Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEOPW-OMNI-CRA 2004-07-08 MinutesM CITY OF MIAMI CRA MEETING MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON JULY 8, 2004 PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK/CITY HALL Priscilla A. Thompson/City Clerk 6 , LFA Board Member Regalado: We'll do CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) now? Chairman Teele: The pleasure is up to Commissioner Gonzalez. What would you like to take next, Commissioner? Board Member Gonzalez: You want to take the CRA? Let's do the CRA. Chairman Teele: I would love to take the CRA. Board Member Gonzalez: Let's do it. Board Member Regalado: Yeah, we have some people here. Chairman Teele: All right. Mr. Rollason, could you take something, please? Counsel. We -- the Commission meeting of July 8ch is recessed for 15 minutes. We're not going to stay on any of these items longer than 15 minutes. Mr. Manager -- Mr. Director, have you passed out a list of the agenda for everybody, and a revised agenda? We have three special CRA meetings, as I read this order of the day. The first one is -- Frank. Vice Chairman Winton: It's all supplemental, right? Frank Rollason (Executive Director, CRA): Yes, sir. The first item that we're going to deal with is the settlement issue that came up at the last CRA Board meeting, and was deferred, and was requested by the board to have a special meeting dealing on that issue. What I've got up here for the public, is I've got the agenda items, and they're certainly welcome to come up here and help themselves, and get a copy of that. There just wasn't a place to display them out in the front. There's no table any more. Chairman Teele: All right. Is the attorney -- who's the attorney that's going to explain what's going on here? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Which one is this one? Chairman Teele: All right. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Cadd? Chairman Teele: All right. Mr. Attorney, we're waiting on you, sir. Welcome to the main chair. Charles Mays: Thank you. Charles Mays, Assistant City Attorney. Chairman Teele: You're not on. Mr. Rollason: You've got to push that button. 1 July 8, 2004 Mr. Mays: Thank you. Charles Mays, Assistant City Attorney. We have investigated the claim that has been made and asserted by Civil Cadd and, as a consequence of this investigation, the Law Department has concluded that it is in the best interest of the City and the CRA to settle the lawsuit and, therefore, we'd recommend that the CRA approve the settlement in the amount of $70,000. Chairman Teele: All right. Board Member Gonzalez: All right. Chairman Teele: Does the settlement include the return of all CRA property, records and documents? Mr. Mays: We have all of the property and documents. Yes, we do. Chairman Teele: Does the settlement require that all property of the CRA be returned, and all original documents? Mr. Mays: Yes, sir. Chairman Teele: Is there a motion? Board Member Sanchez: Mr. Chairman -- Board Member Regalado: I move to approve. Board Member Sanchez: -- I have a question. Chairman Teele: Motion to approve. Is there a second? Board Member Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Teele: Discussion. Board Member Sanchez: Discussion. Mr. Executive Director, were you able to use those documents or drawings to build anything, or do something? Mr. Rollason: The documents that we originally had in question, which were the three on the three Overtown projects -- Board Member Sanchez: I'm very aware, yeah. Mr. Rollason: So we can clarify, because there were other documents, studies and so forth. There were documents that they did concerning the baseball stadium; that those documents were used by the CRA, and used by the City Commission on items that they presented, so there were 2 July 8, 2004 %. , ., .14 documents they provided that were used. Those three particular items were not -- number one, were not provided in a timely fashion for me to be able to go forward with them, and when we -- Board Member Sanchez: So they were late? They provided the documents late. Mr. Rollason: I got copies of documents late. We found one set in the building when we moved. A couple of sets were delivered to us not by Civil Cadd, but by an individual who, after we talked to Civil Cadd, Civil Cadd told us that that individual did not represent them, and that they just go those records out of trying to help things out and brought records to us. Civil Cadd, on the record, would never say that the records that were delivered to us were delivered to us on behalf of Civil Cadd. In the meantime, if you will recall, to move those projects forward, I brought to the board with the position that we abandon that portion of the Civil Cadd items because of the lawsuits and the countersuit, and we go ahead and we do the plans separately, which we have done, and those projects are moving forward under the new sets of plans. Board Member Sanchez: Frank, you were not the Executive Director at that time. But, you did happen to see those plans, didn't you? Mr. Rollason: Did I see the plans? Board Member Sanchez: Yes. Mr. Rollason: I saw them at Civil Cadd, yes. Board Member Sanchez: How would you classify them as with a -- were they shabby? Were they -- Mr. Rollason: I mean, they looked like a set of professional plans that were signed and sealed. I mean, I'm certainly not an expert to determine what the value of them was. We had our engineers go up and look at them, and Chuck Deeb is here from H.J. Ross, if you want to try to get a more professional opinion on what he evaluated. Board Member Sanchez: Well, it's my understanding that the plans were inaccurate. Chairman Teele: Well, I think we ought to get Chuck Deeb up here and get the record. Board Member Sanchez: Well, somebody needs to be, because if I'm going to vote for this -- and I know I'm one vote -- I am very concerned and very disturbed that we're paying for bad quality of work and, in the private sector, if someone did plans for me that weren't acceptable to me, or didn't meet my standards, I wouldn't be paying for it, so did you see those plans, sir? Chuck Deeb: Yes, sir. Chuck Deeb with H.J. Ross Associates, consultants to the CRA, and we looked at the plans, and the original plans that had the stamps, as they had gone to the Building Department. Well, the issue that came up was the plans were done prior to the new building code, and the new Florida Building Code came into effect, in effect, voided all those plans that were done prior to the code revision. 