Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEOPW OMNI CRA 2004-03-29 MinutesCITY OF MIAMI CRA MEETING MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON MARCH 29, 2004 PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK/CITY HALL Priscilla A. Thompson/City Clerk MINUTES OF THE REGeLAR.BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST AND OMNI DISTRICTS On the 29`" day of March 2004, 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 V.I.P. Room, Old Miami Arena, 701 Arena Boulevard, Miami, Florida. The meeting was called to order at 5:13 p.m. by Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr., with the following Board Members found to be present: Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Board Member Tomas Regalado Board Member Joe Sanchez ABSENT: Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Board Member Angel Gonzalez ALSO PRESENT: Alejandro Vilarello, City Attorney, City of Miami James Villacorta, Assistant City Attorney, City of Miami Frank Rollason, Executive Director, CRA, City of Miami William R. Bloom, Special Counsel, CRA, Holland & Knight Priscilla A. Thompson, City Clerk, City of Miami Ana Gelabert, Director, Planning & Zoning, City of Miami March 29, 2004 Chairman Teele: Good evening, ladies .and gentlemen. We'd like to get started. If you would please stand for a silent prayer, followed by the pledge of allegiance to the flag. Chairman Teele led those present in a pledge of allegiance to the flag. 1. ORDER OF THE DAY. Chairman Teele: It's my understanding that we .have two or three add -on items. One add -on item is a report regarding the Ward Rooming House. One add -on item is a report. regarding the City of Miami and Miami -Dade -- I'm sorry -- the City of Miami and the CRA (Community. Redevelopment Agency) involving an easement. It's an easement? Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Gran Central plat. Frank Rollason (Executive Director, CRA): Yeah. Gran Central. Chairman Teele: But it's an easement, right? Mr. Vilarello: Yes. Right -of --way along -- Chairman Teele: Right-of-way, and the third one is a matter relating to the City Manager requesting a briefing on a project that they would like for us to consider regarding the promotion of the redevelopment area and the -- Southeast Overtown. The big item today is the report regarding the planning report, so what I would like to do is clear -all of the other items, if possible, and save that item for-ast, and -then -we -ear- spend -the -rest ofthe-evening -- the afternoon on that. 2 March 29, 2004 2. ACCEPT CRA'S EXTERNAL AUDITOR'S REPORT ON OMNI AND SEOPW FY '03 PRESENTED BY SANSON, KLINE, JACOMINO & COMPANY, LLP. Chairman Teele: Item Number 1. Frank Rollason (Executive Director, CRA): Item 1 is a report from our external auditors, and Mr. Tandoc will give that report. Richie Tandoc: Good afternoon, Chairman and members of the board. My name is Richie Tandoc. I'm a partner with Sanson, Kline, Jacomino & Company, your external audit firm. As of February 6, 2004, we completed the audits of both the Omni Community Redevelopment Agency and Southeast Overtown/Park West Redevelopment Agency. With the cooperation of management and staff of the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency), the audits were completed within the City's and the CRA's timeframe. You should have received a copy of the finance statements for each of the agencies, along with our opinions included therein. Our opinions are both unqualified, meaning -- for both agencies, meaning you have a clean opinion, and are both dated February 6, 2004, the last day of our field work. We also issued our management letter for the agencies, also dated February 6, 2004, which you should also have received a copy of. We came up with three observations in the current year, none of which were considered reportable conditions or material weaknesses. We also followed up on all the prior years' observations to the management letter, and one thing I'd like to stress is that almost all the prior years' observations were properly addressed during fiscal year 2003, with the exception of two observations, which we noted as being addressed in fiscal year 2004. If you'd like to go to the management letter comments, I'd be happy to do so now, or if you have any questions, I'd be happy to�ca dress those, as well. Chairman Teele: Board Member Sanchez, Board Member Regalado. Board Member Sanchez: I'll yield to Regalado. Chairman Teele: Board Member Sanchez. Board Member Sanchez: Are there any other reported conditions that we should know about? Mr. Tandoc: No, sir. There were no reportable conditions during the current year that we noted. Chairman Teele: Is there a motion to accept the external -audit -- receive it? Board Member Regalado: So move. Board Member Sanchez: Second. Chairman Teele: Is there objection? All in favor, say "aye." The Board Members (Collectively): Aye. 3 March 29, 2004 Chairman Teele: All opposed? The following motion was introduced by Board Member Regalado, who moved its adoption: SEOPW/CRA MOTION NO. 04-22 OMNI/CRA MOTION NO. 04-20 A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE, CRA'S EXTERNAL AUDITOR'S REPORT ON THE OMNI AND SEOPW FOR FY '03 AS PRESENTED BY SANSON, KLINE, JACOMINO & COMPANY, LLP. Upon being seconded by Board Member Sanchez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Board Member. Tomas Regalado Board Member Joe Sanchez NAYS: None ABSENT: Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Board Member Angel Gonzalez 4 March 29, 2004 3. CRA FINANCIAL SUMMARY $Y CARLTON BRANKER, HARVEY, BRANKER & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Chairman Teele: Number 2. Frank Rollason (Executive Director, CRA): Number 2 is the monthly financial status. report as of the month ending February 29t", given by Carlton Branker from Harvey, Branker & Associates. Carlton Branker: Good afternoon. Carlton Branker, with.Harvey, Branker & Associates. I just wanted to say it was a -- it's been a pleasure. I believe it's going to be the last time I officially give this report to you, as you have a new finance director, but we have had the opportunity to work with Sanson, Kline, Jacomino with helping get the status on the reportable conditions, and we're happy to say that most of them have been resolved, as he reported earlier, and so, us working with management as well. The report here is as of February -- as of March, you'll see at the bottom of that report, we're going to start putting the encumbrance back into the report because we did -- were able to get the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) on the GEM system, which is the City's encumbrance system, so things are working. We're progressing and we're trying to make the CRA the best it can be. Chairman Teele: Questions? Comments? All right. 5 March 29, 2004 4. BRIEF DISCUSSION CONCERNING PENDING LEGAL AGREEMENTS. Chairman Teele: We'll go to Item Number 4. Frank Rollason (Executive Director, CRA): (INAUDIBLE) the Law Department, pending legal agreements. Jim Villacorta: It's just a status report. No action by the board is required. Chairman Teele: Are we up-to-date with our legal bills? I've requested, at least three times, a report on the cost of the Ward Rooming House legal fees; do you have that? Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): I don't have the report in writing. I've been advised by Holland & Knight counsel that it's been thirty-two thousand dollars expended with regard to the Ward Rooming House. I've not been able to confirm that number. Chairman Teele: Could we ask the external auditor -- I mean, the -- Harvey Branker and your office to sit down and let's figure out where we are on that? All right. Item -- we'll come back to the Ward Rooming House. 