HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2003-07-24 MinutesMINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
On the 24th day of July 2003, the City Commission of Miami, Florida, met at its regular
meeting place in the City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida, in regular session.
The meeting was called to order at 9:19 a.m. by Chairman Johnny L. Winton with the
following members of the Commission found to be present:
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez (District 1)
Chairman Johnny L. Winton (District 2)
Commissioner Joe Sanchez (District 3)
Commissioner Tomas Regalado (District 4)
ABSENT:
Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. (District 5)
ALSO PRESENT:
City Manager Joe Arriola
City Attorney Alejandro Vilarello
City Clerk Priscilla A. Thompson
Assistant City Clerk Sylvia Scheider
July 24, 2003
1. PRESENTATIONS & PROCLAMATIONS
Chairman Winton: I'd like to bring to order the City Commission meeting of July 24, 2003, and
welcome everyone in the audience, and good morning to all of you in the front row and everyone
else. Commissioner Regalado, would you lead us in -- with the invocation, and Commissioner
Gonzalez, the pledge, and I'm waiting on my jacket to return. I have not given up on it. Thank
you.
Invocation and pledge of allegiance delivered.
Chairman Winton: Thank you very much, and I guess -- let the record show that there were no
vetoes from the Mayor, and may that record show for this week, last week, the last time before
and the time before, all of the times that I've forgotten to do this. We also need a motion to pass
-- what -- let's see, what set of minutes do we have? We need a motion to accept the minutes
from the regular and PZ (Planning & Zoning) meeting of November 15, PZ meeting December
11, regular meeting December 13, and regular meeting January 10.
Commissioner Sanchez: So moved.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Second.
Chairman Winton: Got a motion and a second. Discussion. Being none, all in favor, "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. The motion carries. I think we'll now go to
proclamations and presentations.
2 July 24, 2003
Presentations made:
1. OUTSTANDING VISITING STUDENT AWARDS TO MIAMI-KAGOSHIMA SISTER
CITIES STUDENT EXCHANGE: AYA MIURA, AYAKA KIMURA, AKANE
SAKASEGAWA, SHIHO HARUGUCHI, FUMIYA SHINOHARA, NANA YONEMORI,
YUKI SONODA, KOICHI NAGASATO, SHUHEI KAWANO, AND MOTOHIRO OKADA.
2. CERTIFICATES OF APPRECIATION TO HOSTING FAMILIES MIAMI-KAGOSHIMA
SISTER CITIES STUDENT EXCHANGE: JIMMY AND ROCIO ROLAND, WENCESLAO
AND OLGA FERNANDEZ, KERRY AND NANCY HERNDON, JOSE AND ADA UGARTE,
ANDRE AND GRACIELA MOREJON, KEVIN AND VALERIE HURLEY, TORU AND
ELISA NINA, GRADY AND YAYOI NEALE, JEREMY AND SUSAN HART, DALE AND
NANCY QUARTIN, AND MR. AND MRS. RICHARD GOODMAN.
3. CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION TO "CHICKEN BUSTERS": PABLO CANTON,
BILL BORGES, ORLANDO DEL VALLE, CHIEF VIRGIL FERNANDEZ, LT. SETH EDGE,
LT. JOSE PAZ, OSVALDO IGLESIAS, NELSON RIVERA, AND MIKE TREBILCOCK.
4. SALUTE TO MARKY' S CAVIAR, LEADING IMPORPEXPORT OF FINE FOODS.
5. RECOGNIZE STANLEY LOWE AND MAC NICHOLAS FOR THEIR WORK ON
BEHALF OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
2. COMMENDATION TO CITY STAFF ON WELL -ORGANIZED FUNERAL
PROCEEDINGS FOR CELIA CRUZ.
Chairman Winton: I'm going to jump to personal appearances because I know we have at
least one of the individuals for a personal appearance. The first one on the list is actually Mr.
Mike Wilson from World-class & Associates. I don't know if he's in the audience. Mr.
Wilson, are you here? I don't believe he is, so we do have Ms. Karen Cartwright and she is
here to address the Commission. You're on. Welcome.
Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, before we do that --
Chairman Winton: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Sanchez: -- could I be recognized?
Chairman Winton: Yes, you may.
Chairman Winton: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, giving praise to our City employee, our Miami
Police Department, the Fire Department, and everyone who volunteered on the viewing for
Celia Cruz, which was an incredible event seen throughout the world, really showing what
Miami was truly all about, and I know that New York gave her an outstanding viewing also
and a beautiful mass. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Police Department, the
Fire Department, both the County also for working on this, because even though they had 48
3 July 24, 2003
hours to put this event, a lot of people worked very hard, and at the end of the day, I think
there was only one incident, just one minor incident, and really, you know, it showcases what
we are truly all about, and it really shows it on events like this that are (UNINTELLIGIBLE)
throughout the world, especially the Cuban community and the music industry. We were able
to show the world that, you know, we could unite and come together and put this event and
not have an incident, and the beauty of it was that we had flags from all over the world there,
and we had reporters from all over the world, and really, there was nothing that was out of
control. Everything was very organized. The line was long, and although I feel very sad that
a lot of people did two, three hour lines to get in, and at the end of the day, they weren't able to
get in. Still, you know, when you have an event of such a large magnitude and you have one
single incident, it's something that we should all be proud of, so I want to take this
opportunity, once again, to thank the Miami Police Department, the Fire Department, all the
volunteers who worked at that event for making it, first of all, a world-class event with a lot of
order and a lot of respect, so once again, it shows what Miami is truly all about. Thank you.
Chairman Winton: Thank you. Well put.
Commissioner Regalado: I want to just also congratulate the Fire and the Police Department,
especially Lieutenant Landa. He did an extraordinary job, and for the first time, I think it's
important that people know this. The police and the firemen went around the lines and they
were looking for disabled people, and those disabled people were taken on a separate express
line, and you know, so everybody was able to participate, so I also praise their work. Thank
you.
Chairman Winton: Thank you.
3. MS. KAREN CARTWRIGHT TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION CONCERNING
POLICE AND OTHER SERVICES IN OVERTOWN.
Chairman Winton: Ms. Cartwright, you're on.
Karen Cartwright: Good morning. My name is Karen Cartwright, and my address is 1770
Northwest 5th Avenue, Miami, Florida, 33136. Gentlemen, I have a laundry list. We have a
house, commonly known as the City of Miami, and it's entrusted to your care. Our house has a
lot of problems, most of them inherited. According to the City of Miami's organizational chart,
we, the residents, are your employers. I'm here to inform you, the caretakers, that services have
not and are not performed in a timely and professional manner. Too many excuses and
unprofessional remarks are being made when reminders are given. I'm still waiting for the report
I was supposed to receive when I last visited you. Mr. Frank Rollason was the only City
employee to respond to your request. On behalf of the Overtown community, I'm asking, why is
it, when a request for service is made, I'm asked for my group or business affiliation? When I
reply I'm a resident of Overtown, the common response is -- and I quote -- "Oh, you're only a
resident." My reply to that is, I am your employer and, in the future, do not forget it. CIP
(Capitol Improvement Program) -- and I'm taking them in alphabetical order, gentlemen.
4 July 24, 2003
Commissioner Sanchez: But, Ms. Cartwright, before you do that -- and you're going to go down
your list -- could you identify what the problems are?
Ms. Cartwright: Problems?
Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah, that you have concerns with so we could address them?
Ms. Cartwright: OK.
Commissioner Sanchez: Move on. I know you have several items that you want to go over, but
on the first item, which are the properties -- and I agree with you a hundred percent. If we are
the property owners, we have to set an example throughout our community to make sure that that
property -- how can we go out and cite people for code violations when the property belongs to
us?
Ms. Cartwright: I called about a property that is in Overtown and it was not taken care of --
Commissioner Sanchez: But which one is it? You don't have the name of it?
Ms. Cartwright: There's a whole list of them.
Commissioner Sanchez: Can you provide the City Manager with a list?
Ms. Cartwright: Yes, I will. I will.
Chairman Winton: And, by the way, us, as well, Karen. Provide us that list.
Ms. Cartwright: OK. Which department is responsible for hiring contractors? Why, when
contractors are hired, they're allowed to perform poorly and also allowed to walk away with our
monies, and apparently with no consequences? The William Park project was an enlightening
experience, and that was supposed to be 120 days, gentlemen. It is not finished yet.
Chairman Winton: And how long has it been going on?
Ms. Cartwright: Since September 4th of 2002. Code Enforcement is a toothless tiger. In
Overtown we have a huge problem with absentee landlords, and their representatives are allowed
many liberties by the Code Enforcement Board. Commissioners, you choose the members of
that board. Politically connected individuals or a friend of a friend do not serve our best interest.
Are the City members fit to pass judgment on others by complying with City codes themselves?
How long should a resident wait for a permit to remove a tree from his or her property? Put
some teeth in Code Enforcement. GSA (General Services Administration). Mr. Alex Martinez
and his staff responds promptly to requests for service and to date, I have no complaints. And I
want to thank him for him and his staff. I want to say thanks for that. Human Resources. I
would like this office to address the issue of women allegedly being subjected to invasive
medical tests prior to employment. And when questions are asked, they're told either they accept
the procedure or they can look for employment elsewhere. A suggestion. State your
5 July 24, 2003
requirements for complete physical and not have medical personnel randomly selecting
individuals to perform certain tests on. Can individuals, when hired, be informed in a timely
manner of their employment? The summer program was in session and individuals were still
inquiring of park managers as to their employment status. Commissioners, when are you going
to address the civil service problem? Because I've had people walk up to me and tell me that
they're civil service and there ain't a thing I can do for them. When I asked them why they don't
do their job -- why they're not performing their job, they say it's nothing they can do, so,
gentlemen, I'd like for you all to take care of that.
Commissioner Sanchez: I think Commissioner Winton will address that issue.
Chairman Winton: We actually have a new Charter Review Committee that I'm chairing, and
our very first meeting is in a couple of weeks, I believe, and the entire focus is Civil Service.
Ms. Cartwright: OK. The next one is Parks. Statements were made before and after former
Director of Parks and his assistant resigned, reference how inefficient the Parks and Recreation
Department was. To date, no one has been assigned to the position of assistant director. There is
enough work in that department for three, as the department functions seven days. Aren't we,
again, setting up ourselves for actual trouble? It's not like we don't have qualified individuals.
What happened? Bobby Starks retired, too, and no one told me. Parks operation, Mr. Raul
Garcia, the supervisor, also needs additional personnel so he can stop borrowing from Peter to
pay Paul, when his employees -- therefore, delaying work. Because I had some work in
Overtown -- in the Williams Park being done and he had to move his staff from Williams Park,
therefore, delaying the work because he had to send them to Margaret Pace. He had to send
them to some other place. That's not fair. Why are minimal fees being charged to private
organizations using our park facilities? Contracts with fees of one dollar ($1) do not cover the
cost of cleaning, maintenance and restoration of property used and abused. It is alleged that we
have contracts with private organizations for maintenance of some of our facilities. Why are we
paying monies when the operations Department of Parks is also being asked to do the
maintenance of the same properties due to poor service? We plant palm trees and we install sod,
but it's not being maintained by the Park personnel. In fact, some private organizations well
healed and connected individuals allow privileges; residents are not. The Parks real estate is for
the City of Miami residents, at large; yet, with -- yea, you give it away. Decisions are made and
plans implemented without a care to the residents' thoughts or feelings. I recall sitting on the
Overtown Advisory Board when the issue of the Winn Dixie land allocation at 11th Street and
Northwest 11th Avenue was being addressed. Now I see signs stating Allapattah Spring Gardens
District. Was this another prostitution of Overtown for funding? The Police Department. The
Miami Police Department is another area we have totally lost control. We have many competent
and qualified individuals who have been overlooked and denied promotions based on
administration's egos and personal bias. Nepotism is also being practiced in the Department.
The Department has had the same psychological team evaluating officers. Aren't they the same
team who gave us the Miami River Cops and all the other officers with questionable judgment?
If so, don't you think we should evaluate and reconsider our options? As recent as a year ago, I
recall officers who had to be reminded to renew their licenses or take care of their suspended
licenses. Meanwhile, they were driving and arresting civilians for the same infractions, traffic
violations for which they expect courtesy. Alleged sexual harassment on and off the job, no
6 July 24, 2003
consequences to the officers, but I'm sure we, the residents, paid. Excessive force used in arrests,
profanity and disrespect. No consequences. Inconclusive findings always, and another compact
way of saying, "The complainant's word against the officer's." Untruthfulness, creative writing,
a number of them should become writers of modern fiction. Some officers, especially the new
officers, that I have had contact with are discourteous, disrespectful and appear to be quite
attached to their cellular phones and their off-duty jobs. We have officers who only come for a
paycheck. Officers who really care about the people in this City are leaving in frustration.
Contrary to the statements made 7/22/03, yes, I think highly of Lieutenant George Gomez,
Officers Allan Davis, Anthony Ford and many, many others. And Chief, Commissioner Angel
Gonzalez is not the only Commissioner who would listen to me. Major McQueen, my name is
not Ms. Ann. I have never asked for and do not expect special treatment from anyone. All I
have ever asked --
Commissioner Gonzalez: Excuse me, ma'am.
Ms. Cartwright: Yes.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Could you repeat that? Because you mentioned my name.
Ms. Cartwright: Your name, yes.
Commissioner Gonzalez: What is it that happened?
Ms. Cartwright: A comment was made that the only person -- when I came here to complain
about the Police Department -- that would listen to me would be you.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Well, I -- I'm sure that more than -- at least I'm sure that at least
another Commissioner will listen to you and that's Commissioner Regalado.
Ms. Cartwright: OK.
Commissioner Gonzalez: And I'm sure that if Commissioner Arthur Teele were here, as a
representative of your district, he will also hear your complaint, but let me tell you. For the
record, it had been stated over and over and over disrespect of this department or the command
of this department toward the City elected officials, so, at this point, it doesn't bother me. You
know, I don't know --
Ms. Cartwright: It didn't bother --
Commissioner Gonzalez: -- which one of us is going to last longer in this City. But it's another
disrespect of the command of this department against an elected official, elected by the people of
the City of Miami, not a salary employee, and I don't know when some discipline is going to be
taken here.
Chairman Winton: Commissioner Gonzalez.
7 July 24, 2003
Commissioner Gonzalez: Mr. Manager, it's getting totally out of hand.
Chairman Winton: Commissioner Gonzalez.
Commissioner Gonzalez: The disrespect -- Johnny, you would not tolerate that.
Chairman Winton: I know, but --
Commissioner Gonzalez: You will not tolerate it.
Ms. Cartwright: Commissioner, let me -- please, let me finish.
Chairman Winton: We don't have -- we have a personal appearance that's stating some issues.
Ms. Cartwright: I have --
Chairman Winton: And that's all we know right now.
Ms. Cartwright: I have never asked for and do not expect special treatment from anyone. All I
have ever asked that the response to Overtown community be the same as everywhere else. I
also have the right to go and do my errands at any time I feel necessary, without an officer
stopping to ask me where I'm going. No one has the right to dictate my movements but me. I
have been warned by police officers that I can be set up by other officers and arrested. Mr.
Commissioners -- and I want to tell all of you all and everybody in this room -- if and when I
commit a crime, no one will have to look for me. I know where the State Attorney's Office is
located. To get -- Public Works. To get results, I email the director and asked him to expedite
my request for service. Mr. Charlie Brown, I don't like stall tactics. I am not rich or influential,
but I will -- I fight and I will fight for my community's needs. My -- Solid Waste. My request
for trash cans have been met with too many excuses. The latest insult was when I asked a
ranking employee, when can I expect some trash cans? His reply was, "If I didn't like the
services Overtown receives from his department, I should move." When I challenged the
statement, I was given the tried and true excuse, "He was only joking." I don't have a sense of
humor when it involves my community. Trashcan liners were and are needed for some cement
trash receptacles located at Northwest 19th Street and 4th Court, Northwest 17th Street, between
4th Avenue and 5th Avenue. To date I haven't seen one installed. This request is six years old.
Commissioners, what are your plans for the Overtown community? Rumor has it that it will
become a concrete jungle. Are the residents ever going to be afforded the courtesy of having
some say in where they live or is the phrase, "Eminent domain again the order of the day?"
Thank you.
Chairman Winton: Would you leave --
Commissioner Gonzalez: Thank you, ma'am.
Chairman Winton: -- a copy of that with the City Manager, Ms. Cartwright?
8 July 24, 2003
Ms. Cartwright: Yes.
Chairman Winton: Thank you.
4. DISCUSSION CONCERNING MATCHING FUNDS OF ST. JOHN LM.B.C.
Chairman Winton: OK. We have another personal appearance and that is from Mr. Mike
Wilson, World-class & Associates.
Mike Wilson: Good evening. It gives me great pleasure to be here today. It's an honor.
Gentlemen, I'm here before you for your support. The Overtown Assembly awarded World-
class & Associates $20,000 as a performance grant to pressure clean Poinciana Village, Town
Park Village, and St. John. I have a slight problem. With the agreement, I'm supposed to buy
equipment --
Chairman Winton: Have you met with the City Manager to talk about this?
Mr. Wilson: No.
Chairman Winton: Well, that's what you need to do, please. This -- we don't deal with the
contracts and whether you can perform or not perform; that's a responsibility of the City
Manager, not this Commission.
Mr. Wilson: OK. I have another issue, Town Park.
Chairman Winton: I'm sorry?
Mr. Wilson: Town Park.
Commissioner Sanchez: Town Park.
Chairman Winton: Who?
Mr. Wilson: Town Park Village.
Chairman Winton: OK.
Mr. Wilson: We are contracted to do Town Park, and we don't have the funding to -- well, it
needs painting, and maybe --
Chairman Winton: You need to meet with the City Manager. I mean, these aren't issues that
are policy issues that are going to be decided by this Commission, until they've been dealt with
by the Manager, so you all should have called him ahead of time -- I could have saved you a
lot of time -- to meet with the City Manager and find out what these issues are. If they're
issues that require action of this Commission, then he would bring it forward to the
Commission.
9 July 24, 2003
Mr. Wilson: OK.
Commissioner Regalado: Well, who placed it on the agenda?
Chairman Winton: Huh?
Commissioner Regalado: Who placed it in the agenda?
Chairman Winton: I have no -- well, because I think anybody that request -- it's my
understanding, anybody that request a personal appearance just gets a personal appearance,
and we need to start --
Commissioner Regalado: No.
Chairman Winton: -- asking more questions --
Commissioner Regalado: Johnny, remember --
Chairman Winton: -- about what the personal appearance is.
Commissioner Regalado: -- that a year or some ago, you said anybody who request a public
appearance has to first --
Chairman Winton: See the Manager.
Commissioner Regalado: -- meet with the staff, and then they come here.
Chairman Winton: Right.
Commissioner Regalado: I remember that.
Mr. Wilson: So, we can't --
Chairman Winton: So do I.
Mr. Wilson: -- make any comments on Town Park?
Chairman Winton: I'm sorry?
Mr. Wilson: Can we make a few --
Chairman Winton: No, because you need to see the Manager. There isn't anything we can or
are willing to do until we understand what the issues are that needs to go through the
Manager's Office, and then if there's a policy decision, that policy decision will come to us and
we will make a decision, one way or another.
10 July 24, 2003
Mr. Wilson: OK.
Chairman Winton: It may not require a policy decision. It may all get settled right there --
Mr. Wilson: OK.
Chairman Winton: -- but if there's a policy decision that has to come to us, we'll act on it, one
way or the other.
Mr. Wilson: OK.
Chairman Winton: That's the way it works.
Mr. Wilson: All right. Thank you. I'm sorry to --
Chairman Winton: But sorry --
Mr. Wilson: -- waste your time.
Chairman Winton: -- and I'm sorry to waste your time, too. I mean, I wish somebody would
have -- we could have saved you a trip down here this morning. You could have been out
doing --
Mr. Wilson: Well, I'm sorry I didn't do --
Chairman Winton: -- something that makes money.
Mr. Wilson: -- any PR (parks and recreation) work or should have, you know.
Chairman Winton: No problem. Thank you.
Mr. Wilson: Thank you.
Chairman Winton: Appreciate it.
Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Winton: Yes, sir.
Mr. Vilarello: The City Code provides that, as you indicated, any individual who wishes to
make a personal appearance can apply for the managers to place them on the agenda. Would
we like to codify the suggestion that first, they must meet with the Manager so the Manager
did bring back a recommendation?
Chairman Winton: Yes, absolutely.
11 July 24, 2003
Mr. Vilarello: I'll prepare an ordinance amendment to that effect.
Chairman Winton: Thank you very much.
5. DISCUSSION CONCERNING CHARRETTE IN OAKLAND GROVE
NEIGHBORHOOD.
Chairman Winton: OK. I think we have -- in the supplemental agenda, we have Bruce
Hammerstrom from the Oakland Grove Charrette, and I failed to mention, I got a memo from
Commissioner Teele earlier that informed us that he is going to be late; something else has
come up that was important, and unfortunately, he can't be here this morning. Yes, sir.
Bruce Hammerstrom: Good morning, Mr. Manager, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, ladies
and gentlemen. My name is Bruce Hammerstrom. I live at 8325 Northeast 3rd Avenue, in
Oakland Grove, Little River. I am here to present to you a petition signed by 123 people in
my neighborhood of Oakland Grove requesting a charrette from the City of Miami to finally
catch us up from the wonderful plans and things that were presented to us in 1975 in the City
work here that haven't been accomplished yet. Now, we're not here to make enemies or berate
anybody; we're here to please ask for your help. I brought with me some of our neighbors, if
you all would please stand, or at least wave, something. These people have made a point of
taking their time off work to be here to let you know that they're serious about this request.
Oakland Grove is a very proud little neighborhood that mostly does things for themselves. In
this instance, we need your help. Thank you very much.
Chairman Winton: Thank you, and I think, Bruce, also, you need to meet with the Manager
and run that request through the Manager's Office and he'll work it, figuring out what the next
steps are.
Mr. Hammerstrom: OK, yes, sir. I began with Commissioner Teele, but I'll certainly be glad
to meet with --
Chairman Winton: Great.
Mr. Hammerstrom: -- the Manager.
Chairman Winton: Thank you.
6. CONSENT AGENDA.
Chairman Winton: OK. Do we have any other -- are there other personal appearances that I'm
missing? OK, guess we can go to the --
Commissioner Sanchez: Consent agenda.
Chairman Winton: -- consent agenda.
12 July 24, 2003
Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Winton: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Regalado: I'd like to pull item CA.9 for discussion, just not deferral or anything;
for discussion.
Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Winton: So, let -- can we have discussion on CA.9? Yes, sir.
Commissioner Sanchez: Also CA.5 for discussion.
Chairman Winton: OK, CA.5 and 9 for discussion.
Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): With regard to CA.5, before the discussion, the name of the
company is Selectron Technologies, Inc. We'll have to amend the resolution to correct the name.
The correct name should be Selectron Technologies, Inc.
Chairman Winton: OK.
Commissioner Sanchez: That is one issue, but there are other issues I would like to discuss.
Chairman Winton: So, you want to address -- let's CA.5 and then -- what is yours, 8 or 9?
Commissioner Regalado: CA.9.
Chairman Winton: Nine. OK, CA.5 first.
Laura Billberry (Acting Director, Economic Development): If I could make a correction on the
record. Item CA.8, we had inadvertently --
Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): I'm sorry. We need your name --
Ms. Billberry: Sorry. Lori --
Ms. Thompson: -- for the record.
Ms. Billberry: -- Billberry, Economic Development. We had inadvertently miscalculated the
taxes, and the total credit is approximately $26,802 that would be due.
Commissioner Sanchez: I'm sorry.
Chairman Winton: OK, so that --
13 July 24, 2003
Commissioner Sanchez: That's CA.9?
Ms. Billberry: CA.8.
Commissioner Sanchez: CA.8.
Chairman Winton: So, would you address CA.5, please, or whoever is going to address CA.5?
Commissioner Sanchez: But we're not dealing with CA.5.
Chairman Winton: That's what I asked for. I asked for CA.5.
Commissioner Sanchez: But she corrected CA.8.
Chairman Winton: CA (consent agenda) -- correct.
Commissioner Sanchez: All right, so we're at CA.5 now?
Chairman Winton: That's what I'd asked for.
Commissioner Sanchez: You're the Chairman.
Chairman Winton: I was doing it in order.
Commissioner Sanchez: You're the Chairman.
Chairman Winton: Eight -- I mean, five and then eight.
Commissioner Sanchez: CA.5, I just have a question that I'd like to clear. Now, I would like for
someone to explain how this would better serve customers. In other words, how is this going to
better serve customers? Are you going to -- ?
Hector Lima: Good morning. Hector Lima, Building Department. The IVR (Interactive Voice
Response) system has been in effect in the Building Department for at least three years. It takes
in like 50 percent of the calls for requests for inspections through an automated system that has
reduced the number of complaints of people calling into the Building Department. What's
happening now is that technology has made this thing obsolete and we have to upgrade it, and
that's what we're bringing to you, an upgrade of the system.
Commissioner Sanchez: What is the upgrade of the system? Because when I -- when someone
calls your department now, they usually -- if the inspector's not there, you get an answering
machine, you get a service that puts you directly --
Mr. Lima: It's not that at all, Commissioner. It's a complete separate system where you dial in
and you go to an automated system that takes your inspection, schedules your inspections, cancel
14 July 24, 2003
your inspections, gives you a result of the inspection without the use of any human being at all,
whatsoever.
Commissioner Sanchez: Well, that's what I needed someone to explain to me. Now, the other
thing is, why do we continue -- and this is something that I've expressed concern here is that why
do we continue to get these contracts, let's say, for a couple of years, and when -- you know, with
an option for another four years? You know, when you do that, you basically take away the right
to negotiate and compromise when you give these companies -- and I -- hey, listen, I don't have a
problem with this company. As a matter of fact, now that you've explained how the system is
going to work, I'm very supportive of it, but you know, we have to be very careful that we -- and
you constantly seeing it in a lot of these legislative issues that come in front of us. You start
seeing that we -- you know, we enter like a three or four year, with an option of another four
year, you know, we need to be careful that we don't commit ourself [sic] for such a long period;
maybe short period and negotiate because, you know, that's how we're going to keep our
expenses down, by being able to negotiate and get a better price for the City. Now, why is this
going to be a good deal for the City when you're guaranteeing that you're going to have -- the
one-year maintenance, I can understand, plus the option to extend for four additional years at a
cost not to exceed ten percent. What guarantees we have that after four years, you can't get
another company that's not going to give you a 25 percent savings? I mean, I'm trying to make a
point here.
Glenn Marcos: Commissioner, Glenn Marcos, Purchasing Director. Part of the actual agreement
that we have here does have or provide a cap of ten percent, and within that ten percent, that's
going to allow us to negotiate at that particular point in time. If it gets to a point that we cannot
negotiate, we're going to have to look into probably another type of system.
Commissioner Sanchez: So, after four years because -- if we agree on this -- after four years, the
additional four years, if you can't negotiate within a ten percent, you would go back out and bid
again?
Mr. Marcos: We would consider looking into probably purchasing a new system, that is correct.
Commissioner Sanchez: Well, that's where they get you at, because then what are you going to
do? You're going to go to another system where you have to wipe out your entire system
(UNINTELLIGIBLE) system? That's --
Mr. Marcos: We're going to have to probably integrate some of the actual software onto the new
system.
Commissioner Sanchez: All right.
Chairman Winton: OK.
Commissioner Sanchez: No further questions. I'm OK with it.
Chairman Winton: CA.8.
15 July 24, 2003
Ms. Billberry: I believe it was CA.9 that the Commissioner had a question on.
Commissioner Regalado: My issue is CA.9.
Chairman Winton: Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you.
Commissioner Regalado: Well, CA.9, it's a lease agreement between the City and United States
Sailing Center here in Kennedy Park. I was here, and you were here also, when we gave them
the land to build the building. I remember that one of the conditions was that they will give
space to the City of Miami Summer Sailing program. It's been two years and they have not
given that space. The reason that I want to bring this to the public is of my fears that the City has
a tremendous liability. The sailing program has grown almost to 80 kids. They only have a
trailer, and when it rains, none of -- all of them do not fit into the trailer, so they have to go hide
into the trees, which is, as you know, very, very dangerous, so my question is why -- I mean, the
Mayor's Office, I know, that I spoke to them, and they say that they will give the space, but as of,
I don't know, yesterday or last weekday, they have not given the City sailing program any space
at all.
Ms. Billberry: Lori Billberry, Economic Development. You are correct, Commissioner. I know
during construction, they probably did have some limitations, but their building is complete.
They have been in conversations with the Parks Director, and I provided him the language within
the lease that does say that they are to facilitate the City sailing program and provide that office
space and other amenities. I was not aware that they have not done that to date and will assist in
any way I can.
Commissioner Regalado: So, what do we do?
Ms. Billberry: Well, they would be --
Commissioner Regalado: Let them get away or --
Ms. Billberry: No. They would be --
Commissioner Regalado: -- do we defer this for September?
Ms. Billberry: I think we should proceed with this particular amendment. They would be in
default, though, if we find that they do not comply, and would default them.
Commissioner Regalado: OK, so we got your assurances?
Chairman Winton: And we would recommend --
Ms. Billberry: Yes.
Chairman Winton: Yes, that's exactly what we'd recommend.
16 July 24, 2003
Commissioner Regalado: That they will get. Remember, the rain is coming. These kids don't
have anywhere --
Chairman Winton: Right.
Commissioner Regalado: -- to go, and these are paying kids, so --
Ms. Billberry: OK, we will follow up on that.
Commissioner Regalado: OK. I'll bring back CA.9 to the agenda, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Winton: OK, so are -- both CA items back on the agenda. Need a motion to approve -
Commissioner Sanchez: So move --
Chairman Winton: -- the consent agenda.
Commissioner Sanchez: -- the consent agenda.
Commissioner Regalado: Second.
Chairman Winton: Second. Got a motion and a second. Discussion? Being none, all in favor,
aye.
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. The motion carries.
17 July 24, 2003
Note for the Record: CODE SEC. 2-33 (J) STIPULATES THAT
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS THAT ARE REMOVED FROM THE
AGENDA PRIOR TO CITY COMMISSION CONSIDERATION SHALL
AUTOMATICALLY BE SCHEDULED AS A REGULAR AGENDA ITEM
AT THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE CITY
COMMISSION.
THEREUPON MOTION DULY MADE BY COMMISSIONER SANCHEZ
AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER REGALADO, THE CONSENT
AGENDA ITEMS WERE PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
6.1 ACCEPT BIDS OF VARIOUS PRE -QUALIFIED VENDORS FOR DEPARTMENT OF
PURCHASING, TO PROVIDE GENERAL BUILDING/SPECIALTY TRADE SERVICES,
FOR VARIOUS CITYWIDE CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR PROJECTS
RESOLUTION NO. 03-833
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ACCEPTING THE
BIDS OF VARIOUS PRE -QUALIFIED VENDORS AS LISTED ON
"ATTACHMENT 1," ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED, FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF PURCHASING, TO PROVIDE GENERAL
BUILDING/SPECIALTY TRADE SERVICES, FOR VARIOUS CITYWIDE
CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR PROJECTS, ON AN
AS -NEEDED PROJECT BASIS, FOR A TWO-YEAR PERIOD, WITH THE
OPTION TO RENEW FOR TWO ADDITIONAL ONE-YEAR PERIODS
18 July 24, 2003
6.2 AUTHORIZE INCREASE IN CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH GANCEDO
TECHNOLOGIES, INC. FOR ADDITIONAL WORK AT KENNETH MEYERS PARK,
$6,140, FROM $26,999 TO $33,139 TO COVER COST OF ADDITIONAL ELECTRIC
CIRCUITS ON NEW LIGHT POLES, ADDITIONAL ASPHALT ON EXISTING
WALKWAYS AND OTHER WORK; ALLOCATE FUNDS FROM CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, $41,477.
RESOLUTION NO. 03-834
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING AN
INCREASE IN THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH GANCEDO
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER APPROVED
UNDER A PREVIOUS EMERGENCY FINDING, FOR THE ADDITIONAL
WORK AT KENNETH MEYERS PARK, IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO
EXCEED $6,140, FROM AN ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $26,999
TO $33,139 TO COVER THE COST OF THE ADDITIONAL ELECTRIC
CIRCUITS ON THE NEW LIGHT POLES, ADDITIONAL ASPHALT ON
EXISTING WALKWAYS AND OTHER WORK; ALLOCATING FUNDS
FROM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 311712, IN THE AMOUNT
OF $33,139 FOR THE COST OF THE CONTRACT AND $8,338 TO COVER
OTHER EXPENSES FOR A TOTAL PROJECT COST OF $41,477; AND
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY
DOCUMENTS, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, FOR
SAID PURPOSE.
19 July 24, 2003
6.3 APPROVE ACQUISITION OF SYSTEMS ANALYSIS SERVICES, TECHNICAL
SUPPORT, AND OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FROM EVEREST SOLUTIONS,
LLC, UNDER STATE OF FLORIDA CONTRACT NUMBER 974-172-03-1, THROUGH
IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGISTAR LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, $60,000
FROM INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT AND ANY ADDITIONAL FUNDS
ON CITY WIDE BASIS FROM OPERATING BUDGETS OF VARIOUS USER
DEPARTMENTS AND FROM VARIOUS CIP ACCOUNTS.
RESOLUTION NO. 03-835
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION APPROVING THE
ACQUISITION OF SYSTEMS ANALYSIS SERVICES, TECHNICAL
SUPPORT, AND OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FROM EVEREST
SOLUTIONS, LLC, UNDER STATE OF FLORIDA CONTRACT NUMBER
974-172-03-1, EFFECTIVE UNTIL OCTOBER 20, 2003, ON AN AS -NEEDED
BASIS THROUGH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LEGISTAR
LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, SUBJECT TO EXTENSIONS OR
REPLACEMENT CONTRACTS BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA, FOR A
TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $60,000 FROM INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT ACCOUNT CODE NO.
119004.460701.6.270; AND ANY ADDITIONAL FUNDS ON A CITY WIDE
BASIS FROM THE OPERATING BUDGETS OF VARIOUS USER
DEPARTMENTS AND FROM VARIOUS CIP ACCOUNTS, SUBJECT TO
THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS
20 July 24, 2003
6.4 AUTHORIZE MANAGER'S ENGAGEMENT OF MARLIN ENGINEERING, INC., TO
DESIGN AND DEVELOP TRAFFIC STUDY FOR PROJECT ENTITLED "FLAGAMI AREA
TRAFFIC STUDY, B-4672" IN DISTRICT 4; ALLOCATE $59,443.50 FROM CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT ENTITLED: "DISTRICT 4 STREET & TRAFFIC CIRCLES."
RESOLUTION NO. 03-836
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER'S ENGAGEMENT OF MARLIN ENGINEERING, INC.,
("MARLIN") SELECTED FROM THE LIST OF PRE -APPROVED GENERAL
ENGINEERING SERVICES FIRMS APPROVED BY RESOLUTION NO. 02-
144, ADOPTED FEBRUARY 14, 2003, TO DESIGN AND DEVELOP A
TRAFFIC STUDY FOR THE PROJECT ENTITLED "FLAGAMI AREA
TRAFFIC STUDY, B-4672" IN DISTRICT 4, BASED ON (1) THE SCOPE OF
SERVICES REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECT, AND (2) TERMS AND
CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN THE AGREEMENT WITH MARLIN
EXECUTED PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION NO. 02-144; AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE WORK ORDER, IN
SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, FOR SAID PURPOSE; AND
ALLOCATING FUNDS, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $59,443.50,
FOR SERVICES AND EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE CITY, FROM
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO. 341206 ENTITLED: "DISTRICT
4 STREET & TRAFFIC CIRCLES."
6.5 AUTHORIZE MANAGER TO EXECUTE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH
SELECTRON, INC. TO PROVIDE REQUIRED UPGRADE AND MAINTENANCE TO
PROPRIETARY SOFTWARE APPLICATIONS FOR INTERACTIVE VOICE RESPONSE
SYSTEM (IVRS) IN BUILDING DEPARTMENT, $87,800; ALLOCATE FUNDS FROM
INSPECTION SERVICES DIVISION BUDGET, AND IT CIP ACCOUNT.
RESOLUTION NO. 03-837
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT, IN
SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, WITH SELECTRON, INC. TO
PROVIDE REQUIRED UPGRADE AND MAINTENANCE TO
PROPRIETARY SOFTWARE APPLICATIONS FOR THE INTERACTIVE
VOICE RESPONSE SYSTEM (NRS) IN THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT,
AT A TOTAL COST NOT TO EXCEED $87,800, INCLUDING ONE (1) YEAR
MAINTENANCE AT A COST OF $6,270 PLUS THE OPTION TO EXTEND
FOUR (4) ADDITIONAL YEARS AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED 10% OF
THE PURCHASE VALUE OF THE SYSTEM, SUBJECT TO AVAILABILITY
OF FUNDS; ALLOCATING FUNDS THEREFORE FROM THE INSPECTION
SERVICES DIVISION BUDGET, ACCOUNT CODE NO. 560302.340,
PROJECT NO. 421001 AND IT CIP ACCOUNT CODE 311616.
21 July 24, 2003
6.6 AUTHORIZE SETTLEMENT OF CASE MIAMI YACHT CLUB VS. CITY, TO
PROVIDE FOR (1) AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY AND
MIAMI YACHT CLUB FOR PURPOSE OF CORRECTING FORMULA FOR
CALCULATION OF COST OF LIVING INCREASES TO MINIMUM GUARANTEE AND
ANNUAL CONTRIBUTION TO RESERVE FUND, AND CLARIFYING TIME PERIOD
UTILIZED FOR CALCULATING GROSS REVENUE IN EXCESS OF $380,000 TO
CALCULATE PERCENTAGE RENT; (2) ALLOCATE TO MIAMI YACHT CLUB RENT
CREDIT, $7,484.58, AND FLORIDA STATE USE TAX CREDIT, $625.71, REIMBURSE
MIAMI YACHT CLUB FOR PAST OVERPAYMENT OF RENT BASED ON INCORRECT
CPI FORMULA; (3) PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS $5,000; ALLOCATE
FUNDS FROM SELF-INSURANCE AND INSURANCE TRUST FUND.
RESOLUTION NO. 03-838
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE
SETTLEMENT OF CASE NO. 02-2523 CA 09, MIAMI YACHT CLUB VS.
CITY OF MIAMI, TO PROVIDE FOR (1) THE CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 1, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED
FORM, TO THE LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI
AND MIAMI YACHT CLUB, A FLORIDA NOT-FOR-PROFIT
CORPORATION, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CORRECTING THE FORMULA
FOR THE CALCULATION OF COST OF LIVING INCREASES TO THE
MINIMUM GUARANTEE AND THE ANNUAL CONTRIBUTION TO THE
RESERVE FUND, AND CLARIFYING THE TIME PERIOD UTILIZED FOR
CALCULATING GROSS REVENUE IN EXCESS OF $380,000 TO
CALCULATE PERCENTAGE RENT; (2) THE CITY MANAGER TO
ALLOCATE TO THE MIAMI YACHT CLUB A RENT CREDIT, IN THE
AMOUNT OF SEVEN THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED EIGHTY FOUR
DOLLARS AND 58/100 ($7,484.58), AND A FLORIDA STATE USE TAX
CREDIT, IN THE AMOUNT OF SIX HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE DOLLARS
AND 71/100 ($625.71), REIMBURSING THE MIAMI YACHT CLUB FOR
THE PAST OVERPAYMENT OF RENT BASED ON THE INCORRECT CPI
FORMULA; (3) PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS IN THE
AMOUNT OF FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($5,000) TO BE PAID UPON
EXECUTING A RELEASE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, ITS PRESENT AND
FORMER OFFICERS, AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES FROM ANY AND ALL
CLAIMS AND DEMANDS; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE
SELF-INSURANCE AND INSURANCE TRUST FUND, INDEX CODE
NO. 515 001.624401.6.661.
22 July 24, 2003
6.7 AUTHORIZE MANAGER TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO LEASE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY AND MIAMI OUTBOARD CLUB TO CORRECT
FORMULA FOR CALCULATION OF COST OF LIVING INCREASES TO MINIMUM
GUARANTEE, COMMUNITY SERVICE CREDIT, BASE RESTAURANT REVENUES AND
ANNUAL CONTRIBUTION TO RESERVE FUND; AUTHORIZE MANAGER TO
ALLOCATE TO MIAMI OUTBOARD CLUB NET RENT CREDIT, $11,274.44,
REIMBURSING MIAMI OUTBOARD CLUB FOR PAST OVERPAYMENT OF RENT
BASED ON INCORRECT CPI FORMULA.
RESOLUTION NO. 03-839
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 2, IN
SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, TO THE LEASE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI AND THE MIAMI OUTBOARD CLUB, A
FLORIDA NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION, TO CORRECT THE
FORMULA FOR THE CALCULATION OF COST OF LIVING INCREASES
TO THE MINIMUM GUARANTEE, COMMUNITY SERVICE CREDIT,
BASE RESTAURANT REVENUES AND THE ANNUAL CONTRIBUTION
TO THE RESERVE FUND; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
ALLOCATE TO THE MIAMI OUTBOARD CLUB A NET RENT CREDIT, IN
THE AMOUNT OF ELEVEN THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY-
FOUR DOLLARS 44/100 ($11,274.44) REIMBURSING THE MIAMI
OUTBOARD CLUB FOR THE PAST OVERPAYMENT OF RENT BASED ON
THE INCORRECT CPI FORMULA.
23 July 24, 2003
6.8 AUTHORIZE MANAGER TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 3, TO LEASE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY AND UNITED STATES SAILING CENTER, INC., FOR
PURPOSE OF CORRECTING FORMULA FOR CALCULATIONS OF COST LIVING
INCREASES TO MONTHLY RENT, COMMUNITY SERVICE FEE AND
TRANSPORTATION FEE; MANAGER TO ALLOCATE TO U.S. SAILING CENTER, INC.
RENT CREDIT, $1,827, REIMBURSE U.S. SAILING CENTER, INC. FOR PAST
OVERPAYMENT IN RENT BASED ON INCORRECT FORMULA.
RESOLUTION NO. 03-840
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 3, IN
SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, TO THE LEASE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI AND UNITED STATES SAILING
CENTER, INC., FOR THE PURPOSE OF CORRECTING THE FORMULA
FOR THE CALCULATIONS OF COST LIVING INCREASES TO THE
MONTHLY RENT, COMMUNITY SERVICE FEE AND TRANSPORTATION
FEE; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ALLOCATE TO
THE U.S. SAILING CENTER, INC. A RENT CREDIT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$1,827, THEREBY REIMBURSING THE U.S. SAILING CENTER, INC. FOR
THE PAST OVERPAYMENT IN RENT BASED ON THE INCORRECT
FORMULA.
6.9 AUTHORIZE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE TO PAY THOMAS SHAVER, $200,000, IN
COMPLETE SETTLEMENT OF ALL CLAIMS AGAINST CITY, FOR CASE THOMAS
SHAVER, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF ESTATE OF SEAN THOMAS SHAVER
VS. CITY; ALLOCATE FUNDS FROM SELF-INSURANCE AND INSURANCE TRUST
FUND.
RESOLUTION NO. 03-841
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE TO PAY THOMAS SHAVER, THE SUM OF
$200,000, IN FULL AND COMPLETE SETTLEMENT OF ANY AND ALL
CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY OF MIAMI, FOR THE
CASE THOMAS SHAVER, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
ESTATE OF SEAN THOMAS SHAVER VS. CITY OF MIAMI, IN THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, CASE NO. 01-19858 CA (15), UPON
EXECUTING A RELEASE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, ITS PRESENT AND
FORMER OFFICERS, AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES FROM ANY AND ALL
CLAIMS AND DEMANDS; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE SELF-
INSURANCE AND INSURANCE TRUST FUND, INDEX CODE
NO. 515001.624401.6.653.
24 July 24, 2003
6.10 ACCEPT RECOMMENDATION OF MANAGER TO APPROVE FINDINGS OF
EVALUATION COMMITTEE AND AUTHORIZE CITY TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH BOSTON CONCESSION SERVICES TO
PROVIDE CONCESSION SERVICES AT ORANGE BOWL STADIUM, PURSUANT TO
RFP 02-03-136; RECOMMEND THAT SHOULD NEGOTIATIONS FAIL WITH TOP
RANKED FIRM, CITY NEGOTIATE WITH SECOND AND THIRD -RANKED FIRMS.
RESOLUTION NO. 03-842
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ACCEPTING THE
RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER TO APPROVE THE
FINDINGS OF THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE AND AUTHORIZE THE
CITY TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH BOSTON CONCESSION SERVICES TO PROVIDE
CONCESSION SERVICES AT THE ORANGE BOWL STADIUM,
PURSUANT TO RFP 02-03-136; FOR A PERIOD OF THREE (3) YEARS,
WITH THE OPTION TO EXTEND FOR TWO (2) ADDITIONAL TWO (2)
YEAR PERIODS; FURTHER RECOMMENDING THAT SHOULD
NEGOTIATIONS FAIL WITH THE TOP RANKED FIRM, THE CITY
NEGOTIATE WITH THE SECOND AND THIRD -RANKED FIRMS,
RESPECTIVELY, UNTIL A SUCCESSFUL CONTRACT IS NEGOTIATED.
7. RESIDENTS IN ACTION FOR SAFETY AND HEALTH (R.A.S.H.) ADDRESSES
COMMISSION CONCERNING RODENT INFESTATION CONTROL ABATEMENT AND
ABANDONED BUILDINGS WITHIN CITY.
Chairman Winton: We have one more personal request, and that's Mr. Keith Ivory. Mr. Ivory,
where -- you were here. In his place is?
Denise Perry: Denise Perry.
Chairman Winton: And need your address, too, please.
Ms. Perry: We're with RASH (Residents in Action for Safety and Health). The address, 212
Northeast 24th Street, and this is a follow-up from the motion that was passed at the next -- at the
last meeting for a report on the rodent abatement, and I didn't know if Arriola, since we met with
you, if you wanted to share the report.
Joe Arriola (City Manager): Well, basically, we had a really good meeting, and I have a whole
report for you that -- of things that we're doing, but the most important thing is that Solid Waste,
through Clarence Patterson, is going to put a team together with not only the City of Miami, but
County -- with the County to really do not only a review, but actually do some -- starting
programs in certain areas to make sure that the rodent problem, it gets under control. I also
explained to them that through our new initiative of getting rid of junk cars and -- you know, a
lot of this breeding grounds where these rodents exist are going to be disappearance through a lot
25 July 24, 2003
of other issues that we're doing, but we are going to monitor this. We have a pretty
comprehensive plan that would come on, and we're going to stay very much in touch --
Chairman Winton: Great.
Mr. Arriola: -- and working on a good program.
Chairman Winton: Why don't you circulate a copy of that plan to all --
Mr. Arriola: I sure will, sir.
Chairman Winton: -- the Commissioners, please --
Mr. Arriola: Yeah, thank you.
Chairman Winton: -- and I think y'all ought to plan on coming back in about four months, you
know, at the end of a four-month period and give us an update in terms of how y'all think this
plan is working.
Ms. Perry: Correct.
Chairman Winton: OK.
Ms. Perry: Yeah, I think this is something that is critical as the whole --
Chairman Winton: Absolutely.
Ms. Perry: -- chicken situation --
Chairman Winton: Yes.
Ms. Perry: -- that it deserves that much --
Chairman Winton: More critical.
Ms. Perry: Exactly, so we did discuss some --
Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Excuse me.
Ms. Perry: -- funding options and things of that nature for where this carries out for the long
hall.
Ms. Thompson: Name.
Ms. Perry: Denise Perry.
26 July 24, 2003
Ms. Thompson: Thank you.
Chairman Winton: And she did give her name, actually --
Ms. Thompson: Oh, I'm sorry.
Chairman Winton: -- at the very beginning, and her address, didn't you?
Ms. Perry: Yes, I did.
Chairman Winton: Because that was the first time today that I've thought to ask it. OK, so y'all
-- please come back, schedule another time in four months. At the end of four months, and come
back and give us a report on how this is doing.
Ms. Perry: OK.
Chairman Winton: OK. Thank you all.
8. FAILED: PROPOSED RESOLUTION RATIFYING, APPROVING AND CONFIRMING
MANAGER'S FINDING OF SOLE SOURCE, WAIVING REQUIREMENTS FOR
COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROCEDURES AND APPROVING ACQUISITION OF RANGE
3000 XP4 TRAINING SIMULATOR, FROM IES INTERACTIVE TRAINING, INC., FOR
DEPARTMENT OF POLICE, $55,800.
Chairman Winton: OK. What's item -- where's my Item 2. Did we do 2 and 3?
Unidentified Speaker: Personal appearances.
Chairman Winton: Oh, they were. Two and three are personal appearances. Item 4. Let's go to
the regular agenda. Item 4 is a four-fifths sole source purchase request. I need a motion.
Glenn Marcos: Glenn Marcos, Purchasing Director. If you have any questions pertaining to this
item.
Commissioner Sanchez: Well, can you just elaborate a little bit on it?
Mr. Marcos: Basically, the Police Department has a need for a training simulator. They are
replacing an old simulator, which is 15 years, and based upon our sole source finding, we're
finding certain technologies within this training simulator that no other provider can provide.
Commissioner Sanchez: So move, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Winton: Thank you. Need a second.
Commissioner Regalado: Second.
27 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: Got a motion and a second. Discussion. Being none, all in favor, "aye."
Commissioner Gonzalez: No.
Chairman Winton: Like sign -- oh, no.
Commissioner Gonzalez: No.
Chairman Winton: It's a four -fifth vote, so this fails, so Item 4 fails.
Upon motion by Commissioner Sanchez, and second by Commissioner Regalado, proposed
resolution requiring an affirmative vote by four-fifths of the members of the City Commission, to
find of sole source and approving acquisition of Range 3000 XP4 Training Simulator for
Department of Police at $55, 800, FAILED by the following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
NAYS: Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
9. TABLE CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED RATIFICATION OF MANAGER'S FINDING
OF SOLE SOURCE, WAIVING REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPETITIVE SEALED BIDDING
PROCEDURES FOR RENTAL OF PRO -ACTIVE BARRICADE FENCE SYSTEM FROM
PREMIER GLOBAL PRODUCTION CO. INC. FOR DEPARTMENT OF POLICE.
Chairman Winton: Item 5, also a four-fifths vote, sole source purchasing agreement.
Commissioner Regalado: What is this, barricades? You guys went all the way to Nashville,
Tennessee?
Chairman Winton: We need --
Commissioner Gonzalez: So, we don't waste any time, do we need a four-fifths vote on this?
Captain Tom Cannon: Captain Tom Cannon, Miami Police Department.
Commissioner Regalado: Yeah.
Commissioner Gonzalez: I'm voting no, so --
Commissioner Regalado: So might as well --
Commissioner Sanchez: You don't have a four -fifth if --
28 July 24, 2003
Commissioner Regalado: You know --
Commissioner Sanchez: -- one Commissioner votes no.
Commissioner Regalado: No, no, I'm voting no either. I don't understand why you guys have to
go to Nashville. You could --
Unidentified Speaker: Special fence.
Commissioner Regalado: Huh?
Unidentified Speaker: Special fence.
Chairman Winton: For --
Commissioner Regalado: I don't --
Chairman Winton: -- FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas)?
Commissioner Regalado: Special events, you say?
Unidentified Speaker: A special fence.
Commissioner Regalado: A special fence?
Major Joseph Longuiera: Commissioner --
Chairman Winton: Joe --
Commissioner Regalado: They only have it in Nashville, Tennessee?
Chairman Winton: Hold on. Joe --
Commissioner Regalado: Not even Georgia?
Chairman Winton: Name and address, please --
Commissioner Regalado: Closer.
Chairman Winton: -- so you can answer the questions.
Major Longuiera: Commissioners, Major Joseph --
Chairman Winton: Name and address.
Commissioner Regalado: Ah, forget it. I'm not voting on this one.
29 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: Well -- but let's have the answer. You've asked a question. Do you want an
answer, Commissioner?
Major Longuiera: Commissioners, Major Joseph Longuiera, Miami police. This is a special
fence designed for handling disturbance crowds at an event, and this is for the FTAA, and it's a
rental, and part of our issue is we need to tie up the rental of the fencing or it might not be
available for the FTAA, and it'll put our officers in a more difficult position to handle the
crowds. This is not a regular chain link fence that you see or anything like that. It's a special
fence to handle unruly crowds in these types of situations.
Commissioner Regalado: That's not a fence.
Chairman Winton: OK.
Commissioner Regalado: That's a cage.
Major Longuiera: It's not a fence; it's a fence, but --
Chairman Winton: But I --
Major Longuiera: -- it's designed in such a way that they can't tip it over on the officers on the
other side.
Chairman Winton: Whatever the issues are here between individual Commissioners and the
Police Department, I want every -- excuse me.
Major Longuiera: Yeah.
Chairman Winton: -- I want everybody to understand this is about the --
Commissioner Sanchez: Free Trade.
Chairman Winton: -- ministerial meeting that's going to be held in our city that we are the host
of in November. November isn't six months from now. November is around the corner. We're
going on break. We won't be back until September. If we do, who's going to pay the penalty if -
- and we all know, reading all of the e-mail stuff, that the -- that there are plenty of guys --
individuals who are interested in causing maximum disruption. Minority as it may be in
numbers, they're coming to our community to cause as much havoc as they can cause, including
destruction of property.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, your problem is going to be bigger
than a fence when that happens, so you know, if they don't have --
Chairman Winton: But if we don't --
30 July 24, 2003
Commissioner Gonzalez: They can always call the National Guard. They can always call the
Army, the Navy, the Air Force, you know.
Chairman Winton: You cannot always call the National Guard. If you don't plan this thing
properly -- if you plan it --
Commissioner Gonzalez: Well, I'm just voting no on this issue --
Commissioner Sanchez: OK.
Commissioner Gonzalez: --so --
Chairman Winton: Yes, Commissioner Sanchez.
Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, I happen to agree with you a hundred percent on this.
You know, we're going to be faced with a very, very critical situation with the Free Trade
meeting here in Miami, and we can't send our police officers to go out there and not provide
them the proper equipment to make sure that safety and order is in store. You know, I have
never asked my colleagues to really reconsider an item, but you know, if we don't prepare
ourselves for this event -- and let me just tell you what happened in Seattle. Seattle took a
different approach. Seattle felt that, hey, we're only going to hire -- and correct me if I'm wrong
-- I think it was 50 police officers off-duty. Things got out of hand, and then you read it and saw
it on CNN (Cable News Network), and you saw it throughout the world. We need to prepare
ourselves for the worst because as you have been briefed and I have been briefed, these are
people that take this very seriously. They go out throughout the world to create chaos, and if we
don't -- and I know -- I don't want to get involved --
Commissioner Gonzalez: Would you yield?
Commissioner Sanchez: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Gonzalez: You just said that you have been briefed and the Chairman has been
briefed?
Commissioner Sanchez: Well --
Chairman Winton: No, I haven't been briefed. I --
Commissioner Gonzalez: Well, let me tell you, I haven't been briefed.
Commissioner Sanchez: Well, I have not --
Chairman Winton: Commissioner --
Commissioner Sanchez: -- been briefed by the Police Department.
31 July 24, 2003
Commissioner Gonzalez: OK.
Chairman Winton: I have not --
Commissioner Gonzalez: So, since I haven't been briefed --
Commissioner Sanchez: I have been briefed by my staff.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Well -- oh, your staff. My staff hasn't been briefed. Nobody in my
office has been briefed, so if my office is not supposed to be briefed, is not supposed to have
information, is not supposed to be considered, and then they don't have a -- you know, then if my
office is not important enough to be treated with respect as you are being treated, maybe because
you have an ex -police officer --
Commissioner Sanchez: That has --
Commissioner Gonzalez: -- OK.
Commissioner Sanchez: -- nothing to do with it.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Sir, you know --
Chairman Winton: I would move to defer this item.
Commissioner Regalado: Just a --
Chairman Winton: Joe.
Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman, if I may.
Commissioner Sanchez: Now, did they --
Chairman Winton: Yes.
Commissioner Sanchez: Are they going to have time -- move to defer the item.
Chairman Winton: No, I move -- oh, I can't move.
Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Winton: Yes, sir. I'm sorry.
Commissioner Regalado: If -- I mean, it doesn't --
Commissioner Sanchez: Now --
32 July 24, 2003
Commissioner Regalado: My question here doesn't have to do anything with other issues with
the Police Department. My problem here is that I just don't think that there's only one place in
the United States that you can get this kind of cage or special fence, and I have a problem with
not knowing what is going to happen. I don't understand what is the purpose of having people in
cages. I don't know where the cages are going to be placed. I just don't know anything.
Chairman Winton: Could we move this item to the afternoon and direct staff --
Commissioner Sanchez: Johnny.