3 July 8, 2004 4 M Board Member Sanchez: So it's your testimony that it's not the fault of the company then? Mr. Deeb: Correct. Chairman Teele: Well, the question is: Were the plans shabby? Mr. Deeb: I wouldn't say shabby, but -- Board Member Sanchez: You need to state that -- Mr. Deeb: -- our engineers and architects in our firm looked at, and they felt there were substantial issues that needed to be -- Board Member Sanchez: Well, sir, you need to put that on the record, all right. Mr. Deeb: Correct. Board Member Sanchez: That's what I'm looking for here. Mr. Deeb: Right. Other issues other than the code things that our engineers' interpretation was needed to be done differently -- Board Member Sanchez: Whoever looked at the plans, were they satisfied with the work, or not satisfied with the work? Very simple question. Mr. Deeb: No, they weren't. Board Member Sanchez: They were not? Thank you. Chairman Teele: All right. Vice Chairman Winton: What -- Chairman Teele: So -- Vice Chairman Winton: I'm sorry. Chairman Teele: Look, if the recommendation is to settle, we can settle. If you want -- Commissioner, if you want to take this matter to court and do it that way -- I mean, you know, I think we ought to try to move on, whatever it is, but we ought to make a decision. Board Member Sanchez: Commissioner Teele, I -- my concern here is that, you know, whether we take it to court, I don't feel comfortable paying someone who did a poor job for the CRA. I mean, we're paying them $70,000. I mean, I just don't feel right, especially the things that have 4 July 8, 2004 N, .or gone on in the CRA, and this is one company that provided service to the CRA, and it was my understanding that the work wasn't quality work, so why should we pay them? Chairman Teele: Well, I -- Board Member Sanchez: And now I'm being told -- I'm just one vote here, you know. It could be four to one, but I'm certainly not going to pay them. Vice Chairman Winton: What was the original amount of the invoice? Board Member Sanchez: Not on the statements that have been made today and on the statements that have been circulated. Chairman Teele: Commissioner Winton has a question. Vice Chairman Winton: What was the invoice amount for that job? Mr. Mays: The original invoice amount was around $94,000 and change. That was compromised to $70,000. Vice Chairman Winton: Through the negotiation? Mr. Mays: Through the negotiation process. Chairman Teele: Are you -- have you heard anything to change your recommendation to us, Mr. Attorney? Mr. Mays: No, sir. I have not. I went into this lawsuit from the standpoint of looking for ways of defeating it, and to be quite candid with you, it is my professional judgment and the judgment of my colleagues that the best way to resolve this matter, and the best thing for the City and the CRA, is to settle. Chairman Teele: All right. Further discussion. Madam Clerk, call the roll. Priscilla Thompson (City Clerk): Roll call. Commissioner Regalado? Board Member Regalado: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Board Member Winton? Vice Chairman Winton: I don't know. This gives me such great heartburn because I'm the one that said -- you know, I raised this whole issue about Civil Cadd, said we ought to be suing them. I mean, if there was -- it's just a shame there's nobody here to fire, but if we go into a lawsuit -- what's it going to cost us to prosecute this suit? Chairman Teele: Nothing. 5 July 8, 2004 Im Vice Chairman Winton: Well -- Board Member Sanchez: In-house. Vice Chairman Winton: It's real money, but -- Board Member Sanchez: Settle. Chairman Teele: The question is, what's the exposure of the body if you lose? Vice Chairman Winton: Yeah. Mr. Mays: The -- Vice Chairman Winton: OK, that's the question. Mr. Mays: The total exposure, if I may, would be in addition to the amount of money that was originally invoiced and amount of money that we didn't object to through the various and successive directives that we had, and an issue arises as to whether or not latches applies to that. That is, to say it's a legal doctrine that indicates that because you didn't object in a timely manner, you'll, therefore, waive the objection. In addition to those matters, we would also be looking at attorneys' fees, perhaps, under Chapter 57, which is a statute that provides that in the event that the court were to conclude that a defense that was in oppose was frivolous, otherwise based upon something that didn't really exist, then the court is authorized to award attorneys' fees, so the real exposure here is not so much the damages, if you will, from the standpoint of the invoices, that is to say, above and beyond that which was negotiated but, more importantly, the attorneys' fees aspect. Commissioner Winton: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Board Member Gonzalez? Board Member Gonzalez: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Board Member Sanchez? Board Member Sanchez: No. Ms. Thompson: Chairman Teele? Chairman Teele: Yes. Item is adopted 4 to 1. 