HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEOPW OMNI CRA 2002-11-25 MinutesIn
CITY OF MIAMI
CRA
MEETING
MINUTES
OF MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 25, 2002
PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK/CITY HALL
Priscilla A. Thompson/City Clerk
0Z
on
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR
SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST AND OMNI DISTRICTS
On the 25th day of November 2002, the Board of Directors of the Community
Redevelopment Agency for the Southeast Overtown/Park West and Omni Districts of the City of
Miami met at the Old Miami Arena, VIP Room, 701 Arena Boulevard, Miami, Florida.
The meeting was called to order at 5:12 p.m. by Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr., with the
following Board Members found to be present:
Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Board Member Tomas Regalado
ABSENT:
Board Member Angel Gonzalez
Board Member Joe Sanchez
ALSO PRESENT:
Carlos A. Gimenez, City Manager, City of Miami
Frank Rollason, Assistant City Manager, City of Miami
Robert Nachlinger, Assistant City Manager, City of Miami
Priscilla A. Thompson, City Clerk, City of Miami
Sylvia Scheider, Assistant City Clerk, City of Miami
Annette Lewis, Executive Director, CRA, City of Miami
William R. Bloom, Special Counsel, Holland & Knight
James Villacorta, Assistant City Attorney, City of Miami
Anna Rojas, Chief Deputy Clerk, City of Miami
An invocation was delivered by Chairman Teele, who then led those present in a pledge of
allegiance to the flag.
1 November 25, 2002
1. JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF THE SOUTHEAST
OVERTOWN/PARK WEST COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE
OMNI REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPOINTING FRANK ROLLASON AS EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR AND ANNETTE LEWIS AS CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF CRAS.
Chairman Teele: Madam Clerk, Commissioner Gonzalez has indicated that he will not be able to
be in attendance. No, I stand corrected. Commissioner Sanchez has indicated that he will not be
able to be in attendance tonight. Good evening. Welcome to the City of Miami Community
Redevelopment Agency, including the Southeast Overtown /Park West and Omni
Redevelopment Districts. Was an amended agenda put out, please?
Annette Lewis (Executive Director, CRA): No, sir.
Chairman Teele: All right. Then the Chair would like to indicate that item number 7 appears as
a personal appearance; however, it is not a personal appearance. It is a planning item, and a
presentation by the Florida Department of Transportation and the various consultants that are
listed there.
Board Member Regalado: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Teele: Commissioner Regalado. Board Member Regalado.
Board Member Regalado: Before you take the Order of the Day, I have a motion, and this
motion is in regards of what the Board and you, as the Chairman, directed that I do. Actually,
several months ago, you and the Board directed that I participate in a search for an Executive
Director for the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency). And I have a proposal -- I have a
resolution, a resolution that I think would be a benefit to the City, to the CRA, to the area.
Because the person that I'm going to propose as Executive Director has tremendous knowledge
of how the City works, how the County works, how government works; has been linked to the
CRA for many years. So, with your permission, I'd like to introduce the motion.
Chairman Teele: Mr. Manager.
Vice Chairman Winton: Yeah, you.
Chairman Teele: It's a pleasure to have you here today, too.
Board Member Regalado: OK. Mr. Chairman, I have a joint resolution of the Board of
Directors of the Southeast Overtown/Park West Community Redevelopment Agency and the
Omni Redevelopment Agency, appointing Frank Rollason as the Executive Director, and
Annette Lewis as the Chief Financial Officer of the CRA, at salaries to be determined by the
Board of the CRA in the future. This resolution should become effective January the 6', 2003.
That's my motion.
Vice Chairman Winton: Second.
2 November 25, 2002
Chairman Teele: Could you make it effective January 5tn.
Board Member Regalado: I can do that. I'm not going to argue with you for one day.
Chairman Teele: Isn't the Manager's last day the 6`".
Carlos Gimenez (City Manager): Yes, sir.
Chairman Teele: I think it should be before. We've heard the motion. Is there unreadiness?
The only thing that I --
Board Member Regalado: Mr. Chairman, as a point of order, I'd like to say that when I
discussed this with Frank, I asked him to meet with all the members of the Board, and I believed
that he did. I don't -- I didn't ask him. But Johnny's here and you're here, and I understand that
he did that. And it was my understanding -- since we have two board members that are not here,
it's my understanding that all the board members, they know about it, and, of course, they really
have the pleasure of working with Frank. So, I don't know what is the result of those meetings,
but I think he did meet with all the board members.
Chairman Teele: Well, we would have no way of knowing that, but they could speak for
themselves. But I think it's no question that Mr. Rollason has enjoyed an extraordinary working
relationship with the elected officials of the City. And my only concern, in this regard is that we
not do anything that would damage the City of Miami and the continuity there. And the only
thing -- proviso that I would make is that we, in the resolution, acknowledge that the City of
Miami's personnel needs are -- that we be mindful of the fact and -- I guess, you know, that's the
reason why I want to make sure that the current Manager is a part of this discussion -- is that we
do nothing to damage the continuity and the City of Miami. And, Mr. Manager, I just want to
get your acknowledgements, that this is something that you have no objection to.
Mr. Gimenez: Yes, sir. I think it's -- I've been working with Frank for 28 years, and I think that
he's an extraordinarily capable individual, and I think that he'll do a great job for the CRA, and
I'm certainly all in favor of his appointment to that -- to this position. And January 51 is -- if
that's what you desire, it's fine by me and the City.
Chairman Teele: All right. Is there further discussion? If not, all those in favor, signify by the
sign of "aye."
The Board Members (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Teele: All opposed?
3 November 25, 2002
The following resolution was introduced by Board Member Regalado, who moved for its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. SEOPW/CRA 02-172
RESOLUTION NO. OMNI 02-90
A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF THE
SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE OMNI REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY (COLLECTIVELY THE "CRAS") APPOINTING FRANK
ROLLASON AS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND ANNETTE LEWIS AS
THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF THE CRAS, AT SALARIES TO BE
DETERMINED BY THE BOARDS OF THE CRAS.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Vice Chairman Winton, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Board Member Tomas Regalado
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Board Member Angel Gonzalez
Board Member Joe Sanchez
Chairman Teele: Mr. Rollason, congratulations, condolences.
[APPLAUSE]
Chairman Teele: Condolences, congratulations, and. Certainly, we look forward -- I would hope
that we could resolve all of the administrative and financial issues in the December board
meeting, if possible. I have said, Frank, repeatedly, that Ms. Lewis has been operating without
the benefit of a salary review or adjustment, and, at some point, we do need to make some
retroactive adjustment in terms of the salaries. Because I didn't want to deal with a salary issue
with an Interim, but I do think those are the kinds of issues that need to be cleared -- clarified.
And if you can make a recommendation in December -- a total recommendation, I'd be grateful.
Until that time, Ms. Lewis, I'm sure you'll make yourself available to Mr. Rollason. And one of
the things that we do need to resolve is, we need to ensure that we don't do anything to damage
the City, but, at the same time, we've got to be mindful, Mr. Manager, of the personnel rules.
We have a rule that allows the Manager to -- we have a rule that allows people to be on loan to
the CRA for, I think, under the personnel rules, for up to two years. And, after that, there
becomes a personnel issue, a problem, et cetera. I would hope, Frank, that you and Carlos and
4 November 25, 2002
A"T�+
M
Annette could review this whole thing, and make sure that whatever we're doing is done before
the 6th, and that it is consistent with State law and personnel procedures. OK. Please.
5 November 25, 2002
2. ACCEPTING REPORT FROM CRA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REGARDING CRA
DIRECTIVES; ACCEPTING UPDATED STATUS REPORT OF CRA-OWNED
PROPERTIES DATED AUGUST 12, 2002; RESOLUTION RECEIVING MONTHLY
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DATED AUGUST 31, 2002.
Chairman Teele: All right. Madam Director.
Annette Lewis (Executive Director, CRA): The first item is regarding CRA (Community
Redevelopment Agency) directives, which is just a list updating the Board as to the status of
directives given. And we have dated back to, I think, May of '01. Commissioner Winton -- I'm
sorry. Board Member Winton made the observation that we needed to clean up, and we will do
that, sir.
Chairman Teele: All right. Number two.
Ms. Lewis: That has been pulled, sir.
Chairman Teele: Number three.
Ms. Lewis: Item 3 is just a status report of the properties owned by the CRA, and the list has
been amended, per Board -- Vice Chair Winton's recommendation. And after our briefing today,
he had some additional comments. So, we'll go ahead and adjust it based on that again.
Chairman Teele: Commissioner Winton, did you have questions or concerns? This is --
Vice Chairman Winton: No, no. She's -- I do not.
Chairman Teele: The only thing that I have a concern about is we need to -- what's that new rule
-- that new accounting rule? GASB (Government Accounting Standard Board) or --
Ms. Lewis: GASB 34, sir.
Chairman Teele: We need to -- I mean, this stuff is all fine, but we need to begin to get this in
GASB 34 compliant. Doesn't GASB 34 require that you identify property and value it and --
Ms. Lewis: This is actually one of the steps in terms of GASB 34 compliance. And Grau &
Company, they're due to be in the field the week of, I think, December 5th or 6th
Chairman Teele: All right. Number four.
Ms. Lewis: That is the monthly report for August 31" of this fiscal year -- I'm sorry, of last
fiscal year. And there was just a closing that occurred this past weekend for September 30th,
2002, and I will be handing out preliminary reports, based on that closing, for the end of the
fiscal year, sir.
Chairman Teele: Ms. Lewis, I have a document on my desk. Did you want to go into that?
6 November 25, 2002
R
on
Ms. Lewis: If you wish, sir. This is a memo from me to the Board as to the year-end budget
status. What this memo does, with its attachment, it identifies our year-end closing with regard
to the appropriation ordinance to which the CRA has to comply, sir. For the Omni TIF (Tax
Increment Fund), we spent four hundred and fifty-eight thousand dollars ($458,000) less than its
appropriation. With the Southeast Overtown/Park West TIF, it was one point five million. As to
the General Fund, it was 286,000 less than its appropriation. So, we're within -- we're in
compliance with the anti -deficiency ordinance, sir.
Chairman Teele: Does the anti -deficiency ordinance apply to the CRA?
Ms. Lewis: Yes, sir. I spoke with the City Attorney this morning and he conferred that it does.
Chairman Teele: All right. Would you make sure that Ms. Haskins, Linda Haskins, has a copy
of this?
Ms. Lewis: Yes, sir.
Chairman Teele: Because, apparently, I'd be very interested in her views regarding -- all right?
Ms. Lewis: Yes, sir.
7 November 25, 2002
3. PRESENTATION BY NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL ON SECTION 108
LOAN APPLICATION PROCESS AND MILESTONES.
Chairman Teele: Item number 5. Johnny, have you read this?
Annette Lewis (Executive Director of CRA): Item number five --
Vice Chairman Winton: But not completely, yeah.
Ms. Lewis: -- we were going to initially pull, but NDC (National Development Council) is here.
Apparently, they had some successful meetings with the CD (Community Development), and
Finance and other City staff, as well as the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) today.
So, probably, Mr. Staff could give us a quick update as to what occurred today.
George Staff. Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, George Staff, Director of National
Development Council, 51 East 42"d Street, New York, New York. If you want to put a face with
the name, Sandra Joyce, also Director of National Development Council, is with me.
Presentation is maybe a greater word for what we wanted to accomplish today. We've initiated
the contract, and the number one priority staff assigned to us was to commence work on
perfection, if you will, of the forward commitment from the Commission to the CRA, utilizing
Section 108 funds. We had an excellent meeting today with City staff. We'll be following that
up with meetings next week and the week following. Points to keep in mind, of course, are that
we need to match our funding needs with our timing, and the realization of the limiting factors
associated with that particular Federal program, in that eligibility, as well as national objective
issues that we're going to have to deal with. On a going forward basis, from a timing standpoint,
we've been asked to come back before this Board, at your January board meeting, with our first
series of recommendations for your consideration. Ideally, going through those with final
decisions being made, hopefully, by this Board by your March meeting, so that they may be
folded into the City's review process for CDBG (Community Development Block Grant),
commencing in April of 2003. If there are any questions at this time, we'd be happy to try to
answer those. If not, that really concludes the presentation that we have at this time.
Chairman Teele: Have you met with Commissioner Gonzalez?
Mr. Staff: We have met with Commissioner Gonzalez' staff chief --
Ms. Lewis: Frank Castenada.
Mr. Staff: -- but not with the Commissioner, himself.
Chairman Teele: Well, do everything that you can to facilitate a meeting with the consultants
and with the Commissioner, if at all possible, please.
Ms. Lewis: Yes, sir.
8 November 25, 2002
N
M
Vice Chairman Winton: Could you -- I was concentrating on something else here. What's your
timing again?
Mr. Staff. The timing, Board Member Winton, is staff has asked us to come back to you, in your
January Board meeting, with our first series of recommendations, allowing you time then,
between January and your March Board meeting, to reach some consensus in terms of directions.
Vice Chairman Winton: Great.
Mr. Staff. So that whatever you choose to do can be folded into the City's budgetary process,
with CDBG commencing in April --
Vice Chairman Winton: Great.
Mr. Staff. --of 2003.
Vice Chairman Winton: OK.
Ms. Lewis: And, hopefully, that could tie into a part of the Southeast Overtown/Park West
Redevelopment Plan, as well.
Vice Chairman Winton: Yeah.
Ms. Lewis: As we should be.
Vice Chairman Winton: A master plan.
Ms. Lewis: Correct, sir.
Vice Chairman Winton: Yeah. OK.
Chairman Teele: Further questions, comments? If not, thank you very much.
Mr. Staff: Thank you.
Chairman Teele: On the point, I saw Mr. Nachlinger. Did he get up and leave? Saw I was
going to say something?