Chairman Winton: -- to meet with individual Commissioners who would like a personal
meeting.
Commissioner Sanchez: I'm prepared to do that, but just for point of clarification.
Chairman Winton: Yes.
Commissioner Sanchez: My briefing was done by my Chief of Staff, who happens to sit on the
CRB (Community Relations Board), and they had been working with the Police Department, and
they had been working with just about everybody to try to assure that this event goes smoothly.
Let me just -- being prudent here. When things get out of hand, and they blame us not for
providing the adequate resources to keep law and order, I don't want anyone to come to this
Commission and point the finger at us and say, hey, you did not do what you had to do to assure
that the people, not only the residents in Miami, but the businesses in downtown Miami and the
world itself that would see if this gets out of hand -- it'll be everywhere, I'm telling you. This is -
- will be national news, and I don't want anybody to point the finger neither to me, nor my
colleagues, nor this government for not providing the adequate source to make sure that law is in
order, so let me just caution you on this. I am prepared to defer it till this afternoon and make
sure that everyone briefs with you, but if not, I want to bring it back up, and I am not going to
allow it and -- you know, if we've got to vote it down, we'll vote it down, whatever it may be, but
let me just say, this is something that we need to get ready for. We can't allow this to go on
because November is right around the block. If we have plenty of time, I'll defer it till next
month, and -- but --
Chairman Winton: Right, but we don't.
Commissioner Sanchez: -- we are just around the corner from November, and let me just say
something, we better get ready and we better be ready for this event.
Glenn Marcos (Director, Department of Building): Commissioner Winton, may I interject just
for one second? I just would like to state for the record that we did look into local vendors here,
and being the chief procurement officer for the City of Miami, I do take it seriously in which the
chief procurement officer has a duty of deeming something to be a sole source. I'm an advocate
for competition, and therefore, I don't take this very lightly. I might -- I may --
Chairman Winton: Excuse me.
33 July 24, 2003
Mr. Marcos: -- want to add to the actual record also that Premier Global Production has a patent
pending on these barricades. They're the sole manufacturer and distributor of these barricades.
Chairman Winton: I'm going to interrupt you again.
Mr. Marcos: Thank you.
Chairman Winton: I have a request and that request is that staff meet with these individual
Commissioners before we take up this meeting again at 3 o'clock, and that's the request and you
can put all that information -- give all that information to each of the Commissioners that wants
to meet with you then, so we have a motion --
Commissioner Sanchez: Motion to defer 5, and we might as well defer the other one, too, I
mean, unless --
Chairman Winton: What's the other one.
Commissioner Sanchez: The other one is --
Chairman Winton: Oh --
Mr. Marcos: Item Number 5.
Chairman Winton: -- already been voted down.
Commissioner Sanchez: It's equipment, too, for the -- well, I'm -- motion to defer 5.
Chairman Winton: Commissioner Regalado, need a second.
Commissioner Regalado: Huh?
Chairman Winton: Need a second to defer.
Commissioner Regalado: Second --
Chairman Winton: OK. Motion --
Commissioner Regalado: -- to defer.
Commissioner Sanchez: To this afternoon.
Chairman Winton: -- second. Discussion? Being none, all --
Mr. Marcos: Thank you.
34 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: -- in favor, "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. The motion carries.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved for its adoption:
MOTION NO. 03-843
A MOTION TO TABLE CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED RATIFICATION
OF CITY MANAGER'S FINDING OF A SOLE SOURCE, WAIVING THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPETITIVE SEALED BIDDING PROCEDURES
FOR RENTAL OF THE PRO -ACTIVE BARRICADE FENCE SYSTEM FROM
PREMIER GLOBAL PRODUCTION CO. INC. (NON-MINORITY/NON-
LOCAL VENDOR, 232 SPACE PARK DRIVE SOUTH, NASHVILLE,
TENNESSEE) FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF POLICE.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Regalado, the motion was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Commissioner Regalado: See, the problem is that -- the problem here, it's not about sole source,
which to me, I still say, is very rare, but the problem is that no one ever has bothered to give me
the courtesy of telling me what we expect. I was in Seattle, so you know, I know. I've been in
Geneva. I know the anti-globalist movement. I know them. I know that they travel around. I
know the way they operate. I know that the County is trying to push the City of Miami to give
these people a different site to protest. I know that the County has been very adamant in getting
them some different areas or whatever, but I really don't know what the City of Miami Police
Department is trying to do, the location. I don't know anything about that, and the only thing is
that I read in the paper that they were planning to have some cages, and then there was a quote
from Angel saying that they were not cages; that was a different issue, so it's all about, you
know, five minutes and telling some people that have to vote what are the plans. I mean --
Chairman Winton: And let's hope, let's hope that this is the last time I hear this from either of
these two Commissioners, OK?
Commissioner Gonzalez: That is never going to end.
35 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: Last time.
Commissioner Gonzalez: That is never going to end.
Chairman Winton: Thank you. Yes, it is. OK, what's the next item?
Commissioner Gonzalez: It's not going to end because it's not in your power --
Chairman Winton: Excuse me.
Commissioner Gonzalez: -- to stop it. It's in the power of the City Manager, and apparently, the
City Manager --
Chairman Winton: Angel.
Commissioner Gonzalez: -- has a big problem --
Chairman Winton: Angel.
Commissioner Gonzalez: -- controlling his Police Chief.
Chairman Winton: Angel, I'm running the meeting, please.
10. RATIFY, APPROVE AND CONFIRM MANAGER'S FINDING OF SOLE SOURCE;
WAIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPETITIVE SEALED BIDDING PROCEDURES AND
APPROVE PROCUREMENT OF NT RESCUE AIR BAGS WITH ACCESSORIES AND
RAPID STAIR CRIBBING SETS, FROM SUNSHINE FIRE EQUIPMENT, SOLE SOURCE
DISTRIBUTOR FOR RES Q TEK, INC., IN FLORIDA AND GEORGIA, $41,082, FOR
DEPARTMENT OF FIRE -RESCUE; ALLOCATE FUNDS FROM FIRE -RESCUE
HOMELAND DEFENSE PREPAREDNESS PROJECT.
Chairman Winton: Item Number 6. Is 6 a --
Commissioner Sanchez: Are you OK with 6?
Chairman Winton: It's 6 --
Commissioner Sanchez: Do we have consensus on 6?
Chairman Winton: I don't know what --
Unidentified Speaker: Six is the same thing.
Chairman Winton: Is 6 tied to --
36 July 24, 2003
Commissioner Gonzalez: Yes, I move Item 6. That's the Fire Department, right?
Chairman Winton: OK
Commissioner Sanchez: Second.
Chairman Winton: So, we have a motion and a second, four-fifths ratification, sole source. We
have a motion, second. Discussion. Being none, all in favor, "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. The motion carries.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gonzalez, who moved for its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-844
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION RATIFYING,
APPROVING AND CONFIRMING THE CITY MANAGER'S FINDING OF
SOLE SOURCE; WAIVING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPETITIVE
SEALED BIDDING PROCEDURES AND APPROVING THE
PROCUREMENT OF NT RESCUE AIR BAGS WITH ACCESSORIES AND
RAPID STAIR CRIBBING SETS, FROM SUNSHINE FIRE EQUIPMENT,
(NON-MINORITY/NON-LOCAL VENDOR, 58 POINT PLEASANT DRIVE,
PALM COAST, FLORIDA) THE SOLE SOURCE DISTRIBUTOR FOR RES Q
TEK, INC., IN FLORIDA AND GEORGIA, FOR A TOTAL CONTRACT
AWARD AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $41,082, FOR THE DEPARTMENT
OF FIRE -RESCUE; ALLOCATING FUNDS THEREFORE FROM THE FIRE -
RESCUE HOMELAND DEFENSE PREPAREDNESS PROJECT NO. 313305,
ACCOUNT CODE NO. 289307.6.840.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
37 July 24, 2003
11. RECONSIDER PRIOR VOTE ON MOTION 03-845, ACCEPTING PLAT ENTITLED
"TACOLCY CITY SUBDIVISION."
TABLE CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED ACCEPTANCE OF PLAT ENTITLED
`TACOLCY" CITY SUBDIVISION.
Chairman Winton: Item --
Commissioner Gonzalez: Move Item 7.
Chairman Winton: -- 7 is --
Commissioner Sanchez: Second.
Chairman Winton: -- accepting a plat. Motion, second. Discussion?
Maria Chiaro (Assistant City Attorney): Item 7 has a substitute item that was distributed. It's
subject to certain conditions, and the substitute resolution was distributed in the items that are
substitutes for the Commission agenda.
Commissioner Regalado: It's here, it's here --
Chairman Winton: OK.
Commissioner Regalado: -- the substitute.
Chairman Winton: Thank you. Any other discussion on the substitute?
Commissioner Sanchez: None.
Chairman Winton: Motion.
Commissioner Sanchez: So move.
Chairman Winton: Being none, all in favor, "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. The motion carries.
38 July 24, 2003
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Gonzalez, who moved for its adoption:
MOTION NO. 03-845
A MOTION ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED "TACOLCY CITY
SUBDIVISION," A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF MIAMI, SUBJECT TO
SATISFACTION OF ALL THE CONDITIONS OF THE PLAT AND STREET
COMMITTEE AND THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN CITY CODE
SECTION 55-8, AND ACCEPTING THE DEDICATIONS SHOWN ON THE
PLAT; AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER AND
CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE PLAT; PROVIDING FOR THE
RECORDATION OF THE PLAT IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF MIAMI-
DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the motion was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS:
ABSENT
Chairman Winton: Thank you, sir.
None.
Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Move Item 8.
Chairman Winton: Got a motion on 8.
Commissioner Gonzalez: There's no (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Chairman Winton: Need a second, granting an easement. Need a second.
Commissioner Sanchez: Well, I believe someone from -- are you -- sir, would you like to
address 8?
Chairman Winton: Well, not --
Herschel Haynes: Seven.
Commissioner Sanchez: We voted on 7 already.
Chairman Winton: Seven's already passed. Herschel, we already voted on it, "yes."
39 July 24, 2003
Mr. Haynes: Well, I got a letter to the effect that --
Chairman Winton: Come-- step up and name on the --
Mr. Haynes: My name is Herschel Haynes and I'm chairman of the Hadley Park Model City
Homeowners' Association, and I was here to address Item 7.
Chairman Winton: Hold on, Herschel. Is 7 a public hearing?
Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Yes, yes.
Chairman Winton: Mr. City Attorney.
Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Yes, sir, itis.
Chairman Winton: And we didn't do a public hearing, so what does that mean?
Mr. Vilarello: I did not bring it to your attention. I'm sorry.
Commissioner Sanchez: Well --
Chairman Winton: What do we do to correct the --
Mr. Vilarello: Move to reconsider it.
Commissioner Sanchez: Move to reconsider.
Commissioner Sanchez: Got a motion. Need a second.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Second.
Chairman Winton: Second. Discussion? Being none, all in favor, say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. Motion carries.
40 July 24, 2003
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved for its adoption:
MOTION NO. 03-846
A MOTION TO RECONSIDER PRIOR VOTE ON MOTION 03-845,
ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED "TACOLCY CITY SUBDIVISION."
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, the motion was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Chairman Winton: We will reconsider Item 7. Yes, sir. It's a -- oh, and we will open the public
hearing. Herschel.
Mr. Haynes: OK. My name is Herschel Haynes, and I'm chairman of the Hadley Park Model
City Homeowners' Association. My address is 4601 Northwest 15th Avenue, Miami, Florida
33142, and this particular item deals with an area that have a considerable amount of concern as
it relates to things that are going on in that area. It says it's from 60 to 62nd Street, and from
62nd Street to 64th Street, and from 6th Avenue to 7th Avenue. Just recently, we had one of the
officials from Dade County who was at the homeowners' association, and in an effort to try and
ascertain information as it relates to some things that were scheduled for that area, namely, it was
-- it's -- it has been rumored that there is scheduled a parking garage for that area. Also, it's
scheduled that -- it's rumored that it's scheduled a terminal for that area, all within this particular
given area, and so to try to get some clarification in regards to what is designed for that area, and
the reason for the need -- for there to be a subdivision. We know nothing of a subdivision by the
name of Tacolcy. We know of that area as Edison Center, and we know of things as Liberty
City, and we know of things such as Model City. Never heard of anything in regards to Tacolcy
City, so that we have great concerns. We have not been approached in regards to this item. We
have solicited information in regards to discussions in regards to that whole particular area. We
have the appropriate center to discuss all concerns within the Model City area. Why have we not
been advised? Why have there not been a reason to come before the people who pay the taxes
for that particular area?
Chairman Winton: OK, so do we have an answer to that question or those series of questions?
Otis Pitts: Well, we're very much involved in the --
Chairman Winton: I need your --
41 July 24, 2003
Mr. Pitts: -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE) my name is Otis pits. I have another business at 555
Northeast 15th Street. I'm the former director of Belafonte Tacolcy Center some -- for some nine
years. Subsequently left to run a corporation called the Tacolcy Economic Development
Corporation. Both of these entities are involved in this process. There is a process by which you
even get to this level of even trying to plat property, which we're required to notice everyone in
the community. That was done, so we met the -- by all means, your requirements for that to be
done. Subsequent to that, there had been meetings in the community. Some hosted by the
Manager, in which the community was invited over to talk about this issue. This issue has been
well vetted in the community. I'm sure you don't get to everyone in the community, but we --
you know, but we tried to get to as many people as we can, and we met the official threshold for
getting this done.
Chairman Winton: Let me ask you a question, though. Herschel, what's the name of your
homeowner --
Mr. Haynes: Hadley Park --
Chairman Winton: -- association?
Mr. Haynes: -- Model City Homeowners' Association, and --
Chairman Winton: Hold on, so is there a time sensitive nature to this request being on here
today?
Alicia Hughes: If I might respond. Alicia Hughes, with offices at 2500 Wachovia Financial
Center, here with Mr. Otis Pitts and the other individuals from Peninsula Developers. Yes, sir,
there is a time sensitive issue. Development has been held up for a while, as a result of this.
What we're here before the Commission on this morning is what we would consider to be a
ministerial matter. There's been a street closure that moved forward on this item in October of
2002. The public has been noticed. Everyone within the immediate vicinity to the area pursuant
to the code -- the City of Miami Code did receive proper notice. This is something that has been
known about. Notice was issued for the meetings. All the public hearings that have been held
subsequent -- not subsequent, but preceding today's public hearing, and this plat has been on file,
the tentative plat has been on file, along with the information of all of the property owners,
including names, addresses, and phone numbers, and contact information, as part of the tentative
plat application, and this is just an official act to close this matter, so we would say yes.
Chairman Winton: Well, I would suggest that we defer this issue till the afternoon. Y'all meet
with the Hadley Park Homeowners' Association representative -- Aren't you the president? Are
you president?
Mr. Haynes: Absolutely.
Chairman Winton: -- and y'all go walk through this stuff. We can hear this yet today and move
this on, but I think --
42 July 24, 2003
Mr. Haynes: If I may, Mr. Chair. I'm only the chair. I think this is an issue, an item that
warrants the attention of the people who pay the taxes in that area.
Chairman Winton: But, Herschel, hold on. If they've duly public noticed, and if we've got the
records to support it --
Commissioner Sanchez: Yep.
Chairman Winton: -- and I've been through enough of these public hearings myself where I
know that people -- some people pay attention, some people miss it sometimes, and so they're
probably within their rights here. I'm trying to move this so that you can take the appropriate --
I'm sure there's real good answers to your questions that you probably need to take back to your
group, but I'm not sure that there's going to be a consensus here to push this to September, so I'm
willing to push this back to this afternoon to give them an opportunity to speak to you, and you
can call some of your folks, but I think we're going to hear it this afternoon.
Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, move to defer to this afternoon.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Second.
Chairman Winton: Got a motion and a second. Discussion? Being none, all in favor, "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. The motion carries.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved for its adoption:
MOTION NO. 03-847
A MOTION TO TABLE CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED ACCEPTANCE
OF PLAT ENTITLED `TACOLCY" CITY SUBDIVISION.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, the motion was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
43 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: Thank you.
Mr. Haynes: All right.
Ms. Hughes: Thank you.
Chairman Winton: Boy, this is going to be a day, isn't it?
Ms. Hughes: Thank you.
Chairman Winton: Well, let me take a breath, you know.
Commissioner Sanchez: Let's go. The rest of the items --
Chairman Winton: I think we're --
Commissioner Sanchez: -- are pretty simple.
Chairman Winton: -- going to get out of here at midnight.
Commissioner Sanchez: No.
12. AUTHORIZE MANAGER TO EXECUTE GRANT OF EASEMENT TO MIAMI-DADE
COUNTY AT CITY -OWNED PROPERTY OF TWELVE FOOT WIDE PERPETUAL,
NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT ON PROPERTY, FOR CONSTRUCTION,
INSTALLATION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF WATER AND SEWAGE
FACILITIES, WITH RIGHT TO RECONSTRUCT, IMPROVE, CHANGE, AND REMOVE
SUCH FACILITIES OR ANY OF THEM WITHIN EASEMENT.
Chairman Winton: OK, 8. Got a motion on 8. Second?
Commissioner Sanchez: So move.
Chairman Winton: Got a motion, second on 8. Discussion?
Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Winton: Yes, sir.
Mr. Vilarello: On Items 8 and 9, this is something that we want -- the Administration wants to
move forward on. However, we don't have legal descriptions for the easements. That creates a
problem for us, as we have not properly described --
Commissioner Gonzalez: Then why --
Laura Billberry (Director, Economic Development): Excuse --
44 July 24, 2003
Commissioner Gonzalez: If it is not ready, why is it brought to us, then?
Chairman Winton: Hold on. Let's hear the answer.
Ms. Billberry: Excuse me. It was Item 10a that -- I mean, excuse me, Item 10 that needed the
modification.
Chairman Winton: Not 8?
Ms. Billberry: Not 8 or 9.
Chairman Winton: Lori, did you put your name on the record?
Ms. Billberry: Lori Billberry, Economic Development.
Chairman Winton: So, 8 is OK?
Mr. Vilarello: That's correct. I'm sorry. It was Item 10.
Chairman Winton: Thank you.
Commissioner Sanchez: So move 8.
Chairman Winton: We have a motion on 8 and a second.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Second.
Chairman Winton: A motion -- any further discussion? Being none, all in favor, "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. The motion carries.
45 July 24, 2003
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved for its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-848
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A GRANT OF EASEMENT TO
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY AT THE CITY -OWNED PROPERTY MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO
AND MADE A PART HEREOF, OF A TWELVE (12) FOOT WIDE
PERPETUAL, NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT ON THE PROPERTY, FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION, OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE OF WATER AND SEWAGE FACILITIES, WITH THE
RIGHT TO RECONSTRUCT, IMPROVE, CHANGE, AND REMOVE SUCH
FACILITIES OR ANY OF THEM WITHIN THE EASEMENT
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
13. AUTHORIZE MANAGER TO EXECUTE LUMP SUM RELOCATION AGREEMENT
WITH FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, SOLE SOURCE PROVIDER, FOR
OVERHEAD TO UNDERGROUND CONVERSION OF ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION
FACILITIES ALONG SOUTH SIDE OF WATSON ISLAND AS PART OF DEVELOPMENT
OF AIR TRANSPORTATION FACILITY AND GREATER MIAMI REGIONAL VISITORS
AND AVIATION CENTER, $314,150; ALLOCATE FUNDS FROM CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT.
Chairman Winton: Number 9.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Move 9.
Commissioner Sanchez: Second.
Chairman Winton: Got a motion and a second on 9. Discussion? Being none, all in favor,
aye.
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
46 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. The motion carries.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gonzalez, who moved for its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-849
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION BY A FOUR-FIFTHS
(4/5THS) AFFIRMATIVE VOTE AFTER AN ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARING, RATIFYING, APPROVING AND CONFIRMING THE CITY
MANAGER'S FINDING OF SOLE SOURCE; WAIVING THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPETITIVE SEALED BIDDING PROCEDURES
AND APPROVING THE ACQUISITION OF THE UNIQUE SERVICE OF
"OVERHEAD TO UNDERGROUND CONVERSION OF ELECTRIC
DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES" FROM FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT
COMPANY ("FPL"), LOCATED AT 122 SOUTHWEST 3RD STREET,
MIAMI, FLORIDA, AND FOR ALL OTHER ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION
FACILITIES LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY") THAT
ARE OWNED OR MAINTAINED BY FPL, THE SOLE SOURCE PROVIDER,
FOR A TEN-YEAR PERIOD FOR AN AMOUNT TO BE DETERMINED FOR
EACH SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCE AT THE TIME OF NEED, FOR THE
CITY DEPARTMENT/OFFICE REQUIRING SUCH SERVICES, SUBJECT TO
BUDGETARY APPROVAL.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
47 July 24, 2003
14. AUTHORIZE MANAGER TO EXECUTE GRANT OF EASEMENT TO FLORIDA
POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, OF FIFTEEN FOOT STRIP PERPETUAL, NON-
EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT ON PROPERTY AT 1050 MACARTHUR CAUSEWAY FOR
CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
UTILITY FACILITIES, WITH RIGHT TO RECONSTRUCT, IMPROVE, CHANGE
VOLTAGE, AND REMOVE SUCH FACILITIES OR ANY OF THEM WITHIN EASEMENT;
TO BE EXECUTED UPON COMPLETION OF OVERHEAD TO UNDERGROUND
CONVERSION OF ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES THAT AFFECT
OPERATION OF AVIATION AND VISITORS CENTER ON WATSON ISLAND.
Commissioner Sanchez: Now, 10 is where --
Chairman Winton: Is 10 the --
Commissioner Sanchez: -- I have a problem.
Laura Billberry (Acting Director, Economic Development): If I could -- well, maybe if you'd
like to express your concern, but in Item 10 --
Commissioner Sanchez: My concern is that Florida Power & Light hasn't spelled out exactly
where the easement's going to go, and how could we agree on an easement when we don't know
where it's going to go?
Ms. Billberry: OK. Lori Billberry, again, Economic Development. Item 10, per the City Code,
the Public Works director, in order to be able to grant FP&L a permit, needs to have an easement
from the Commission. What we're asking, instead, is that you at least give us an expression of
intent so that we can bring back the full easement with the legal description so that the Public
Works director could proceed in issuing the permit. They have attached a rough sketch of the
location of where it would be undergrounding [sic] the utilities, which is in the packet before
you.
Commissioner Sanchez: Well, I don't have a problem, as long as it comes back to this
Commission identifying exactly where the easement's going to go.
Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Mr. Chairman, I have no --
Commissioner Sanchez: -- but I'm uncomfortable voting on an easement somewhere in the
property and not knowing exactly -- just for -- to protect the City's assets.
Chairman Winton: Mr. City Attorney.
Mr. Vilarello: Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the request as stated by Ms. Billberry.
Chairman Winton: That works, OK.
Commissioner Sanchez: So move, as long as --
48 July 24, 2003
Commissioner Gonzalez: Second, as amended.
Commissioner Sanchez: As amended.
Chairman Winton: We have a motion and a second.
Ms. Billberry: Thank you.
Chairman Winton: Discussion? Being none, all in favor, "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. The motion carries.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved for its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-850
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A GRANT OF EASEMENT, IN A FORM
ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, TO FLORIDA POWER AND
LIGHT COMPANY, OF A FIFTEEN (15) FOOT STRIP PERPETUAL, NON-
EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
APPROXIMATELY 1050 MACARTHUR CAUSEWAY, MIAMI, FLORIDA,
IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE LOCATION DEPICTED IN EXHIBIT "A"
ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF, FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF
UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC UTILITY FACILITIES, WITH THE RIGHT TO
RECONSTRUCT, IMPROVE, CHANGE THE VOLTAGE, AND REMOVE
SUCH FACILITIES OR ANY OF THEM WITHIN THE EASEMENT; SAID
EASEMENT TO BE EXECUTED UPON COMPLETION OF THE
OVERHEAD TO UNDERGROUND CONVERSION OF ELECTRICAL
DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES THAT AFFECT THE OPERATION OF THE
AVIATION AND VISITORS CENTER ON WATSON ISLAND
49 July 24, 2003
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
15. AUTHORIZE MANAGER TO EXECUTE WATER EASEMENT, WITH MIAMI-DADE
COUNTY FOR PURPOSE OF GRANTING GRANTEE RIGHT TO USE 20 -FOOT WIDE
WATER EASEMENT, AT PROPERTY KNOWN AS DDA DOWNTOWN CHARTER
SCHOOL LOCATED AT 405 NORTHWEST 3rd AVENUE.
Chairman Winton: Ten -A.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Another easement.
Chairman Winton: Yeah, for the downtown charter school. Does this have --
Commissioner Gonzalez: OK, move 10.
Chairman Winton: -- the same issue?
Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): No.
Chairman Winton: OK, so this is --
Commissioner Sanchez: Second.
Chairman Winton: -- clean. OK. Motion and a second. Discussion? Being none, all in favor,
aye.
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. The motion carries.
50 July 24, 2003
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gonzalez, who moved for its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-851
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A WATER EASEMENT, IN
SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, WITH MIAMI-DADE
COUNTY ("GRANTEE"), FOR THE PURPOSE OF GRANTING GRANTEE
THE RIGHT TO USE APPROXIMATELY A 20 -FOOT WIDE WATER
EASEMENT, AT THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE DDA DOWNTOWN
CHARTER SCHOOL LOCATED AT 405 NORTHWEST 3rd AVENUE,
MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT
"A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF AS A WATER
EASEMENT, SUBJECT TO THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY, A FLORIDA BODY CORPORATE(THE "DDA"),
EXECUTING A JOINER TO THIS WATER EASEMENT
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
16. RATIFY, APPROVE AND CONFIRM MANAGER'S DETERMINATION THAT
COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROCESS IS NOT PRACTICABLE OR ADVANTAGEOUS,
WAIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR SAID PROCEDURES; AUTHORIZE MANAGER TO
EXECUTE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH MAHONEY AND
ASSOCIATES TO PROVIDE HEALTH BENEFITS CONSULTING SERVICES, $120,000;
ALLOCATE FUNDS FROM DIVISION OF RISK MANAGEMENT.
Chairman Winton: Eleven.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Move 11.
Commissioner Sanchez: Is it a public hearing? Is 11 a public hearing?
Chairman Winton: Which one?
Commissioner Sanchez: Eleven's a public hearing.
51 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: OK, so we have a motion and a second. This is a public hearing. Anyone
from the public would like to speak on Item 11? Anyone from the public on Item 11? Being
none, we'll close the public hearing. We have a motion and a second.
Commissioner Sanchez: Second.
Chairman Winton: Any other discussion? Being none, all in favor, "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. The motion carries.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gonzalez, who moved for its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-852
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION RATIFYING,
APPROVING AND CONFIRMING THE CITY MANAGER'S
DETERMINATION THAT A COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROCESS IS NOT
PRACTICABLE OR ADVANTAGEOUS, WAIVING THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR SAID PROCEDURES; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, IN
SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, WITH MAHONEY AND
ASSOCIATES TO PROVIDE HEALTH BENEFITS CONSULTING
SERVICES, IN A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $120,000, FOR ONE
YEAR, WITH THE OPTION TO EXTEND FOR ONE ADDITIONAL YEAR;
ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE DIVISION OF RISK MANAGEMENT,
ACCOUNT CODE NO. 515001.624401.6.650
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
52 July 24, 2003
17. AUTHORIZE MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY AND NEO I,
LLC (NEO LOFTS), TO PROVIDE FOR CITY'S PARTICIPATION IN PROJECT TO
CREATE GREENWAY AND MAKE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS IN PUBLIC RIGHT-
OF-WAY ALONG SOUTH RIVER DRIVE FROM FLAGLER STREET TO SW IST
STREET, WHEREIN NEO LOFTS WILL CONTRIBUTE $30,000 AND CITY WILL
CONTRIBUTE UP TO $250,000; AFFIRM AND ADOPT MANAGER'S FINDING OF
EMERGENCY TO EFFECT THAT IT IS IN PUBLIC'S BEST INTEREST TO SELECT NEO
LOFTS CONTRACTOR, CODINA CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, FOR THIS WORK
BY METHOD OTHER THAN COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT; ALLOCATE FUNDS FOR
THIS PURPOSE FROM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ENTITLED "GREENWAYS
IMPROVEMENTS," UNDER THE HOMELAND DEFENSE — NEIGHBORHOOD
IMPROVEMENT BOND PROGRAM.
Chairman Winton: Twelve.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Move 12.
Commissioner Sanchez: Second.
Chairman Winton: Got a motion and a second. Discussion? Being none, all in favor, "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. The motion carries.
53 July 24, 2003
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gonzalez, who moved for its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-853
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY
THE ATTACHED FORM, BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY") AND
NEO I, LLC ("NEO LOFTS"), TO PROVIDE FOR CITY'S PARTICIPATION
IN A COOPERATIVE PROJECT TO CREATE A GREENWAY AND MAKE
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG
SOUTH RIVER DRIVE FROM FLAGLER STREET TO SW 1 ST STREET,
WHEREIN NEO LOFTS WILL CONTRIBUTE $30,000 AND THE CITY WILL
CONTRIBUTE UP TO $250,000; FURTHER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING
THE CITY MANAGER'S FINDING OF AN EMERGENCY TO THE EFFECT
THAT IT IS IN THE PUBLIC'S BEST INTEREST TO SELECT THE NEO
LOFTS CONTRACTOR, CODINA CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, FOR
THIS WORK BY METHOD OTHER THAN COMPETITIVE
PROCUREMENT; ALLOCATING FUNDS FOR THIS PURPOSE FROM
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 341211, ENTITLED
"GREENWAYS IMPROVEMENTS," UNDER THE HOMELAND DEFENSE —
NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT BOND PROGRAM.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
54 July 24, 2003
18. EMERGENCY ORDINANCE: AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 11332, AS AMENDED
WHICH ESTABLISHED INITIAL RESOURCES AND INITIAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR
SPECIAL REVENUE FUND ENTITLED "GANG RESISTANCE EDUCATION AND
TRAINING;" BY INCREASING SAID APPROPRIATIONS $85,000, CONSISTING OF
GRANT FROM BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS, WITH NO
MATCHING FUNDS REQUIRED OF CITY.
Chairman Winton: Item 13 is an ordinance accepting a grant.
Commissioner Sanchez: So move.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Second --
Chairman Winton: Motion --
Commissioner Gonzalez: -- accepting the grant.
Chairman Winton: -- second. Is this a public hearing --
Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): This is an emergency ordinance.
Chairman Winton: -- on accepting a grant? But do it -- but do --
Mr. Vilarello: Yes.
Chairman Winton: Public hearing? It's a public hearing on Item 11. Anyone -- 13, I mean.
Anyone from the public would like to speak on 13? If not, we'll close the public hearing, and
this is an emergency ordinance accepting the grant. Please read the ordinance.
The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney.
Chairman Winton: Roll call, please.
55 July 24, 2003
An Ordinance Entitled —
AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION
AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 11332, AS AMENDED, ADOPTED
JANUARY 25TH, 1996, WHICH ESTABLISHED INITIAL RESOURCES
AND INITIAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR A SPECIAL REVENUE FUND
ENTITLED "GANG RESISTANCE EDUCATION AND TRAINING;" BY
INCREASING SAID APPROPRIATIONS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $85,000,
CONSISTING OF A GRANT FROM THE BUREAU OF ALCOHOL,
TOBACCO AND FIREARMS, WITH NO MATCHING FUNDS REQUIRED
OF THE CITY OF MIAMI; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
ACCEPT SAID GRANT, AND TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY
DOCUMENTS, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY,
FOR THIS PURPOSE; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE
was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez and seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, for
adoption as an emergency measure, and dispensing with the requirement of reading same on two
separate days, was agreed to by the following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Whereupon the Commission on motion of Commissioner Sanchez and seconded by
Commissioner Gonzalez, adopted said ordinance by the following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 12395.
Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): The ordinance is adopted as an emergency measure, 4/0.
56 July 24, 2003
19. EMERGENCY ORDINANCE: AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 12280, CAPITAL
PROJECTS APPROPRIATIONS ORDINANCE, TO REVISE CERTAIN ONGOING
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS BY APPROPRIATING ADDITIONAL FUNDING
FROM FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, PUBLIC FACILITIES
SPECIAL REVENUE FUND AND ASSESSMENT LIEN REVENUE.
Chairman Winton: Item 14 is also an emergency ordinance on a --
Commissioner Gonzalez: Move 14.
Chairman Winton: -- FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) issue.
Commissioner Sanchez: Second.
Chairman Winton: Public hearing. Anyone from the public would like to speak on Item 14? If
not, we'll close the public hearing. Read the ordinance, please.
The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney.
Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): And I understand there's an amendment to the substance of
the ordinance?
Jorge Cano: Yes. Mr. Chairman, Jorge Cano, director of Capital Improvements. We have a
minor revision that's being passed out to you right now. Originally, the rollover for the public
facilities were being appropriate for two projects; now we're doing it to three projects, and the
purpose is that we need funds for the Marine Stadium marina in the amount of 53,100.
Originally, the entire amount was going into the Dinner Key marina.
Chairman Winton: OK.
Commissioner Gonzalez: OK. Move the revised ordinance.
Chairman Winton: Got a motion --
Commissioner Sanchez: Second.
Chairman Winton: -- and a second. Is this 14?
Commissioner Gonzalez: Yes, sir.
Chairman Winton: Didn't I just do the public hearing portion on 14?
Mr. Vilarello: Yes.
Chairman Winton: So, we just -- OK.
57 July 24, 2003
Commissioner Sanchez: When in doubt, open it up again.
Chairman Winton: Yeah. No, thank you. Would you read the amended ordinance, please?
Mr. Vilarello: No, the title --
Commissioner Regalado: Yeah.
Mr. Vilarello: -- remain the same.
Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah, it's just revised.
Chairman Winton: It will? OK, so roll call.
An Ordinance Entitled —
AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION
AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 12280, THE CAPITAL PROJECTS
APPROPRIATIONS ORDINANCE, TO REVISE CERTAIN ONGOING
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS BY APPROPRIATING
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FROM THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY, THE PUBLIC FACILITIES SPECIAL REVENUE
FUND AND ASSESSMENT LIEN REVENUE; CONTAINING A REPEALER
PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
was introduced by Commissioner Gonzalez and seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, for
adoption as an emergency measure, and dispensing with the requirement of reading same on two
separate days, was agreed to by the following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
58 July 24, 2003
Whereupon the Commission on motion of Commissioner Gonzalez and seconded by
Commissioner Sanchez, adopted said ordinance by the following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 12396.
Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): The ordinance is adopted as an emergency measure, 4/0.
20. EMERGENCY ORDINANCE: ESTABLISH NEW SPECIAL REVENUE FUND
ENTITLED: "2003 OUTREACH PROJECT TO HOMELESS DETAINEES" AND
APPROPRIATE $84,097.67, CONSISTING OF GRANT FROM STATE OF FLORIDA,
GRANT-IN-AID PROGRAM TO PROVIDE, FOR ONE-YEAR PERIOD, OUTREACH,
ASSESSMENT, PLACEMENT AND TRANSPORTATION SERVICES TO HOMELESS
DETAINEES BEING RELEASED FROM DADE COUNTY JAIL.
Chairman Winton: Item 15's accepting a grant --
Commissioner Gonzalez: Move Item 15.
Chairman Winton: -- also emergency ordinance. Got a motion. Need a second.
Commissioner Sanchez: Second.
Chairman Winton: Got a motion and a second on accepting an ordinance. Would you read the
ordinance, please?
The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney.
Chairman Winton: Roll call, please.
59 July 24, 2003
An Ordinance Entitled —
AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION
ESTABLISHING A NEW SPECIAL REVENUE FUND ENTITLED: "2003
OUTREACH PROJECT TO HOMELESS DETAINEES" AND
APPROPRIATING FUNDS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $84,097.67, CONSISTING
OF A GRANT FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA, GRANT-IN-AID
PROGRAM TO PROVIDE, FOR A ONE-YEAR PERIOD, OUTREACH,
ASSESSMENT, PLACEMENT AND TRANSPORTATION SERVICES TO
HOMELESS DETAINEES BEING RELEASED FROM THE MIAMI-DADE
COUNTY JAIL; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT THE
GRANT AWARD AND EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS, IN A
FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, FOR SAID PURPOSE;
FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE ALLOCATION OF SAID FUNDS FOR
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROJECT CONTAINING A REPEALER
PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
was introduced by Commissioner Gonzalez and seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, for
adoption as an emergency measure, and dispensing with the requirement of reading same on two
separate days, was agreed to by the following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Whereupon the Commission on motion of Commissioner Gonzalez and seconded by
Commissioner Sanchez, adopted said ordinance by the following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 12397.
Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): The ordinance is adopted as an emergency measure, 4/0.
60 July 24, 2003
21. DIRECT CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AMENDMENT TO CITY CHARTER FOR
CONSIDERATION AT NOVEMBER 4, 2003 ELECTION, PROPOSING, TO AMEND
SECTION 29-B OF CHARTER TO AUTHORIZE COMMISSION TO AMEND LEASE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN CITY AND BISCAYNE BAY RESTAURANT CORP. D/B/A RUSTY PELICAN.
Chairman Winton: And Commissioner Regalado has asked if I would take up the Rusty --
Commissioner Regalado: Yes. 23 and 24, because I am looking here, it needs a four-fifths, and
I'll be leaving in about a half an hour or so.
Chairman Winton: OK.
Commissioner Regalado: So, if we can --
Chairman Winton: So, that's 23 first?
Commissioner Regalado: 23 -- yes, 23 first.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Is it a public hearing?
Chairman Winton: I think so. This is the Rusty Pelican lease?
Commissioner Regalado: The Rusty Pelican.
Chairman Winton: OK. Have to get staff in here.
Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): The first item is just a technical requirement of the City
code that just direct -- the City Commission directs me to prepare the question. Item 24 is, in
fact, the question that would appear on the ballot.
Commissioner Sanchez: Could the -- Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Winton: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Sanchez: Could the administration put on the record that they are in support?
Joe Arriola (City Manager): Yes, we are in support.
Commissioner Sanchez: You're in support? OK.
Commissioner Regalado: I'll move 23.
Commissioner Gonzalez: I second.
61 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: We have a motion and a second. On the discussion side, what I would like to
know is how, on the economics of this deal -- We had an economic proposal from the operators
of Rusty Pelican last year, and we postponed any decision last year in hopes that we would get a
master plan done for the area. We didn't do that, so, I don't think any of us are anxious to hold
them up further. However, I want to make sure that the economics compared to the deal offered
last year and agreed upon last year is at least as good this year as it was last year.
Mr. Arriola: They're better, sir.
Commissioner Sanchez: Better.
Chairman Winton: Or better.
Mr. Arriola: They are better. Believe me, they're better.
Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, if I may. And as you know, last year my concern
exactly was that we needed to create a master plan, although Rusty Pelican is an institution in our
community. We felt that the whole area itself could be a great vital point for revitalization to the
City, although Key Biscayne may not agree with it, but, you know, we have an opportunity to
put together something that we could all be very, very proud of in the future, so, the deal itself
today is much, much better. I'm very optimistic about the river walk or the walkway, the bay
walk and, of course, we are generating more money for the City, and then, of course, they're
forced to do some capital improvements on the plans, so I don't have a problem with it now, as
long as, in the near future, the City administration intends to do a master plan to find out how
much exactly we could generate from there, not as much looking at it from a point of view of
financial money, but to create a good program or good projects in that area, so, I am in support
and willing to vote "yes" on it.
Chairman Winton: Could we put on -- I think we need to -- You know, this is very important
waterfront land. The public pays careful attention to this thing.
Commissioner Sanchez: No. It needs a referendum.
Chairman Winton: I think it's important that we -- Yeah, but we need to probably put on the
record right now what the economic terms are that have been agreed to.
Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman, before you do that, I think it's important -- since 23 is
directing the City Attorney to write the question, it is important -- How many words you have,
75?
Commissioner Sanchez: Forty-five.
Mr. Vilarello: Seventy-five.
Commissioner Sanchez: Seventy-five.
62 July 24, 2003
Commissioner Regalado: Seventy-five, OK. On those 75 words, it's important that the people of
Miami understand clearly that there will be an enhancement of the property and also more
money, more income for the City of Miami.
Chairman Winton: And that's what I'm asking to put on the record, so that we get that right out
there up front.
Commissioner Regalado: Right. No, but I'm talking about the -- what is going to go on the
ballot.
Chairman Winton: Oh, I see.
Commissioner Regalado: The 75 words --
Chairman Winton: Right.
Commissioner Regalado: -- needs to, you know, have some kind of details, saying that the City
of -- it is the decision of the City Commission. The City Manager negotiated an agreement that
will bring to the City dah, dah, dah, whatever -- in a different -- Because that's the difference
that we're giving to the people of Miami to make a decision. We're not making a decision here.
I mean, it's up to the voters, not to us, so, it is important, Alex, to have this.
Mr. Vilarello: Mr. Chairman, if I could interrupt.
Chairman Winton: Um -hum.
Mr. Vilarello: Both Item 23 and 24, there has been substitute resolutions placed on the dais
today, and we've asked you to consider each of the substitute resolutions as you move forward.
Chairman Winton: Great. OK.
Commissioner Sanchez: Where are they?
Chairman Winton: Yes. They're --
Commissioner Regalado: They're here. It's minor changes. They're here. UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Commissioner Sanchez: Well, listen, this is going to be a referendum -- it's going to be put out
for the voters.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Right.
Commissioner Sanchez: And, you know, we have to be very transparent on this, and I agree
with you, we have to put out on the ballot and, you know, the capital improvements to the
property, the Bay walk, the revenue generated by the City, but we also need to put on the record
the minor amendments that are made to it, and can you read them, for the record?
63 July 24, 2003
Mr. Vilarello: Very briefly, the amendments to each was that they each require a four-fifths vote
of the City Commission, and we amended that, and that the 25 -year term would be broken up in
an initial 15 -year term, with two five-year renewal options.
Commissioner Gonzalez: All right.
Commissioner Sanchez: All right.
Commissioner Gonzalez: No big deal.
Commissioner Sanchez: Those are good amendments.
Chairman Winton: Lori.
Laura Billberry (Assistant Director): Lori Billberry, Economic Development. The business
terms that have been agreed to is the 15 -year extension, plus two five-year options, and that 15
years is upon the expiration of their initial lease term, which is in 2012, so, it's 25 years total
from 2012. They would make improvements of no less than three million dollars, and they
would pay seven percent of gross sales after the first twelve million, and eight percent of gross
sales in excess of twelve million dollars. That is an improvement over the last percentage that
was proposed previously, which was six percent of the first twelve and seven percent of the
previous -- over 12. Excuse me.
Chairman Winton: You mean the last year's agreement or --
Ms. Billberry: Right, last year. So, it is an improvement. Also, the minimum rent is going to
increase from $48,000 a year to $350,000 a year, and it's the greater of the percentage or the
minimum rent.
Commissioner Sanchez: All right.
Ms. Billberry: Excuse me, 360, so that would need to be also modified in the legislation.
Chairman Winton: Is it?
Ms. Billberry: It has not been modified in this legislation, so that would be an additional change.
Chairman Winton: OK. Any other questions?
Commissioner Sanchez: Well --
Chairman Winton: So --
Commissioner Sanchez: As amended. The maker of the motion moves it as amended?
64 July 24, 2003
Commissioner Gonzalez: With the modifications.
Commissioner Sanchez: With the modifications.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Second.
Commissioner Regalado: Did we -- we did vote on 23, right?
Chairman Winton: No.
Commissioner Sanchez: No.
Commissioner Regalado: No, we haven't.
Chairman Winton: No.
Commissioner Regalado: OK. Because 23 is a separate issue from the economic.
Chairman Winton: That's correct. But I wanted to hear the economic, so, OK.
Commissioner Regalado: On 24 --
Chairman Winton: We have a motion --
Commissioner Sanchez: Call the question.
Chairman Winton: We have a motion and a second on -- Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Billberry: I'm sorry, if I may. For a clarification, on the option periods, the last 10 years
will be at a flat eight percent.
Chairman Winton: What does that --
Ms. Billberry: In other words, it won't be scaled of seven percent of the first twelve million and
eight percent above. It will be a flat eight percent.
Chairman Winton: Oh, OK. Good. That's --
Ms. Billberry: So, it's a little bit better even in the options.
Chairman Winton: OK. Any other discussion -- so --
Commissioner Sanchez: Call the question.
Chairman Winton: -- this is a motion on the amended --
65 July 24, 2003
Commissioner Regalado: No. This is a motion on direction to the Attorney to write the
question.
Chairman Winton: So the amendments --
Mr. Vilarello: Item 23.
Chairman Winton: -- are offered in 24?
Commissioner Regalado: The amendments are in 24.
Chairman Winton: OK.
Ms. Billberry: It's in both, actually.
Commissioner Gonzalez: It's in both.
Chairman Winton: It's in both? OK.
Commissioner Regalado: Well, then, what --
Chairman Winton: Mr. City Attorney, could you help us here, please?
Mr. Vilarello: Yes. If you -- you can pass -- what I'd like you to do is pass Item 23 as
supplemented and as amended with the discussion. That is just a direction.
Chairman Winton: Thank you.
Mr. Vilarello: Everything -- the operative language will be in 24.
Chairman Winton: Need that motion.
Commissioner Regalado: OK.
Commissioner Gonzalez: So moved.
Commissioner Regalado: So --
Chairman Winton: Got a motion, second. Any further discussion? Being none, all in favor,
aye.
11
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Winton: Like sign opposed. The motion carries.
66 July 24, 2003
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-854
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION DIRECTING THE
CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CHARTER OF
THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, FOR CONSIDERATION
AT AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 4, 2003, PROPOSING,
UPON APPROVAL OF THE ELECTORATE, TO AMEND SECTION 29-B OF THE
CHARTER TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY COMMISSION, BY A FOUR-FIFTHS (4/5THS)
AFFIRMATIVE VOTE, TO AMEND THE LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY AND BISCAYNE BAY RESTAURANT CORP. D/B/A RUSTY
PELICAN DATED FEBRUARY 13, 1970, AS AMENDED, TO (A) EXTEND
THE TERM OF THE LEASE WITH RUSTY PELICAN FOR AN ADDITIONAL PERIOD
OF FIFTEEN (15) YEARS, WITH THE OPTION TO RENEW FOR TWO (2)
ADDITIONAL FIVE (5) YEAR PERIODS, (B) INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF THE
MINIMUM GUARANTEE TO THE CITY TO AT LEAST $36o,000 PER LEASE YEAR
EFFECTIVE UPON EXECUTION OF THE LEASE AMENDMENT, AND (C) REQUIRE
RUSTY PELICAN TO COMPLETE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PROPERTY,
INCLUDING A PUBLIC BAY WALK, IN THE AMOUNT OF NOT LESS THAN $3
MILLION, WITHIN TWENTY-FOUR (24) MONTHS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
THE LEASE AMENDMENT.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Chairman Winton: 24.
Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman, on 24, I think it's -- Mr. Manager, what you've got is
very good for the City. Only, I don't see here the -- there should be a time, 18 months after
permitting, right? Is that --
Chairman Winton: What's the question?
Commissioner Regalado: The question is, they should --
Chairman Winton: Capital improvements.
67 July 24, 2003
Commissioner Regalado: -- start construction -- no. They should be paying the new monthly or
yearly rate 18 months of the effective date of the lease amendment, or, my question is, 18 months
after permitting.
Unidentified Speaker: Twelve months.
Commissioner Regalado: Twelve months after permitting? After the whole permitting process.
And why -- it says here 18 months of the effective --
Chairman Winton: Would you speak into the microphone, please, Mr. Manager?
Mr. Arriola: I have such a big mouth that I don't think any -- it was changed to 12 all along.
Unidentified Speaker: (INAUDIBLE) permit.
Mr. Arriola: After permits, yeah.
Unidentified Speaker: Not after the effective date of the lease.
Chairman Winton: Excuse me.
Mr. Arriola: Yeah. We did -- we had agreed to 12 months after permit.
Commissioner Regalado: So, it's eight -- it's 12 months after the whole permitting process?
Mr. Arriola: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Regalado: OK. That's -- because I was confused here with the --
Commissioner Sanchez: Let me follow up on that, because this is very interesting. After
permitting -- and do they have a time frame to start the capital improvements?
Chairman Winton: Yeah, is there a minimum time frame by which they have to begin the capital
improvements?
Commissioner Sanchez: Because, I mean, after permits, we wait, we wait, we wait.
Chairman Winton: It could be 10 years from now.
Commissioner Sanchez: 10 years from now.
Ms. Billberry: If I may, Commissioner. This is just to put it before the ballot -- you know,
before the voters to get their agreement on whether or not to extend it. We will have to bring
back a detailed amendment spelling out all the terms and conditions for this, and, certainly, we
could add that type of condition in it and clarify those kind of details.
68 July 24, 2003
Commissioner Sanchez: But the voters are much smarter than you think, OK. This is -- you
know, we're giving away precious, valuable City land that, under our Charter, has to go through
a referendum, and that's perfectly fine. I'm in support of this. But when you bring up that issue
about the permits after the permits, people are going to inquire as to OK, it's fine. But are you
going to have a certain period of time to start those capital improvements? Because it could be
perceived in both ways. It could be a stall tactic, you know, and, you know, the voters, I think
they're very bright and they'll ask that question, and if you have one issue that's in doubt, they'll
vote it down, so, not only am I protecting the City, I also want to make sure that the voters
approve this, so, we have to make -- you have to be very careful that you answer all the
questions, and that's probably going to be one question, so, we have to have in the language --
some language where it states, two years from now, they'll start the capital improvements, three
years. That's up to the administration, but that needs to be stated in this legislation.
Chairman Winton: One year.
Commissioner Sanchez: Or one year. I mean --
Ms. Billberry: And if I may --
Mr. Arriola: We have a suggestion here.
Chairman Winton: OK. Thank you.
Mr. Vilarello: Well, addressing the concern, the number of months after the permits are issued is
an indefinite number. It could drag on for quite a period of time.
Chairman Winton: That's the point.
Mr. Vilarello: I would suggest that you leave it the way its written, and expand the number of
months from the effective date of the lease amendment. In that way, you can fix a date. In other
words, right now we have 18 months. If you want to give them more time to determine how
much time is appropriate and give it to them effective in a number of months or years from the
time of the issuance of the lease agreement.
Chairman Winton: I think what we want to do is get them working on the capital improvements
that benefit our City as fast as we can.
Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah, but you've got to -- Listen --
Ms. Billberry: If I may --
Commissioner Regalado: But it says 18 months here. They have to start in 18 months, right, the
capital improvement?
69 July 24, 2003
Mr. Vilarello: The way it's currently written, they have to start within 18 months of the effective
date of the lease amendment.
Commissioner Regalado: Right.
Mr. Vilarello: If you want to --
Chairman Winton: Oh, I see.
Mr. Vilarello: -- increase that month -- that time or decrease that --
Chairman Winton: I didn't read this right.
Mr. Vilarello: -- that's at your discretion.
Commissioner Sanchez: So, just for point of clarification, make sure that within 18 months, you
-- they have to start the capital improvements. You know? Yes or no?
Chairman Winton: What's the effective date of the lease amendment going to likely be?
Ms. Billberry: That is something that I -- just wanted to bring to your attention. This property
was originally deeded to the City by the state of Florida, and has a deed restriction. We will
have to go to the State to get that deed restriction waived, so, I don't know if that will be a 6 -
month roughly time frame, but that's probably a reasonable estimate from the time the voters
would approve it to go through the process with a board of trustees.
Chairman Winton: So, the amendment will take effect once you finish the negotiations with the
state of Florida, and then you bring it back to us?
Ms. Billberry: Correct.
Chairman Winton: Is that correct? OK. I understand. So, that's as fast as we can make it
happen. That will be the effective date of the amendment.
Ms. Billberry: And they would have extra time to start working on some of their documents and
begin their permitting process, so, they could use that window to do some of their due diligence.
Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah, but can we get a commitment from them that they will? I mean,
that's a question that, look, you haven't answered it. You've gone around the bush a couple of
times. You haven't answered the question. I want a commitment that they're going to start
capital improvements two, three years. You know, we've got to have that commitment. Because
right now, after the permitting process, you know, they could wait a couple of years to get the
permit, and it's just a valid question that I have. I want to know when they're going to start
capital improvements to do what they're saying in the agreement. That's all I want answered.
And that's the question that really, if it's not answered, it might change my vote, so, talk. I mean
-- could somebody speak from --
70 July 24, 2003
Commissioner Regalado: Well, I -- it says here 18 months. They've got to start in 18 months
after the state of Florida gives the -- why don't you put a date, like --
Commissioner Sanchez: No, no, no. I don't want to put a date. I want them to put it on the
record, whatever, 18. It could be 24 months, but, you know, that question alone can jeopardize
this referendum, and I want -- if I'm going to go out and support this referendum, you know, I
want to be able to go and be able to know what I'm talking about, and that's going to be a
question that they're going to ask. It's a very valid question.
Commissioner Regalado: I thought that they have to start construction 18 months of the
effective date of the lease. Now, she said that would take six months, so it means we can say 24
months --
Chairman Winton: I think they're about --
Commissioner Regalado: Twenty-four months.
Chairman Winton: I think they're about to come up with an answer. I was going to move this
back and --
Commissioner Sanchez: No, no, no, no. We could address it, but somebody has to put it on the
record.
Ms. Billberry: We'd like to be the 24 months from the lease amendment effective date.
Commissioner Sanchez: I could accept that.
Chairman Winton: Say -- wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
Ms. Billberry: To complete the improvements.
Chairman Winton: Oh, to complete the improvements.
Ms. Billberry: Complete the improvements --
Chairman Winton: Twenty-four months.
Ms. Billberry: -- within 24 months of the lease amendment effective date.
Chairman Winton: OK.
Commissioner Regalado: That's a reasonable --
Chairman Winton: Yeah.
71 July 24, 2003
Commissioner Gonzalez: Reasonable (INAUDIBLE).
Commissioner Sanchez: OK.
Chairman Winton: OK.
Commissioner Gonzalez: OK. Mr. Chairman, I'm ready to move 24 with the (INAUDIBLE).
Commissioner Regalado: I'll second.
Commissioner Sanchez: As amended.
Chairman Winton: We have a --
Commissioner Regalado: As amended. And it's a -- The Bay walk, it also has a dock?
Chairman Winton: Is that a question?
Commissioner Regalado: Yeah. It's a combination of Bay walk dock? Yes, it does?
Chairman Winton: Lori, you can't shake your head. We can't hear you.
Ms. Billberry: (INAUDIBLE)
Mr. Arriola: We have not seen the plans, obviously. But it's in their -- actually, both benefits to
have a dock.
Commissioner Regalado: So, it's --
Ms. Billberry: Yes.
Commissioner Regalado: It's a logical thing to do?
Mr. Arriola: It's very logical.
Commissioner Regalado: I just want to put it on the record, it's a Bay walk dock.
Mr. Arriola: OK.
Commissioner Regalado: OK.
Commissioner Gonzalez: All right.
Chairman Winton: Great. So, we have a motion -- an amended motion and a second.
Commissioner Regalado: Roll call.
72 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: Any further discussion?
Commissioner Sanchez: Call the question.
Mr. Vilarello: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Winton: I'm sorry.
Mr. Vilarello: If I can just read into the record the change in --
Chairman Winton: Great.
Mr. Vilarello: -- the question --
Chairman Winton: Please.
Mr. Vilarello: -- which is a part of the substitute Item 24. The number that was currently
included the minimum guarantee, it states three hundred and fifty thousand, we'll amend that to
three hundred and sixty thousand. The -- it previously provided that Rusty Pelican to "make"
capital improvements. We're going to make the word "make" to "complete" capital
improvements. And then the 18 months is going to change to 24. Would you like me to read the
whole question in context?
Chairman Winton: I don't think so.
Commissioner Gonzalez: I don't think so.
Chairman Winton: OK. All in favor, "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. The motion carries.