6 March 29, 2004 5. DISCUSSION ON RENOVATION PROJECTS FOR JACKSON SOUL FOOD RESTAURANT, TWO GUYS RESTAURANT AND JUST RIGHT BARBERSHOP. Chairman Teele: Item Number 5. Frank Rollason (Executive Director, CRA): Item 5 was a status report that was requested by the Chair on Jackson Soul Food Restaurant, Two Guys Restaurant and Just Right Barbershop. I'll give you a synopsis of where we are on the three. Jackson Soul Food, the plans have already been through a dry run with the City of Miami Building Department. They went last week -- or earlier this week, I'm sorry. No, last week. It was last week, and they got some comments that they have to address, minor in nature, mostly dealing with an elevation problem that they need to resolve. Also, they are scheduled to come up this week before the Plat and Street Committee, which will.hopefully finalize the plat situation with Jackson Soul Food so we'll be able to go forward with the construction. We're still on target to pull the permits and begin construction in the early part of May. Last week, Friday, H.J. Ross visited with Jackson Soul Food proprietors, the owners of the restaurant, and reviewed the final set of plans, of which they all signed off on and agreed that the plans are what they expect to be built and what they were anticipating. Two Guys Restaurant and Just Right Barbershop is a little more complex. Without going into a lot of details, there's some tenant/landlord issues that we're attempting to resolve, and it may result that we'll hit an immovable object between those two, and if that does happen, it'll be my recommendation to come back to you and transfer some of the funds from Two Guys over to Just Right and continue with the Just Right plan, and do the common areas that we were going to do with funding that's already there between the two, such as the roof, and some plumbing and ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) access that has to be done, and -- I mean, that's where we are. They have not been able to resolve their differences to allow access into the restaurant by the owner of the building, who also owns the barbershop, and they've been working on that and I think that it's not going to be resolved to where we're going to be able to get into the restaurant. Board Member Sanchez: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Teele: Commissioner Sanchez. Board Member Sanchez: Executive Director, you said that you couldn't resolve the issue between them or -- Mr. Rollason: Right. They've -- I've met with them both individually, and there's just some issues that go beyond the grant that they've been having problems with each other with their lease, and the proprietor of Two Guys finally got to the point that he signed off on a letter from the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) that he's no longer interested in participating in the grant program, and we've tried to resolve that to no avail, and so where we are now is -- the owner of the building was looking to see if he had rights, with his attorney, to force him to allow us to get into that portion of the building to do some work, and his attorney's advised him that he can't do that under the conditions of the lease, and he doesn't want to hold up the barbershop any longer, so I believe that's how we're going to go. There are some common areas; the roof has to be redone, which covers both of the operations, and we put some of the money in Two Guys and 7 March 29, 2004 some of the money in Just Right, so I would go back and pull those funds that were for common areas between the two, add it to Just Right Barbershop, and come back to you with a recommendation to amend that grant and go forward with Just Right Barbershop. Board Member Sanchez: Well, I'm all for, you know, expediting the process. One of the -- these three businesses, since I've been here, we've been working on trying to help them out, so now we get through this process where it's -- for us, it's frustrating. Imagine for these historical businesses that have been there for so many years, and, you know, we're certainly not going to attract new business if we can't accomplish what we set out to do with these three businesses, so do whatever you can to expedite it to get it done because, you know, at the end of the day, we've been almost three years here talking about these same businesses and nothing's been done. Chairman Teele: Five. Board Member Sanchez: Five years. Chairman Teele: Five years. Board Member Sanchez: Even worse. Mr. Rollason: We are -- we're moving forward with them. I mean, you've got to -- we're going to be breaking ground, like I said, on Jackson Soul Food in May, and that's -- Board Member Sanchez: Well, there should be fireworks. Mr. Rollason: I hope to see you all there. Chairman Teele: For the completion. We don't need to have a ground breaking. We need to have a ribbon cutting. Board Member Sanchez: Exactly. All right. You need action taken on this? Mr. Rollason: No, sir. It was a status report. Board Member Sanchez: OK. Chairman Teele: The issue between the landlord and tenant has been going on from the very beginning. Are we enforcing the condition that the landlord cannot increase the rate -- the lease rate? Mr. Rollason: Yes, sir. It's set at the rate that was set at the time that the original grant was put into place, even though several years have gone by since the beginning of that time, we're still holding for that amount. Chairman Teele: All right. 8 March 29, 2004 6. DIRECT GENERAL COUNSEL TO REVIEW TRANSCRIPTS OF PREVIOUS CITY COMMISSION MEETINGS AND PROVIDE LEGAL OPINION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT CRA CAN USE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DOLLARS FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION OF WARD ROOMING HOUSE; OPINE AS TO WHETHER THIS CAN BE DONE BEFORE ISSUE OF TITLE IS RESOLVED; DIRECT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO CONFIRM WITH CITY' S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY'VE CONCLUDED THAT CRA CANNOT USE THESE DOLLARS. DIRECT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO PROVIDE WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION ON POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES FOR USE AND RESTORATION OF WARD ROOMING HOUSE AND IDENTIFY FUNDS FOR SAID POTENTIAL USES. Chairman Teele: All right. Ward Rooming House. Frank Rollason (Executive Director, CRA): This morning I distributed to your offices a summary report that we had just received from H.J. Ross, and it was my intent to come before the board in April with a recommendation, after spending some time elaborating what we have here, and spend as little bit of time with CIP (Capital Improvements Program) in the City. In the interim, as you're aware, we had a problem with a partial collapse of the west wall, and I think that has accelerated the process from the standpoint that people were concerned that it was going to fall over, nothing was going to happen, et cetera, so tonight -- I had a meeting Friday with the Black Archives. I met with Dr. Fields and with Richard Heisenbottle and we discussed the three alternatives (UNINTELLIGIBLE) this morning. I also provided a copy of this to the City for them to take a look at. I know they've had an engineer out there looking at it also, and I don't know if there's anybody from the City that wants to report on something tonight, but my position right now -- unless something changes -- is to come back to you in April meeting with a recommendation of how to go forward. We are shoring it back up again with what's there and securing it so that it doesn't topple any further, and you need to understand that it toppled because part of the scaffolding was stolen, and as a result of that, with the winds that we had that one night -- we had a windy rain and that west wall came over, so we're getting it shored back up again and holding what we can, and there's three options inside the report, ranging from half a million to a million, five, depending on which we select, and I know that somebody from the Black Archives wanted to speak tonight, and I'm assuming there's somebody here from the City that would speak to the issue also. Chairman Teele: All right. Before