Ms. Lewis: He could sense it.
9 November 25, 2002
4. RESOLUTION RESCINDING RESOLUTION SEOPW/CRA R-02-62 AND APPROVING
COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT LOAN PROGRAM AND POLICY SUBSTANTIALLY IN
THE FORM AS DETAILED IN EXHIBIT A; FURTHER AUTHORIZING CRA EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR TO IMPLEMENT PROGRAM SUBJECT TO AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.
Chairman Teele: All right. Madam Director, you want to proceed with item number 6?
Annette Lewis (Executive Director of CRA): Item number six is requesting the Board to
approve the Commercial Equipment Loan Program, which we've been working on feverishly
with the City Attorney and staff, as well as the input of Community Development. The package
that you have in your agenda is substantially complete. The final comments of Community
Development is being incorporated, as we speak. Our plan is to have this with the workshops
and awarding of these loans in January.
Chairman Teele: Ms. Lewis.
Ms. Lewis: Yes, sir.
Chairman Teele: Just so that the Board is aware, this item was approved two years ago. When
was it approved?
Ms. Lewis: Ninety-eight?
Unidentified Speaker: Ninety-eight.
Ms. Lewis: Ninety-eight, sir.
Chairman Teele: In '98. Now, it's taken from '98 until now to get the item back in legal
sufficiency. Now, does this include a grant agreement?
Ms. Lewis: No. Chelsa can answer to that, because she has spoken directly --
Chairman Teele: No, no.
Ms. Lewis: Excuse me.
Chairman Teele: The Attorney needs to -- because the hold up on these things -- and I'm going
to be very candid. We've got some contracts that absolutely -- I was unaware, until last week.
Did H. J. Ross' contract ever get done? You all don't have a contract? I mean, we have got to
figure out a way, if we -- we've got to figure out a way for these contracts to be timely done, and
these grant agreements to be timely done. Is there a draft grant agreement with this? I couldn't
find one. Mr. Villacorta.
James Villacorta (Assistant City Attorney): I believe there's a draft. I don't know if it's
included in the materials. We're meeting tomorrow at 9:30 to finalize the agreement. This is
substantially the form --
10 November 25, 2002
EM
Chairman Teele: Just so that the Board's --
Mr. Villacorta: -- of the policy.
Chairman Teele: -- memory is refreshed --
Vice Chairman Winton: Yeah, because I wasn't here then.
Chairman Teele: -- The Board made certain commitments to certain businesses. Primarily, the
businesses in Mr. Yukon's building were among the first. Those businesses that relocated,
barbershops, shoe shops, et cetera. Those agreements are more than two years old, and we were
waiting for the policy and the grant agreement. The agreement, essentially, was styled as a
lend/lease agreement, as I recall; is that correct?
Mr. Villacorta: Originally, yes.
Ms. Lewis: Initially.
Chairman Teele: And these agreements, basically, are designed to take advantage of the role of
the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) in furthering redevelopment by lending or
granting, if you will, certain equipment to businesses with certain conditions. You know, that
they operate, that they do certain things, under certain conditions.
Ms. Lewis: Correct.
Chairman Teele: And there is a federal program that this sort of mirrors, that was also requested
that we make an application for the federal grant, as well. That was done in '98, as well, was it
not?
Ms. Lewis: Yes, sir.
Chairman Teele: So, that's a part of all of our frustrations, with the amount of time that it takes
to get back. The concern that I have, Ms. Lewis, and what you just said about making the
recommendations and awards -- because we know these businesses, they've all been met with at
least 20 times. We don't need to make a grant agreement, if we're not prepared to close the
grant within two weeks or ten days from the time we make the agreement. So the question that
I'm saying is, we need to get the back end work done first, and not do this stuff sequentially, but
we need to do the back end on this.
Ms. Lewis: That's why we had the January date, sir.
Chairman Teele: Mr. Bloom.
11 November 25, 2002
CM
William Bloom (Special Counsel, CRA): I was going to say, Commissioner, that approximately
two years ago, grant agreements were done with the three organizations, with respect to
renovations to Just Right Barbershop, to --
Chairman Teele: Well, but Counsel's got some concerns about those agreements, too. So have
you all met on that?
Ms. Lewis: No, they have not.
Chairman Teele: You all did those grant agreements, right?
Mr. Bloom: Yes, sir.
Ms. Lewis: That's correct.
Chairman Teele: Which I -- I mean -- but then the City Attorney's Office advised me that they
had some concerns regarding the liability issues, as it relates to the CRA, and the City or dah,
dah, dah, dah, dah. So, again, I think that needs to be --
Mr. Bloom: I think what happened, Commissioner, was from the date the original grant
agreements were structured, the CRA was playing a greater role in the renovations of those
properties, which created additional liabilities, which were not called from the original grant
agreements. And so, for that reason, it did not proceed.
Vice Chairman Winton: What didn't proceed?
Mr. Bloom: In other words, the original grant agreements provided for the CRA to give funds to
these organizations to renovate their properties, not for the CRA to go in there and prepare the
plans and oversee the renovations. Because if you do that, and there's problems developed, once
you open up the walls, the CRA's developed the problems, as opposed to the owner of the
business having it their problem.
Ms. Lewis: Special Counsel is talking about the -- a different program.
Vice Chairman Winton: Well, but the point -- but whatever the issues are, it seems to me that
enough time's gone by that I would think that whatever those issues are, y'all would have them
resolved, and we would have -- we would be in a position to, at least, approve the form of --
Chairman Teele: That's my point.
Vice Chairman Winton: -- these agreements.
Ms. Lewis: Well, the grant agreement, I'm told, is being worked on simultaneously with the
policy.
Vice Chairman Winton: OK.
12 November 25, 2002
Ms. Lewis: And that's why I had delayed. Originally, it was being planned for December. But
as a result of them both not being ready, we've planned to move in January.
Vice Chairman Winton: I'd like to -- Annette, maybe you can schedule another meeting,
because I don't want to take up board time. But I would like you to walk me through the policies
and procedures associated with this program, how it's going to work.
Ms. Lewis: Yes, sir.
Vice Chairman Winton: You know, who monitors it, and how we decide who gets it, and where
the money's coming from and all that stuff, because we didn't have a chance to do that today.
Ms. Lewis: Yes, sir.
Chairman Teele: But the thing that I want to make the Board aware of is that the Commission --
Vice Chairman Winton: Right.
Chairman Teele: -- the CRA Board has already -- and part of some of the frustration is, we've
made certain commitments and certain awards, they have not been followed through.
Vice Chairman Winton: And that's why I'm not going to -- and I understand that.
Chairman Teele: (INAUDIBLE) delay it today.
Vice Chairman Winton: That's right.
Chairman Teele: But what I'm trying to do is urge the special counsel and general counsel, and
staff, all meet and work with the consulting engineer, and work these problems out from
beginning to the end, so that when we make an award, we're not starting the process, but we're
ending the process. You see what I'm saying?
Vice Chairman Winton: Absolutely.
Ms. Lewis: Sir, this resolution also extends the program to the Park West and Omni area,
because that initial '98 resolution only included the Overtown area, sir.
Vice Chairman Winton: So, it was modified, is that what you're saying?
Ms. Lewis: Correct. Actually, (INAUDIBLE)
Vice Chairman Winton: At some subsequent date. The original 1998 --
Chairman Teele: No. This is the modification.
13 November 25, 2002
Ms. Lewis: This is the modification.
Chairman Teele: This is the modification.
Vice Chairman Winton: Oh, OK.
Chairman Teele: So, what she's putting you on notice is, the original policy relates only to
Overtown. The Board's recommendation now -- I mean, the staff s recommendation now is to
extend the policy from --
Vice Chairman Winton: To Overtown/Park West.
Chairman Teele: -- Overtown to Omni and Park West. And this is consistent, Commissioner
Winton, with one of your statements relating to some projects that we were doing -- proposing in
the Omni, and I indicated we did not have a policy in place on that. So, if you would move the
item --
Vice Chairman Winton: So moved.
Board Member Regalado: Second.
Chairman Teele: Is there objection? All those in favor say "aye."
The Board Members (Collectively): Aye.
Commissioner Teele: All opposed?
The following resolution was introduced by Vice Chairman Winton, who moved for its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. CRA/SEOPW 02-173
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SOUTHEAST
OVERTOWN/PARK WEST (SEOPW) COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY (THE "CRA") RESCINDING SEOPW/CRA RESOLUTION 02-62
AND APPROVING THE COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT LOAN PROGRAM
POLICY IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE FORM AS DETAILED IN EXHIBIT
"A"; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO
IMPLEMENT THE PROGRAM SUBJECT TO THE AVAILABILITY OF
FUNDS.
EM
14 November 25, 2002
RESOLUTION NO. CRA/OMNI 02-91
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE OMNI
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (THE "CRA") APPROVING
THE COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT LOAN PROGRAM POLICY IN
SUBSTANTIALLY THE FORM AS DETAILED IN EXHIBIT "A"; FURTHER
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO IMPLEMENT THE
PROGRAM SUBJECT TO THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Board Member Regalado, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Board Member Tomas Regalado
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Board Member Angel Gonzalez
Board Member Joe Sanchez
15 November 25, 2002
5. PERSONAL APPEARANCE: BOBBIE MUMFORD AND MARY CONWAY,
BEISWENGER HOCH & ASSOCIATES, CONSULTING ENGINEER FOR FDOT:
PRESENTATION -- PORT OF MIAMI PROJECT.
Chairman Teele: All right. The next item is a planning item. And by way of
background, the Port of Miami -- are the consultants here? Would the lead consultant
please come forth and put your name and address on the record?
Mary Conway: Good evening. My name is Mary Conway of Beiswenger Hoch &
Associates. We're the engineering consultant for the Florida Department of
Transportation.
Chairman Teele: Who's the DOT (Department of Transportation) representative? Is
there a DOT representative? Would you please come and give your name and address for
the record, as well, please?
Ana Arvelo: Good evening. My name is Ana Arvelo. I'm the Project Manager from the
Department of Transportation.
Chairman Teele: You have a little cold?
Ms. Arvelo: I'm very sick.
Chairman Teele: Well, welcome. Thank you all for being here. By way of background,
the Port of Miami has been proposing an intermediate plan to provide alternate traffic
from the current pattern, and they've looked at several alternatives. This went before the
MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization). Two years ago, the MPO put it in the plan
and put it in the '04 budget, 2004 budget. I brought it to the CRA (Community
Redevelopment Agency) Board. The CRA agreed to advance the money to the DOT, if
that isn't a reverse case of the ant and the elephant. But we advanced the money to the
DOT so that the project could begin, and the project began. And, therefore, it has been
expedited by, at least, two years. Have they returned our money, yet, Ms. Lewis?
Annette Lewis (Executive Director, CRA): They have returned the money, with interest,
sir.
Vice Chairman Winton: All right.
Chairman Teele: So, the DOT, in its usual efficiency -- was it five hundred thousand
dollars ($500,000)?
Ms. Lewis: That's correct, sir.
Chairman Teele: So the DOT has returned the five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000)
and paid a very handsome interest rate, as well.
16 November 25, 2002
Ms. Lewis: Yes, they did.
Chairman Teele: I was well aware that you had done it. So, I wanted to thank the DOT
for being professional and keeping your end of the bargain. And we'd like to just hear,
very briefly, this presentation. Now, it would be my recommendation that this Board not
take a final action, but endorse the matter to the Manager and the City of Miami.
Because I really think any action should be taken in conjunction with the Manager's
Planning Department and the Manager's Public Works Department, et cetera, the City's -
- the overall City. But we are sort of the -- I don't want to call us the sponsor, because
it's a Port -sponsored project, but we are the ones that have sort of -- we are the ones that
have expedited the project. And I wanted to acknowledge that Beiswenger & Hoch has
done an outstanding job in reaching out into the community. So, please, make your
presentation. And thank you for being here.
Ms. Conway: OK. As mentioned, we're here today to discuss the I-95 new port access
ramp to westbound 836. I'd like to briefly address the people who are here as part of our
team. We have Assistant Director Juan Kuryla from the Port of Miami, as well as Becky
Hope from the Port of Miami. Ann Arvelo, who introduced herself a moment ago, as
well as Delfin Molins, on behalf of the Department of Transportation. And our public
involvement consultants, who are with us tonight, are Rob Curtis and Huston Gibson
from Curtis & Kimble, and Bobbie Mumford from B. Mumford & Company. Tonight
we're here as part of the public involvement program for the Project Development and
Environment Study or PD&E Study, for short. During the PD&E Study various
alternatives under consideration are evaluated from an engineering and environmental
perspective, and community input is incorporated into the decision -making process. As
the Commissioner mentioned, our goals for public involvement out of this project are to
both inform the community regarding the proposed project elements, and to hear the
community's concerns, so they can be incorporated into this process, so that we result
with a project that enhances the community and minimizes any negative effects.
Currently, port access is provided via Interstate 395 and Northeast lst and 2nd Avenues
and Biscayne Boulevard, which is shown on this graphic in yellow. This project will
provide an alternate route for truck traffic accessing the Port of Miami. The alternate
route will use Northeast, Northwest 5th and 6th Streets to Interstate access ramps at I-95
and Northwest 6th and 8th Streets, providing access both to I-95 and 836 westbound, and
that corridor is shown here on this graphic in pink. Some of the project's history. In the
late `70s and early `80s, the Port undertook a major update of the Port Master Plan Study,
one element of which was to address the access deficiencies at the Port of Miami. The
initial phase focused on the need to relieve the already congested downtown streets of
port -related traffic, especially truck traffic. The initial phase also recommended the
replacement of a low-level drawbridge, with a more efficient high-level fixed bridge, that
is in place today and shown in the graphic. The condition of obtaining federal funding
for this new port bridge, though, the Port agreed for the Department of Transportation to
study a tunnel, which, together with the bridge, would represent the ultimate port access
solution, or the final phase of the port access master plan. The tunnel, which would
connect the Port of Miami to Watson Island and then Interstate 395, is still under
development, and is currently in the County's unfunded long-range transportation plan.