73 July 24, 2003
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gonzalez, who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-855
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
ATTACHMENT(S), APPROVING, SETTING FORTH AND SUBMITTING TO
THE ELECTORATE A PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT, AMENDING
THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED,
KNOWN AS CHARTER AMENDMENT NO. 1; AMENDING SECTION 29-13,
ENTITLED "CITY -OWNED PROPERTY SALE OR LEASE — GENERALLY",
TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY COMMISSION, BY A FOUR-FIFTHS (4/5 THS)
AFFIRMATIVE VOTE, TO AMEND THE LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY AND BISCAYNE BAY RESTAURANT CORP. D/B/A RUSTY
PELICAN DATED FEBRUARY 13, 1970, AS AMENDED, TO (A) EXTEND
THE TERM FOR AN ADDITIONAL PERIOD OF FIFTEEN (15) YEARS, WITH THE
OPTION TO RENEW FOR TWO (2) ADDITIONAL FIVE (5) YEAR PERIODS, (B)
INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF THE MINIMUM GUARANTEE TO THE CITY TO AT
LEAST $36o,000 PER LEASE YEAR EFFECTIVE UPON EXECUTION OF THE LEASE
AMENDMENT, AND (C) REQUIRE THE RUSTY PELICAN TO COMPLETE CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PROPERTY, INCLUDING A PUBLIC BAY WALK, IN THE
AMOUNT OF NOT LESS THAN $3 MILLION, WITHIN TWENTY-FOUR (24) MONTHS
OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE LEASE AMENDMENT; CALLING FOR AND
PROVIDING THAT CHARTER AMENDMENT NO. 1 WILL BE
SUBMITTED TO THE ELECTORATE AT THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL
ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 4, 2003; DESIGNATING AND
APPOINTING THE CITY CLERK AS THE OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVE
OF THE CITY COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF VOTER
REGISTRATION BOOKS AND RECORDS; FURTHER, DIRECTING THE
CITY CLERK TO CAUSE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE HEREIN
RESOLUTION TO BE DELIVERED TO THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS
OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, NOT LESS THAN 45 DAYS PRIOR
TO THE DATE OF SUCH SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION; PROVIDING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE FOR THIS RESOLUTION.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Regalado, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
74 July 24, 2003
Commissioner Gonzalez: OK. What was the item --
Chairman Winton: We're going to go back to Item Number 7.
Commissioner Regalado: Is this -- we voted on 23 and 24, right?
Commissioner Gonzalez: Yes.
Chairman Winton: We've voted on 23 and 24.
Commissioner Regalado: OK. Can we -- ?
Chairman Winton: I need to go back to 7, because we were --
Commissioner Regalado: Is it possible -- ?
Lucia Dougherty: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Chairman Winton: Thank you.
Ms. Dougherty: I'd like to introduce --
Chairman Winton: All right.
Ms. Dougherty: -- David Tallashey, who was here last year.
David Tallashey: I'll just take one moment, gentlemen. I appreciate very much your --
Chairman Winton: Your name. Excuse me. We need your name and address for the record,
please.
Ms. Tallashey: Yeah. David Tallashey, Orange, California. 6604 La Cumbre, Orange,
California. I appreciate very much the Council unanimously voting for this. We're committed to
your City. We love your City. You've seen our plans. We were here last year. And I think you,
Mr. Sanchez, said, "Give me a little more time." But we're eager to go, and we're going to do our
best to do everything you expect of us. Thank you.
Chairman Winton: Thank you.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Thank you.
Commissioner Regalado: Thank you.
Commissioner Sanchez: Thank you, sir. And, sir, how do you stay so fit? We need to bottle it
up and put it in a pill.
75 July 24, 2003
Mr. Tallashey: (INAUDIBLE) we don't serve any food on (INAUDIBLE).
22. ACCEPT PLAT ENTITLED "TACOLCY CITY SUBDIVISION."
Chairman Winton: OK. Item Number 7 again.
Otis Pitts: Mr. Chairman, we want to thank you very much. Mr. Haynes and I have had an
opportunity --
Commissioner Sanchez: Eighty-two --
Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Name and address.
Chairman Winton: We need your name and address for the record again, please.
Herschel Haynes: Name and address.
Mr. Pitts: Oh, I'm sorry, 555 Northeast 15th Street, 213.
Chairman Winton: Name, too, Otis.
Mr. Pitts: Otis Pitts --
Chairman Winton: Thank you.
Mr. Pitts: -- Jr. We got an opportunity to talk, and we realize a little confusion, but now I think
we resolved the issues and everything seem to be OK going forward.
Chairman Winton: Herschel, you want to put that on the record, please, your name and address,
too.
Herschel Haynes: Herschel Haynes, 4601 Northwest 15th Avenue. Mr. Chair, it was some
confusion and need for a discussion, and appreciate you giving us the opportunity to rectify
everything and get it in order --
Chairman Winton: My pleasure.
Mr. Haynes: -- and by the way, I congratulate you on being named the committee to chair the
new committee to address the civil services. I know you'll do a great job because you did a great
job on the --
Commissioner Sanchez: Charter.
Mr. Herschel: -- Charter Reform Committee --
Chairman Winton: Thank you, Herschel.
76 July 24, 2003
Mr. Herschel: -- so I congratulate you.
Chairman Winton: Appreciate it. OK.
Mr. Herschel: Thank you.
Chairman Winton: OK. Item 7, need a --
Mr. Pitts: Thank you very much.
Chairman Winton: -- motion again.
Commissioner Sanchez: So move.
Chairman Winton: Motion. Second?
Commissioner Regalado: Second.
Chairman Winton: Discussion. Being none, all in favor, "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. The motion carries.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved for its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-856
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ACCEPTING THE
PLAT ENTITLED "TACOLCY CITY SUBDIVISION," A SUBDIVISION IN
THE CITY OF MIAMI, SUBJECT TO ALL OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE
PLAT AND STREET COMMITTEE, AND ACCEPTING THE DEDICATIONS
SHOWN ON THE PLAT; AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY
MANAGER AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE PLAT; PROVIDING
FOR THE RECORDATION OF THE PLAT IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA.
77 July 24, 2003
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Regalado, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Mr. Pitts: Thank you very much.
Chairman Winton: OK.
23. AUTHORIZE MANAGER TO: (1) EXECUTE LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
STATE OF FLORIDA AND CITY TO LEASE CERTAIN SUBMERGED LANDS
CURRENTLY BEING UTILIZED BY GROVE MARINA MARKET, LTD. FOR DOCKAGE
PURPOSES (2) ACCEPT WAIVER OF DEED RESTRICTION FROM TRUSTEES OF
INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND TO ACCURATELY REFLECT AREA BEING
UTILIZED BY LESSEE; AND (3) EXECUTE AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN CITY OF MIAMI AND LESSEE TO ACCURATELY DESCRIBE AREA BEING
LEASED BY CITY TO LESSEE
Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman, can we do 25A before I leave?
Chairman Winton: Commissioner Sanchez just asked me if we could do what?
Commissioner Sanchez: Thirty-one.
Chairman Winton: And --
Commissioner Sanchez: (INAUDIBLE) Children's Museum, they're here. It's on a bonding
issue.
Chairman Winton: And how long will your takes, Commissioner Regalado?
Commissioner Regalado: I'll move it.
Chairman Winton: What --
Commissioner Regalado: Twenty-five A.
Chairman Winton: Well, let me look at yours and see what --
78 July 24, 2003
Commissioner Sanchez: So move -- second.
Chairman Winton: Hold on. Let me look.
Commissioner Regalado: It's a City Attorney --
Chairman Winton: Oh, OK, so we have a motion on 25A --
Commissioner Sanchez: Second.
Chairman Winton: -- and a second. Discussion?
Commissioner Sanchez: No, just -- Mr. Chairman -- Mr. City Attorney, this would take care of
all the problems there?
Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): This addresses the three problems that remain on this lease
agreement, yes.
Commissioner Sanchez: OK.
Chairman Winton: OK. Any other discussion? Being none, all in favor, "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. The motion carries.
79 July 24, 2003
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Regalado, who moved for its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-857
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO: (1) EXECUTE A LEASE AGREEMENT, IN A FORM
ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, BETWEEN THE STATE OF
FLORIDA AND THE CITY OF MIAMI TO LEASE CERTAIN SUBMERGED
LANDS CURRENTLY BEING UTILIZED BY GROVE MARINA MARKET,
LTD. FOR DOCKAGE PURPOSES PURSUANT TO A LEASE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY AND GROVE MARINA MARKET, LTD. ("LESSEE"),
WITH AN INITIAL TERM OF TWENTY-FIVE YEARS AND AN ANNUAL
RENT NOT TO EXCEED $2,000, SUBJECT TO ANNUAL CONSUMER
PRICE INDEX ("CPP') INCREASES, AND BACK FEES DUE, IN THE
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $29,500, TO BE PAID BY THE CITY OF
MIAMI; (2) ACCEPT A WAIVER OF DEED RESTRICTION, IN A FORM
ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, FROM THE TRUSTEES OF THE
INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND TO ACCURATELY REFLECT
THE AREA BEING UTILIZED BY LESSEE, WHICH WAIVER PROVIDES
FOR AN ANNUAL PAYMENT TO THE STATE, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO
EXCEED $27,000, SUBJECT TO ANNUAL CPI INCREASES, TO BE PAID
BY THE CITY OF MIAMI; AND (3) EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT, IN A
FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, TO THE LEASE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI AND LESSEE, DATED
SEPTEMBER 20, 1985, AS AMENDED, TO ACCURATELY DESCRIBE THE
AREA BEING LEASED BY THE CITY TO LESSEE AS DESCRIBED IN THE
SURVEY, ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
80 July 24, 2003
24. REGARDING REFINANCING OF PROJECT FOR MIAMI CHILDREN'S MUSEUM,
INC.; PROVIDE FOR ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS OF CITY, $5,000,000; PROVIDE
FOR RIGHTS OF HOLDERS OF SUCH BONDS; FIND IT NECESSARY FOR
NEGOTIATED PLACEMENT OF BONDS AND APPROVE PLACEMENT OF SAID
BONDS WITH ORIX PUBLIC FINANCE LLC; PROVIDE FOR PAYMENT OF BONDS
Chairman Winton: What's your number?
Commissioner Sanchez: Thirty-one.
Chairman Winton: Thirty-one.
Commissioner Sanchez: It's regarding the refinancing of a project. That's the Miami Children's
Museum, Inc., and they're here; maybe they could address the Commission.
Chairman Winton: How come I don't have a 31?
Commissioner Sanchez: It's a simple refinancing bond. They get a better rate.
Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Winton: Yes, sir.
Mr. Vilarello: I'd like bond counsel to address the issue, and there is a TEFRA (Tax and Equity
Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982) hearing in regard --
Chairman Winton: There's a what?
Mr. Vilarello: A public hearing, essentially, to discuss the issue.
Chairman Winton: Oh, OK.
Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Winton: OK. Would somebody like to introduce this? Yes, sir.
Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman, just before we hear the technical thing, I want to say to
you all that I took a tour of the museum and it is spectacular, and I am certain that all of the
residents of Miami will be proud when this museum is open to the public. We complain that we
do not have places to take children in the City of Miami. Now we do, or we will in a few weeks.
I think in September. However, there is an issue that I am calling to the attention of the Manager
and the City Attorney and the members of the Commission. They need parking, whether it's
temporary, whether it's permanent. You know, we are going to have a lot of visitors to that
museum, and it is -- I don't know what's going on with the parking now, but we -- they need
parking. I was there, and I think that it is important that we address this somehow, the parking
issue, so that's my concern. If you want to, you can move on to the bond issue now.
81 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: Yes.
Deborah Spiegelman: Just briefly, I want to thank the --
Chairman Winton: Name and address. Name and address.
Ms. Spiegelman: Deborah Spiegelman, executive director, Miami Children's Museum, 980
McArthur Causeway. Thank you, Commissioners, for all your support over the years. We had
been working very closely with the Parking Authority and got very good news from their staff
yesterday; that we have found a temporary parking situation, and we're hopeful that we will
continue to work with them and resolve the issues, and provide adequate parking at no cost until
the garage is open, so thank you all, and thank you, Mr. Noriega.
Commissioner Gonzalez: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) to you.
Chairman Winton: And who's going to present -- this is simply a -- yes, ma'am, thank you.
Jolinda Herring: Chairman, there is a public hearing; if you could open that up before we can go
on and approve the reso -- talk about the resolution.
Chairman Winton: We would hear the -- why would we have the public hearing before we hear
your comments?
Ms. Herring: Well, I could talk about the item.
Mr. Vilarello: Just introduce the item, and then he'll open the public hearing.
Ms. Herring: We're asking you to -- Hi. I'm Jolinda Herring with the firm of Bryant, Miller &
Olive. We were bond counsel on this transaction, and we're asking you to approve this
resolution. It's a bond issue issued by the City on behalf of the Miami Children's Museum in the
amount of $5 million. They will be using the funds to refinance a taxable loan that was at 8.79
percent. The bonds will be purchased by one institutional investor or public finance who
currently holds the taxable bond. The City will not be obligated on this debt. The bar where the
Miami Museum is solely responsible for repaying the debt from revenues of the museum,
including contributions, and I was -- they will be getting a current rate by issuing a tax exempt
through the City of 4.9 percent.
Commissioner Sanchez: Ma'am, let me just --
Chairman Winton: And the -- yes, sir.
Commissioner Sanchez: -- so it carries our name and we don't have any liability?
82 July 24, 2003
Ms. Herring: Right. In the municipal bond world, this is what we call a conduit financing."
Because the museum is a 501(c)3 charitable organization, the IRS (Internal Revenue Service)
allows you to do that on their behalf so they can get the tax-exempt rate.
Chairman Winton: And you've -- you might have said that and I wasn't paying attention.
What's the annual savings if you reissue these bonds?
Ms. Herring: Two hundred thousand dollars. They're going from a rate of 8.79 percent down to
4.9 percent.
Chairman Winton: Saving how much?
Ms. Herring: Two hundred thousand dollars --
Chairman Winton: Per year.
Ms. Herring: --per year. Yes.
Chairman Winton: Significant savings. OK, this is a public hearing. Anyone from the public
would like to speak on Item 31? Anyone from the public would like to speak on Item 31? If not,
we will close the public hearing.
Commissioner Sanchez: So move.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Second.
Chairman Winton: We have a motion and a second. This is not an ordinance, is it?
Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): No.
Chairman Winton: OK. We have a motion and a second on -- is this a resolution?
Mr. Vilarello: It's a resolution.
Ms. Thompson: It's a resolution.
Chairman Winton: OK, a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Being none, all in
favor, "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. The motion carries.
83 July 24, 2003
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved for its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-858
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION REGARDING THE
REFINANCING OF A PROJECT FOR THE MIAMI CHILDREN'S MUSEUM,
INC.; PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, IN THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT
EXCEEDING $5,000,000; PROVIDING FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE
HOLDERS OF SUCH BONDS; FINDING IT NECESSARY FOR A
NEGOTIATED PLACEMENT OF THE BONDS AND APPROVING THE
PLACEMENT OF SAID BONDS WITH ORIX PUBLIC FINANCE LLC
("BOND PURCHASER"); PROVIDING FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE
BONDS; APPROVING THE FORM OF AND THE EXECUTION OF
CERTAIN DOCUMENTS; PROVIDING CERTAIN OTHER AGREEMENTS
AND COVENANTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH
BONDS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
84 July 24, 2003
25. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: AMEND SECTION 2-829 OF CITY CODE
ENTITLED "SCHEDULE OF CIVIL PENALTIES;" CHAPTER 10, ARTICLE I, ENTITLED
"BUILDINGS — IN GENERAL" AND REPEALING AND CREATING NEW CHAPTER 36,
ENTITLED "NOISE", BY ESTABLISHING FINES FOR VIOLATION OF NOISE AND
NOISE RELATED ACTIVITIES; ADD NEW SECTIONS 10-6 AND 10-7, ENTITLED
"BUILDING CONSTRUCTION, DREDGING AND LAND FILLING; PERMIT REQUIRED
AND WHEN PROHIBITED" AND `BUILDING CONSTRUCTION, CERTIFICATE OF
COMPLIANCE; WHEN REQUIRED" TO PROVIDE FOR AND CLARIFY DAYS AND
TIMES CONSTRUCTION, DREDGING AND LAND FILLING ACTIVITY IS PERMITTED,
PERMIT REQUIRED AND ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY AND CREATE NEW CHAPTER
36 TO PROVIDE FOR AND CLARIFY NOISE PROHIBITIONS AND LIMITATIONS.
Chairman Winton: Did we do the one you wanted?
Commissioner Sanchez: Nineteen -A?
Chairman Winton: I don't even know where we are, I'm so lost.
Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Sixteen.
Chairman Winton: Sixteen is where we were?
Unidentified Speaker: Yes, start with 16.
Chairman Winton: OK, so let's go back to where we ended. Is Commissioner Regalado still
here?
Unidentified Speaker: Yeah.
Chairman Winton: I think it's important for him -- 16 is -- 19A?
some people. I want to jump to 19A; 16's going to take a while
ordinance in the City of Miami.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Move 19A.
Chairman Winton: We have a motion on 19A, noise ordinance.
Commissioner Sanchez: Second.
Chairman Winton: We have a motion and a second.
Commissioner Sanchez: Discussion.
Chairman Winton: Yes, and it is a public hearing.
Commissioner Sanchez: Yes.
Oh, I want to -- we also have
. Nineteen -A is a new noise
85 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: Anyone from the public would like to speak on 19A? Yes, sir.
David Miller: Yes, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Dave Miller, with the Miami River
Commission, offices at 4600 Rickenbacker Causeway. I have a comment or a question, I guess,
probably for the attorneys. One of the items in here talks about dredging, and only the ability to
dredge from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. We have a massive dredging project on the Miami River. Eighty
percent of the river comes through the City. If this is -- and it's a federal dredging project, so I
don't know if this actually applies to this particular ordinance, but if it does --
Chairman Winton: That's the problem.
Mr. Miller: -- there's a serious problem with keeping a massive amount of equipment idle for 50
-- more than 50 percent of the time for the dredging would cause a great increase in the dredging
project, so --
Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): The ordinance certainly does apply to any construction
project or dredging project that occurs in the City of Miami. However, it does provide, under
certain circumstances, for the City Manager to permit construction or dredging through those
hours after 6 p.m. and before, I believe, 7:30 in the morning.
Chairman Winton: So, there are provisions for discretion?
Mr. Vilarello: Certainly. The Manager --
Chairman Winton: OK.
Mr. Vilarello: -- has the discretion to permit that both the dredging and construction projects,
and also to impose conditions which may limit the noise during those hours of operations, as
well.
Commissioner Regalado: And what is the time for construction anywhere, 8 in the morning to 7
at night?
Mr. Vilarello: During the week, it is 7:30 -- from 6 p.m. in the evening till 7:30 in the morning,
and on the weekends, after 6 p.m. and before 9 a.m.
Commissioner Regalado: That's construction.
Mr. Vilarello: Construction, and dredging is --
Chairman Winton: That's --
Mr. Vilarello: -- the same hours.
Chairman Winton: -- the period where they can't be making noise.
86 July 24, 2003
Mr. Vilarello: Correct, in the evening.
Chairman Winton: OK.
Commissioner Regalado: And how do we measure the noise?
Mr. Vilarello: Decibel meters. It's an objective --
Commissioner Regalado: Yeah, the decibels, I know, but how do we do that? Because now that
gadget only is being used by the police.
Mr. Vilarello: Well, we're going to have to get a few more of those gadgets.
Commissioner Regalado: The building inspector don't have it.
Chairman Winton: Well, we're going to have to get a few more gadgets, I think he's absolutely
right.
Commissioner Regalado: They have it?
Mr. Miller: I just -- one comment.
Chairman Winton: Yes.
Mr. Miller: The request for proposals that the Army Corps is putting out for this does not
include this particular item. You know, they're basically saying it's a 24-hour operation under
federal navigation highway, so this would change the RFP (Request for Proposals) for the
process depending on what the Manager's decision may or may not be on this issue, so I -- if, at
all possible, I'd like to get some idea of how that would be enacted so that we can work with the
Corps to make this project happen.
Mr. Vilarello: Well, the ordinance specifically provides for the process in the first two sections,
and if that's the concern, perhaps you can address that before the construction project begins, but
certainly, I wouldn't want to write in an exception for the Army Corps of Engineers into the
ordinance. This project is going to be of a limited period of time, and this ordinance will be in
place for a significant period of time after that.
Mr. Miller: This is one dredging project in 75 years, so --
Chairman Winton: Well, David, I think that -- I think it does address the issue, and there is a
mechanism to solve the problem, and I think y'all continue on with your RFP and then people
have to assume that they're going to work with the City to solve this problem. OK. Yes, ma'am.
Elena Carpenter: Yes. Good afternoon. Elena Carpenter, here today as president of the Coconut
Grove Bayshore Condominium Association, at 2575 South Bayshore Drive. One of the things
87 July 24, 2003
that you heard very eloquently at the town hall meeting and for a long time in Coconut Grove has
been the disturbances caused by cruisers with boom boxes that are --
Chairman Winton: And motorcycles.
Ms. Carpenter: -- louder than professional concerts, and a motorcycle -- what should we call
them, motorcycle --
Chairman Winton: Motorcycles.
Ms. Carpenter: -- studs, and this cruising ordinance -- this ordinance, the noise ordinance does
not address, I believe -- does not give the police an opportunity to go after these people. It
doesn't give them the teeth that they need. On the contrary, there's a couple of places here, for
example, that it says traffic, aircraft and other transportation noise sources shall not be
considered in taking measurements, except when such background noise interferes with the
primary noise being measured, and it continues to say that the noise that is generated -- any
measurement shall be at least two minutes in duration, and two minutes in duration from a
motorcycle is like, and so basically, I think this is a wonderful ordinance and addresses
construction and development rather nicely, but I don't think that it gives or provides what we
need in Coconut Grove, which is something that will allow our police officers to more
effectively or more aggressively ticket and discourage people that are bringing this unnecessary
noise to the Grove. Thank you very much.
Chairman Winton: Thank you.
Commissioner Regalado: Wait one second.
Ms. Carpenter: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Regalado: Correction. You were at the Coconut Grove Marketing meeting last
time, and the NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) Commander from Coconut Grove said
we cannot enforce the noise ordinance. Remember the complaint about the lady that resides in
the condo next to the park when they have the road concert?
Chairman Winton: Right.
Commissioner Regalado: They say that they were told by the City Attorney not to enforce any
for all of the noise ordinance because it was very vague and not precise. We promised the lady
that we will be bringing a noise ordinance, so we're going to have to have some kind of --
something built in to address this problem because that rock concert went past midnight and
people really couldn't sleep. At the committee in Coconut Grove, we got the complaint. Also,
the main -- Johnny, and this is you, but I deal with this on the Marketing Committee. All the
complaints of the merchants and of the residents, but basically the merchants, is those boom
boxes, people cruising around. They -- people cannot sit on the sidewalk cafes because of being
annoyed by that, and the problem is that the police department is not enforcing this because they
do not have a precise --
88 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: Right. Mr. City Attorney, do we -- I'm sorry. Do we have -- is the
ordinance, as Ms. Carpenter described it -- and I had my own question here, does it include
music from outdoor concerts, and cars, and motorcycles, so is it fact that this ordinance does not
address those issues?
Mr. Vilarello: It certainly does address it, but it doesn't address --
Chairman Winton: It certainly what?
Mr. Vilarello: It does address those issues. However, it doesn't address a noise which is
temporary in nature. It's very difficult to say if it's a noise that exist --
Chairman Winton: Well, it may be difficult, but I'm going to move to defer this item, and we
need to figure out how we make it from difficult to reality.
Unidentified Speaker: Right.
Mr. Vilarello: The ordinance, as it's written, permits that temporary noise to exist for two
minutes.
Chairman Winton: Well, that doesn't work.
Mr. Vilarello: OK. Well, then my suggestion would be, perhaps, if you could please pass it on
first reading and let us take that period of August to work out those issues and see how more
stringent we can --
Chairman Winton: OK, great.
Mr. Vilarello: -- bring the ordinance.
Commissioner Sanchez: So move on first reading.
Chairman Winton: And by the way --
Commissioner Gonzalez: Second.
Chairman Winton: -- I interrupted the public hearing part.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Oh, I'm sorry.
Chairman Winton: Do you want to comment?
Carol Romine: The same comments from --
Chairman Winton: Name and address, please.
89 July 24, 2003
Ms. Romine: -- Grove Towers, and there are others here from the community --
Chairman Winton: Same thing.
Ms. Romine: -- from other condos.
Chairman Winton: We need your name --
Ms. Romine: Thank you.
Chairman Winton: -- and address on the record, please.
Ms. Romine: I'm sorry?
Chairman Winton: Your name and address on the record, please.
Ms. Romine: Carol Romine, 2843 South Bayshore Drive.
Chairman Winton: OK, so you all are hearing -- we're going to pass this ordinance on first
reading --
Commissioner Sanchez: First reading.
Chairman Winton: -- but the directive is to have the City Attorney work on figuring out how we
solve these problems that affect all the real neighbors in the community, which is cars,
motorcycle, and concerts. Concerts are easier because that fits the two -minute bill, but cars and
motorcycles don't, and I live -- my house backs up to Bayshore and I can tell you, those
motorcycles are -- it's amazing to me, so anyhow, we have a motion --
Ms. Romine: Thank you.
Chairman Winton: -- and a second.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Second.
Chairman Winton: Is this an ordinance?
Ms. Thompson: Yes, it is.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Yes, it is.
Chairman Winton: OK. Would you read the ordinance, please?
Commissioner Regalado: And Mr. Chairman --
90 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: Anyone else from the public would like to comment on this, by the way? If
not, we'll close the public hearing.
Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Winton: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Regalado: I think we should be precise because we should give the police the
tools --
Chairman Winton: Absolutely correct.
Commissioner Regalado: -- to do this.
Chairman Winton: I agree.
Commissioner Regalado: This concert went on and on and on, and it really --
Chairman Winton: I agree with you.
Commissioner Regalado: -- make --
Chairman Winton: I agree a hundred percent.
Commissioner Regalado: -- the lives of these people -- I mean, it is unfair, and we need to have
some kind of mechanism built into the ordinance, whereas people can call the police
immediately and the police will be able, not to fine, but to stop the noise if it's beyond what is
permitted --
Chairman Winton: Right.
Commissioner Regalado: -- or the time, because --
Chairman Winton: We agree.
Commissioner Regalado: -- you know, they come and find this promoter and they keep doing it,
and the people cannot live for this rest of the night.
Chairman Winton: So, you understand, Mr. City -- OK. We -- would you read the ordinance,
please?
The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney.
Chairman Winton: Roll call, please.
91 July 24, 2003
An Ordinance Entitled —
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING
CHAPTER 2, SECTION 2-829, ENTITLED "SCHEDULE OF CIVIL
PENALTIES;" CHAPTER 10, ARTICLE I, ENTITLED `BUILDINGS — IN
GENERAL" AND REPEALING AND CREATING A NEW CHAPTER 36,
ENTITLED "NOISE" OF THE MIAMI CITY CODE BY ESTABLISHING
FINES FOR VIOLATION OF NOISE AND NOISE RELATED ACTIVITIES;
ADDING NEW SECTIONS 10-6 AND 10-7, ENTITLED "BUILDING
CONSTRUCTION, DREDGING AND LAND FILLING; PERMIT REQUIRED
AND WHEN PROHIBITED" AND `BUILDING CONSTRUCTION,
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE; WHEN REQUIRED" TO PROVIDE FOR
AND CLARIFY DAYS AND TIMES CONSTRUCTION, DREDGING AND
LAND FILLING ACTIVITY IS PERMITTED, PERMIT REQUIRED AND
ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY AND CREATING A NEW CHAPTER 36 TO
PROVIDE FOR AND CLARIFY NOISE PROHIBITIONS AND
LIMITATIONS; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CITY CODE,
SEVERABILITY, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
was introduced by Commissioner Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, and was
passed on first reading, by title only, by the following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Ms. Thompson: The ordinance is passed on first reading, 4/0.
26. TABLED: DISCUSSION CONCERNING USE OF BOND PROCEEDS FOR BALLET
GAMONET IN DOWNTOWN MIAMI.
Chairman Winton: And I would like to go to Supplemental Agenda Item A, which is Ballet
Gamonet --
Commissioner Sanchez: What?
Chairman Winton: -- and it's -- I think it's on a blue page in this. I don't know how it is on y'all's
book, but it's -- can y'all please come forward? This is on quality of life bond money being used
to start up a new contemporary ballet in downtown Miami. This is a -- really a joint effort
between Union Planters bank, who currently has the lease on the space in the building
92 July 24, 2003
downtown. They are willing to make a significant contribution to make this thing happen
between the building owner, which is the owner of the Alfred I. DuPont building at the corner of
2nd Avenue and Flagler, who's willing to provide this fabulous, fabulous space at a just rock
bottom pricing structure, and the City of Miami stepping to the plate with up to $300,000 in
capital improvement dollars to make this a reality, and the Ballet Gamonet people committed to a
significant fundraising project to also make this a reality, and this becomes a significant
component of the rebirth of downtown, bringing real -- and it's right across the street from the
Gusman Theater by the way, so you'll have a real connectivity between the Gusman and new
activity in the Gusman and an exciting new cultural event. With that, who wants to start this off,
just in terms of -- and I think we'd like to have a -- you know, I think the people would enjoy a
description of what this ballet is going to do and represent, and please introduce Jimmy, as well,
so Jorge.
Jorge Morzuli: Good afternoon. Jorge Morzuli, 600 Northeast 97th Street. In a minute, I'll
introduce really the real person that needs to be introduced, and that's Jimmy Gamonet De Los
Heros, who is the founding resident choreographer for Miami City Ballet for 15 years and is
certainly interested, through the help of board members, some of which are here today and others
that aren't, to sort of keep Jimmy and his talent here in Miami. We -- when the board first started
sort of working through this, we were sort of searching for space. We were out in Little Havana
and elsewhere, and Commissioner Winton said, "You know, I want this to come downtown," and
so that's how we sort of started the conversation, so I'll just sort of leave it at that for now and
just introduce Jimmy Gamonet De Los Heros to talk about what he does and what he plans to
keep in Miami.
Commissioner Sanchez: We don't have a quorum, sir.
Mr. Morzuli: I beg your pardon?
Chairman Winton: Is Commissioner Regalado out there? I saw him.
Unidentified Speaker: He's gone.
Chairman Winton: Huh?
Unidentified Speaker: He's gone (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah. He wants you to wait for him.
Chairman Winton: So, could you go get --
Mr. Morzuli: Thank you.
Chairman Winton: -- Commissioner Gonzalez back, please.
Commissioner Sanchez: Then you wouldn't have to repeat yourself.
93 July 24, 2003
Mr. Morzuli: OK.
Commissioner Gonzalez: All right.
Chairman Winton: Sorry.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Returned at request. Go ahead.
Chairman Winton: OK.
Mr. Morzuli: Should I start from the beginning?
Chairman Winton: Yes. No, I think he -- Commissioner Gonzalez got part of it --
Commissioner Gonzalez: Yeah. I was --
Chairman Winton: -- so you can just pick up where you left off.
Mr. Morzuli: OK. Well, basically, for those of you that don't know, like I said, Jimmy Gamonet
was a resident core -- founding resident choreographer for Miami City Ballet for 15 years. He is
the only choreographer in the history of the National Endowment of the Arts to get two
fellowships. He's internationally acclaimed all over Latin America, Europe, and elsewhere, and
anyway, I'll just let you -- I'll introduce you to Jimmy himself. Thank you.
Jimmy Gamonet: Good morning, and thank you for having us here today. I am --
Chairman Winton: We need your -- Jimmy, we need your name and address for the record.
Mr. Gamonet: Jimmy Gamonet De Los Heros. I am the artistic director of Ballet Gamonet, and
the address is 600 Northeast 97th Street, Miami Shores. I'm a choreographer, and I came here
about 20 years ago extremely excited about being the resident choreographer for Ballet Master of
Miami City Ballet. During my work with the company, I was able to help build the identity of
this organization. Times have changed now, and thanks to the willingness and desires of some
members of this community who want to keep me here, and even more interesting, want to
further the art form in this community, I am in charge of this wonderful project. We have a very
clear objective mark for the company. One of them is to be able to bring works to this
community that have not been presented as yet; artists who have not been introduced to this
community who are extremely talented and works are extremely sophisticated. Secondly, I have
built something called the "choreographer's workshop," which is something very seldom seen in
the art form, and it's educating young choreographers on the art form. We also have an intensive
program for children, and a rich program. We are in touch with Xavier Cortada, a very well-
known artist in this community, who is going to serve as chairman of the outreach committee,
and is going to be working with Lillian Garcia from the public schools to implement these
programs, so in all, we're very excited to be here and we're very excited to know that you're here
to help us.
94 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: Thank you, and Mr. City Attorney, would you add some pieces to this that
we have to -- ?
Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Yes. Currently, we have a specific proposal from the
company with regard to the use of these public dollars. The state law allows for government --
municipal dollars to be used for some purposes when it's associated with a private entity, if it
provides some kind of quasi -public benefit to the public, it's a not-for-profit organization, it's a
voluntary organization, it's open to the public, and it's dedicated to certainly a public interest. I
think some of the discussions clearly falls within that. We have one issue to work out with
regard to public access, and our pro bono counsel has been working on that issue today, and we
hope to bring back a resolution to you this afternoon that makes the findings that I just referred to
and specifically identifies how the City will be participating, and generally speaking, the concept
is that the equipment that will be used will be purchased by the City and owned by the City, and
provided to the company. The total amount of the contribution has not yet been determined, but
we'll bring that back to you this afternoon --
Chairman Winton: But it's a maximum --
Mr. Vilarello: -- in a resolution.
Chairman Winton: -- of $300,000 in any event.
Mr. Vilarello: OK.
Chairman Winton: OK, so we can't take action, but they were in the audience -- I wanted to take
advantage of them being here this morning, and that resolution will come back to us this
afternoon.
Mr. Vilarello: Certainly, we'll incorporate these comments into the discussion --
Chairman Winton: Right.
Mr. Vilarello: -- on that resolution.
Chairman Winton: OK.
Commissioner Gonzalez: I just have one question --
Chairman Winton: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Gonzalez: -- Mr. Chairman. This money, according to what I'm read -- to the
proposal, is coming out of the City Homeland Defense Neighborhood Capital Improvement
bond?
Chairman Winton: Yes, it's coming out of District 2 quality of life money.
95 July 24, 2003
Commissioner Gonzalez: Oh, OK, then --
Chairman Winton: Yeah.
Commissioner Gonzalez: -- quality of life money.
Chairman Winton: Right.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Right.
Chairman Winton: OK.
Mr. Vilarello: And the Bond Oversight Board has, in fact, looked at this project and --
Chairman Winton: And it's been before the --
Mr. Vilarello: -- recommend it.
Chairman Winton: -- committee, as well.
Commissioner Gonzalez: No, no, that's all right. I just wanted --
Chairman Winton: OK. Yeah. No, that's a good question always.
Commissioner Sanchez: If you bring it this afternoon with the numbers on it --
Chairman Winton: Right. OK. Thank you. Would y'all like to just adjourn; there's only three
of us, or do you want to try to get more done?
Commissioner Gonzalez: Well, let's try to --
Chairman Winton: OK, fine.
Commissioner Sanchez: Let's get a couple more.
Chairman Winton: OK.
Commissioner Sanchez: Let's get the easy ones out so we can make up time.
Chairman Winton: Well, this hasn't been a day --
Unidentified Speaker: Thank you.
Chairman Winton: -- where we've had many easy ones.
96 July 24, 2003
Commissioner Sanchez: Well, it's a voluminous agenda.
Chairman Winton: I don't know what the easy ones are.
27. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: ESTABLISH NEW SPECIAL REVENUE FUND
ENTITLED: "STATE OF FLORIDA EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ("EMS")
MATCHING GRANT M3004 AWARD (FY 2003)," FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF PUBLIC
ACCESS DEFIBRILLATION (PAD) PROGRAM, AND APPROPRIATE $161,989,
CONSISTING OF $121,492 GRANT, FROM STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH, WITH MATCHING FUNDS, $40,497, ALLOCATED FROM CITY OPERATING
BUDGET.
Chairman Winton: What item are we on? Six -- well, 16, we're going to have a full --
Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah.
Chairman Winton: -- group here for 16. There's lots of issues with 16 --
Commissioner Gonzalez: That could be deferred for the afternoon.
Chairman Winton: -- so we will do 16 in the afternoon, so that means I'm going to 17.
Commissioner Sanchez: Seventeen, I'm prepared to move, Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Second 17.
Chairman Winton: OK. Motion and a second on a grant on 17. An ordinance.
Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Is this second reading?
Commissioner Sanchez: I don't think we've ever turned down accepting grant money, have we?
Chairman Winton: This is a first reading ordinance. We have a motion and a second. Would
you read the ordinance, please?
The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney.
Chairman Winton: Roll call, please.
97 July 24, 2003
An Ordinance Entitled —
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ESTABLISHING A
NEW SPECIAL REVENUE FUND ENTITLED: "STATE OF FLORIDA
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ("EMS") MATCHING GRANT M3004
AWARD (FY 2003)," FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A PUBLIC ACCESS
DEFIBRILLATION ("PAD") PROGRAM, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS
FOR THE OPERATION OF SAME, IN THE AMOUNT OF $161,989,
CONSISTING OF A GRANT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $121,492, FROM THE
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, WITH MATCHING
FUNDS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $40,497, ALLOCATED FROM THE CITY OF
MIAMI OPERATING BUDGET, ACCOUNT CODE NO. 001000.921002.6.270;
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT THE GRANT AND TO
EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE
TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, FOR SAID PURPOSE; CONTAINING A
REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, and was
passed on first reading, by title only, by the following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Roll call. The ordinance is passed on first reading, 3/0.
28. ACCEPT BID OF REGOSA ENGINEERING, INC., FOR PROJECT ENTITLED "OLD
VIRGINIA KEY BEACH PARK RENOVATIONS AND REPAIRS, PHASE P', B -3282A,
$1,108,179; ALLOCATE FUNDS FROM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT,
VIRGINIA KEY WILDLIFE ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER AND VIRGINIA KEY BEACH
PARK TRUST, $1,230,839.
Chairman Winton: Eighteen. You want to -- is Artime in your -- ?
Commissioner Sanchez: Eighteen, I believe that --
Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): There's a substitute resolution.
Commissioner Sanchez: -- Commissioner Regalado had some concerns on it, so we'll wait for
him to come back.
98 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: So, we'll defer 18. Nineteen is also -- well, let me -- on -- we ought to just
wait for everybody to be here on 19 also.
Unidentified Speaker: It's a time certain.
Chairman Winton: Nineteen's a time certain?
Unidentified Speaker: Yeah.
Chairman Winton: OK. Twenty.
Commissioner Sanchez: So move.
Chairman Winton: We have a motion. Second.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Second.
Commissioner Sanchez: These are funds that have already been allocated, right?
Chairman Winton: We -- I can't hear you.
Commissioner Sanchez: Jorge, Mr. Cano.
Jorge Cano: Jorge Cano, director of Capital Improvements. Yes, these funds have been
allocated already.
Commissioner Sanchez: Bond money, OK, I don't have a problem.
Chairman Winton: OK, so we have a motion and a second. Jorge, what are we doing to --
particularly in -- on this project on the -- this is on Virginia Key Beach?
Mr. Cano: Yes. There's a number of building restorations, including a bath house, concession
building --
Chairman Winton: Right.
Mr. Cano: -- existing pavilions, carousel building.
Chairman Winton: But are you working with the Trust to make sure we can figure out how we
can do bids in segments, maybe smaller segments, or whatever we need to do to do as much as
we can to encourage African-American contractors to bid and participate in the whole process of
rebuilding the beach?
Mr. Cano: Yes. We're working --
99 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: You are?
Mr. Cano: -- with the Procurement Department.
Chairman Winton: OK, great. Thank you. OK. Any further discussion? Being none, all in
favor, aye.
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. The motion carries.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved for its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-859
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ACCEPTING THE
BID OF REGOSA ENGINEERING, INC., THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE AND
RESPONSIBLE BIDDER PURSUANT TO FORMAL INVITATION FOR
BIDS, DATED JUNE 17, 2003 FOR THE PROJECT ENTITLED "OLD
VIRGINIA KEY BEACH PARK RENOVATIONS AND REPAIRS, PHASE P',
B -3282A, IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,108,179; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO. 331416, VIRGINIA KEY
WILDLIFE ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER NO. 333128 AND VIRGINIA KEY
BEACH PARK TRUST ACCOUNT NO. 116004 TO COVER $1,108,179 FOR
THE CONTRACT COSTS, AND $122,660 FOR EXPENSES, FOR A TOTAL
COST OF $1,230,839; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE FORM
ATTACHED, FOR SAID PURPOSE
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
100 July 24, 2003
29. ACCEPT BID OF MORLIC ENGINEERING CORP., FOR PROJECT ENTITLED "ROAD
REHABILITATION PROJECT", B-4652, $993,699; ALLOCATE FUNDS FROM CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, $1,142,754.
Chairman Winton: Twenty -A.
Commissioner Sanchez: Angel, that's your district.
Chairman Winton: Road rehab work.
Commissioner Sanchez: So move.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Second.
Chairman Winton: Got a motion and a second. Discussion. Being none, all in favor, "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. The motion carries.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved for its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-860
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ACCEPTING THE
BID OF MORLIC ENGINEERING CORP., THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE AND
RESPONSIBLE BIDDER PURSUANT TO FORMAL INVITATION FOR
BIDS, DATED JUNE 11, 2003 FOR THE PROJECT ENTITLED "ROAD
REHABILITATION PROJECT", B-4652, IN THE AMOUNT OF $993,699;
ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO.
313855, TO COVER $993,699 FOR THE CONTRACT COSTS, AND $149,055
FOR EXPENSES AND OTHER COSTS TO BE INCURRED BY THE CITY,
FOR A TOTAL COST OF $1,142,754; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE
ATTACHED FORM, FOR SAID PURPOSE.
101 July 24, 2003
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
30. AUTHORIZE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (DDA) TO ESTABLISH
PROPOSED MILLAGE RATE OF ONE-HALF (1/2) MILL FOR DOWNTOWN
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING OCTOBER 1, 2003 AND
ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2004.
Chairman Winton: Twenty-one is DDA (Downtown Development Authority) millage. Would
you move that?
Commissioner Sanchez: It's a public hearing, right?
Chairman Winton: Probably.
Commissioner Sanchez: This is a public hearing.
Chairman Winton: Is setting the millage rate for DDA a public hearing?
Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): This is setting the millage rate for the --
Commissioner Sanchez: For DD --
Mr. Vilarello: -- trim bill, which will then --
Chairman Winton: Yeah.
Mr. Vilarello: -- have the public hearings.
Chairman Winton: Will, in the future, have a public hearing?
Commissioner Sanchez: It's the DDA.
Chairman Winton: No. This is the public hearing?
Mr. Vilarello: This is -- it's being held at a public meeting, but it doesn't require a separate
public hearing.
102 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: OK.
Mr. Vilarello: Once the notice goes out to the public, they -- the public will be entitled to come
back and speak to the issue.
Chairman Winton: OK.
Commissioner Sanchez: All this basically does is launches the process.
Chairman Winton: Yeah.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Right, so move 21.
Chairman Winton: Need a motion.
Commissioner Sanchez: Second.
Chairman Winton: Motion, second. Discussion. Being none, all in favor, "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. The motion carries.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gonzalez, who moved for its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-861
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE
DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ("DDA") TO ESTABLISH A
PROPOSED MILLAGE RATE OF ONE-HALF (1/2) MILL FOR THE
DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,
FLORIDA FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING OCTOBER 1, 2003 AND
ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2004; AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE
DDA TO SUBMIT SAID PROPOSED MILLAGE RATE TO THE MIAMI
DADE COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR, TOGETHER WITH THE DATE, TIME
AND PLACE OF THE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT WHICH THE MIAMI CITY
COMMISSION WILL CONSIDER THE PROPOSED MILLAGE RATE AND
THE DDA TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR SAID FISCAL YEAR.
103 July 24, 2003
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Commissioner Sanchez: Could I request, being that you're the Chairman of the DDA, to have a
meeting with the executive director?
Chairman Winton: I'm sorry?
Commissioner Sanchez: The executive director, he's not here, but the executive director from
DDA could meet with myself and my staff?
Chairman Winton: Oh, you bet, absolutely.
Commissioner Sanchez: OK.
Chairman Winton: Sure, sure. In fact, just have your staff call him --
Commissioner Sanchez: OK.
Chairman Winton: -- and tell him I asked you to call him. In fact, that goes for any of you. If
y'all would like to meet -- you know, he's really a good guy and he'd love to meet with any of
you. I've told him to specifically, if y'all have a request, you want to meet, he jumps, so -- but
I've also told him don't go bothering people, so Commissioner Gonzalez, you want to meet with
him, he'll be glad to meet with you.
Commissioner Gonzalez: OK.
104 July 24, 2003
31. ACCEPT RECOMMENDATION OF MANAGER TO APPROVE FINDINGS OF
EVALUATION COMMITTEE, PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) NO.
02-03-091, THAT MOST QUALIFIED FIRMS TO PROVIDE ECONOMIC AND MARKET
STUDY OF MIAMI RIVER CORRIDOR FOR DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT ARE IN RANK ORDER: (1) INNOVATIVE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT RESOURCES, INC. AND (2) BAY AREA ECONOMICS; AUTHORIZE
MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT,
WITH INNOVATIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RESOURCES, INC., $125,000.00;
AUTHORIZE MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH BAY
AREA ECONOMICS IN EVENT AGREEMENT CANNOT BE NEGOTIATED
INNOVATIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RESOURCES, INC.
Chairman Winton: Twenty --
Commissioner Gonzalez: Twenty-two.
Chairman Winton: Twenty-two. What's 22?
Commissioner Gonzalez: I'll move 22, but I have a question --
Commissioner Sanchez: Second.
Commissioner Gonzalez: -- for Mr. Manager.
Chairman Winton: Why have I lost 22?
Commissioner Gonzalez: Mr. Manager.
Joe Arriola (City Manager): Yes, sir.
Commissioner Gonzalez: This Item 22 that has to do with the Miami River Economic and
Market Study, what -- who are we giving this money to?
Mr. Arriola: (INAUDIBLE)
Commissioner Gonzalez: Pardon me?
Mr. Arriola: I (INAUDIBLE) there.
Commissioner Gonzalez: OK. Item 22 --
Mr. Arriola: Yes.
Commissioner Gonzalez: -- is a recommendation for award of RFP (Request for Proposals), or
whatever, consulting services for Miami River Economic and Market Study. Is that done
105 July 24, 2003
through us, through the City of Miami, or through the Miami River Commission, or who's doing
this?
Mr. Arriola: We are.
Commissioner Gonzalez: We're doing this?
Mr. Arriola: Yes.
Commissioner Gonzalez: All right. OK, Mr. Chairman, we have a motion and a second on this.
Chairman Winton: We have a motion and a second on 22. Any further discussion? Being none,
all in favor, "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. The motion carries.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gonzalez, who moved for its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-862
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ACCEPTING THE
RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER TO APPROVE THE
FINDINGS OF THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE, PURSUANT TO
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) NO. 02-03-091, DATED MARCH 10,
2003 THAT THE MOST QUALIFIED FIRMS TO PROVIDE AN ECONOMIC
AND MARKET STUDY OF THE MIAMI RIVER CORRIDOR FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ARE IN RANK ORDER:
(1) INNOVATIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RESOURCES, INC. AND
(2) BAY AREA ECONOMICS; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY
WITH INNOVATIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RESOURCES, INC.,
THE TOP RANKED FIRM, FOR AN INITIAL PERIOD OF ONE YEAR,
WITH THE OPTION TO EXTEND FOR TWO ADDITIONAL SIX MONTH
PERIODS, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $125,000.00 FOR THE
INITIAL AND EXTENDED PERIODS OF THE AGREEMENT; FURTHER
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE
AN AGREEMENT WITH BAY AREA ECONOMICS, THE SECOND
RANKED FIRM, IN THE EVENT A FAIR, COMPETITIVE AND
REASONABLE AGREEMENT CANNOT BE NEGOTIATED AND
EXECUTED WITH INNOVATIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
RESOURCES, INC; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM ACCOUNT CODE NO.
311047-509301-270.
106 July 24, 2003
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Commissioner Gonzalez: We did 23, right?
Commissioner Sanchez: Johnny, before we go on 22nd --
Commissioner Gonzalez: You're on 24.
Chairman Winton: On which one?
Commissioner Sanchez: Just on 22nd, it was approved, but just for your information --
Chairman Winton: Yeah.
Commissioner Sanchez: -- we're starting to see development along the river that, although it's
starting in downtown, I guarantee you, it'll get to Allapattah, and the projects that are coming in,
I think that it's prudent for the City to have this study going on because we're starting to see
major projects that are --
Chairman Winton: Absolutely.
Commissioner Sanchez: -- coming in, and if you don't have a study --
Chairman Winton: Absolutely.
Commissioner Sanchez: -- at the end of five or ten years, what you may have there is something
that was created out of, you know, control.
Chairman Winton: Helter-skelter, right.
Commissioner Gonzalez: No, I understand that and I appreciate that, but the fact is that since so
many developments are moving into Allapattah, I don't want anything to delay the developments
in Allapattah --
Commissioner Sanchez: No, no, no --
107 July 24, 2003
Commissioner Gonzalez: -- so I --
Commissioner Sanchez: -- and I agree with you a hundred percent.
Commissioner Gonzalez: -- want to make sure that, you know, I'm informed of everything that
is going on as far as development is in my district.
32. AUTHORIZE MANAGER TO EXECUTE AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT,
AMENDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY AND DEPARTMENT OF OFF-STREET
PARKING (DOSP) TO PROVIDE FOR DOSP: (1) TO DESIGN, CONSTRUCT AND
OPERATE TWO PARKING FACILITIES ON WATSON ISLAND; AND (2) USE GRANT
FUNDS RECEIVED BY CITY, $220,000, FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF BOAT
RAMP PARKING AND ANCILLARY FACILITIES TO BE LOCATED ON WATSON
ISLAND; AUTHORIZE DOSP, AT ITS COST, TO DESIGN, CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE
INTERIM PARKING FACILITIES FOR USE BY MIAMI CHILDREN'S MUSEUM AND
OVERFLOW PARKING FOR PARROT JUNGLE ISLAND.
Chairman Winton: And we've already --
Commissioner Gonzalez: OK, 25.
Chairman Winton: We've already done 23 and 24 --
Commissioner Gonzalez: Item 24.
Chairman Winton: -- so 25.
Commissioner Gonzalez: This is -- this has to do with --
Chairman Winton: This is Off -Street Parking to develop parking facilities.
Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): I'm sorry, Chair, is it 25 or 25A?
Chairman Winton: I have 25.
Commissioner Sanchez: Twenty-five.
Commissioner Gonzalez: That's what I have.
Chairman Winton: We've already done 25A. Twenty-five A is done.
Laura Billberry: If I may, Lori Billberry, Economic Development.
Chairman Winton: Yes, ma'am.
108 July 24, 2003
Ms. Billberry: We did distribute to you all this morning an amended version for Item 25, and if
you'd like, I can highlight the differences from that from which was previously distributed.
Chairman Winton: If you have a question, ask. If not, let's -- need a motion.
Commissioner Sanchez: None. So move.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Second.
Chairman Winton: Got a motion and a second. Discussion. Being none, all in favor, "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved for its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-863
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AMENDED AND RESTATED
AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, AMENDING
THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY") AND THE
DEPARTMENT OF OFF-STREET PARKING ("DOSP") DATED AUGUST 8,
2002, TO PROVIDE FOR DOSP: (1) TO DESIGN, CONSTRUCT AND
OPERATE TWO PARKING FACILITIES ON WATSON ISLAND; AND (2)
TO USE GRANT FUNDS RECEIVED BY THE CITY, IN A TOTAL AMOUNT
OF $220,000, FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE BOAR
RAMP PARKING AND ANCILLARY FACILITIES TO BE LOCATED ON
WATSON ISLAND, SUBJECT TO DOSP'S COMPLIANCE WITH CERTAIN
TERMS AND CONDITIONS RELATED TO THE USE OF SAID GRANT
FUNDS; FURTHER AUTHORIZING DOSP, AT ITS SOLE COST, TO
DESIGN, CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE INTERIM PARKING FACILITIES
AT LOCATIONS TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY MANAGER FOR USE
BY THE MIAMI CHILDREN'S MUSEUM AND OVERFLOW PARKING FOR
PARROT JUNGLE ISLAND, SAID AUTHORIZATION SHALL EXPIRE
UPON COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE PARKING FACILITIES
ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WATSON ISLAND.
109 July 24, 2003
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): That's on the substitute --
Chairman Winton: I'm sorry?
Mr. Vilarello: -- resolution and --
Chairman Winton: Yeah.
Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah.
Mr. Vilarello: -- attachment.
Chairman Winton: To the substitute resolution, yes, it is.
33. AUTHORIZE MANAGER TO EXECUTE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
WITH PARROT JUNGLE ISLAND, INC. FOR DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION,
MANAGEMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF JAPANESE GARDEN TO BE LOCATED ON
ONE ACRE ON WATSON ISLAND.
Commissioner Gonzalez: We did 25A.
Chairman Winton: Yeah, we've done 25A, so 25B. Did we do 2513? We did not --
Laura Billberry (Acting Director, Economic Development): No.
Chairman Winton: -- do 25B.
Commissioner Gonzalez: No, we don't have 25B, do we?
Ms. Billberry: In 25B, we also provided you --
Chairman Winton: Yeah, this was also a substitute.
110 July 24, 2003
Ms. Billberry: -- an amended version this morning, and we would ask that you pass the amended
version. If you'd like, I can also go through those substantial changes, if you'd like.
Chairman Winton: And this -- would you refresh our -- and this is on --
Ms. Billberry: This is the agreement between the City and Parrot Jungle for the construction and
management of the Japanese Garden.
Commissioner Gonzalez: OK.
Chairman Winton: OK.
Commissioner Gonzalez: All right.
Chairman Winton: No questions. Need a motion.
Commissioner Gonzalez: No questions. Move 25B.
Chairman Winton: Five B. Got a motion. Need a second. Joe.
Commissioner Sanchez: Second, with a question.
Chairman Winton: Joe, please.
Commissioner Sanchez: We're basically giving Parrot Jungle the right for that, for the Japanese
Garden --
Ms. Billberry: Yes.
Commissioner Sanchez: -- and they're going to maintain it?
Ms. Billberry: Correct. Under their lease, their initial lease with the City, they do have an
obligation to maintain that, the Japanese Garden. They have also asked, since they are going to
be maintaining, that they have the opportunity to manage it, and that way they could try and
manage it in a manner that would be consistent with the style that they're trying to present.
Commissioner Sanchez: Has there been any talk about a fee to enter the Japanese Garden?
Ms. Billberry: There has been talk about having a nominal fee that would --
Commissioner Sanchez: That would be approved by this Commission?
Ms. Billberry: If you want it to be approved by the Commission, we can. We had provided that
it be part of their management plan, approved by the Parks director. However, if you would like,
we can have that come here instead.
111 July 24, 2003
Commissioner Sanchez: No, but Parrot Jungle will be responsible?
Ms. Billberry: Yes, they would be responsible. They would be able to utilize out of the
revenues those funds for the maintenance of it. However, if there's a shortfall, Parrot Jungle
would be liable for that shortfall, so there would be no financial obligation on the City.
Commissioner Sanchez: How about liability, if someone trips and fall, would we be responsible
for that?
Ms. Billberry: We do have asking -- the Risk Management is reviewing their insurance
provisions, but we are asking them to provide an insurance policy for liability.
Commissioner Sanchez: No further questions.
Chairman Winton: So we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Being none, all
in favor, "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. The motion carries.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gonzalez, who moved for its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-864
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT (THE "AGREEMENT"), IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE
ATTACHED FORM, WITH PARROT JUNGLE ISLAND, INC. ("PH"), A
FLORIDA CORPORATION, FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION,
MANAGEMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF THE JAPANESE GARDEN TO
BE LOCATED ON APPROXIMATELY ONE ACRE ON WATSON ISLAND,
WITH AN INITIAL TERM OF SEVEN (7) YEARS, PROVIDED, HOWEVER,
THAT PJI' S MAINTENANCE OBLIGATIONS SHALL CONTINUE
THROUGHOUT THE TERM OF THE ITS LEASE WITH THE CITY OF
MIAMI, DATED SEPTEMBER 2, 1997, AS AMENDED; FURTHER
APPROVING CONSIDERATION TO PJI FOR ITS SERVICES IN AN
AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE ACTUAL COST OF PJI' S PROVISION OF
SERVICES BASED ON A MANAGEMENT BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT
PLAN APPROVED BY THE CITY, TO THE EXTENT FUNDS ARE
AVAILABLE.
112 July 24, 2003
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
34. WITHDRAW: PROPOSED RECOMMENDATION OF MANAGER TO APPROVE
FINDINGS OF EVALUATION COMMITTEE, ACCEPTING PROPOSAL OF MERCY
OUTPATIENT SERVICES D/B/A MERCY OUTPATIENT CENTER TO PERFORM
EMPLOYMENT AND ANNUAL PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS AND HEPATITIS -B
IMMUNIZATIONS FOR DESIGNATED PERSONNEL FOR DEPARTMENT OF
EMPLOYEE RELATIONS.
Chairman Winton: I think -- 26, we probably ought to --
Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Do it in the afternoon.
