Tax Increment District, they would be getting around four hundred thousand ($400,000) and the City would be getting around seven hundred thousand ($700,000). But that was not the political intent. And what I want to say is that it was the people from the Omni area that came to the City of Miami at the time expressing the concerns that they're expressing tonight, that something had to be done. It was at the time Jack Lowell, who was representing the Omni area, and I think the insurance company there. We had Dick Fincher, who's now out of business, we had Armando Coding (phonetic), we had Norman Braman, all who came to our office saying that we have to do something for this district. So we put the Tax Increment District together, the City Commission approved it, the County approved for us to use the money for that purpose, however something went wrong. And I think Commissioner Dawkins has gone through the chronology tonight as to what happened. And we don't know why, but before we could get permission to manage this district for you, the County had suggested that we might consider some alternatives, and the alternatives were the Performing Arts Center and the homeless housing center. What has happened, the City Commission has already sent an interlocal agreement to the County, the one that the City Commission has approved of, and it states that the City will support the Performing Arts Center. But what I want to say here, and I don't think what a lot of people are realizing is that it doesn't really matter what you say tonight in terms of whether you support the homeless housing center with dollars, or whether you support just the Theater of Performing Arts, the 25 June 29, 1995 theater. All of the money that is available today will not be available for this district. It will all go to the Performing Arts Center. We have approximately one million one hundred and eleven thousand dollars ($1,111,000) that is due to the trust fund next year. The interlocal agreement, as it is now structured, whether it's the homeless center or whether it the Theater of Performing Arts, will all go to the County for the financing of the Performing Arts Theater. So what I'm hearing here are two different kinds of concerns now. You want some money or no money. But the County has asked for, in the interlocal agreement, one point four million ($1.4 million). We have one point one ($1.1 million). What the are saying is that we want three hundred thousand ($300,000) of your future earnings. We have agreed to that, because you have supported the Performing Arts Center. We don't know where we're going to get any more increment to do some of the things that you have talked about tonight. I just want everybody to understand that. The money, as it now stands, in the current agreement, will all go to the Performing Arts Theater. We probably won't get any more increment until... We hope that the Venetia comes on the tax rolls and increases the base. We hope that the other development on the Miramar site will happen, but we don't know. So I just want everybody to understand that if, for some reason or another, this Board decides not to do anything with the homeless housing center, you still won't have any money. County Commissioner Penelas: Mr. Chairman, getting back to the point that I was on, the only point I was trying to make was the fact that there... My understanding of the law and my understanding of how this process works, there is a requirement that there be an interlocal agreement entered into between the County and between the City. And with all due respect to Mr. Bailey, you can't even use any of the money for the Performing Arts Center if you don't first amend your redevelopment plan... Mr. Plummer: That's what I said. County Commissioner Penelas: ... which doesn't include the Performing Arts Center. So at a minimum - and with all due respect to him, I have to respectfully disagree - you, at a minimum, have to amend your redevelopment plan, which I'm very much in favor of. Mr. Bailey: We understand that. Chairman Dawkins: All he said to you was that there is no money, period. Mr. Bailey: We understand. Chairman Dawkins: Until an interlocal agreement is signed, there is no money. County Commissioner Penelas: Exactly. And that's exactly what I was saying. Chairman Dawkins: So there's no sense in us discussing something until we do what we have to do and there is some money. Mr. Bailey: I would just like to say that we're pretty much aware of the details and the technicalities of what has to be done. We're going to assume that the County is going to agree on the Performing Arts Theater concept, and we're going to assume that you are, at some point in time, going to sign the interlocal agreement, I hope. And I think at some point in time, this Board is going to make a decision as to what they will permit you to sign. As a matter of technical issues and law, if the County decides not to negotiate and sign an interlocal agreement, then we go back to the lawyers. But at this point, I don't think we're talking about that. I think what is going to happen, if whatever decision is made here tonight, and it doesn't matter to me which decision you make, we're technicians. We'll make any decision that you make tonight work. What we need tonight is a decision, yes or no. 26 June 29, 1995 Mr. Plummer: Alex, can I ask you a question? County Commissioner Penelas: Yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: In the world famous meeting in which this was taken - and I know you weren't happy with me, but I voted against the homeless center... County Commissioner Penelas: J.L., I'm always happy with you. Thank you, now. Mr. Plummer: OK. What... I don't ever recall any statement about the need of the money to operate the facility at that meeting. Now, so I guess what I'm asking you is that you must have had some idea at that meeting how you were going to get the funds to operate, and I guess I'm asking, what happened? Where did that source of what you would have considered to be revenue disappear to? County Commissioner Penelas: No. Commissioner Plummer, we have never been of the position that the monies, this five million dollars ($5,000,000) is necessary to operate the Homeless Assistance Center. That money is available, and it's been committed. There are sufficient streams of money. Let me give you a little chronology, though, on why we're here on the issue of operation. When the interlocal first came before the City Commission, the five million dollar ($5,000,000) language was broad in this respect. It spoke about - and this, of course, is the County's draft - it spoke about the monies going to the homeless trust to fund homeless activities within the district. The