17 November 25, 2002
Current cost estimates indicate the tunnel will cost, at least, six hundred million dollars
($600,000,000). So, why is port access so important? The Port contributes over eight
billion dollars ($8,000,000,000) to the local Miami -Dade economy, resulting in more
than 45,000 jobs, either directly or indirectly related to Port operations; jobs such as truck
drivers, longshoremen, employees of shipping companies, and import/export businesses,
just to name a few. The Port also serves as the largest cruise passenger home port in the
world. The success of the Port has a direct impact on the economic well being of the
County and its residents. When businesses have problems accessing the Port and
experience long delays, their ability to operate successfully and make a profit is directly
impacted. The potential result is, these companies may take their business elsewhere,
such as Port Everglades or Port of Palm Beach. For the Port of Miami to remain strong
and competitive, the existing access deficiencies need to be addressed as soon as
possible. The Port Master Plan Study identified the need for improved port access well
over 20 years ago. Growth since then, both at the Port and in the Miami Central Business
District, have compounded these access needs. Average daily traffic to the Port increased
42 percent in the period from 1996 to 2000. In addition, downtown traffic has increased
as a result of Bayside, the Miami Arena, American Airlines Arena, and other
developments, and it's projected to increase another 20 percent over the next 10 years.
As a result, improved access to the State highway system is needed to alleviate this
increased traffic. Until the ultimate tunnel solution can be implemented to the Port,
Miami -Dade County and the Department of Transportation have undertaken several
interim projects to improve Port access. The first of these are two Miami -Dade County --
Chairman Teele: Would you repeat that, because I think that's a very important concept?
Ms. Conway: Certainly.
Chairman Teele: That is the concept that the tunnel -- this project does not replace the
Port tunnel.
Ms. Conway: Exactly. The intent is that, as part of the Port's Master Plan Study, the
tunnel is the ultimate access solution. These next couple projects that I'll discuss are
interim projects, as well as this current project that we're here discussion tonight is an
interim project, until the tunnel can be implemented. So, the first projects that Miami -
Dade County is working on right now are to improve the existing route of lst and 2nd
Avenues. The first project includes pavement, drainage, signing, signalization
improvements, up to Northeast llth Street, just south of 395. In addition, right-of-ways
being acquired at the corners of Northeast 6th Street and 1st Avenue and 5th Street and 2nd
Avenue, to improve the turning radius for large trucks accessing the Port. The design for
this first phase is completed, and right-of-way acquisition is ongoing. The second
Miami -Dade County project, which is still under design, also on 1st and 2nd Avenues, will
depress 1st and 2nd Avenues under the eastbound I-395 bridges, so that those bridges
don't restrict access for high trucks. The Department of Transportation, likewise, has
improvements planned for Biscayne Boulevard between Northeast 41h and 14th Streets.
The Department, in coordination with the City of Miami and the County, is studying
various alternates to address capacity needs, while also enhancing pedestrian usage to
18 November 25, 2002
support existing and proposed developments along Biscayne Boulevard, both north and
south of Interstate 395. The proposed project improvements that we're here to discuss
today will provide additional capacity for increased traffic. Simply, the project involves -
- simply -- the project involves multiple improvements. First, the area that you see east
and westbound, along Northeast and Northwest 5th and 61h Streets, will be modified to be
able to accommodate Port traffic access. Secondly, a new ramp at I-95 to westbound 836
will be provided. There are two alternatives for this ramp. It will either start -- thank
you. The first element of the project is the 5th and 6th Street improvements. Those
improvements will be undertaken by the County. The second element of the project is to
provide this major movement from I-95 northbound to 836 to the west. For that
movement, there will be two alternatives: a ramp at 6th Street and a ramp at 8th Street,
that we'll briefly explain. This next graphic shows the proposed new Port access route
using 51h and 6th Street, that we showed earlier, to a new on ramp directly at 6th Street,
that will connect to the existing 836 westbound ramp. The following slides show this in a
little bit greater detail. Right now there's insufficient space between southbound and
northbound I-95 bridges to accommodate the new access ramp. As a result, southbound
I-95, which is this area on the west side in blue, needs to be widened to the west. Then
the interior portion shown on the right, in the green, demolished to provide the physical
space that's required for the new ramp. On the next slide, there's some impacts
associated with that.
Chairman Teele: Does that change the existing footprint of --
Ms. Conway: I-95?
Chairman Teele: -- I-95?
Ms. Conway: Yes, it does.
Chairman Teele: Well, let me ask this. On the west side of I-95, as you come across --
as you're coming south and you get off, there's a ramp and that's 3rd Court.
Ms. Conway: Court, yes.
Chairman Teele: Does that footprint change?
Ms. Conway: Yes, slightly. For this 6th Street alternative --
Chairman Teele: (INAUDIBLE)
Ms. Conway: Very slightly. The footprint changes in that, for this 6th Street alternative
to be viable, which is what we're showing on this slide, it requires that Northwest 3rd
Court be reduced from four lanes to three lanes, between 5th Street and 8th Street, to avoid
impacting the properties along the west side of 3rd Court. And that's the main reason for
the lane reduction. However, based on the current traffic counts and the projections on
19 November 25, 2002
Northwest 3rd Court, there should be no problems with the level of service on that
roadway. There is some slight right-of-way acquisition --
Chairman Teele: Did you say between 51h Street and --
Ms. Conway: Fifth Street and 8th Street.
Chairman Teele: Well, I want to be -- we don't want to do anything to adversely impact
the barbeque there on 8th Street.
Ms. Conway: Yes. We're aware of that. And it --
Chairman Teele: That's one of the few businesses that has been in Overtown for over 50
years, 60 years, not at that location. The location right behind it. And it's really
important that we not impact negatively that -- in fact, this project should be, how can we
provide a positive or enhance that location?
Ms. Conway: Based on the comments that we've heard before regarding People's
Barbeque, we have taken a specific look at what improvements can be made along
Northwest 3rd Court, as well as within the project limits, in general. And I'll touch on
those a few slides down the road, but we definitely have been very sensitive to those
needs. So, there will be slight right-of-way acquisition on the west side of 3rd Court, but
from vacant parcels. There will be no physical impacts to the YWCA (Young Women's
Christian Association), Camillus House or to People's Barbeque. On the next slide, what
that then allows, through the shifting of I-95 to the west, the demolition is for this red
area, the new ramp, to come in at 6th Street and connect to the existing ramp to 836
westbound. In addition to the impact to 3rd Court going from four to three lanes, there
will also be an impact to the traffic movement on Northwest 71h Street underneath I-95.
Right now, you can travel east or west on 7th Street underneath I-95 -- excuse me. You
can travel east or west. In the future, to develop the new ramp and to have it go from
(INAUDIBLE) at 6t11 Street to be elevated at 81h Street and travel across 81h Street, they'll
be earth infill or embankment at 71h Street. And 7th Street will need to be permanently
closed to traffic under I-95 with this 6th Street alternative. The next alternative -- again,
this is the next alternative just for the project element, which is to provide the movement
to 836 westbound, would bring the ramp on at 8th Street. On the next slide, similar to the
61h Street alternative, this alternative also requires that westbound -- that the westbound
edge of southbound I-95 be widened, the interior portion demolished to then fit the ramp
up in between the two. The effects of this alternative are that, right now, on 8th Street,
you can travel eastbound or westbound under I-95. With this alternative, you will no
longer be able to travel eastbound on 8th Street, though the westbound movement will be
continued. There are some other project improvements that are incorporated, some other
project elements. This slide, in the purple, is showing the existing ramp from 3rd Avenue
to I-95 northbound at 8th Street. The proposal is for this project to include increasing the
vertical clearance on that ramp for high truck access, similar to what's being done with
the County's project at Vt and 2nd Avenues and 395. The next element of the project
provides what we're calling a "hook ramp," which is basically almost like a U-turn
20 November 25, 2002
connection, so that now traffic traveling southbound on P Avenue, that at 91h Street has
to be diverted and go around the block to get back to the Interstate, would have a direct
connection to the existing ramp.
Chairman Teele: So, in other words, coming down P Avenue going south, you'll be
able to hook up on the ramp?
Ms. Conway: Yes. And access I-95 northbound from that location. That element has
been incorporated in this project, since it was one of the recommendations that had come
out of the study that was done previously by Florida International University, and that
element is included as a result. Lastly, the project at both 5tb and 61h Street, as well as at
8th Street, will look at the vertical clearances under those existing bridges, and look at
increasing clearance, again, for high truck access. Next, what are the benefits of the
project? An additional route to the State highway system will be provided for downtown
and Port traffic, thereby alleviating congestion on the existing route and providing
capacity for projected future traffic increases. Improved access to northbound I-95 and to
the medical complex and Civic Center will be provided for Overtown and downtown
traffic. The Port of Miami serious access concerns will be addressed more effectively to
ensure the Port's competitiveness, until the ultimate tunnel solution can be implemented.
In addition, the Overtown community will be enhanced as a result of improved access
and aesthetic project elements. On this next slide, the project will include aesthetic
elements in an attempt to harmonize with the surrounding community and improve the
appearance of the State transportation facilities within the project limits. What these two
graphics are showing are two possible options for visual barrier walls on either side of I-
95, between Northwest 5th and 81h Streets, accompanied by landscape improvements.
And here you can see some computer generated renderings. In addition, both the
Department of Transportation and the Port of Miami are coordinating with the Trust for
Public Lands planned Overtown greenway, and the CRA's proposed community
improvements to determine whether any of their project components can be incorporated
into this project. Lastly, where does the project go from here? Small group meetings,
like today's, will continue through March of next year. In December -- well, actually in -
- right now we're looking around late January. May actually slip into February, but the
public workshop we're planning to be held either in late January, early February,
followed by a formal public hearing some time next summer.
Chairman Teele: Would the public hearing be before the MPO or -- ?
Ms. Conway. No. The public hearing would be a stand alone venue, but upon request, or
if it's advisable, we can certainly make additional presentations before other bodies.
Chairman Teele: When does this show before the MPO?
Ms. Conway: As part of this presentation, we're not including anything, but we had
planned on making presentations before the City and the County Commissions, as well as
before the MPO, and we're coordinating and setting up those future meetings.
21 November 25, 2002
Chairman Teele: OK. Thank you.
Ms. Conway: So they're in work.
Board Member Regalado: Mr. Chairman. Have you met with the truckers? Because
they keep coming to the City, because they have several issues here, and I don't know if
you have met with their delegates.
Ms. Conway: We have met with the International Longshoremen's Association, as well
as with Florida Stevedoring on behalf of the Port users and Port industry. With the
truckers, per se, we've met with those two groups.
Board Member Regalado: Because they seem to have some issues with the tunnel, the
cost of going though the tunnel. Is that something that -- have you heard about?
Ms. Conway: I have not personally heard about that, but my expectation would be that
those concerns would be addressed by the Turnpike Enterprise, which now is the lead for
the tunnel project. They have actually just advertised for an owner's representative
contract to revisit the original PD&E Study for the tunnel, to look at updating it, nd that
reevaluation or update to that study will involve an extensive public involvement
component. So, I would imagine that that would be the venue for the truckers on that
project. Lastly, should the project garner public support and move forward to design and
construction? There will continue to be public involvement elements as the project
moves forward. With that, that concludes our formal presentation. If there are any
questions, we'd be happy to fill those.
Board Member Regalado: I have only one question, Mr. Chairman, that -- it's about the
tunnel.
Chairman Teele: About the tunnel?
Board Member Regalado: Yeah. If -- well, the City is going --
Chairman Teele: Let me -- is there a Port representative here? Is there anybody here
from the Port? OK. That's who this should be directed to. Just give us your name and
address for the record.
Juan Kuryla: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Juan Kuryla, Assistant Port
Director.
Board Member Regalado: And I'm curious, because the City is moving forward with all
the plans on Watson Island, the development, Children's Museum. The Commission
decided that the rest will be a park. So, I was wondering, where is the tunnel fits in, in
this part of Watson Island?
22 November 25, 2002
Mr. Kuryla: Commissioner, I believe that the footprint for the tunnel has been taken into
consideration, both at Watson Island and also on the Port, as part of the Port's
redevelopment program.
Board Member Regalado: Yeah, but where does it go out?
Mr. Kuryla: Do you have a map that we can show him?
Ms. Conway: Ralph, can we go back to that one graphic? Up a little.
Board Member Regalado: I mean, because you said that it would link the tunnel and I-95
Chairman Teele: Her project has nothing to do -- the project we're being briefed on has
nothing to do with the tunnel, except --
Board Member Regalado: The ultimate --
Ms. Conway: As an interim.
Chairman Teele: -- except it is an interim solution and, ultimately, a tunnel solution is in
the back burner. She put that in that context. But to answer the Commissioner's
question.
Ms. Conway: If you look at this graphic, here you see Dodge Island, Port of Miami.
This is Watson Island, McArthur Causeway, the proposed tunnel alignment that would
connect from Dodge Island across the channel to Watson Island before going over the
McArthur Causeway bridge. This is one of the preliminary alignments. No doubt, there
will be some slight modifications to that.
Chairman Teele: Is the City Manager here?
Unidentified Speaker: He stepped out for a moment.
Chairman Teele: Mr. Manager, the -- Commissioner Regalado was asking a question
about the specific place where the tunnel, the proposed tunnel on Watson Island, will --
Carlos Gimenez (City Manager): Will enter and exit?
Chairman Teele: Enter and exit, yes.