Chairman Winton: -- do that with all the Commissioners here.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Right.
Commissioner Sanchez: Twenty-seven also.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Twenty-seven, I have here written withdrawn.
Joe Arriola (City Manager): All right. I withdrew 27.
Commissioner Sanchez: You withdrew 27?
Chairman Winton: Withdrew?
Mr. Arriola: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Yes.
Mr. Arriola: I'm sorry.
113 July 24, 2003
35. DEFER TO COMMISSION MEETING CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER
11, 2003, CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED ACCEPTANCE OF RECOMMENDATION OF
MANAGER TO APPROVE FINDINGS OF EVALUATION COMMITTEE, PURSUANT TO
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. 02-03-099, THAT MOST QUALIFIED FIRM TO
PROVIDE PSYCHOLOGICAL SCREENING SERVICES FOR DEPARTMENT OF POLICE
IS LAW ENFORCEMENT PSYCHOLOGICAL AND COUNSELING ASSOCIATES, INC.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Twenty-eight. Move 28.
Chairman Winton: Motion on 28.
Commissioner Sanchez: I --
Chairman Winton: Need a second.
Commissioner Sanchez: -- have some questions on this.
Chairman Winton: OK. You want to second it and then the discussion?
Commissioner Sanchez: I'll second it for the purpose of discussion, yeah.
Chairman Winton: OK. All yours.
Commissioner Sanchez: You're asking for a total of, what is it, 1.4 million -- 1.3 million?
John Gallagher: One point three six.
Commissioner Sanchez: And that's for how many years?
Mr. Gallagher: John Gallagher, Miami Police Department. Commissioner, that's a total of six
years. It's a $227,000 maximum per year.
Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Gallagher, you're looking at hiring about 130 police officers,
correct, around there, ballpark figure?
Mr. Gallagher: Yes, sir, we are.
Commissioner Sanchez: In the process of hiring these 130 police officers, you're probably going
to take in 500 applicants, correct?
Mr. Gallagher: I'd say that's even low. It'll probably be double that over the next two years.
Commissioner Sanchez: And this is pertaining to psychologicals, correct?
Mr. Gallagher: This is part of it. This is for the prescreening, psychologicals, as well as stress
counseling that's available to officers throughout their career.
114 July 24, 2003
Commissioner Sanchez: Let's use 500; makes my numbers easy. I'm not that good in math, all
right.
Mr. Gallagher: That makes two of us.
Commissioner Sanchez: You take --
Mr. Gallagher: Sure, 500.
Commissioner Sanchez: -- 500 police officers or applicants. Before they get to the
psychological, which is they go through the testing --
Mr. Gallagher: Yes.
Commissioner Sanchez: -- then they go to the background investigation, then they go to the
physical --
Mr. Gallagher: They have a physical, yes.
Commissioner Sanchez: -- then they go to the polygraph --
Mr. Gallagher: Yes.
Commissioner Sanchez: -- and then the last one is the psychological testing, if I --
Mr. Gallagher: Yes. By law, it has to be that way.
Commissioner Sanchez: Exactly.
Mr. Gallagher: Conditional offer of employment.
Commissioner Sanchez: Now, out of 500 applicants, by the time you get to the last process,
you've weeded out, let's say, 50 percent, wouldn't you say so?
Mr. Gallagher: From the original applicants taking the test, it's actually a much greater
percentage that have washed out by then. We're hoping that out of the 500 who sit, that we'll get
to the end of the process. We've been working with Department of Human Resources, and we're
hoping for about ten percent will survive by the end.
Commissioner Sanchez: But at the end of the day, you're going to hire 130 of the best qualified
Mr. Gallagher: Yes.
115 July 24, 2003
Commissioner Sanchez: -- of the people that have applied and have gone through the entire
process?
Mr. Gallagher: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Sanchez: Now, $227,000, I think it's a lot of money, all right, and you're looking,
once again, to a concern that I continue to have is how -- we've -- how long have you used this
company? I think they've always done your psychological. You've never changed that
company, as I recall.
Mr. Gallagher: They've been --
Commissioner Sanchez: They've been around forever.
Mr. Gallagher: For a long time, yes, sir. For many years; perhaps as many as 20.
Commissioner Sanchez: Well, you know, I'm going to be very honest. I'm a big supporter, but
when you look at these numbers, you're looking at $227,000 for six years. You know, at the end
of the day, I think you're going to have a lot of money left over that's probably going to end up in
your account. That's how I look at it. I think these numbers are pretty high for that. I mean, I
want to make sure that we have the best qualified company to do the psychologicals. The last
thing that we want to do is we don't want to get back in the early `80s and mid -80s when we
went out there and we hired police officers that ended up being bad apples. I want to make sure
we weed everybody out, but to be honest with you, this is for six years. You're talking $1.3
million for psychological testing.
Mr. Gallagher: Commissioner, if I may, we are going to be putting on a push to replenish the
number of officers that we expect to lose this year, next year, and the following year. Because of
the hiring patterns 20 years ago, a number of our officers are eligible for retirement, and we're
losing eight officers a month to attrition, where the average, over the past three years, had been
less than three per month. The last contract was for $217,000 a year. This is a slight increase
from that. That was from, I think, 1999. It's only a slight increase, but I think that we're going to
be utilizing these services. This is a big push we have in these next few years coming up.
Commissioner Sanchez: Well, you've improved your case. Just ask -- so we're anticipating next
year hiring how many -- how many police officers to do we have in the DROP (Deferred
Retirement Option Plans) plan?
Mr. Gallagher: I'm not exactly sure. I could tell you that in this calendar year, our original
estimate coming in was we'd lose 30 officers based on the past two or three years. We are going
to lose a hundred officers this year.
Commissioner Sanchez: Right, and how many do you anticipate on losing probably next year? I
know it's hard to figure out, but --
116 July 24, 2003
Mr. Gallagher: We're expecting in our own calculations and as an informal way of doing it -- I
speak to the president of the FOP (Fraternal Order of Police), I speak to our colleagues in MRC
(Miami Riverside Center) -- we expect again another hundred officers to leave next year, so it
will be 200 for this calendar year, 200 for next year. We've changed the testing. The testing was
set up to be given once a year, and working with Rosalie Mark, we now plan to give that test four
times a year, and there'll be 500 candidates sitting each time, but we'll have smaller lists,
Commissioner, but we think we're going to have better candidates on that list, so we're going to
be -- we're planning to be going through a lot more candidates as we try to keep up with this
attrition.
Commissioner Sanchez: OK. Thank you.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Winton: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Gonzalez: I want to reconsider my motion. I would like to defer this for
September -- for our first meeting in September so they have time to look at other companies.
Chairman Winton: OK, so -- he needs to withdraw his --
Commissioner Gonzalez: Yes.
Chairman Winton: Do we need a motion --
Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Withdraw his motion.
Chairman Winton: --to withdraw or can he just withdraw?
Commissioner Sanchez: And there's no second; it dies.
Chairman Winton: OK.
Mr. Vilarello: It hasn't been voted on?
Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): There was no vote.
Commissioner Gonzalez: There was no second. It died.
Chairman Winton: Well, there was a second because --
Commissioner Gonzalez: No, it was not second.
Ms. Thompson: It wasn't voted --
Chairman Winton: Yeah, he seconded it.
117 July 24, 2003
Commissioner Sanchez: I second it for the purpose --
Chairman Winton: Yeah, for discussion.
Commissioner Sanchez: --of discussion.
Chairman Winton: I just want to make sure we do it right.
Mr. Vilarello: He needs to withdraw his motion.
Chairman Winton: OK, and that's all we need to do?
Commissioner Sanchez: Motion, yeah.
Chairman Winton: OK.
Commissioner Sanchez: Now, but we need a motion to defer the item, if he's going to defer it or
Chairman Winton: Right, to September.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Yeah, I want to defer it for first meeting in September, so we have --
they have time to look at other options.
Chairman Winton: First meeting in September, whatever that date is.
Mr. Gallagher: Yes, sir.
Chairman Winton: We don't need a date --
Ms. Thompson: Eleventh.
Commissioner Sanchez: John.
Chairman Winton: -- in front of us.
Commissioner Sanchez: John.
Chairman Winton: The first meeting in September.
Ms. Thompson: September 11.
Chairman Winton: Need a second on that motion.
Commissioner Sanchez: John.
118 July 24, 2003
Mr. Gallagher: Yes, Commissioner.
Commissioner Sanchez: Are you in the process now of -- I mean, you -- their -- when are they
going to take the tests? When are the -- are they taking tests now, as we speak?
Mr. Gallagher: We have a test that's coming up in -- maybe within the week. We're also
finishing off the remainder of the previous tests. I think it may be 16 or -- 14 or 16 months old,
and we're working feverishly to exhaust that list, get as many candidates as we can, and that'll
allow us to then certify the next list that the candidates will be sitting for. I think it might even
be this week, the date -- the exact date escapes me, but it is in July.
Commissioner Sanchez: OK.
Chairman Winton: OK, so we need a second.
Glenn Marcos (Director, Purchasing Department): Commissioner, may I add one other thing?
Chairman Winton: No, no, no, no.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Finish.
Chairman Winton: This item's been deferred.
Commissioner Sanchez: Motion to defer to September -- first meeting --
Chairman Winton: Yes.
Commissioner Sanchez: -- in September.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Yes, sir.
Chairman Winton: So, you'll -- talk to them. Thank you.
Commissioner Gonzalez: OK. Move 29, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Thompson: I'm sorry, Chair. We got the motion, and Commissioner Gonzalez moved it; we
do not have a second. You did not vote on it yet.
Chairman Winton: OK. Second on a motion to defer.
Commissioner Sanchez: For a deferral?
Chairman Winton: Yeah.
Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah.
119 July 24, 2003
Commissioner Gonzalez: Second the motion.
Chairman Winton: Second. All in favor, "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. The motion carries.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Gonzalez, who moved for its adoption:
MOTION NO. 03-865
A MOTION TO DEFER TO THE COMMISSION MEETING CURRENTLY
SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 11, 2003, CONSIDERATION OF
PROPOSED ACCEPTANCE OF THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY
MANAGER TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF THE EVALUATION
COMMITTEE, PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. 02-03-099,
THAT THE MOST QUALIFIED FIRM TO PROVIDE PSYCHOLOGICAL
SCREENING SERVICES FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF POLICE IS LAW
ENFORCEMENT PSYCHOLOGICAL AND COUNSELING ASSOCIATES,
INC., A NON-MINORITY/MIAMI-DADE COUNTY VENDOR, 3900 N.W.
79TH AVENUE, SUITE 726, MIAMI, FLORIDA.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the motion was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
120 July 24, 2003
36. APPROVE PROVISION OF SIXTY MONTH LEASE OF XEROX DOCUTECH 6135
PRODUCTION COPIER/PRINTER, DIGIPATH SOFTWARE AND ACCESSORIES FROM
XEROX CORPORATION, AWARDED UNDER EXISTING PUTNAM COUNTY BID NO.
97-02 AND AGREEMENT NO 0713981-04, $86,541.96, WITH CONTINGENCY RESERVE,
$17,290.20 FOR DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL SERVICES, GRAPHICS
REPRODUCTIONS DIVISION; ALLOCATE FUNDS FROM DEPARTMENT OF
MUNICIPAL SERVICES, GRAPHIC REPRODUCTIONS DIVISION.
Chairman Winton: Twenty-nine is moved. Need a second.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Move 29.
Chairman Winton: Need a second, Joe.
Commissioner Sanchez: Second.
Chairman Winton: Discussion. Being none, all in favor, "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gonzalez, who moved for its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-866
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION APPROVING THE
PROVISION OF A SIXTY (60) MONTH LEASE OF A XEROX DOCUTECH
6135 PRODUCTION COPIER/PRINTER, DIGIPATH SOFTWARE AND
ACCESSORIES FROM XEROX CORPORATION, AWARDED UNDER
EXISTING PUTNAM COUNTY BID NO. 97-02 AND AGREEMENT NO
0713981-04, EFFECTIVE THROUGH SEPTEMBER 31, 2004, SUBJECT TO
ANY EXTENSIONS OR REPLACEMENT CONTRACTS THERETO BY
PUTNAM COUNTY, AT AN ANNUAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$86,541.96, WITH A CONTINGENCY RESERVE NOT TO EXCEED
$17,290.20 FOR THE TOTAL CONTRACT TERM, WITH AN END OF
LEASE BUY-OUT OPTION AT FAIR MARKET VALUE PRICE AS LISTED
ON ATTACHMENT "A", FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL
SERVICES, GRAPHICS REPRODUCTIONS DIVISION; ALLOCATING
FUNDS THEREFORE FROM THE DEPARTMENT Of MUNICIPAL
SERVICES, GRAPHIC REPRODUCTIONS DIVISION, ACCOUNT CODE
NO. 505000.420501.6.610; FUNDING APPROVAL.
121 July 24, 2003
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
37. APPROVE PROVISION OF SIXTY -MONTH LEASE OF SEVEN XEROX
WORKCENTRE PRO 90 COPIERS/PRINTERS AND SOFTWARE FROM XEROX
CORPORATION, AWARDED UNDER EXISTING PUTNAM COUNTY BID NO. 97-02
AND AGREEMENT NO. 0713981-04, FOR DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL SERVICES,
GRAPHICS REPRODUCTIONS DIVISION, $115,773.12, WITH CONTINGENCY RESERVE
$21,134.40; ALLOCATE FUNDS FROM BUDGETS OF DEPARTMENTS LISTED WITH
FUNDING FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Move 30.
Commissioner Sanchez: These are routine actions.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Yeah, these are routine.
Commissioner Sanchez: Second.
Chairman Winton: Discussion. Being none, all in favor, "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. The motion carries.
122 July 24, 2003
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gonzalez, who moved for its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-867
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION APPROVING THE
PROVISION OF A SIXTY -MONTH LEASE OF SEVEN (7) XEROX
WORKCENTRE PRO 90 COPIERS/PRINTERS AND SOFTWARE FROM
THE XEROX CORPORATION, AWARDED UNDER EXISTING PUTNAM
COUNTY BID NO. 97-02 AND AGREEMENT NO. 0713981-04, EFFECTIVE
THROUGH SEPTEMBER 31, 2004, SUBJECT TO ANY EXTENSIONS OR
REPLACEMENT CONTRACTS BY PUTNAM COUNTY, FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL SERVICES, GRAPHICS
REPRODUCTIONS DIVISION, IN AN ANNUAL AMOUNT NOT TO
EXCEED $115,773.12, WITH A CONTINGENCY RESERVE NOT TO
EXCEED $21,134.40, FOR THE TOTAL CONTRACT TERM AND AN END
OF LEASE BUY-OUT OPTION AT FAIR MARKET VALUE PRICE;
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY
DOCUMENTS, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, FOR
SAID PURPOSE; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM BUDGETS OF THE
DEPARTMENTS LISTED ON "ATTACHMENT A," ATTACHED AND
INCORPORATED; WITH FUNDING FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004 AND
SUBSEQUENT YEARS SUBJECT TO BUDGETARY APPROVAL AS SUCH
FUNDING AMOUNTS HAVE YET TO BE APPROVED AND/OR
APPROPRIATED AND FUNDING LEVELS HAVE YET TO BE
ESTABLISHED.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
123 July 24, 2003
38. TABLED: PROPOSED APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
CITY AND UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI.
Commissioner Gonzalez: We did 31, right?
Chairman Winton: We did 31 --
Commissioner Sanchez: Well --
Chairman Winton: -- so 30 --
Commissioner Sanchez: Thirty-two --
Chairman Winton: What is this?
Commissioner Sanchez: I have a conflict of interest on 32, so I ask that it be taken up this
afternoon when you have --
Commissioner Gonzalez: OK.
Commissioner Sanchez: -- a quorum.
Chairman Winton: What is 32?
Commissioner Gonzalez: Thirty-two is Orange Bowl.
Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Settlement agreement --
Chairman Winton: Oh, OK.
Mr. Vilarello: -- disputes for the University of Miami.
Chairman Winton: So, if you -- so we have to move that to this afternoon.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Move 33.
Commissioner Sanchez: Thirty-three is a four-fifths --
Chairman Winton: Requires a four -fifth.
Commissioner Sanchez: -- ratification.
Commissioner Gonzalez: You have --
Mr. Vilarello: Mr. Chairman.
124 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: Yes, sir.
Mr. Vilarello: Those are companion items, and I'd prefer that you take up Item 32 first.
Chairman Winton: I'm sorry?
Commissioner Gonzalez: OK.
Mr. Vilarello: Thirty-two and 33 are companion items, and I'd prefer that you take up Item 32
first.
Chairman Winton: Well, they require four-fifths -- 33 requires four-fifths vote, so there's no
sense in taking it up. Thirty-four, services agreement, Risk Management.
Commissioner Sanchez: Thirty-four --
Commissioner Gonzalez: OK.
Commissioner Sanchez: I'm prepared to make the motion on 34, but I would really, you know,
think we should have a full quorum on that.
Chairman Winton: OK, fine, we'll do 34 in the afternoon.
Commissioner Sanchez: Thirty-fifth [sic] is also something that I think the full Commission
needs to be here on.
Commissioner Gonzalez: I'm ready to move 36.
Commissioner Sanchez: Thirty -- listen, 34, 35, and 36 is going to be debated, and I think we
should have --
Chairman Winton: They're all just alike.
Commissioner Sanchez: -- the full Commission here to listen to both sides of the argument.
Chairman Winton: So, we're going to adjourn.
Commissioner Sanchez: Yes.
Mr. Vilarello: Recess.
Commissioner Sanchez: Recess.
Chairman Winton: Recess.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Do you want to do my appointments now --
125 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: I just soon adjourn. Sure.
Commissioner Gonzalez: -- so we don't have to do them this afternoon?
Chairman Winton: You want to do your -- well, because I'm going to have to go through the
damned appointments anyhow. Well, I won't have to do -- right, we're going to have to go
through them anyhow.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Right.
Chairman Winton: We might as well go.
Mr. Vilarello: Mr. Chairman, what time?
Chairman Winton: 3 o'clock.
Commissioner Gonzalez: 3 o'clock.
39. INTRODUCTION OF NEW CHIEF OF NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES ALICIA
CUERVO SCHREIBER .
Chairman Winton: Mr. Manager, are you ready?
Joe Arriola (City Manager): I'm ready, sir.
Chairman Winton: OK. You want to pull something?
Mr. Arriola: Before we start everything, I would like to introduce Ms. Cuervo Schreiber; is that
OK with you?
Chairman Winton: Yes, it is.
Mr. Arriola: OK.
Chairman Winton: Absolutely.
Mr. Arriola: I have great pleasure of introducing a new chief of Neighborhood Services -- you
all have her resume -- Alicia Cuervo Schreiber, and she's here with us, and she won't be starting
for another three, four -- four weeks, right? -- four weeks. She's going to Hawaii. She thinks
she needs a vacation from all of us even before she starts, so I could imagine what it's going to be
like in a year from now.
Chairman Winton: Well, if she would have been here this morning --
Mr. Arriola: If she would have been here this morning --
126 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: -- she would have recognized for sure she needs a vacation.
Mr. Arriola: -- she might have taken a year off, yes, yes.
Commissioner Sanchez: She wouldn't come for two months.
Mr. Arriola: She could have come for two months, but she's here. I'm delighted that she's going
to join the City. She comes from --with great experience. She's an engineer by trade, and if you
have any questions, please feel free to ask. Alicia.
Chairman Winton: Welcome. We need your name and address for the record, though, and -- oh,
let's see. Is that working, the mike?
Alicia Cuervo Schreiber: Alicia Cuervo Schreiber, 9410 Southwest 136th Street, Miami,
Florida.
Chairman Winton: And welcome.
Ms. Cuervo Schreiber: Thank you.
Chairman Winton: Hope you have a good time. Better have a -- you better have a real good
time in Hawaii because you're going to be busy when you get back here, for sure.
Ms. Cuervo Schreiber: I'm actually just glad I was first and not last this afternoon.
Chairman Winton: OK.
Ms. Cuervo Schreiber: I'm excited. Thank you.
Chairman Winton: Thank you.
40. RATIFY MANAGER'S FINDING OF SOLE SOURCE, WAIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR
COMPETITIVE SEALED BIDDING PROCEDURES FOR RENTAL OF PRO -ACTIVE
BARRICADE FENCE SYSTEM FROM PREMIER GLOBAL PRODUCTION CO. INC. FOR
DEPARTMENT OF POLICE, $119,376; ALLOCATE FUNDS FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT
TRUST FUND.
Chairman Winton: Mr. Manager, do you have anything you want to pull off the agenda?
Joe Arriola (City Manager): Actually, the only item, it was Item 28, but we had deferred that to
September 11, so I would just like to pull that item --
Chairman Winton: OK.
Mr. Arriola: -- altogether.
127 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: OK, so 28. We'll go back and start with where we left off on the regular
agenda, which is Item Number 5, and that's the equipment we need for -- as a function of the
City of Miami serving as the host for the ministerial for the Free Trade Area of the Americas
meeting in November.
Mr. Arriola: Commissioner, I would like to ask to reconsider 4 and 5.
Chairman Winton: Oh, is it 4? All right.
Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, so move Item 5.
Chairman Winton: Let's go back to 4. He said -- I forgot that we didn't do 4, either.
Commissioner Sanchez: I thought we passed 4.
Chairman Winton: So did I. Madam Clerk.
Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Item 4 failed because it required a four -fifth vote, and the
vote was --
Chairman Winton: Oh, that's right.
Ms. Thompson: We had --
Commissioner Sanchez: OK.
Ms. Thompson: --one "no."
Commissioner Sanchez: All right.
Chairman Winton: So, we need a motion to reconsider.
Commissioner Sanchez: Motion to reconsider 4
Chairman Winton: Need a second, Angel.
Commissioner Sanchez: All right. Moving on the Item Number 5, so move 5.
Chairman Winton: Tomas, you're going to second 4?
Commissioner Regalado: I second.
Chairman Winton: OK, we got a motion and a second on 4, but we're still going to have --
Commissioner Sanchez: On 5, not --
128 July 24, 2003
Commissioner Gonzalez: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Chairman Winton: Oh, no, your motion was on reconsidering 4, which you got a second for.
I'm sorry, Commissioner Gonzalez.
Commissioner Gonzalez: We're on 5, right?
Chairman Winton: No. Well, we were on 4.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Oh, we're on 4?
Chairman Winton: Yeah, so then we'll go to --
Commissioner Sanchez: It's not going to pass.
Chairman Winton: OK --
Commissioner Sanchez: Needed a four -fifth, so --
Chairman Winton: -- so, you want to --
Commissioner Sanchez: -- let's go to 5.
Chairman Winton: Fine. Call the motion.
Commissioner Regalado: No, no, no, no, I didn't second to --
Chairman Winton: Oh, you didn't --
Commissioner Regalado: -- to reconsider. I --
Ms. Thompson: Right.
Commissioner Regalado: -- second 5.
Chairman Winton: You second 5? OK, fine.
Ms. Thompson: Exactly.
Chairman Winton: So, we have a motion and a second on 5. Discussion.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Yeah. I oppose to vote on 5 this morning. I wasn't going to approve
it, but I decided to reconsider this, and the only reason that I decided to reconsider this is because
the safety of the citizens of Miami and our police officers are going to be on the line, and even
though I do have certain concerns with the Police Department, some members of the Police
129 July 24, 2003
Department -- I wouldn't say the Police Department -- and some issues that I need to take up
with the City Manager later on today or tomorrow, I don't think that it be wise to penalize the
officers that are going to be out there risking their lives for the security of our citizens and our
properties, and also I want to admit that for the first time in the almost two years that I've been as
a Commissioner, I have seen a captain come to my office to give me an explanation on this issue
and other issues of the Police Department, which I really appreciate because I do have a lot of
admiration for captains because I -- people that have gone through the echelon and years and
years of service, and have gone through academies, and schools, and the whole nine yards to get
their ranks, so I really appreciate the fact that I had a captain in my office explaining this issue to
me, and again, I'm going to vote in favor of it for -- just for the sake of the citizens of the City of
Miami and the properties of our city, and especially our police officers, which are the ones, the
men and women of our department that are going to be out there risking their lives to protect our
community, so yes, I vote in favor of it.
Chairman Winton: OK, any further discussion. Being none, all in favor, "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. The motion carries.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved for its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-868
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING
CHAPTER 35/ARTICLE IV, ENTITLED "MOTOR VEHICLES AND
TRAFFIC/PARKING RATES", OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,
FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, BY: (1) ESTABLISHING A MONTHLY
ON -STREET PERMIT PROGRAM; (2) CHANGING THE PARKING
RATES AT CERTAIN SPECIFIED ON -STREET PARKING LOTS;
(3) CHANGING THE PARKING RATES AT CERTAIN MUNICIPAL
PARKING GARAGES; (4) AUTHORIZING RATES AND FEES FOR
BAGGED METER/METERED SPACE RENTALS; (5) PROVIDING FOR
METER REMOVAL; (6) AUTHORIZING A RESTRICTED RESIDENTIAL
PARKING PROGRAM; AND (7) BY INITIATING RATES FOR NEW
FACILITIES DURING THE FISCAL YEAR; MORE PARTICULARLY BY
AMENDING SECTIONS 35-191, 35-192, AND 35-193, AND BY ADDING
NEW SECTIONS 35-194, 35-195 AND 35-196 TO THE CODE;
CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE
AND CONTAINING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
130 July 24, 2003
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Regalado, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
41. DEFER TO COMMISSION MEETING CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER
11, 2003, CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE ON FIRST READING
AMENDING CHAPTER 35/ARTICLE IV OF CITY CODE, ENTITLED "MOTOR
VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC/PARKING RATES".
Chairman Winton: Item 16 is a first --
Unidentified Speaker: Four was passed again?
Chairman Winton: Six, that -- I don't have 6.
Unidentified Speaker: Well, we're revisiting 4 --
Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Five passed.
Unidentified Speaker: -- or 4 was --
Chairman Winton: Four is not coming up.
Unidentified Speaker: No, OK. All right. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen.
Chairman Winton: We did 6. The next item I have on my agenda as not done, Madam Clerk, is
16; is that correct?
Ms. Thompson: That's correct.
Chairman Winton: So Item 16. Art.
Art Noriega: Art Noriega, Miami Parking Authority. We have a very brief presentation, which
sort of gives a very short synopsis, kind of an overview of the proposed changes to the rate
ordinance. This rate ordinance does really two primary things. It makes some adjustments to
some of the rates within the City of Miami that haven't really been addressed in a number of
years. Really, at this point, a lot of them are below market, the ones that we're proposing to
change. It also addresses some administrative issues we have with regards to meter bagging,
131 July 24, 2003
removing of meters for film shoots, that kind of thing, which were never really addressed in the
rate ordinance before, and also addresses the issue we have with regards to our Residential Decal
Program, which currently does not exist in our ordinance, and which, over the last two years,
more specifically, we've seen an increasing need for, so if you give us a second to bring this up,
we'll get started.
Chairman Winton: By the way, we just got word that Commissioner Teele will not be with us
today, at all. He just had a root canal, so he -- I don't think you can talk once you have one of
those. It takes a couple of days, so we will miss him. Well, Art, while you're getting --
Mr. Noriega: Yeah.
Chairman Winton: -- your presentation ready, maybe I'll start off with kind of a philosophical
discussion, which I told you about before you came up, and there's a couple of struggles that I
have with this rate increase. One is that I asked Mr. Noriega to make sure I get a copy of the
comparable parking rates that are charged in Miami Beach and Coral Gables because that's a part
of our immediate, if you will, day-to-day competition, and I just got that today at lunch, and I
have not had time to go over it, so I don't know where that is, but the second part relates to the
fact that, as far as I'm concerned, this is part of government fee structure; taxes, fees, that kind of
thing, and I think that we've all been working hard to get fees that we charge our citizens and the
businesses in our city, we've tried to lower fees, lower taxes, and this, in a tough economic time,
is going just the opposite direction, and also, as you all know, if there's anything that -- and I
think half the time it's not necessarily rational, but if there's anything that sets people on fire, it's
parking charges, and I saw a quote, I think, from maybe Mr. Noriega in the Miami Herald or
somewhere that said, you know, somebody'll stop in the Design District, as an example, have no
qualm about paying 20 bucks for a martini, but they don't want to pay $5 for parking. Well,
that's a decent example in that arena, but I don't think that's everybody, and parking affects a lot
of folks, and we have an interesting dilemma, and that is the balance over the -- there are some
things that are presented in here that are designed to help protect neighborhoods that I hate to --
you know, that I want to make sure we listen to, but in terms of the rate increases themselves,
you know, I'm just concerned that now is not the right time for us to be looking for a new
additional -- not new additional, but an add-on to an existing tax that we charge people that come
-- either live here already, work here, come into our city to spend dollars on retail, or whatever
they may be coming for; it just doesn't seem like it's a good time to do that. I'm not sure -- so,
that's kind of a philosophical question that I'm struggling with that's going to, as I kind of listen
to some of the arguments, help me decide whether I'm going to vote for any of these increases, at
all. Now, the issue on some of the -- on protecting neighborhoods and some of those issues I
think are very real that I'm very interested in listening to, but unless I hear something that's really
compelling that says our city's going to fall apart if we don't increase parking charges, I'm
probably going to be hard-pressed to support the parking fee increase citywide, so -- Arthur.
Commissioner Regalado: Chairman.
Chairman Winton: Yes, sir.
132 July 24, 2003
Commissioner Regalado: The residential parking is a good idea, a good idea only if hundred
percent of the people supports that, and I had spoken to Art, and that is included in the ordinance,
because I'm telling you, we had an experience in the West Little Havana area because of people
parking in other people's places, and just because three, or four, or five, or six didn't agree, this is
creating sort of a battle between the two sides, but I think that at the end of the day, residential
parking works and it's something that protects the residents. The rate increases, that's another
issue. Because you see, people -- and this is also philosophical -- people are very cynical about
government, and people say these guys did not raise taxes, but they raised the fees, and the this,
and the that. The same thing that we are saying about the County, that they didn't raise taxes but
they raised the garbage fee, and this fee, and the water fee, are going to be said about the City of
Miami. The problem that we have here is a problem of image. I understand that these rates have
not been revised for years and years and years. However, what you're going to get, tomorrow's
headline is "City of Miami follows Coral Gables in raising parking meters rates" and all that, so
you know, I really support this proposal of residential parking; people are willing to pay and
participate, but I have a problem with the meter rates, but I'm here to listen.
Chairman Winton: OK, you're on.
Mr. Noriega: Thanks. The --
Chairman Winton: With that, now you're on.
Mr. Noriega: Yeah, with that. Yeah.
Commissioner Regalado: You still got two.
Mr. Noriega: Yes, really. The objectives of this sort of review of the ordinance is to, one,
establish a Residential Permit Parking Program in certain areas of the City, which are entirely
and predominantly residential, for which the neighborhood residents are in need of residential
parking assistance and relief from parking congestion. A prime example of this particular
scenario is a -- sort of a test model we did in Spring Garden. We had a problem there about a
year ago with, I guess, the increase in parking demand within the Jackson area. There was a
tremendous amount of spillover into this neighborhood during the week, and the residents were
sort of overrun with all these individuals who worked within the Jackson Memorial area, or had
gone to the Publix in the neighborhood, and really needed some relief, so we established a decal
program to allow only the residents the opportunity to park on their streets from Monday through
Friday during restricted hours, so that they weren't -- didn't have their driveways blocked and
they could get easy access to their homes. The second item really was, we did an over -- sort of
a general review of all of our rates, taking into consideration that there had been a number of
them that hadn't been raised in many years. We did a market analysis, especially in what we call
our "off-street parking areas," which is garages and lots, to sort of get an analysis of what the
market would bear. As you see, we get a little further into this presentation, we show you --
we'll show you the comps. (comparisons) within Coconut Grove and within downtown, which
are the -- were the areas where the garages and most of the lots really reside and where the rates
are being adjusted, and then we're going to show a comparison of the rates and the areas where
the meter rates will be adjusted. Previous rate ordinance for garages and parking lots was
133 July 24, 2003
modified in 1995. That was actually a limited revision to the ordinance. Some of the areas --
some of the lots haven't been revised even five -- four or five years prior to that. The rate
ordinance for a specific on -street meter inventory was adopted a revision in 2000, and that really
primarily dealt with Coconut Grove and some downtown areas. The areas not affected by the
meter rate adjustment really are Coconut Grove, downtown, and the Civic Center area because
they were really addressed in the last rate -- meter rate revision. The areas affected by a
proposed meter rate ordinance adjustment are the Arena, that's the new Arena, Park West
Entertainment District, Omni, the Jackson Memorial area, the Design District, the Garment
District, Little Havana, Allapattah, and the Little River area. Current on -street meter comparison
by municipalities. We picked three that were of sort of comparable marketwise to us; Miami
Beach, obviously, and Coral Gables because of their proximity, and Ft. Lauderdale because it's
the next closest major city, and there you get a -- sort of a synopsis of what the general rates are
per hour. Proposed On -Street Meter Rates by Area. The Arena and you see Jackson really are
the biggest impact in terms of the increase, primarily because the Arena, we're just proposing an
extension of what is our existing downtown meter rate, and Jackson, that area also is -- has a
similar commercial demographic to downtown, so we're proposing a similar rate to the
downtown rate, which is $1.25. The other areas really compromise quarter, one quarter per hour
increases, and they're really based on the fact that a lot of those rates have been stagnant and
haven't been risen in many, many years, and they really still are below some of our other
municipal comps. On -Street Residential Decal Program. We've identified these seven areas as
sort of the first, which we're going to explore and open up to the residents within those
neighborhoods. Those are the areas which we have been approached by residents in those areas
as being the most -- areas that have really the most trouble with commercial intrusion. The
bigger problem here is that the commercial district that borders a lot of these neighborhoods sort
of overflows into the residential neighborhood, and therefore, these people can't even really get
to their homes during peak commercial hours; during the day, on weekends in some cases, so
we're addressing it with a residential decal program. Current On -Street Parking Decal Municipal
Comparison. You see Miami Beach is -- their standard for residential and entertainment district
decal is 25.85 a month. The City of Coral Gables has one 85.60, and the City of Ft. Lauderdale,
their base one is $50 and it can go slightly higher than that. Ours in these residential
neighborhoods, where the decal's going to be in the noncommercial area, would be $25 per year,
per each vehicle. It's really not meant to be a revenue generator. It's really meant to keep the
commercial overflow out of the residential neighborhood. We're also going to make available
temporary residential guest parking in addition to the decal, so what each resident will be able to
do is buy a hangtag that has a scratch off, and it gives you really two weeks on it, and what you
do is when you have a guest, you hang it on their tag; you scratch another date off, and then you
can buy them -- that -- each decal will have up to two weeks per year, but you can buy really as
many as you need, so that allows you to have guests -- during times we may restrict it to just
residential parking, you can have guests and they don't -- you don't need to buy an extra decal for
that. Proposed Rate Revisions and Adjustments for Garages. We have some rate adjustments in
all five garages; four of them, obviously, are downtown, one is in Coconut Grove. The Brickell
and Downtown District Market Survey. Currently, half-hour rates range from $2 to $4; an hour
will run you from $3 up to $18 an hour in some garages. See, the Early Bird rate runs from 5 to
7. The maximums in downtown will run you as high as $24 per day, and a monthly rate will run
you as high as $182. Miami Beach's off-street, which we call garages and lots, their rates range
from a half an hour to three bucks; $4 for an hour, and a daily max (maximum) of $20. Coral
134 July 24, 2003
Gables is from 2 to $4, with a $12 daily max, and Ft. Lauderdale is also $2, $4, and a $16
maximum per day. Our garage 1 proposed adjustment calls for a $0.75 increase on the half-hour
rate; $2 increase on the Early Bird, and then the daily max to increase to 14.50. Again, all of
these rates are still well below the existing downtown market in terms of comparison, and they
fall within the range of the other municipalities. This particular garage, if you'll note the
footnote at the bottom, we don't propose to adjust these rates until that garage is actually
redeveloped because that's one of the sites that we're going to tear down this garage and rebuild
it. It's across from the new courthouse, so we wouldn't implement any new rates until that
redevelopment is done. The garage 2 proposed rates are very similar to garage 1. This also has a
75 percent increase in the half-hour rate; an Early Bird increase of a $1, and a maximum rate
would increase by $2.75. Garage number 3, where our office is located, across from Miami -
Dade Community College, again, the half-hour rate would increase by $0.50; the Early Bird by
$1.80, and the maximum 24-hour to 14.50. Garage 4. Now, this is the garage that's owned by
the City of Miami, which we operate, which is underneath the Bank of America building. This is
-- this garage, really, we're not making significant adjustments to the rates, with the exception of
the special event rate, and what we're doing by that is setting a maximum allowed for the special
event rate of $15, and that really is a result of the market within the area because of the
Convention Center and the Knight Center. Depending on the event, various parking operators
will fluctuate the rate up and down, and we want to have that flexibility as well so we can
increase it, if need be, or decrease it, if we have to. Coconut Grove Off -Street Survey. Current
rates survey for the Grove is, the garages and lots within the area range from a $1 to 1.50 per
hour. You have a flat rate in the morning that's $6 -- $4 to $6. In the p.m., it'll be $5 to $8;
maximum rate per day, 12, and the weekend rate ranges from 6 to 7. The only proposed change
we have in this garage -- there are only two proposed changes. Our hourly rate will stay the
same; early bird rate would increase by a $1; the maximum 24-hour rate would be $8, and then
we've had since almost the inception of the garage a monthly rate, and we're just actually
incorporating it into the ordinance because it didn't actually exist within the originally stipulated
rates for Garage 8, and that's it for the presentation on the increases in the rates -- significant
increases in the rates.
Chairman Winton: Thank you. Questions, comments.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Yeah, I have a concern. In the area of Jackson Memorial Hospital,
most of the people that attend Jackson Memorial Hospital are people that are disadvantaged and
people that have a lot of need, and trying to increase their parking expense, some of these people
don't even have money to buy their medicines and now we want to increase their parking. I do
have a problem with that. Allapattah, I don't know how many -- well, Allapattah --
Mr. Noriega: You only have like 16 meters.
Commissioner Gonzalez: -- we don't have a garage in Allapattah.
Mr. Noriega: No.
Commissioner Gonzalez: -- because we were going to build one; you were going to be a part of
it, and then you decided not to be a part of it, so maybe by the grace of God, we will have a
135 July 24, 2003
parking structure in Allapattah, so I'm not too concerned about the garage; I'm concerned about
the raises in other areas of the City of Miami because it may affect economic development in
some of these districts.
Mr. Noriega: Let me say that the Jackson area, specifically, our meter rate is still lower than the
rate in the garages and lots, so unfortunately, our rate is actually still lower in those areas than it
cost them to park in any of the garages or lots, so they're still -- they save money by parking in
one of the meters.
Chairman Winton: Well, if y'all don't mind, may I make a suggestion here because I don't hear
anything that's compelling me to support this increase? Now -- but there's two components to
this. One is this neighborhood parking issue, which is very important, so my thought is that we
bifurcate this process, and ask Art to come back in September with a plan for the neighborhood
parking plan, so that we can really just focus on that, and unless there's -- I think there's two
votes at least that aren't in support of raising fees, so we might -- if we -- if y'all think it's
appropriate, we'll bifurcate this process, and ask him to come back and deal with the residential
parking thing. Yes, sir, Commissioner Sanchez.
Commissioner Sanchez: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The ordinance has seven components. I
think the sentiment of the Commission is that some of the components, we probably could vote
on them today, if we wanted to, but we basically want to just look at all seven components. I
think one of the things that I would like to see Off -Street Parking lean towards is possibly
providing the residents in Miami a special rate or a program that provides a special rate for
residents in the City of Miami. Now, I know that the rates have not gone up since 1990. I know
that, you know, an increase is probably needed, but let me just say -- I wrote a couple of things
here that I wanted to bring. The rate increase -- to put a program together where you don't have
to wait five years to come in front of this Commission for an increase, maybe you could -- you
know, you're going to have plenty of time to sit down and try to fine-tune this ordinance to try to
get at least three votes, or a four -fifth vote, or whatever it may take to pass it, to look at those
things. One is to create a program which gives the residents a special rate to park in the City.
The other would be to create a program in your ordinance where, you know, you will have an
increase as per year, something that's reasonable, very, very reasonable, and that way you don't
have to wait five years and come back asking for a quarter increase and $0.50 in some rates.
Now, something that I'm going to ask is, out of all this money that's generated, how much money
will come to the City?
Mr. Noriega: The proposal right now, in terms of our internal process, would be to implement
the rate ordinance for the meters immediately, and that is a -- roughly about a half a million
dollars increase to the revenue side, and so that's a net 500 because there's no additional
expenses that come -- that fall on us, so it's really a net 500 that would fall to the City's bottom
line. You know, we've had some discussions about our capital plan going forward, but in the
end, that 500,000 really is a net to the City's bottom line, so --
Commissioner Sanchez: All right, and --
136 July 24, 2003
Mr. Noriega: -- that part of it. As far as the parking lots and garages, we've calculated that if we
implemented the entire rate ordinance, it -- in mass, at one shot, which was never our plan
anyway. We were going to roll the lots and garages in at future dates -- the garage increase
would be about $1,000,000 increase to the revenue side, and the parking lot would be another --
a little over $1,000,000, as well.
Commissioner Sanchez: But most of these components will raise money for you.
Mr. Noriega: Absolutely.
Commissioner Sanchez: OK. Now, one question that you said, areas not affected by proposed
meter rate ordinance adjustment was Coconut Grove, downtown, and the Civic Center District.
Mr. Noriega: Correct.
Commissioner Sanchez: You said the last time they were the ones that got the increase --
Mr. Noriega: Correct.
Commissioner Sanchez: -- so that's fair. All right.
Mr. Noriega: Correct.
Commissioner Sanchez: OK. Let me just make a motion to defer the item. We'll bring it back
at the --
Chairman Winton: Bring it back.
Commissioner Sanchez: You know, first allow them the opportunity to try to meet with all the
Commissioners --
Mr. Noriega: Sure.
Commissioner Sanchez: -- and sit with the City Manager and try to fine-tune this ordinance to
something that we could accept.
Mr. Noriega: Can I also make a point -- and I'll do that, I'll set up -- we'll make some revisions
to this ordinance. Another significant impact -- part of this component of this ordinance is that
administrative process for us, in terms of meter shoots and the bagging process, and the removal
of meters --
Chairman Winton: Yeah.
Mr. Noriega: -- for special events and all that, we want to make sure that that stays in. That
doesn't have an adverse effect.
137 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: So, you ought to focus on those pieces, and I'm still going to suggest, when
you come back, that it's not brought as one total ordinance; that you bifurcate it, so that you put
these pieces that we really need to act on --
Mr. Noriega: I'll do that.
Chairman Winton: -- in one ordinance and the increases in a separate one, so that --
Mr. Noriega: OK.
Chairman Winton: -- you can get the -- those kinds of things done.
Mr. Noriega: Fair enough.
Chairman Winton: OK, so you've -- you move to defer this item, Commissioner Sanchez?
Commissioner Sanchez: Yes, sir, so move.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Second.
Chairman Winton: Second. Discussion. Being none, all in favor --
Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Deferral until when?
Chairman Winton: I'm sorry?
Mr. Vilarello: September 11?
Mr. Noriega: Yeah. I mean, it --
Chairman Winton: Do we have to set a date?
Mr. Vilarello: Yes. If you defer the item, you need to defer it to a date.
Chairman Winton: OK.
Mr. Vilarello: -- certain.
Mr. Noriega: Just for purposes of it, it will be important for us, for our budget process --
Chairman Winton: But -- yeah.
Mr. Noriega: -- to at least know where we stand by the meeting of September.
Chairman Winton: I suspect you're going to.
138 July 24, 2003
Mr. Noriega: No. I mean, it just -- just to at least let us know we got to fish or cut bait kind of
thing.
Chairman Winton: All right.
Mr. Noriega: That's all.
Chairman Winton: I think there's a pretty strong hint in terms of where you're --
Mr. Noriega: I know.
Chairman Winton: -- going to be from a --
Mr. Noriega: I know.
Chairman Winton: --revenue standpoint.
Mr. Noriega: I appreciate it.
Chairman Winton: I think that hint's coming in July, not September, early September. OK.
Mr. Noriega: Thanks.
Chairman Winton: Thank you. All in favor, "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. The motion carries.
139 July 24, 2003
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved for its adoption:
MOTION NO. 03-869
A MOTION TO DEFER TO THE COMMISSION MEETING CURRENTLY
SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 11, 2003, CONSIDERATION OF
PROPOSED ORDINANCE ON FIRST READING AMENDING CHAPTER
35/ARTICLE IV, ENTITLED "MOTOR VEHICLES AND
TRAFFIC/PARKING RATES", OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,
FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, BY: (1) ESTABLISHING A MONTHLY
ON -STREET PERMIT PROGRAM; (2) CHANGING THE PARKING RATES
AT CERTAIN SPECIFIED ON -STREET PARKING LOTS; (3) CHANGING
THE PARKING RATES AT CERTAIN MUNICIPAL PARKING GARAGES;
(4) AUTHORIZING RATES AND FEES FOR BAGGED METER/METERED
SPACE RENTALS; (5) PROVIDING FOR METER REMOVAL;
(6) AUTHORIZING A RESTRICTED RESIDENTIAL PARKING PROGRAM;
AND (7) BY INITIATING RATES FOR NEW FACILITIES DURING THE
FISCAL YEAR; FURTHER DIRECTING THE ADMINISTRATION TO MEET
WITH EACH MEMBER OF THE CITY COMMISSION TO EXPLAIN THIS
MATTER AND TO BIFURCATE THIS ORDINANCE INTO TWO SEPARATE
ORDINANCES BY SEGREGATING THE ISSUE OF RATE INCREASES.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, the motion was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
42. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: REPLACE SECTION 38-8 OF CITY CODE
ENTITLED "USE OF MANUEL ARTIME COMMUNITY CENTER" IN ITS ENTIRETY
AND SUBSTITUTE IN LIEU THEREOF NEW SECTION 38.8 CLARIFYING RATES FOR
USE OF MANUEL ARTIME THEATER AND ESTABLISH NEW RATES TO MAXIMIZE
USE OF FACILITY
Chairman Winton: Eighteen.
Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Mr. Chairman, there's a substitute ordinance that's been
distributed this morning. The ordinance does two things: One, clarifies the rates with regard to
the Artime Theater, as well as provides for an exemption from the ticket surcharge, which is
required on paid admission to events.
140 July 24, 2003
Commissioner Sanchez: Question.
Chairman Winton: Yes.
Commissioner Sanchez: Madam Director, is there a difference between for-profit and non -for-
profit when it comes to these rates?
Christina Abrams (Director, Public Facilities): Yes. We try to provide lower rates for nonprofit
organizations as an incentive to use the facility. What we've done in this ordinance is clarify
some rates to make it more user friendly. For example, the performance with no ticket sales, we
charge 350 --
Commissioner Sanchez: So, that's a free --
Ms. Abrams: -- for two hours and --
Commissioner Sanchez: -- event, open to the public, completely free?
Ms. Abrams: Oh, no, we're not -- I'm sorry. I misunderstood your question.
Commissioner Sanchez: No, no, no, no.
Ms. Abrams: What I'm saying is for nonprofit organizations that charge admission --
Commissioner Sanchez: Right.
Ms. Abrams: -- or actually not. The ordinance does not make that distinction. We established
certain rates and the rates are lower for nonprofit. What this ordinance does is clarify some of
those rates. For example, performances with no ticket sales, we charge $350 so they use the
facility for two hours or less, but if they do sell tickets --
Commissioner Sanchez: No. How about if they use it more than two hours?
Ms. Abrams: Well, they use it more than two hours, the rate right now is $550, with no ticket
sales.
Commissioner Sanchez: Right.
Ms. Abrams: With ticket sales, the rate is $650. What we want to do is be able to charge $400 if
someone uses it for less than two hours, and what we're trying to target is business organizations
that may have a two-hour conference, or a business meeting, so we can find uses for the theater
during the week, try to target more the business market.
Commissioner Sanchez: Well, I'm OK with it, although -- but let me just say one thing. Truly,
community theaters are dying all over the United States. I mean, these are places where
141 July 24, 2003
nonprofits, you know, ballet dances, operas open completely different -- I mean, completely free
to the community, and that's -- I want to focus on that, "free," where they don't charge any
money, where they have events to get people to participate. You know, I don't want to be able to
jeopardize some of those events that we -- that for some time when we're trying to bring in new
venues to, at least, have a theater active, doing things where people drive by and they don't see
the doors closed, but they see it opened with events going on, and the only concern that I have is
that we don't take those events that -- you know, they probably couldn't do it for 500 or 600, but
they could do it for 350 or 400, and you know, that's truly the last theater in my district -- and I'm
speaking for my district -- that truly could offer that type of service. The Tower Theater now,
Miami -Dade Community College (UNINTELLIGIBLE) has it, and you know, it's completely
different. I mean, that one sits 800 and some people and I know they're very, very active with
events, so I want to make sure that we don't jeopardize, you know, a lot of these small businesses
that do their events out there, and they've been with that theater for many, many years, like the
ballet class -- dances, the opera, stuff that we're trying to bring there, trying to focus on.
Ms. Abrams: Understood, and that is the objective of the Theater. The objective of the theater is
to try to attract nonprofit cultural events in the community, but just because -- I mean, the rates
are a guideline to us that we feel are fair market value, but from time to time, we have an event
that is going to be free to the public, or is going to charge a very low rate, and the rates need to
be different than what we charge in the Code. When that happens, we come to you and ask you
for permission to charge less, or to have a different type of rental fee for that.
Commissioner Sanchez: OK.
Chairman Winton: Need a motion.
Commissioner Sanchez: So moved.
Commissioner Regalado: Second.
Chairman Winton: Motion and a second.
Commissioner Regalado: Discussion.
Chairman Winton: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Regalado: Now that you're here, Mr. Chairman, I have an item on District 4. I
don't want to do it now, but I just want to mention it, that at the Artime complex, there are
several Social Services offices.
Ms. Abrams: All of them.
Commissioner Regalado: Several. No, I -- what I was saying is that several of those Social
Services programs were defunded by the City of Miami, or did not get the money that they used
to get because of the reduction that the City had. That means that some of these services either
142 July 24, 2003
turn away clients or close the doors, and I am bringing an item, Mr. Chairman, to waive the rent
for Catholic Charities with -- regarding --
Commissioner Sanchez: Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
Chairman Winton: That isn't --
Commissioner Regalado: -- the office space.
Chairman Winton: -- this item, so you -- let's --
Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah.
Chairman Winton: -- separate that, and we'll pick that up as soon --
Commissioner Regalado: But I'm saying this warning the -- Christina and the Manager that that
is what we're going to discuss whenever we discuss the blue pages, but I think, in following
Commissioner Sanchez, which is the area Commissioner, I totally support what he's saying, and I
am going beyond the theater. I think that the community center is a community center. It has
not -- it is not in the business of making money; it's in the business of serving people, and trying
to be proactive in bringing events, and that is the same issue with the complex, so I'm just saying
that I am going to try to do this, and -- within the framework of what the area Commissioner just
said to help these people.
Chairman Winton: Any other discussion on Item 18?
Commissioner Regalado: No.
Chairman Winton: This is an ordinance, is that correct? Yes. Read the ordinance, please.
Mr. Vilarello: On the substitute ordinance.
The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney.
Chairman Winton: Roll call, please.
Ms. Thompson: roll call. The ordinance is passed on first reading, 4/0.
143 July 24, 2003
An Ordinance Entitled —
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING
CHAPTER 38, ARTICLE I, SECTION 38-8 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "PARKS AND
RECREATION, GENERAL USE OF MANUEL ARTIME COMMUNITY
CENTER" BY REPEALING SECTION 38.8 IN ITS ENTIRETY AND
SUBSTITUTING IN LIEU THEREOF NEW SECTION 38.8 CLARIFYING
THE RATES FOR THE USE OF THE MANUEL ARTIME THEATER AND
ESTABLISHING NEW RATES TO MAXIMIZE THE USE OF THE
FACILITY; FURTHER AMENDING CHAPTER 53, ARTICLE I, SECTION
53.1 OF THE CODE OF CITY OF MIAMI, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED
"STADIUM AND CONVENTION CENTER IN GENERAL" TICKET
SURCHARGE ON PAID ADMISSION TO EVENTS; TO EXEMPT
ASSESSMENT OF A SURCHARGE PAYMENT ON ADMISSIONS AT THE
MANUEL ARTIME COMMUNITY CENTER; CONTAINING A REPEALER
PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, and was
passed on first reading, by title only, by the following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
144 July 24, 2003
43. WITHDRAW CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE ON FIRST READING
AMENDING CHAPTER 31/ARTICLE 11 OF CITY CODE, ENTITLED "LICENSES AND
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS REGULATIONS /OCCUPATIONAL LICENSES," BY
AMENDING SCHEDULE OF LICENSE TAXES ESTABLISHED WHICH SETS FORTH
CLASSIFICATIONS AND RATE SCHEDULE FOR THOSE PERSONS OR ENTITIES
DOING BUSINESS IN CITY.
Chairman Winton: Nineteen.
Commissioner Gonzalez: I move 19.
Chairman Winton: We have a motion. Do we have a second?
Commissioner Regalado: Is this an increase?
Chairman Winton: Well, let's get a second, and then we'll discuss it.
Commissioner Regalado: Oh, I'll second it.
Chairman Winton: OK. Discussion. Yes, sir. My -- same question I had.
Commissioner Regalado: Is this an increase in occupational license rates?
Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): I believe the chair and the board members are here.
Commissioner Gonzalez: It's just a study, right?
Chairman Winton: OK. Your name and address for the record, please.
Derrick Lewis: Good afternoon. Derrick Lewis. My business address is 168 Southeast 1st
Street, Miami, Florida 33131, Suite 603. I'm the chair of the Occupational License Equity
Commission.
Chairman Winton: OK, and the question was are there any recommended increases in any of the
fees tied to the occupational licenses?
Mr. Lewis: There was -- the board voted not to increase the occupational license tags.
Chairman Winton: Great.
Commissioner Regalado: Thank you, Board.
Chairman Winton: That's what we like.
Mr. Lewis: Sure.
145 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: That's -- OK. We have a motion. Do we have --
Commissioner Regalado: Because I'm not voting --
Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah, but wait, wait.
Commissioner Regalado: -- for any increase at all.
Commissioner Sanchez: What is -- what does this ordinance do? What do you do, you create
three new licenses?
Mr. Lewis: Well, I'm just a member of the committee, but maybe other Finance Department
people from the City of Miami may be able to make a statement on that effect.
Noel Chavez: Noel Chavez, Occupational License Supervisor, City of Miami, MRC (Miami
Riverside Center) Building. Yes, Commissioner, we are adding three additional new categories.
Those are three new categories that business activities that are being engaged in which have not
been reflected in our category so far.
Commissioner Sanchez: Well --
Mr. Chavez: Go ahead.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Could you -- I'm sorry.
Commissioner Sanchez: Listen --
Commissioner Gonzalez: I'm sorry.
Commissioner Sanchez: -- I'm going to --
Chairman Winton: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Commissioner Sanchez: -- defer this item because I have not been briefed on this item. I don't
know anything about three -- putting together three licenses. I could tell you this much, you
have two right now; occupational licenses and you have -- what's the other one?
Chairman Winton: The what?
Commissioner Sanchez: You've got the occupational license, and what's the other license you
have?
Commissioner Gonzalez: Certificate of Use.
Commissioner Sanchez: A Certificate of Use.
146 July 24, 2003
Mr. Chavez: Right.
Commissioner Gonzalez: No, no. Wait a minute. You have different types of occupational
license. You got an occupational license for cigarettes, for candies, for lotto machine, for
medicines, for -- you have (UNINTELLIGIBLE) --
Commissioner Sanchez: For whatever, but I could tell you this much -- I think I've made this
argument before -- that we do not enforce the licenses that are out there now. I think the last
time that I met -- that I've met with, I think it was Luis Sabines, Jr., who happens to sit on your
board, on the Facade Program where they go out there -- and there's programs that requires you
to have all your licenses in place to be in accordance with the law of the City for you to qualify
for these programs, and I am stunned at the percentage of businesses that do not have their
licenses in place, so therefore, before we even consider an increase or before we even consider
adding any additional licenses, we should enforce the licenses that we have now, and I'll give
you a perfect example. I think they did a shopping mall where they were going to do the Facade
Program, and he went in 40 percent of those businesses, including big businesses -- you're not
talking about mom and pop, or little -- big businesses did not comply with the licenses that we
have, and in many cases, some of these businesses that were bought are using the old owner's
businesses, so my thing is, if we have laws in place and we could generate -- and I -- and if I'm
not mistaken, going back a little bit here, I think the Fire Department went out at one time with a
task force and they collected like $3 million. People are not paying their licenses. Now, we may
need to work on a system where we could compare -- have an attachment -- because they're
required to go to the County. They get their licenses at the County, and I believe they have their
federal ID (identification) on their licenses. We don't require it, so basically our licenses are
toilet paper. I hate to sound that way, but you can't compare to make sure that we follow up to
make sure that businesses are getting their licenses.