you do, Commissioner Regalado -- Board Member Regalado. Board Member Regalado: Mr. Chairman, I was at the 9t' Street Mall ceremony. I had to leave to go and do the TV (television) program, but to me, it was a day of celebration, and I keep hearing about these grandiose plans for the Overtown area and I am very uncomfortable because if the government cannot save part of history, it cannot have a vision of the future. We're -- you know, we're doing this beautiful mall and this beautiful mosaic sidewalks and everything and did ceremonies, and people sang, and yet, a wall collapsed on the historical building. To me, that's unacceptable, and maybe we are the ones that are at fault here because, you know, I think that the first thing for a new Overtown is to build the new things around historic sites because that is what keeps the area -- the flavor of the area. That is what it's all about. When you go on the expressway on I-95, you see signs that says, "Historic Overtown," and I wonder where is the 9 March 29, 2004 history, so, you know, I don't know if we're going to do this in April or in May, but I think that, number one, we should have security because when'a building is under construction or it's a derelict building, people tend to go there and start taking things and all that. If we can pay money to do whatever needs to be done in the area, we can pay security because the Police Department will not be able to be there 24 hours a day, and then we can -- we should come up with ideas to do this the right way once and for all. You know; I -- when I read the report this morning, I said, wow, it's a shame that governments are incapable of saving the history of an important area of the City, so I hope that maybe today we can at least direct the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) Administrator to do something more than hope that another wall doesn't collapse on us, and that was my comment. Chairman Teele: All right. I asked that the item be put on the agenda for three reasons. First and foremost, the Ward Rooming House has been back and forth for over four years before. the CRA Board. The City of Miami has probably been the single culpritfor the destruction of all of the historic buildings in Overtown. We have a report from -the internal auditor regarding the Carver Hotel, which I had asked to be done about three years ago. The City basically saw it and said, oh, it's about to fall, so bulldoze it. The Cola Nip building, which, in my mind, is a justifiable action by the City in that the composition of that building was made of sea sand salt -- sea sand, which contains salt, and unfortunately, we had a number of experts to look at that. I know, Dr. Fields, you may have a different opinion. I know that there was some room for experts to differ, but the quality of the construction of that building made the physics of the building virtually an impossibility to -- in the minds of some engineers -- to be saved because the metal engrained in the building itself -- embedded in the building itself was embedded into the sea salt from the sea sand, and that has a unique feature. The reason that I asked this item to be put on the agenda was primarily one thing because for some reason, even though the City has a surplus of dollars that we're under federal scrutiny about because of projects that are being committed that we cannot expend, the CRA has -- is, in some ways, a contributor to that problem. Now, community development dollars make it very clear that historic preservation is among the highest federal standards, and in fact, if Donald -- where I've taken exception from my colleague, Commissioner Sanchez, for the four years is that if you read the CFR, if Donald Trump owns a building that is determined to be historic, it is eligible for historic preservation using CD (Community Development) dollars. There is no income test, and therefore, this issue of who owns the last six percent or the last point four percent of the building, to me, has always been just a superfluous argument. I wanted to try to get some clarity -- Is the CD Director here? I wanted to try to get some -- Is there anybody here from CD? Board Member Regalado: Historic Preservation is here. Chairman Teele: Well, they're planning. Because I needed to get some clarity on the availability of CD dollars to restore this building. Now, Ms. Eaton, you're the Historic Preservation Officer. I assume you are familiar with the City resources, so I would like to just hear from you, ma'am, on the availability and how you interpret the CFR -- Mr. Attorney, how you all interpret the CFR on historic preservation, not as it relates to the IRS (Internal Revenue Service) tax code, which is one way to preserve a building, nor as it relates to the state historic preservation procedures, but under the CFR relating to community development funds. Ms. Eaton, welcome. 10 March 29, 2004 Sarah Eaton: Thank you. Sarah Eaton, Preservation Officer. Part 700 of the Community Development Block Grant regulations, subsection 570.202(d) says that "CDBG funds may be used for the rehabilitation, preservation or restoration of historic properties, whether publicly or privately owned. Historic properties are those sites or structures that are either listed in or eligible to be listed in the National Register of Historic Places, listed in a state or local inventory of historic places, or designated as a state or local landmark, or historic district by appropriate law ordinance. Historic preservation, however, is not authorized for buildings for the general conduct of government," so it would be my interpretation that the building is included in a state or local inventory of historic places and would be eligible. Chairman Teele: I must have misread it. I agree with your opinion, but it was my reading of the CFR at one time that the governing board could determine for purposes of CD. I suppose that that's no longer within the CFR? Ms. Eaton: This was the only section that I was able to find in doing a search and in speaking with the preservation officer at HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development). Chairman Teele: Well, there's two issues in my mind. Number one, does the -- is the governing board the eligible -- an ineligible entity to designate for eligibility for CD funds, Mr. Attorney? That's one question to be researched, perhaps, and the second question is, based upon your research, Ms. Eaton, and your conversations, I assume, with the City Attorney and Community Development, is the Ward Rooming House an eligible -- right now, an eligible recipient for CD dollars? Ms. Eaton: It's my opinion it's eligible because it's included in a local inventory. Chairman Teele: The point that I've been trying to make to the staff, and in some cases, to your office, that there are different eligibility tests for the use of dollars. There is an IRS standard. There is a statestandard, and then there is `a CFR standard that controls the CD dollars. The point is this: If you're correct, then the whole debate and argument that we've wasted for four years is basically one where the funds could have been used because it doesn't matter who owns the building. That's the point that my colleague, Commissioner Regalado, made some veiled reference to. Doesn't matter whether Donald Trump owns the building or it's owned by, you know, the Grand Dragon, for that matter. The fact of the matter is, is that if it's historic preservation, it's eligible, under the CFR, for funds, and we're sitting here with a fund balance of how much CD dollars, Frank? Mr. Rollason: On our side that we -- Chairman Teele: On our side. Mr. Rollason: -- had within the CRA? Chairman Teele: Yeah. 11 March 29, 2004 Mr. Rollason: Probably about one point three. Chairman Teele: One point three. A minimum of one point three, and so, what I would hope to accomplish today, if nothing else, is to direct the Director to clear the issue regarding the eligibility of CD dollars, without regard to who owns