concern of many of the neighbors then was that the monies would be used to build another facility within the district. And a suggestion was made by many people that the money... Many people said, "Well, listen, you've already got a center there, so if you're going to take the money, at least use it there, as opposed to building yet another facility within the district," and we acquiesced on that issue. That's why we're here, and I guess the informal request would be that the money be used... I'm talking about security, other issues. But that was never our original intent in 1993. Remember, we didn't have a Homeless Assistance Center in '93. We didn't have a Dade County Homeless Plan in '93. We didn't have a penny sales tax. Chairman Dawkins: Commissioner, can you wrap this up in five minutes, please? County Commissioner Penelas: I will do it in much less than that. Chairman Dawkins: Oh, well, I'll be happy. County Commissioner Penelas: Let me just say, Commissioner Dawkins, that to respond to your last concern about siting of facilities, you're absolutely right. The City of Miami is the most overburdened community in Dade County with homeless facilities. I certainly will not sit here or stand here tonight and assume the responsibility for all of those siting decisions. You know the trust has only been in business for the last year, year and a half. I can tell you, though, that we made a commitment to move as many of these facilities outside of the City, and that commitment stands. The second Homeless Assistance Center, as you know, has been sited in Homestead, at the Homestead Air Force Base, not in the City of Miami. The City of Hialeah - and I say this with much personal knowledge. I can't talk about the City of Coral Gables, I can talk about the City of Hialeah - has probably one of the highest concentration of ACLFs (Adult Congregate Living Facility) than any other city in Dade County. Northwest Dade Center is one of the largest private providers in this community with over 600 clients being served within the City of Hialeah in different locations. I say that so... Because... Chairman Dawkins: OIL Let me ask you one question. 27 June 29, 1995 Nr County Commissioner Penelas: Yes, sir. Chairman Dawkins: The three Commissioners sitting here who voted in order to get that homeless center off the board and off and running, there was a commitment made to them - to us, because once three of us vote, it's all five of us - a commitment was made to us that a CO (certificate of occupancy) was not to be issued for the center in the City of Miami until another center someplace in Dade County where the land, the ground was broken. County Commissioner Penelas: Yes, sir. Chairman Dawkins: OK? Is the land broken for the other one now? County Commissioner Penelas: It's not broken, I do not believe. Chairman Dawkins: OK. So but yet, you're ready to open the other one, but that caveat that was offered and entered into, what are we going to do with that? County Commissioner Penelas: Well, I would have to look at the specific language. My understanding of that condition was that a CO not be issued until such time as the second facility was sited. Chairman Dawkins: No, no. County Commissioner Penelas: That's what my understanding was. Chairman Dawkins: OK. Hey, well... County Commissioner Penelas: And I could be wrong. Chairman Dawkins: OK. No. See, there again, semantics means a lot of things, see. County Commissioner Penelas: Absolutely. Chairman Dawkins: See, "sited," to you, may mean sited. "Sited," to me, may mean see it go up. County Commissioner Penelas: Again, Commissioner, that's not why we're here. Chairman Dawkins: Yes, it is. Yes, we are here... You see... County Commissioner Penelas: I am... In summary, if I may; in summary, I am committed... Chairman Dawkins: OK. I'm sorry. OK. All right. Co ahead. County Commissioner Penelas: ... I am committed to make this project - I'm not talking about the homeless project - the Performing Arts Center Project work in this community, and I want the... If nothing else, I want the residents of this area to know that even though there will be a lot of pressure otherwise, a commitment is made to the Omni area with the Performing Arts Center, whether the five million ($5,000,0000) is part of it or not. I'm going to live up to that commitment, because I do honor my word in this community, and I intend on supporting this, helping in the redevelopment of this area, working with all these people in this room, and more importantly, working with each of you to make that a reality. If, in the interim, something can be worked out with the folks... And notice that I don't blame you all for this. The commitments never came from any of you five or anyone else, and I recognize that. 28 June 29, 1995 '04' ! Chairman Dawkins: Thank you. County Commissioner Penelas: I am very confident that a solution to this issue will be forthcoming from people at the Performing Arts Center Trust, where it rightfully belongs, and I hope that at the end of the day, we could all be supportive of that. I appreciate the opportunity to be here, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Dawkins: Thank you, sir. Mr. Plummer: Very good. (APPLAUSE) Chairman Dawkins: Anybody from the homeless - I mean the Performing Arts - anybody from the Performing Arts wants... Vice Chairman Clark: Michael Spring (phonetic), you have anything to say? Mr. Gort: There's nobody... They walked out. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Chairman, I would think that it would be appropriate that, for the record, we enter Mr. Parker Thompson's letter, and I will also recognize the fact that Mr. Thompson called me this afternoon on my answering machine. I returned his call and he was not there. At least he made an effort to try to call me. What he was going to say, I don't know, but I think for the record, he at least attempted to try to reach this Commissioner. Vice Chairman Clark: 'Yeah. I spoke to him. Read the letter. OIC. All right. I think we're finished now? Mr. Jack Lowell: Mr. Chairman, my name is Jack Lowell. My office is at 1101 Brickell Avenue. As Mr. Bailey indicated, about ten years ago, a group of us in this area consisting of Mr. Armando Codina, Tibor Hollo (phonetic), myself with Tischman Spire (phonetic) and Equitable Life put together an effort that resulted in this tax district. My only regret is that we didn't finish the process and get theinterlocal agreement finished with you all, because we took it through approval from the City Commission, the County Commission, but didn't get the interlocal agreement done, and we're still at that process. The concern that I have, and I'm speaking now as a member of