Mr. Chavez: If I may interject, Commissioner. The County cannot issue an occupational license
for any business in the City of Miami unless they -- the business has our occupational license
first. As a courtesy to us, they must. FEI numbers, or Federal Employer number, that's given to
corporations. Now, one of the reasons that we're adding this category is, for example, the State,
in one of these cases here, comes up for a new -- comes up with a new category of -- in the
cosmetology area, so we want to have ours the same way to be uniform, such as the County has,
for example, and that's why these three licenses -- you know, I do wholly agree with you on the
non -enforcement. Unfortunately, in our area, we don't have any enforcement capabilities, and
we --
Chairman Winton: But let me --
Mr. Chavez: I'm sorry.
Chairman Winton: Joe, do you want to defer this and have him --
Commissioner Sanchez: No, I don't want to defer it. I just want to get some answers -- some
questions answered that you didn't have.
147 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: Oh, I thought you said you want to defer.
Commissioner Sanchez: Now, you're general -- you're regulated by the State on what you could
increase --
Mr. Chavez: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Sanchez: -- the licenses?
Mr. Chavez: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Sanchez: That's my understanding.
Mr. Chavez: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Sanchez: OK. Now, these three licenses, what are these three licenses that you
are -- that you intend on implementing?
Mr. Chavez: Three of them; one is for accountants additional. That's -- for example, we have
the big CPA (Certified Public Accountant) firms that have one CPA and he oversees 10, 15
accountants; same as engineers, architects, and so forth. In the case of attorneys, attorney's firm,
paralegals, legal assistant. Well, we want also the additional accountants to be able to license
them, make it reasonable across the board.
Commissioner Sanchez: Just to see if I understand. You have an accountant who has an office
and he's got 15 other accountants working there; he's only got one license?
Mr. Chavez: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Sanchez: So you want to go after the 15 other?
Mr. Chavez: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Sanchez: OK, that's --
Mr. Chavez: Yes, sir. That's understandable.
Commissioner Sanchez: That's one. What's the other license?
Mr. Chavez: In the other category is in the area of cosmetologists. There's a new category by
the State -- new to us -- facial specialists. We don't have a category to match that. This is also
informational, so we've been putting them in another category, cosmetology assistants, when we
shouldn't -- they should be facial specialists, and the third category is a totally new category, and
that one's for doing some research for license permit expediters. There's an area that has created
opportunity for when you don't have the contractor, or the accountant, or the attorney running the
148 July 24, 2003
permits to the permit department, or getting your occupational license for you, there's these
individuals that are -- and these firms that are doing that activity, but they're not -- they're
engaging in a business --
Commissioner Sanchez: Now --
Mr. Chavez: -- without any licensing.
Commissioner Sanchez: OK. Well, that's very -- now, just -- since you're ahead of me on this
one. I mean, you're ahead of me on the ball game. How much is this three license going to
generate for the City?
Mr. Chavez: I do not so -- I do not know.
Commissioner Sanchez: Well, how much --
Mr. Chavez: They're brand new.
Commissioner Sanchez: How -- what rates are you going to charge for the --
Mr. Chavez: Oh, OK. On the accountant, they'll be the same; they'll be $110 a year, same as the
CPA counterpart and their engineer counterpart. The facialist [sic] is eight -- $12; I believe the
same as what the cosmetologists right now are getting, and the permit expediters is going to be
$100.
Chairman Winton: Commissioner Gonzalez.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Yes. I happen to disagree with you in some things that you just said,
OK? First of all, a law firm is supposed to have an occupational license by the senior partner of
the law firm and each associate is supposed to have an occupational license. That is something
that is active now. It's -- we're not reinventing any wheel here.
Mr. Chavez: No.
Commissioner Gonzalez: A clinic, where ten doctors operate, each doctor is supposed to have
his occupational license, so that's something also that is -- about the County not issuing a license
if we don't have -- if the City doesn't -- if there is no City license, I have to disagree with you
because there are lot of businesses out there that have County license, occupational license, but
they don't have City of Miami license, and I went out with the Police Department on bar checks
two weeks ago, and we went into a bar, and they had a County occupational license and they
didn't have a City of Miami Certificate of Use or a City of Miami occupational license. Their
gambling machines; they didn't have permits from the City of Miami. They were totally out of
compliance, so what we need to do is exactly what Commissioner Sanchez just mentioned,
because last year I brought up this issue before the Commission in different occasion -- Mr.
Chairman, and you remember that -- and we created a task force and we went out there, and in
about eight months, we collected $1,000,000. There is still a lot of businesses out there that
149 July 24, 2003
doesn't pay occupational license, or Certificate of Use, or any other fees to the City. Now, one
concern that I have. You said that you are creating an occupational license for the people that try
to run --
Commissioner Sanchez: Expedite.
Commissioner Gonzalez: -- or expedite --
Chairman Winton: Expedite.
Commissioner Gonzalez: -- the permitting --
Chairman Winton: Plan.
Commissioner Gonzalez: -- process and plans in the City of Miami?
Mr. Chavez: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Gonzalez: I don't know to what extent we are allowed to do that legally because
we -- the client -- the developer or the general contractor is paying for permits, and they're
paying for their occupational licenses, and their office has architects and engineers and so on and
so on, and now we're going to charge the person that process a permit in the City of Miami, we're
going to charge him an occupational license just to go to the City and bring the plans in and have
them run through?
Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Not addressing the policy issue, but with regard to the state
law, the State law on occupational licenses authorizes cities to charge an occupational license fee
for the privilege of doing business in the particular municipality, so it is certainly -- if it's a
business operating in the City of Miami, there is -- it is appropriate to charge them an
occupational license fee.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Yeah, but that's what I'm saying.
Chairman Winton: OK.
Commissioner Gonzalez: The developer, or the general contractor, or the real estate broker, or
whoever has a business.
Chairman Winton: I think he's talking about --
Mr. Vilarello: Apparently, these are distinct --
Chairman Winton: He's talking about there are now individuals out there --
Commissioner Gonzalez: Runners.
150 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: -- who has set up a business --
Commissioner Gonzalez: Runners.
Chairman Winton: -- to -- yes, but they've set up an independent business. They don't work for
the general contractor. They don't work for the architect. They don't work for any of them.
They are hired as an independent business to go and do that, and that's the people he's --
Mr. Chavez: Yes, sir.
Chairman Winton: -- suggesting.
Mr. Chavez: As I've -- as it is written here, this new license would not apply to the contractor, to
the accountant, to the attorney who was doing for -- they're already engaging in a business with
you. It's to the person that simply goes and gets permits or -- I think it's been -- they're cheaper
than these other professionals to go and do this paperwork downtown for them --
Chairman Winton: Now --
Mr. Chavez: -- so these folks that do these, these are the ones that are not licensed that are
engaging in business. They work either for the owner or for the developer or the architect or
what have you. It's not for the person that already has an existing occupational license.
Chairman Winton: Now, I would like to suggest a -- both to Commissioner Gonzalez and
Commissioner Sanchez -- a different thought process that I know we cannot do because it will
have an -- significant economic impact. I happen to disagree, philosophically, with this concept
that you take a law firm or bona fide engineering firm or an accounting and charge the firm an
occupational license, but all of their partners and employees not have to have their own
individual occupational license, I think that is wrong, by the way --
Commissioner Gonzalez: Um -hum.
Chairman Winton: -- and so what they are doing is leveling the playing field, but we're also
imposing a whole new tax structure now on a pretty important office segment of our community
that doesn't do it, and I think we're going to pay penalties that are much greater than the revenue
that we're going to generate in going after that, and I think that over time we need to revisit this
entire structure and create real parity and fairness in this structure, because I think that process
for lawyers and other professionals is fundamentally wrong, so I'm looking at this thing a little
differently, and I've had a lot of professionals complain about that process, and it just doesn't
pass the logic test to me, and by the way, just as an aside for my own business, I separated my
employees into two components; one across the hall from the other.
Commissioner Gonzalez: You had to get a certificate of use.
Chairman Winton: They made me buy two occupational licenses; same company, so --
151 July 24, 2003
Commissioner Gonzalez: And you were lucky, they didn't ask you for that --
Chairman Winton: Yeah.
Commissioner Gonzalez: -- extra certificate of use.
Chairman Winton: So, anyhow, that's a different side that I don't want to get into, so -- but from
a philosophical standpoint, I think we need to -- Mr. Manager, in fact, I'd like you to do an
analysis of what the impact would be if we considered going in the other direction as opposed to
this direction. In fact --
Commissioner Sanchez: On both sides, because I do agree on one concept. On the expedited
process for the occupational license, if you call and you want to expedite your licenses, I mean, I
think you should pay for it because it really puts the burden on the City, so there's one --
Chairman Winton: Right.
Commissioner Sanchez: -- component that I could support. On the --
Chairman Winton: Correct.
Commissioner Sanchez: -- other components, I happen to agree my colleagues, but on
expediting the -- either the occupational license or the CU (Certificate of Use), that I could
support because you're basically calling a NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) office or
whatever channel you're taking and you're basically putting the burden on the City to try to get it
done as quickly as possible, so I don't mind that hundred dollars.
Mr. Chavez: OK.
Chairman Winton: In fact --
Mr. Chavez: Commissioner -- I'm sorry, before -- misunderstanding. There's not going to be an
expediting process. I used the word "expediters" because this is what mostly these folks call
themselves. There's folks that just would go downtown instead of you going.
Commissioner Sanchez: Oh, OK.
Mr. Chavez: They're the ones that go in and do all the paperwork for you so you don't have to
go downtown, and that's the segment of the business community.
Commissioner Sanchez: Well, you had my support on 103 and you just lost it.
Chairman Winton: Well -- and Mr. Manager, I'm not sure I want to vote in favor of this because
I would like to see somebody do more --
Commissioner Gonzalez: Yeah.
152 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: -- of an economic impact. When you attack -- attach that fee on to some of
the stuff, I'm worried, so I would like to --
Commissioner Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman, I would like to defer this item.
Commissioner Sanchez: Move -- no, no. I'd like --
Chairman Winton: Great.
Commissioner Sanchez: -- a motion to withdraw the item.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Oh, withdraw the item.
Chairman Winton: OK. Motion to withdraw.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Second.
Chairman Winton: Discussion. Being none, all in favor, "aye."
Mr. Vilarello: Mr. Chairman.
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. The motion carries.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved for its adoption:
MOTION NO. 03-870
A MOTION TO WITHDRAW CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED
ORDINANCE ON FIRST READING AMENDING CHAPTER 3 VARTICLE
II OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED,
ENTITLED "LICENSES AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
REGULATIONS /OCCUPATIONAL LICENSES," BY AMENDING THE
SCHEDULE OF LICENSE TAXES ESTABLISHED WHICH SETS FORTH
THE CLASSIFICATIONS AND RATE SCHEDULE FOR THOSE PERSONS
OR ENTITIES DOING BUSINESS IN THE CITY OF MIAMI.
153 July 24, 2003
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, the motion was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Mr. Vilarello: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Winton: Yes, sir.
Mr. Vilarello: Just on -- procedurally, on that issue, if you -- if the item is turned down, you will
not be able to consider any increases without going through the equity study again, and if that's
what the Commission wants to do, that's fine. If you defer it to the next meeting waiting for a
study, you can always act on this later.
Commissioner Sanchez: Well, I'll tell you, one, I didn't know anything about an equity study.
Second, I wasn't briefed on this. This got me by surprise, and I just don't like to be surprised. I
do not like the element of surprise, especially when you're -- which I could see the intent here,
and it's building revenues for the City, but in a way, I think that you may have a negative impact
towards the businesses. The economies are horrible right now. Unemployment is the highest it's
ever been. You know, I don't need to continue to give you reasons why I think right now is not
the appropriate time to do it.
Chairman Winton: So further discussion? Being none, all in favor, "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. The motion carries.
Chairman Winton: That's 19.
Unidentified Speaker: That's it.
Unidentified Speaker: Thank you.
154 July 24, 2003
44. APPROVE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTIES LISTED ON BEHALF OF MODEL CITY
COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION DISTRICT TRUST; ALLOCATE FUNDS DESIGNATED
FOR MODEL CITY TRUST IN BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Nineteen -A, you want to do that?
Chairman Winton: I think we're now at 26, is that correct? OK, 26.
Glenn Marcos (Director, Purchasing Department): Commissioner, Glenn Marcos.
Chairman Winton: I'm sorry, we have a time certain for 4 o'clock that was just brought to my
attention, so if you don't mind, I'd like to move that back and go to the 4 o'clock time certain.
Supplemental 7, OK, so could we go to the Supplemental 7, Model City Trust? Yes, name and
address, please, for the record.
Marva Wiley: Marva Wiley, acting president of the Model City Trust. Before you, per the
direction of the Commission last week, at the meeting of July 17, I am returning with a
recommendation for the City Commission's approval for the nine properties that exceed 15 --
exceed the appraisal. The Commission gave prior approval for the City and, subsequently, the
Trust to acquire properties at 15 percent above the average; several properties exceeded that cap,
as well, and they are present before you currently. Most of the properties are submitted because
of a clerical error that made the property exceed the cap established by the Commission by
approximately 800 to $1,000 in most instances. That's explained in your memo. Those
properties MHZ-71, MHZ-72, MHZ-237, MHZ-370, MHZ-458, and MHZ-750 are
predominantly vacant lots. One is a single vacant -- single-family vacant home. Those
properties are submitted before you. They were scheduled to close last year when the City
encountered its challenges related to environmental clearances received -- that had not been
received from HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development), so those are now being
brought to you through the Trust in hopes of clearing them from the queue property owners have
been waiting for two to three years to close on those properties. One property came as a result of
a policy approved by the board of directors for the Model City Trust, which allowed the assessed
value to be the guiding number, where the appraisals both came in lower than the assessed value.
That assessed value being the County Property Appraiser's assessed value. Clearly, in those
instances, there was something a bit awry, but you'll note that this is $1,035 above the difference
between 15 percent above the average, and the last two properties were approved by the Model
City Trust in July of 2002 for acquisition. They would fall under an old policy of the City
Commission that was subsequently changed that allowed for a property that was 15 percent
above the highest appraisal to be acquired. The property owner in this instance purchased the
property. The property appraiser's database supports the fact that the property was purchased in
2000 for $100,000; though the assessment value is $58,136, substantially below what he paid for
the property. Apparently, based on the records that we've reviewed, a commitment was made to
purchase that property for $115,000, allowing the property owner to enjoy some sort of profit
from this parcel. That's a similar circumstance between property MHZ-226 and 227. That
completes the list of nine properties. Are there any questions related to any of the specific items
or the history on those items?
155 July 24, 2003
Commissioner Sanchez: I just have a question. On the properties that you're purchasing, none
of them will require a relocation plan, would they?
Ms. Wiley: Right. These nine -- let me just confirm. Eight of these nine are vacant lots. One is
a single-family home that is vacant, and we have documentation from the property owner that
shows that the individual was properly evicted through the court process before the City came
into being, so there is nobody in the property. No one was in the property when the City began
negotiating, based on the documentation.
Commissioner Sanchez: So, it's my -- what you're putting on the record is that you're not
violating any HUD rules and regulations?
Ms. Wiley: That is correct.
Commissioner Sanchez: OK. Let me just state this for the record. I didn't support it last time,
and I didn't support it because I'm a man of policy and not personalities, you know. When you
provide -- at least, provide me up here with documents, every document has to have what is
required. Basically, we're governed by HUD; so are you, and so is the City, and soon the
advisory board of the Little Havana Home Advisory Board -- Homeownership Advisory Board
will be, too, but I had an opportunity to sit down with you. The following day you came into my
office and I sat down with you, and you provided me with most of the information. I found out -
- I made some statements last time that I think were not inappropriate because I wasn't aware of
the exactly all the things that were going on, but I could tell you this much, that Community
Development Department, it clearly did the Model City Trust no favor when it was set up. I put
the burden on the Model Trust, realizing that prior City CD (Community Development) and prior
administration basically did not have all the mechanisms in place, and therefore, you find
yourself in a very tough situation after you -- I did some homework, where basically HUD
doesn't deal with you because that interlocal agreement has not been signed, and that continues
to be a problem, and I was not aware of that, and I knew the inside mechanisms of what was
going on, and I know that we did it -- we made a motion directing the Manager to sit down with
Model City Trust to fix everything so the homeownership initiative could be successful, and I
hope that that is moving in that direction, and I would like to see that. The environmentals have
to be done. If anyone is being moved out of a property that the Model City bought, there has to
be a relocation plan. We have to be very careful to follow all the rules of HUD because once we
violate them, we jeopardize future programs into our City, and the last thing that we want to see
ourselves is back again in -- well, in the situation that we're in right now, you know, which may
jeopardize the future of the funds in the City, so we've got to be very, very careful on that, so I
am glad that the Manager and yourselves are working on that interlocal agreement. Also, in light
of the news that, you know, we've read in the paper raided the CDBG (Community Development
Block Grant) office -- and that was in the paper today, and it's sad, but it's reality. I would like
to hear from the Manager that we have every assurance that we are cooperating with the
investigation, both -- whatever federal agency, the US Attorney's Office, the State Attorney's
Office. I want to make sure and make it very clear, crystal clear to all our employees that anyone
involved in destroying documents or impeding in this investigation, Mr. City Manager, will be
terminated and prosecuted, and I want to hear that from you, sir.
156 July 24, 2003
Joe Arriola (City Manager): I stated it very clearly yesterday, and I've had the conversation with
the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigations). As a matter of fact, I invited them to set offices at
our CD, the second floor, and I think they've accepted, so they wouldn't have any problems
transferring papers back and forward, but of course, I made it very, very clear; anybody that is,
even by chance, interference with this investigation, they won't be with the City very long. I
mean, that's a must. We need to come out of this very clean, and we need to be very, very open
with all the authorities, and I intend to make sure that that happens.
Commissioner Sanchez: Thank you, sir.
Chairman Winton: Anything else, Commissioner? And Marva, I would like to make one point,
as well, and I didn't bring it up at the last meeting; I bit my tongue, but if you remember from the
meeting before, I said, when you bring these forward, I would like to see a map that shows
clearly what we bought, what's under contract, and -- so that we see a clear picture from a
mapping standpoint, which you have provided, and I would like to say that both this map and the
schedule that you provided here that's very easy to read is hugely helpful because then I can look
at this stuff and see exactly what we're doing; I can ask very specific questions about things that
I don't understand, and then it's easy to vote "yes," whereas, the package last time was
extremely difficult in its totalities, but this is --
Ms. Wiley: Let me just --
Chairman Winton: -- light years better.
Ms. Wiley: Appreciate that, Mr. Commissioner, but just so that I could put a point on the record.
What I was attempting to do in the last package was to note which column referred to the
purchase price. There were a lot of numbers in the table that referred to the assessment value,
first appraisal, second appraisal, average of the two 15 percent above the average, which I
thought would get a little confusing as you're trying to move through a list quickly, and
subsequently, it became apparent that those multiple copies just didn't --
Chairman Winton: Didn't work.
Ms. Wiley: -- make it. With nine properties, it's a lot easier to fully reflect all of that, too.
Chairman Winton: OK, thank you. Do you have a -- do we have a motion?
Ms. Wiley: Only have three Commissioners.
Chairman Winton: Oh.
Commissioner Sanchez: We don't --
Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): The approval of this resolution requires a four-fifths vote.
Chairman Winton: OK, so we will what?
157 July 24, 2003
Commissioner Sanchez: We'll wait for --
Chairman Winton: Mr. City Attorney, can we move on to the next item?
Mr. Vilarello: Yes.
Chairman Winton: OK.
Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Mr. Chairman, please, before you move on, can I make --
Chairman Winton: Oh, yes, please.
Ms. Thompson: -- one announcement? I need to see Mr. Alfred Garcia Manacol (phonetic).
Thank you.
Chairman Winton: OK. Next item is 32. Oh, did you hear -- this was the presentation on Model
City Trust.
Commissioner Regalado: No. I know. Are we voting on it?
Chairman Winton: Well, we need a motion before we can vote.
Commissioner Regalado: I move it.
Chairman Winton: We have a motion.
Unidentified Speaker: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) second.
Commissioner Sanchez: You could second.
Chairman Winton: I can't; I'm the Chair.
Mr. Vilarello: You could second it.
Chairman Winton: I can? The Chair can second? Chair seconds. Discussion. Any other
discussion? Yes, sir.
Mr. Vilarello: The resolution would be amended to provide for the acquisition subject to the
availability of funds, as the City Manager requested.
Chairman Winton: Correct. OK. Any other discussion?
Commissioner Sanchez: Based -- with that language, "based on availability."
158 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: Oh, yes, absolutely, absolutely. That's a part of the resolution and a part of
the motion and the second. Any other --
Commissioner Sanchez: Madam Clerk, roll call.
Chairman Winton: Sure. I mean --
Ms. Thompson: Commissioner --
Chairman Winton: -- it's not too difficult to figure it out here, but --
Ms. Thompson: Commissioner Gonzalez?
Commissioner Gonzalez: Yes, but before voting "yes," once again, making sure that funds are
available, and that this program is in full compliance with all the federal regs (regulations), state,
local, Boy Scouts, everybody that has to approve this, OK. Making sure that this passes all the
screens that has to pass.
Ms. Thompson: Commissioner Sanchez?
Commissioner Sanchez: Yes.
Ms. Thompson: Commissioner Regalado?
Commissioner Regalado: Yes.
Ms. Thompson: Chairman Winton?
Chairman Winton: Yes.
Ms. Thompson: The resolution is passed, 4/0.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Regalado, who moved for its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-871
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
ATTACHMENT(S), BY A FOUR-FIFTHS (4/5THS) AFFIRMATIVE VOTE,
APPROVING THE ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTIES LISTED ON
"ATTACHMENT 1," ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED, ON BEHALF OF
THE MODEL CITY COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION DISTRICT TRUST,
SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH ALL FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL
REGULATIONS; AND ALLOCATING FUNDS DESIGNATED FOR THE
MODEL CITY TRUST IN THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003,
SUBJECT TO THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.
159 July 24, 2003
Upon being seconded by Chairman Winton, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
45. APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE MANAGER TO EXECUTE SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY AND UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI
Chairman Winton: Thirty-two.
Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Mr. Chairman, Item 32 has a substitute memorandum that's
been distributed that describes the settlement agreement between the City of Miami and -- the
University of Miami concerning -- resolving the dispute which was turned up by an audit
conducted by a Dr. Igwe. This settlement provides for the University of Miami to provide
certain studies, analysis, engineering studies, performance and feasibility studies, in an amount
not to exceed $420,000.
Chairman Winton: OK.
Commissioner Gonzalez: I move Item 32.
Chairman Winton: Got a motion. You know, I don't have -- is this -- we got a motion; need a
second on 32.
Commissioner Sanchez: I'll wait.
Chairman Winton: Commissioner Regalado.
Commissioner Sanchez: I'm stepping out of the room, conflict of interest.
Chairman Winton: Second. We have a motion and a second.
Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Winton: Is this -- yes, sir.
160 July 24, 2003
Commissioner Sanchez: For the record, I had conflict of interest. We filed appropriate
paperwork with the City Clerk, and I'm stepping out of the room. Just the City Attorney did not
advise me that the item was coming up.
Chairman Winton: OK. Thank you, so I'll wait till you step out of the room before we call the
vote. OK, we have a motion and a second. Do we have further discussion? Being none, all in
favor, "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. The motion carries.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gonzalez, who moved for its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-872
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
ATTACHMENT(S), APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, IN
SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, BETWEEN THE CITY OF
MIAMI AND THE UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Regalado, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Joe Sanchez
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
161 July 24, 2003
46. RATIFY, APPROVE AND CONFIRM, MANAGER'S FINDING OF EMERGENCY,
WAIVE CONSULTANTS' COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATION ACT PROCEDURES TO
ENGAGE BLISS AND NYITRAY, INC. AS STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS TO DETERMINE
LOAD BEARING CAPACITY OF ORANGE BOWL; $126,000
Chairman Winton: Thirty-three is -- yes.
Commissioner Gonzalez: (INAUDIBLE) 33 also.
Chairman Winton: Yes, 33 is really kind of tied together.
Commissioner Gonzalez: OK, I also move 33; it's companion to (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Chairman Winton: Commissioner Regalado. Second. Got a motion and a second. Discussion.
Yes, sir.
Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): This is a resolution, requires a four-fifths vote. Just for the
information of the Commission, the funds for the payment of this item come from the settlement
agreement that was approved on Item 32.
Chairman Winton: Now, does that still -- so, Commissioner Sanchez is still in --
Mr. Vilarello: There is no conflict of interest with regard to this item.
Chairman Winton: OK, so can we get him back in here.
Joe Arriola (City Manager): Commissioner, you know, we skipped over Item 26, in case you --
Chairman Winton: Oh, you're right. Correct.
Mr. Arriola: -- so, if we can go back to it afterwards --
Chairman Winton: I'll come back to that.
Mr. Arriola: -- I would appreciate it.
Chairman Winton: OK. Did we find him? There he is. We have a motion and a second on Item
33.
Commissioner Sanchez: (INAUDIBLE) step out the building.
Chairman Winton: No, no, no such luck. We have a motion and a second on Item 33, which is
structural repairs to Orange Bowl. Any further discussion? Being none, all in favor, "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
162 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. The motion carries.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gonzalez, who moved for its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-873
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
ATTACHMENT(S), BY A FOUR-FIFTHS (4/5THS) AFFIRMATIVE VOTE,
RATIFYING, APPROVING AND CONFIRMING, THE CITY MANAGER'S
FINDING OF AN EMERGENCY; WAIVING THE CONSULTANTS'
COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATION ACT ("CCNA") PROCEDURES AND
AUTHORIZING THE ENGAGEMENT OF BLISS AND NYITRAY, INC. AS
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS TO DETERMINE THE LOAD BEARING
CAPACITY OF THE ORANGE BOWL, IN AN AMOUNT GUARANTEED
NOT TO EXCEED $118,000, INCLUSIVE OF FEES AND REIMBURSABLE
EXPENSES; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE
ATTACHED FORM, FOR SAID PURPOSE; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM
AN ACCOUNT TO BE IDENTIFIED BY THE CITY MANAGER.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Regalado, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
47. AUTHORIZE MANAGER TO EXECUTE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT,
WITH MGT OF AMERICA, INC., TO CONDUCT COMPREHENSIVE COMPENSATION
STUDY OF CITY'S CURRENT COMPENSATION PLAN FOR DEPARTMENT OF
EMPLOYEE RELATIONS, UTILIZING AN EXISTING STATE OF FLORIDA CONTRACT
NO. 973-001-00-1, $212,500; ALLOCATE FUNDS FROM CAPITAL PROJECT.
Chairman Winton: I skipped Item Number 26. We'll go back to 26. Yes, sir.
Glenn Marcos: Glenn Marcos, Purchasing Director. On behalf of the Employee Relations
Department, the Purchasing Department utilized state of Florida contract number 973-001-00-1
to seek the services for -- from a firm to provide a comprehensive compensation study. MGT of
America is the recommended firm.
163 July 24, 2003
Commissioner Sanchez: All right. Which item is this, I'm sorry?
Mr. Marcos: Item 26.
Chairman Winton: Twenty-six, so need a motion.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Move 26.
Chairman Winton: This is very important. We got a motion. We need a second.
Commissioner Sanchez: Second.
Chairman Winton: Got a motion, second. Discussion. Being none, all in favor, say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. The motion carries.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gonzalez, who moved for its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-874
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE
ATTACHED FORM, WITH MGT OF AMERICA, INC., TO CONDUCT A
COMPREHENSIVE COMPENSATION STUDY OF THE CITY OF MIAMI'S
CURRENT COMPENSATION PLAN AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL
SERVICES AS MAY BE REQUIRED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF
EMPLOYEE RELATIONS, UTILIZING AN EXISTING STATE OF FLORIDA
CONTRACT NO. 973-001-00-1, EFFECTIVE THROUGH MAY 14, 2004, ON
AN AS -NEEDED BASIS, SUBJECT TO ANY EXTENSIONS OR
REPLACEMENT CONTRACT(S) BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN AN
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $212,500; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE
CAPITAL PROJECT ACCOUNT CODE NO. 311047.279501.6.270, SUBJECT
TO BUDGETARY APPROVAL.
164 July 24, 2003
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
48. AUTHORIZE MANAGER TO EXECUTE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
WITH MARSH USA, INC. TO PROVIDE VARIOUS RISK MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT
SERVICES, $141,500.00
Chairman Winton: Thirty-four.
Commissioner Regalado: Move it.
Chairman Winton: Need a second.
Commissioner Sanchez: Which item?
Chairman Winton: Thirty-four.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Second.
Chairman Winton: Motion, second.
Commissioner Sanchez: You know, Johnny, you're driving me crazy with this agenda, back and
forth.
Chairman Winton: Yeah. Well, that's because --
Commissioner Sanchez: It's hard to keep up with you.
Chairman Winton: -- this morning I let everybody pull their favorite item out and it's been a
mess ever since.
Commissioner Sanchez: You're a terrific -- hey, I don't care what they say; you're a terrific
chairman.
Chairman Winton: Yeah. I don't feel like it today. We have a motion and a second on 34. Any
further discussion? Being none, all in favor, say "aye."
165 July 24, 2003
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. The motion carries.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Regalado, who moved for its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-875
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE
ATTACHED FORM, WITH MARSH USA, INC., TO PROVIDE VARIOUS
ASSESSMENT SERVICES FOR THE DIVISION OF RISK MANAGEMENT,
FOR A ONE-YEAR PERIOD, WITH THE OPTION TO EXTEND FOR AN
ADDITIONAL ONE-YEAR PERIOD; ALLOCATING FUNDS, IN A TOTAL
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $141,500, FROM ACCOUNT CODE NO.
515001.624401.6.650.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
49. AUTHORIZE MANAGER TO EXECUTE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
WITH GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC., TO PROVIDE WORKERS
COMPENSATION CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION (PART I SERVICES) AND GENERAL,
AUTOMOBILE AND PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION
SERVICES (PART II SERVICES).
Chairman Winton: Thirty-five.
Commissioner Sanchez: So moved.
Chairman Winton: Motion. Need a second.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Second.
Chairman Winton: Got a second. Discussion. Being none, all in favor, say "aye."
166 July 24, 2003
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. The motion carries.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved for its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-876
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT ("AGREEMENT"), IN
SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, WITH GALLAGHER
BASSETT SERVICES, INC., THE TOP-RANKED FIRM SELECTED AS A
RESULT OF THE COMPETITIVE SELECTION PROCESS TO PROVIDE
WORKERS COMPENSATION CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION SERVICES
(PART I SERVICES) AND GENERAL, AUTOMOBILE AND
PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION SERVICES
(PART II SERVICES), FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF RISK
MANAGEMENT, FOR AN INITIAL THREE-YEAR PERIOD, WITH THE
OPTION TO EXTEND FOR FIVE ADDITIONAL ONE-YEAR PERIODS,
WITHOUT FURTHER APPROVAL OF THE CITY COMMISSION, IN AN
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED THE NEGOTIATED AMOUNT SET FORTH
IN "EXHIBIT 2," ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED, WITH
INCREASES IN THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION PAYABLE
DURING THE EACH OF THE OPTIONAL YEAR PERIODS NOT TO
EXCEED THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX OVER THE IMMEDIATELY
PRECEDING YEAR; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM ACCOUNT CODE
NO. 515 001.624401.6.270.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Chairman Winton: Thirty-six. Oh, sorry about that. Charlie, you have a comment on 35?
Charlie Cox: Yes.
167 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: Please.
Commissioner Sanchez: Where were you, Charlie?
Chairman Winton: He was --
Mr. Cox: Right here.
Chairman Winton: I was running.
Mr. Cox: You'll have the City go first?
Chairman Winton: I'm sorry? The City isn't going first; we've already voted, but come and
make your comment. Come.
Mr. Cox: Wait a minute. If --
Chairman Winton: Are you going to step to the microphone or you're going to stand off?
Mr. Cox: I'm going to step to the microphone, sir.
Chairman Winton: Thank you.
Mr. Cox: You've already voted, so there's no sense in me --
Chairman Winton: No. I think we -- you know, we're giving you the courtesy of saying --
making your comments here. That's what I just said.
Mr. Cox: But the vote has already taken place?
Commissioner Sanchez: Yes.
Chairman Winton: We did vote. What do you want me to tell you, Charlie? We just voted, so I
can't unvote [sic] what got voted. We did vote. That's -- the facts are --
Commissioner Sanchez: Thirty-four, 35 --
Chairman Winton: -- motion, second, voted --
Commissioner Sanchez: -- and 36 were voted on.
Chairman Winton: -- so, I'm just telling you how the facts rolled out here.
Mr. Cox: OK, sir, but when we sign up to speak, aren't we normally allotted a time to speak like
you do most --
168 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: Charlie, your question was did we vote. The answer is --
Mr. Cox: Yes, sir.
Chairman Winton: -- yes, we voted. I can't --
Mr. Cox: OK.
Chairman Winton: -- tell you any other answer than that.
Mr. Cox: No problem. I'll make my comments then. I had been appearing before the City
Commission for 16 years now. At no time have I ever given erroneous numbers in any
presentation on backup that I've been given, and I have certainly never lied to any Commissioner
or Mayor on any of my presentations I have given. All the members I have used -- all the
numbers I have used in any presentation have been directly from City records. Also know that if
I had ever lied, I could be -- face punishment up to and including dismissal, like every other civil
servant that I represent. There are strict rules in every department, civil service rules about
truthfulness, but more so than that, I knew my credibility was at stake every time I appeared
before a City Commission. If I had ever lied, I would have had to give up my job as union
president because no Mayor or Commissioner would have ever believed my numbers again. The
union has hired an economist, Mr. Larry Jessup, to present information regarding the data
provided by the City management that's hiring a private company that would cost the taxpayer of
Miami more money. No less than seven times and two Commission meetings of risk
management discussion you have had an assistant to the City Manager mislead you. Assistant
City Manager Mr. Munoz sat in the Manager's chair and told you that he would save more than a
$500,000 by doing this change. During those two meetings, Assistant City Manager Ms.
Haskins also stood behind -- beside Mr. Myers and Assistant City Manager Mr. Munoz shaking
her head yes, that the City would save more than $500,000 by privatizing risk management.
When asked by Commissioner Winton on record if this was a net savings, Mr. Myers responded,
"Yes, it is." I ask all of you, how can you trust any numbers that these individuals have now
given you? You now have in place an auditing general that responds directly to the Commission,
and before you make any decision, you should use those tools that you have in place to protect
yourselves and check all the City's numbers contained in the Gallagher Bassett report. Since
Commissioner Sanchez got involved a few years ago, the City has hired at least 15 new
employees, including executives, in Risk Management, and that list is in your package by
seniority. That's that first paper. If you notice, the City's contract, they are requiring for
Gallagher Bassett supervisors in charge of our program for four years experience as a supervisor,
and they cannot use trainees for City's work. I have included -- that's here out of the contract,
the second part of it -- our job requirements, which are the big ones right here. For Claims
Adjuster I through Claims Adjuster Supervisor. If you look at the Claims Adjust I, II, and III, all
are required to have State of Florida licenses. Claims Adjusters I must have six months
experience. Claims Adjusters IIs must have two years experience. Claims Adjusters IIIs must
have five years experience. Claims Supervisors must have a bachelor's degree in Risk
Management and Health Insurance, or Health Administrative, or a close related field, and
possess three years experience, plus a State of Florida license. As you can see, we are
169 July 24, 2003
downgrading our qualifications. All of the employees that the City has hired have more
experience and qualification that is required by the Gallagher Bassett report. Contract. There is
no doubt that the City was willing to commit half the resources to City managers willing to give
Gallagher Bassett, you would have a great Risk Management department. In the last three
weeks, you have had two employees resign; one has gone to work for Gallagher Bassett and the
other has gone to work for Dade County. There is no questions that we have skilled and
competent employees working in the Risk Management Department. Furthermore, if the City
wanted to privatize Risk Management Department, why did he hire a new director? This makes
no sense to me. It also doesn't make any sense to manipulate the information for you, the
Commission, that you need to make your decisions. It is especially offensive when the
Administration does not tell the truth in order to have its way. At the last Commission meeting,
when Commissioner Sanchez stated that he asked the management to pick four employees and
do surveillance on them, he stated that two out of the four were working elsewhere while on
disability. At that time, you also asked Risk Management how many employees had been
investigated since then. They did not have the number available for you. I would appreciate if
you would have the City put on record how many employees have been investigated. I think you
will find that 50 percent of those on disability who shouldn't be on disability is a ridiculous
number. If then, they should be taken off disability benefits, and I can tell you, if you haven't
put it on record, there's been over a hundred per year investigated, and one is at this -- the
Department of the State. At this time, I'd like to turn the mike over to Mr. Jessup with the
comparisons from the City numbers.
Lawrence Jessup: Good afternoon, Commissioners, Mr. City Manager. My name is Lawrence
Jessup. I'm the economic consultant for the AFSCME (American Federal, State, County, and
Municipal Employees) Local, but I've also been the economic consultant for the IFF and the
FOP (Fraternal Order of Police) Local for the City of Miami since 1977, and what I do is to help
them prepare for their negotiations or get involved with this budget crisis. The last one I was
involved with was the infamous 1996 budget crisis the City had. In fact, it was my work that led
the City unions to make the concessions. They were the first ones to step up to help save the
City at that time, and I've worked in many other governmental agencies. I've handed out four
exhibits, if you will, just to show you that -- from our analysis that the claim that was made that
the hiring of this firm would save the City $500,000 net, that the facts don't support it, and let me
cut to the bottom line. I know you like to hear that. It's the last page. There's two scenarios
here. Let me explain the first one, which is headed "maintain all personnel." In some of those
other exhibits, there's a listing of existing positions as of the last pay period, and the data that's
contained for salaries and benefits for those people are contained in the proposed budget for
fiscal year '04; that's where we got the information from, but here we see the cost of the
Gallagher Bassett life partnership and run-in claims costs, which is approximately $1,469,000.
The existing employees, the cost for them for their benefits and salaries is a million two forty-
six. With the hiring of Gallagher Bassett, there's a contract for claims management systems that
will be eliminated because Gallagher Bassett will be handling is about $130,000,000. When you
take all those components together, the cost to the City would be $2,580,000. Currently, the
people you have on board that are dedicated to the property and casualty of cost center, as it's
called for the Risk Management Department, is a million two forty-six, so what you're doing by
-- or what you have done by adopting this contract is to increase your costs for the same work by
about a million four. It's not a net savings of $500,000. The second scenario is the elimination
170 July 24, 2003
of nine positions that are currently filled from that cost center; claims adjusters, some other
positions, which would bring the City's cost that would be left in place to $833,000, and when
you add all those pieces together, it's still going to cost you almost a million bucks. The reason
we identified those nine positions is because those people that are working in that cost center
have been advised to seek employment elsewhere. Now, in the April 10 meeting in the
discussion, it was proffered to you that there wouldn't be anybody laid off, and that there would
be some kind of reallocation or distribution of these people some place else. We have yet to seen
any plan for that or identifying who would be affected by that, but based upon the information
that these people had been given, we've been able to identify nine of them, so even when you --
if that happened, if that scenario happened --
Commissioner Regalado: I remember -- excuse me, sir. Sir, I remember that they said that eight
people would be laid off.
Mr. Jessup: No. Actually, it -- originally, it was 11, and four of those people had what they call
"rollback rates." They were going to eliminate 11 positions.
Commissioner Regalado: But I remember the Administration saying that eight people will be
laid off, so you know because --
Chairman Winton: So --
Mr. Jessup: Well, if that was the case, then the cost would be increased a little bit more. You
know, the bottom line is that if you're going to be spending this kind of money to have
somebody from the outside do this, you certainly have the resources to improve the data system
that you have to be able to do the job, and secondly, you certainly have the ability, if you were
going to spend this kind of money, to enhance and improve the people who are doing that work,
and it's basically to hire the managers or get the managers to do their jobs properly because you
certainly have capable people who are currently doing the job, and you could use that money to
improve your management; keep you hands on it, and I know that some of you don't want to be
in the business of claims handling, and have management do their jobs rather than having these
people lose their jobs because of what we believe is to be inadequate management.
Chairman Winton: Have you given this to the Manager, this analysis that you've done?
Mr. Jessup: No. We just finished it last night.
Chairman Winton: Well, before just now.
Mr. Jessup: Well, they have -- well -- I mean, today, not prior to this meeting.
Chairman Winton: OK, so where we are is, Mr. Cox has made a presentation. If y'all heard
something that you think is compelling to reconsider Item -- what number is that?
Unidentified Speaker: Thirty-five.
171 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: -- 35, then we need a motion. If not, then I would suggest -- I would ask that
the Manager look at this data and analyze it, and at the next Commission meeting bring back
their analysis of -- because I think it's fair for us to look at all these numbers and bring back your
analysis as to how you agree or disagree with the numbers that we've been presented here.
Linda Haskins: Commissioner, Linda Haskins, Chief Financial Officer. The largest difference --
there are two large differences in the numbers. One is, there was --
Chairman Winton: I didn't ask now.
Ms. Haskins: Yeah, OK. There was --
Chairman Winton: I said for --
Ms. Haskins: We had looked at from Mr. Cox --
Chairman Winton: OK.
Ms. Haskins: -- previous.
Chairman Winton: So, is the testimony from Mr. Cox's expert strong enough to have anybody
consider reconsidering the motion that passed on Item 35? If not, then, Charlie, we will -- this
information is in the Manager's hands; we're going to have him analyze it, and in September, at
whatever meeting's the easiest from an agenda standpoint, we'll ask him to come back and
respond to this analysis.
Commissioner Regalado: There's only one question, and Charlie raised that question: How
many employees have been investigated?
Ms. Haskins: The number of employees investigated, I can give you by year.
Commissioner Regalado: No, no, no, no, no.
Ms. Haskins: There were 95 in 2000; 141 in 2001, and 106 in 2002.
Commissioner Regalado: No, but we're talking about this year.
Ms. Haskins: I don't have the year-to-date number. I can get that for you.
Chairman Winton: Well, bring that --
Ms. Haskins: That was the last question was by the last three years that we --
Chairman Winton: Bring that --
Ms. Haskins: -- answered that question.
172 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: Bring that back in the November meeting, as well. OK. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cox: Could I make one more statement?
Chairman Winton: Yes, you may.
Mr. Cox: Yes. You asked me why the Manager didn't have this before. As you could see, all
my public records demands had been dated well before. We just got -- we didn't even get all of
the public records demands that we made for the information, but most of the information we
just got yesterday.
Chairman Winton: Actually, I didn't ask why. I just ask if they had received it in advance, so --
Mr. Cox: But the reason -- we're not withholding it --
Chairman Winton: Right.
Mr. Cox: -- we never did. We just finished it because the information we got was yesterday.
Chairman Winton: Right, understand, so thank you, Charlie.
50. AUTHORIZE MANAGER TO EXECUTE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
WITH PREFERRED GOVERNMENTAL CLAIMS SOLUTIONS AND BROWN & BROWN,
INC., D/B/A AMERISYS, TO PROVIDE MANAGED CARE SERVICES FOR ALL OF
SERVICES RELATED TO CITY'S WORKERS COMPENSATION MANAGED CARE
CLAIMS.
Chairman Winton: OK. Item 36. What item is -- OK, 36.
Commissioner Sanchez: So move.
Chairman Winton: Got a motion.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Second.
Chairman Winton: Second. Discussion. Being none, all in favor, say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. The motion carries.
173 July 24, 2003
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved for its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-877
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT ("AGREEMENT"), IN
SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, WITH PREFERRED
GOVERNMENTAL CLAIMS SOLUTIONS AND BROWN & BROWN, INC.,
D/B/A AMERISYS, THE TOP-RANKED FIRM SELECTED AS A RESULT
OF THE COMPETITIVE SELECTION PROCESS TO PROVIDE ALL
MANAGED CARE SERVICES RELATED TO THE CITY'S WORKERS
COMPENSATION MANAGED CARE CLAIMS FOR AN INITIAL THREE-
YEAR PERIOD, WITH THE OPTION TO EXTEND FOR FIVE (5)
ADDITIONAL ONE-YEAR PERIODS WITHOUT FURTHER APPROVAL OF
THE CITY COMMISSION IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED THE
NEGOTIATED AMOUNT SET FORTH IN "EXHIBIT 2," ATTACHED AND
INCORPORATED, WITH INCREASES IN THE AMOUNT OF
COMPENSATION PAYABLE DURING EACH OF THE OPTIONAL YEAR
PERIODS NOT TO EXCEED THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR THE
IlVMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR; AND ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM
ACCOUNT CODE NO. 515001.624401.6.668.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
51. COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONER SANCHEZ REGARDING RISK MANAGEMENT
AND WORKER'S COMPENSATION CLAIMS.
Chairman Winton: I'm going to skip the appointment issues. We have a fairly large group here
on two P&Z (Planning & Zoning) items. I'd like to go to the P&Z agenda.
Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Winton: Yes, sir.
174 July 24, 2003
Commissioner Sanchez: Before we do that, we just passed three items, 33 -- no, 34, 35, and 36,
and you know, there was opposition towards this -- towards these items. I think I owe it to
Charlie -- Charlie, you need to come back to the podium. Mr. Cox.
Chairman Winton: Why are you opening this back up; it's gone.
Commissioner Sanchez: I know it's gone, but let me -- you know -- because you know, in the
letter he said my name twice, and I think --
Chairman Winton: OK.
Commissioner Sanchez: -- that I have -- I deserve an opportunity to respond. Never have I or
anyone in this Commission criticized anyone in Risk Management. When I first got here --
Charlie Cox: No, I didn't say you did.
Commissioner Sanchez: Well, you said -- let me just --
Mr. Cox: OK.
Commissioner Sanchez: Charlie, I respect you. You --
Mr. Cox: Absolutely.
Commissioner Sanchez: -- have a responsibility that you do very well, and if I was a member of
your union, I would be -- I'd pick you to represent me any day of the week and twice on Sunday,
but we have a responsibility -- I do, as a Commissioner here. No one would dispute the facts that
when I first arrived here, the City -- Risk Management was in chaos. It was in chaos, and I have
the records to bring it out, and even you on the record stated --
Mr. Cox: Absolutely.
Commissioner Sanchez: -- that it was something that we needed to work together to try to find a
solution to it. These three items that are here today, in four years, I think we've accomplished in
the last four hours, what we -- what I have been trying to accomplish in the last four years. Risk
Management -- and I've said it since day one -- The City had no business in claims management.
I've always said that. It opened the door to favoritism. It opened the door for things that were
not appropriate. We had three -- 2,793 open claims when I first got here. We had to bring extra
people to try to find ways to close those claims, and it cost us money to close them. In the
process itself, today we're looking at other things, because I think that there are components that
we have to look at to really find the solution to these problems. One was workmen's comp; the
other one was the healthcare provider that we've had for 11 years or something. Once again, we
don't allow ourselves time to be able to sit down and renegotiate. We bogged ourselves down
for a long-term contract that we don't any room to negotiate. The other thing that we found out,
and I found out through this whole process, was that when these -- when Cigna --just to mention
Cigna -- was sending the bills, we had no one sitting there analyzing exactly what we owed
175 July 24, 2003
them. In other words, the bills were coming in, and at the end of the month or whatever, we
were paying them off. Perfect example is every one of us here, when we use our credit cards,
and you get your credit card at the end of the month, you basically go through it to see, hey,
maybe somebody, you know, picked up my card and charged something that I wasn't charged.
We don't do that, so it was a three- or four-part concept that we had to get the beast under
control, and we had to dissect that beast. Let me just look at the numbers under healthcare.
We're spending close -- and, please, someone from the City correct me if I'm wrong. When you
tally everything up, you're looking at Police is five million; executives is two million; employees
is looking at about 28 million; workmen's comp. is about 12 to 13 million every year -- 14? All
right, 14, and then we're spending money because we have to provide the physicals. It's our
responsibility, just like I support the concept of you bringing in more safety programs. I agree
with you a hundred percent.
Chairman Winton: I'm going to invoke the two minute rule.
Commissioner Sanchez: Well, just give me one more minute because I need to make this point.
You're looking at, gross, more than $50 million, Charlie, $50 million. When we got together
and we came up with a concept, hey, let's get the labor management committee together. As a
matter of fact, I'm still waiting for a report that they're working on because part of that was that
they were going to make recommendations to try to create savings towards the City, so all this, at
the end of the day, Charlie, employees are going to get, I think, a better service because they're
going to have 24/7, and I think you need to praise the City for that, OK. There's going to be a
significant saving. It may not be in the first year, but there will be savings towards the City, and
then we're going to get in a situation where, above all, we're going to have control over things
that we didn't have control in the first place, so at the end of the day, it's going to be a win/win
situation. Now, the only concern that I see you standing up there and fighting for is that some of
the employees will lose their jobs, and I think that's your number one concern, isn't it, that there
are some employees --
Mr. Cox: Absolutely.
Commissioner Sanchez: -- that are going to lose their jobs? And the Administration has all of a
sudden said that no one is going to lose their job, or they may be turned over to another
department.
Mr. Cox: That's not what they were told.
Commissioner Sanchez: Well, I just --
Mr. Cox: I happen to make (UNINTELLIGIBLE) --
Commissioner Sanchez: -- wanted to put that on the record, Charlie, because I have the most --
Mr. Cox: OK.
176 July 24, 2003
Commissioner Sanchez: -- respect for you, and you do a good job representing, but you know, I
picked this, and you know, I've been accused of kickbacks, I -- you know, all things that have
happened because I picked a -- you know, I touched a nerve and many times have been the skunk
at the family picnic on this issue, but you know, we have a responsibility, a fiduciary
responsibility to tackle these issues, and maybe some people sit back and go "I don't want to
touch that hot potato," but at the end of the day, it's taken me five years, five years to pass three
legislative actions today to accomplish this.
Chairman Winton: Thank you.
Mr. Cox: One --just one comment.
Chairman Winton: Only one because --
Mr. Cox: I believe that I praised you because you have brought in more people to work there,
and required the -- and I think that's what the speech did. If you read it and you don't think I
praised you for bringing in more people -- and you're right, it wasn't managed at all, but also that
we don't have -- with the numbers, there is one person being prosecuted by the State because
when you mess up with Workmen's Comp., it has to go through the State, and out of all of those
at this table, one is being prosecuted by the State, and there is I think 13 on hold --
Chairman Winton: OK.
Mr. Cox: -- on whether the State takes it.
Chairman Winton: Thank you, Charlie.
Commissioner Sanchez: I could go on for hours.
52. TO AMEND ORDINANCE 11000, FROM R-2 DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL, O OFFICE
AND SD -2 COCONUT GROVE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TO R-2 DUPLEX
RESIDENTIAL, O OFFICE AND SD -2 COCONUT GROVE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL
DISTRICT WITH AN NCD -2 GRAND AVENUE CORRIDOR NEIGHBORHOOD
CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT.
Chairman Winton: PZ -9. You have to swear in, Madam Clerk. Swearing in time.
Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Would you like everyone sworn in who will be speaking?
Chairman Winton: Why not?
Ms. Thompson: Ladies and gentlemen, if you are here and you will be testifying on a PZ
(Planning and Zoning) item, I need you to please stand and raise your right hand so we can swear
you in. Again, if you are going to be speaking on a PZ item, I need you to stand and raise your
right hand so that I can swear you in. Do I have anyone who speaks Spanish or Creole that needs
an interpreter?
177 July 24, 2003
AT THIS POINT, THE CITY CLERK ADMINISTERED OATH, REQUIRED UNDER CITY
CODE SECTION 62-1 TO THOSE PERSONS GIVING TESTIMONY ON ZONING ISSUES.
Ms. Thompson: Thank you.
Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): For the record, Lourdes Slazyk,
Planning & Zoning Department. PZ -9 and 10 are a text and atlas amendment in order to
implement the NCD -2 Grand Avenue Corridor, Neighborhood Conservation District. This is the
second of our Neighborhood Conservation Districts that we're bringing to you. What this
district particularly addresses is the Grand Avenue Corridor in Coconut Grove from Commodore
Plaza and McDonald Street on the east, to Brooker and Jefferson Streets to the west, fronting on
Grand Avenue. And let me be real clear. This is only for properties fronting on Grand Avenue.
There was some concern from some of the residents on Florida and Thomas that this affected
them and this was changing their zoning. It does not. And we fixed the title of the ordinance to
be very clear that it's only for properties fronting on Grand Avenue. The Neighborhood
Conservation District here creates an intense statement and special district requirements,
limitations on use and height limits, modifications in order to preserve the character of the Grand
Avenue Corridor. Of particular concern was the center portion of the corridor, which had an
office zoning classification, which allowed greater heights that could have potentially brought in
development to Grand Avenue, which would have been inconsistent with the character of the
corridor. This conservation district retains the same FAR (floor/area ratio), as what's permitted
now, which is a 1.72 for that office designation. But it puts a height limit in of 50 feet, which is
the same height limit that exists on either side of this district. The SD -2 district, which is in --
further east in the Center Grove, and the SD -2 district, which is on the west side of this -- the
"O" district and on Grand Avenue already have the 50 foot height limit. In fact, what we also
did in this office district was raise the potential height to 62 feet for a mixed-use project. This
would allow for some flexibility in the design to create a ground floor commercial use with
higher floor -to -ceiling heights and still allow four levels of residential use above it. We modified
the setbacks within the district in order to allow the buildings to come closer to the street and
closer to the property lines so that the development could be accommodated in a shorter, wider
building, rather than a thinner, taller building, which, again, would affect the character of Grand
Avenue. This particular Neighborhood Conservation District is the result of a two-year effort
with the community. And I would like Cece -- where is she -- there she is -- to come up and
explain the process that occurred over the last several years, which resulted in a good amount of
what the community concerns were and how they were addressed through this Neighborhood
Conservation District. Then I can -- you know, we can go into questions and community
comments.
Chairman Winton: Thank you. Cece, we need your name and address for the record, please.
Cecilia Holloman: OK. Cecilia Holloman. I'm going to give this office -- can I give the City as
my office? OK. City Commission. Cecilia Holloman. OK. I'm pleased to be able to address
you today. And, Commissioner Winton, I know that you've worked long and hard to make sure
that this administration is very sensitive and supportive of the wishes of the community. And so,
I really want to make my comments rather brief because I know you have still a long agenda.
178 July 24, 2003
But I'd like to also be able to have some of the people from the community, who have worked
over the two years and spent many hours working on and discussing and negotiating, sharing
information, asking the most important and salient questions, and those who have come here who
are very concerned about their community that right now is gentrifying and they have come
together. I want to say that this has been a very good and a very healthy process over the last
two years, where we've had people who have been on opposite sides of the fence and, in fact,
who may have not even been speaking to each other over a period of time, have come together
over a common issue of concern. And that is the protection of their community and their
concern that this Island District, this West Grove, this disinvested community would have not
only the support of the community but, also, the support of this Commission. I think that you
have demonstrated already your sensitivity to the needs in the West Grove community, which we
are calling the "Island District." And I'd like to just share with you some of the highlights of the
past two years. And I think that you will agree with me at the end of today that it is not only
fitting that the community comes with this request for you to support the Neighborhood
Conservation District as relates to Grand Avenue, but that as the community comes back in the
future months to talk about the rest of the NCD (Neighborhood Conservation District) and how
we can protect the community, at the same time, we can encourage new and mixed-use
development in a very pedestrian -friendly way so that we protect the character of the
community, we protect the identity of the community, the business and property owners, the
existing residents and, at the same time, we encourage friendly development that will respect the
needs and the desires and the wishes of the community. I know that this Commission is very
sensitive to the needs of the community. And so, that's why we bring this petition to you and
we're asking that today you would pass it on the first reading -- that you would support it in this
first reading. I have to say that over the last two years that I've been involved in this process,
I've been amazed and I've been pleased at the participation of the community. The Coconut
Grove Collaborative has been at the helm of this process. It represents 17 stakeholders -- these
17 stakeholder organizations in that community. And the Coconut Grove Collaborative goes on
record in total support of the NCD as it is written, with the understanding that the community is
going to hold continued meetings in the community and continue to discuss issues, items, and
negotiate different parts of this as they come up. There are some issues that some residents in
the community are not quite settled upon. But I would say that the overwhelming majority of
people in the community -- and they've had an opportunity to participate in over 17 meetings
now in the community. We've also held a 3 -day Community Design Workshop. Seventy-five
people were in attendance in that workshop, and that went for elderly people and young families,
property owners. There were professionals and the entire City Planning Department was there to
assist. University of Miami has been at the table with us throughout this process, the School of
Architecture. We've had tremendous support from our resource partners and from people in the
community coming out. They ask tough questions. They get honest answers. And I would
submit to you that, throughout this whole process, that's what needs to continue. One of the
things that the community is concerned about -- and one thing that you will hear in the rebuttal --
is that in this community, we have taken the time to sit down for hours. Our last community
meeting was on Monday. And it was after 17 meetings in the community, but because some
issues came up and we felt that the residents really had a right and it was a responsibility to
respond to their questions and concerns. We don't want them to be confused about this process.