6 July 8, 2004 M The following resolution was introduced by Board Member Regalado, who moved for its adoption: SEOPW/CRA RESOLUTION NO. 04-64 OMNI/CRA RESOLUTION NO. 04-36 A JOINT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) TO PAY CIVIL- CADD ENGINEERING, INC., THE SUM OF $70,000, IN FULL AND COMPLETE SETTLEMENT OF ANY AND ALL CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE CRA FOR THE CASE CIVIL-CADD ENGINEERING, INC., V. SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND OMNI COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, CASE NO. 03-11455 CA-02, UPON THE EXECUTION OF A GENERAL RELEASE FOR THE CRAS, AND THEIR PRESENT AND FORMER OFFICERS, AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES FROM ANY AND ALL CLAIMS AND DEMANDS; FUNDS TO BE ALLOCATED AS FOLLOWS: $63,000 FROM SEOPW TAX INCREMENT FUND, "PROFESSIONAL SERVICES — OTHER," ACCOUNT CODE NO. 689001.550108.6.270, AND $7,000 FROM OMNI TAX INCREMENT FUND, - "PROFESSIONAL SERVICES — OTHER," ACCOUNT CODE NO. 686001.590320.6.270. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Board Member Gonzalez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Board Member Angel Gonzalez Board Member Tomas Regalado NAYS: Board Member Joe Sanchez ABSENT: None Chairman Teele: The second CRA Board -- the first special meeting is adjourned. 7 July 8, 2004 Chairman Teele: The second CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) Board meeting is called to order. Mr. Director. Frank Rollason (Executive Director, CRA): Yes, sir. This is the issue that came as a result of the sunshine meeting dealing with Camillus House, and the direction from the Chair to -- for the staff to put together a resolution, which basically instructs me to work with the City Manager, and it also instructs general counsel to hire special counsel, as necessary, to -- with the objective of looking at having Camillus House remain on site where it is, and to explore all possible ways, including the use of eminent domain, to obtain the property, to keep Camillus House there, and allow Camillus House to have the space necessary to expand into the programs that they deem necessary to resolve the homeless issues of the situation that we have on the street now -- with everybody on the street -- to be able to contain it within a compound type of a thing. That's what this -- Chairman Teele: With all due respect, I respect you, Frank, but that is totally not the context of this resolution. The context of this resolution is we are studying whether or not to put the Camillus House in a new location relating to the DOT (Department of Transportation) right-of- ways -- land between I-95 and 7th Avenue, right on the fringe of my district and right on the fringe of Angel's district -- Gonzalez' district, in the locations that have been previously discussed. There was a long, long two-hour -- hour and a half meeting in which -- there was a sunshine law meeting in which Commissioner Gonzalez made presentations, and caused the Camillus House to make presentations, in which Commissioner Regalado, as the Commission Chairman of the Homeless Committee, sat in and participated. There were three of us there; sunshine law meeting with the recorders going. There was a lot of discussion about -- 90 percent of the discussion was about relocating it. Ten percent of the discussion was about retaining it where it is, and in the context of have we explored all options before we move forward with moving it, let us look at this option. It was not as stated, that this is what we're looking at doing. It was in the context of providing the district Commissioners and the CRA, and the City Commission all available options. Commissioner Regalado: And, remember, there was also your motion -- well, not -- Chairman Teele: No, no. We didn't -- there were no motions in that meeting. Commissioner Regalado: There was also your intended motion for today to ask the Board of County Commissioners to place in the GO (General Obligation) Bond some certain monies to -- Chairman Teele: I don't want -- I said they should do that. I don't want to interfere with that GO Bond thing -- Commissioner Regalado: OK. Chairman Teele: -- because they've got enough -- if they're not smart enough to figure out what everybody else can figure out -- and that is the culture museums, which we all support -- I support. Let me put it that way. That was a context of a conversation, and the historic preservation, which is one ballot question, is going to go down in a flaming defeat, in all 1 July 8, 2004 probability, if they don't have something that the public can identify with, and I recommended that the Manager try to get to the County and, primarily, to the museums, and say, look, give up $20,000,000 of the -- what is it, 210 or $240,000,000, give up $20,000,000, and put the Camillus House -- funding for a new Camillus House in the GO bond issue so that the ballot question would be historic preservation, culture and homeless facilities, you know, which everybody wants to have a solution for, as long as it's not in their community, so I just wanted to make sure, Commissioner Winton, that you don't take the notion -- and the record will speak for itself -- that we are talking about doing this. We're looking at looking at the option and the feasibility of whether or not it works, as opposed to moving, and looking at the option of moving as an option which 90 percent of the discussion was about. We talked about having a police station in Allapattah, or a police precinct kind of thing in Allapattah, and one in Overtown, on either side of 17th Avenue. In fact, Commissioner Gonzalez set forth a full mitigation plan -- full, for his district -- of things that he would like to have considered, and I told him that I'd like to catch up with him on that, as well, but I