it. I realize there's this issue of the title, but it doesn't matter whether it's owned by the City, or whether it's owned by Mr. Alberry, or whether it's owned by Donald Trump. The eligibility, under the CFR, goes to the preservation of historic buildings, and therefore, we can sort out the ownership -- contrary to the debate that is going on in here for so long -- we can sort out the ownership a year from now or ten years from now. The real issue is the issue of preserving the building, and I would hope, Commissioner Sanchez, that you would at least follow the logic that I'm trying to make here because this has just gone on indefinitely, and with -- still with no resolve, and now I'm hearing from the Director the notion that we really don't even have a clear plan on this. It was my understanding that in 2000 -- in the year 2000, when the board acted on this, that we had designated that the CD dollars would be made available for this project through 2001.and 2002, and that this would be an artist -- facility for artists, for photography, and for the like, as it related to the homeless people that have tremendous artistic talents within that area and within the Community Development area, and I think that the notes and the board transcripts will bear us out. Ms. Eaton, are you -- have you conferred with Community Development on your opinion? Ms. Eaton: No, I have not. Chairman Teele: OK. Well, I don't want to be like Condoleezza Rice in the sense that -- waiting nine months to have a meeting. I'm prepared to call a board meeting, on one -day notice, any time there is a Commission meeting to move to save this building. This building and the building behind it have a clear mission, a clear mandate in terms of creating an artist colony in there, residences for artists, et cetera, and I would really appreciate if we could move forward. Commissioner Sanchez. Board Member Sanchez: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I truly feel that CD should have been here to answer that question because this is a very complicated matter. This is not a very simple matter. I mean, based on the history of the disputes in title there -- How many owners now that are attached to that title, Mr. Counsel? William Bloom (Special Counsel, CRA): Commissioner, at this point, there's approximately eight people who still have an interest in the property. Board Member Sanchez: But how many were originally? Mr. Bloom: Probably 100, when you went through all the years, but at this point, the CRA owns 99.6 percent of one block, and 99.8 percent of another block -- lot, so we virtually have everything tied up at this point, and we're just waiting for a handful of deeds to be mailed back to us. Board Member Sanchez: OK, and it's very complicated. As a matter of fact, it's very complicated, and I don't -- I'm not an attorney in law that specializing in land, but I could tell 12 March 29, 2004 you this much. When CD clearly stated that we could not use the funds, I was very concerned.. I mean, I go with the recommendation from the City in many cases, and when they say that you can't use the funds, I mean, it puts us in an awkward situation. How one interprets the law may be one way, but how the law is written -- and clearly -- is another way, so it's a very confusing matter. Let me just say, Commissioner Teele, that you stated something that I won't take it as offensive, but I do care about historic preservation. If that building was in Overtown or was in Little Havana or anywhere, all the history that it has -- you also have to take into consideration the condition that it's in, and you may have a different view than I do. That's beauty of democracy, and you and I have disagreed on a lot of issues, but I'll tell you this much. My support is there to preserve it, but once a wall comes down and, you know, it crumbles down, you take those blocks and put them backup on the wall. You try to save as much that is there, so I don't have the blame because the wind blew and it fell down. I mean, we don't have the blame for that. That's been going on for years, and if the City would -- should have came in here -- CD, the Director came and said, hey, you're eligible for the money, we should have done it. As a matter of fact, the more time that we waste -- we agree on this -- the more time that we wait - and we let the property continue to deteriorate based on condition, based on weather, based on vandalism, based on a lot of factors, but we don't have any control over that. I mean, basically, our hands are tied on that issue. I see that -- the recommendations that are made and I'm going to yield and listen to the public, and listen to what the residents and the citizens want to say on that matter. I'm prepared to move on what they want to move on that, but, you know, I -- the statement that you made, I really don't agree with. Chairman Teele: Commissioner, with all due respect, I cannot find, nor have I ever been present, when anybody from CD has opined that you cannot use CD dollars for historic preservation without regard to the ownership. That has been the law ever since historic preservation was set up. Unlike all the other categories, there is no income test. There is no ownership test. There appears to be a governmental use test, which is the same test that is in -- that is, you can't take it and use it for a general governmental purpose, like a NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) Office, or those kinds of things, which it runs throughout the CD rule, but, again, I may be wrong, and I will ask the attorney or the director to find when the staff came up and said that, but I've never heard from anybody on staff -- The only issue has been an issue between yourself and Mr. Bloom over the legal ownership of the land that I've been present for. There has never been a question of the eligibility of CD dollars, or for that matter, even TIF (Tax Increment Fund) funds, because the whole point is, it doesn't -- for historic preservation, it shouldn't matter who the owner is. If we could give five hundred thousand dollars to Solomon Yuken to preserve a building or to do that, we certainly could do it and then sort out who owns the building. That, to me, has been the issue, as it relates to the historic building, but if you're in agreement if -- that -- if we get a legal opinion from the attorneys, which is, I guess, where we should be. I guess we can join in asking for that request from the lawyers, the City Attorney, on the eligibility of this, then I think the question becomes what do we do to go forward. There has been an issue regarding the way the City Historic Preservation has interpreted certain issues relating to the fact that you have to have a roof and you have to have a this, 'and you have to have that, but that has never been the issue as it related to the expenditure of dollars, only to the extent is it eligible, and it is clear, based upon Ms. Eaton's -- even Ms. Eaton's opinion, that we're not in a catch-22 where if you don't put up the roof, you can't get the historic designation or you can't expend CD 13 March 29, 2004 dollars, because historic designation is different from the eligibility to expend historic dollars, and that, I think, is the big issue. Is that -- am I correct on that, Ms. Eaton? . Ms. Eaton: Well, I can't address the issue of CD dollars as far as -- Chairman Teele: I thought you just did. Ms. Eaton: Well, I -- only as it relates to the definition of what is historic. I can certainly give you my opinion on that and I already have. Chairman Teele: OK. Mr. Attorney. Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): I believe the only question has been whether, as a matter of policy, if this -- Chairman Teele: There's a policy. Mr. Vilarello: -- committee wanted to use dollars to improve the Ward Rooming House -- CD dollars to improve the Ward Rooming House before we resolved. the title issues. Chairman Teele: That's correct. Mr. Vilarello: However, I will follow up -- I'm not aware of CD ever declaring that these dollars -- that those dollars are not available for that purpose. The question always was: Should we spend those dollars before we clear title on it? Chairman Teele: That's always been the question. Mr. Vilarello: In fact, we include, on an annual basis, historic preservation dollars out of the CD allocation for this and similar type uses, but I will follow up with CD to confirm whether or not they've concluded that we cannot use these dollars. Board Member Sanchez: There were a lot of "ifs." She has just answered your question just based on her aspect of historic preservation. She can't answer for CD, OK, and this has been a very complicated issue. Now that you're down to six owners that are still claiming title,. and you started with 100 -- you know, there were a lot of issues on this. If this was so important -- which I -- it continues to be important -- this should have been resolved years ago. Mr. Vilarello: We will respond with a written legal opinion as to the appropriateness of the use of CD dollars for historic preservation purposes, and we'll keep it in context of this -- the Ward Rooming House. Board Member Sanchez: Now, Mr. Attorney, why -- have you been able to contact those six owners that are left? 14 March 29, 2004 • 9 Mr. Bloom: Yes, sir. Deeds have been sent to all those six people. They all know that if they send the deeds back, they'll get a check. Board Member Regalado: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Teele: What's the range of the checks that we're talking about? Mr. Bloom: They're in the neighborhood of a hundred or two hundred dollars. They're very small. Board Member Sanchez: How much? Chairman Teele: A hundred to two hundred dollars, so that's -- Mr. Bloom: In other words, I mean, you may have five people who have four -tenths of one percent interest in one lot. Chairman Teele: Well, the policy issue is still before us, and -- I mean, I think what we should do is have a special meeting in April, just on this issue, to clear this up. If you, Mr. Attorney, would review the transcripts and the opinions, et cetera, and frame the question so that we can resolve -- because as I've said repeatedly, whenever I serve on a board, if there is a policy issue like this, let everybody have an opportunity to be heard and everybody to work through it, but I think the policy issue needs to be read in the context of the reality of the dollars, and I don't believe any private corporation would function the way we're doing. You put the money in escrow up and you'd move on and get done what you need to get done. Dr. Fields, regarding -- I don't want to have a long, full discussion on the approach. We would very much, out of deference to your -- the role that you've played and the vision that you've had for the Folk Life Village, we would like to hear any recommendation from -- primarily for the benefit of the Executive Director to make, and then we will have a full discussion from you and the public on whatever that recommendation is when we have that special meeting. Dr. Dorothy Jenkins -Fields: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dorothy Jenkins -Fields, Black Archives. There is certainly urgency in stabilizing and restoring, and rehabilitating the historic Ward Rooming House. We've looked at the recommendations and believe that, at this point, the second recommendation, which says that the facade of the original building would be kept, would do well in keeping the authenticity of the building for the Folk Life Village. Board Member Sanchez: Is that the six hundred thousand? Dr. Jenkins -Fields: Five hundred thousand. Chairman Teele: 590. Mr. Rollason: Yes, that's it. Chairman Teele: That's the six hundred thousand. 15 March 29, 2004 Dr. Jenkins -Fields: Yes. Board Member Sanchez: Six hundred thousand, OK. Dr. Jenkins -Fields: That's six hundred thousand, and not just saving it but we have been working very hard to -- for the adaptive reuse, and while I know that you are going to call a special meeting for this, I would appreciate it if you could just have -- give John Hall, who is our Main Street Manager, a moment to frame our thoughts in the adaptive reuse, and if you need more information about the structural part of it, our architect, Richard Heisenbottle, is here, but if you'll hear John Hall. John Hall: Thank you, Dr. Fields. John Hall, Main Street Manager for the Black Archives and developer of the Folk Life Village. It is our view that the Overtown Folk Life Village, to be economically viable and successful, must serve eventually as a strong cultural tourism destination with multiple anchors, and if you will bear with me for a moment, I'd like to list the five anchors we have in mind. Of course, one is the expanded historic Lyric Theater, a Black Archives museum, a bed and breakfast hotel, a series of ethnic restaurants, and a series of entertainment venues. As it relates to the Ward Rooming House, we have retained a expert consulting firm, Hotel Consulting International, to conduct a feasibility. study of what it would take to make a bed and breakfast hotel viable in Overtown, and they have come back with -- although the study itself is not complete -- they've come back with a couple of preconditions; one is a minimum number of rooms, which appears to be in the neighborhood of about 108 to 150 rooms, and second, any effort that can truly allow hotel guests to stay in true historically restored buildings. As you know, we own the Dorsey House, which is across the street from the Ward Rooming House, and it would be our view the Dorsey House could actually serve as a stand-alone bed and breakfast unit for one, two to three rooms. We also believe that utilizing alternative number two, as referred to by Dr. Fields, could allow us to redo the Ward Rooming House with four units, which would again make it -- bring it back to what it is was. Unfortunately, restoring it to its original status gives us about 12 rooms and one bathroom, which has historical significance but, unfortunately, is functionally obsolete as a true bed and breakfast, so we would move to four units; two on the top floor, two on the bottom floor, each with, of course, their own restrooms. The third alternative, unfortunately, does not have enough restoration of the original historic value to give us the authenticity the hotel consultants consider to be required. Chairman Teele: John, are you aware of the town hall meeting in which the residents of Overtown overwhelmingly voted for some of the uses -- and the uses for the Ward Rooming House? Mr. Hall: Yes. We're aware of many alternative uses and -- Chairman Teele: I'm talking about the ones that the residents voted for. Mr. Hall: Yes. The Black Archives is very aware of that. 16 March 29, 2004 Chairman Teele: OK. All right. Let's don't get into -- let's don't -- let's try to figure out how to save the building before we start dah, dah, dah, dah, dah. I think -- the issue before us right now is the dollars for the building, the restoration or the -- somehow, the saving of the building, and do we have anymore comments regarding that issue, and is there any objection to -- Board Member Sanchez: Move the recommendation. Chairman Teele: We don't have -- huh? Board Member Sanchez: Move what they -- what the -- Chairman Teele: Wait. Hold it. I'm not prepared -- because what we need to do is we need to have a written recommendation, which Frank said he wanted some more time to meet with the architects and everybody, and give us a written recommendation. I think, you know, with all due respect, we need to do this in a manner in which that -- we know exactly what we're doing and where the money is coming from. I mean, it's fine -- The only issue before us has been and continues to be the money, and so, what we really need is the dollars so -- Mr. Rollason: Mr. Chairman, can I speak to that just a second? I hope that I did not mislead you when we talked about the one point three million, when you asked about the