The answers are very simple. The answers are very open and very honest. So it's been a very,
very open process. So we were able to answer their questions. They addressed their questions.
179 July 24, 2003
Everyone that had a question asked the question, and it was answered to their satisfaction. And
we received consensus from that last community meeting on Monday, July 21. What I've
prepared for you -- and I've submitted to the Clerk -- is a report that summarizes those meetings
over the last two years. This has happened since November 14, 2001, in which we held our first
meeting to even begin to consider the concerns of the community in terms of how do they protect
their community, how do they protect their residents, how do we keep low-income residents in
the community, and at the same time, encourage new development. So far, it has been a very
positive process. We've had a lot of positive responses. Some of the developers that are
developing on Grand Avenue have come to the community, have sat in on the meetings, are
supportive of what the community has expressed very clearly. We do have some developers who
have taken advantage of the opportunity to circulate a petition and we will speak to that issue.
Some of the residents have indicated that they're very incensed about how that happened. So I
wanted to stop for a moment and just say that in a community like this, it's very important that
we're able to help the residents understand the process. And even if that process is pro and con,
it's more important for people to be able to go into dialogue and have meaningful dialogue. And
what we don't want to happen is what has happened this morning, where people have sat for
hours to find out and ask their questions, and know what's going on, and be able to understand
how it impacts them. And then, at the last minute, you have folks that are going out and
purposely misleading them and having them signing petitions. We feel that that's an affront to
the community and it's not a proper way to conduct this type of an activity because it's more
important that the community engages in dialogue. And what we found is, as they engage in
dialogue and they're able to get their questions answered, then they're able to let us know what
they really need. And we're accommodated their needs in this dialogue. I just wanted now to
summarize what the community agreed on, the consensus of the community in regard to several
issues. And there are nine of them so I'm just going to kind of abbreviate the consensus so that
you will know what the community -- in most of these meetings, there was an average of 50
persons involved, 16 meetings. Our last meeting, there was 75. And at our charrette, there were
75 in three days -- a 3 -day period. There's community consensus on the following items -- and
consensus means not all but the overwhelming majority of those who were participating are in
agreement. One, they all acknowledged that there needs to be revitalization in the West Grove;
improvements and commercial and residential properties, consistency in facades on Grand
Avenue, preservation of historic assets and retention of existing multicultural character of the
community. The overwhelming majority of residents participating indicated that they prefer
lower heights, five stories, and they're willing to go to 62 feet, although they would like to have
more dialogue on that. We feel that the developers who are going to petition you to go higher
and to hold up the NCD should participate in this dialogue and we'll see what options can be
brought to the surface. We believe there are a lot of options. Some of them have to do with
resolving the parking issue. And we'd like to go to a meeting -- a community -wide meeting
August the 28t to begin to go forward in dealing with those issues. But the community wants to
see this NCD passed. They encouraged mixed-use development and mixed income
development. They want to see low-income people protected in the community. A lot of people
are losing their homes. They want to participate in more forums to discuss this more. They
don't want displacement. They want to see low-income residents protected from escalated taxes
and encumbering expensive regulations about their property. In addition, they want to see better
commercial development and they want to have participation on the URB Board, the Urban
Review Board. Those are the major issues that have come up. And the most important one of all
180 July 24, 2003
that I would urge you to consider and what the -- our NCD does to protect is the residents on
Florida and Thomas have urged us to make sure in the record that there will be no encroachment
on Florida and Thomas, and the NCD does that. So we definitely recommend that you support
this NCD. And I'd like to turn it over to a few residents who just want, briefly, to indicate their
support. Thank you.
Kevin Blackmon: Good morning, Commissioner.
Chairman Winton: Good morning.
Mr. Blackmon: My name is Kevin Blackmon. I own a business that sits on 3672 Grand Avenue.
I'm also the chairman of the Business and Merchants Association on Grand Avenue in the West
Grove area. On behalf of the Business and Merchants Association, we do -- we have played a
part in the 16 meetings with the Coconut Grove Collaborative and the initiative of the NCD and
we do support that fully. Thank you.
Chairman Winton: Actually, this is --I guess we can just jump into the public hearing portion of
this. Open it up so we can go through that process. So anyone from the public who wants to
speak on PZ -9, why don't y'all line up at both microphones and we'll go through the process as
quickly as we can. If you're going to speak on PZ -9, step to either microphone or both
microphones and we'll go through the process. Reverend, you're on.
Reverend Willie Leonard: Yes, sir. OK.
Chairman Winton: Yeah. Both for and against.
Reverend Leonard: Commissioners --
Chairman Winton: Need your name and record -- name and address for the record, please.
Reverend Leonard: OK. I represent the Ministerial Alliance of Churches of West Grove. And
as the president of the alliance of churches of that area, I'm here to represent and to show my
support for the passing of this ordinance. We think that it would destroy the character of Grand
Avenue and it would displace a lot of people. Thank you.
Chairman Winton: Thank you. Yes, sir.
Manuel Alonso Poch: Manuel Alonso Poch, 3520 Rockerman Road, business owner on
Commodore Plaza supporting the NCD proposal.
Chairman Winton: Thank you. Y'all come on up so we can just bounce. Yes, sir.
Pastor James Jackson: Pastor James Jackson, part of the Ministerial Alliance of Coconut Grove
Churches, 3606 Thomas Avenue. Just here to support because the community is at stake here.
And as a pastor and a leader in the community, we have to look out for the welfare, not only the
moral welfare of the people, but the economic welfare of the people. There are low-income
181 July 24, 2003
families in Coconut Grove that have been rooted and bred in Coconut Grove and this could very
much affect them. And I'm just here to support the community of Coconut Grove, the pastors
and the others who will stand for what's right in Coconut Grove.
Chairman Winton: And is that in support of this?
Pastor Jackson: Yes.
Chairman Winton: OK. Thank you. Yes, sir.
George A. Simpson: My name is George A. Simpson, MD. My address is 3619 Percival
Avenue, in Coconut Grove. And I want you to know where I'm coming from and I'm coming
from 1888. Eighteen eighty-eight because that's the year that the Stirrup family, which is my
family now, began to live in and influence the Coconut Grove area. I'm a relative newcomer
myself. I've only been here -- I built my home in 1955, so I've only been here 48 years. I
practiced here since 1958. We built our house in the middle of the black community and we said
we're going to stay there. We haven't moved. We haven't gone to Miami Beach or the Shores
or anything else, because we want to participate in the life of the community, share their
problems and their gains and so forth and we have done that. The Stirrup family, on the other
hand, has been here since before Miami was a city. My wife's grandfather came to South
Florida in 1888 and he built a house in 19 -- in 1897, which is now the oldest standing habitated
[sic] -- lived in house in Coconut Grove. My mother's wife was born in 1895, which was the
same year that the City of Miami was incorporated. And my wife was grown -- she grew up and
was brought up in this house, which her grandfather built on Charles Avenue. He, by the way,
laid out Charles Avenue. He was one of those who laid it out, and he built houses here for the
people of Grand -- of Coconut Grove, the black people who were poor. And one of the things
that he did, he built and rented but he encouraged homeownership. And so, he sold land to these
people so that they could build their homes and churches there. So this family and myself have
been personally involved in Coconut Grove and Miami's educational, through my family's
teachers, medical, the economic, the cultural, the religious, through the churches, and the
housing lives of Coconut Grove. So I feel, you know, we have adequate credentials as to our
concern for the people, the culture and the life of the people in Coconut Grove, especially the
underprivileged. Now, we have held property all over West Grove, the family and myself. And
since the turn of the century, we've built homes for residents and we've always supported
homeownership as a basis for community strength. Now we have willingly donated, sold and
allowed to be taken property that we own for community enhancement, for parks on Grand
Avenue, for public housing on Douglas Road, and for street enhancement. So we have been a
part of and supportive of all aspects of community life, especially in the black Grove, since I
have been here and since my family's been here since the 1800s. We have developed and
rehabilitated properties all over the West Grove, as I said, mostly for lower income black
families. And we have sold lots to residents and to churches so that they could have homes and
places to worship. We've held land on Grand Avenue for many decades in hopes of developing
it and contributing to its development, not only of that corridor but also of the Grove itself. This
land was also an investment in our own economic future, as well as the future of West Grove.
All these years, we have awaited a coming of serious development along this Grand Avenue
Corridor and we have assisted in development from the east side -- from the west side, eastward
182 July 24, 2003
also. We participated in all of the economic and property development groups, which have
flourished in Coconut Grove. There has been serious and continued personal involvement of our
whole family. Serious -- several members of our family in this way. Therefore, it is with a great
deal of dismay that we see the potential for serious economic enhancement of Grand Avenue
properties, which we own and which others own, severely diminished by what I would call
"zoning downgrade." We're concerned, as anyone in the Grove, about cultural history and
preservation of West Grove, and this family has been an integral part of that history and culture.
That concern should not be distorted, I believe, to deny the long-awaited benefits of
landownership on Grand Avenue by the property owners on Grand Avenue who only wish to
follow in the economic footsteps of others, landowners who have waited until -- I guess the
phrase is "until the town came to them." And that's what's happening right now on Grand
Avenue. The town is coming there for serious economic development. And for these reasons,
we support the intent to preserve desirable aspects of the West Grove as indicated by many
residents, including ourselves. But we oppose the oppressive zoning downgrading of properties,
and this is just between Hibiscus and Margaret on Grand Avenue. And this is why I oppose
those portions of it and would support the other aspects of this -- of these ordinances.
Chairman Winton: Thank you. Yes, sir.
Jihad Rashid: My name is Jihad Rashid. I'm the Chairman of the Coconut Grove Collaborative,
Incorporated, 3628 Grand Avenue. I'm here on behalf of our organization to urge each
Commissioner to pass this measure. It represents government at its best. This is initiative that is
community-based. It's government by the people, for the people. Albeit, it's a work in progress.
It is very crucial that you pass this measure intact. We are open. We're reasonable. We
understand market forces. We don't see any particular initiative here that's been presented that
suggests that we should step back from this hard fought initiative. We have long labored and
lived here and this represents more as a handle for the community residents to control their own
destiny. This is not to foreclose anybody's opportunity to make money. We only need
additional creativity. And I reiterate that it's a work in progress. When initiatives by developers
are presented, we will be willing to work with them in creative ways. And there are ways to
work with people in case-by-case basis. But these concerns have come a little late in the game.
The community has announced its intentions and the purpose of this. They've invited a wide
array of people who would and could be concerned in the process as we develop it. It was
presented in newspapers. It got a lot of attention. And we ask you not at this stage of the process
-- of the working process, to tamper with it. Because what we have is more value to the
potentiality for those property owners to earn money. We just have to illustrate to them the other
creative ways. To make money doesn't mean a ten -story building. There's other ways to
maximize your profitability. But we have to consider the welfare and the being of the whole
community and their property values. So we don't want to diminish the majority's property
values by a few. But we don't want to deny them their opportunities, too. But in the meantime,
because this is the first initiative, please pass this initiative because we don't want to discourage
and dissuade the community from participating in governmental process. This is great. So the
Collaborative is progressing. It is open. We're opening our design center and our conference
center in a few weeks. We can host community and continued discussions about this in
innovative ways. So, I appreciate it. Commissioners, please pass this initiative. Thank you.
183 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: Thank you. Sir.
William Bellinger: Hello. I'm William Bellinger, 3461 Florida Avenue. You know, it took me
a long time to purchase a home after working so many years. And if it wasn't for Yvonne
Macdonald or Sylvia back here, it wouldn't have been possible. You know, after 19 years of
working in construction with one company and now I'm with another after five years, my wife
and I have been able to purchase a home. Now, we purchased a home where we grew up, right
here in the Grove. It's because we love the Grove and we love the neighborhood that we live in.
I love to walk my daughter down the street. And to see ten -story buildings come up -- I'm not
against revitalizing Grand Avenue. You know, that's great. But 10 stories, you know, then we'll
have to look at the (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Then comes the garbage, the alarms from the parking
lots, the using of the streets for optional roads. You know, I'm really against that. So I'm really
in support of everything that Cece has said and also the neighborhood. And thank you for this
opportunity to speak.
Chairman Winton: Thank you.
Patrick Range: Good afternoon, Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Patrick Range. I am a
co-owner of Range Funeral Home at 3384 Grand Avenue. And I come in support of this
ordinance. I think that it is important that the integrity of Coconut Grove, West Grove be kept
intact. I think that it's important that we not increase the gentrification of the people of the
Grove. So I'm here in support of the community and the development. Thank you.
Chairman Winton: Thank you. Yes, ma'am.
Melford Pinder: Good afternoon. I'm Melford Pinder. I reside at 1145 Northwest 83rd Street. I
own property at 3658 Grand Avenue. I am not against development in the Grove or progress.
The Bahamian theme is fitting with me because they deserve some kind of recognition in the
City of Miami. I've asked some questions and I'm not satisfied with the answers I've received.
Another issue is that we've got 80 percent of the persons who are pushing this issue are not
property owners on Grand Avenue. It seems to me Grand Avenue -- the persons who own
properties on Grand Avenue should be the persons pushing this. And the person doesn't own a
blade of grass on Grand Avenue, but they are all for it. I think the persons who own the
properties and have invested over the years should have an opportunity to realize some
investments. For 26 years, I've been hanging on to my property on Grand, from the crack heads
to the break-ins and everything else. Now that some prosperity is coming, I'm being told I'm
going to be restricted to a certain extent and that I need to get clarified before I support this.
Thank you.
Chairman Winton: Thank you. Yes ma'am. Yvonne.
Yvonne Macdonald: Good afternoon, Commissioner. I'm Yvonne Macdonald. I reside at 3411
Oak Avenue. I'm the president of the Coconut Grove Local Development Corporation and we
have been a member of the Coconut Grove Collaborative since its inception. And we fully
support the Collaborative and its efforts to bring community organizations together to work to
build the Coconut Grove community. That's the purpose. We're here today because we took
184 July 24, 2003
our time -- this isn't something that started overnight. This was a process that we took our time
to think about what is going to be the best for our community now and tomorrow. This is a
process that we took our time because we realize that we're standing on the shoulders of those
people who lived in the community before us, that paved the way, like the Simpson family, the
Stirrup family; for residents who live there that paved the way for us to be in Coconut Grove
today. This initiative, the Neighborhood Conservation District, is a tool for us to put something
in place that 100 years from now, there will still be residents in Coconut Grove, African-
Americans, Anglos in the community, Hispanics. It will be a community where people can feel
like they have a stake in making decisions about what they want. And so, the most important
thing that I want to say is, you have people here today -- and I would like to ask all of the people
who are here today in support of this NCD to just please stand for a minute, because I want you
to see that we do have people here that are in favor of the NCD. And we have people who have
been at these meetings. And the purpose is to conserve our community. The purpose is to staid -
- to prevent gentrification from coming in and moving residents who have a stake in the
community over 50 years or more. The purpose of the NCD is to put something in place that if it
changes, it will change because the community put a lot of thought into it. And the community
made that decision, not those who are only coming in just to make a profit and not live there.
What happens in Coconut Grove is because the community decided that that's what it wants.
And that's what this NCD is. Cece Hollomon gave us a very good presentation. She covered all
the points. She's a consultant that has worked day and night tirelessly. And she is really due all
the accolades and credit for all the work that has been done in this community over the past
couple of years, with the help of the organizations that have been there. And she has been doing
a marvelous job and I want to state that publicly because I don't think that she has been really
given a lot of credit or given a lot of attention for what she has done. But this NCD plan is
something that the community worked on. And so, for those who are here today and don't
understand it, all we're saying to you is to come and understand it. It is not etched in stone. It is
not etched in stone. It is a working document. But right now, what I have said to people just in
this meeting today, when we see the first five -story building go up on Grand Avenue from US -1
to 32nd Avenue, then we can talk to developers that want to go up higher than five stories. But
right now, when you look at Grand -- when you look at Coconut Grove, there are no five -story
buildings on Grand Avenue, from 30 -- from US -1 all the way up to McFarlane. So why is the
Village West community being put into a position where we have to make a decision that we
already know is not in the best interest of what we want to see happen in our community? It is
not about curtailing development. It is about managing development as we move forward to
stabilizing the residential community, because right now we know we have some issues with
that, to look at our historic preservation areas in the community, to talk about the canopy and, of
course, to talk about economic development. And, right now, Coconut Grove is on the brink of a
historic decision today. It's a historic decision because in 1970s, when we decided to tear down
all those apartments on Douglas Road, we displaced and moved out half of the population in the
black community, and that was a decision that the community made. It wasn't imposed on us. It
was a good decision because it brought up the quality of life, and that's what we're doing today.
We are going to bring up the quality of life for those people who have been in the community for
years, for those who we want to bring back and for those who are going to come. But we want to
be in the driver's seat, and we think that what we've done over the past two years has been the
best effort that we can do at this time. It is putting something in place. It is bridging the gap for
development and it is making a blueprint for those that are going to come behind to follow. And
185 July 24, 2003
if the community decides two years from now, ten years from now to change it, it should be a
community decision. And so, I urge you to support the NCD and to support what the community
wants. Thank you.
Chairman Winton: Thank you. Yes, ma'am
Dorothy Washington: Good afternoon. My name is Dorothy Washington. I'm a pastor at
Greater Faith Temple in Coconut Grove. I am a member of the Ministerial Alliance and I'm
speaking for myself and my congregation. We are in support of this ordinance and we are asking
you, if you will, to pass it. Thank you.
Chairman Winton: Thank you. Yes, ma'am.
Grady Lee Dinkins: Good evening.
Chairman Winton: You can pull that down a little bit.
Ms. Dinkins: Thank you.
Chairman Winton: There you go.
Ms. Dinkins: My name is Grady Lee Dinkins. I live at 3201 Florida Avenue. I own 500 feet of
Grand Avenue. I have been very busy in this community, Coconut Grove, and what's
happening. In fact, I helped to -- I served on the -- on one community when we wrote the first
zoning laws for the City of Miami. So I have been very busy for quite some years. And today I
came to congratulate the committee that worked on this proposal, or this petition, and I urge you
to please accept it. Thank you.
Chairman Winton: Thank you. Next.
Sylvia Jordan: My name is Sylvia Jordan. I -- at 3750 South Dixie Highway. I'm representing
Coconut Grove Cares, and we're here in support of the NCD.
Chairman Winton: Thank you. Next.
Andy Parrish: Andy Parris, Wind and Rain Homebuilders, with offices that we built, the first
two office buildings on Grand Avenue, in probably 50 years, at 145 Grand Avenue. And we're
also -- I'm also the president of the company that's just about to do the famous Gills Spot Bar at
the corner of Grand and Douglas, which will be a two-story new commercial building. We have
an anchor tenant that's coming in. It's going to be an absolutely drop dead building, proving,
once again -- and I think we can -- the good design can encourage the kind of development we
want. We've come a long way in this community. When I started building homes in 1994 in the
community, along with the Coconut Grove LDC (Local Development Corporation), you go to
the Village West Homeowners and Tenants Association and there would be more people at the
front tables than there were in the audience. Sometimes there were only five or six people there.
Now that organization normally draws a hundred people. And I have to give credit to you,
186 July 24, 2003
Commissioners, because I think a lot of what's happened in these communities is the new
attitude that the Commission has, because I know Commissioner Regalado and Commissioner
Sanchez have the same type of community -organized spirit on Coral Way that's happening. I
know Commissioner Teele, up in Little Haiti, has had charrettes. And what you do when you
invite a community to participate and say, "If you'll show us, the Commission, what you'd like
to see," and then you say, "And see if you can get help from University of Miami or FIU (Florida
International University) or FAU (Florida Atlantic University)," that it's like magic happens.
And all of sudden, you get one of these plans that the community is behind and things start to
happen. The first ten houses I built, every single comparable in the appraisals would be of other
houses that I built. Now there's development going on almost too much all over the West Grove.
The same thing is going to happen on Grand Avenue, whether it's high rise or low rise. But I
submit to you this, that some of the people are going to come on to say that why high rise needs
to happen is that the economics don't work unless you do have high rise is going to be based on
the idea that somehow they have to get up high enough to see the bay so that they can have
luxury housing looking over at the bay. That's not what this community wants. It would make a
canyon out of Grand Avenue. It would destroy the residential communities on the back, on
Thomas and Florida Avenue. And it's not what you asked the community to do. You asked
them to get the University of Miami involved and they were involved day and night with us.
They've come up with this plan and I think you should -- now when we're on the 99 -yard line,
let's carry the ball over and give the community what you encouraged them to do and what they
brought to you today. Thank you very much.
Chairman Winton: Thank you. Next.
Phillip Muskat: Good afternoon. Phillip Muskat for 32 owners of properties along Grand
Avenue, 10775 Southwest 133rd Terrace. Good afternoon.
Chairman Winton: What was your address again? I'm sorry.
Mr. Muskat: 10775 Southwest 133rd Terrace, 3340 Grand Avenue, 3310 Grand Avenue, 3320
Grand Avenue --
Chairman Winton: Which address are you putting on the record?
Mr. Muskat: 10775 --
Chairman Winton: Thank you.
Mr. Muskat: -- Southwest 133rd Terrace.
Chairman Winton: Thank you.
Mr. Muskat: I'm here today to speak on behalf of 32 property owners along Grand Avenue. As
Ms. Pinder wisely pointed out earlier, the property owners have had very little stake in what's
been going on. I'm a property owner on Grand Avenue for over five years and I was never
notified of any of these changes. In fact, I just recently got my PAB notices and I came a month
187 July 24, 2003
ago after I analyzed and hired an architect to do a study of what would become of my properties,
before and after. When I brought my properties, they were zoned "O" for office. This allowed
me to build unlimited height. If we take the current parameters -- as you know, an architect takes
various parameters into account when he designs a building, including parking, FAR, traffic,
ingress/egress issues. You'll see that the height drops from 12 to five stories and then when you
turn to parking issues, you drop to about three stories. So we need to be explained, as property
owners, who's going to compensate us for the loss in the value of our properties. We're
dropping down from 12 to three. This architectural study put together by the Collaborative
actually shows one of my properties. I presume you're familiar with the Grand Avenue Vision
Plan. If we take, for example, the existing empty lot at Grand Avenue and Hibiscus Street -- and
it's an empty lot, so there's no issue of displacement here. This lot, we could build 12 stories
under the current zoning and I have building plans ready to go to build a 12 -story building. Why
do I want to go up? Because of the beautiful bay views. That's a lot of really good reasons. If
you limit me down to four or five stories, under the current height limitation, I don't get those
views. And if you throw in these additional parking requirements, it drops down to three. These
aren't numbers I'm making up. These were put together by the University of Miami, showing
that this is clearly what I could do, under the proposed zoning, with my property. Now, what
could I do with the current zoning? I could do 12 stories. I'd like to read to you a petition
against the Grand Avenue zoning change and I'd like to enter it into the record --
Chairman Winton: Mr. City Attorney, is -- are petitions a part of this process?
Joel Maxwell (Assistant City Attorney): Not relevant at all, sir.
Chairman Winton: OK. Thank you. So the petition is not relevant.
Mr. Muskat: OK. I do believe I have the right to enter it into the record.
Chairman Winton: You can hand it to the Clerk but you cannot read it into the record. It is not
relevant to our proceedings.
Mr. Muskat: OK. Walk it over or no?
Chairman Winton: Just finish and then you can walk it over.
Mr. Muskat: No problem. I'd like to go through the actual proposed ordinance and point out
certain clauses that I believe that if we were able to modify, we could come to some mutual
agreement. And, again, I'm speaking on behalf of 32 owners of the properties. I'd like to turn
your attention to Section 802.1 of the proposed zoning ordinance. It says, "Significant free
public parking should be provided in the rear of buildings." This sentence should be deleted
from the NCD because it imposes an inordinately burdensome requirement on us, since many of
our properties are only 90 feet deep. It's hard enough for us to supply our own parking if we do
any development. And, furthermore, to supply extra free parking is almost impossible. So I
think that should be stricken from the language in the NCD proposal. Similarly, language at
802.3, "Off-street parking and loading shall generally be located to the rear." This is a physical
impossibility, especially for non -corner lot owners. If you're a lot owner -- if you own a piece of
188 July 24, 2003
land on Grand Avenue and you're in the middle of the block -- and we're trying to promote a
pedestrian -friendly pathway -- the concept is to eliminate ingress and egress out of driveways so
people can freely walk down the street. So we don't have ingress and egress along Grand
Avenue for middle -of -the -block owners. The question becomes, how can they provide off-street
parking and loading in the rear? Well, the only way they could do that is possibly by partnering
with somebody to the side of them, someone who's got a corner lot. Well, this, again, puts a
burden on me. For example, when I've got 3340 -- because if I can't partner with the guy on the
left or the guy on the right, I'm stuck. So I think some thinking needs to go into this. And when
I met with several people in the Planning Department and posed these questions to them about
three, four months ago, they said, "Oh, we'll get back to you with a study on how we're going to
resolve that problem." I never got the answers to this. So we have some serious parking issues,
traffic issues, ingress and egress issues, which I think can very simply be resolved if the language
is included in this ordinance, as opposed to just passing it the way it is. I understand there are
people here today who say they've been working on this for years and years and years. The fact
of the matter is, it doesn't matter how long they've been working on it. If it's truly got problems,
we should correct them today before it's passed. And, again, in meeting with the Planning
Board, I've asked, "Has anyone here taken any property along Grand Avenue and compared
what can you do today versus what will you be able to do under the current zoning?" And none
of them have done it. I took four properties, four properties, and applied the current rules under
this proposed ordinance, and it basically renders those properties economically infeasible. Why?
Here's the simple answer. You look down Grand Avenue today and you see two and three story
buildings. This ordinance, even though it talks about a height drop from 12 stories down to five,
when you throw in the parking requirements, you're down to about two or three. So if we want
revitalization in this area, how can we apply a set of rules for people to come in and tear down
two and three story buildings or rehab them when you can only put back two or three story
buildings? It doesn't make senses. So, again, I challenge the Commission to actually pick a few
properties and run the numbers before passing this thing and creating a development nightmare.
I'd also like to point out that, again, Section 802.4.2 states, "New structures shall be limited to a
maximum of five stories." I, respectfully, suggest again that this sentence should be deleted,
especially in light of the Harris Act and the recent Third DCA (District Court of Appeals) court
ruling on Royal World versus City of Miami Beach. I'm sure you're familiar. Several property
owners here bought properties. They could build --
(COMMENTS OFF THE RECORD)
Mr. Muskat: Great. OK. So we don't need to go through it. I believe if we strike the issue from
the ordinance, as far as the height restriction, I think we're all going to be a lot safer, and then we
can deal with it as we put our plans through. And again, we don't want height for height's sake.
Height is actually a solution to the parking problem. If we can't put the parking in the rear,
we've got to put it somewhere. Well, we've got to put it underneath our building. We put it
underneath our building, it shoots our building up higher. So we've got to put the parking
somewhere, so height is a solution to parking. And, of course, we get those beautiful bay views
that everybody wants. I also point your attention to Section 802.4.5 states, "Residential dwelling
units shall not be sold or leased without the right to utilize at least one onsite parking space."
This is not a requirement under the current zoning, to the best of my knowledge. In fact, under
current zoning, I could buy a property across the street or down the street and provide that as my
189 July 24, 2003
parking. This now restricts me to provide the parking onsite. So, you go back to the typical lot
depth of 90 feet, the only way to get that parking in is to go underground and that's extremely
expensive. In fact, it's three times more expensive than going up or providing surface parking.
So, I think, if we could delete that language, I think developers to come would be much more --
how should we say, enticed to come in because they won't have to deal with this extremely
expensive challenge. I also want to point out Section 802.5.3, which states, "No outdoor market
may be located closer than 1,500 feet from another outdoor market." This sentence should also
be deleted because it imposes an unfair advantage to the property owner who first establishes an
outdoor market. This basically leaves the other property owners without the opportunity to
develop. Now, keep in mind, there's some parcels that are vacant, others that are not. They put
in a market. Now, I'm blocked out. I can't do a market. I like and I'm sure every other property
owner would like equal opportunity to put up a market, and this language clearly says the first
one to do it has the exclusive monopoly right. And I -- of course, I think this is somewhat
bordering on unconstitutional. I'd like to point out the composition of the 32 owners that are
against the zoning change. If we look at the Grand Avenue, between Margaret and Elizabeth, on
the north side of the street, one hundred percent of the property owners along that section of the
street, on the north side, are against. They've signed this petition. If we look at the south side of
the street, fifty percent --
Chairman Winton: Excuse me. The petition is irrelevant, so continue to move on with other
points that don't deal with the petition.
Mr. Muskat: Well, with all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I don't have to make a reference to the
petition but I can give you an idea of the composition and the numbers of the people who are
against this happening.
Chairman Winton: You've made that, so please move on.
Mr. Muskat: So you're not interested in hearing the respective percentages of people --
Chairman Winton: I think we just heard them, didn't we?
Mr. Muskat: Well, I was going to go down the whole street and give you the composition on
both sides of the street, between --
Chairman Winton: If the people were here --
Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Winton: Yes, sir, please.
Mr. Maxwell: Maybe I can help you.
Chairman Winton: Yes.
190 July 24, 2003
Mr. Maxwell: The reason the Chairman is telling you that, sir, is because, as I mentioned to you
earlier, it's totally irrelevant.
Chairman Winton: (INAUDIBLE)
Mr. Maxwell: They can't base their decision on who's in favor and who's opposed. That's
illegal. There are cases that specifically say they cannot base their decision on those grounds;
therefore, it's a waste of time to discuss that matter. That's why he's telling you not to bring it
up.
Mr. Muskat: OK. With all due respect, I'd like to state that the -- my predecessor on the left
side had several people stand up and show their demonstration.
Chairman Winton: Well, those were -- excuse me. Those were real people that came here.
Mr. Muskat: No problem.
Chairman Winton: You don't have real people coming here, so there's a gigantic difference. If
those people were here, they would have an opportunity to testify, just like everyone else has had
an opportunity to testify.
Mr. Muskat: So, if they're here, we can listen to what they say?
Chairman Winton: If they were here, you certainly could.
Mr. Muskat: OK. Well, I believe Dr. Simpson was one of those people and I'll pass the mike on
to a few other people that are opposed that have signed the petition. Thank you very much.
Chairman Winton: Next.
Denise Wallace: Good afternoon. I'm Denise Wallace. Currently reside at 3391 Florida
Avenue and I am a third generation Coconut Grove life. In addition to that, I was -- I'm the
former vice chair of the first Coconut Grove Village Council. And as I look around this room, I
see many friends here that worked with me on zoning issues in the Grove, not affecting the west
Grove, the center Grove, south Grove, but all of Coconut Grove. My good friend here, John
Shubin and I, worked to try to have some consistency in zoning around Coconut Grove period.
So, I'm very well familiar with the issues of zoning that affects Coconut Grove. In addition to
that, I'm also here in a representative capacity as one of the property owners on Grand Avenue.
And in deference to Mr. Muskat, I'm not one of those 32 property owners. I was not aware of
the petition until earlier today. And being a lawyer, by profession, I had to counsel someone not
to sign the petition until I had read it. And even though it doesn't have any relevance, I just
wanted to go on record that the petition, as I saw it, had --
Mr. Maxwell: Commissioner.
Chairman Winton: Right.
191 July 24, 2003
Mr. Maxwell: The same applies.
Chairman Winton: Yeah. We don't want to hear about the petition.
Ms. Wallace: I understand that. I am in favor of the NCD, much to my consternation because
Dr. Simpsons were my role models. I grew up in the Grove and I aspired to want to be like
them, and to take position that is contrary to them really pains me. But I recognize that there is a
greater need, not only for the West Grove's zoning, but for all of the Grove to have some
consistency. What they're proposing to have unlimited height restriction under the current office
zoning would not be allowed in the center Grove, would not be allowed on Commodore Plaza,
would not be allowed across the street from the residents at Camp Biscayne and Arbitore,
because they understand that there is a quality of life attached to height restrictions. As a
resident in the West Grove, I want to be able to have the same quality of life as people who live
in Camp Biscayne, as people who live in Arbitore, who came out against any development at the
Torres site that was going to affect their quality of life. I understand the need for economic
development of Coconut Grove. I understand the need for economic development in the West
Grove. Nobody more than Jack Luft knows that I understand that, since he worked with my
father on trying to revitalize the West Grove. So, as I sit here today, I would urge this
Commission to pass this on first reading. I understand that there are a lot of concerns. I
understand that there are lots of people who are in disagreement with this, but that's what this
community dialogue is about. I'm not necessarily in opposition to what anyone wants to do on
their property. I certainly would like to develop my property to the maximum but I understand I
have neighbors behind me, and I have to think of those neighbors in trying to keep my
development to a scale that doesn't affect their quality of life. Does that affect me
economically? Yes, it does. Does that make me any less socially conscious than the person who
wants to go up with unrestricted height limitations? I don't think so. I would ask this
Commission to pass the NCD on first reading.
Chairman Winton: Thank you.
Julio Marrero: Julio Marrero, 2903 Salvedo Street. I own four properties in the Grove together
with Mr. Placido.
Placido Diaz: Placido Diaz, 831 North Venetian Drive.
Mr. Marrero: I'd like to approach the Commission and give them a copy of a decision that was
passed down -- not the decision but the actual article in the Miami Herald, if I could.
Chairman Winton: You could give it to the Clerk, but continue with your testimony. We'll --
I'm sure we've all read it.
Mr. Marrero: It's a decision that very much affects what has happening here in the Grove, the
size limitation. The City decided to put size limitations on buildings. Of course, there was a
lawsuit. The decision of the lawsuit just occurred recently. It was a '95 case, I believe. The
City of Miami Beach may be responsible for a lot of money and lawsuits at this time. As far as
192 July 24, 2003
the Commission in the present case, you not only hold the wealth or the good of not only West
Grove, but also, the City of Miami. This decision is very important because it can cost the City
of Miami a tremendous amount of money in order to compensate the developers for their loss of
height. We, ourselves, have four projects going on at the time right now in West Grove. And we
have done the numbers. We're probably the only ones that have done the numbers, and we lose,
basically, about 40 percent of what we're trying to build. I'm not saying not to pass this at this
time or I'm not saying not to pass it at another time. I just don't think it's ready to be done yet. I
think the City needs to take a good look at what effects this will have not only in the area but to
the pocket of the City of Miami. And I think that there are ways that solutions can be done by
giving certain concessions to the property owners on Grand Avenue. However, if we just blindly
go ahead and restrict it to five stories without actually looking and making a good investigation
of what can be done, what concessions can be given in order for when we come down in the
height, the property owners are compensated in another way of which they will not be able to
then sue the City of Miami for millions of dollars. I have been, in the last few days, trying to
work out some solutions for the City in a case-by-case, like someone came up and talked about a
case-by-case. I came to realize, after dealing with this whole problem a couple weeks, that that's
impossible. You can't work case -by -cases. It would be favoritism. Anytime you go a case-by-
case, you have to go through a whole process, which takes probably between eight months and a
year to do. That's unfeasible for developers. We're here in the Grove. We own a lot of property
in the Grove and we want to make it better. And we want to be part of what's going on. We
want to be part of the beauty of the Grove. And we have no problem -- we don't have no
problem building what the Grove wants to build, as far as the way it wants to look, the Bahamian
style. I love the Bahamas. I think it's wonderful. However, we all need to work together to
make sure that the owners are not compensated but they are given other things in order to make
up for what they're losing. In order for -- get them to come down to the stories that they have to
come down. At this time, what's on the table for you guys to do is not ready. It's not feasible
for the people (UNINTELLIGIBLE). It's not compensating the owners and it can just get the
City in a lot of trouble and a lot of lawsuits. And we're here to work with everybody but it's not
ready at this time. And if it passes, it's just going to create a lot of legal problems in the future
and a lot of legal problems for those trying to build in the area. We bought property years ago, a
couple years ago, and we did not expect any changes in the zoning at the time that that was
happened. By the way, we were never invited to any one of the meetings that have occurred here
today -- have occurred in the past.
Chairman Winton: Thank you. Next.
Mr. Diaz: My name is Placido Diaz, like I said. To put it in a nutshell, I -- aside from being a
property owner and having invested interest in the property, I love Coconut Grove.
Commissioner knows me very well. I've pretty much put my heart and soul into Coconut Grove
for the last four years. And I'm proud to say that, over the last four years, there's been a 26
percent reduction in crime in Coconut Grove. I did the numbers myself. I don't have to tell
anybody. I'm retiring now and I put everything behind Coconut Grove because I love this place.
I've been here probably even longer than Ms. Holloman has been here doing her research. In all
due fairness -- and I'm not pointing fingers at anybody -- when all of this -- this whole issue
came up, you know, there was no way I was aware of the repercussions of what was happening.
As far as notice by the mail that went to the property owners, I can tell you that we didn't receive
193 July 24, 2003
it. I'm not pointing any fingers. Things happen. You know, all we ask is that you consider
some time so we can sit down and negotiate this. We don't want to get into a legal battle, even
though, legally, we may be right. I believe we are. So do our attorneys. We don't want to do
that. We want to sit back with the Commission and whoever we have to, to make this work for
everyone. I think that we can make something happen. We've had very good dialogue with
Commissioner Winton. I just think there's been a complete breakdown in communication, for
whatever reason, at nobody's fault. It just happens. It happened too quickly. We were trying to
get everything resolved in a matter of three days, and Commissioner Winton has been great
about this, to be honest with you. And so has Jason, his assistant. All we ask is that you take a
step back, look at this. Let's sit down. We have a lot, both of us, the City and the property
owners, to gain. We're bringing in the first major developments into Coconut Grove. We want
to make a difference. We want to eliminate the crime. I don't think 26 percent is enough. I
think we need to reduce crime by 100 percent. I'd like to see the day when I can stroll from all
the way down the east Grove all the way down to US -1. I'd like to see people riding bike there.
I'd like to see people walking their dogs there. All kinds of people. Everybody. It doesn't
matter if they're black, white, Hispanic, Haitian. It doesn't matter, OK? But I want to see that
happen. Right now, it can't happen. It can't happen because there's a lot of these properties
that, in their condition, just attract the bad element. And I'm speaking firsthand from firsthand
knowledge. We're willing to come in here and demolish every one of these properties that has
been a constant problem to the City. And I can tell you it has been because I, myself, have been
responsible for cleaning up a lot of the problems there. I can tell you that we are willing to act
completely in good faith but, as it stands now, we're being put against the wall. By passing this,
you give us no choice but to go forward with our plans as they sit. We're even flying an
architect to the Bahamas, to be perfectly honest with you. We want to make sure that what's
going to happen here is in harmony with the community. All we ask is that you take a step back.
Let us sit down. Give us some time to sit down. We're not asking for a year. We're not asking
for six months. Maybe a couple of months to sit down with the Planning Department, with the
community, and with the activists and come up with an amicable agreement to all so that we can
make this happen. We want to make this place a better place. It's in our best interest. It's in the
City's best interest. It's in the neighborhood's best interest. We want to create a tax base for the
City, a nice place to live for the community, and a place (UNINTELLIGIBLE) going to be
profitable to us, but at nobody's expense.
Chairman Winton: Thank you. Next.
Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk: Good evening. My name is Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk I'm here as the
dean of the School of Architecture from the University of Miami, representing the group of
people who worked with the community in studying the zoning for Grand Avenue. I just wanted
to give a little bit of background on this project because it grew out of the renewal that's about to
happen through the partnership of the City and the County for the Grand Avenue streetscape.
Our role in this project was working with the community, in those many meetings that you've
just heard about, to indeed study the zoning, to look at the existing zoning and explain the impact
of different kinds of buildings on surrounding residents. I believe it is these studies and those
meetings, which has given confidence to your Planning Department to bring this ordinance
forward to you. I should point out a few things, which are not evident in the kind of discussion
that you're hearing. One is that the existing platting along Grand Avenue makes it difficult,
194 July 24, 2003
without using the lots behind those that face Thomas and Florida or lots elsewhere along Grand
Avenue, to develop any property to the kind of densities that are implied in some of the zoning
currently. This, of course, has long been a concern of the residents. They have, over the years,
repeatedly asked to not have lots on Florida and Thomas rezoned in order to support the
commercial property along Grand Avenue. I would point out to you that that's the kind of
development that occurs in other parts of the City. For instance, Coral Way, where the whole lot
from Coral Way to the street behind is used for development, including parking. So this is
something that the community, for a long time, has tried to avoid. The ambiguity of this
situation, the zoning up front and the inability to realize it, given the platting and dimensions of
the lots, contributes to the lack of development or redevelopment, which has existed here for
many years. It's just not possible to do it simply, with the existing zoning code, without some
other kinds of changes that the community would not want. The predictability, instead, that this
ordinance would bring to what is now an unclear situation will very likely spur the building and
business activity the community desires. It's virtually a bird in hand compared to the bird in the
bush, which is the existing zoning. So even though it may seem counter -intuitive, indeed, this is
a step that you could do to generate the activity that the community has long sought. And there
are numerous examples around the country that we've been involved in, in which this kind of
action really does benefit the property owners and the community as a whole. And it is for that
reason that I think it's coming to you now. So I urge you to pass this proposal. Thank you.
Chairman Winton: Thank you. Yes, sir.
Malcolm Wiseheart: Thank you. Yes, sir. My name is Malcolm Wiseheart and my address is
2840 Southwest 3rd Avenue, Miami, Florida. And in the interest of time, I would like simply to
associate with the remarks made by my business neighbor, someone I've known for 30 years,
who is Dr. George Simpson. I feel I have a lot in common with Dr. Simpson, apart from
knowing him for all those years. We're business neighbors. My family, like his family, were
early pioneers in the Grove. His goes back a little bit further and I'm not going to go through the
genealogy and the family history of my family, George, but suffice it to say that our fathers -- or
father-in-law and fathers were friends. My father built over 100 single-family homes in West
Grove, sold many of them, and we still operate 50 duplexes in West Grove. On Grand Avenue,
we have 28 units next to Dr. Simpson. We've discussed the needs of this community. Dr.
Simpson, of course, if very sensitive to that and I have learned a great deal from him. A lot in
this proposal is good. Certainly, the farmer's market, certainly the overall spirit of wanting to
preserve and protect the growth in a limited sort of way and preserve the character of West
Grove is all good. And I think no one, certainly, not the property owners, are against it. But like
the girl with the curl in the middle of her forehead, when she's good, she's very, very good, and
where she's bad, she's horrid. Now the good news is that the horrid area is a very limited part of
this proposal, in concept and in geography. We're talking about the few streets -- a few blocks
between Margaret and Hibiscus. And it is a fact that the overwhelming number of the people
really affected are not in favor of this proposal. And while they're people like Dr. Simpson, who
purchased the property with the existing zoning, make no mistake about it because a lot of the
tenor of the remarks you're hearing today is "We don't want developers to come in and change
the zoning. Don't vote for that." The existing zoning, oh, in this limited area, the area most
close to the more commercial section of the Grove, east of McDonald, already has the zoning. It
had it when George Simpson invested in his property and I'm sure it was one of the reasons why
195 July 24, 2003
he selected his parcel. It had it when I purchased our property on Grand Avenue. And I can tell
you it was instrumental in our decision to purchase 14 units at 3375 and another 33 -- another 14
units at 3395. Those zoning requirements are somewhat academic. You've also heard from the
tenor of remarks that there's some need right now to step in and stop these 10 -story buildings.
But has also -- it's also been acknowledged that there aren't any 10 -story buildings, so there's no
reason to change the zoning. The market is taking care of itself. There's no urgent problem that
requires, as a matter of emergency, to rush into this ordinance. A better approach is to take out
the offensive part, the controversial part, the part that simply is a downgrading of zoning, which
is what the Third District Court of Appeals -- I know you've heard several people mention this
and you're familiar with that. But you -- a plan that disappropriates [sic] somebody is not a well
thought out program by the community. And, in fact, those rights were vested and since they
were vested when George Simpson bought his property -- when we bought our property -- we
acquired those rights and they were, for all intents and purposes, to build 10 or 12 stories, which
someday may be feasible. And we hope that if that day comes sooner, it's better because it
means economic growth to the community and jobs. But we have those rights and to take that
from us is unfair and unproductive. The irony, I think --
Chairman Winton: We need to --
Mr. Wiseheart: -- contrary to some of the arguments that you've heard -- Mr. Commissioner.
Chairman Winton: We need to move on.
Mr. Wiseheart: I'm moving on.
Chairman Winton: I mean, I don't want to --
Mr. Wiseheart: I'm moving on to a different point. And this point is that you have heard that
this, in some sort of counter -intuitive way, will promote the development. But think about it.
You're taking, say our two 14 -unit buildings and you're saying in the ordinance that we must
include additional parking, that we hold it -- it can't face on Grand Avenue, and wait. Hold it. It
has to have significant free parking for the public. That's the language that you're asked to vote
on. I mean, it's -- technically, that kind of vague language is no friend of anybody's, certainly
not this Commission. And it's been suggested that this is a work in progress but you're asked to
vote now for the second time, and soon, the third time on language which is just so vague, it's
unenforceable and meaningless.
Chairman Winton: We're being asked to vote for the first time.
Mr. Wiseheart: OK. I'm sorry. I'm counting the Zoning Board. You're absolutely right and I
stand corrected. I thank you for the correction. But there is -- the point is, whatever number of
meetings, there is some work to be done. I'm willing to sit down with other people and do that
work and roll up my sleeves and try to come up with something that makes sense for everybody.
This, in its current form, should not be passed in its current form. The old downgrading should
be taken out. It's not a big deal. The rest of the ordinance is fine and I urge you to do that.
196 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: Thank you. Yes, sir.
Danny Couch: Good afternoon, Commission. My name is --
Chairman Winton: And let -- you know, we've got a long agenda yet, so whatever anyone else
has to say, let's not repeat what someone else has already said because we've heard people. We
do listen. We get it. So, Danny.
Mr. Couch: In that light, my name is Danny Couch. I reside at 3180 Lamb Court, Coconut
Grove or Miami, Florida. I would like to speak as a proponent for the NCD. And in reference to
some of the arguments that were made as to why --
(COMMENTS OFF THE RECORD)
Chairman Winton: Hold on. We don't we have a quorum any longer. We do? Where? Oh,
OK. Sorry. Go ahead, Danny.
Commissioner Regalado: He's done? Oh, OK.
Mr. Couch: Some of the -- those that are against the question of the height variance, as far as the
productivity of each property owner getting the maximum use out of their property, is quite
understandable. However, the dilemma for me is as I saw those that were for the -- not having
any restrictions on height, the owners that owned those properties for years and years haven't
been able to get financing to do such a project. I don't know any of them who've had, on the
drawing board, any plans to do 5 -story or higher, 10 -story or anything else because in the black
community, you just can't get financing to do the redevelopment that we need. And obviously,
without beating a dead horse, the parking situation is a problem citywide and, particularly, in the
black communities, where zone restrictions and/or these grandfathered buildings have been there
since the beginning of time. However, to go up 12 stories, it automatically -- I mean, whether we
want to admit it or night -- or not, it will happen sooner than later if it is passed and they can go
up above 12 stories. The residents as you know it or the dynamics of Coconut Grove as a
historical Bahamian settlement and/or black community, just as Overtown pretty much
disappeared, Coconut Grove as we know it, it will obviously remove and displace a whole lot of
residents in Coconut Grove, just by the sheer value of the property value, as well as -- can you
imagine 10, 12 -story buildings along Grand Avenue? It's not -- it's probably not, to my
understanding, anything that the City has contemplated being in its overall plan. Of course, 27th
Avenue, the corridor, those plans have been in existence for some time and those are the
development corridors. Grand Avenue, to my knowledge, has never been put in the grandiose
scale of 12 -story and higher so that you could, obviously, watch the bay. And in my conclusion,
I'll say, I've lived here for at least 42 years, born at Mercy Hospital. And believe it or not,
without working in some elite building or going into the Sonesta and watching or having lunch
overlooking the bay, I've never even seen the bay. So I submit to you that those individuals that
live in Coconut Grove and lived there all their life, half of them have never even seen the bay.
And to now, to come and say that those property owners are looking to look over Key Biscayne
Bay is pretty much absurd. Thank you.
197 July 24, 2003
Lottie Pearson: My name is Lottie Pearson. I live at 3245 Oak Avenue. I came to support this
ordinance. I'm going to tell you why. I attend all the meetings that we had in the West Grove
about this NCD. Why? Because I wanted to understand what I would be voting on. And what
we need in our community -- I do want changes here in our community on Grand Avenue. I can
go back when our Commissioner, my Commissioner, were campaigning and how I stressed to
him, "Oh, how I would love to see Grand Avenue looking beautiful before I leave this world!"
And so, I -- that is why I attend all the meetings. And if any resident doesn't -- don't understand,
you know, what they needed to know, it was because they didn't ask questions or they weren't at
the meeting and which is sad. They had a chance to come out and ask questions as late as
Monday, this past Monday night, to get all the answers that they needed to know. And I just
want to say -- I'm not going to repeat everything what -- the community has spoken. No one
comes into the West Grove and do what they want. We're a strong bunch of people there,
residents there. Give us what we need there. Give us what the community have spoken on. I'm
asking this Commissioner, all of you, to please pass this ordinance. We have waited a long time
for something like this. I can stand here and say some of the same things that the other residents
have said but I won't.
Chairman Winton: Thank you.
Ms. Pearson: Because you have heard it all.
Chairman Winton: Right.
Ms. Pearson: So, please, I'm begging you. I want to see that change on Grand Avenue.
Chairman Winton: Thank you.
Ms. Pearson: Thank you.
Chairman Winton: Anyone else? Anyone else from the public would like to speak on this item?
If not, we're going to close the public hearing.
Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Winton: Yes, ma'am.
Commissioner Regalado: You want anybody of us to chair?
Chairman Winton: Yeah. Yeah. Either one, chair. Lourdes is going to probably respond to
some of the stuff (INAUDIBLE).
Ms. Slazyk: Yes. I do need to make a couple -- put a couple responses into the record.
Chairman Winton: Yeah, I did. I closed it.
198 July 24, 2003
Ms. Slazyk: First of all, a comment was made earlier regarding the off-street parking and
loading requirement that said it shall generally be located to the rear of the subject property. He
said that he had spoken to the Planning Department and we said we were going to study it and
come back to him someday. That isn't exactly how it happened. When that came up at one of
the public meetings on this item, what I had told him to do was please read the rest of that
sentence because the rest of the sentence says, "If it is not feasible, such parking shall be
designed to provide a minimal visual impact." What we wanted was screening there, if there was
no way to put it in the back. If it had to be off to the side or in some other location, it needed to
be screened. The study we said we would do and come back to the future was something about
creating a trust fund for Grand Avenue, similar to the parking trust fund that exists in the Village
Center. Not that we were going to study this issue and come back because the rest of the
sentence makes it very clear that if it can't be accommodated to the rear or there's no access to
some other way, that we meant it to be screened. Secondly, there was a comment about whether
we had looked at all -- at whether, you know, five stories could be done. And our comment was,
look down the street because the SD -2 zoning has the same 50 -foot height limitation, and
development has occurred there just fine. And some of the properties along -- in the SD -2 area
are just as narrow as this. So it's a matter of figuring out how to put the development on the
property you have within these height limits. We are not touching FAR. As a matter of fact,
we're increasing the uses, commercial uses, on the ground floor to be open to the public in the
"O" district, which is not allowed today. So we're actually adding uses and adding more ability
to do a mixed-use and profitable project in this area. The other thing that was said was that in
802.4.5, the sentence that says, "Residential dwelling units shall not be sold or leased without the
right to utilize at least one onsite parking space." That's actually reducing the amount of parking
because in the "O" district, if you have two bedrooms, you've got to do two spaces. This is
reducing it to one. We've also put in a provision in here that if you're doing an adaptive reuse of
an existing building on Grand Avenue, you don't have to provide any parking for the new uses.
So we were looking for ways to kind of minimize the requirements for parking and recognition
that a lot of the users of these things are people that live in the neighborhood. They're going to
be walking there. They're, you know -- and to reduce the parking requirements, in order to assist
this type of development to be done, was something that was actually put into this ordinance.
The other thing, there was a comment that -- about the distance limitations for the outdoor
markets. That is something that was put in there to not encourage properties to stay vacant to be
used for markets. The last thing we want to do is turn Grand Avenue into a giant flea market
over the weekends and people not to develop their properties because they're using it for markets
one day a week. We've put a whole bunch of restrictions on this market, on percentage of the
land, how much land you have to have to be a market so that it could be something that would
serve the area. It's only allowed one day a week and would not stifle development or turn it into
something it wasn't meant to be. So that being said, I think that's response to all of it. There
were also two typos in the ordinance that I just need to correct. In some places, it says 801 and
NCD -1 verse instead of 2, so I'd like to put in the record we're going to correct those typos. And
on page seven, when it talks about the setbacks for the R-2 properties on Grand Avenue, it says,
"side setback 0," and then in parentheses it has a number five. It's meant to be five feet, not
zero. And --
Chairman Winton: He also made a comment about free parking for the public. Would you
respond to that as well, please?
199 July 24, 2003
Ms. Slazyk: Yeah. That is something that's in the intent of the district. What we're trying to do
is not make it so people turn their parking into commercial parking lots. If you're putting a
business on Grand Avenue, you should provide parking for the users of your business. There is a
propensity in Coconut Grove to charge people to park, even if it's for that business, because
there was -- in the past, there's been such a shortage of parking in the Grove and we wanted to
make sure that the businesses -- that people would park in the parking lots provided for the
businesses because they weren't having to pay for it. But that is something -- it's an intent
statement. It is not a requirement that they can't charge. It's just not intended that commercial
parking lots be what the parking is used for.
Commissioner Sanchez: Commissioner Winton.
Chairman Winton: Yes. I also want to respond to the comment from a number of the people
who were in opposition regarding no notice and, particularly, to Sergeant Diaz, who I think
headed up our -- what's that special police team we have? Ten officers -- what's -- we have in
the neighborhood. Not Special Response but --
Commissioner Regalado: Problem Solving Team.
Chairman Winton: Problem Solving Team. And Sergeant Diaz, I would be pretty shocked if
you would suggest to me for a moment that you were heading up the Problem Solving Team and
never knew that any of these events were going on in this community, which planning process
has been going for over two and a half, maybe three years now. So this has been a very lengthy
and very public process. This has not been a process that was hidden in some back corner and no
one was invited. This has been going on and on and on. I can't even tell you how many public
hearings they've held. It is probably more public hearings held on this particular item than any
of the other planning processes that I've been involved with in the City of Miami. And, as you
guys know, I've been involved in quite a few of these planning processes. And this process was
all about public involvement. I have another question for you, Lourdes. Will this new ordinance
downzone properties?
Ms. Slazyk: No. We are not touching the FAR. We are -- in fact, we're increasing uses. This --
it just says that the envelope has to be different. In fact, in Coconut Grove -- and I forgot to put
this on the record earlier. I'm sorry. Over in the Village Center, where they also have a 50 -foot
height limit, the FAR for mixed -used properties is 1.86, which is higher than here. Here it's a
1.72. So a 1.72 FAR, you can accommodate development within the envelopes that we're
recommending in this ordinance.
Chairman Winton: Thank you. The planning process that the community went through was one
of a whole host of steps that this community has taken to revitalize the West Grove over the
course of the last, almost four years. And when I got elected a little less than four years ago, as
someone pointed out, the Coconut Grove tenants and homeowners' association did have more
people trying to register folks coming in to attend the meeting than they had actually going to the
meeting. And because of these processes, which are geared to get this community involved,
those meetings are absolutely full of people from the neighborhood. And what's come out of
200 July 24, 2003
that is a whole host of things. The Problem Solving Team in Coconut Grove has, in fact, done
one heck of a job and they have driven crime down dramatically. The Code Enforcement Team
has done one heck of a job in really pounding on the bad guy absentee landlords who haven't
been taking care of their properties. You combine that with the community's commitment to
revitalize their community and a community vision to create, along Grand Avenue, a real
boulevard right smack dab through the heart of their community that is a Bahamian village
concept, that is low-rise in nature but spread out a little more. Four years ago, none of these new
investors in this community would have been buying all the properties that they've bought
because there's no way you were going to do development along Grand Avenue because it was a
mess. But today, they all know a number of things. One is that we have the funding in place for
the first time ever and we will begin reconstructing Grand Avenue and build a really beautiful
boulevard along Grand Avenue, and that construction should start by the end of this year. So
there's a major infrastructure improvement that's going on in that neighborhood that the
investment community knows of. And, secondly, that investment community -- whether they
really want to admit it or not -- knows that the community worked hard on this plan. And this
plan, while they're -- and I don't know yet, by the way, whether there are a few flaws in this plan
that may need to get worked out that I'm going to suggest we work on over the course over the
next month, or maybe even next two months. But the point is that this plan sets the guidelines,
like all of the other plans, master plans that we've worked on citywide or in other neighborhoods
to revitalize those neighborhoods. And that planning, much like the planning that went on that
has led to the FEC (Florida East Coast) railroad redevelopment effort, because of that public
sector, private sector master planning process did, in fact, generate new development in a
neighborhood that has had none for the last 20 years. I can't tell you when the last new building
was built on Grand Avenue, but I would be willing to bet you that it also has been more than 20
years since anyone has been willing to come in and reinvest and rebuild something from scratch
on Grand Avenue. But that is not the case today. We have significant investment coming into
Grand Avenue and it is a result of all of these very public efforts that have gone on. And what's
bothersome to me, in the testimony from some of the new developers coming into this
community, is the point that they made about the ability to see the water. Grand Avenue has
relatively shallow sites, no question about it. They're not big and wide, like some of them
downtown and some -- in some of our other neighborhoods. But the other most -- extremely
important point is that right behind every single one of those lots stands a single-family house.