the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce is that if this agreement isn't signed between you all, the money goes back into the general revenue fund of both the County and the City, and I don't think it will be spent in this area. This tax district is an integral part of the funding for the Performing Arts Center. For ten years, Equitable and we have been trying to figure out a catalyst for this area that would reverse the trend of decline that you've heard a lot about tonight. We haven't come up with any bright ideas that have been earth shakers- You know, we have been able to keep the School Board expansion in this area, and we have been able to hold onto a lot of businesses in the Omni, but I can tell you, Equitable is suffering there. They're trying to get Sears to come back in, but they're going to have to give the space away to get Sears to come back into the Jordan Marsh Building. For two years, we've been trying to fill up the top two floors of the Jordan Marsh Building. We had to be very creative with the DDA (Downtown Development Authority) and Federal funds to get one floor leased, and those top floors are still available. So I would just ask you to try and reach an agreement with the County and get this thing done with a compromise so that we can be guaranteed the Performing Arts Center will happen, and not fall apart. We've had three or four crises. I'm sure we'll have some more, but we've got to get this process finished. Thank you. 29 June 29, 1995 (APPLAUSE) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. REBUTTAL BY AREA RESIDENT SHEILA ANDERSON REGARDING HOMELESS HOUSING ISSUE. Chairman Dawkins: One more speaker and we're going to close it off. Ms. Sheila Anderson: Mr. Chairman, my name is Sheila Anderson. My offices... Chairman Dawkins: This is your rebuttal? Ms. Anderson: This is rebuttal. Chairman Dawkins: OK. All right. Ms. Anderson: OIL? Yeah. Chairman Dawkins: Go right ahead, ma'am. Ms. Anderson: OK. My offices are at 901 Northeast 2nd Avenue in the City of Miami. I want to respond to some comments that were made by Commi§sioner Penelas and others that are here tonight. My understanding and memory of the record is just a little different than what you've heard up to now. For instance, the funding and financing package of the Performing Arts Center was adopted by the County Commission in 1990. Mayor Clark, I'm sure, remembers how hard the work was and how long it took to get all the pieces together. And at that time, that package included the Omni Tax Increment District because the site that had been approved by the Performing Arts Center Trust at that time was in the Omni area, which has a cross-roads location for the entire County, and it is close to public transportation, which was one of the elements that was a requirement. And the County Commission specifically said the project will be in the City of Miami because of the public transportation that is in place at the time, and because New World School of the Arts students will be able to then travel to the Performing Arts Center. At that time, I was working on the Sears donation, which also was announced in 1990, and the County Commission, when it voted to approve and accept that gift also approved the language that said it would be used for the Performing Arts Center in the Omni area. So to say that the site hadn't been approved, or that the project financing hadn't been approved until a later date is to eliminate or omit from the record everything that happened in 1989, 1990, and since then. Many, many, many times, the County Commission... Vice Chairman Clark: It's been changed since that time. Ms. Anderson: Well, we moved the site a little bit closer to Biscayne Boulevard, and it improved it, but it didn't change the overall gift. Vice Chairman Clark: But the wording changed insofar as the split of the money was concerned, because homeless wasn't even thought about at that time. Ms. Anderson: That's correct. But the wording was changed by the County Commission arbitrarily - and I don't know, and I'm not a lawyer - that they had the authority to make that decision. 30 June 29, 1995 1 Vice Chairman Clark: That was "AC" also, "After Clark" had left. Ms. Anderson: OK, OK In any case, you know more about the Performing Arts Center than anybody, because you've been so instrumental on both sides of government facilities and helping get it adopted, Mr. Clark, so I would rely on your recollection more than anybody else's. But let's understand, the Omni Tax Increment District, ten to twelve million dollars ($10,000,000 to $12,000,000) of it was identified in 1989 and 1990, and approved then, is my point. And it's never been said by the County Commission that the money from the Omni Tax Increment District would not be used as part of the Performing Arts Center funding. The reason that's so important is that in other cities where there have been Performing Arts Centers in good locations that have access to a lot of people, other businesses and developments have moved in, and the money has been replaced in sales tax, and in ad valorem taxes, and in tourism, and in all kinds of economic development issues to match more than one for one on an annual basis the cost of the Performing Arts Center. Vice Chairman Clark: You're right. Ms. Anderson: So what we're really talking about is creating new taxes and new benefits for the City and the County through that project, if we get it done properly. Some other points I'd like to mention. The County voted for the Performing Arts Center in 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995. The architect's proposal has been presented to the County Commission, and the County Commission voted to approve the negotiations of the architect's contract. There is no way that this community is going to go back and start from scratch again, and waste all the time, and the money and the effort, and the reputation of this community to stop that project from happening. I would pray to God that would never be a thought in anybody's mind, because it would say such awful things about how we do business here. And I think that's the greatest thing that we can build. We've got some other points. When Alex Penelas was first elected to the County Commission, I went with him one morning at four or five o'clock... Chairman Dawkins: Sheila, bring this to close in three minutes, please. Ms. Anderson: Yes, sir. Chairman Dawkins: Thank you, ma'am. Ms. Anderson: I was at a radio station with him at four o'clock in the morning, where he addressed concerns of Hispanic people in Dade County about the Performing Arts Center. We were together. He lobbied in favor of support of the County's position on the project, and that was when he was first