Mr. Gimenez: There is a -- from my understanding, there is an FDOT (Florida
Department of Transportation) right-of-way on Watson Island, and all the projects that
are planned have that in mind. And that space is basically vacant -- will be vacant just
for that purpose.
23 November 25, 2002
Chairman Teele: All right. And maybe it would be good if the Planning and Public
Works people, or whoever it is, could give Commissioner Regalado a briefing on that.
Mr. Gimenez: Yes, sir. Will do.
Chairman Teele: Did you want anything else, or did you want an applaud or a resolution
or ...?
Ms. Conway: Not necessary.
[APPLAUSE]
Unidentified Speaker: Is there (INAUDIBLE) public comments on (INAUDIBLE) --
Chairman Teele: There's always time for public comment. Come right up, please, Mr.
Mauzy. There's always a place for appropriate public comment.
Bill Mauzy: Good evening. Bill Mauzy, President/CEO of BAME (Bethel African
Methodist Episcopal) Development Corporation, Greater Bethel AME (African
Methodist Episcopal) Church. Just a couple of preliminary or very simple questions.
We're concerned a little bit about the Overtown area. We've met with this group and we
shared some very strong concerns, and I didn't hear any of this in the briefing before the
CRA Board. And I just wondered whether you're going to get it at a later date, because
we're very concerned about those two churches sitting on the corner of 8th Street. My
church is 106 years old, and we're not going to let a one-way street kill the setting of the
church and the traffic to the church. I mean, it's very important that all of this be brought
out and dealt with at the very beginning. And we've said this to this group more than
once, that we need to talk about this and see how we can -- we want to see the Port get
more support. We know how important it is to the economics of the City. We recognize
all of that. But you've got to talk Overtown , and you've got to talk about the properties
in Overtown, and the stakeholders in Overtown now, not after it's all done. That's to one
thing. You're talking about a one-way street there, you're going to dump a ton of
pollution right in front of the Greater Bethel AME Church --
Unidentified Speaker: That's right.
Mr. Mauzy: -- and the historic Mount Zion. I don't hear anything to help resolve those
kinds of solutions, unless you guys want to buy us all out.
Chairman Teele: No, no.
Mr. Mauzy: Now, we'll be ready to talk about that.
Chairman Teele: No, we don't want to buy you out. We want you to --
24 November 25, 2002
Mr. Mauzy: All right. So somebody needs to start paying attention about what's going
on in our community, and how you're going to be sure that we don't have the 95 and 395
devastation all over again, with a route coming up off of 8th Street, of all places, which is
the only access and entrance you've got coming out, that makes some kind of sense going
into your very well -traveled area, going into the America Arena. I mean, this -- nobody's
talking --
Chairman Teele: All right. Let's try to pause and deal with that issue. Ma'am -- no, no,
no. Let's deal with one issue at a time. Let's deal with Mr. Mauzy's issue. Just have a
seat.
Unidentified Speaker: Oh, OK.
Chairman Teele: Mr. Mauzy, just so that you're aware, I have been briefed on this
project at least five times, and I was particularly concerned after the comments that you
raised -- I know they've been recorded because I've read them. I mean, I've read all of
the reports. But are we talking about doing 8th Street one-way now?
Ms. Conway: And that's what I wanted to clarify. What we have done is that, when we
went out to the community and had these various small group meetings, we did hear the
community's concerns. As a result of that, the presentation that you saw this evenin
included two alternatives for the new on ramp. It included an alternative at Northwest 6t
Street and 8th Street. Initially, when we went out to the community, there was only one
proposed alternative, and that was at 8th Street. So, if I can just clarify --
Chairman Teele: Well, let's clarify the first point. Are you proposing to turn 8th Street
into a one-way street?
Ms. Conway: With the 81h Street alternative, there would no longer be -- it would not be
one-way. It would be two-way, with the exception that from west of I-95 to east of I-95,
it could only be westbound. You can't accommodate the ramp there and maintain the
eastbound movement.
Chairman Teele: In other words, what you're saying, between 3rd Avenue and 3rd Court,
it would be one-way for that? Underneath 395, in other words --
Ms. Conway: It would be one-way westbound between those two streets, yes.
Chairman Teele: But that would not be in front of the church?
Ms. Conway: No.
Chairman Teele: That would be just under what is now --
25 November 25, 2002
Ms. Conway: And that's only with the 8th Street alternative. As a result of the
community's concerns with impacts associated with that 8th Street alternative, we went
back and developed a 6th Street alternative. If the 6th Street alternative is carried forward
as the preferred alternative for the project, there will be no impacts to eastbound traffic
between 3rd Court and 3Td Avenue on 8th Street.
Chairman Teele: Well, just so that you know -- and I think Mr. Mauzy makes a very
good point. Your comments or your presentation would have, I think, been received a
little bit better if you had referenced the fact that, after receiving community input, a new
alternative was proposed.
Ms. Conway: Certainly.
Chairman Teele: The new alternative is the 6th Street alternative, which is supported by
whoever it's supported by. And there is going to be neighborhood opposition to 8th
Street. I mean, I just think, in terms of how you present the proposal going forward, it
would be much better to do exactly what Mr. Mauzy's saying, and that is to acknowledge
the community and acknowledge that the community does have a concern about 8th
Street.
Ms. Conway: We'll definitely do that and incorporate that.
Mr. Mauzy: But we just need them to go to 6th Street and take a look.
Chairman Teele: And I was impressed with the quality of the comments from the
community. And, candidly -- because I'd looked at the thing for two years and I didn't
figure it out the way it's being figured out, and that is to go up 6th -- to take the ramp up
at 61h Street, which makes a lot more sense, in my judgment.
Mr. Mauzy: We asked them to do that.
Chairman Teele: And I think the community should be given credit --
Ms. Conway: Oh, without a doubt.
Chairman Teele: -- or acknowledgement, at least, for that alternative. Because you want
them to buy into one of the alternatives, I'm sure. So...
Ms. Conway: Oh, no. Without a doubt. And that's exactly why we went back and did
take a look at 6th Street. It was based on the input that we got from the community. And
once having the traffic information in hand, realized that it was workable to reduce 3Td
Court from four to three lanes, which makes that a viable option and minimizes the right
of -way impacts.
Chairman Teele: But that --
26 November 25, 2002
44- -,Oe
Mr. Mauzy: We haven't heard that back in the community, so we're going to have more
meetings, I'm sure.
Ms. Conway: Yes, we are.
Mr. Mauzy: We're prepared to listen to all of that and try to help as much as we can.
Vice Chairman Winton: Great.
Mr. Mauzy: But we've got to have -- be sensitive to the community, without a doubt.
Ms. Conway: And we're in the process right now of going back out to the groups that
had concerns regarding the project, to present them with the new alternative.
Chairman Teele: Making 3ra Avenue two-way between 8th Street and 14th Street, so that
the people in Overtown can get on the ramp.
Ms. Conway: Yes.
Chairman Teele: Is still --
Ms. Conway: It's apart of the project. Yes.
Chairman Teele: OK. All right. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Green.
Rosa Green: Rosa Green, 415 Northwest 6th Street. The only thing that I was concerned
about, even though you said you were concerned about the barbeque place, and that's 3ra
Court. And there's way it's not going to affect that business with all those 18 wheelers
coming on and off of the I-95 expressway there. And, also, you know, we live on 6th
Street, but I think she's saying that we could come under I-95 and then get up on the
ramp by coming around by 81h Street, Bethel AME. Right now, we get on the ramp on 3ra
Court, and she's talking about making --
Chairman Teele: No, no. You -- no, ma'am.
Ms. Green: Reducing one of those lanes.
Chairman Teele: No, ma'am. You get on the ramp on 3ra Avenue. You get off the ramp
on 3ra Court.
Ms. Green: Yeah, that's right. I'm sorry.
Chairman Teele: Yeah.
Ms. Green: Third Avenue and get off on 3ra -- but she's reducing one of those 3ra Court
lanes to three lanes, I think that's what she said. Isn't it?
27 November 25, 2002
N
Ms. Conway: Yes.
Chairman Teele: Will there still be an exit off of P Court?
Ms. Conway: Yes.
Ms. Green: Yeah. And all the big 18 wheelers coming down there off of P Court. I
mean, I can't --
Chairman Teele: But, Ms. Green --
Ms. Green: Yes, sir.
Chairman Teele: -- if you're reducing the lanes --
Ms. Green: You have less lanes for people to --
Chairman Teele: -- you have less lanes for 18 wheelers.
Ms. Green: Yeah. But less lanes for traffic, too. I mean, cars comes down that way to
go to the arena, as well. To both of the arenas.
Chairman Teele: What would you like to see done there?
Ms. Green: I would like for them not to reduce those lanes, because we have a traffic jam
now when something is at the arenas, either one of them. That's where they exit at to go
to the Miami Arena and also the triple "A." So they have to take that under
consideration. And I don't know about 6th Street. I don't know what she's trying to -- I
mean, what she's suggesting that they're going to do on 6th Street. However --
Chairman Teele: What she was suggesting on 61h Street is, you know where the ramp is
now, right next -- right in front of Mount Zion?
Ms. Green: Yes.
Chairman Teele: Right at 8 % Street?
Ms. Green: Which is -- you can't enter it.
Chairman Teele: You can't enter it. What they're saying now is, they're going to put
that ramp -- that ramp will sort of stay, but they're going to put a ramp sort of like that at
6th Street, which means that the traffic will not be coming all the way down to 8th. It'll be
going out at 6th. You see what I'm saying?
Ms. Green: Yeah.
28 November 25, 2002
Chairman Teele: Right now, if you want to go north on 95, you come down 3rd Avenue,
you cross 81h Street, go up on that ramp.
Ms. Green: Right.
Chairman Teele: Her proposal, it would be to put a ramp on 6th Street so that when you
come down 3rd Avenue, you don't have to go all the way to 8th. You can go off the ramp
at 6th Street, especially traffic coming from the Port will be able to do that. So the traffic
will not
Ms. Green: Yeah. But where are they going to get on? They still get on at the same
place, right?
Chairman Teele: No, ma'am. They're going to get on on 6th Street, see. They're going
to put a ramp at 6th Street.
Ms. Green: OK.
Ms. Conway: In between I-95 -- in between northbound (INAUDIBLE)
Ms. Green: And exit where? Exit -- OK. I'm coming from north going south. Where
will I exit (INAUDIBLE)?
Chairman Teele: You will exit the same way you exit now, on 3rd Court.
Ms. Green: On 8th Street.
Ms. Conway: No changes.
Chairman Teele: On 3rd Court.
Ms. Green: Oh, OK. Well, thank you.
Chairman Teele: But I think the point that Ms. Green made is still a valid point and, that
is, this plan is going to have a lot more acceptance if you look at ways to enhance the area
around People's Barbeque. There needs to be some positive enhancements. And, I
mean, I've said this to Mr. Abrieu. One enhancement is the building directly in front of
it. I mean, you know, the biggest problem -- and I know -- I don't want to start anything,
but the biggest problem at People's Barbeque, for those folks who don't ride bicycles, is
what?
Unidentified Speaker: Parking.
Chairman Teele: Parking. You can't park. And when the police get a habit on, they go
out there and they ticket people. Now, some days you can park right there on 3" Court,
29 November 25, 2002
nobody says anything. Then some days the police come out there and they ticket
everybody on 3rd Court.
Ms. Green: They really shouldn't, Commissioner.
Chairman Teele: I know that. That's why I'm making the point now, so that --
Ms. Green: It's going to be worse with those big trucks.
Chairman Teele: You know. But the point that I'm making is this: The problem in
Overtown for people who have business and people who want to go to that business all
over is parking, and there is no parking in People's Barbeque. They've got a total of
what, about 12 spaces? And the rest of it's on the street. And we've got to come up with
something. I mean, you know, there's got to be more parking made available for
People's Barbeque. And I know everybody that ride a bicycle is going to get upset, but
the fact of the matter is, you're not going to ever make businesses work and draw in
people if you don't give them a safe, secure, lighted place to park. So, I really wish you
all would look at that. The important thing about this project, I think, needs to be said, is
that it is pretty much fully funded. And I know that's not your presentation, but -- who's
the DOT representative? Haven't we put twenty million dollars ($20,000,000), eighteen
million dollars ($18,000,000) in the budget?
Ms. Arvelo: Seventeen.
Chairman Teele: How much?
Ms. Arvelo: Seventeen.
Chairman Teele: Seventeen million. So, the cost of implementing this project is pretty
much funded, depending upon mitigation and other factors; is that a fair statement?
Unidentified Speaker: That's right.
Chairman Teele: And subject only to the MPO approval. So, I really wish we could
move forward with the part on 3rd Avenue, where you come in from Jackson's Soul Food
and be able to look -- because let people get on the 95 going north, if that could be made
a separate section. Yes, sir.
George Rovirosa: Good evening, Mr. Chairman. My name is George Rovirosa. I'm
with the Port of Miami Terminal Operating Company. I represent the Port users at the
Port. And I just --
Chairman Teele: You heard Mr. Regalado -- Commissioner Regalado's concerns?
Mr. Rovirosa: Yes, I did, sir. And I'd like to state for the record that the Port users at the
Port fully support this interim solution for Port access. And, at the same time, we're very
30 November 25, 2002
concerned about the concerns of the community, our neighbors. And we want to work
with our neighbors to make sure that everything is acceptable to them, as well as to the
Port and its users. In terms of your question, Commissioner Regalado, in terms of the
truckers, I chair the County's Truckers Taskforce Committee, and I know that the
trucking community is looking for better access, quicker access to and from the seaport.
At this moment in time, we're in the middle of a two hundred and fifty million
redevelopment program at the Port to make sure that -- enhance our ability to handle the
trucks quicker and faster in and out of the Port. And with this interim solution of this
corridor, it would go a long ways to achieve our goal. Thank you very much.