And so, now what we're going to have some in the development community make us -- try to
convince us of or make us believe is that the only way they can really make a profit on their
property is to be able to get over the treetops and see the water. And you do that and you have
just destroyed the value of the property behind it because you put a total shadow and a wall over
a single-family home right behind that tall building. And what this plan is doing -- we don't
want any applause. Thank you. No applause. What this plan is doing is saying, we're not
changing the FAR. We're leaving the FAR alone. We're giving you more flexibility in terms of
what you can build. But what we are saying you're going to do is create what I'm going to tell
you is going to be a greater value for their property. We're not going to create a damn canyon
along Grand Avenue. We're going to create a Bahamian village that celebrates the history of
that community and becomes a real tourist destination that this community and the entire
Coconut Grove area and our City really deserve. That's what this plan does. And so, my view
here is that we need to pass this ordinance on first reading and direct the community and our
Planning Department and some of the development community to go back together over the
201 July 24, 2003
course of the next month, or maybe two months, and I would even allow for two months, to iron
out some of the remaining issues that may be real issues that I don't get -- completely understand
whether they are or not, but I will give the benefit of the doubt to the development community
that there may be real issues. So I'll give that benefit of the doubt that there may be some issues
that we need to iron out, and I will suggest that we -- again, my motion will be to pass this on
first reading and direct all the parties to get back together and spend the next two months
working out the issues here and come back before us in September.
Commissioner Sanchez: There's a motion to pass the ordinance on first reading and have all
parties negotiate or --
Commissioner Regalado: Second.
Commissioner Sanchez: -- sit down and try to negotiate and come back in two months -- is it
two months?
Chairman Winton: Two months.
Commissioner Sanchez: Two months. There's a motion. There's a second. Open for
discussion. Hearing none, it's an ordinance. Mr. City Attorney, read the ordinance. Madam
Clerk, roll call.
(COMMENTS MADE DURING ROLL CALL.)
Chairman Winton: Yes. And I would like to make a point about -- go ahead.
Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): The ordinance is passed on first reading, four -zero.
An Ordinance Entitled --
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION RESCINDING ORDINANCE
NO. 12324, WHICH CREATED THE SD -26 COCONUT GROVE MARKET OVERLAY
DISTRICT AND SUBSTITUTING IN LIEU THEREOF THIS NEW ORDINANCE
AMENDING NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 8, SECTION 802 NCD -2 GRAND
AVENUE CORRIDOR NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT IN
ORDER TO CREATE THE NCD -2 GRAND AVENUE CORRIDOR NEIGHBORHOOD
CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT AND TO ADD AN INTENT STATEMENT;
CREATE SPECIAL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS AND LIMITATIONS ON USES;
CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
202 July 24, 2003
was introduced by Chairman Winton, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, and was passed on
first reading, by title only, by the following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Chairman Winton: Thank you. And the point I would like to make is that those of you who
have concerns about this ordinance, would you please, before you leave, give your name, address
and phone number to Cece Holloman here in the back so that there will be no mistake about
notice or anything else. You all will figure out an appropriate time to get together and start this
process, but make sure each of you give your name, address and phone number to Cece
Holloman in the back and we'll start this dialogue to try to resolve these issues.
Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Winton: Yes, sir.
Ms. Slazyk: PZ -10 is the companion.
Commissioner Sanchez: Commission Regalado. There's a second --
Commissioner Regalado: Before you go, just say -- let me just say that this is a little more
complicated but the first of this kind was approved by this Commission from my district, District
4, Coral Gate, the Neighborhood Conservation District. And you might want to talk to the Coral
Gate Homeowners' Association because this process is resident driven and they did talk to
everybody and anybody who was interested in listening to it. And it was passed and everybody
was happy. So I would suggest that probably the Planning Department or my office will give
you how to contact the residents association in Coral Gate because they are very happy and we
are very happy that we did that. So that's just an idea.
Commissioner Sanchez: Please don't leave. There's a companion item that goes along with this
item. Item 10 will be heard now.
203 July 24, 2003
53. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: AMEND PAGE NOS. 46 AND 47 OF ZONING
ATLAS OF CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF
DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM R-2
DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL, O OFFICE AND SD -2 COCONUT GROVE CENTRAL
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TO R-2 DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL, O OFFICE AND SD -2
COCONUT GROVE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT WITH NCD -2 GRAND
AVENUE CORRIDOR NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT
(Applicant(s): Planning and Zoning Department).
Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning and Zoning): PZ -10 is a companion item. It's
the atlas amendment, which actually applies the Neighborhood Conservation District Overlay
to the properties on Grand Avenue, with "O," SD -2 and R-2 zoning. It is recommended for
approval by the Planning and Zoning Department, and was recommended for approval
unanimously by the Planning Advisory Board. What this does is it actually implements the
regulations that you've just amended in the previous item onto the properties fronting on Grand
Avenue.
Commissioner Sanchez: This is a public hearing and it's now open to the public. Anyone
wishing to speak on the item, please step forward. Hearing none or seeing none, the public
meeting is closed. Commission.
Chairman Winton: Move it.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Second.
Commissioner Sanchez: There's a motion by Commissioner Winton. There's a second by
Commissioner Gonzalez. Open for discussion. Hearing none, Mr. City Attorney, read the
ordinance. Madam Clerk, roll call.
204 July 24, 2003
An Ordinance Entitled —
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
ATTACHMENT(S) AMENDING PAGES 46 AND 47 OF THE ZONING
ATLAS OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE
ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY
CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM R-2 DUPLEX
RESIDENTIAL "O" OFFICE AND SD -2 TO R-2 DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL "O"
OFFICE AND SD -2 WITH AN NCD -2 OVERLAY FOR PROPOSED GRAND
AVENUE CORRIDOR NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION OVERLAY
DISTRICT LOCATED IN COCONUT GROVE; MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS THE PROPERTIES LOCATED ALONG THE GRAND
AVENUE CORRIDOR, APPROXIMATELY BOUNDED BY COMMODORE
PLAZA AND MCDONALD STREETS TO THE EAST, BROOKER AND
JEFFERSON STREETS TO THE WEST, AND FRONTING ON GRAND
AVENUE IN COCONUT GROVE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, SEE EXHIBIT "A;"
FURTHER RETAINING THE EXISTING PRIMARY PEDESTRIAN
PATHWAY DESIGNATIONS FOR THOSE PROPERTIES FRONTING ON
GRAND AVENUE AND ADDING PRIMARY PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY
DESIGNATIONS ALONG THE REMAINDER OF THE GRAND AVENUE
CORRIDOR, EXCEPT FOR SUCH PROPERTIES ZONED R-2; MAKING
FINDINGS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE
was introduced by Chairman Winton, seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, and was passed
on first reading by title only, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Chairman Tomas Regalado
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Roll call. The ordinance has been passed on first reading,
4/0.
Commissioner Sanchez: Congratulations. We move on.
Unidentified Speaker: Thank you, Commissioners.
205 July 24, 2003
54. CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO RESCIND
ORDINANCES NOS. 12332, 12333, AND 12346 AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10544,
MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN; AND SUBSTITUTE IN LIEU
THEREOF NEW ORDINANCE, INCORPORATING RESCINDED AMENDMENTS IN AN
UNCHANGED, UNIFIED FORMAT AS SINGLE AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO.
10544, UPDATING TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT, ADDING SPECIFIC POLICIES
ASSOCIATED WITH NEW PARK IN LITTLE HAITI AREA, AND ADDING NEW LAND
USE CLASSIFICATION ENTITLED "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL," TO COMMISSION MEETING
CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 25, 2003.
Commissioner Sanchez: We move on to PZ. I? Madam Clerk, do you want to swear in anyone
who walked in or --
Commissioner Regalado: Before we do that, Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Regalado, you're recognized.
Commissioner Regalado: PZ.12, I would like to defer that for September. I don't understand
this. Nobody has told me anything --
Commissioner Gonzalez: Make a motion.
Commissioner Regalado: -- besides -- PZ. 12 -- Commissioner Teele is not here, and --
Commissioner Sanchez: There's a motion to --
Commissioner Gonzalez: Second.
Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. City Attorney, you're recognized.
Commissioner Regalado: Continue.
Mr. Maxwell: If you will, Commissioner, you may like to hear from the Planning Department
on this item, and then if you like, continue with that, but there is a really pressing reason why this
is occurring.
Commissioner Regalado: I don't know. I don't know.
Mr. Maxwell: I -- it --
Commissioner Regalado: You know, you do whatever you --
Commissioner Sanchez: All right. Well --
206 July 24, 2003
Mr. Maxwell: No, no, no, I'm saying, just hear them out and then make your decision, sir.
Commissioner Regalado: No, because you know, it's not fair to have this right in front of us and
have all these people outside asking me things. It's not fair, so you know, go ahead. I mean, I'm
voting no, so --
Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. City Attorney, there is a motion on the floor --
Mr. Maxwell: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Sanchez: -- by Commissioner Regalado to defer the item --
Mr. Maxwell: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Sanchez: -- to next -- is it -- Mr. Regalado, do you want to defer the item till next
meeting?
Commissioner Regalado: Yeah, until --
Commissioner Sanchez: OK.
Commissioner Regalado: -- Commissioner Teele is here.
Commissioner Sanchez: There's a motion on floor to defer Item 12. There is a second. Open
for discussion. Hearing none, all in favor, say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Commissioner Sanchez: Anyone opposing, having the same right, say "nay." Motion carries.
Item has been deferred to the next meeting.
207 July 24, 2003
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Regalado, who moved for its adoption:
MOTION NO. 03-878
A MOTION TO CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED
ORDINANCE ON FIRST READING TO RESCIND ORDINANCES NOS.
12332, 12333, AND 12346 AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS
AMENDED, THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN;
AND SUBSTITUTING IN LIEU THEREOF THIS NEW ORDINANCE,
INCORPORATING THE RESCINDED AMENDMENTS IN AN
UNCHANGED, UNIFIED FORMAT AS A SINGLE AMENDMENT TO
ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS AMENDED, THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, UPDATING THE TRANSPORTATION
ELEMENT, ADDING SPECIFIC POLICIES ASSOCIATED WITH A NEW
PARK IN THE LITTLE HAITI AREA, AND ADDING A NEW LAND USE
CLASSIFICATION ENTITLED "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL," TO THE
COMMISSION MEETING CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER
25, 2003.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, the motion was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Commissioner Sanchez: That would be when? Could you state for the record when the next
meeting? September 24.
208 July 24, 2003
55. APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS, MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT PURSUANT TO
ARTICLES 13 AND 17 OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, FOR METROPOLIS
PROJECT, TO BE COMPRISED OF MIXED-USE/RESIDENTIAL BUILDING WITH 752
UNITS, 8,470 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL USE; RECREATIONAL AMENITIES
AND 845 PARKING SPACES AT 1852 AND 1900 NORTH BAYSHORE DRIVE
(Applicant(s): Terra-Adi International, LLC).
Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ -1 is a Major Use Special Permit
for the Metropolis Project, located at approximately 1852 and 1900 North Bayshore Drive. This
project is a mixed-use residential building, with 752 residential units, 8,470 square feet of
commercial use, recreational amenities and 845 parking spaces. This project was recommended
for approval with conditions to the City Commission from the Planning Advisory Board, which
are the conditions that are in your package in the development order. It was reviewed by the
Urban Development Review Board and the Large Scale Development Committee, and after
meetings with the Planning and Zoning Department and these committees, and amendments
made to the project throughout the process, it's coming before you tonight with a
recommendation of approval. It complies with the zoning regulations, with the Comprehensive
Plan and it's been reviewed and approved by all of the advisory committees to the Commission.
Commissioner Sanchez: All right. It is a public hearing. Anyone from the public that wishes to
speak on the issue? Anyone against or for the item? Hearing none --
Commissioner Regalado: Move it.
Commissioner Sanchez: Lucia, she's -- there's no opposition, is there?
John Shubin: Yes, there's opposition.
Commissioner Sanchez: Well, state your name for the record, sir.
Mr. Shubin: The typical quasi-judicial --
Joel E. Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): Yeah.
Mr. Shubin: -- procedure is to allow the applicant to speak first, at which point we can then --
Commissioner Sanchez: Yes.
Mr. Shubin: -- offer our comments.
Commissioner Sanchez: You're recognized.
Lucia Dougherty: Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Lucia Dougherty with offices
at 1221 Brickell Avenue. Joined today with -- by Gloria Velazquez, and Gary Reshefsky, of my
office. We're representing Pedro Martin, who's my law partner as well as principal of the
project. This property is located in South Bayshore Drive, just across the street from the newly
renovated Margaret Pace Park. It's going to be developed in two phases; the first one is a 48-
209 July 24, 2003
story tower with 448 units, the second one is a 40 -story tower with 304 units. We have a variety
of amenities; 1000 -- 10,000 square foot recreational area, the steam room, sauna, meditation
garden, we have a business center, and an 8,500 square foot commercial and restaurant area,
overlooking the newly renovated Margaret Pace Park. The intent of this district in the master
plan is to create a high density residential area with emphasis on pedestrian activity. The project
is consistent with the master plan. It is -- also complies with your current zoning ordinances.
We're not asking for any variances, there are no bonuses, and as staff has indicated, the Major
Use Special Permit complies with all the conditions and requirements of 1305 of the zoning
ordinance. We've had unanimous approval from the Urban Development Review Board and the
Planning Advisory Board. This project, along with the Finger project, and as well as the 1800
Club project, and as well as Tibor Hollo's, other projects, will make Margaret Pace Park the
"Central Park" of Miami. It is going to be something that we can all be proud of, and we intend
to market this project to South Beach renters; those folks who currently are paying rent in South
Beach, who can now afford to have waterfront views at the same prices that they are paying rent
for, but we've -- what we've actually found is that most of our reservations, at least 40 percent of
them, are actually from foreign buyers, folks who are using this building as their second home,
so while we are actually marketing ourselves to many of our local folks, we actually have seen
that most of the folks who are buying here are actually from out of town. In planning this
project, Bruce Brosch, who is with Nichols, Sandoval & Brosch, the project architects, consulted
with Guillermo Olmedillo, your former planning director, and the planning director of Dade
County, in order to make sure that the City's policies with respect to this area are observed,
including the fact that we have all of our parking garages lined with loft units, so I'd like
Guillermo Olmedillo to come forward now and we know that this is going to be contested
project, so we'd like to put on our expert witnesses. Guillermo would come forward at talk to
you about the consistency of this project with your master plan.
Guillermo Olmedillo: Thank you, Lucia. Good evening, Commissioners. For the record,
Guillermo Olmedillo, 6840 Southwest 130th Terrace, Miami, Florida. First issue, when you are
going to issue a development order, of course, is to find out if that development order is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive Plan is your constitution for land use
and it includes all the things that you can do within the different sections of the zoning
ordinance. I would point out to you, and I will submit to you, that it is consistent with the master
plan. One of the first things you look at, it is the interpretation of the different future land use
map, and you will find that in the high density multifamily residential area, Brickell, Omni, and
the river Quadrant, are pointed out as having the higher densities that may be allowed up to 500
units to the acre; so, that in itself, shows you that you have the opportunity to have up to 500
units to the acre in this particular area. You also see that policy LU 1.4, -- excuse me, I'm going
to the Housing Development now. In the housing element you see that Goal 1-12-2, achieve a
livable city center, with a variety of urban housing types for persons of all income levels. One of
the things that the master plan, the structure of the master plan for the City, is that you create
centers of activity, and primarily, the downtown area is a center of activity, where you want to
increase the densities and achieve a high intensity of development. That area, the Civic Center
area is another one of the areas of center activity, so, in reading the excerpts from the Goals,
Objectives, and Policies of the master plan and looking at the future land use map and the
interpretation of the future land use map, unequivocally I can tell you that it is consistent with the
master plan. Your staff has told you the same things and all I'm doing is reinforcing those
210 July 24, 2003
arguments. You didn't stop there. When you adopted Ordinance 12107, that changed the zoning
of the property to SD -6, you made a number of findings which are important to note on the
record. You made findings that the change is in conformity with the adopted MCNP (Miami
Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan), that it is not contrary to the established land use patterns.
That is not out of the scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the City. That it will not
materially alter the population density pattern. It is necessary due to changing conditions, will
not adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood, will not create or excessively
increase traffic congestion, will not reduce light and air to adjacent areas, will not adversely
affect property values in the adjacent area, will not be a deterrent to the improvement or
development of adjacent property in accord to the existing regulations. This action you took --
and these are the findings that you make -- that you made when you decided to change the
zoning to the Special District 6. Then, of course, you have a Major Use Special Permit and that
is governed by Section 1305 of your zoning code, which points out a number of issues that you
must address. Ingress and egress, you will see that the way that the ingress and egress to the
property has been studied in a way to avoid any traffic conflicts and any conflicts with the
properties, adjacent properties. The off-street parking and loading, the project is providing
adequate parking. It is providing the required parking by code. It is providing the loading
necessary to have the development in that particular piece of property. Refuse and service areas,
you will see that it's been treated in a manner so that it's out of sight. It's not something that is
going to be a deterrent for the development of any other properties around it. Signs and lighting
-- this is not a -- this is primarily a residential piece of property, you will not have signs, and as
you know, any signs that may be used for the commercial uses in the ground floor, which are put
there simply to follow the intent of the district, will have to come in through the process and be
reviewed by your Planning and Zoning Department. Utilities review for adequacy, availability
and capacity of systems, that has been addressed, drainage has been addressed, preservation of
natural features has been addressed, so every issue that is contained in Section 1305 has also
been addressed. The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Master Plan. It's compatible
with the area; that is the type of development that has occurred within the area. It meets your
zoning code. The only reason why this project has to go through a public hearing of a major use
is because the threshold of the number of units has been crossed. Otherwise, this is an exercise
in permitting a project or a building that meets, in its entirety, all the zoning codes requirements.
If you have any questions, I'm available for anyone.
Mr. Shubin: I would like to cross-examine Mr. Olmedillo. What is the Chair's preference with
respect to the procedures for that?
Commissioner Sanchez: You have the right to cross-examine.
Chairman Winton: Well, but after --
Mr. Shubin: Contemporaneous or --
Mr. Maxwell: Yeah, what -- Mr. Chairman --
Chairman Winton: Yes, sir, please.
211 July 24, 2003
Mr. Maxwell: Yeah, as Commissioner Sanchez pointed out properly, you have the absolute right
to cross-examine. Normally what happens is that you wait `til all the presentations are made and
then you may cross-examine.
Mr. Shubin: Thank you.
Ms. Dougherty: At this time, I'd like Bruce Brosch, the architect to come forward and present
the plan briefly to you.
Bruce Brosch: Hi, my name is Bruce Brosch, I'm with the architectural firm of Nichols, Brosch,
Sandoval, 161 Almeria Avenue, Coral Gables. I'd like to say, we're very proud to be a part of
the team on this project. One of the things that we feel is the best part of this project is bringing
residential back in town. Everyone -- any planner will tell you that the only way to make a city
vital and have a twenty-four hour life to it, is with in -town residential. In fact, you could say that
without it, it's almost impossible. We're doing that in a major way with this project, and we feel
that it's going to be great neighbor for the City, it'll be a welcome addition to the neighborhood.
As Lucia has pointed out, we have our entire street frontage is providing good public visible
access. We have a restaurant on the ground floor facing Margaret Place Park. We have Luft
units that front the entire street frontage of our project, and then we have our tower above. Our
entire parking podium is covered with a landscape recreation deck, so in short, the entire
project's got a good face on all the street frontages. It is a tall project. It's an urban project.
We've worked very hard to compose the pair of towers, as well as our proposed neighbor to the
south, so that all three of the buildings form a graceful composition and have views of the water
and of downtown. We feel that we have done -- worked very hard, especially with staff, and I'd
like to, in particular, thank Lourdes for all her suggestions, which have helped improve the
project through this process. We feel, in the most immediate scale of the pedestrian scale, we
have good restaurant and public spaces with retail at the ground floor, and then at the mid -rise
scale with the Luft apartments facing the street, we feel it's a very inviting project, and will be a
welcome addition to the neighborhood and you have any questions of myself, I'd be glad to
answer them. Thank you.
Ms. Dougherty: At the PAB (Planning Advisory Board) there were some traffic issues that were
brought up by our opposing counsel, and the issue of how traffic is circulating around the
neighborhood. We have a traffic planner, Jack Ahlstedt, who prepared a traffic analysis, and
determined that the level of service were adequate at that time, but because there was this issue,
we also hired a second traffic planning organization, David Plummer and Associates, to have
him recheck and determine whether or not the levels of service were adequate. He coordinated
that effort with URS, who is the City's traffic engineering firm, and determined again that the --
there was sufficient capacity on the roads to accommodate this growth as well as all of the other
planned projects in the neighborhood. We have a letter from URS, who is the City's traffic
planners, who reviewed both studies, and their conclusion is that this traffic study is acceptable,
and we also have it -- we submitted that report to the City on July 11, it was submitted to us, and
we submitted that report from URS and our traffic report to the City on July 15. We have Sonia
Figueroa from David Plummer and Associates as well as Jack Ahlstedt here today. What I'd like
to do, in an effort to save time, is not present them, but if there are any questions on that issue or
if we need to rebut any testimony or evidence from the other side, we would like the opportunity
212 July 24, 2003
to do so. Several people in the neighborhood are here today, to support this project, and we'd
like to place in the record a letter from Tucker Gibbs, who represented the 1800 Club, I won't
review that. Now, these are folks who were in the record, who are opposing the project, and I
think that this letter needs to be submitted for the record.
Mr. Maxwell: But, Ms. Dougherty, you can submit the letter, but you don't need to read it into
the record.
Ms. Dougherty: I'm going to read just one sentence: After review and meeting with
representatives of Terra-Adi, 1800 --
Chairman Winton: I think --
Ms. Dougherty: You're going to just --
Commissioner Sanchez: It's the first time he's ever used the button.
Chairman Winton: I --
Ms. Dougherty: I got the hook.
Chairman Winton: I --
Commissioner Sanchez: You know, you know what? (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Ms. Dougherty: Oh, there you go.
Chairman Winton: I think the City Attorney said that you don't need to read that. You can --
Ms. Dougherty: Oh, Tucker's here. Never mind.
Chairman Winton: OK.
Ms. Dougherty: I don't have to.
Chairman Winton: He can speak from himself at another --
Ms. Dougherty: Hey, buddy --
Commissioner Sanchez: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Ms. Dougherty: There you go.
Tucker Gibbs: I'm just going to read the letter into the record. It says, "Dear Commissioner
Winton, City Commissions, dear Chairman --
213 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: Don't read the letter. Just you know, so --
Mr. Gibbs: On behalf of the 1800 Club, it supports this application.
Chairman Winton: Thank you.
Mr. Gibbs: And I'll put the letter into the record.
Chairman Winton: That's fine, thank you.
Commissioner Sanchez: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Mr. Gibbs: Absolutely, thank you.
Ms. Dougherty: I have several other letters that I will just submit to the record. I will not read
them.
Chairman Winton: Thank you.
Ms. Dougherty: But they are from the Omni Advisory Board, and the Grand Condominium
Association, and Alexander Milton. We were very disappointed that we were unable to receive
comments from the neighbors directly to the north, the Finger property. We tried to meet with
them, we did meet with them. We were expecting to get comments from them that we could
address and for the betterment of the entire neighborhood. We were unable to have a consensus
with them and that is a great disappointment to us. We would like to close our presentation of
this evening, but would like the opportunity to rebut any evidence or testimony, excuse me --
Unidentified Speaker: Eleanor Kluger would like to (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Ms. Dougherty: OK. There are others who would like to speak who are in favor of this.
Chairman Winton: But I think they can all come during the public hearing portion of this, so
Eleanor, you are already up there, so if you would be very brief, we would be quite pleased.
Eleanor Kluger: I will try to be brief.
Chairman Winton: Try?
Ms. Kluger: Try, yes, sir.
Chairman Winton: I have the button right here.
Ms. Kluger: OK, for fifty years, since around --
Chairman Winton: Name and address on the record, please.
214 July 24, 2003
Ms. Kluger: Eleanor Kluger, 1000 Venetian Way.
Chairman Winton: Well, excuse me, hold on, I can tell already. Counsel, is this part of your
expert testimony here? So this is part of the public hearing, so --
Ms. Kluger: You want me --?
Ms. Dougherty: Except that she needs to leave, if you could give her some deference.
Chairman Winton: Well, but I was hearing history here, and I'm -- the history can come as part
of the public hearing, not as part of the expert testimony, so I don't want to long thing here.
Ms. Dougherty: She is a --
Ms. Kluger: OK, Omni resident, OK. Fifty years, the Omni area has waited for Tibor Hollo's
dream to materialize, an upscale, uptown vertical community, as he would've called it, and for
thirty or more years, from the 70's, until now, we have suffered a downward slide; property
values failed, business left, and homeowners fled. In 1987, Phil Yaffa helped make us a tax
increment district in hopes that more of our taxes would stay in the area. It has taken another
fifteen years for our area to finally see funding to become --, to begin to drip into our coffers. It
started with the Performing Arts Center, which spawned money for development, which we, the
residents, voted to put it into Margaret Pace Park. We are extremely happy with our park and
find that, to our amazement, how quickly so many people are coming into our area to enjoy the
Bayside grounds. We welcome the growth of North Bayshore Drive. We hope it will bring
many more residents into the Omni, the Bay Park, the Fingers group, Michael Balmans and now
the Quantum Development should be just the beginnings of a growth to residential high-rise
living in the Omni. We welcome the Quantum.
Chairman Winton: Thank you.
Ms. Dougherty: And that concludes our presentation. I do have co -counsel with me this
evening. Gil Pastoriza, who may also be involved in cross-examining any expert witnesses that
the other side may present.
Chairman Winton: Thank you.
Mr. Shubin: For the record, John Shubin, Shubin and Bass, 3 --
Chairman Winton: John, pull the mike up a little bit. There you go.
Mr. Shubin: Thanks. For the record, John Shubin, Shubin and Bass, 46 Southwest 1st Street,
City of Miami, here today to representing Finger Biscayne LLC., the owner of real property
directly to the north of the proposed-- the MUSP (Main Use Special Permit) application. The
Finger companies along with Marvy Finger, its founder and principal, own approximately 6.5
acre tract to the north that runs from 19th Street up to 20th Terrace from Biscayne Boulevard to
the new extension of North Bayshore Drive. They are the developers of the Bayshore Village --
215 July 24, 2003
Biscayne Village, excuse me. They have made a $70 million commitment to this City, and they
are approximately 70 percent completed in their construction. I have a lot of housekeeping
issues and some procedural issues, then I want to get to the cross-examination and then get to our
experts, and obviously there will be time for cross-examination of them as well. I have
voluminous documents, most of which constitute public records related to the approval of the
Finger project and the Metropolis Project, the zoning and the land use, and certainly want to
move them into the record at the appropriate time, along with the transcripts from the two
hearings before the Planning Advisory Board, and a variety of other documents that we will be
making reference to, but to speed this along, to the extent that they are all public records, we will
coordinate with the Clerk afterwards to identify them and properly and move them into the
record. Two other housekeeping matters, and I'll try to be brief, on behalf of the Finger
Companies, we certainly want to preserve our rights and by appearing today, we're not in any
way consenting or acquiescing in a denial of a request for certain subpoenas that were requested
of the City on June 11, 2003, to compel the attendance of certain City employees who we believe
were essential to properly preparing the record, and we would certainly renew the request made
in our July 17, 2003 correspondence to the City Attorney pertaining to recusal, and we're
certainly not waiving that, and I am presuming that that motion has been denied by virtue of the
participation.
Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Chairman, there are two items that were just discussed by Mr. Shubin. One
relating to subpoenas, the City Attorney's Office responded to, and we indicated that we did not
think there was a basis for the subpoenas that he was requesting, and did not have any authority -
- in fact, the board that he was requesting that these individuals appear before, pursuant to those
erstwhile subpoenas, didn't have authority themselves to issue a subpoena. Therefore, we didn't
think that he had that authority, so we indicated that that would not be complied with. The
second document that he is referring to, I assume you're speaking of the recusal request --
Mr. Shubin: Yes, sir.
Mr. Maxwell: We have reviewed a document asking for a Commissioner to recuse himself. We
reviewed that document, as well. We do not think that it has merit; indeed, under Florida Law,
we do not think that a Commissioner can abstain -- which is another word for it -- he cannot
abstain from voting, unless he has a financial interest in the matter before. In this particular
instance, the recusal request was made about Chairman Winton. Chairman Winton, the item
before you now, do you or any member of your family or any business associate have a financial
interest in this application or any -- ?
Chairman Winton: In the Metropolis or the Finger Company project?
Mr. Maxwell: In the Metropolis, the application before you.
Chairman Winton: I have no financial interest in either one.
Mr. Maxwell: In the outcome of this?
Chairman Winton: Or no -- Absolutely no interest whatsoever, except the public interest --
216 July 24, 2003
Mr. Maxwell: Yes, sir.
Chairman Winton: -- is the only interest that I have in --
Mr. Maxwell: Therefore, under Florida law, as a public officer, you have an absolute obligation
to vote, you cannot recuse yourself. Therefore, we think that you should participate in this.
Mr. Shubin: Mr. Maxwell, rather than belaboring this point, we'll simply rest on the
presentation set forth in our letter, which was not predicated on -- just so the record is clear,
publicly we've never alleged that Commissioner Winton ever had a financial interest that he
failed to disclose with respect to any of these projects.
Mr. Maxwell: Absolutely, and as I indicated in case I was not clear on that, my point in making
that statement was that the only basis for abstaining from voting by public Officers can be if
there is a public -- if there is a financial conflict of interest and that does not exist.
Mr. Shubin: We will agree to disagree on that point. I guess, again, it's logistically difficult. I'll
call Mr. Olmedillo up and then Mr. Brosch, and then also while we're up here, we have a traffic
engineer who has not yet reviewed the supplemental information that was referred to by Ms.
Dougherty, so if there's an opportunity to have him try to scan it quickly, we would certainly
appreciate that, so that he can be adequately prepared for his presentation. Mr. Olmedillo, as part
of your preparation for appearing as an expert witness tonight, did you have an opportunity to
review any of the applications or files relating to the rezoning of the Metropolis site or the
request for land use amendment?
Mr. Olmedillo: I've reviewed the ordinance that approved the rezoning of the property.
Mr. Shubin: Did you ever review any of the backup information, including the application for
land use amendment or the staff justification for a zoning charge to SD -6?
Mr. Olmedillo: As I stated, I've reviewed the ordinances that granted such changes.
Mr. Shubin: And in making your comments tonight, and offering your conclusions to the
Commission, did you ever take into consideration the Metropolis Project's consistency or
inconsistency with a document known as the Downtown Master Plan?
Mr. Olmedillo: I reviewed the Downtown Master Plan and I was -- as you know, I was part of
the Planning Department at the time that the Downtown Master Plan -- I reviewed it. What I did
is I went to a document that is pertinent in this case, which is the Comprehensive Plan. The
Downtown Master Plan, I believe was accepted, adopted by the Commission in principle, and
not as a development instrument or as a land development regulation.
Mr. Shubin: Well, with respect to the Finger property -- I know you're familiar with the Finger
property, when I make reference to the Finger property directly to the north.
217 July 24, 2003
Mr. Olmedillo: It's the property to the north, yes.
Mr. Shubin: OK, did you, have you reviewed any of the public records pertaining to the
approval or app -- of the Finger property, either the must approval or the rezoning approval?
Mr. Olmedillo: I reviewed the must application, but not the approval.
Mr. Shubin: Is it your understanding that the City staff and applicants routinely make reference
to the Downtown Master Plan when presenting applications in the area covered by its
jurisdiction?
Mr. Olmedillo: It may be so, yes.
Mr. Shubin: OK, and in fact, you have a copy of the Downtown Master plan in front of you?
Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, sir.
Mr. Shubin: OK. With respect to the Metropolis site, were you aware that in connection with
the application for a land use amendment to restricted commercial from high density multi-
family residential, that the applicant stated at part 12 of their application, "This request is
consistent with the Miami Downtown Master plan vision, to respond --" and "tapping consumer
demand for high quality living space in an urban district where services and jobs are within easy
walking distance, and for high density residential use. This request will be consistent with the
rezoning of the property to SD -6." Do you know that the property owner of the time at the
application used as a justification conformance with the Downtown Master Plan? Were you
aware of that?
Mr. Olmedillo: As I said, I did not review the application for the rezoning of the Master Plan
change, only the ordinance that approved such changes.
Mr. Shubin: OK. And is -- did you review, as part of your preparation, the analysis for zoning
change SD -6, for the Metropolis site that was prepared by the Planning and Zoning Department
at the time?
Mr. Olmedillo: The -- I also reviewed, not the application, but I just reviewed the zoning
ordinance that did grant the zoning change.
Mr. Shubin: Now, with respect to the Downtown Master Plan, is it your understanding that that
Downtown Master Plan attempted to define certain neighborhoods within the downtown region?
Mr. Olmedillo: Yes.
Mr. Shubin: And is it your understanding -- and, in fact, you participated in the drafting of this
plan, correct?
218 July 24, 2003
Mr. Olmedillo: Somewhat, I was the -- I believe I was already the Deputy Director of the
department at the time that Mr. Luft and Joyce Myers, the two planners in charge of the
Downtown planning area --
Mr. Shubin: And --
Mr. Olmedillo: -- were doing the study.
Mr. Shubin: Are the Metropolis site and the Finger site in the same neighborhood as defined by
the Downtown Master Plan?
Mr. Olmedillo: I would have to recheck it.
Mr. Shubin: Well, let me try to speed things along. Do you have any reason to dispute the
section 4.8, Policy 1C that defines a south Edgewater neighborhood? Well, let me be a little
more specific. In the definition section, there is an Omni section and there is also an Edgewater
section. Would you take the position that both the Finger property and the Metropolis property
are in the Omni/Edgewater neighborhood?
Mr. Olmedillo: It's -- as I'm reading from page 43, there is a -- there's a graphic that shows the
south Edgewater neighborhood and it's shaded in the color blue, and it -- on page 42 it's
described -- yes.
Mr. Shubin: OK. Could you direct your attention to page 4.8 of the Downtown Master Plan,
specifically the section that provides floor area maximums for the south Edgewater district?
Mr. Olmedillo: I think you have to explain a little more when you use the word "provide."
Mr. Shubin: Sets forth. Do you see the text in the Downtown Master plan? It'll be 4.8, upper
left-hand corner?
Mr. Olmedillo: South Edgewater?
Mr. Shubin: Yes, and --
Mr. Olmedillo: Yes.
Mr. Shubin: -- could read that into record, please?
Mr. Olmedillo: Yes. South Edgewater floor area maximum of 2.42 times gross lot area between
Northeast 20 Street and Northeast 18th Street, and floor area minimum of 3.2 times gross lot area
between Northeast 18th Street and Northeast 17th Street -- Terrace, sorry.
Mr. Shubin: Does that refresh your recollection as to whether or not both the Finger properties
and the Metropolis property would be in the South Edgewater neighborhood as defined by the
Downtown Master Plan?
219 July 24, 2003
Mr. Olmedillo: They're both included, and as I said before -- and I'm reading from the main title
page of the report. It says, "Adopted in principle by Resolution 89-990, October 28, 1989."
Mr. Shubin: And --
Mr. Olmedillo: This is a document that was adopted in principle.
Mr. Shubin: And do you know whether or not the Downtown Master Plan was utilized as a basis
for the Planning and Zoning Department recommending approval of a rezoning on the Finger
site, as recently as three years ago?
Mr. Olmedillo: I do not know that. I believe the Planning staff would be able to response to that
question.
Mr. Shubin: What is the proposed floor area ratio of the Metropolis Project? Is it approximately
7.2 FAR (floor/area ratio)?
Mr. Olmedillo: So that I don't make a mistake, I think 7.2 FAR. It is.
Mr. Shubin: And are you familiar with the FAR that was permitted on the Finger property site
directly across the street?
Mr. Olmedillo: I believe it hovers around 3, 3.5, something like that.
Mr. Shubin: It's approximately 2.5 to 2.6. Do you have any reason to dispute that?
Mr. Olmedillo: I have no reason to dispute it.
Mr. Shubin: Can you explain the possible disparity between the approval of the 2.6 FAR for the
Finger project --
Mr. Maxwell: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I would, I would, I would question or interrupt that
particular question, and the line of questioning regarding the Finger properties on relevance
grounds. I failed to see what relevance that would have to these proceedings. Each application,
a MUSP for the Finger properties and a MUSP for the project now before you, are independent
and stand on their own. The fact that the City Commission might have approved the MUSP
earlier on another project or any other project is irrelevant to the -- to your deliberations here
which must be based on the criteria and standards for approval of this project on this site.
Mr. Shubin: Well -- can I respond, please?
Chairman Winton: OK, t hank you. OK.
Mr. Shubin: If Mr. Maxwell wants to take the legal position in the instruction, that there is no
section or no portion of article 17 or Section 1305.8, and 1305 in general, which is relevant to
220 July 24, 2003
this application, which requires this Commission to consider the impact of this proposal on
adjoining properties, if he wants to make that decision on the record --
Mr. Maxwell: I did not --
Mr. Shubin: -- we'll certainly have that recorded and it will certainly be interesting.
Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Shubin, I certainly did not take that position. 1305, obviously is relevant.
The impact on adjacent properties is relevant. What you're asking about is the adoption process
for the Finger project, which happened some time ago. If you want to talk about -- if you want to
talk about how this project affects the existing Finger project over there, then that's relevant, I
would think, and you certainly should pursue that, but the line that you're taking now, I do not
think it's relevant.
Mr. Shubin: Well, I object to the adversarial tone taken by the City Attorney --
Mr. Maxwell: And --
Mr. Shubin: -- not in a --
Chairman Winton: Excuse me.
Mr. Shubin: --just so the record's clear.
Mr. Maxwell: Yeah.
Mr. Shubin: But we respectfully disagree completely with your characterization of this
testimony as being --
Chairman Winton: But --
Mr. Shubin: -- irrelevant.
Chairman Winton: You may, but you do need to listen to what he said, and I think move to
either some other line of questioning, or the next point.
Mr. Shubin: Well, if that's the case, to the extent that we are prohibited, I certainly want the
record to reflect that we will, after this hearing, proffer our questions to the court reporter, so the
appellate court reviewing this can make a determination as to what was appropriate and what
was not appropriate. Mr. Olmedillo, do you have an opinion as to whether or not the FAR in the
proposed Metropolis project of approximately 7.2 is consistent with the FAR set forth in the
South Edgewater component of the Downtown Master Plan?
Mr. Olmedillo: It's not consistent and as I repeated before, the Downtown Master Plan is not the
instant document that the Commission needs to look at for consistency with the Comprehensive
221 July 24, 2003
Plan. It's the Comprehensive Plan and not the Downtown Master Plan which, as I read again,
was adopted in principle by Resolution 89-990.
Mr. Shubin: And just to speed things along, I will then read into the record the analysis for
zoning change set forth in the Finger approval, which was in 2001, and it said, "It is found that
the change to SD -6 central commercial residential district. Is a logical extension of that category
in that the Downtown Master Plan called for this area to be developed in a manner which would
support the downtown core."
Gil Pastoriza: We would object since the -- the Finger's property is really not the one that's
before you today at the public hearing, so we would object to that.
Mr. Shubin: OK. You've testified, Mr. Olmedillo that this project, the Metropolis project is
consistent with the neighborhood plan, as adopted by the City of Miami, is that correct?
Mr. Olmedillo: The Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan as adopted.
Mr. Shubin: OK. Does the Miami Neighborhood Plan -- let's just call it the Miami
Neighborhood Plan -- does that contain standards or parameters setting forth the appropriate
density that should be in this category?
Mr. Olmedillo: It -- as everybody in the dais and you know, the comprehensive plans are a set of
goals, objectives and policies. The one item that does point to density is the one contained on
page 3 of the interpretation of future land use map, which reads that the Brickell, Omni, and river
quadrant areas may have higher densities than the regular high density multifamily residential
districts, and may be allowed a shunt for this designated area, and for that particular area is up to
500 units to the acre.
Mr. Shubin: This is designated as restricted commercial, correct?
Mr. Olmedillo: There's a designation of restricted commercial, yes.
Mr. Shubin: And what is the maximum density permitted for restricted commercial?
Mr. Olmedillo: As I remember it's 172.
Mr. Shubin: The density in terms of units per acre?
Mr. Olmedillo: No, the density, no, the density -- let me double-check that.
Mr. Shubin: Would it be 500 units to the acre?
Mr. Olmedillo: Yeah. The high density multifamily residential is 150 dwelling units to the acre
because the commercial district takes you back to this residential density, but it excepts out Little
Havana target area, Southeast Overtown/Park West, and the Brickell, Omni and river quadrant,
and the latter one, the last three that I mentioned is up to 500 units to the acre.
222 July 24, 2003
Mr. Shubin: OK. Are you familiar with the difference between density and intensity as it relates
to determination of consistency with either a zoning code or with a comprehensive plan?
Mr. Olmedillo: I believe so.
Mr. Shubin: And what is the -- what is intensity of development?
Mr. Olmedillo: Intensity is the --
Commissioner Sanchez: This is going to be a long one.
Mr. Olmedillo: -- intensity is -- translates into the type of FAR that you're going to have in a
particular piece of property.
Mr. Shubin: And FA --
Mr. Olmedillo: Which contains a particular use.
Mr. Shubin: And FAR is floor area ratio?
Mr. Olmedillo: And FAR is floor area ratio.
Mr. Shubin: Can you tell me by referring to the Miami Neighborhood Plan, what the permissible
intensity of development is in the restricted commercial designation?
Mr. Olmedillo: Yeah, typically, the comprehensive plans, which again, are a set of goals,
objectives, and policies, do not establish building envelopes, which is what refers to the FAR.
That is relegated, if I may use the word, to the zoning ordinance which then takes care of what
the building envelop should be for each piece of property.
Mr. Shubin: So is it your position that intensities of development are not required to be placed
into a comprehensive plan?
Mr. Olmedillo: They don't have to be placed on the comprehensive development master plan.
Mr. Shubin: Are you familiar with --?
Chairman Winton: Excuse me, Mr. Shubin, hold on, I want to ask the City Attorney a question.
This detail, Mr. City Attorney, which is quite -- very small detail here, it may be a big detail to
them, but the level of questioning here, my question is, are we required in this body, to allow for
that kind of detail on the cross-examination portion of this item?
Mr. Maxwell: Courts have held that in a quasi-judicial proceeding it is type. They're not the
same as courts, even though you act in a court -like fashion. Therefore, all of the protection and
the procedures set forth for a courtroom wouldn't necessarily apply here. He is entitled to cross -
223 July 24, 2003
examination, as you will, and he is cross-examining. The question I would have in terms of the
level of questioning here, would be whether or not he's actually going beyond the four corners of
the testimony originally proffered by Mr. Olmedillo, and if he does that, then I think he's
exceeded his rights to cross-examine. That is a question that his counsel may want to advise him
on, but I think that I've heard so far, and the defense has questioned a moment ago, about
intensity and densities, I believe Mr. Olmedillo did testify about that, did you not?
Mr. Olmedillo: I pointed out what the master plan language is.
Mr. Maxwell: Yeah, if he --
Mr. Olmedillo: As to the --
Mr. Maxwell: If he's done this --
Mr. Olmedillo: -- incident.
Mr. Maxwell: -- and Mr. Shubin has a right to question about that.
Chairman Winton: OK. Thank you.
Mr. Shubin: I think I can do it in three questions.
Mr. Olmedillo: Not intensity, only densities. I didn't --
Chairman Winton: Thanks, that's fine, OK.
Mr. Olmedillo: -- talk about that.
Chairman Winton: Go ahead, yeah.
Mr. Shubin: Are you familiar with the Florida Growth Management Act and the requirements
that it imposes on municipalities in enacting comprehensive plans?
Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, not to the letter, because I have to read it every time that I have to use it,
but Chapter 163 and 9G and 5, and all those rules do establish certain regulations, yes.
Mr. Shubin: Well, are you familiar with the fact that Florida Statute 163-3177 (6a) requires, and
I quote, "that each future land use category must be defined in terms of uses included, and must
include standards to be followed in the control and distribution of population densities and
building and structure intensities." Are you familiar with that provision?
Mr. Olmedillo: Yes.
Mr. Shubin: And are you familiar with an administrative regulation generally known as rule
9J5?
224 July 24, 2003
Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, sir.
Mr. Shubin: And does 9J5 defined the terms intensity and density?
Mr. Pastoriza: To the extent that Mr. Olmedillo did not testify on 163 or 9J5, we would object,
just like we would object to the extent that Mr. Olmedillo did not testify on the Downtown
Master Plan.
Mr. Shubin: One last question. Or you can answer the question, unless you're instructed not to.
Mr. Olmedillo: Can you repeat the question?
Mr. Shubin: You're familiar with the fact that rule 9J5 has specific definitions for both density
and intensity?
Mr. Olmedillo: Yes.
Mr. Shubin: And they would be consistent with the proposition that intensity equals floor area
ratio, correct?
Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, I would agree to that.
Mr. Shubin: And --
Commissioner Sanchez: All right.
Mr. Pastoriza: We don't have a quorum.
Mr. Shubin: -- are you familiar -- did you ever --?
Mr. Pastoriza: Only got two, only got two.
Commissioner Sanchez: We don't have a quorum.
Chairman Winton: Yeah, we do. Commissioner Regalado is standing right there.
Commissioner Sanchez: But you're doing a great job building your case.
Chairman Winton: Thank you. Continue on. He's right there.
Mr. Shubin: As Planning Director of the City of Miami, did you ever participate in the drafting
of any aspect of the Miami Neighborhood Plan or its amendment?
Mr. Olmedillo: I'm sorry, I got two ears, but I can only listen to one source of noise at a time.
225 July 24, 2003
Mr. Shubin: I won't ask you what Mr. Pastoriza said, whispered in your ear. Could you tell me
if as Planning Director of the City of Miami, you ever personally participated in the drafting or
the amendment of any aspect of the City's Neighborhood Plan?
Mr. Olmedillo: As Deputy Director, yes, I did.
Mr. Shubin: And did the City of Miami's Neighborhood Plan ever contain intensities for its land
use categories, particularly in the context of floor area ratio?
Mr. Pastoriza: Hold on, I object. I think that Mr. Olmedillo answered that question before when
he stated that the FAR was regulated in the City's zoning code, I think the record would reflect
that.
Chairman Winton: Mr. City Attorney? Would you jump in here, please? I'm, you know -- I'm
not the lawyer, I'm not the judge, I'm a guy sitting here trying to get through this, you know?
Mr. Maxwell: I think I would agree that he asked the question, Mr. Olmedillo could as any
witness could say, "I don't know," and answer. He's answered the question. If he's responded
to the question, then he -- then Mr. Shubin should accept that answer and move on.
Mr. Shubin: I didn't hear an answer.
Mr. Maxwell: Accept the response.
Mr. Shubin: Do you know or you do not do?
Mr. Olmedillo: Can you repeat the question?
Mr. Shubin: I'm asking you if in your capacity as Planning Director of the City of Miami, in
your capacity as you testified, having participated in the drafting or amendment of some portion
of the City's Neighborhood Plan, whether to the best of your recollection, the City's
Neighborhood Plan within its land use categories ever had intensity standards defined in terms of
floor area ratio?
Mr. Olmedillo: The -- what I remember, that at the time, we disclosed the principle that we were
going to use and the principle was to pay great deference to the zoning code and rely for those
issues on the zoning code, rather than include all those intensities into the master plan, the
language of the master plan, so great deference was placed on the zoning ordinance as being the
document to accompany the comprehensive plan.
Mr. Shubin: OK. I have no further questions. I have two questions of Mr. Brosch.
Mr. Pastoriza: I would like to just ask Mr. Olmedillo three questions.
Chairman Winton: I can't hear you. Please come to the microphone.
226 July 24, 2003
Mr. Pastoriza: I would like ask Mr. Olmedillo three questions. Just to clear the --
Chairman Winton: OK. Thank you. Please.
Mr. Pastoriza: -- clear the air. Mr. Olmedillo, much has been said by the Miami Downtown
Master Plan --
Chairman Winton: You need to step closer to the mike.
Mr. Pastoriza: Much has been said about the Miami Downtown Master Plan, Mr. Olmedillo, in
your opinion, what is the official master plan of the City of Miami? Is it the Miami Downtown
Master Plan or is it the Miami Neighborhood Comprehensive Plan?
Mr. Olmedillo: To me, it's the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan and it's the one that
was adopted I believe in December of 1999.
Mr. Pastoriza: Mr. Olmedillo, is this application consistent with that plan?
Mr. Olmedillo: I submit, and I submitted before to the Commission that yes, it is consistent and
I can, again, refer to the number of goals, objectives and policies.
Mr. Pastoriza: And Mr. Olmedillo, also there's a lot of emphasis being placed on the fact that
there are no intensity limitations on the City of Miami Comprehensive Plan. Let me ask you
this, Mr. Olmedillo, you said in your experience that most of the intensity regulations, by that I
mean, the FARs, are placed not in the comprehensive plan, but in the zoning code?
Mr. Shubin: Objection. He can answer, but the statute speaks for itself.
Mr. Pastoriza: OK. Go ahead. You can answer, Mr. Olmedillo, so therefore, does the City of
Miami zoning ordinance, does it establish those residents -- those density regula -- those
intensity regulations?
Mr. Olmedillo: Through the zoning code, yes, it does.
Mr. Pastoriza: And is that part of the land use regulations talked about in rule 9J5?
Mr. Olmedillo: Yes.
Mr. Pastoriza: OK.
Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Pastoriza, I might have missed it, but had you identified yourself on the
record?
Chairman Winton: I don't think so.
Mr. Pastoriza: Gil Pastoriza, 2665 South Bayshore Drive.
227 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: Mr. Shubin.
Mr. Shubin: A couple of questions for Mr. Brosch, I believe. I hope I'm pronouncing it
properly. Were you representing this applicant during all aspects of their application for major
use special permit, including what's known as the pre -application conference?
Mr. Brosch: Our firm has. I did not attend every single meeting that we've had with the City.
Mr. Shubin: Did you attend any meetings with City staff during a pre -application conference
with respect, specifically, to the MUSP application before us tonight?
Mr. Brosch: I attended a pre -application conference, yes.
Mr. Shubin: During that pre -application conference, did the City staff ever provide you with any
guidance, or limitations, or parameters with respect to the design of this project?
Mr. Pastoriza: Again, I would object. Mr. Brosch testified on the design, so if you have specific
questions about the design of the building, you know, I would have Mr. Brosch instructed to
answer them, but general questions, we would object to them, and I would instruct him not to
answer them.
Mr. Shubin: Well, let me just say for the record, I think it's directly relevant what conversations
the architect had pursuant to 1702.1 with the City staff, with respect to a MUSP application,
which is precisely what's before this board tonight.
Chairman Winton: Mr. City Attorney.
Mr. Pastoriza: Again, you know, I would say that if he wants to know about what specific
conversation the City had with the applicant, he can ask the City.
Mr. Shubin: Well, we've been denied the ability to ask certain City members by virtue of the
City's denial of the subpoena request to compel the attendance of certain City employees.
Mr. Maxwell: Mr. --
Chairman Winton: Yes, please.
Mr. Maxwell: -- Chairman, I've already responded to Mr. Shubin's comments regarding the
subpoena. I think that his cross-examination, again, should be based on the testimony here, not
what happened before. All of that merges into this presentation here, so staff's presentation, the
presentation of the applicants, the testimony, the evidence presented to you tonight is what he
should be addressing and seeking to cross-examine, not what happened in previous
conversations.
Chairman Winton: OK, thank you. Mr. Shubin.
228 July 24, 2003
Mr. Shubin: I don't --
Mr. Pastoriza: Well, maybe --
Mr. Shubin: -- know what to say. It's --
Mr. Pastoriza: -- we can, you know, move on the situation. Mr. Shubin, I would like to give you
a copy of the comments from staff, the formalized comments from staff that came out of the pre -
application design review comments for this project.
Mr. Shubin: I'm happy to accept them, but not in lieu of an answer to my question.
Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Winton: Well, I think the City Attorney's ruled that the question is not appropriate, so
Ms. Shubin: Well --
Chairman Winton: -- next, please.
Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shubin: -- let me just say for the record, to the extent that the City Attorney is even
attempting to suggest that any --
Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Shubin.
Mr. Shubin: -- inquiry regarding 1702.1, which is part of the Major Use Special Permit
standards, is somehow irrelevant and is not the proper -- not the proper subject of cross-
examination, we take great issue with that, and if we do not go forward, we do not want our
silence, in any way, to be construed with acquiescence.
Chairman Winton: Commissioner Sanchez.
Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Shubin.
Mr. Maxwell: Again, Mr. Chairman, I have not said that that section is irrelevant. What I have
said is that I think it's improper to question this individual or anyone else concerning
conversations they had with staff. What this cross-examination --
Mr. Shubin: Why is that irrelevant?
Mr. Maxwell: -- should be -- this conversation should be limited to is testimony today.
229 July 24, 2003
Mr. Shubin: You're --
Chairman Winton: Excuse me, Mr. Shubin.
Mr. Shubin: He's completely --
Chairman Winton: We're not -- excuse me.
Mr. Shubin: -- constipating --
Chairman Winton: We're -- excuse me.
Mr. Shubin: -- the Sunshine Law.
Chairman Winton: We're not going to have a debate. He's ruled, so --
Mr. Shubin: Is it the board's -- is the board acquiescing on his ruling?
Chairman Winton: He is our City Attorney; that is correct. Commissioner Sanchez, you're
recognized.
Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman -- thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Shubin, under these
procedures, you have the right to establish a record --
Mr. Shubin: Yes.
Commissioner Sanchez: -- and you have the right to cross-examine how you're doing.
Mr. Shubin: Yes.
Commissioner Sanchez: You also have the right to cross-examine anyone in the City pertaining
to Ms. Lourdes --
Mr. Maxwell: Anyone that --
Chairman Winton: Anyone who's only --
Mr. Maxwell: Anyone who testifies.
Chairman Winton: Yeah, let's be --
Commissioner Sanchez: -- who testifies --
Chairman Winton: -- careful.
230 July 24, 2003
Commissioner Sanchez: -- on the case, yeah, so no one has denied you any right. I mean, we
want to give you an opportunity, but you know, you've got to build your case. I mean, you've
got to put the question that you want answered on the record.
Chairman Winton: Well, he had --
Commissioner Sanchez: You're basically just building your case with future court.
Chairman Winton: So, anyhow --
Mr. Shubin: Well, rather than belaboring this, I will move into the record Mr. Maxwell's written
response denying our request to compel the attendance of certain City employees to this quasi-
judicial hearing, which, by the way, is authorized in the County, and we believe is required under
the Dade County Citizens' Bill of Rights, which is binding on the City of Miami. Well, Mr.
Brosch, because I'm being denied the opportunity to ask you the question that I would like, I
have no questions.
Chairman Winton: You have anyone else you want to cross-examine?
Mr. Shubin: No one else at this point, but I do want to move to strike -- and we'll get into it a
little later -- the traffic study that was recently supplied to us as being insufficient under the
standards set forth in the MUSP procedures, and if there's any question, Commissioner Sanchez
-- and I don't want to belabor this -- I will get you a copy of Mr. Maxwell's written response to
me denying our request.
Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Shubin -- Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Winton: Yes, sir.
Mr. Maxwell: I've made it clear that there's no question, but we said that we didn't think that
that was a proper request --
Chairman Winton: I understand, so --
Mr. Maxwell: -- and so --
Chairman Winton: -- you don't have to continue --
Mr. Maxwell: -- there's no -- I have no problem with him submitting that into the record, but
that was a request made, I think, at -- before the Zoning Board or Planning Board. It was a lower
board. It wasn't for this board right here. It was for a lower board, and as a response -- as a
result of our response -- my response, Mr. Shubin withdrew his request to subpoena those
individuals.