really don't want -- because you weren't there -- for anything to imply that this is about keeping it there. It's about looking at the option as to whether or not it should be there. Commissioner Winton: Well, I think you will all remember that on no fewer than two, maybe on three occasions, I've said publicly that if there was a way to keep Camillus House right where it is, I'd vote to do that, and I meant that from day one. I mean it today, because if I can support the concept of a new Camillus House that's about curing homeless in your district, or in your district, I can damn sure support it in my district, and I would absolutely do that, and if there is a way to get the land mass that they need to do the job that they need, not to create this -- to keep this damn awful feeding deal that they've got, but a real program that they've outlined for us, that I'm hugely supportive of. If they could -- if there was a way we could help them to get the land mass they need right there in that area, which is 100 percent in my district, I would vote hands down to do that. Chairman Teele: God bless you. You're the first person I've heard say anything like that since I've been in public office. Everybody wants to help the homeless, but they want to help them somewhere else. Commissioner Winton: I'm telling you. If I didn't believe that they were doing the right thing, then I wouldn't be voting to move it, at all. What I see their plan being, I think is an outstanding plan that's going to be of great benefit to this entire City, and I'm not afraid to keep them in my district, at all, but they have to have enough land to do the real job. They can't have half the land and do half the job. Commissioner Regalado: But I think that Commissioner Teele, at that meeting, had some ideas about acquiring land through the CRA. Chairman Teele: And that was what this study is going to do, using special counsel or counsel that has been involved in this, and doesn't have conflict; that can basically look at all of the area around there and make some judgments, do some economics, and it required that the Executive Director work with the City Manager and his staff, which means I would expect that Economic 2 July 8, 2004 Development would be involved, and Planning would be involved, and all of that, and to look at the option, and to try to get it back to us -- Commissioner Winton: You have no quarrel from me at all. Chairman Teele: Commissioner, you are absolutely a man who puts your money where your mouth is. I have met -- I have worked with a lot of Commissioners. Everybody wants to solve the homeless problem, but they don't want to solve it in their area, or have their area be a part of that solution. Commissioner Winton: My area is the problem right now. If I can get it solved in my area, everybody wins. Commissioner Gonzalez: All right, Mr. Chairman. Want me to read the resolution? Commissioner Winton: So -- Chairman Teele: No, we don't need to read it. All right. We have a motion and a second. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Chairman Teele: Moved by Commissioner Gonzalez. Commissioner Gonzalez: Move -- yeah. Chairman Teele: Seconded by Commissioner Sanchez. Is there discussion or debate? Madam Clerk, before we vote, I'm going to request that you provide a written verbatim transcript of the sunshine law meeting, and make it available to the -- Commissioner Winton and Commissioner Sanchez -- Vice Chairman Sanchez and the public, so that that can be very clear as to what it was, and thank you again for your professionalism, Commissioner. Anybody else would have been upset. Why are you studying in my -- Commissioner Winton: I don't think it's a bad plan. I mean, it's -- listen, if it was -- you guys -- you all know I'm not afraid to debate up here, at all, and you will always hear my point. This is not an irrational thought. It's not an irrational plan. I can't -- I mean, there's nothing for me to argue about here. I -- and I've -- and like I've said, I've said it before. I've said it at least three times on the record that if we could figure out a way to keep it right where it is, I would vote to do that, and so, here's a way to properly review and determine the feasibility of doing precisely that and, at the end of the day, we're going to make some decisions. If we can do it, I'm going to support it hugely. Chairman Teele: Further discussion. Madam Clerk, call the roll. Priscilla Thompson (City Clerk): Roll call. Chairman Teele: No. I'm sorry. All those in favor, say "aye." July 8, 2004 The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: All opposed have the same right. The item is unanimously adopted. The following resolution was introduced by Board Member Gonzalez, who moved for its adoption: SEOPW/CRA RESOLUTION NO. 04-65 OMNUCRA RESOLUTION NO.04-37 A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARKWEST AND OMNI REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES ("CRAS") DIRECTING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO COLLABORATE WITH THE MIAMI CITY MANAGER AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE CAMILLUS HOUSE SHELTER (THE "FACILITY") TO EXPLORE AVAILABLE OPTIONS FOR THE PROVISION OF EXPANDED SERVICES TO ASSIST THE HOMELESS POPULATION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, WITH EMPHASIS ON THE PRACTICALITY OF EXPANDING THE EXISTING DOWNTOWN MIAMI FACILITY AT 726 NORTHEAST 1 OF LAND ABUTTING AND/OR ADJACENT TO OR IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF THE FACILITY, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN PROVISIONS, PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 163,17F.S. (2004), FOR SUCH EXPANSION. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Board Member Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Board Member Angel Gonzalez Board Member Tomas Regalado Board Member Joe Sanchez NAYS: None ABSENT: None Chairman Teele: And the second special CRA meeting is adjourned. 4 July 8, 2004 Chairman Teele: The third CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) meeting, special meeting, which was called as a result of a discussion -- I guess, a pre -bid conference, at the request of the Executive Director, to get some direction and guidance on a matter that has just come up. Mr. Director. Frank Rollason (Executive Director, CRA): That is correct. We had the pre -bid conference yesterday for Block 36. The day before, we received a letter from the Black Archives Historic -- History and Research Foundation of South Florida, in which they requested a minimum of a 30- day extension, or more than that, if they could have the 30 days hooked to the July 16th date of when the bids are due, and we brought this issue before the board to make a decision on how to go forward. Board Member Sanchez: What's your recommendation? Mr. Rollason: The recommendation -- my recommendation is that we -- and I've said this on record at the meeting -- is that we go forward with the RFP (Request for Proposals) as it is, based upon the arguments that were put to me from the Black Archives. However, I forwarded the information right away to all the members of the board and to the Chairman. The Chairman made the call for this meeting for you all to discuss it. Board Member Sanchez: What does the delay do? Mr. Rollason: Well, I think there's some issues about -- and I think general counsel needs to speak to that about what the options that you really have. Board Member Sanchez: You need to put everything -- Mr. Rollason: They request a delay. Board Member Sanchez: Well, you need to put everything on the table. Mr. Rollason: OK. Maria J. Chiaro (Interim City Attorney): Pursuant to the language in the Statute, the CRA may -- you have two options here. One is not a delay. You either need to throw out the RFPs or continue with the date due. Start again or continue the way you have it on track. You can't extend the deadline. Board Member Sanchez: So you cannot extend the deadline? Ms. Chiaro: That's correct. Board Member Sanchez: Either you throw it out and you start all over again. You cannot extend the deadline? 1 July 8, 2004 ,% . �;"'_ Chairman Teele: Let me -- I just -- look, Chapter 163 is very clear, and nobody will say the whole deal here. Chapter 163 simply states that when you have an RFP in the manner in which we have this RFP, you must issue an RFP and it shall be for 30 days -- that's the issue -- shall be for 30 days. OK, so most lawyers have opined -- I would assume -- that -- and I would like to get a written ruling from the attorney -- most lawyers have opined over the state that the way to cure this issue is, you cancel the RFP -- Board Member Sanchez: And rebid it. Chairman Teele: -- and rebid it on the same day, because most bids that go out have 90-day windows. Now, I'm not for it or against it. I think we ought to hear from the public, but this is the reality of the window. If we cancel the bid tonight and order them to reissue it tomorrow, OK, or to reissue it immediately -- today is what, the 9ch or the 8th? Board Member Gonzalez: The 8th Chairman Teele: Today is the 8th. It means that the bids, theoretically, are going to come back -- let's say it takes five days for government to get anything done, so let's say that they get them out by next Monday. What's next Monday? Vice Chairman Winton: 12th Chairman Teele: The 12th. Thirty days later is August 12th Board Member Sanchez: No, it's not. Chairman Teele: Yes, it is. Vice Chairman Winton: Monday's the 12th, because the 13th, I'm having surgery, so I -- and that's Tuesday. Board Member Sanchez: Monday's the 12th? Chairman Teele: Monday is the 12th Vice Chairman Winton: Yeah. Chairman Teele: Just follow the logic, though. Monday is the 12th of July. If they get it out by Monday -- and I'm saying if -- then the bids will be due back on August the 12th. We ain't going to do anything anyway between now and when the bids are due back. In other words, right now the RFP says the bids are due back when? Mr. Rollason: July 16th Chairman Teele: July 16th. We're not going to have time to act on that before September anyway so, you know, it's six on one and half a dozen on the other. The first time we can do 2 July 8, 2004 anything on this is the meeting in September, but I don't understand what -- why any people won't just say what the facts are. Vice Chairman Winton: Let me -- then let me say two things as relates to that because -- Madam City Attorney, if there is -- from a practical standpoint, if what Commissioner Teele says is factual, then I would support that. Here's the only problem I have -- but I would still support it in spite of my problem. Chairman Teele: I think we ought to hear from the public. I'm just -- I'm not -- Vice Chairman Winton: Well -- Chairman Teele: -- speaking in favor of it or not. I'm just giving you the time implications of what's really before us. Vice Chairman Winton: But I want to put this on the record. I'm very concerned about the Black Archives, and I'm very concerned -- this is the second time that representatives of Black Archives have been here have asked for defer and defer, and I don't know -- and there's a new reason for deferral, and so I'm not in favor of deferring just because the Black Archives wants another deferral. I won't support that, but I will support, out of just rational common sense, if we can't act on something anyway, then I don't care if there's a deferral that gives them more time to do whatever it is they need to do, so if there's a mechanism where that's allowable because the the practical effect is -- and I'm not going to fight somebody