Chairman Teele: Thank you. Is there a need for -- is there a resolution, Madam Director,
associated with this?
Ms. Lewis: No, sir.
Chairman Teele: All right. Well, you've gotten your applause, and please stay in touch
with the community and keep them involved.
31 November 25, 2002
6. RICHARD HAYLOR AND KAREN SEGALLA, W.H.E. ENTERPRISES:
REQUEST FOR CRA ASSISTANCE IN FORM OF FORGIVABLE LOAN IN AN
AMOUNT UP TO $40,000 FOR COSTS RELATED TO EXPANSION OF SAXS ON
THE BEACH, LOCATED AT 1756 NORTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, MIAMI, FLORIDA.
Chairman Teele: Item Number 8 is a personal appearance. Richard, Karen, welcome.
Welcome.
Karen Segalla: Thank you.
Chairman Teele: Give your name and address for the record, please.
Ms. Segalla: Karen Segalla, 155 Ocean Lane Drive, Key Biscayne.
Richard Haylor: Richard Haylor, W.H.E. Enterprises, SAXS on the Beach, 1756 North
Bayshore Drive.
Ms. Segalla: Thank you, first of all, for seeing us. We appreciate it. Basically, we're
here this evening to discuss our expansion of SAXS on the Beach, which is a music and
restaurant bar located in the lobby of the Bay Park Plaza building at 1756 North
Bayshore. We've expanded -- or we've done an expansion on the place, another 2,000
square feet. It has created approximately 16 additional jobs. Twelve of the 16 employees
live within a 15-block radius of the venue, and the remaining four live within a 35-block
radius of the venue. The original proposal from our construction company, et cetera, was
for a particular price of under ninety thousand dollars ($90,000), and we've exceeded that
with additional costs, unexpected costs, which have come to approximately a hundred
and thirty, a hundred and thirty-five thousand dollars ($135,000). We're asking the
CRA's (Community Redevelopment Agency) assistance on this for a loan, forgivable
loan, if possible, to help us stay afloat. We're totally committed to the area, but we
realize that until the final redevelopment of downtown, of the Omni area and, in
particular, the Performing Arts Center is finalized. It's been tough for us to get the word
out who we are and where we are. We know that will change within the next year or two,
but we're asking for the assistance from the CRA to help us stay alive. Do you want to
say anything, Richard?
Board Member Regalado: I got a question on what you're asking. (INAUDIBLE) keep
you on, I mean for how long would -- I mean, are you having problems or -- because I
visited the place once. I think we went there once and, to me, it is very nice. So, what
you're trying to do is to expand? More tables, more --
Ms. Segalla: We have expanded.
Board Member Regalado: You have.
Ms. Segalla: To the -- I assume you were there when it was the jazz entertainment side,
is that correct?
32 November 25, 2002
%6,., Naeoe
Board Member Regalado: Yeah.
Ms. Segalla: We now have -- the expansion includes a sports bar side. We have the
sports bar on one side and the musical entertainment on the other side. We're surviving,
but it's been tough, and part of the reason is because we're still kind of -- we're the
pioneer business, so to speak, down there and we're still kind of isolated. So, we're
looking for some assistance from the CRA to help us --
Board Member Regalado: Well, let me tell you, Mr. Chairman. I remember that the best
nightclub, Hispanic nightclub and dance place, was Les Violin, which is only -- it was
located only a block --
Ms. Segalla: Right, right.
Chairman Teele: Two blocks away.
Board Member Regalado: Two blocks or -- one block away.
Ms. Segalla: By the Omni.
Chairman Teele: One block away.
Board Member Regalado: One block away, in Biscayne Boulevard. And that was the
crown jewel of the nightlife back in the `70s and `80s. And people will die to go there,
and there was a long line of cars always waiting to be valet. And I think that with the
proper marketing and advertising, your place -- because there's a lot of jazz lovers here,
and I think that you're going to be doing great in the future. So, I think -- I support this,
because I think that we should encourage this kind of specialized entertainment for the
area. It would only add glamour to an area that is becoming pretty, but it does not have
the glamour.
Unidentified Speaker: Thank you, sir. That's --
Chairman Teele: Mr. Joseph.
Fred Joseph: Fred Joseph, Omni Advisory Board, Vice President. Commissioner, you're
right, Les Violin and El Bino did a wonderful job, but they also did it in a time when they
didn't have impact fees for the Water & Sewer Department of many thousands of dollars,
which have put entrepreneurs like this into a jeopardy. So, anything you can see to help
bring entrepreneurs in our area and ride out the storm until all the glip and glitter are
finished, these people have been kind enough to stay with us through -- working through
Margaret Pace Park. We're going to see it open very shortly. And it's a beautiful site
now, compared to when they came in there, it wasn't. So, anything you can help any
business bring in to help offset any fees or offset any expenses. Unfortunately, Mr.
Haylor didn't allow for impact fees when he went to the County for that project, and the
33 November 25, 2002
City to help entrepreneurs. So we're having more trouble getting more people to come in
because of some of those fees. Thank you very much.
Chairman Teele: Before --
Mr. Joseph: If you have any questions, I'll be here.
Chairman Teele: Commissioner Regalado.
Board Member Regalado: I just have -- I don't know -- Fred, an idea. You just
mentioned Margaret Pace Park. I think that Commissioners Teele and Winton have been
at the forefront of doing, you know, whatever they can and what they can't to finish that.
And for that, the City of Miami should thank them. And they have always my full
support. But I will -- Mr. Chairman, I will move to give them what they ask, but with
one condition. When we open Margaret Pace Park --
Chairman Teele: December the 17th, 18t"?
Annette Lewis (Executive Director of CRA): The 18tn
Chairman Teele: December 18t"
Board Member Regalado: Well, I think that it would be nice to, sometimes, Saturdays
and Sundays afternoon, to have some of your jazz people in Margaret Pace Park for the
people to enjoy. Jazz weekends, you know, one or two, you know, until the people get
used to the park and come back to the park.
Ms. Segalla: Yes, we already thought of that.
Mr. Haylor: Definitely, sir. Yes. We'd like to be involved in any promotion regarding a
Jazz Festival or any events that may be --
Board Member Regalado: We've got plenty of jazz festivals, but, I mean, you know --
Mr. Haylor: In conjunction with the park, in particular, I think being directly across the
street --
Board Member Regalado: Well, you know, for the opening, to have your jazz people in
the park.
Mr. Haylor: Certainly. No problem at all. That would be wonderful.
Ms. Segalla: It's not a problem.
Board Member Regalado: I think it'd be nice.
34 November 25, 2002
Chairman Teele: Commissioner Winton, before you make a motion or we have a motion,
I'd like to make three or four quick observations. First and foremost, this facility, this
business was directly in front of the Margaret Pace Park, which has been under
construction for the better part of a year. Obviously, there was some interruption of
traffic flow and activities, and I really would hope that the Executive Directors would
amend the recommendation to put more background -- and I don't mean this, Annette,
because I have not discussed this with you. And, really, I thought the item was going to
be deferred, and I was going to try to get you all to put a policy justification in here.
Because I have the same concern that Commissioner Winton has and that is -- I don't
know if you have this concern on this, but, in the past, what is the precedent that we're
establishing? This recommendation needs to talk about the construction around Margaret
Pace Park, the traffic that was interrupted, the traffic flow, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Furthermore, this is also the same organization that we have previously provided funds in
the amount of how much money?
Ms. Lewis: Twenty-nine thousand dollars ($29,000) was approved in March for the
WASA (Water and Sewer Authority) impact fees. However, their actual fees were
eleven to twelve thousand dollars ($12,000).
Chairman Teele: OK. So -- and, see, that's very, very important, again. And I'm asking
that the recommendation be revised -- be withdrawn and revised to reflect the history that
we previously approved twenty-nine thousand dollars ($29,000), that we paid out eleven
thousand dollars ($11,000). So, in effect, what we're doing is transferring the balance or
a balance of that to that so that it has more justification. Because, you know, the
problem's going to be this. Somebody else is going to come through the door. We've
not given loans out. I've taken the position in Overtown. Candidly, I don't want to be
involved in the loan business because loans are not going to get repaid in stressed out
areas, largely. And I'd much rather do a grant with justification than do a loan, as I've
said repeatedly, repeatedly. But I think Omni is different, and I think there can be that
justification. I strongly support the notion that we should provide some support to help
them get through. But one of the things that I would have preferred, Ms. Lewis --
Ms. Lewis: Yes, sir.
Chairman Teele: -- and I still would ask that this be done -- is the same thing that we've
tried to do informally with Big Time Studios. If we have an opportunity to take an event
anywhere in the CRA, the first place we look to is where? Big Time Studios. Why?
They pay four hundred, three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) in taxes. So, I mean,
you know, if I've got a choice of going to the arena or going to the Knight Center or
going to Big Time Studios, I'd much rather pay Big Time Studios the two thousand -- I
mean, the twenty thousand or the twelve thousand dollars ($12,000), and pay them than
pay it to the Miami Arena or pay it to the Knight Center, even though those are City
venues. Because we've got to figure out a way to give back to the people who are paying
the money. And so, what I would like, also, is for this to be a loan and credit line. And I
believe that if there are appropriate venues and events -- because you know what? If
35 November 25, 2002
they're struggling, they're not going to pay us the money back tomorrow. Now, if they
hit, you know --
Ms. Segalla: The Lottery.
Chairman Teele: -- the Lottery, we'll get our money back. Otherwise, it's going to be a
long build out process when Mr. Haylor brings in the other -- starts the other building
under construction. The workers there will come in and, you know, you'll get some up
kick and some surge and all of that. But I would also like for this to be a loan/a credit
against activities that are approved by the Board. Now, I don't want anybody -- staff
having any approval on any activities because it needs to be transparent. We need to be
able to be very clear on what we're doing. And we need to have, at least, a time limit and
an interest rate. We need to have, at least, a time period or an interest rate. Otherwise,
this becomes borderline unlawful delegation. So, what's a fair interest rate?
Ms. Lewis: Mr. Nachlinger.
Robert Nachlinger (Assistant City Manager): I'm sorry, sir.
Ms. Lewis: What's a fair interest rate, Mr. Nachlinger?
Chairman Teele: That's not fair to do it this way.
Vice Chairman Winton: I agree. I think that --
Chairman Teele: Why don't we approve this and bring it back in December with the
grant agreement, et cetera, et cetera, with the understanding that funds will be released
within 10 days or five days from the Board meeting in December. But we need to get a
little bit more specificity to it.
Vice Chairman Winton: Right. And I agree with you that this -- you know, I like -- the
part about this. I like is that it is a loan, not a grant. Because when you start making
these grants and then, you know, who do you say "no" to? And so, it is a loan and we
fully expect we're going to be paid back. And the value of these loans, if we can provide
them at very favorable terms, that may be more difficult to get elsewhere, it helps keep
these businesses going, and when they get cranked up, the money comes back in and it's
available for somebody else. So I guess we have a motion on this --
Board Member Regalado: Yeah, we have a motion to --
Vice Chairman Winton: And I'll second it.
Chairman Teele: The motion and second requires that the matter be -- that a grant
agreement be put together, and that it be --
Vice Chairman Winton: Loan agreement.
36 November 25, 2002
114,.. .
Ms. Lewis: Loan agreement.
Chairman Teele: Loan agreement be put together, and that the loan agreement -- did you
accept the fact that the loan agreement could be a credit so that we can -- subject to Board
approval, so that if we have the need to use a venue, that we can, perhaps, use the venue
and pay off the loan by the use of the venue?
Ms. Segalla: That's fine.
Mr. Haylor: That would be wonderful.
Chairman Teele: All right. Is that acceptable to you?
Board Member Regalado: It is. Mr. Chairman, I -- and I understand and I know and I
admire Johnny's philosophy of not doing it because the next one is going to come, but the
fact of the matter is that these people took a risk and they didn't wait for the Performing
Arts or for Camillus House to leave or for other things. They just took a risk. And -- I
mean, there is -- in Pueblo, Colorado, there is a huge monument to the first
(INAUDIBLE) that opened the road there. In Pretoria, the trekkers, you know, the
people that -- so, I mean, we've got to give a hand --
Chairman Teele: We're all on board with that.
Board Member Regalado: -- to the people that take a risk and have faith in the area. I
think that that area is the area with the most brilliant future in South Florida. I think so. I
really do. But I just think that you have to hold on.
Chairman Teele: All in favor of the motion -- and I -- Commissioner Winton, I know
you're in total agreement, or we wouldn't be here doing this, if we weren't. They are
pioneers. They're pioneers in the new Omni area, and I think it's important that the
Chairman of the Omni Advisory Board is also standing in support. All those in favor of
the motion, say "aye."
The Board Members (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Teele: All opposed?
37 November 25, 2002
The following resolution was introduced by Board Member Regalado, who moved for its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. CRA/OMNI 02-92
A MOTION GRANTING W.H.E. ENTERPRISES A LOAN/CREDIT
LINE IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $34,500 TO ASSIST WITH
COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE EXPANSION OF SAX ON THE
BEACH, LOCATED AT 1756 NORTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, WITH
THE CONDITION THAT W.H.E. ENTERPRISES HOST ONE OR
TWO JAZZ WEEKENDS AT MARGARET PACE PARK AND
ANOTHER DURING SAID PARK'S OPENING CEREMONY
SCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER 16, 2002; FURTHER STATING
THAT THE LOAN/CREDIT BE GRANTED FOR ACTIVITIES TO BE
APPROVED BY THE CRA BOARD, WITH A TIME LIMIT AND
INTEREST RATE ESTABLISHED IN THE FORM OF A GRANT
AGREEMENT TO BE BROUGHT BACK FOR BOARD ACTION AT
THE DECEMBER CRA BOARD MEETING, WITH THE
UNDERSTANDING THAT FUNDS WILL BE RELEASED WITHIN 5-
10 DAYS AFTER THE DECEMBER CRA BOARD MEETING.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City
Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Vice Chairman Winton, the resolution was passed and adopted
by the following vote:
AYES: Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Board Member Tomas Regalado
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Board Member Angel Gonzalez
Board Member Joe Sanchez
Chairman Teele: Now, if we could, is the consulting engineer here? He was sitting here.