elected. When he says he hasn't gotten involved in this project until 1993, I don't think that's accurate, because I remember getting up in the middle of the night to go with him to that radio station and give him the information he said on the air. In addition, I have a question, and this is very personal. I don't know why a Commissioner elected from another district is here representing a private corporation interest in anything. I have a real problem with that, because if we don't like what he represents, and what he does, or what that corporation does on behalf of the County's contract in this district, we can't vote against him if he runs for reelection someplace else. That's not representation. That's not democracy. I'm very uncomfortable with having government officials represent private businesses. And basically, that five million dollars ($5,000,000), or whatever Mr. Penelas thinks he is due from the County because the County voted to give it to him, I think the County can give it to him. Why come to the City of Miami to give it to him. Vice Chairman Clark: Listen, Sheila. Chairman Dawkins: OK 31 June 29, 1995 Vice Chairman Clark: The bond date... The penny tax can be bonded for seventy million dollars ($70,000,000). He's talking about peanuts here. Ms. Anderson: Right. But that peanuts is critical to the construction of the Performing Arts Center. Vice Chairman Clark: Well, no, not that, but not on the penny tax for homeless. Ms. Anderson: Right. I agree with you. Vice Chairman Clark: That has nothing to do with the Performing Arts Center. Ms. Anderson: I agree with you. And I'll let that be my final point. They can bond their money. Vice Chairman Clark: He said, "I don't care where the money comes from." He's got a good shot right there. Ms. Anderson: Thank you. (APPLAUSE) .................. -............................................... .............................................. 9. (A) CRA BOARD DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING READJUSTING INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT TO PLACE CAP NOT TO EXCEED 10 MILLION DOLLARS FOR PERFORMING ARTS CENTER -- DECLARATION BY BOARD TO PLACE ANY EXCESS INCREMENT WITHIN DISTRICT -- COMMITMENT BY BOARD TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT INCREMENT TO BOND UP TO THE TEN MILLION DOLLARS. (B) RECOMMENDATION BY BOARD TO CITY COMMISSION TO EARMARK HENCEFORTH MONIES, PREVIOUSLY DESIGNATED FOR TRUST FUND, FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE OMNI AREA DISTRICT. . Mr. Plummer: Can I ask a question, Mr. Chairman? Chairman Dawkins: We're getting ready to open up the meeting for the Board, and after that, we will close. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Dawkins: All Board Members. Yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: It's my understanding, if I understand correctly, that the interlocal agreement j which we have proffered, which we have passed and proffered to the County already speaks to the change to incorporate the Performing Arts. j Mr. Gort: That's right. I . t . 32 June 29,1995 Mr. Plummer: So, in effect, I assume we don't even have to really make a motion except to urge the County to approve the interlocal agreement that it has before it. Am I correct in that statement? Mr. Gort: That's it. Mr. Plummer: Amen. Vice Chairman Clark: The interlocal, does it allude to the fact that five million dollars ($5,000,000) goes to the homeless trust? Mr. Gort: We already did that. Mr. Plummer: What? No, that's not in the interlocal. Chairman Dawkins: No, no, no. No, it's not. Vice Chairman Clark: Please, don't get that in there. Mr. Plummer: Well, the only other question I have, I guess to either Herb or to the City Attorney, or to the Attorney is, in that interlocal agreement the terminology necessary to say we are implementing the plan for the Performing Arts? Mr. Bailey: Yes. Mr. Plummer: The language is clear enough. Mr. Bailey: Yes. Mr. Gort: That's what we voted on. Mr. Bailey: Yes. That's what's in the agreement. Mr. Gort: That's what I remember. Mr. Plummer: OIL All right, all right. So in other words, the only motion we need here this evening is simply to urge the County Commission to adopt the interlocal already adopted by the City. Mr. Gort: That's right. Mr. Bailey: Right. 'That's correct. Mr. Plummer: Then I'm ready to move it, Mr. Mayor, whenever. Vice Chairman Clark: In place, with no amendments. Mr. Plummer: Whenever. Chairman Dawkins: All right. Any other discussion because... before we have any motions at all? Mr. Plummer: That does it. 33 June 29,1995 Mr. De Yurre: Well, I think... Mr. Plummer: Well, wait a minute. Hold on, Mr. Dawkins. I'm sorry for interrupting. She says that we would have to modify the plan. Mr. Bailey: We understand that, Commissioner. We just need a decision as to what you want us to do. Chairman Dawkins: And if we tell staff what to do, they will do it. Mr. Plummer: OK. Under a modification. All right. OK. All right. Chairman Dawkins: Go ahead, Mr. - Board Member De Yurre. Mr. De Yurre: I believe there's a lot more that needs to be discussed here. Vice Chairman Clark: Well, say it. Do it. Mr. De Yurre: And you know I don't say much, but when I have to say something, I got to say it and let's get into details what we're talking about. To begin with, somehow - and I'm sorry that Alex had to leave - I think somehow, the County screwed up royally when they targeted to get money from our Tax Increment District when they never had to mention that. Mr. Plummer: That's why I asked, "What happened?" Mr. De Yurre: They could have just said, "I need five million dollars ($5,000,000) from the pot." We never would have known about it. It could have come from the private sector, it could have come from Hialeah, it could have come from wherever, and this would not be an issue at all. But it became an issue because somehow, they tied it to the Tax Increment District in this area. So now, all of a sudden, we're players in this scenario. Vice Chairman Clark: We're the bad guys. Mr. De Yurre: No, we can be the great guys. All of a sudden, I have a number of questions, because originally, we had the Tax Increment District, which obviously, as we've gone historically into this concept here, it was to help the area, to rebuild the area, to provide better quality of life for the residents of this section of the Omni. Then all of a sudden, a way of doing that was the Performing Arts Center, which I think is great for the area, and we all agree on that. I believe I haven't heard any dissenters about the Performing Arts Center going where it's been proposed. Originally, as I understood this, when we went ahead with the concept of giving the Tax Increment