over something -- a practical effect is we're not going to be able to deal with this until September, so if there's a way that this can happen and we don't get a new delay, then I'm just going to lean back, swallow and forget about it. Board Member Sanchez: That's a good argument, but what is the reason why they're asking for the delay? Chairman Teele: And that's what we ought to open up and hear the public hearing right now. Board Member Sanchez: Exactly. Chairman Teele: Yeah, so why don't we have the people who are requesting the deferral, which is the Black Archives and, Commissioner, what you just said is not popular, but it's the truth, and what we did, as it related to St. John and filing the lawsuit because of the delays, was not popular but we wouldn't be here today doing this if we hadn't filed that lawsuit and you worked so hard to get that settlement. We have got to send the message to the community, the African -American community, as well as the other communities, that we have to move forward with these programs, and I fully support the message that you're sending. John Hall: Commissioner, my name is John Hall, 801 Brickell Avenue, Miami, Florida. I'm here on behalf of Dr. Dorothy Fields, the founder, and Minda Logan, the CEO (Chief Executive Officer), the Black Archives, the largest property owner on Block 36. We have no problem with changing the methodology from an extension to a re -advertising. There are four reasons that we July 8, 2004 have requested this change. The first is that the bidders' conference was held too late in the process — Chairman Teele: Why don't you wait until -- Mr. Hall: OK. Chairman Teele: -- Commissioner Sanchez is available, because -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: I'm sorry, sir. Mr. Hall: No problem. The first is that the bidders' conference was held too late in the process. It was held nine days from the due date. We believe that bidders' conferences are normally held in the middle of a bidding process, which will give bidders adequate time to respond to any new information that comes forth at the bidders' conference. We were aware of new information that we thought we'd get out of it because we had germane questions we were going to ask at the bidders' conference, which we did, and it was based on our due diligence during the process that we requested to know whether or not plans to widen 8th Street, which is currently underway by the Public Works Department, would affect the buildable boundaries, and we were informed that a 12 and a half linear foot dedication will reduce the boundaries of -- the buildable boundaries of Block 36, all along the southern corridor of Block 36. Chairman Teele: Is that reducing the advertised amount of land? Mr. Hall: No. It's reducing the buildable amount of land. Secondly, Public Works also requires the 25-foot dedication along the entire northern border of Block 36, which is along the 9th Street Mall. Neither of these issues were mentioned in the RFP. Now our architects who -- frankly, our architects' drawings were used and passed out at the bidders' conference, but our architects - - who are very familiar with this block -- are, to this moment, confused about exactly what is the buildable set of boundaries of Block 36, and we wanted them to be here today but, unfortunately, we only got four hours notice of this meeting and they had other meetings; they could not be here. Chairman Teele: Well, I'll tell you what we can do. We can wait until the next regular scheduled meeting, if you'd like. I don't think you should come in here complaining. I mean, you know, we're meeting so you can have your say. Mr. Hall: No. We're not -- we're not worried about them. Chairman Teele: Well, you just said something on the record that you shouldn't have said. Mr. Hall: Oh, I'm sorry. It was not to say that we think they should be here. We're just saying that they are more expert in defining these boundaries than we are. We're just reporting what they said. 4 July 8, 2004 Vice Chairman Winton: They got the same notice I got, because I was in Dallas until midnight last night. Mr. Hall: No, I understand. Vice Chairman Winton: So whatever notice they -- Mr. Hall: And I'm not complaining about the notice. I'm merely saying that, according to them, we think this takes 14,200 square feet off of the buildable parcel, which dramatically changes our development plan, and we, to this moment, are still not certain if that is exactly it. In response to our question at the bidders' conference yesterday, we received two separate and conflicting site plans. Now, since today, these -- the conflicts in these site plans have been explained to us, but we still do not think there's a clear RFP out there that defines for all bidders the same definable buildable boundaries. Chairman Teele: Did the subsequent explanation come in the form of an addendum? Mr. Hall: No. It came to me orally. Chairman Teele: Say again? Mr. Hall: It came to me orally, today. Chairman Teele: It came what? Board Member Sanchez: Orally. Mr. Hall: Orally. Vice Chairman Winton: How do you do that? Chairman Teele: You can't give one bidder information that you're not giving everybody. It's got to go out in the form of an addendum. Mr. Rollason: You're exactly correct, and it was given as an addendum, and he -- we explained it to him today, and now he understands the addendum that he was provided. Vice Chairman Winton: Wow. Mr. Hall: Well, I understand it orally, but I'm just saying that everyone else was passed out these two things, which are conflicting. My point is merely that -- and we've spoken -- we understand that the CRA's position is it's up to the bidder to figure out what the bound -- the buildable area is. It is out view, when 15 percent of land is being sold by a municipal