Ms. Lewis: Mr. Chairman, if we could regress in response to the impact fees. The CRA,
as well as the City, has been assigned and are working on long- and short-term strategies
in terms of providing relief to businesses. So, I just wanted Mr. Joseph, if he's still here,
to know that that's ongoing.
Chairman Teele: Well, my view is that the leadership has got to come from the City on
this. I mean, this is a big dog issue, and it's a City/County kind of issue, and, ultimately,
it's got to come from the County Commission.
38 November 25, 2002
7. DISCUSSION CONCERNING SECTION 108 AND ADDITIONAL ISSUANCE OF
BONDS.
Chairman Teele: Before we start, Mr. Nachlinger, I have a concern about the 108 and the
bond. I think we need to do the bond before we do the 108. Now, we voted, some time
ago, to ask the City to facilitate the bond in the context of the authority that we have. I
think it's up to ten point five million dollars ($10,500,000)?
Robert Nachlinger (Assistant City Manager): Yes, sir, that's correct. For an additional
ten point five.
Chairman Teele: Where are we on the bond issue?
Mr. Nachlinger: The information I received was, as of last Friday, bond counsel had
been appointed, so we'll be starting to move forward with the transaction.
Chairman Teele: Can we complete the transaction before the end of the year?
Mr. Nachlinger: No, sir.
Chairman Teele: Can we complete the transaction before January 51h.
Mr. Nachlinger: No, sir.
Chairman Teele: January 6tn.
Mr. Nachlinger: Hopefully, by --
Chairman Teele: Well, Bob, I mean, I don't know what the hold up was. When we
asked you to do this, the whole idea was we would complete this before the end of the
year.
Mr. Nachlinger: Yes, sir.
Chairman Teele: Now, we're going to have -- this is going to be a first major issue if we
wind up here and we're halfway through this thing and halfway not. Why -- what has
been the delay?
Mr. Nachlinger: The City Attorney hadn't appointed bond counsel. I can't get a project
going without having my counsel on board to do the bond work.
Chairman Teele: How long will it -- who's bond counsel?
Annette Lewis (Executive Director of CRA): Clara Sanders.
39 November 25, 2002
Chairman Teele: If somebody calls Senator Morris tonight at home and ask him to come
in and start working with you, can we get it completed before the end of the year? Have
you all designated underwriters?
Mr. Nachlinger: Yes, sir.
Chairman Teele: A lead underwriter?
Mr. Nachlinger: Yes, sir, we have.
Chairman Teele: This is going to be done by the City.
Mr. Nachlinger: It will be done by the City on behalf of the CRA. It'll be a refunding of
the existing debt, and a reissuance -- or an additional issuance of the ten point five
million additional authorization.
Chairman Teele: Well, all I could ask --
Vice Chairman Winton: Well, he didn't answer your -- you still have a question on the
table.
Mr. Nachlinger: Yes, sir, you do. And I will attempt it, is the best answer I can give you.
We'll move as quickly as we can to get the project or the bonds, themselves, issued.
Chairman Teele: I'll be in your office tomorrow morning at 11 o'clock with -- hopefully,
with the City Attorney and with the City Manager. Let's see if we can figure out how to
get this thing resolved.
Mr. Nachlinger: All right.
Chairman Teele: Because, I mean, this is just --
Vice Chairman Winton: Perfect.
Chairman Teele: Please.
Mr. Nachlinger: Yes, sir.
40 November 25, 2002
8. DISCUSSION CONCERNING REVISED GRANTS TO FACILITATE PROJECTS
OF TWO GUYS RESTAURANT, JACKSON SOUL FOOD, AND JUST RIGHT
BARBERSHOP.
Chairman Teele: And on that, is the consulting engineer present?
Annette Lewis (Executive Director of CRA): Mr --
Chairman Teele: We have a number of issues that need -- clean up issues. We have the
three businesses that were given grants back in '98, Two Guys Restaurant, Jackson Soul
Food, and Just Right Barbershop. The engineering estimates have changed dramatically,
is that right?
Cesar Calas: That's correct, sir.
Chairman Teele: Those grants are going to have to be redone. Can we get those items on
the agenda with the revised amounts, please?
Mr. Calas: Definitely so, sir. We'll have everything ready for Ms. Lewis to include in
the next agenda, sir.
Chairman Teele: But can we get with the lawyers and clarify -- Mr. Attorney, can we
clarify all of the legal issues and can we get special counsel to -- you all did the original
grants, right?
Unidentified Speaker: Yes, sir.
Chairman Teele: Can we get you all -- you and the City Attorney to sit down and resolve
all of the issues relating to this, these three projects? These are the three projects, just so
that you're aware, Commissioner, that were piggybacked onto the County process, and
that is the so-called Carrie Meek two point nine million dollars ($2,900,000). And we
designated all of the businesses that were in the priority business corridor, the three
businesses with -- for the grants. Now, those grant amounts are no longer valid. They
were done in what, '98 or '99?
Ms. Lewis: They were actually executed in 2000, sir.
Chairman Teele: But when were the grants designated?
Ms. Lewis: In 2000, sir. July of 2000, I'm being told.
Chairman Teele: So, because of zoning issues and planning issues, I think there's a
whole series of issues. So you all need to come back to us. We need to do this. And
this, I think, is a part of some of the frustration that people have in terms of coming here,
getting a decision, and then it not move. So, Mr. Consulting Engineer, I'm specifically
asking you to be on the agenda to make the presentation and to come in with a revised
41 November 25, 2002
OW
R
grant amount to facilitate the projects as they've been announced. And these projects
have all been announced, that's the problem. They've been announced to the public.
They've been newspaper stories on it. It looks almost like we're playing games with
people.
Mr. Calas: Definitely does. Definitely. I'll be here and I'll bring you an updated cost
estimate and present it to you at that time, sir.
42 November 25, 2002
9. MOTION AUTHORIZING INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF CRA TO ESTABLISH
STEERING COMMITTEE TO OVERSEE PREPARATION OF AN UPDATE OF MASTER
PLAN FOR OMNI REDEVELOPMENT AREA, WITH PERFORMING ARTS CENTER AS
CONSULTANT (See Section 13).
Chairman Teele: All right. Commissioner Winton, did you have a resolution or two that you
wanted to make?
Vice Chairman Winton: Yes, I have two issues. One is, I met with Michael Hardy, who's here
from the Performing Arts Center. And at one point in their planning process, they had planned
to hire a consultant to create a master plan. They've already created a master plan for the
immediate area around the Performing Arts Center, but they wanted to extend that reach, and
they were going to go west. The CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) voted, some time
ago, to do, essentially, the same thing, and, that is, to do the Omni West Master Plan. And staff
has been working to put that whole thing in motion. The Performing Arts Center folks have
come to us with, I think, a pretty good idea. And what they would like to do is team up --
piggyback with us. The CRA has already voted to -- and directed staff to hire the consultant.
We'll eventually have to approve the consultant, to the amount of money that we're going to
spend. And what the Performing Arts Center has asked is that, if we make them a part of our
team during this master plan, they want to take the money that we're using for the master plan
and leverage that money with their own fundraising efforts, to raise additional dollars from some
of their donors, to spend money on the implementation phase of the master plan we do. Now, if
you remember, when we did the FEC (Florida East Coast) Corridor Master Plan, when we
passed and adopted the resolution accepting that plan, we also kicked into gear eight
implementing steps, and they each have dollars associated with the implementation phases. And
what the Performing Arts Center is suggesting is that we do the same thing. We had a meeting in
my office this morning, talking about just the details of how we might make this work. And as I
sat here looking at this -- at a potential resolution, I have come to a different kind of conclusion.
What I said is something I think we would like to work towards, because everybody comes out a
winner. The Performing Arts Center -- we're still using our money to develop the master plan.
One of the things that I proposed, in terms of the mechanics that links us together, is that we
form, ultimately, a Steering Committee that will work directly with the consultants, just like
we've had a steering committee working with the consultants when we had done the Downtown
Master Plan, when we did the park -- I mean the Bicentennial Park Master Plan, the FEC
Corridor Master Plan. And on that Steering Committee, we would have a representative of the
Performing Arts Center. So, they meet their requirement of being a participant with us, and that
requirement allows them to do the fundraising, leveraging our dollars, which will be good for us.
And I had a resolution here that we were going to pass, but I'm not sure --
Chairman Teele: Before you do, could we just think about that for a minute? Johnny, I have no
objections -- and maybe the Performing Arts Director should just --
Vice Chairman Winton: Yeah. Michael, you're -- yeah.
Chairman Teele: Mike, why don't you just come and put your name and address on the record
so that we're not excluding you from the dialogue.
43 November 25, 2002
%6. 1.001
Michael Hardy: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Michael Hardy, President and CEO (Chief
Executive Officer), Performing Arts Center, 1444 Biscayne Boulevard.
Chairman Teele: Johnny, I'd like to consider doing it a little bit different way, and going
probably further than you're proposing. What I would rather do is for the CRA to maintain the
responsibility of conducting or directing the study.
Vice Chairman Winton: We would. That's --
Chairman Teele: But I would rather transfer or make a grant to the Performing Arts Center.
Vice Chairman Winton: They don't need that. It --
Chairman Teele: They don't need that?
Vice Chairman Winton: No. They -- by us forming essentially a Steering Committee, that -- and
we ought to -- and the one piece that we ought to have is that a member of this body ought to be
the Chairman of the master planning. It's just like we've done before. That Chairman of this
master planning Steering Committee would appoint the other Steering Committee members that
would work with him, and the Performing Arts Center would be a key player in this Steering
Committee that may have six or seven or eight different folks representative -- You know, it
could be nine. I don't know what the number is -- but it'll be some number that brings forward
the kind of community representation we'd like in developing the master plan. We will be doing
the master plan, we're paying for the master plan, and it's our dollars paying for the master plan,
but they are an active participant with us in the oversight of the consultants that will be
developing the master plan. That process allows them to say, you know, here's -- for sake of
conversation, I don't have any idea what the number's going to be. But it's a hundred thousand
dollars ($100,000) to do this master plan. Go to consultant "X," "Y," "Z." I'm just making the
number up. And that's coming from the CRA. This Steering Committee is giving direction to
the consultants. It's a CRA-driven project. But the Performing Arts Center folks can use the
fact that we're paying for it, we're bringing the dollars to the table, they are an active partner
with us in overseeing the consultant, and that gives them the leverage they need to go raise
additional money to help implement the plan. Did I say that correctly?
Mr. Hardy: Yes, Mr. Chairman. By way of background, we, of course, are concerned now that
steel has arrived and construction is going well. We'll be opening in approximately two years.
And there's a tremendous amount of planning that needs to be done to make -- an
implementation of planning to make the district ready to accept this facility in a successful way.
Our original thinking, on a master plan or an urban development plan, would be to phase it in
two ways. Phase I being, what are those things that absolutely have to be done by the day or the
night the Performing Arts Center opens? What's the minimum parking, street level, streetscape,
transportation plan off of 395? Or if 395 has been torn apart by that time, how do you get them
in from 195? The things that have to be in place, minimally, for the successful opening of the
center, as a Phase I. And a Phase II, what should happen for the entire district over the next ten
44 November 25, 2002
.41 6E
years to make it the successful facility and developer of urban development that it was meant to
be?
Chairman Teele: Well, Johnny, I'm totally in support of everything you've laid out. I just think
that we shouldn't be shy about bringing the Performing Arts Center in as a partner, equal partner,
to some extent, in the process. I mean, I'm not -- unlike the County, I'm not at all concerned
about the Performing Arts Center, because that's the private sector. You know, their role. And,
I mean, my recommendation was to have co-chairs, you know --
Vice Chairman Winton: Yeah.
Chairman Teele: Let you, as the District representative in the CRA, be a co-chair, and ask
Parker to be a co-chair. And then you all sit down -- you're under the Sunshine Law anyway.
You've got to figure out how to do it, and whatever the dollars it takes. That's the best money
we can spend.
Mr. Hardy: I know Parker would be delighted to do that.
Chairman Teele: I know he would. And that's the best money we can spend in planning. The
concern that I would have would be, I want this to be the Omni area and not the Performing Arts
Center zone. In other words --
Vice Chairman Winton: They agree.
Chairman Teele: And I think we've already reached that point.
Vice Chairman Winton: Yeah.
Chairman Teele: So, there's no real disagreement. I am concerned about the streets, the
infrastructure, the parking, those kinds of things. Just like I spoke to the Mayor. The Mayor is
concerned about bringing in museums, and art galleries and all of those kinds of things. So,
there's a whole lot of components to this, but this could be -- this is going to be a major study.
And one of the things that I think is that we need to make sure that we get phases, so that we're
not --
Vice Chairman Winton: Absolutely.
Chairman Teele: -- holding everything to an end.
Vice Chairman Winton: Right.
Chairman Teele: And one of the things I want to put on the table, we need to get somebody to
look at 14th Street, because 141h Street, in my judgment, is going to be a street that we've really
got to make it a part of the Performing Arts Center; otherwise, Overtown's going to get left out.
Mr. Hardy: Absolutely.
45 November 25, 2002
Chairman Teele: In other words --
Vice Chairman Winton: Well, 141" Street's crucial. I mean, that's a major --
Chairman Teele: It's crucial.