District money to the Performing Arts Center, the number that was used traditionally was ten million dollars ($10,000,000) would be generated from this Tax Increment District. That's the number that I always heard, ten million dollars ($10,000,000). Now, all of a sudden,. -we hear thirteen, fourteen, there's a proposed new building going up soon, as we hear, which may bring in another three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) into the Tax Increment District, which may mean, really, another three or four million dollars ($3,000,000 or $4,000,000), so instead of being ten, we're up to seventeen or eighteen million dollars ($17,000,000 or $18,000,000). One of the first questions that I have to pose is, if we targeted the tax increment money for the building of the Performing Arts Center, up to what point are we committed for that tax increment money to go into the Performing Arts? And once the thing gets built, we don't need to continue putting the increment money that keeps coming in into the Performing Arts Center, because it's already been built. Theoretically, if the Performing Arts Center gets built in the year '97, and this building that we're talking about gets built in '99, that's three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) that should go into the area, not into the pot for the 34 June 29, 1995 Performing Arts Center, and I have yet to hear anyone address that concept as to how we can keep the excess of the monies that's going to be generated over time by this Tax Increment District. That's issue number one. Number two, now that we're involved and we're players in this thing, I believe that for better or for worst... And the County, again, I think they screwed up in allowing us to get into this thing, and now we have a say, because nothing has been etched in stone yet, but now we have a say as to saying maybe we can say, hey, we're willing to live up to our commitment of the ten million dollars ($10,000,000). We want the excess right now. Our commitment was ten million dollars ($10,000,000). And as a... By the way, Mr. Mayor and my fellow Commissioners know very well, particularly Miller and J.L., who have been former Chairmen of the Miami Sports and Exhibition Authority, the pot of money that we had, the one cent that we had that went annually to the Miami Arena has been taken away, stripped from us, and we have been left with just enough money to pay for our debt service, and enough money that I had to fight with Joe Gersten to keep, to have some money to continue refurbishing the arena and things of that nature. But they took the excess of that, which amounts to a good, maybe two, twenty, twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000) worth of bonding capacity, which we're already putting into the Performing Arts Center. Our only contribution is not this Tax Increment District. We're kicking in about twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000) worth of money that was taken away from our Miami Arena money. So we're already putting into this concept. I think that it's time, and this is not the place, because we're not acting here as Commissioners of the City of Miami, but I believe that we need to go back when we reconvene as such, and analyze this further, and maybe we need to make a motion at that point in time, saying we will live up to our commitment of the ten million dollars ($10,000,000). However, any money beyond that, we want it to stay within the area for the things that we feel are necessary to improve our quality of life beyond the Performing Arts Center. We're talking about a good three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) annually that may be available for that, as we speak right now. Vice Chairman Clark: Victor, you know, the Increment District doesn't last forever. Mr. De Yurre: For 20 years. Vice Chairman Clark: Yes. Well, how many years has it been in effect? Mr. De Yurre: Well, it hasn't actually kicked in yet. It hasn't started yet. Mr. Plummer: It hasn't even made a collection yet. Chairman Dawkins: . Mr. Mayor. Mr. De Yurre: And it's grown as the years have gone by, but it hasn't kicked in yet. So I believe that it's time... And we talk about the issues of security, and that was one of my conditions that I set last year, July Sth, the infamous July 5th, but that was one of the conditions that I had, because I want to make sure that there's enough protection that people feel comfortable in the area. Vice Chairman Clark: I remember that. Mr. De Yurre: And maybe part of the money needs to come from... Say, let's give us this excess so we can dictate how it's going to be used, and maybe want to apply it towards particular security, or to street paving, or to whatever. But certainly, I feel that now, it isn't a matter of just approving the interlocal. It's a matter of now saying, hey, let's revisit this, because things have changed from back in the '80s when we originally adopted this concept. 35 June 29, 1995 Vice Chairman Clark: I think what you've got to get across legally to these people is that you cannot use this money, the tax increment money to supply or support the homeless project, You can't use it for that. Is that right, Madam Attorney? Mr. De Yurre: Unless we wanted to. Vice Chairman Clark: No, no, not if we wanted to. Mr. De Yurre: No, I'm saying if this body says we want additional protection and... Vice Chairman Clark: No, you can't. You can't use it. Mr. Joseph: Non -operational. Mr. De Yurre: No, no, not for the homeless center; whatever we want to use it for. Vice Chairman Clark: No, for operational. Mr. Joseph: Right, for the area. Mr. De Yurre: No, I'm not... Forget the homeless. I'm talking about the part that we would keep. Mr. Joseph: Correct. Mr. De Yurre: That we would have a say over it, that's what I'm talking about. We can dictate what we want to use it for. Vice Chairman Clark: But not on a half a million dollars that Alex talked about. Mr. De Yurre: That's right. OK? Now, additionally, I think Phil made a great point. Phil made a great point a moment ago, and I saw Cesar nodding his head, going like this, "No, it can't be," and Christina was going like this, "Yes, it can," so I'm going to go with Christina. If two years ago, the Tax Increment District would have kicked in, we would not be enjoying the seven hundred thousand dollars ($700,000) a year that we still extract from this area as part of the general fund money. So I would say that over the next two years and whatever period of time we still have the luxury of keeping this money within our City coffers, that we earmark that money to be used to improve, whether it's Pace Park or whatever else that this area needs, and earmark the seven... Let's