government cannot be built upon, that is a major germane issue that the CRA should make clear to all bidders so that they aren't -- 5 July 8, 2004 Board Member Sanchez: It's made clear. Mr. Hall: -- guessing different amounts of buildable land, and we think the RFP should be issued in a clear way, where everybody is bidding with the same set of information. Vice Chairman Winton: Could we get a response from our legal counsel? William Bloom: William Bloom, Special Counsel to the CRA. What became very clear at the conference on yesterday was that Public Works plans to widen 8th Street and widen 9th Street. What the CRA did when they issued the RFP, they left it up to the developers to do their due diligence with respect to the property; that that had to -- they have to evaluate the issues with respect to replatting the property. They had to evaluate the issues with respect to utility availability. They had to evaluate the issues with respect to the impact of building close to the Metrorail line would have on the development. It was up to the respondents to go to Public Works and determine what, if any, potential widening streets would impact their project. It was the responsibility of the developers to go to transit to see what the requirements were with respect to the ability to build close to the Metrorail line; it was the responsibility of the developer to go to Public Works and investigate what utilities may have to be relocated. It was up to the developer to come up with his own plan for replatting the property. They were dealt with in the RFP. There were no changes. It was just clarifications from Public Works on what their plans were. At the conference, the Public Works made clear to everyone what a developer should have discovered doing their own due diligence, with respect to the requirement that 8th Street be widened, which would reduce the site by 12 and a half feet on the south side, and the widening of the 9th Street Mall would have taken 25 feet on the north side, but all the information was readily available and, from the CRA's perspective it was -- everybody was invited to investigate the project, make their determination, and then make a proposal. It wasn't for the CRA to do an investigation and tell all the developers what possible pitfalls they could come up with. Mr. Hall: If I may, Mr. Chairman? That's the reason we were there with those questions because, in our due diligence, we learned about these widenings. We asked the question at the meeting and, frankly, the Public Works representative at the meeting at that time was not sure what the boundaries were, and they said they would get back to us later with another drawing, which they said would be ready at 3 o'clock -- we didn't get it until today -- that, presumably, would tell us the answer to that question. Chairman Teele: Is that the County Public Works or the City Public Works? Mr. Hall: City Public Works and, to this day, what they gave us still doesn't answer the question. Chairman Teele: Was that given to you by addendum? Mr. Hall: It was available for pick up at the CRA, yes. Chairman Teele: Was it given -- Mr. Hall: I assume it's -- 6 July 8, 2004 -,..Oo Chairman Teele: How many addendums have been issued? Mr. Rollason: Four, and it was delivered by addendum. Mr. Bloom: And to further clarify, at the meeting, Public Works had a sketch -- it was handwritten -- that showed the amount of the takings proposed on 8th Street and on 9th Street. Mr. Hall: And that sketch was erroneous. Vice Chairman Winton: Could I -- Madam Attorney -- because I would rather not get into this debate. I'd rather deal with the practical consideration here. Can we do what Commissioner Teele has suggested right at the beginning, which was to -- Commissioner Teele, would you repeat that again? Board Member Sanchez: You would have to throw the bid out. Vice Chairman Winton: Huh? Board Member Sanchez: You would have to throw the bid out and start again. Vice Chairman Winton: No, no. He had a different -- Chairman Teele: No, no, no, no. You don't throw out a bid because you've not received anything. You throw out something when you've received it. You are not throwing out bids. You are canceling the bid and reissuing the RFP. Board Member Sanchez: But have you received anything? Mr. Bloom: No. Nothing is due, so all you would -- Chairman Teele: Nothing -- Board Member Sanchez: Oh, so no one's bidded (sic) on the -- Mr. Bloom: No one submitted anything. Board Member Sanchez: Oh, OK. Mr. Bloom: So all you're doing is canceling -- Board Member Sanchez: That answers one of the questions. Mr. Bloom: Right. Board Member Gonzalez: All right. 7 July 8, 2004 M Board Member Sanchez: Now, this is the second time that you asked for a deferral on the matter, correct? Mr. Hall: Right. That's correct. Board Member Sanchez: Let me look at all the angles here. Will you be applying for the bid? Mr. Hall: Yes. I mean, when I say "me," the Black Archives will be applying -- Board Member Sanchez: Yes. Mr. Hall: -- yes. Chairman Teele: I've yield -- Board Member Gonzalez: All right. Chairman Teele: -- the floor -- May I be recognized to make a motion? Board Member Gonzalez: Commissioner Teele. Chairman Teele: I move that the bids that are currently on the street be canceled, withdrawn; that the CRA staff is directed to have out a new bid, not later than 5 p.m. on Monday the 12`h, with -- inclusive of all of the addendums with clear clarification as it relates to all City and municipal matters to be fully clarified, all City and municipal matters to be fully clarified. So move. Board Member Sanchez: Second. Board Member Gonzalez: We have a motion and we have a second. Discussion. Chairman Teele: And -- Vice Chairman Winton: One discussion. I'm a little nervous about that piece about all, because here