Vice Chairman Winton: -- connectivity.
Chairman Teele: And I drive down that street everyday.
Mr. Hardy: Fourteenth Street's the perfect avenue to Overtown.
Vice Chairman Winton: And through and -- I mean, that's a --
Chairman Teele: So, that's one of the concerns that I have. But the dollars, I'm one hundred
percent with it, and we just need to, I guess, get the scope done and pass a resolution, in
principle, now to do it. Get the Board to come back with a form -- the staff to come back with a
formal resolution in --
Vice Chairman Winton: Right.
Chairman Teele: -- December. And I think we ought to try to get a more realistic handle on the
dollars. I mean, I can tell you right now, it's not going to be a dollar less than two hundred
thousand.
Vice Chairman Winton: I'm in agreement.
Chairman Teele: And it's probably going to be closer to the four hundred thousand, based upon
the Bicentennial study, based upon the Overtown study, based upon the FEC study. Somewhere
between two and five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) is the right number.
Vice Chairman Winton: So, I think that we don't necessarily have to take a -- we don't have to
pass a resolution today. We just have to --
Chairman Teele: Why don't you just pass a resolution, in principle, or it could come back to the
Board meeting for a formal resolution in the December meeting.
Vice Chairman Winton: Yeah. And I don't mind passing a resolution, in principle, accepting
this concept and, at the next board meeting, we would bring a resolution to the table that would
have -- where the Board would appoint the two co-chairs of the Steering Committee, that will
work with the consultants in a formal resolution at the next meeting. So, I guess I would move --
Board Member Regalado: Second.
Vice Chairman Winton: -- approving this in concept.
46 November 25, 2002
ow
M
Chairman Teele: Moved and second. Discussion. Did you want to object?
Gil Terem: Not object, just to add something.
Chairman Teele: Give us your name and address for the record.
Mr. Terem: My name is Gil Terem. I live in 757 Northeast 77th Terrace. I am part of the Omni
Community Board, and we've asked in the past to be part of the process of developing this area.
And we hope that this time, with the Performing Arts and what's going on in the vicinity, we can
have representatives in the committee so they can consult with us, the tenants of the area of the
Omni. We have about seven or eight property owners right behind the Performing Arts, all the
way to North Miami Avenue, (INAUDIBLE) Ice Palace. And I would like to see all this area,
like the Commissioner said, being developed as the Omni, rather than only as part of Performing
Arts, neglecting the vicinity. So we would like to be, if possible, part of this committee.
Chairman Teele: I'm sure that Commissioner Winton -- and when we do the resolution -- that's
why we're not doing it now. But when we do the resolution in December, I'm sure that they'll
be representation from both the Omni and the Overtown, as a matter of principal.
Vice Chairman Winton: Call the question.
Board Member Regalado: Mr. Chairman.
Vice Chairman Winton: Call the question.
Chairman Teele: Commissioner Regalado.
Board Member Regalado: Just, if you're going to go ahead and vote -- but I would like to
recognize the gentleman who owns property in the Omni/Overtown area. He is visiting the
members of the Board and the Commissioners, because they really have faith in this area, and
they do want to bring, in the next one or two meetings, some ideas to this Board, in terms of
what they see, as property owners and their tenants, what they need and what they could get from
the CRA to precisely develop the whole Omni/Park West/Overtown area.
Chairman Teele: All right. Would you like to put your name and address on the record, please?
Brad Knoefler: Yes. Hello, Mr. Chairman, Board members. Brad Knoefler, Omni/Park West
Community Board, 697 North Miami Avenue. Just in the context, we're a group of property
owners. Collectively, we represent about forty-five million dollars ($45,000,000) of property in
the Omni and Park West areas, so we go back and forth between the two CRA zones. Our group
was created in April of this year, primarily because we've seen our real estate taxes double,
triple, quadruple for largely abandoned buildings, where we don't have any income, and we
wanted to create the group as a means to facilitate community dialogue with the CRA and,
hopefully, to have some sort of input into where our real estate taxes are indirectly spent. So,
that's sort of who we are. I just wanted to talk about one thing tonight.
47 November 25, 2002
Chairman Teele: Not tonight, because -- we'll put you on the agenda for December, because
we're about to lose a quorum. And the motion on the floor is the planning process for this,
which, hopefully, will incorporate everybody. Does your issue involve the planning?
Mr. Knoefler: Well, our issue is --
Board Member Regalado: He has some several issues, and I told him that --
Vice Chairman Winton: Well, I called the question anyhow. So, it doesn't matter if wasn't here
-- I've called the question.
Board Member Regalado: No. But I told him that, on the December meeting, we can put him in
the agenda.
Chairman Teele: We'll put you on the December meeting. By the way, what day is the
December meeting? It's going to be a long meeting, so...
Annette Lewis (Executive Director of CRA): The 161h
Chairman Teele: December 16t". And where is it going to be, here?
Ms. Lewis: Yes, sir.
Chairman Teele: OK. So, the question's been called. All those in favor say "aye."
The Board Members (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Teele: All opposed?
The following resolution was introduced by Vice Chairman Winton, who moved for its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. CRA/OMNI 02-93
A MOTION AUTHORIZING THE INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF
THE CRA, IN PRINCIPLE, TO ESTABLISH A STEERING COMMITTEE TO
OVERSEE THE PREPARATION OF AN UPDATE OF THE MASTER PLAN
FOR THE OMNI REDEVELOPMENT AREA WITH THE PERFORMING
ARTS CENTER AS A CONSULTANT; FURTHER DIRECTING THAT THIS
ISSUE BE BROUGHT BACK AT THE DECEMBER CRA MEETING FOR
FINAL ACTION ESTABLISHING A METHOD FOR APPOINTMENT OF
TWO CO-CHAIRS TO SAID STEERING COMMITTEE WHO WILL WORK
WITH THE CONSULTANTS.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
48 November 25, 2002
Upon being seconded by Board Member Regalado, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Board Member Tomas Regalado
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Board Member Angel Gonzalez
Board Member Joe Sanchez
Chairman Teele: You've been placed on the December agenda. And I'll stay here, after
Commissioner Winton leaves, if you want to make a presentation.
Mr. Knoefler: Thank you.
49 November 25, 2002
%%�,e .We
10. DISCUSSION CONCERNING INSTALLATION OF "ART THRONES" IN
MARGARET PACE PARK.
Chairman Teele: You had another resolution, Commissioner Winton?
Vice Chairman Winton: Yes. And this is about Margaret Pace Park. And this issue
came up today. Apparently, some years ago, 1970 -- 1991.
Annette Lewis (Executive Director of CRA): Nineteen Ninety -One.
Vice Chairman Winton: So, long before any of us were focused on this. There were
something called "Art Thrones" that were commissioned by -- by whom, by the CRA
(Community Redevelopment Agency)?
Ms. Lewis: By the DDA (Downtown Development Authority).
Chairman Teele: The DDA.
Vice Chairman Winton: By the DDA. And these art thrones were going to go in
Margaret Pace Park. And I don't know -- the details --
Board Member Regalado: What is an art throne?
Vice Chairman Winton: An art throne is these giant throne -looking things. They look
like a throne, a giant throne, like a king would sit in.
Board Member Regalado: OK.
Vice Chairman Winton: But to make a long story short, the throne -- the park has been
designed and the infrastructure put in place to accommodate these three thrones that were
created by the community -- designed by the community, created by New World School
of the Arts students. And we are twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) short of being
able to get those thrones installed in the park. So --
Chairman Teele: Is there a motion?
Vice Chairman Winton: There is a motion to -- for the CRA to front this money to get
these thrones installed in time, with the rest of the work that's going on there, and then
we will bring a motion to the City Commission, hoping to get their participation.
Chairman Teele: All right. So the motion, as I understand it, would be to advance
twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) and to seek reimbursement -- is it 20 or 25?
Ms. Lewis: Twenty-five.
Vice Chairman Winton: Twenty-five.
50 November 25, 2002
Chairman Teele: And to seek reimbursement from the City from the Omni Tax
Increment District.
Vice Chairman Winton: Right.
Chairman Teele: Is there a second?
Board Member Regalado: I'll second.
Chairman Teele: For discussion. Mr. Joseph. Oh, I'm sorry.
Board Member Regalado: Can homeless sit on the throne?
Chairman Teele: Can homeless sit on the throne? By law, they'll constitutionally have a
right to, I'm sure.
Vice Chairman Winton: Yes.
Frank Rollason (Assistant City Manager): Frank Rollason. Listen, I know a little bit
about these. I've been involved with them now for months. It's as the Commissioner
says or Chairman says or Chair -- Board person that they were commissioned by the
DDA, and we're at this point where they have to be completed. They are really
magnificent pieces of art, sort of like an Alice in Wonderland type of height and very
huge, and they're ceramic in nature, with all pieces of tile and so forth. And this twenty-
five thousand will take care of what's left to the New World, it will get them installed on
site, and it will allow them to finish the backs of them. Because they're so big, they can't
finish them until they're upright.
Chairman Teele: Who is the grant going to? We need to make it clear. Who is the grant
going to?
Ms. Lewis: The New School World -- the New --
Chairman Teele: Then the motion needs to be modified to provide a grant to the New
World School of the Arts for twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000), and to seek
reimbursement from the City.
Mr. Rollason: Right. Not to exceed twenty-five thousand, because I think it's a little bit
less.
Ms. Lewis: And, sir, we were contemplating also Art in Public Places with Dade County
in terms of getting dollars.
Chairman Teele: And to seek reimbursement from Art in Public Places. OK.
51 November 25, 2002
Vice Chairman Winton: Or wherever else we can.
Chairman Teele: Mr. Joseph, did you want -- and any other reasonable source.
Fred Joseph: In favor.
Chairman Teele: In favor.
Mr. Joseph: In favor of it.
Chairman Teele: And I noted that Bethel AME (African Methodist Episcopal) had -- was
a participant in the design of this. So, let the record reflect there should be an African
throne in there, too.
Unidentified Speaker: There is.
Chairman Teele: There is?
Unidentified Speaker: There is one.
Chairman Teele: All right? Huh?
Unidentified Speaker: There's three of them.
Chairman Teele: Ladies and gentlemen, are there objections? All those in favor say
aye.
51
The Board Members (Collectively): Aye.
The following resolution was introduced by Vice Chairman Winton, who moved for its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. CRA/OMNI 02-94
A MOTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE
CRA TO GRANT AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $25,000 TO THE
NEW WORLD SCHOOL OF THE ARTS FOR TIMELY
INSTALLATION OF ART THRONES AT MARGARET PACE PARK
AND TO SEEK REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE MIAMI-DADE
COUNTY ART IN PUBLIC PLACES AND FROM THE CITY OF
MIAMI.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City
Clerk.)
52 November 25, 2002
q
Upon being seconded by Board Member Regalado, the resolution was passed and
adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Board Member Tomas Regalado
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Board Member Angel Gonzalez
Board Member Joe Sanchez
53 November 25, 2002
11. MOTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF CRA TO REQUEST
ASSISTANCE OF CITY OF MIAMI AND FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED AT
THIRD AVENUE AND 14TH STREET AND 8TH STREET FOR INSTALLATION OF
HISTORIC GATEWAY BANNER MARKERS CONSISTENT WITH SOUTHEAST
OVERTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN.
Chairman Teele: Johnny, we need you for two motions. A resolution -- if you would
take the gavel -- to authorize the Executive Director to request the assistance of the City
of Miami and the Florida Department of Transportation in providing access to its right-
of-way, located at 3rd Avenue and 14th Street and at 81h Street, for the installation of
historic gateway banner -- markers, consistent with the Southeast Overtown
Redevelopment Plan. And this is coming from Dr. Dunn and the gateway -- the
greenscape people. So moved.
Board Member Regalado: Second.
Vice Chairman Winton: We have a motion and a second. Do we have any further
discussion? Being none, all in favor "aye."
The Board Members (Collectively): Aye.
Vice Chairman Winton: Like sign opposed? Motion carries.
The following resolution was introduced by Chairman Teele, who moved for its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. CRA/SEOPW 02-174
A MOTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE
CRA TO REQUEST THE ASSISTANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
AND THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO
PROVIDE ACCESS TO ITS RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED AT THIRD
AVENUE AND 14TH STREET AND 8T11 STREET FOR THE
INSTALLATION OF HISTORIC GATEWAY BANNER MARKERS
CONSISTENT WITH THE SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
54 November 25, 2002
M
Upon being seconded by Board Member Regalado, the resolution was passed and
adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Board Member Tomas Regalado
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Board Member Angel Gonzalez
Board Member Joe Sanchez
55 November 25, 2002
12. DISCUSSION CONCERNING COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
ASSISTING IN FUNDING OF GREENWAY PROJECT; SAID ISSUE SCHEDULED
FOR DECEMBER 16, 2002 CRA MEETING.
Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman, while you have the gavel, the greenway people have
expressed an interest in coming before the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency),
Ms. Lewis, next week -- next meeting?
Annette Lewis (Executive Director of CRA): Yes, sir.
Chairman Teele: Would you -- we try to put them on -- it would be my intent to ask that
the CRA would provide funding, up to 50 percent, of the cost of the greenway, subject to
the greenway people coming up with other funds within the redevelopment areas, Omni,
wherever they have it. I think we need to put our mouth -- money where our mouth is,
and we ought to support that. And I hope --
Vice Chairman Winton: And that's appropriate -- that's an appropriate use of our dollars.
I mean, that fits right in terms of the kinds of stuff we ought to be doing, infrastructure
improvements.
Chairman Teele: All right. And was there anything else, Mr. Attorney and Madam
Director, that needed to come before us?
Unidentified Speaker: Not at this time.
Ms. Lewis: We have nothing else, sir.