CD dollars. Those dollars that we have -- or we contemplate being reimbursed on, are earmarked for projects that have already been approved by the Board, and there was no additional CD money that came to the CRA this fiscal year, so we would be looking -- if we were using CD dollars -- to new money that would have to be coming from CD that -- Chairman Teele: Or we would be looking to reprogram projects. I mean, what -= Mr. Rollason: That -- with projects that would be deemed eligible. What's happened -- and I'm not talking about the historic issue. I'm talking about, is that we've got several projects that are in the pipe that you're aware of that have been stopped because there's become an issue about different CD requirements, and it may very well be that those CD dollars are not replenished to us from the information I'm receiving from Barbara, and if that's the case, for instance, in reprogramming the money that we were going to use for sidewalks, which there would be certainly enough money to do number two from that, if that money does not become eligible to come back to us because of some mistake that we made or whatever, I do not know that that money would be eligible for us to reprogram. I don't know what's going to happen to that money, and I'm supposed to be having a meeting with Barbara shortly to go over those issues. We did get a tentative approval to go ahead with the Grande Promenade project, so we're looking to move that one forward, but the reimbursement on the 9ch Street Mall extension, which we used TIF money to pay the contractors, and we also used TIF money to pay the sidewalk contractor for the work that had been done so far in Overtown, those dollars may not be reimbursable, so -- Chairman Teele: Frank, if you would just come back to us with a recommendation and -- Mr. Rollason: I will do that. 17 March 29, 2004 Board Member Sanchez: Identifying the funds. Chairman Teele: -- and identify funds, and I will be willing -- I am prepared to work with you. We will make the money available -- Mr. Rollason: I understand. Chairman Teele: -- to save the building. Mr. Rollason: I understand. Chairman Teele: OK. When all the talk finishes, we're going to make the money available to save the building, so -- Mr. Rollason: I hear you. Chairman Teele: You know, I don't think there's anything that we're doing or planning to do, other than commitments that we have made to individual businesses, that would take a higher priority over historic preservation, and, candidly, the project that was the Ward Rooming House and the Rabbi King -- Mr. Rollason: Divine Mission. Chairman Teele: -- the Miami Mission development there. OK, so -- is there any other input regarding the building itself, the structure and the dollars? 18 March 29, 2004 7. AUTHORIZE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO DEED PROPERTY KNOWN AS GRAND CENTRAL BACK TO CITY OF MIAMI TO ALLOW CITY TO REISSUE FIRST DEED TO GRAND CENTRAL; DIRECT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE ALL DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE SAID TRANSFER AND REQUEST THAT CITY MOVE EXPEDITIOUSLY WITH SAID REISSUING OF DEED. Chairman Teele: If not, then what we would like to do is hear from, very briefly, Mr. Attorney, from you regarding this so-called easement issue. It's my understanding, in just general language, that the City, ten years ago, had an easement and you want to explain, Jim, where we are? Because what we'd like to do -- what I'd like to be in a position to do is just get this so that the full discussion and debate can be held at City Commission meeting. James Villacorta (Assistant City Attorney): In 1987, the City entered into an agreement with Grand Central Corporation to realign, widen and improve Northwest 1st Avenue to serve the new arena and to promote redevelopment in the area. Chairman Teele: The new arena in ' 87? The new arena -- Mr. Villacorta: The Miami Arena, right. Chairman Teele: OK. The new arena in ' 87, the new arena. Mr. Villacorta: The new old arena. Frank Rollason (Executive Director, CRA): The one we're in. Mr. Villacorta: As part of this, a -- the road was realigned, Northwest 1st Avenue at 1st Street. There was a deed executed to Grand Central, but was never recorded. Chairman Teele: Who issued the deed? Mr. Villacorta: The City. The City then, in 1996, deeded that same property to the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency). The CRA recorded, so title is in the CRA at the moment. Grand Central would now like to record the plat, and has asked that we transfer the land back to the City.. Chairman Teele: How much is the City going to pay us? Mr. Villacorta: Well, part of the property also includes a park, Bob Clark Park, a little, small green area about the size of this area here near the courthouse, and it might not be appropriate for the City -- for the CRA to be maintaining that park at this time. Chairman Teele: Well -- but how could the City transfer twice the land, Mr. Attorney? I mean, legally, how could that happen? 19 March 29, 2004 • 0 Mr. Villacorta: Well, the subsequent transfer, since we recorded -- the CRA recorded, is the effective transfer. Chairman Teele: I understand that, but -- Mr. Villacorta: I think what might have happened was at the time the City went through the arts program and just pulled every piece of property within the CRA and transferred it, since their deed was never recorded -- the deed to Grand Central was never recorded. Chairman Teele: So, the issue is not whether the City should pay, it's the Grand Central. Mr. Villacorta: That's one way of looking at it. Board Member Sanchez: Everything's so complicated. Chairman Teele: Madam Attorney, are you representing Grand Central? Lucia Dougherty: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Lucia Dougherty, with offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue. At the City Commission meeting before last, you all had raised eyebrows about how fast the plat was recorded, in connection with the Buena Vista site. Well, conversely, this is a plat that has been lingering around for 10 years and has never been recorded. I'm going to ask my partner, Gloria Velasquez, to come forward. Chairman Teele: She made reference -- she just made reference to something that happened two Commission meetings ago -- Ms. Dougherty: Correct. Chairman Teele: -- where I raised a question, how could a plat be received on the same day and recorded, and approved. I mean, it didn't even have a 48-hour waiting period, which is -- raises a -- Ms. Dougherty: Well, conversely, this plat was actually approved by -- Board Member Regalado: Somebody like them. Ms. Dougherty: -- the City Commission in 1989, and -- Chairman Teele: It's scary. Ms. Dougherty: -- it was never recorded, and the reason it -- Chairman Teele: Lucia. Ms. Dougherty: Yes, sir. 20 March 29, 2004 Chairman Teele: How much money are you all prepared to (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- Ms. Dougherty: We're not going to pay you anything. We've already paid you a million, six and built the street, so this street is now -- Chairman Teele: Do you know how much the CRA owes Grand Central? Ms. Dougherty: Do you know how much -- Chairman Teele: Do you know how much -- Ms. Dougherty: Do you know that you've got your street on our private property right now? It's in your interest to file this plat. Chairman Teele: Do you know how much the CRA owes Grand Central? Ms. Dougherty: No. Chairman Teele: Did you know we owe you all a lot of money? Ms. Dougherty: Yes. It's a millions, six. We paid them. Chairman Teele: No, no, no. What is the debt -- Ms. Dougherty: It's a million, six. Chairman Teele: -- that we owe Grand Central? Mr. Rollason: About one seven eight, something like that. Chairman Teele: OK. Ms. Dougherty: But we're not asking for any money. Chairman Teele: No, no, no. We are, but in all honesty, I mean, this is obviously a mistake. What is the recommended course of action -- Ms. Dougherty: OK. Here's what we need to do -- and -- Chairman Teele: What is the -- Board Member Sanchez: Yeah. Ms. Dougherty: We need to set this for a public hearing -- Board Member Sanchez: What's the recommendation? 