is the issue. If -- Chairman Teele: All known, all reasonable -- Vice Chairman Winton: Yeah. Chairman Teele: -- all -- Vice Chairman Winton: Yeah, something better. Chairman Teele: -- all normal and -- 8 July 8, 2004 Board Member Sanchez: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Vice Chairman Winton: Yeah, because we don't want this thing to get -- Chairman Teele: All normal, all reasonable, based upon due diligence, and I just want to explain. I don't think under the 163 process where a develop -- a redevelopment authority has, in this case, 15 years with this ownership of the property, for us not to have done our due diligence and, you know, we can give John King all the hell you want and he deserves some, but we need to be very clear that we should not be asking developers in the African -American community and trying to encourage African -American participation to go look under every rock and every cranny in the City. We ought to make it available to them, and in light of two things: In light of what just happened to Silver Bluff and in light of what 2°a Avenue looks like, as it relates to Public Works of the City of Miami, we need to hold them and the CRA to a higher standard within the redevelopment area, and I strongly believe that it's not fair, nor does it encourage small minority or African -Americans, in the case of Overtown, to even bid if you've got a 30-day window, and there's not a bid in the City that we put it out for 30 days. Let's be clear. There's not one bid in the City that we put out for 30 days of a major tract of land. The Watson Island thing was out for how long, nine months, six months? Vice Chairman Winton: At -- yeah, a long time. Chairman Teele: So I don't think we ought to have two standards here. We got to cut out this one standard for the Gucci developers and one standard in the minority community, and that is motion and that is why, and I'm calling the question. Board Member Gonzalez: All right. Mr. Rollason: Mr. Chairman. Board Member Gonzalez: We have -- Board Member Sanchez: Call the question. Board Member Gonzalez: Call the question. Chairman Teele: I'm calling the question. Board Member Sanchez: The question's been called. Board Member Gonzalez: All in favor, say "aye." The Board Members (Collectively): Aye. Board Member Gonzalez: All opposed, you have the same right. Motion carries unanimously. 9 July 8, 2004 M ZM The following motion was introduced by Chairman Teele, who moved for its adoption: SEOPW/CRA MOTION NO. 04-66 A MOTION INSTRUCTING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE CRA TO CANCEL/WITHDRAW THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) ISSUED FOR SEOPW/CRA BLOCK 36; FURTHER DIRECTING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO ISSUE A NEW RFP NO LATER THAN 5 P.M. ON MONDAY, JULY 12, 2004, INCLUSIVE OF ALL ADDENDA, WITH ALL REASONABLE KNOWN CITY AND MUNICIPAL MATTERS TO BE FULLY CLARIFIED. Upon being seconded by Board Member Sanchez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Board Member Angel Gonzalez Board Member Tomas Regalado Board Member Joe Sanchez NAYS: None ABSENT: None Chairman Teele: The meeting is -- Vice Chairman Winton: That's the first time I've ever heard the question called when it got called since I've been here. Board Member Sanchez: He's the chair. Chairman Teele: The meeting is about to be adjourned. Mr. Executive Director, is there anything you want to add for the record or for clarification? Vice Chairman Winton: No. Mr. Rollason: Well, I mean, it's been voted on so it's anticlimactic at this point. Chairman Teele: Well, it can be reconsidered if you've got something strong to say. Mr. Rollason: My request is that -- Vice Chairman Winton: He has -- 10 July 8, 2004 M Mr. Rollason: -- is that we -- when we look at Monday for this thing to go out -- Chairman Teele: That's what we said. Mr. Rollason: Right, and I'm saying that with the due diligence that you would like me to have in that package, with the ads that we have to get and tomorrow being Friday, I would say that -- Commissioner Winton: Wednesday. Mr. Rollason: -- give us next week and make it the following Monday to hit the street so that we put a package together that has a -- Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rollason: -- decent -- Vice Chairman Winton: That doesn't hurt anything. Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Gonzalez: Yes, Commissioner Teele. Chairman Teele: I move that the previous motion that has been adopted be amended to the CRA being given `til S p.m. on Monday the -- Board Member Gonzalez: 121h Chairman Teele: -- 19`h -- Board Member Sanchez: Second. Chairman Teele: -- the 19th be the issuance date -- Commissioner Winton: Yeah. Chairman Teele: -- with the bids being due in conformance with Chapter 163 within 30 days, and that the matter be presented to the CRA at the regular September board meeting, with a recommendation or an update. Board Member Gonzalez: OK. We have a motion and an amendment. All in favor, say "aye." The Board Members (Collectively): Aye. Board Member Gonzalez: All opposed? Motion carries. 11 July 8, 2004 The following motion was introduced by Chairman Teele, who moved for its adoption: SEOPW/CRA MOTION NO. 04-67 A MOTION AMENDING PREVIOUS SEOPW/CRA MOTION 04-66, BY EXTENDING THE DATE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE RFP FOR SEOPW/CRA BLOCK 36 TO 5 P.M. ON MONDAY, JULY 19, 2004. Upon being seconded by Board Member Sanchez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Board Member Angel Gonzalez Board Member Tomas Regalado Board Member Joe Sanchez NAYS: None ABSENT: None Chairman Teele: Thank you. Are there any other matters regarding the CRA? If not, the third CRA meeting is adjourned. Board Member Gonzalez: Meeting is adjourned. 12 July 8, 2004