Chairman Teele: All right. If not, when is the art basil? When is that going to be?
Vice Chairman Winton: The week after next, right?
Ms. Lewis: The week after next.
Chairman Teele: Will we get information on that and all of that?
Vice Chairman Winton: I hope.
Chairman Teele: And the meeting of the 16th will be -- is a Monday? Is that a Monday,
December 16th.
Ms. Lewis: Yes, sir.
Chairman Teele: Which will be here. And then, following that, will be -- Wednesday
will be the grand opening of the Margaret Pace Park, that Wednesday. OK.
Board Member Regalado: At what time?
56 November 25, 2002
Chairman Teele: What time is that opening going to be, Frank?
Frank Rollason (Assistant City Manager): I beg your pardon, sir?
Chairman Teele: Margaret Pace Park opening.
Mr. Rollason: I don't know the time. I know it's the 18th. I think they were talking
about doing something late in the afternoon, but I haven't gotten a time.
Chairman Teele: Make sure you get to the Commissioners and let them know.
Mr. Rollason: We will. We will.
Chairman Teele: Have you all set the time for the Gwen -- not Gwen Cherry, but the
Carrie Meek?
Mr. Rollason: I think that Mr. Ruder is still waiting for a reply back --
Chairman Teele: OK.
Mr. Rollason: -- for a convenient time for her.
Note for the Record: Board Member Winton exits meeting at 7:00 p.m.
57 November 25, 2002
13. MOTION AUTHORIZING INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF CRA TO
ESTABLISH STEERING COMMITTEE TO OVERSEE PREPARATION OF AN UPDATE
OF MASTER PLAN FOR OMNI REDEVELOPMENT AREA, WITH PERFORMING ARTS
CENTER AS CONSULTANT (See Section 9).
Chairman Teele: All right. If there are no other matters -- did the gentleman that wanted to
make a statement, if you'd like to make the statement, I'd like to hear it, regarding --
Brad Knoefler: Thank you very much. I just wanted to speak a little bit about why we were
here. We wanted to get an item on the agenda. We met with the CRA (Community
Redevelopment Agency) at the end of August, this year, about we called it then an Impact Fee
Reduction Program, but we probably should call it the Impact Fee Grant Program to avoid
confusion. Part of the logic was that within the area, most of the properties have a primary use
of industrial and any kind of developer -- I should say redevelopment is going to involve the
change of use and, hence, impact fees, which are a major barrier to redevelopment in the
neighborhood. We put together a program, which we submitted to the CRA at the beginning of
September, and it involves, primarily, allocating funds to impact fee grants, more or less -- I
don't know what the amounts would be, half a million, million. That would be for the Board to
decide, but we have a proposal, which is made up of five components. The proposal is -- huh?
Yeah. You'd like me to continue?
Chairman Teele: Please.
Mr. Knoefler: OK. Primarily, this fund will be created to reimburse or give grants to impact
fees for any business that is within the two CRA boundaries. It will be for redevelopment, and
the change of use would be for residential, bars, or restaurants, trying to focus on the vision of
the neighborhood that we see happening in several years. We would propose that this fund be
created to allow for a hundred percent reimbursement of impact fees by the CRA. The second
proposal -- second part of the proposal is equality. There would be nothing in addition to the set
criteria by the Board, which can be defined at a later date, but we would, more or less, support
any business within the CRA boundaries that meet those criteria for change of use. The third
criteria is keep it simple. We would request that once the Board set the parameters, that they
allow the staff to make individual decisions as to whether the applicants meet those parameters.
This will have the effect of reducing the administrative load on both the CRA staff and those that
seek to open up a business. Currently, the supporting paperwork is rather -- quite a lot of work,
so we're trying to keep things simple, to make it easy for this to happen. The other critical item
on this proposal is first come, first served. We think that, as you had said earlier, Mr. Chairman,
we need to reward people that are taking the risk right now, and not waiting four or five years for
things to turn around. We would propose, anyone who comes with a project be funded, and we
have a sort of a declining percentage of the reimbursement, which would be say 75 percent the
second year, 50 percent the third year, et cetera, to really reward them, and focus people on the
redevelopment of the area. And, probably, the most important criteria, which we had mentioned
several times, is given the fact that any kind of project needs quite a lot -- long lead times, we
would request that the Board approve and allocate funds ASAP (As Soon As Possible). Right
now, say, if something is approved in the beginning of next year, we will only see the impact of
that development next season, say September, October. So, this is sort of a critical timing for
58 November 25, 2002
%, , 0001
this "jumpstart." Really, we -- in a general sense, we see this program as being something that,
within months of approval, we'll see dozens and dozens of projects on the board, especially with
the incentive of the first come, first served, and declining percentage. So, this is something that
we would hope that would be maybe more specifically on the next agenda, as opposed to a
general discussion. And I'd be happy to give you our position paper and meet with you.
Chairman Teele: Have you discussed this with staff?
Mr. Knoefler: Yes, we have.
Annette Lewis (Executive Director of CRA): Yes, sir.
Chairman Teele: Let me say this. In principle, I'm not opposed, in principle. But, specifically, I
think you should look at areas based upon their uniqueness. This one -size -fits -all scares me,
because now what you wind up doing is just passing something that's not redevelopment, but it's
more like City Hall. And that -- those kind of decisions should be over at City Hall. We are a
focused redevelopment agency. We're here to make distinctions and to make differences.
There's a difference between what Omni needs and what Overtown needs. I think it's apparent,
and I don't think there's any reason to treat Omni the same way you treat Overtown or vice
versa. For example, what we just approved today was a loan into Omni. We've never approved
loans into Overtown, for example. And I would hate for someone to come and to begin to
advance that we need to start doing everything the same way, because the economic base, the
direction, the -- there's just so many differences between, say the Omni and say Overtown, that
once you start making that kind of -- you may as well shut down this agency, and let the money
go to City Hall and let City Hall do it, because this Agency's goal is to do targeted
redevelopment. In that regard, I think it would be very important to get an economist or -- you
know, don't you all have an economist under subcontract now?
Ms. Lewis: Yes, sir.
Chairman Teele: And let them make a review of this, and make a report. As it relates to your
subject matter of impact fees, I agree with everything, and I would say what I just said, doesn't
apply, because I think impact fees really do have an overarching burden and they slow down
development. The problem is this: If we go into making grants for redevelop -- for impact fees,
we, in effect, are giving up what this Board's policy is and, that is, we need to work with the
County to remove impact fees. I mean, why -- let's face it. Why should we take City dollars and
pay the County for a County benefit?
Mr. Knoefler: Right. If I could just -- one of the things that we --
Chairman Teele: So, let me just finish the point.
Mr. Knoefler: OK.
Chairman Teele: So, even though we approved twenty-nine thousand dollars ($29,000), which is
what the County was asking for for SAX on the Beach, when we sat down -- and I will tell you, I
59 November 25, 2002
took it to the highest levels within the County staff. I mean, I don't go out and talk about it, brag
about it, because it's probably illegal. But I sat down with staff and they reduced the impact fees
from twenty-nine thousand dollars ($29,000) down to eleven thousand dollars ($11,000). So,
there is a role in not just taking this stuff, and rubberstamping it and sending it out, because, you
know, we're here trying to protect the dollars of the CRA. And if the City -- if the County
knows that we're just going to pay the bill, I can tell you this: Instead of twenty-nine thousand,
it'll become fifty thousand, so they have all -- nobody's ever looked at what the County does
over there. But they have all kinds of flexibility, and they use that flexibility really to get as
much money as they can from whoever they think can pay. And I'm telling you, they charge
people more if they think you can pay. And I know I can't prove it, and I know that's, perhaps,
irresponsible to say it. So, we don't want to just start writing blank checks on impact fees, I can
tell you that, because if we do, we're just writing a check over to water -- County Water &
Sewer.
Mr. Knoefler: Yeah. Just a -- maybe three small points on that. The first one is that we see this
as a sort of strategy, looking at this as a short-term approach, and I know that Ms. Arscott's
working our program with the County, in terms of longer term reduction of fees. So, we see
those things very much in --
Chairman Teele: (INAUDIBLE)
Mr. Knoefler: OK. The second is, we almost see this as an emergency measure, just because of
the fact that -- at least, personally, I can't think of any business that's opening in the Park
West/Omni area, Overtown, new business in the past year. And one of the major barriers for that
is the impact fees, and we need to do something to really sort of jumpstart this. I wouldn't see
this maybe as a long-term program, but something that would happen over the course of -- you
know, maybe we just try it all -- try it next year. I don't really know.
Chairman Teele: Well, the other problem is, is that to get into a budget cycle, you need to make
the proposal, so that we can put it into next year's budget, because this year's budget is already
gone. I mean, we're already now trying to -- I should say in Southeast Overtown/Park West.
There may be some flexibility in Omni, but I can tell you, in Southeast Overtown/Park West,
we're like 300 percent committed to the available dollars. And a lot of it is going for the very
thing that you talked about. How much is going to be, the parking lot -- the parking space
underneath 395?
Ms. Lewis: The total is three point five million.
Unidentified speaker: That's a lot of money.
Mr. Knoefler: Yeah.
Chairman Teele: Well, you know, with all due respect, George, that's exactly what the budget is
from the DOT (Department of Transportation).
Unidentified speaker: (INAUDIBLE)
60 November 25, 2002
Mr. Knoefler: If I could just --
Chairman Teele: I mean, and we've been -- so, I want you to hear: There are a lot of competing
interests, but the one thing that all of the club owners we've sat around the table with, with the
people in the Omni, we've sat had the meeting there at Big Time Studio, the number one issue
that they said is parking and security. Number one and number two. So, we've got to be very
careful that we don't start jumping around on priorities. I agree that impact fee is a problem, and
I want to work with you on that, but I think you're going to have to design it and shape it a little
bit more to a particular set of problems, and set of developers who are not developing because of
that.
Mr. Knoefler: Yeah. Just one last point. You'd mentioned about specific zones and so on.
What our thought process was, was focusing on what we want to see in that area, general
categories. Would argue that, if the CRA and the City gets too far into micromanaging which
building should be what, then they're going to just stifle development. We'd like to see
residential within the area. It doesn't matter where it is. And if we only allocate impact fee
reduction to this area --
Chairman Teele: See, that's what I'm telling you. If you think this thing through, like you're
doing now, you're going to get a lot further down the road. If you say housing impact fees
within the redevelopment area, you probably will have three votes to support that. If you start
talking about nightclubs, you know, I'm not sure where that's going to go.
Mr. Knoefler: Well --
Chairman Teele: I mean -- and we're prepared to support nightclubs, but it's got to be
structured. I mean, we said we'll help with ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) accessibility,
we'll do certain things. But there's got to be a policy justification for what we're doing, and we
all want to see more -- we want to see the community to have a 24-hour presence, that is,
housing. That's the key.
Mr. Knoefler: Yeah. We --
Chairman Teele: And I think if you talk about housing, if you scale this back and limit it to
housing, you probably will have a strong -- much stronger support than if you just say everything
that happens.
Mr. Knoefler: Potentially, housing and restaurants. I mean, we're not necessarily looking at this
to support the nightclub industry. I think they have more than enough money. But people that
are doing residential, or a small restaurant owner, is someone who's definitely needed some help.
Chairman Teele: You're going to need to take that also to the Omni Advisory Board and the
Overtown Advisory Board, if you really want to be consistent with what it is we're saying. But
you're welcome. We'll put you on the agenda. I'm going to ask staff to work with you. I think
you make some very good points. I would urge you to do three things: One, to have a sunset
61 November 25, 2002
44� y°
provision, that is, this program will be a two-year program, three-year program, to talk about a
dollar limit, OK, and a little bit more structuring in terms of what the City needs. The City
recognizes, the CRA recognize we need housing. And I think anything that you do in the area of
housing, you should distinguish it from what you're doing, say for restaurants or whatever else.
Mr. Knoefler: OK.
Chairman Teele: But that would be my advice to you. But --
Mr. Knoefler: Sure. Thank you.
Chairman Teele: -- do it the way you feel comfortable.
Mr. Knoefler: All right. Thank you very much.
Chairman Teele: No, thank you. And we'll put you on the agenda. It will be a long agenda.
And speaking of that, there is a National Housing Development Corporation or Council meeting
in January. We need to find out when they're going to be here, and we need to try to provide
some support to them and that organization. And would you make sure that we get on the
agenda the bond issue for next week, and anything else that any of the Board members want?
Ms. Lewis: Yes, sir.
Chairman Teele: Commissioner Regalado, I know that you had to leave at seven. Thank you
very much, and I really appreciate the fact, Mr. Manager -- he always disappears. Oh, Mr.
Manager, I really appreciate the fact that you and your staff have been so cooperative, and I was
encouraged to hear that they had met with the consultants regarding the Development Council --
National Development Council, and those meetings are going well. And we certainly want to
continue to work closely with you. Thank you very much.
Board Member Regalado: Thank you.
Unidentified speaker: Motion to adjourn.
Chairman Teele: Meeting adjourned. It was adjourned when Johnny walked out.
62 November 25, 2002
0
U
There being no further business to come before the Community Redevelopment Agency for the
Southeast Overtown/Park West and Omni District, the meeting was adjourned at 7:14 p.m.
ATTEST:
PRISCILLA A. THOMPSON,
City Clerk
SYLVIA SCHEIDER,
Assistant City Clerk
(SEAL)
ARTHUR E. TEELE, JR.,
Chairman
63 November 25, 2002
RECEIPT
DATE: January 7, 2003
SUBJECT: Minutes for the November 25, 2002, CRA Meeting.
Received By:
MAYOR DIAZ
VICE CHAIRMAN WINTON
COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ
COMMISSIONER SANCHEZ
CHAIRMAN REGALADO
COMMISSIONER TEELE
CITY MANAGER