21 March 29, 2004 • • Ms. Dougherty: -- at your next meeting. OK. Chairman Teele: No, no, no, no. Ms. Dougherty: All right. Chairman Teele: Hold on. Ms. Dougherty: OK. Chairman Teele: Mr. Attorney, what is your recommended course of action? Mr. Villacorta: That the CRA return the property to the City, and let the City effectuate the -- reissue the first deed to Grand Central and be responsible for maintaining the park. Chairman Teele: Is there a motion? Board Member Regalado: Move it. Board Member Sanchez: Mr. Executive Director, are you in support of this? Mr. Rollason: Yes, I am. Board Member Sanchez: So move. Chairman Teele: All right. The motion has been moved by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, that the CRA return the land to the City -- Board Member Sanchez: City maintain the park. Chairman Teele: -- with -- authorizing the Executive Director to execute all of the documents necessary to effectuate the transfer, and further request the City to move expeditiously in the notice, et cetera, et cetera, that would be required. Is that -- Mr. Villacorta: The City would have to pass a resolution accepting the property. The CRA wouldn't be required to advertise the transfer -- Chairman Teele: No, no, no. I said the City move expeditiously to advertise or do whatever is necessary. Mr. Villacorta: Right. To transfer -- it's actually a small sliver that Grand Central -- Ms. Dougherty: The actual piece of property that Grand Central is going to have is this tiny little corner. The rest of this is going to be maintained in the City of Miami. 22 , March 29, 2004 Chairman Teele: But I think the principle here is that this is really a Public Works/Parks Department issue, and we really should defer to the City and not try to get up in the middle of this and not have that out over here, I think. Ms. Dougherty: That's right. We're just trying to file this plat. This is a technical procedural issue to get it back to the City so we can file it. Yes, sir. Chairman Teele: You heard the motion. Are you in -- Ms. Dougherty: Absolutely. Chairman Teele: All right. We have a motion and a second. Further -- the motion, as amended, authorizing the Executive Director, et cetera -- Now, there is a rule about transfers between the City and the CRA. It does not formally necessitate a notice, does it? Mr. Villacorta: Where it's fulfilling a redevelopment purpose, and when you look at the original documents, it's clear that this was to redevelop that area and to allow realignment of the road for that redevelopment. Board Member Sanchez: All right. Chairman Teele: All right. Is there any further clarification? Alex, do you think there needs to be anything added to this? And that will give the venue for this over at the City Hall on that. Board Member Sanchez: Call the question. Chairman Teele: On the motion, all in favor, say "aye." The Board Members (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: All opposed? The following motion was introduced by Board Member Regalado, who moved its adoption: SEOPW/CRA MOTION NO. 04-23 A MOTION AUTHORIZING THE CRA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO DEED THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS GRAND CENTRAL BACK TO THE CITY OF MIAMI IN ORDER TO ALLOW THE CITY TO REISSUE THE FIRST DEED TO GRAND CENTRAL, WHICH WAS INADVERTENTLY NEVER RECORDED, AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE PARK; FURTHER DIRECTING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE ALL DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE SAID TRANSFER AND FURTHER REQUESTING THAT THE CITY MOVE EXPEDITIOUSLY WITH SAID REISSUING OF DEED. 23 March 29, 2004 • • Upon being seconded by Board Member Sanchez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Board Member Tomas Regalado Board Member Joe Sanchez NAYS: None ABSENT: Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Board Member Angel Gonzalez 24 March 29, 2004 8. INSTRUCT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO MEET WITH CITY ADMINISTRATION TO DEVELOP PROGRAM THAT MEETS CHAPTER 163 REQUIREMENTS FOR REDEVELOPMENT PURPOSES, IN RELATION TO SUPPORTING THIRD ANNUAL LUTHER CAMPBELL UMOJA CULTURAL, ARTS & MUSICAL FESTIVAL; DIRECT THAT NO CRA FUNDS BE EXPENDED OUTSIDE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI FOR THIS PURPOSE. Chairman Teele: All right. We have one other add -on, and that is -- City Manager's Office, where are you all? Karen. Board Member Sanchez: Thank you. Karen Cooper: Good evening. Karen Cooper, City Manager's Office. I am here to solicit your support for the 3Td Annual Luther Campbell Umoja Cultural Arts and Music Festival. This event will be held over the last weekend in May, which is also the Memorial Day holiday weekend. This festival provides the City with an opportunity to inject the redevelopment area with what I'm calling a B-12 shot, which I think is much needed. The event previously attracted some 200,000 multicultural and diverse locals and visitors to South Beach. This year Mr. Campbell wants to bring the event to the City of Miami. The event, it promises growth in commerce to the area. The Umoja Village is slated to be held on Sunday, May 30th, within the areas of the Lyric Theater and the 9th Street Mall. Local and international vendors will display and sell their original work and wares to festival goers. Other festival components include a football clinic and a youth rally, to be held at Charles Hadley Park. Chairman Teele: What do you want us to do? Ms. Cooper: I want to tell you the other venues and I want to ask for some in -kind support. Chairman Teele: Let me tell you what I think the motion should be. I think the motion should be to instruct the Executive Director to meet with you to develop a program that meets Chapter 163 requirements, and that is for the redevelopment purpose, with a resolution, et cetera. We've done this for the nightclubs for their music -- Winter Music Fest, et cetera, and, essentially, the restriction that I would ask is that no funds be expended outside of the City of Miami. In other words, the funds would be dollar for dollar from the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) to the City, for Police, Fire, et cetera, Solid Waste, clean up, et cetera, but no dollars going to the promoter, et cetera. Board Member Sanchez: I have a question. That's a very successful event in South Beach. Why is he leaving South Beach? Ms. Cooper: He doesn't feel welcomed by South Beach. Board Member Sanchez: Oh. Is he in good standing with South Beach? Ms. Cooper: Yes, he is. 25 March 29, 2004 Chairman Teele: They want it back. By the way, the event has normally also had County support, too. Ms. Cooper: Right. He's still working with the County, but I also. wanted to let you all know that he's planning a celebrity basketball game and a concert to be held at the Miami Arena, as well, and the proceeds from a golf tournament that he's having will also go to support the Overtown and Liberty City Optimist Clubs. Chairman Teele: Is there a motion? Board Member Sanchez: So move. Chairman Teele: Is there a second? Frank Rollason (Executive Director, CRA): Can I -- can I have a -- Chairman Teele: On the discussion. Board Member Sanchez: Discussion. Chairman Teele: Is there a second? Board Member Regalado: Second. Chairman Teele: For discussion. Mr. Rollason: For discussion. Is this event -- the portions that we're going to fund, take place within the CRA? Board Member Sanchez: It better. Chairman Teele: Only -- Board Member Regalado: 9th Street Mall and the -- Chairman Teele: The 91h Street Mall. Board Member Regalado: And the Lyric Theater. Ms. Cooper: Lyric Theater, 9th Street Mall -- Board Member Sanchez: The Chairman said it has to fall under 163. Mr. Rollason: The Lyric Theater's not going to be -- When is this event