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