say it's two years. That would be a million and a half dollars that we could earmark for improving this area, and the CRA would determine, with the recommendation of the community, as to how to implement that money over the next year or two years, or however long it takes. Vice Chairman Clark: You got a motion? Mr. De Yurre: Well... (APPLAUSE) Mr. De Yurre: Well, I don't know if that's a motion that we have to make here or if it's made at the Commission level. Chairman Dawkins: No, it's made here. 36 June 29, 1995 Mr. Plummer: No, it's recommended to the Commission. Mr. De Yurre: Huh? Chairman Dawkins: Made here. Mr. Plummer: You recommend to the Commission. Mr. Gort: Make here and then you recommend to the Commission. Mr. De Yurre: OF, Well, I would so move that we do that. Mr. Plummer: I'll second it for discussion. Chairman Dawkins: Wait, hold it, hold it, hold it. Mr. Plummer: If he moved it. I don't know. Chairman Dawkins: Commissioner Gort has been trying to say something for 30 minutes. Vice Chairman Clark: All right. Mr. Gort: No, my understanding was, when we voted on this, there was a cap for the amount of money that was going to be used for the trust, and the excess was going to be for the Redevelopment Agency. That was my understanding. . Mr. Bailey: The interlocal agreement does specify that only the first increment will be used for the trust. Any monies over that would be used for this area. However, the numbers have changed. Mr. Plummer: Well, excuse me, Herb... Chairman Dawkins: Wait, no, wait till Commissioner Gort finishes, Commissioner. Mr. Plummer: I thought you were finished. Mr. Gort: I think that the point brought up by Mr. De Yurre is very important, and I think that should be part of the interlocal. But I was under the understanding that it was there. In other words, what you're saying is we're going to have to put a fixed number to it. Mr. Bailey: All right. It's worded that way. The County made a specific request. The Commission agreed to that request, and we put it in the interlocal agreement. However, it was never approved by the County, so in effect, the interlocal agreement is not effective. Mr. Gort: But the one we approved, it did have the figure. Mr. Bailey: It had the figure of one point four million ($1.4 million), which represents the first increment. Mr. Gort: Right. Mr. Herb Bailey (Assistant City Manager): However, that number is smaller now, and any money in the subsequent increments will be used for the Redevelopment District. 37 June 29,1995 Mr. Gort: OK. Mr. Plummer: My question. Chairman Dawkins: Board Member Plummer. Mr. Plummer: All right. And Victor has hit it right on the head. A million -four ($1,400,000) or whatever the number might change to, it's for 20 years. Mr. Bailey: So as long as there is indebtedness, and we don't know when that indebtedness will take place. Mr. Gort: You do bond issue scheduling. Mr. Plummer: But wouldn't it be smarter for us to say that we had a commitment of ten million dollars ($10,000,000), and once the district has contributed that ten million dollars ($10,000,000) to the Performing Trust that all of the rest of the money stays for improvements within the district? Mr. Bailey: You can say that, if that's your decision. Mr. Plummer: Well, I think... Vice Chairman Clark: That's our... Mr. Plummer: That was our commitment, was ten million dollars ($10,000,000). Chairman Dawkins: That's all. Mr. Plummer: And I think, Victor, you know, I heard - I don't know whether it was Phillip or who, and I totally agreed with the point that we don't use percentages; that we use a fixed dollar amount. Mr. Joseph: Yeah, because those will keep rising. Mr. Plummer: OK, yeah. But, what I - well, it could go down, but I hope it won't. Mr. Joseph: Well, I'm afraid not, if you don't do it. Mr. Plummer: Yeah. I think that basically... Does our interlocal agreement presently speak to ten million dollars ($10,000,000)? Mr. Gort: One point four (1.4). Mr. Bailey: No. It spear to one point four million ($1.4 million). Chairman Dawkins: For ten years. Mr. Bailey: And bonding capacity, that's about... Mr. Gort: It's fourteen million ($14,000,000). Mr. Bailey:... eleven million four hundred ($11,400,000). 38 June 29, 1995 x ';ii Mr. Gort: Fourteen and multiply by ten. Mr. Herb Bailey (Assistant City Manager): By ten, yes. Mr. Plummer: Well, I think what we need to decide here this evening, are we going to contribute our commitment of ten, are we going to contribute fourteen, or somewhere in between? Mr. De Yurre: Well, J.L., I think... I don't know. I don't know if you ever heard any other number. I've always worked with the ten million. Mr. Plummer: So did I. Mr. De Yurre: And I'm willing to continue to live up to that commitment beyond the twenty- five that we've already kicked in from the Miami Arena. But our commitment is ten, and I think that the right thing to do is... People have gone for many years now working on the premise that they can count with ten million ($10,000,000) from the City of Miami that we have to live up to that, because a lot of good work and a lot of good things have been happening since then, based on these commitments. Vice Chairman Clark: Move it. Mr. De Yurre: But beyond that, it's our money. Vice Chairman Clark: It's this district's money. Mr. De Yurre: Well, that's what I'm saying, but it's for us to do as we please. Vice Chairman Clark: It's your money. Chairman Dawkins: Chairman Gort - I mean... Mr. De Yurre: And I would move that we identify it as such. Mr. Gort: We have a motion... Mr. Plummer: I've already made a motion. Mr. Gort: We have a motion on the floor accepting the interlocal agreement. I think it should be amended where you can add the ten million ($10,000,000), rather than any other figures, to put a fined amount. Mr. De Yurre: All right, cap it at ten million ($10,000,000). Mr. Dort: Right. Mr. De Yurre: Then our commitment is ten million dollars ($10,000,000). Chairman Dawkins: All right. State your motion. - Mr. Plummer: My motion, very simply, is that we readjust the interlocal to show a cap not to exceed the ten million dollars ($10,000,000) for the Performing Arts Center. Mr. Bailey: I would like to just... 39 June 29, 1995 Mr. Plummer: Any excess of that would remain within the district for the improvements to the district itself. Mr. Bailey: All right... Chairman Dawkins: Just a minute. Is there a second. Mr. De Yurre: Second. Chairman Dawkins: All right. Now, under discussion, Mr. Bailey. Mr. Herb Bailey (Assistant City Manager): Yes, I'd just like to make a clarification. I think we should indicate in the interlocal agreement that we will provide them with sufficient increment so they can bond up to ten million dollars ($10,000,000). Mr. Plummer: That's fair. Mr. Herb Bailey (Assistant City Manager): Yeah. And that any increment beyond the necessity to bond ten million dollars ($10,000,000) stays into the district. Chairman Dawkins: Belongs to the district. Mr. Plummer: That's fair, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Dawkins: Does the maker of the motion... Mr. Plummer: I accept that. Chairman Dawkins: The second accepts that? Mr. De Yurre: That's fine. Chairman Dawkins: All right. Any other discussion from the Board? Mr. Plummer: Mr. Lowell... Oh, from the Board. I'm sorry. Chairman Dawkins: I have closed the public hearing and we're arguing on this. Mr. De Yurre: You live in Coral Gables. What are you talking about? Mr. Plummer: I'm real concerned about this, Victor. Mr. De Yurre: Close to me, though. Mr. Jack Lowell: The only thing, I want to just make a comment that if you put it in the interlocal, any change to that has to go back to the County for joint approval. Mr. Herb Bailey (Assistant City Manager): No, no. Vice Chairman Clark: They haven't approved it. Mr. Gort: They haven't approved it yet. 40 June 29, 1995 Mr. Plummer: No, they haven't done it yet. Mr. Herb Bailey (Assistant City Manager): I'd also like to say, you know, that's a policy decision that has been made, and we can work out the details, but before that happens, we have a lot of other work to do to make it happen. We have to go through... Vice Chairman Clark: That agreement has never been entertained by the County. Mr. Herb Bailey (Assistant City Manager): But if that's your policy decision... Chairman Dawkins: That is our policy decision. Mr. Herb Bailey (Assistant City Manager): We will work out the details so that, will happen. Mr. Plummer: Well, I have one further concern. Chairman Dawkins: Wait a minute. Wait, now. We have a motion. If you're going to speak, and you're speaking to the motion... Mr. Plummer: But it speaks to the motion. Chairman Dawkins: All right. Speak to the motion. Mr. Plummer: OK. We have to go from... This motion I am assuming passing this evening. I don't want to we the County run out now and pass that interlocal agreement as it reads today, which is contrary to what, in fact, we are passing here this evening. Ms. Linda Kearson (OMNI/CRA Legal Counsel): They can't. Mr. Plummer: They cannot. Ms. Linda Kearson: They cannot. Chairman Dawkins: OK. Now, it's our understanding that we are setting policy here. Ms. Kearson: That's right. Chairman Dawkins: That policy will be put in writing, and this Board is saying that that policy, that's the interlocal we're going to send to the County. Mr. Plummer: OK. My only concern was they have an interlocal agreement before them that did not stipulate a max. Chairman Dawkins: We'll send it back. Can we send it back? We'll resend it. Mr. Plummer: OK. As long as there's no fear... Chairman Dawkins: Any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, call the roll, Mr. Clerk. 41 June 29, 1995 The following motion was introduced by Mr. De Yurre, who moved its adoption: OMNI/CRA MOTION 95-4 A MOTION OF THE OMNI/CRA BOARD APPROVING AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN METRO-DADE COUNTY AND THE OMNI/CRA; FURTHER READJUSTING SAME TO PROVIDE A SUFFICIENT INCREMENT NOT TO EXCEED $10,000,000 FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS CENTER; FURTHER STATING THAT ANY INCREMENT BEYOND THE NECESSITY TO BOND $10,000,000 SHALL REMAIN FOR IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE DISTRICT; FURTHER DIRECTING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO ASCERTAIN THE TRUE AND CORRECT AMOUNT OF MONIES TO BE PLACED IN THE TRUST FUND. Upon being seconded by Mr. Plummer, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Wifredo Gort Mr. Victor De Yurre Mr. J-L. Plummer, Jr. Vice Chairman Stephen P. Clark Chairman Miller J. Dawkins NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Chairman Dawkins: Is there any other... Mr. De Yurre: I would also recommend... Chairman Dawkins: Go right ahead, sir. Mr. De Yurre: ... to the City Commission that we approve identifying the tax increment money that is available right now that would have gone into this pot to use it, and I think we're talkin about over two years or whatever period of time, seven hundred thousand dollars ($700,%l available every year, to be earmarked for improvements to this area, to be recommended to the CRA, and then we do what we need to do. (APPLAUSE) Chairman Dawkins: Is there a second to a motion? Mr. Gort: Second Chairman Dawkins: All right. It's been properly moved and seconded. Is the motion understood? Mr. De Yurre: Yeah, they understood it. 42 June 29,1995 Chairman Dawkins: Call the roll. Call the roll, Mr. Clerk. Mr. Plummer: We're asking the City Manager to look and to come back and recommend to the Commission. I vote yes. Mr. De Yurre: The money is there. Chairman Dawkins: No, we're not. We're not. Mr. Plummer: What are we doing? Chairman Dawkins: We are telling the CRA Board to make a recommendation. This is an independent Board. Mr. Plummer: All right, all right. Chairman Dawkins: The County - I mean the Manager has nothing to do with this, and you all get that through your heads. Mr. Plummer: Yes, I hear you. Chairman Dawkins: OK? All right now. OK, all right. Mr. Plummer: Yes. Chairman Dawkins: Let's go. Call the roll. The following motion was introduced by Mr. De Yurre, who moved its adoption: OMNI/CRA MOTION 95-5 A MOTION OF THE OMNI/CRA BOARD, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COMMISSION THAT HENCEFORTH, THEY APPROVE THE IDENTIFICATION OF TAX INCREMENT MONEY AVAILABLE TO THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) ON AN ANNUAL BASIS, AND EARMARK SAME FOR PLACEMENT INTO THE TRUST FUND FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE OMNI REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. 43 June 29,1995 Upon being seconded by Mr. 