going to be, Karen? Chairman Teele: Chapter -- it must fall -- 26 March 29, 2004 Board Member Sanchez: It must be -- Chairman Teele: -- under Chapter 163. Board Member Sanchez: -- under Chapter 163. Mr. Rollason: But I'm saying when is the event going to be? May? Chairman Teele: Memorial Day weekend. Ms. Cooper: The last weekend in May, the Memorial Day holiday weekend. Mr. Rollason: And I don't think the theater's opening again until what, Dorothy? July? Dr. Dorothy Jenkins -Fields: End of the year. Mr. Rollason: End of the year. Board Member Regalado: No. But I think -- Mr. Rollason: All right. We'll work with them. Board Member Regalado: I think that what they mean -- Mr. Rollason: We'll work with them. Board Member Regalado: -- is the area adjacent to -- Ms. Cooper: Exactly. Board Member Regalado: -- the Lyric Theater. Ms. Cooper: Correct. Mr. Rollason: OK. Board Member Regalado: The Lyric Theater mentioned was for location. Chairman Teele: Look, the thing is we're talking about generating two hundred to four hundred thousand people. Lyric Theater capacity is how many people? Huh? 450, so I mean, the Lyric Theater would be great if it's open and all that, but it really would be no more than a VIP (Very Important Person) area, and maybe something like that. Board Member Regalado: I mean, that depends if -- 27 March 29, 2004 • • Chairman Teele: We have a motion and a second. Further discussion? And also to bring that back -- since the time is late -- to bring that back at the special meeting that we have, because we need to develop that plan along with the budget. All right? Mr. Rollason: Do we want to put a dollar amount that we're shooting for or look at the budget -- Chairman Teele: No. I think y' all ought to work with the Manager -- Mr. Rollason: OK. Chairman Teele: -- and come back to us. All in favor of the motion, say "aye." The Board Members (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: All opposed? The following motion was introduced by Board Member Sanchez, who moved its adoption: SEOPW/CRA MOTION NO. 04-24 A MOTION INSTRUCTING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO MEET WITH THE CITY ADMINISTRATION TO DEVELOP A PROGRAM THAT MEETS CHAPTER 163 REQUIREMENTS FOR REDEVELOPMENT PURPOSES, IN RELATION TO SUPPORTING THE THIRD ANNUAL LUTHER CAMPBELL UMOJA CULTURAL, ARTS & MUSICAL FESTIVAL, WHICH IS . SCHEDULED TO BE HELD IN THE CITY OF MIAMI DURING THE MEMORIAL DAY HOLIDAY WEEKEND; FURTHER DIRECTING THAT NO CRA FUNDS BE EXPENDED OUTSIDE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI FOR THIS PURPOSE. Upon being seconded by Board Member Regalado, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Board Member Tomas Regalado Board Member Joe Sanchez NAYS: None ABSENT: Board Member Angel Gonzalez Chairman Teele: All right. Thank you so much. Ms. Cooper: Thank you. 28 March 29, 2004 9. BRIEF DISCUSSION FROM PUBLIC REGARDING PROBLEMS THAT CONTINUE TO PLAGUE OVERTOWN AREA. Chairman Teele: We're about to lose the quorum. I'm concerned. All right. Ma'am, did you want to be heard on something? Rosa Green: Yes, just briefly. Chairman Teele: Your name for the record. Ms. Green: Rosa Green, 415 Northwest 6th Street. I don't want to knock that event, but I do want to mention the historic preservation, and I'm very glad that Ms. Eaton is here today because it -- you don't want to make it a black and white thing, but it seems awful strange to me that everybody can pull permits and get things done until it come to Overtown, and I'm very interested and I'm surprised that people who said they want to see Overtown come back again are not here to help me out, you know, because I'll come down here and talk to you guys, and hopefully get things done, and then somebody else will be on the photo shoot, not that I really want to be in one, but this is the way things happen. I want to say -- because Dana Dorsey -- nobody talks about that library. What's the story on that? Chairman Teele: The library is outside of the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) area. It's outside of the Chap -- I'll bring it up at the next City Commission meeting. Ms. Green: OK, but then I just can't understand why we can't get things done in Overtown. I ride around everyday, and in every community, I see structures, buildings, high-rises going up, but when it comes to Overtown, we're the forgotten people, and I just want you to know that everybody in Overtown are not stupid, you know. I mean, we -- it's just totally unacceptable. Every time I come here, there's excuses over here, and Commissioner Regalado will make good points and Mr. Sanchez, and also, you, Commissioner Teele, but we don't see anything done. Chairman Teele: Ms. Green -- Ms. Green: Please. Chairman Teele: Ms. Green, your instincts are right, and unfortunately, having served in a lot of governments, I will tell you, I've never seen what goes on in Miami anywhere in the world. Ms. Green: That's right. Chairman Teele: This is -- it's no accident, so let's just move on and keep fighting through this. Ms. Green: But how long? Chairman Teele: Well -- 29 March 29, 2004 • • Ms. Green: And then MMAP (Metro -Miami Action Plan) gave them a lot of money. It look like they should be finished now. That whole building should have been redone. Chairman Teele: It hasn't even been started. Let's go on to the next thing and the last thing -- Ms. Green: Thank you. Chairman Teele: -- that's on the agenda. 31 March 29, 2004 10. BRIEF DISCUSSION CONCERNING 2004 SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST REDEVELOPMENT PLAN. Chairman Teele: We're going to lose the quorum. This is going to take some time. I don't propose to vote on this resolution, in that Commissioner Winton and Commissioner Sanchez are not here. In any event, I think, you know, when you start talking about taking a master plan, you really need to have more consensus, so we will treat this to the point that Commissioner Sanchez is here as a meeting, and when he leaves, we will continue -- Board Member Sanchez: Why don't we defer it? Chairman Teele: -- as a workshop. I think we ought to have at it, but understand that you're going to make the presentation again. Board Member Sanchez: You're going to have to make the presentation again. I mean, two of the Commissioners -- two of the board members aren't here. Apologize for that, so - Chairman Teele: Please. Board Member Sanchez: I mean, I would -- Chairman Teele: Give us your name and address for the record, sir. Joseph Kohl: Joseph Kohl from Dover, Kohl & Partners. Board Member Sanchez: I would ask that this be deferred. So move. Chairman Teele: Well -- all right. Motion to defer is always in order, but this -- it's going to have to be given again, but what I would ask is that we will not instruct you to give it, but if you would like to give it to the public that has assembled, why don't we do that? Let that be just a public presentation. Mr. Kohl: That's fine with me. Chairman Teele: If that's all right with you. Mr. Kohl: Sure. Board Member Regalado: How long is it? Board Member Sanchez: I would like to defer the item. Mr. Kohl: Probably 15, 20 minutes. I was trying to make it very short. Chairman Teele: All right. No legis -- 32 March 20, 2004 Board Member Regalado: Mr. Chairman, I'll stay. I'll see it. Board Member Sanchez: I've got another meeting Chairman Teele: The CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) meeting stands adjourned and we will now have a public hearing presentation. 33 March 29, 2004 • • 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 6:14 p.m. ATTEST: PRISCILLA A. THOMPSON, City Clerk SYLVIA SCHEIDER, Assistant City Clerk 01,,, lactat lot to • * i U 6� ARTHUR E. TEELE, JR., Chairman 34 March 29, 2004 0 • RECEIPT DATE : April 15, 2004 SUBJECT: Marked Agenda and Clerk's Report for the March 29, 2004 CRA Meeting. Received MAYOR DIAZ CHAIRMAN TEELE VICE-CHAIRMAN WINTON COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ COMMISSIONER REGALADO COMMISSIONER SANCHEZ CITY MANAGER