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 Chairman Stephen P. Clark Chairman Miller J. Dawkins NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. (APPLAUSE) Mr. Bailey: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to just clarify something, please. Chairman Dawkins: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor - Mr. Bailey. Mr. Bailey: I think the motion that... I would just like to clarify the motion. You said for the past two years, the amount of money that would have gone into the trust fund that has been recovered by the City... Mr. De Yurre: Not the past years. Henceforth, the money that is going to be available. Mr. Bailey: Oh, henceforth. Mr. De Yurre: Henceforth. Mr. Plummer: Which would have been recovered by the CRA. Mr. De Yurre: We spent that money already. Mr. Herb Bailey (Assistant City Manager): That's gone, yeah. I just want to make sure you don't go retroactively. Mr. De Yurre: No, no. Mr. Bailey: But from this point on, you're saying that the money that goes into the trust fund should remain. Mr. De Yurre: That would have gone... Yeah, that we should keep it and earmark that for improvements in the area as long as it doesn't kick into the actual tax... Vice Chairman Clark: In the area, right here, nowhere else. Mr. Herb Bailey: We have to have some determination on that, but we'll get back to you. Mr. De Yurre: Thank you. Mr. Bailey: And see if that's correct. Chairman Dawkins: Thank you. 44 June 29, 1995 Mr. Plummer: Mr. Chairman, please. Chairman Dawkins: Yes, sir, Mr.... Ms. Kearson: A point of clarification here, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Dawkins: Wait a minute, hold it. Ms. Kearson: The motion... Chairman Dawkins: Wait a minute, hold it, hold it. Mr. Plummer: I'll... Mr. De Yurre: Hey, we don't want attorneys here. You said you didn't want any attorneys here. Mr. Plummer: No, I will give... I'll relinquish to her for a moment. Chairman Dawkins: Go ahead. All right. J.L. yields to you, madam. Ms. Kearson: The motion was to direct the City Commission to do that. Chairman Dawkins: Yes. Ms. Kearson: The City Commission does not have jurisdiction over those monies. It's you, it's the. Community Redevelopment Agency, but he didn't say that. Chairman Dawkins: That's what I said. Ms. Linda Kearson (Assistant City Attorney): No, no, but the motion was for this Board to direct the City Commission. Mr. De Yurre: Excuse me. Isn't that money still yet going into the general fund of the City of Miami? Ms. Kearson: Well, let's get it clarified if it is. ' Mr. Plummer: Yes. Chairman Dawkins: No, no. Mr. De Yurre: Well, that's my understanding. So we still, as Commissioners, have control over that. Vice Chairman Clark: Yes. This Board is recommending to the City Commission. Mr. Plummer: It's monies that haven't been collected. Had it been active, it would have been collected, and you're saying that those monies uncollected should, in the future, until this is agreed upon, will go into that fund. Chairman Dawkins: No, no, hey... Mr. De Yurre: OK. 45 June 29, 1995 Mr. Plummer: If that's as clear as mud, so am I. Ms. Kearson: OK. ...................................... ............ -............................................................. 10. BOARD SET FUTURE MEETING AGENDA _. DIRECTS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND STAFF TO MEET WITH BOARD MEMBERS ONCE A MONTH TO APPRISE THEM OF STATUS OF OMNI C.R.A. ACTIVITIES. Mr. Plummer: Now, Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Obviously, the CRA has more to talk about than just the Performing Arts. Chairman Dawkins: Yes. Mr. Plummer: When is our next meeting? What are we going to have for an agenda? What are we going to be doing in the interim as the CRA Board? Because I don't want to come back in a year from now and say, well, what happened? So I'm asking, what does the future hold? Chairman Dawkins: This Board will meet monthly, and... Mr. Plummer: No. Chairman Dawkins: Hey, you just... Oh, yes, we will. Yes, we will. We are committed as a CRA Board to develop the Omni area, and the Overtown/Park West area. That's our commitment. (APPLAUSE) Chairman Dawkins: And as you said, we cannot do this meeting every nine months. So as the Chairperson, I am requesting that any member of this board who has anything that they want discussed at that meeting that's coming up, forward it to me, and I will put it on the agenda. Vice Chairman Clark: Very good. Mr. Plummer: OK. Chairman Dawkins: Yes, sir, Mr. Gort. Mr. Gort: My understanding... Is there a plan already in place, or is there a plan that has to be made? Ms. Linda Kearson (Assistant City Attorney): It has to be... Chairman Dawkins: The plan is already in place. Ms. Linda Kearson (Assistant City Attorney): But you have to amend it. Mr. Gort: And it's been approved by the Community... Mr. Herb Bailey (Executive Director): For which one, Mr. Gort? Which district? 46 June 29, 1995 I'% All' Mr. Gort: I'm asking for this district, for the Omni District. Mr. Bailey: , We will have to amend the Redevelopment Plan. There is a Redevelopment Plan that has been approved, but based on your actions tonight... Ms. Kearson: It has to be amended. Mr. Bailey: ... we'll have to go through the amendments, and we'll have to go back and get the interlocal approved. And that's going to take us a little time, but that's what we will do. Mr. Gort: Right. But my understanding is, there is a plan, and what you're saying is we need to amend it now. Mr. Bailey: There is a plan in place that has been approved by all bodies. Mr. Gort: And the next step is to implement the plan. Mr. Bailey: Well, the next step now is to implement it, but we also have to amend it. Ms. Kearson: And get an interlocal... Mr. Gort: Right. Ms. Kearson: But we have to get an interlocal agreement. Chairman Dawkins: Mr. Bailey, Mr. Bailey, I want you and our staff to find a time once a month to meet with each member of this Board to answer any questions that they may have, and to alert them to what we are doing. This Board is not going to get caught in the act of being accused of violating the sunshine law. And if you do not meet with each of us to let us know what is happening, there is a possibility that one may have to ask the other one a question, and that is where we're going to get in trouble. So if it's agreeable with this Board, I would like for you to set up a time once a month, you can have your questions, and have the whole staff, if necessary, meet with you, and you give them your ideas of what we ought to be doing. They're not coining in just to tell you what we're going to do. You give them your ideas of what we ought to be doing. Mr. De Yurre: I can't afford two hundred and fifty dollars ($250) a shot for violating the sunshine law, so forget it. Chairman Dawkins: That's right. So that's what we have to do. Ms. Kearson: Sure can't. Chairman Dawkins: I agree with you. Mr. Plummer: How about instead of sunshine, we have moonshine? Chairman Dawkins: Meeting adjourned. Mr. Ed Joseph: Chair, we'd like to offer this room. Any time, you can have the CRAB here. Mr. Gort: Oh, the service is great. I'd rather have the meeting here. 47 June 29, 1995 Vice Chairman Clark: All right. Chairman Dawkins: All right. Mr. Ed Joseph: We appreciate it. THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE CRA BOARD, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 9:14 P.M. ATTEST: Walter Foeman CITY CLERK Maria Josephine Argudin ASSISTANT CITY CLERK Miller J. Dawkins Chairman (SEAL) 48 June 29, 1995