Mr. Shubin: Without waiving any rights.
231 July 24, 2003
Mr. Maxwell: He did indicate that it was without prejudice, but he withdrew that request at that
time, so I -- and I -- but I don't think, as it relates to the record of the zone -- whatever board that
was below, Planning or Zoning, is relevant, but not here.
Chairman Winton: Thank you.
Mr. Shubin: Well, let's make this clear. You're taking the position on the record that we would
be entitled to subpoena City employees to compel their attendance at this proceeding, as opposed
to --
Mr. Maxwell: My position --
Mr. Shubin: OK.
Mr. Maxwell: -- has not changed, Mr. Shubin.
Chairman Winton: OK. Mr. Shubin. I'm sorry, yes.
Mr. Shubin: Let me get into the meat of our presentation. Again --
Mr. Pastoriza: Mr. Chairman, just one --
Mr. Shubin: -- it's a little awkward --
Mr. Pastoriza: Through the Chair, one quick question. Mr. Shubin, you said that you wanted a
motion to strike the traffic study?
Chairman Winton: He didn't -- he said he --
Mr. Shubin: Yes, but we'll get into that during our --
Mr. Pastoriza: OK.
Mr. Shubin: -- traffic expert's --
Chairman Winton: Right.
Mr. Shubin: -- analysis as to why it's legally insufficient. Once again, John Shubin, on behalf of
Finger Biscayne, LLC, the Finger Companies, and Marvy Finger, the owners and developers of a
project known as Biscayne Village; $70 million investment right across the street, same
neighborhood. This is, in fact, a tale of two projects. You have a project that was approved
through a MUSP less than two years ago, which --
Chairman Winton: Mr. City Attorney.
Mr. Maxwell: Yes.
232 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: I'm hearing testimony again about another project, not this project. I mean,
that's what I think I'm hearing, so --
Mr. Maxwell: He's --
Mr. Shubin: It's a tale of --
Mr. Maxwell: --start out tale of two projects, I think --
Mr. Maxwell: Right.
Mr. Maxwell: -- he said, and the only one relevant is the tale of this one, the Metropolis.
Mr. Shubin: If that's Mr. Maxwell's position, that's fine, but I think that I have the right to
explain why this MUSP project is not consistent with the standards of previously approved
MUSP projects directly next door.
Mr. Maxwell: I would --
Chairman Winton: Mr. --
Mr. Maxwell: -- respectfully disagree.
Commissioners.
Mr. Shubin: Well --
Each application stands on its own merits,
Mr. Maxwell: When you approve a Major Use Special Permit, it can have conditions,
requirements in it that you may not place on the next one, based on the facts as they exist on that
application, so the fact that you may or may not have approved a previous application that may
have been in proximity to the one before you is really irrelevant, or you might have placed
conditions on that one that you may not place on this one; it's also irrelevant. Each application
stands on its own.
Mr. Shubin: Well, let me remind Mr. Maxwell of a recent case in the Third District Court of
Appeals called Velez versus City of Coral Gables, which the Third District said that
administrative bodies and quasi-judicial bodies, when considering administrative applications,
are under an obligation to treat similarly situated applications equally. That is our point. There
is also further law that says that when an administrative body attempts to deviate from pattern --
its past patterns and practice, it has to be justified by some sort of reasonable explanation. We're
here trying to determine that explanation. The only way to get at that is to compare it to a
recently approved project right across the street, which is particularly relevant since the MUSP
ordinance requires there be a consideration of its impact on neighboring properties.
Mr. Maxwell: To the extent that you solicit or bring forth testimony showing that it negatively
or positively impacts on the adjacent property, that testimony would be proper, but I think what
233 July 24, 2003
you're saying that the last court said, if I may paraphrase, they were saying that this
Commission, or any other quasi-judicial body, cannot act in an arbitrary fashion or capricious
fashion. You're right, it has to be based on the competent and substantial evidence for them.
That does not mean that they have to come to the same decision; just means that they cannot act
arbitrarily, so --
Mr. Shubin: Well, how do I get that evidence on the record if you claim it's irrelevant?
Mr. Maxwell: No. I think what you should do is just present evidence regarding how this
impacts on the Finger property, one way or the other. How this affects this and how do you --
how -- and why, as a result of that impact, you think that this Commission that this should vote
against this application.
Mr. Shubin: Well, we believe the Commission should vote against this application because it
represents an incredibly radical departure from the past patterns and practices of the City with
respect to approving similar applications, and there is nothing in the record, or nothing in the
reports before you that would provide any sort of rational basis for treating for this dramatic
expansion, 752 units; an FAR of approximately 7.2 -- in excess of 7.2 FAR that is being
approved on this site where, less than two years ago, an FAR of 2.6 was approved approximately
on the Finger project, where there is specific evidence that is set forth in the record of the
Planning Advisory Board from Mr. Jeff Bray of the Finger Company, that much of the request to
lower the height was done at the request --
Chairman Winton: Excuse me, Counsel.
Mr. Shubin: -- of City staff.
Chairman Winton: You're back to the Finger Company project. We're on this project, so I think
the City Attorney has spoken. You need to focus on this project, not on the Finger Company
project, and I can't tell you how to do your job; I'm just telling you what the City Attorney has
said.
Mr. Shubin: Well, I do my job everyday, and I can tell you that I rarely encounter the sort of
impediments that I'm encountering here tonight, which, to me, are very, very problematic in
terms of my client, the closest property owner, one of the closest property owners, the ability to
establish injury; to be able to establish how the specific application of the MUSP standards to
this project is inappropriate and done in an arbitrary and capricious manner. I'm frustrated. I
don't know how to get past these instructions, which, to me, are unprecedented.
Commissioner Sanchez: Staff, you quite can. Lourdes. I mean, we're going to be here forever.
Chairman Winton: Well, no, we're not, because we're --
Commissioner Sanchez: I'm just going --
Chairman Winton: -- wrapping up.
234 July 24, 2003
Commissioner Sanchez: -- to ask you a simple question. Does this application satisfy the law?
Ms. Slazyk: Yes.
Commissioner Sanchez: Thank you.
Chairman Winton: Mr. -- hold on.
Mr. Maxwell: That is, by the law.
Mr. Shubin: Well, now I have the --
Mr. Maxwell: Does this satisfy --
Ms. Slazyk: Well, the --
Mr. Maxwell: You say -- ask me --
Ms. Slazyk: -- does the Comprehensive --
Mr. Maxwell: -- does this satisfy all the regulations.
Ms. Slazyk: Yes. The Zoning --
Mr. Maxwell: Zoning and --
Ms. Slazyk It complies with Zoning. It complies with the Comp. Plan. I have a list for the
record, which I was going to do at the end before you vote, of the goals, objectives, and policies
that are all complied with in this, and the zoning section, so it has been reviewed for compliance,
with all of the applicable regulations, and it complies.
Commissioner Sanchez: Well, I think staff needs -- it's prudent for them --
Chairman Winton: OK.
Commissioner Sanchez: -- to put that on the record.
Mr. Shubin: Can I cross-examine Ms. Slazyk on those comments?
Chairman Winton: No. Can he?
Commissioner Sanchez: Yes, he can.
Unidentified Speaker: Yes, he can.
235 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. I'm sorry.
Mr. Shubin: Was that -- Commissioner Winton, was that you who said no?
Commissioner Sanchez: No, no, no, no, no, no.
Chairman Winton: You can. City Attorney said you can.
Mr. Shubin: Could you please describe for the record what you meant when you said that this
project is, I believe, legal or lawful, or consistent with law?
Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Shubin, that was corrected. She said that it complies with the regulations.
Mr. Shubin: OK. What did you mean when it said --
Mr. Maxwell: She doesn't -- she's not competent to say that it's lawful, that it complies with the
law; that's a legal question, but she did say --
Mr. Shubin: Well --
Mr. Maxwell: -- it complies with regulations.
Mr. Shubin: -- I'm glad you gave that instruction to the Commission at this point. When you
said that it complies with regulations, what did you mean?
Ms. Slazyk: The applicable regulations, which is the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive
Plan.
Mr. Shubin: What about the Downtown Master Plan?
Ms. Slazyk The Downtown Master Plan is not an applicable regulation.
Mr. Shubin: And have you ever reviewed similarly situated properties, based on the Downtown
Master Plan for purposes of determining the appropriateness of a MUSP approval or a zoning
approval?
Mr. Pastoriza: Excuse me. Again, he's going beyond her testimony. Her testimony was
applicable regulations.
Mr. Shubin: No. I'm --
Mr. Pastoriza: She said that the Downtown Master Plan was not applicable.
Ms. Slazyk It's not a regulation. It's --
236 July 24, 2003
Mr. Shubin: So, you're saying that it is not applied by you or anyone in your department in
evaluating rezonings, land use amendments, or any other form of --
Ms. Slazyk: I said it's --
Mr. Shubin: -- zoning relief?
Ms. Slazyk -- not a regulation. We utilize it for -- there are goals, objectives, and policies in
there that are looked at as a guiding tool for development in downtown. Those things are looked
at when we look at applications, but it is not a regulation. It does not determine heights, and
FAR, and regulations. It is a policy plan.
Mr. Shubin: And for purposes of reviewing this particular application, did you compare it to any
of the goals, policies, objectives set forth in the Downtown Master Plan?
Ms. Slazyk We reviewed the Comprehensive Plan here. I did not pull out specific goals,
objectives, and policies in the Downtown Master Plan, other than the promotion of development
within the downtown area.
Mr. Shubin: And are you prepared to say on the record that this application satisfies the intensity
standard set forth or not set forth in the City's neighborhood plan?
Ms. Slazyk I did not review for -- oh, for the City's Comprehensive Plan?
Mr. Shubin: The Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Slazyk Oh, yes, it complies with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Shubin: And what is the intensity standard for this category?
Ms. Slazyk The Comprehensive Plan sets the 500 unit per acre density standard. The intensity
standards are -- the Comprehensive Plan delegates that to the Zoning ordinance. It references the
land development regulations for intensity standards for use of special districts within the City,
and that is what sets the intensity standards.
Mr. Shubin: Could you --
Chairman Winton: Excuse me. Mr. City Attorney, Ms. Slazyk was asked one question by
Commissioner Sanchez.
Ms. Slazyk: I know.
Chairman Winton: Now --
Mr. Maxwell: She said it --
237 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: -- doesn't the cross-examination have to related directly to the one question
or is it allowed to go wherever it wants from this point on?
Mr. Maxwell: Not relied to -- no, sir, it's not allowed to go forever.
Chairman Winton: So, you're our legal counsel. I'm not a lawyer. He's a lawyer. I'm not a
lawyer. You're a lawyer. We need some guidance here from our City Attorney to move these
proceedings --
Mr. Maxwell: I think, though --
Chairman Winton: -- forward, please --
Mr. Maxwell: --that --
Chairman Winton: -- at every turn, please --
Mr. Maxwell: The questions I've heard --
Chairman Winton: -- and I don't -- I'm not trying to deny counsel --
Mr. Maxwell: Yeah. The questions --
Chairman Winton: -- anything --
Mr. Maxwell: -- I've heard --
Chairman Winton: -- but --
Mr. Maxwell: -- I think that the questions he's asked her so far, he could ask, and I'm listening
to that.
Chairman Winton: Thank you.
Mr. Shubin: OK, and the last one I asked was how would you go about determining consistency
between this application and the intensity standards set forth in the Miami Comprehensive Plan,
the neighborhood plan?
Ms. Slazyk: The Miami Comprehensive Plan references the land development regulations, so I
would go about interpreting the intensity as going to the applicable zoning designation, which, in
this case, is SD -6, and the project complies.
Mr. Shubin: Is -- let's make this really simple. Are there intensity standards for this land use
category in the City's --
Mr. Maxwell: I think he's --
238 July 24, 2003
Mr. Shubin: -- neighborhood plan?
Mr. Maxwell: -- I think she's answered the question --
Mr. Shubin: Yes or no?
Mr. Maxwell: -- Mr. Chairman. She --
Chairman Winton: Hold on.
Mr. Maxwell: -- already answered -- she's answered your question.
Ms. Slazyk: The intensity standards are in the land development regulations, and those are
referenced in the Comp. Plan.
Mr. Shubin: Were there ever intensity standards --
Chairman Winton: Mr. City Attorney.
Mr. Maxwell: She's answered the question.
Mr. Shubin: Were there ever any intensity standards, to the best of your knowledge, set forth in
any previous incarnation --
Mr. Maxwell: I -- now --
Mr. Shubin: of a neighborhood plan?
Mr. Maxwell: -- I think -- Mr. Shubin, I think that you're going beyond the scope of cross-
examination here.
Mr. Shubin: Mr. Maxwell, you and I have known each other a long time, and you know that I'm
not disappointed by these objections that you make that restrict my inquiry; that only benefits my
client.
Mr. Maxwell: I've advised the Commission. I don't believe that question is appropriate. I think
it goes beyond the scope. If Mr. Shubin has another question --
Mr. Shubin: Do you believe that the proposed Twin Towers of 48 stories and 40 stories are
somehow in context with the immediately adjacent property to the north of this site?
Mr. Maxwell: Again, I don't think -- I think, again, he's beyond. The question that brought Ms.
Slazyk --
Chairman Winton: Slazyk.
239 July 24, 2003
Mr. Maxwell: -- to the podium was whether or not this application satisfied the regulations in
the Code.
Mr. Shubin: I'm trying --
Mr. Maxwell: She answered that question. Now, what he's doing, he's going totally -- he's
opening all that back up, and actually making a new presentation. I think she's already answered
the question, and the question that he now poses goes beyond that scope.
Mr. Shubin: Well, I'm trying to stay calm, because under the Dade County Citizens Bill of
Rights, under the law regarding quasi-judicial hearings, we have the right to make our record
through reasonable cross-examination. Commissioner Sanchez said, what do we have to hide?
What's wrong with somebody making inquiry of City employees who happen to be here tonight?
You and I may disagree as to whether you have to bring somebody here tonight because we want
them, but once they're here and once they testify, if it's relevant to this application, I think we
have the right to cross-examine them, and I think the record is clear that we have not abused that
privilege.
Mr. Maxwell: That's Mr. Shubin's position, and I've given my position.
Chairman Winton: Right.
Mr. Shubin: Because we have court reporter here, could you please repeat what Mr. Pastoriza
just whispered in your ear?
Mr. Pastoriza: I said to him that you could answer the question --
Chairman Winton: Wait, wait, wait. Hold on.
Commissioner Regalado: Wait, wait.
Chairman Winton: Hold on. Hold on.
Commissioner Regalado: Why don't you --
Chairman Winton: Yes.
Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman, why don't they take these two things and put it here?
Because I mean, it's blocking the view of them and us, and --
Chairman Winton: So, counsel asked another question.
Mr. Pastoriza: Yeah.
Chairman Winton: Is she required to answer that question?
240 July 24, 2003
Mr. Pastoriza: No, no. She -- he asked what I said -- what I whispered in her ears, and what I
whispered in her ear was that she could go ahead, if she wanted to, and answer the context
question in the full context of what context mean, not just on an isolated project.
Mr. Shubin: You can understand --
Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Shubin --
Mr. Shubin: -- that --
Chairman Winton: Mr. -- hold on.
Mr. Shubin: -- instruction --
Mr. Maxwell: -- and I think the reason --
Mr. Shubin: -- answer the question.
Mr. Maxwell: -- Mr. Shubin asked that question is because when Ms. Slazyk or anyone else is
being cross-examined, they should --
Chairman Winton: Would you please --
Mr. Maxwell: -- respond --
Chairman Winton: -- put that back down again?
Mr. Maxwell: -- themselves.
Chairman Winton: Thank you. OK. I'm sorry. Joel.
Ms. Slazyk: Do I answer?
Mr. Maxwell: Is there a question, Mr. Shubin?
Mr. Shubin: Well, I thought there was one. Did you have the opportunity --
Ms. Slazyk All right.
Mr. Shubin: -- to evaluate this project with respect to the context of this project as to the
surrounding properties?
Ms. Slazyk When we do design review of any Major Use Special Permit, we look at the context
of the neighborhood. We ask -- in the internal design review process of a Major Use Special
Permit, we ask for a context study, and here we looked at this project in context with everything
241 July 24, 2003
around it. There was an 1800 Club approved next door; there are two other high-rises approved
down the street, and we did look at it in the context with Finger. Looking at the context of the
properties that front Pace Park, this project was deemed contextual. The other buildings that
were approved within the semicircular properties that front Pace Park are within context of this
building.
Mr. Shubin: So, it's your testimony that this --
Ms. Slazyk: It is contextual.
Mr. Shubin: -- this project is contextual or in context with the Finger project to the north?
Ms. Slazyk That is one of the 1305 criteria, and yes, it was found to be in compliance.
Mr. Shubin: And were you present before the Planning Advisory Board hearing on this matter,
both hearings?
Chairman Winton: For which project?
Mr. Shubin: For this project.
Mr. Pastoriza: That goes beyond --
Mr. Maxwell: I don't -- yeah.
Mr. Pastoriza: -- his -- her testimony. We would object to that.
Mr. Shubin: If you want to preclude it, fine. Let's just put it on the record and move on.
Mr. Maxwell: Thank you.
Mr. Shubin: I'm not going to waive my rights, but I certainly don't want to waste everybody's
time if I feel like I'm --
Mr. Maxwell: That objection is noted.
Mr. Shubin: -- going uphill.
Mr. Maxwell: That objection is noted.
Mr. Shubin: And what is the basis for the objection, Mr. Maxwell?
Mr. Maxwell: You're asking about a previous board meeting; that's a matter of record. If you'd
like to incorporate that, which it already is -- any testimony made there, it's already in the record,
Mr. Shubin.
242 July 24, 2003
Mr. Shubin: OK, that's fine. We'll do it, but I'm certainly not, in any way, agreeing with your
legal determination. We are prepared to offer testimony from Mr. Jack Luft and Mr. Alan Tinter,
a traffic engineer, to explain why we are opposing this project, number one, and why this project
is inconsistent with every conceivable explanation of the applicable standards governing the
Major Use Special Permit process, and I want to put on the record -- and I don't want to belabor
this -- that one of the reasons why it was important for us to solicit testimony regarding the pre -
application conference, and regarding the conversations with staff, is because it is a requirement
of the Code, with respect to Major Use Special Permits, and it is during that time in which staff
expresses a lot of its feelings regarding context analysis, all of the relevant standards, and we
feel, obviously, that we've been improperly precluded in our ability to make that inquiry. It's
important because our client has a $70 million investment. They're out of the ground. This
project is so massive that you will hear from our traffic engineer that not only will it overload
what is a very, very delicate, very delicate roadway network in this area, but obviously there is
no way for our client, who's at a 2.6 FAR, to realign their ingress, their egress, their parking
garages, and this project, because of its massive scale, will have a seriously detrimental impact
on our client's project, and just so that there's no suggestion that there's anything
anticompetitive about this, the record is incredibly clear that the Finger project is an apartment
project and the Metropolis project is a condominium project. They are not condominiums versus
condominiums. Let that be very, very clear, and let me make two other points before we turn to
Mr. Tinter and Mr. Luft. This record is replete with references by staff in the Planning Advisory
Board hearings, that this is a "as of right" project. Well, I don't have to spend a lot of time
explaining to you that if this were an as of right project, this applicant would be taking his plans
to the Building Department, getting his building permit, and not subjection himself and his
professionals to the sort of rigorous cross-examination that occurs as part of the Major Use
Special Permit. The staff often wants you to read that code provision out of existence, but if you
are over 200 units in the City of Miami, you have to apply for a MUSP. There are standards in
those MUSPs. We've taken the position, we reiterate the position that those standards are vague,
those standards are ambiguous, those standards are legally deficient, and they -- what they do is
they perpetuate an atmosphere in this City where rather than having a rising tide lifting all boats
economically, you have investors, like the Finger Companies, feeling as if they were treated
radically different than their next door neighbor for no reason whatsoever, and then you can only
imagine their frustration when, during a quasi-judicial hearing, they feel as if they're being
precluded in their ability to determine from City employees what the reason is for a 2.6 FAR
versus a 7.2 FAR. That is the issue. Secondly -- and again, we want to make it very clear that
we believe -- Finger Companies believes that the MUSP procedures are unconstitutional as
they're being applied to this project based on the specific comparison with their recent
application across the street, which we believe is an adequate legal benchmark for similarly
situated properties, and therefore, that's why we are frustrated with our inability, notwithstanding
the late hour, to get legitimate responses on what we believe are legitimate questions. Let me
introduce Mr. Alan Tinter. I will place his resume into the record. Mr. Tinter will direct his
comments to the traffic study prepared by Mr. Ahlstedt on behalf of this project, the
supplemental study that we just saw tonight for the first time for Mr. Plummer, who, by the way,
on the record, we object to that submission because he was Mr. Finger's traffic engineer, and we
believe there's a conflict of interest with respect to him giving any testimony that's adverse to us,
and thirdly, we're taking the position that this project cannot go forward based on the insufficient
traffic data that has been supplied that needs to be supplemented. From the very beginning, on
243 July 24, 2003
the record, when we did not oppose this project, we stated, unequivocally, that if we felt that
there was a solution to the traffic problem that was going to be generated by this project, that we
would consider or make our decision based on that analysis. We hired Mr. Tinter. He's one of
the finest traffic engineers, and I think what he would testify to is, the only mitigation technique
that even remotely has the possibility of addressing the negative impact on the undeveloped
properties is less density on that site, but staff tells that it's as of right. They tell you that because
the density is permitted, you have to approve it. Well, that's not the case. The MUSP ordinance
gives you discretion; you have to apply that discretion reasonably so that you are, as an
administrative body, treating similarly situated properties equally. Let me turn it over to Mr.
Tinter and then Mr. Luft.
Alan Tinter: Good evening. My name is Alan Tinter. I'm president and owner of Tinter
Associates for Transportation Engineers, located at 3303 West Commercial Boulevard in Fort
Lauderdale. I, myself, have been practicing traffic engineering now for over 32 years. I started
my business about 18 years ago, and it's been exclusively dealing with traffic situations in
Southeast Florida. I'm a registered professional engineer in the state of Florida, and recently
received the Institute of Transportation Engineers designation as a professional traffic operations
engineer. The rest of the details of my background are included in the resume, which Mr. Shubin
has submitted for the record. We've had the opportunity to review the traffic report that was
prepared by Mr. Ahlstedt for the Metropolis property, and I'd like to say that the most notable
thing about the study is the items that it doesn't cover, and in fact, for the brief review I've had
of Mr. Plummer's report, which was just given to me as Mr. Shubin was speaking, it appears that
there still are shortcomings in both traffic analysis. Your Zoning Ordinance 11000, section
1702.2.3 indicates that a traffic analysis shall be submitted for an area within approximately one
quarter mile of a site or an area including the major intersections to be impacted by the site,
whichever is larger. This site include -- will generate about 3900 vehicles a day, and even by the
Ahlstedt report, that represents about 13 percent of the peak hour traffic on Biscayne Boulevard.
In other words, one out of every eight vehicles on Biscayne Boulevard is equivalent to the traffic
that's going to be generated by this development. The study itself indicates that Biscayne
Boulevard, south of this area, is a congested area, yet the study was limited -- the Ahlstedt report
was limited to about 500 feet from the property; it included an analysis only of 19th Street at
Biscayne Boulevard, and an analysis just of Biscayne Boulevard in the immediate vicinity of
19th Street. The Plummer report went a little bit further. Instead of two intersections at
Biscayne Boulevard, one intersection on Northeast 2nd Avenue, all of that within about 900 feet
of the site, while your ordinance says a quarter of a mile is a minimum and you need to look at
intersections that are impacted by the overall development. Now, the Ahlstedt report, there is a
broad -brush type of planning analysis for the overall corridor on Biscayne Boulevard, Miami
Avenue, and Northeast 2nd Avenue. That's a corridor analysis generally used for planning
purposes, not the operational -type analysis that needs to be done for the various intersections that
are impacted by this development. The Ahlstedt report indicates within a quarter of a mile of
this property, there are six signalized intersections that are impacted by this site traffic. One
could argue that that study area could be expanded to go down all the way to the Venetian
Causeway, and north up to I-195. Those are the major intersections that will be impacted by this
development, but nonetheless, the Ahlstedt was limited to a single intersection, while the
Plummer report looked at two intersections on Biscayne Boulevard. Furthermore, improvements
were recommended to Biscayne Boulevard at Northeast 19th Street. They had been suggested in
244 July 24, 2003
the executive summary of the Ahlstedt report, and there are other improvements at the same
intersection, including the Plummer report that are different than the Ahlstedt report, but there `s
no analysis of what those improvements will be, and how much improvement we would expect
in the traffic situation in the area. The study -- the Ahlstedt report, itself, says that signal timing
modifications alone are not sufficient to mitigate the impact; yet, no recommendations are made
relative to what roadway improvements might also be included. There is no analysis included in
the Ahlstedt report of traffic conditions on Northeast 2nd Avenue. On Bayshore Drive, the
roadway that's immediately to the east of this property around Biscayne Boulevard south of 19th
Street, all of them should have been included. The Plummer report apparently went a little bit
farther; included one intersection on Northeast 2nd Avenue, and included one additional
intersection at Biscayne Boulevard, yet no analysis was done on Bayshore Drive. This was
particularly important as North Bayshore Drive will be opened up adjacent to the Biscayne
Village as a result of the -- my client's construction that's ongoing right now. The Plummer
report detail indicates that some reorientation of traffic was included, but no analysis was done
on Bayshore Drive itself. In fact, the Ahlstedt report talks about the fact that there's a significant
shortcutting to avoid the congestion of Biscayne Boulevard coming up Bayshore Drive to avoid
some of the intersections in front of the Omni and in front of the construction out of the
Performing Arts Center, yet no provisions and no suggestions made on how to deal with that
situation, which would just be exacerbated not only by the opening of the Performing Arts
Center, but by the construction of this project and the opening of Bayshore Drive north of
Northeast 4th Avenue. The traffic study -- the initial traffic study did no analysis of the
driveways themselves, where they intersected the roadway system, that is, the driveways from
the Metropolis project to Bayshore Drive and the Metropolis project that (UNINTELLIGIBLE)
onto Northeast 4th Avenue by the valet parking area; although, the Plummer report seems to
have done some of that. The intersection of Northeast 4th Avenue and Bayshore Drive itself,
however, was ignored in both of the studies. No analysis has been done on the operating
conditions there, and we're very concerned about that as it will impact the Biscayne Village
traffic. There was no onsite circulation analysis that was performed or at least included in the
analysis that we were provided. This is particularly important in the area off of Bayshore Drive
where the access to the parking garage is located. There's a driveway located off of the main
access point, which is very close to Bayshore Drive itself, and will impact the operations of the
driveways and may back up traffic onto Bayshore Drive itself. Lastly, one of the policies of your
Comprehensive Plan deals with coastal high hazard areas and the requirements evacuation plans,
and none of that is included in either of the reports that have been submitted. We don't believe
that the study sufficiently addresses traffic measures to ensure safe and adequate access to
Biscayne Village. We are not sure the proper access will be maintained to Metropolis, and we
don't believe that this completely addresses the requirements of your City ordinance. One of the
ways to mitigate certainly would be to reduce the density and reduce the traffic volume. The
traffic volume we're talking about, 3900 vehicles a day, exceeds the current traffic volume on
Bayshore Drive and 19th Street itself. Be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Pastoriza: May I -- Mr. Chairman, I just have -- I don't have a ton of questions, like Mr.
Shubin; I just got two or three questions.
Mr. Maxwell: I would -- Mr. Chairman --
245 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: Yes, please.
Mr. Maxwell: -- I think we should be consistent. Mr. Shubin, you have -- you have anyone else
testifying?
Mr. Pastoriza: No.
Chairman Winton: Yes, he does.
Mr. Pastoriza: Oh, I'm sorry.
Mr. Shubin: Mr. Luft, but I don't object to contemporaneous cross-examination. I think it's
more helpful to the Board.
Mr. Pastoriza: Go ahead, (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Mr. Maxwell: It's the Chairman's call.
Chairman Winton: Yeah, I think -- let's just maintain the process we've had, and he can hit both
of them at the same time.
Mr. Shubin: Then we'll call Mr. Luft.
Chairman Winton: Thank you. What are we looking for? Oh, yeah.
Jack Luft: My name is Jack Luft. My address is 1717 Windward Way, Sanibel Island, Florida.
I'm a professional planner with 35, 36, 37 years something like -- experience in the business, 28
years in the public sector, 7 years in the private sector, 28 years with the City of Miami. I served
in the capacity of Principal Planner, Planner Director. I prepared as a principal in charge, the
Downtown Master Plan, and I've written a number of the zoning districts that would form the
basis for the ongoing development of this area. The process that we follow here, requires that
the MUSP first go to the Planning Advisory Board, which considers this and then recommends to
you -- this body, recommendation that you must seriously weigh and consider. The transcript of
that Planning Advisory Board meeting is on the record. I reviewed extensively that transcript
and throughout the presentation to that board, Mr. Olmedillo repeatedly referred to the
Downtown Master Plan adopted in 1989 in principle and recited numerous goals, objectives, and
policies directly from the Downtown Plan, which he assured the Planning Board, the City that
were the foundation for the Metropolis Project, and which was entirely consistent with that plan.
One aspect of the Downtown Plan that he failed to mention -- this is the map of development
intensities. One of the fundamental principles in the Downtown Plan which lives today, and in
fact is recalled and recited by the department in its meetings, pre -development meetings, is the
principle of a step-down, a transition, was recognized in the plan at the Edgewater area, was a
sensitive, historic, low-density neighborhood that needed protection from the ensuing or the
oncoming high-density development that was moving north of the Omni at that time. This is the
13 Street Omni, 15 Street area and this is the Grand and the Omni project between 17th and 18th
Street was the first step-down, the first transition zone; in which the 6 to 10 FAR was to be
246 July 24, 2003
reduced to 3 to 6. A third area identified as the Omni/Edgewater edge, was a 1 to 3 FAR, and
that was from 18th Street North to 20th Terrace, and that formed the basis for the planning
policies that guided development review for the City and its department as it considered the
impact of development in this area. Of special note is the fact that the Metropolis Project is in
fact more than double the planned maximum FAR 3.0 that formed the foundation of this step-
down principle, making it in fact grossly out of scale and in direct conflict with the adopted
density range of the Downtown Master Plan. Why is this important? This transition in scale and
intensity was a deliberate and carefully balanced measure to ensure the compatibility of the
emerging high-density high-rise Omni development with the low -scale Edgewater neighborhood.
Mr. Olmedillo's assertion that the Metropolis Project was consistent with the Downtown Plan is
dramatically undermined by this radical departure in intensity. It's important to recognize as
well, that the plan transition is accomplished in three steps, and that each successive step of
development is worthy in and of itself to be assured of protection in these scale relationships.
The Metropolis is a fault line, a sheer wall of massive proportions that it destroys this step-down
transition and adversely impacts, not only the Edgewater neighborhood to the north, but the
adjacent Brickell Village project to the north, which is the first step in that transition. As
evidence of the City's recognition of the importance of adhering to this transition principle, it
established the deed restriction for the Northeast 20th Street City -owned right-of-way, that no
development incorporating this roadway could exceed eight stories in height. The Biscayne
Village project establishes a five -story facade, along 20th Terrace, and given the low scale, two -
to -three-story prevailing height of the Edgewater area, this height is an appropriate scale
(UNINTELLIGIBLE) change for that immediate north edge. This is 20th Terrace, the north
edge of that final transition step zone. This is 4th Avenue or effectively, 19th Street and mid -
block to the south of the Metropolis project is 18th. This is directly from the MUSP on the
Biscayne Village project; this is their development. they sit approximately 120 feet, about a
single-family lot depth, from the edge of the Metropolis project to the north, so the initial
transition was one from two stories, two to three stories which is prevailing in the Edgewater
area to a five -story facade on the Biscayne Village. This fits very nicely with Camillo Sitte, I'm
sure a book that Ms. Gelabert is very familiar with, in his masterpiece on the birth of modern
City planning and with Kevin Lynch, in "The Image of the City," who both established that a 2
to 1 scale or a transition scale of about 45 degrees is an appropriate protection measure, given the
addition of the street width. This establishes a view angle. As shown in this cross-section, the
Biscayne Village project establishes such a transition in scale, because the north 20th Street
facade reaches the entire length of 20th Terrace, all the way from Bayshore Drive to Biscayne
Boulevard, it presents a consistent five -story edge, a cornice line. Because of that, it was
possible to consider varying the height on the south side of the project directly across from
Metropolis, this is on 19th Street. Initially the project at Biscayne Village proposed a 22 -story
development. In the pre -development meetings with the staff, they were told that a 22 -story was
unacceptable. In fact, a 19 -story development was resubmitted and considered and again
rejected. Because of the transition in scale that the Downtown --
Ms. Dougherty: Mr. Chairman --
Mr. Luft: -- Plan projected --
Ms. Dougherty: -- I have to again object to this testimony because it's again, getting into the --
247 July 24, 2003
Mr. Luft: No, sir, this is directly involved with contextual relationships and impacts and the step
transition that was established in the Downtown Plan as a policy that Mr. Olmedillo brought up
and cited before the Planning Advisory Board.
Chairman Winton: Hold on.
Mr. Luft: This was taken off and the building was --
Chairman Winton: Excuse me.
Mr. Luft: -- reduced to 15 stories.
Chairman Winton: Hold on.
Mr. Luft: Now --
Chairman Winton: Mr. City Attorney --
Mr. Maxwell: Really, it's a technical question, not a legal one there, Mr. Chairman. He's
testifying about steps and so forth or something. I know nothing about.
Mr. Luft: I'm describing City policies --
Mr. Maxwell: I can't --
Mr. Luft: -- that were adopted in principle --
Chairman Winton: Excuse me.
Mr. Luft: -- that recognize relationships --
Chairman Winton: -- I think -- excuse me --
Mr. Luft: --of lots.
Chairman Winton: I'm asking the City Attorney for his opinion. Do you mind if I --
Mr. Luft: Excuse me.
Chairman Winton: Thank you.
Mr. Maxwell: To the extent that he's saying that there's an existing project that he's comparing
a project to show that one is not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan -- the proposed
one is not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, I think his testimony may be relevant,
248 July 24, 2003
the fact that he referenced, specifically referenced that the existing plan of (UNINTELLIGIBLE)
Mr. Luft: I did not say comprehensive plan, I said the Downtown --
Ms. Dougherty: What he's testifying to is, he's testifying as to what the City staff told Finger
when they came in with their project.
Mr. Maxwell: That's not relevant.
Chairman Winton: Right. That's for sure.
Mr. Luft: Well --
Mr. Shubin: We will submit as part of a proffer --
Chairman Winton: Go to the mike for me.
Mr. Shubin: Sure. John Shubin. We will submit as part of a proffer because the City's made its
position on this very clear, a 19 -story project that was proposed on the Biscayne Village site, by
the Cohen Freedman Encinosa Architects, dated February 6, 2001, we'll just proffer it, and if
you want to ask City staff whether or not they found that acceptable and why they didn't find it
acceptable, that's your prerogative.
Mr. Maxwell: He's talking about -- is that -- that proposal relates to which project, the
documents you're talking about?
Mr. Luft: This is the Finger project, the building immediately across the street from the --
Mr. Maxwell: I don't think would occurred in the review process for the Finger project is
relevant to these proceedings.
Chairman Winton: So he's giving it to --
Mr. Maxwell: That's my recommendation.
Chairman Winton: Well, he's giving them to the City Clerk. I mean, does it --
Mr. Maxwell: I don't think it's relevant.
Chairman Winton: OK.
Mr. Luft: I was just establishing, Mr. Maxwell, that there is a City document adopted that
addresses all of these blocks, not separately, but in conjunction with each in a planned transition.
They are all part of a continuum. They are related.
249 July 24, 2003
Mr. Maxwell: I heard that, and --
Mr. Luft: And the City said they were related.
Mr. Maxwell: I heard that and I think I --
Mr. Luft: OK.
Mr. Maxwell: -- said I thought that was relevant.
Mr. Luft: OK. That's what I'm saying. I'm talking -- I'm telling you how the City's plan is
materializing now in accordance with those principles, and that material evolution involves the
block to the north as well blocks to the south. Now, it becomes immediately apparent from this
cross-section analysis that the proposed Metropolis project violates the scale transition standards
and the view angles, that the City has established for the adjoining Biscayne Village project in
conjunction with the principles of the Downtown Master Plan, and in so doing, imposes an
adverse, and incompatible impact on the Biscayne Village project and the Edgewater area of
special historic concern. This is my opinion. This is a logical and predictable result of the
massive intensity of a project with an FAR of 7.2 on only 1.5 acres. The Biscayne Village
project, the majority of which lays in the same SD -6 zone, you'll notice the red line, under the
buildings, is the SD -6 zone -- stands just over an FAR of 2.5; Edgewater as an area to the north,
had a 1.72 FAR. The 535 -foot tower of the Metropolis will in fact cast shadows that will reach
not only Biscayne Village, but deep into the Edgewater neighborhood. The MUSP standards of
Section 1703 of the Code, requires the Commission to consider, as part number 6, whether
development will adversely affect living conditions in the neighborhood, and certainly, we and
the Edgewater area, are part of the neighborhood. Moreover, Section 1305.8, of the special
permit section, requires mitigation of adverse impacts through alteration of the proposed design
of buildings, such that substantial depreciation of the value of nearby property is avoided. In my
best professional judgment, the height of the proposed Metropolis project should be modified to
fit the established and implemented pattern of scale transition, as proposed in the Downtown
Plan and as expressed through the department to the Biscayne Village project, that establishes a
view angle. That view angle intersects the tower of Metropolis at approximately the 25th floor.
Something in the range of 30, maybe even 35 floors might be acceptable, if we're following
consistency -- consistently the principles and the applications that have been given other projects
and adjoining property. The difficulty, however, is that this Commission faces lies in
interpreting and translating the vague standards of both 1703 and the nebulous engineering
guidelines of 1305.8, which simply says you may adjust the building mass. Much greater
specificities in fact needed in the code to guide the decisions of City agencies and decision
making bodies to reach an objective conclusion as to what comprises, "compatible and
harmonious relationships." The Downtown Master Plan provides objective definition to the
issue of intensity and transition as a means of achieving compatibility. Unfortunately, as Mr.
Olmedillo pointed out, the Downtown Master Plan was never formally incorporated into the
Citywide Comprehensive Plan and so carries no legal weight that Chapter 163 of the Florida
Statute confers upon comprehensive plans, and herein is the greatest area of concern. That I
have as a professional planner. One would expect the comprehensive plan, future land use
element to provide definitive measures for intensity that would set objective benchmarks for
250 July 24, 2003
shaping the physical form of the City. The projects I have discussed today are designated,
restricted commercial on the future land use map, but the comprehensive plan description of this
category carries no intensity standards. Chapter 163-3177, paragraph 6A, and I'll read it one
more time for you, says -- and this is about as clear as you get in black and white. Each future
land use category must be defined in terms of uses included and must include standards to be
followed in the control and distribution of population densities and building instruction
intensities." It's important to note that the Chapter 163 statute states very clearly that land
development regulations flow from and implement the master plan. You must have standards in
the comp plan to guide the LDRs (Land Development Regulations), not the other way around,
and you cannot delegate to the land development regulations those standards which Chapter 163
says must be in the future land use element and in the definition of those categories. It fails on
that ground and for that reason the project, as proposed, fails to meet objective standards that
implement the Downtown plan or can possibly be objectively applied to the comprehensive plan.
The project must either be substantially altered or as proposed rejected, in my opinion. Thank
you very much.
Mr. Shubin: One minute closing.
Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Shubin, do you want to wait `til after cross-examination before you close?
Mr. Shubin: (INAUDIBLE).
Mr. Pastoriza: Thank you, John. I'll take the traffic, Mr. Tinter, please.
Mr. Tinter: Sure.
Mr. Pastoriza: I'll be brief, believe me, I'll be very brief. Mr. Tinter, how many traffic reports
or studies have you done in the downtown -Miami area?
Mr. Tinter: Probably half a dozen.
Mr. Pastoriza: And who have you done those reports for?
Mr. Shubin: I object to the relevance of this, for the same reason --
Mr. Pastoriza: Well, he's coming here and critiquing a traffic report for a downtown area, I just
want to make sure that he has the background and the knowledge that -- to analyze traffic studies
within the downtown area.
Mr. Shubin: If you want to do a voir dire of his qualifications, that's appropriate.
Chairman Winton: I can't hear. Come to the microphone, please. I didn't hear you.
Commissioner Sanchez: He's got the right to cross-examine.
251 July 24, 2003
Mr. Shubin: Sure, and he wants to do -- if what he wants to do is a voir dire of his qualifications
Chairman Winton: Is a what?
Mr. Shubin: -- I'm certainly --
Commissioner Sanchez: Voir dire.
Mr. Shubin: -- a voir dire, means an examination of his qualifications to be an expert.
Chairman Winton: What's that word?
Commissioner Sanchez: Whether to determine --
Mr. Shubin: V -o -i -r d -i -r -e.
Mr. Pastoriza: Whether to determine if he's an expert witness.
Chairman Winton: Voir dire. I learned a new word tonight.
Mr. Shubin: Right, but to the extent that he asked questions regarding those studies.
Mr. Pastoriza: Well --
Mr. Shubin: Subject to the same relevance objection.
Mr. Pastoriza: Right. Who are they done for and when were they done?
Mr. Tinter: I --
Chairman Winton: I can't -- well -- Can't you -- y'all can't read his resume someway or
another? I mean --
Mr. Pastoriza: Well, I just want to know, you know because in his resume he doesn't
specifically, maybe point out how many of these studies he's done. He's a Broward County --
his office is in Broward, I just want to make sure that he has experience in conducting traffic
analysis in this type of situation.
Chairman Winton: But I want to understand why that's really relevant to what we need to hear.
You need to go, it seems to me --
Mr. Pastoriza: Because he's been qualified as an expert, and to counteract the traffic engineers
that your City has hired and that we have hired.
Chairman Winton: Joel.
252 July 24, 2003
Mr. Maxwell: I would agree that he's submitted his vitae, his curriculum vitae into the record.
If there's some questions about whether or not he's really an expert, then counsel has the right to
question that, but I don't think that lacking that, you should pursue that line of questioning.
Mr. Pastoriza: No, I would just, for everybody's knowledge here, you know, know how many of
these projects you've done, and where you've done them, if you don't want to answer then --
Mr. Maxwell: If he --
Mr. Pastoriza: -- don't answer it.
Mr. Maxwell: If he indicates that he's an expert and you're not questioning the fact that he's an
expert --
Mr. Pastoriza: I just want to know whether he has done traffic studies within the downtown
Miami area, and when has he done them. I mean, it's pretty straight forward.
Chairman Winton: I don't know about Joel, but I will tell you that I don't understand the
relevancy of that at all, I don't know why --
Mr. Pastoriza: OK. I'll move on.
Chairman Winton: -- somebody has to have done a traffic study in a --
Mr. Pastoriza: I'll move on.
Chairman Winton: -- particular area to be an expert in traffic.
Mr. Pastoriza: I'll move on.
Chairman Winton: Thank you.
Mr. Maxwell: I think that he's saying -- I think it's appropriate. This is a study. He's submitted
a study on traffic in the downtown area relative to this. I think it's a legitimate question.
Chairman Winton: But if he's an expert in traffic --
Mr. Maxwell: But he --
Chairman Winton: -- why do you have done a traffic study in a particular area --
Mr. Maxwell: It's not that he has to have done it --
Chairman Winton: -- before to be that expert.
253 July 24, 2003
Mr. Maxwell: -- he's simply asking has he done any.
Mr. Pastoriza: Has he done any.
Mr. Maxwell: Has he done any (UNINTELLIGIBLE); it's a legitimate question.
Chairman Winton: All right. City Attorney, says it's legitimate.
Mr. Pastoriza: Well, you've done any or not?
Mr. Tinter: Mr. Pastoriza, we've done a number of studies --
Mr. Pastoriza: No, you yourself not, we've done, you, you're the expert.
Mr. Tinter: There was a study, only one that I can recall that was done --
Mr. Pastoriza: Oh --
Mr. Tinter: -- on the site of what's now the American Airlines Arena.
Mr. Pastoriza: OK.
Mr. Tinter: We are currently working in Dade County for Greenberg Traurig.
Mr. Pastoriza: Thank you. How long ago was that traffic study for the American Airlines
Arena?
Mr. Tinter: As I said, it was done before the construction of the American Airlines Arena.
Mr. Pastoriza: OK.
Mr. Tinter: So it was a number of years ago.
Mr. Pastoriza: Mr. Tinter, did you do an independent traffic counts for this project?
Mr. Tinter: No, sir.
Mr. Pastoriza: You did not.
Mr. Tinter: No, sir, I relied on your expert.
Mr. Pastoriza: Would you say then that your testimony is strictly based on your critique of the
two traffic reports that we have provided?
254 July 24, 2003
Mr. Tinter: The majority of my analysis was done on the initial study. I didn't have a significant
amount of time to review the David Plummer study, but yes, it was done based on the review of
those --
Mr. Pastoriza: When were you hired?
Mr. Tinter: I believe it was the early part of June.
Mr. Pastoriza: Did you know that the City of Miami had a copy of Mr. Plummer's report on July
15?
Mr. Tinter: I just got a copy of it today.
Mr. Pastoriza: OK, but it was available since July 15.
Mr. Tinter: It wasn't made available to me.
Mr. Pastoriza: OK.
Mr. Shubin: And I will object. We have had continuous public records act requests, and if we're
going to play this game, let the record reflect that the Finger Companies never received notice of
any -- either of the Planning Advisory Board hearings and after giving them the correct address,
still haven't received notice of tonight's hearing, but we're here not on technicalities, on
substantive of issues related to your Code.
Mr. Pastoriza: Good, let's keep going.
Chairman Winton: All right.
Mr. Pastoriza: Did you know that the traffic, the City's traffic consultant reviewed and approved
not only the traffic study from Mr. Plummer, but also reviewed and approved the methodologies
used in those reports?
Mr. Tinter: Included with Mr. Plummer's report is a memo from -- to Mr. Shamogan (phonetic),
who's from URS, stating the methodology. I have not seen any of their approval letters.
Mr. Pastoriza: OK.
Mr. Tinter: Regardless of that, even if the City's consultant approved it, I still believe that --
Mr. Pastoriza: OK.
Mr. Tinter: -- the study area should have been expanded --
Mr. Pastoriza: Right.
255 July 24, 2003
Mr. Tinter: -- from what was included in either of the reports.
Mr. Pastoriza: So then, this is my last question here tonight. Is it your expert opinion, without
doing any independent data analysis, and basically just limiting yourself to a review of the two
traffic reports that all three traffic experts, the two hired by the applicant and the City's
consultant, that all their conclusions are in error?
Mr. Tinter: I didn't say that their conclusions were in error. I said that their reports were
deficient.
Mr. Pastoriza: Thank you.
Chairman Winton: Do you have any other cross-examination? Excuse me, hello.
Mr. Pastoriza: Yeah, I --
Ms. Dougherty: We have cross-examination of Mr. Luft.
Chairman Winton: OK.
Ms. Dougherty: Mr. Luft, how long were you the Planning Director for the City of Miami?
Mr. Luft: From 1995 through 1998.
Ms. Dougherty: And did you work with the City of Miami's Neighborhood Comprehensive
Plan?
Mr. Luft: Yes, I did.
Ms. Dougherty: And did you object to the fact that there were no intensities in that plan at the
time?
Mr. Luft: We had just received, when I became Planning Director, an (UNINTELLIGIBLE),
excuse me, an ear -based amendment, that had been sent to Tallahassee, was prepared under
Sergio Rodriguez and Guillermo Olmedillo, and we were found in compliance. We are required
to review the comprehensive plan every five to six years, and then resubmit that. Unfortunately,
I never had a chance, as Director, to participate in that kind of evaluation or review, so the issue
never came before me, as far as an examination.
Ms. Dougherty: But this comprehensive plan --
Mr. Luft: I didn't --
Ms. Dougherty: -- has been approved by the State of Florida.
Mr. Luft: It was found to be in compliance, yes, it was.
256 July 24, 2003
Ms. Dougherty: And was -- and what date was the 9J5 requirement of having intensities in the
comprehensive plan, when did that come into effect?
Mr. Luft: 1985, '86.
Ms. Dougherty: And when was this comprehensive plan adopted?
Mr. Luft: It was adopted initially, I think in '89 or '88, and then it was resubmitted and reviewed
on (UNINTELLIGIBLE) reviewed a couple of times since then.
Ms. Dougherty: Are you sure about the date of the intensity -- requirement of the comprehensive
plan in the State of Florida?
Mr. Luft: To the best of my recollection, the intensity, that requirement has always been there.
Ms. Dougherty: And did you have an opinion as to why the State of Florida would approve it
without it?
Mr. Luft: I think they missed it.
Ms. Dougherty: And how long -- how many major use special permits have you, have been
approved under your tutelage as the Planning Director?
Mr. Shubin: I'm going to object to relevance, but I'm sure Joel's going to find some basis for
having him answer the question.
Mr. Luft: I couldn't even --
Chairman Winton: Hold --
Mr. Luft: -- I couldn't even hazard a count, I wasn't keeping count.
Ms. Dougherty: At the time --
Mr. Luft: I would imagine it was at least, several.
Ms. Dougherty: Several?
Mr. Luft: Yes.
Ms. Dougherty: Several hundred?
Mr. Luft: Several.
Ms. Dougherty: Several --
257 July 24, 2003
Mr. Luft: MUSPs.
Ms. Dougherty: Five, ten?
Mr. Luft: Several, five, six, seven, eight, I don't know.
Ms. Dougherty: At any time did you object to the standards in the Major Use Special Permit?
Mr. Luft: No.
Ms. Dougherty: Was this property rezoned for Mr. Finger?
Mr. Luft: I can tell you, I've been greatly enlightened in private practice.
Chairman Winton: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Excuse me, excuse me, Mr. City Attorney, are
we talking about the Finger project or are we talking about --?
Mr. Maxwell: No, we're not.
Ms. Dougherty: No.
Mr. Maxwell: No, we're not.
Chairman Winton: Thank you.
Ms. Dougherty: When you -- but you did testify as to the merits of this project versus Mr.
Finger's, right?
Mr. Luft: I testified as to the relevance of the design and massing of these projects to the kinds
of standards that the downtown plan attempted to set forth as policies to safeguard and assure an
adequate transition between the high density to the south and the sensitive Edgewater area to the
north, of which both of these projects are in the same area, the same zone, and supposedly,
subject to the same intensity standards.
Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Winton: Yes, sir.
Mr. Maxwell: Even --
Mr. Luft: Per the Downtown Plan.
Mr. Maxwell: -- though that was a response to that question, I question the relevance of that or
whether you should pursue that line, as well. His testimony and the Finger application, I think
that's what was asked.
258 July 24, 2003
Mr. Luft: This is about planning and context and contextual relationships.
Ms. Dougherty: Do you agree --
Mr. Luft: And that was what I was referring to.
Ms. Dougherty: -- do you agree that the Downtown Master Plan has never been adopted as part
of the Comprehensive Plan in the City of Miami?
Mr. Luft: Absolutely.
Ms. Dougherty: OK. I have -- I can't read the --
Mr. Luft: I stated so on the record.
Mr. Pastoriza: No, there were just three additional questions that you had mentioned or talked
about, and I just wanted for you to kind of let us know where in the code do you find, for
example, where does in the code of zoning ordinance, does it establish the angle of developments
from one property to another property? Where in the --
Mr. Luft: No, I didn't say it was in the code. I said it was a logical result of the --
Mr. Pastoriza: Or --
Mr. Luft: -- application of how the department was governing heights of projects and
establishing through that governing of heights, a transition angle. I said that there are established
texts in the field of urban design and urban planning that agree with that, and in fact, I
compliment the department, I think the Finger project responded very effectively to that
transition --
Mr. Pastoriza: That's irrelevant.
Chairman Winton: We're not --
Mr. Luft: -- in scale, in which the department actually wanted them to do.
Mr. Pastoriza: Just limit your answer, please, to a straight answer. I don't need a --
Mr. Luft: It was a straight answer.
Mr. Pastoriza: -- dissertation.
Chairman Winton: He did answer.
259 July 24, 2003
Mr. Pastoriza: Where also in the code, does the scale transition standards, where are they? Are
there any?
Mr. Luft: That's -- you recall, Mr. Pastoriza, in my closing statements, that even though I
referred to Section 1305.8, and the loose generic discussion of mitigation of adverse impacts on
adjacent properties, and that the scale relationships were part of that, we've already heard that in
testimony on Grand Avenue, for gosh sakes --
Mr. Pastoriza: Right.
Mr. Luft: -- just earlier today. That those standards were in fact so general, as to be almost
impossible to objectively interpret and apply.
Mr. Pastoriza: I see. OK. That's it.
Mr. Luft: So, no, it's not in there, and I think that's a problem.
Mr. Pastoriza: OK. Thank you.
Mr. Shubin: One minute closing. Mr. Olmedillo made two comments, and I think we have them
down verbatim. One, the project, "will not adversely impact traffic conditions." Number two,
access has been studied, so as to eliminate conflicts with adjacent areas. I think that Mr. Tinter's
analysis, in his testimony, completely rejects that, and there's absolutely no competent evidence
to demonstrate compliance with those conditions. Secondly, I agree with Mr. Pastoriza, we
should've had a copy of the Plummer report earlier. It's dated June 12, 2003, which was before
the second Planning Board hearing on the 18th. It was never mentioned in the Planning
Advisory Board, and to the extent that Mr. Pastoriza attempts to suggest that it was somehow
considered by the City in making its decision, or could buttress their analysis, he's inappropriate,
it's inappropriate, we continue our motion to strike. Third, there has been no evidence
whatsoever as to any standards, other than those set forth in the Downtown Master Plan,
governing intensity of development in this area; and the law is very clear, in the absence of any
replacement standards, the previous standards, which we believe we had a right to put on
evidence to show how they have been routinely used to guide development principles in this
area, should have been applied, and to the extent they were applied, they were misapplied in this
case. The basic problem is, the standards, as Mr. Luft said, are so loose that in the absence of
intensity and density standards in the comprehensive plan as required by law, there is -- you have
this ability to make ad hoc decisions that bear absolutely no relationship to one another, and
finally, to the extent that Mr. Pastoriza attempts to suggest or Ms. Dougherty attempts to suggest
that somehow the compliance determination is dispositive, let me read a case that the Greenberg
Traurig firm is very familiar with. It's the Village of Key Biscayne versus Department of
Community Affairs, at 696 southern second 495, involving an amendment to the County Master
Plan for the Seaquarium site. It's one paragraph. I'm going to read it into the record. It was
written by Chief Judge Schwartz, who's a name I think familiar to Mr. Maxwell. The proposed
amendment to the master plan approved by the County Commission to obviate Village of Key
Biscayne versus Dade County, is invalid on its face because it does not comply with the
mandatory requirement of Section 163.31776A Florida Statutes, that any comprehensive plan or
260 July 24, 2003
amendment include, "specific standards for the density or intensity of use." On this basis, and
this is important, whether or not the amendment complies with rules of the Department of
Community Affairs, which to the extent that they permit noncompliance with the statutory
requirement are themselves invalid and pretermitting discussion of the other objections, at least
some of which may be very substantial, and it says, "The Department erroneously declared the
amendment in compliance under Section 163.3184113, its decision to that effect is therefore
reversed with directions to disapprove the amendment." Mr. Pastoriza is familiar with that,
why? Because his law firm asserted that position, I believe, on behalf of the Village of Key
Biscayne, when they were challenging this amendment against the Greenberg Traurig law firm.
It's as clear as day. We conclude, this is an inappropriate project approved or recommended
under standards that are vague and ambiguous that permit -- you to believe that somehow these
types of relationships are contextual, and in the absence of standards, this proceeding is defective
and Mr. Tinter has made it very clear that with respect to the traffic studies that were submitted
and relied upon, not the Plummer study, which couldn't have been relied upon, because it was
submitted after the Planning Advisory Board hearing; it never could've been considered by staff,
therefore there is noncompliance. This project should be substantially modified or should be
rejected without prejudice for them to come back. You should know that your staff is so
concerned about 1305 that they're in the process of drafting curative amendments, because they
know the standards are defective, and this project should be reviewed under these new standards
once they're approved by this Board. Thank you.
Chairman Winton: OK. We can --
Ms. Dougherty: We now have rebuttal on the traffic engineer.
Chairman Winton: Oh, my God.
Ms. Dougherty: This will be very brief.
Commissioner Regalado: I told you I wanted to leave late.
Chairman Winton: Yeah, you will. How right, apparently, you're going to be.
Sonia Shreffler-Bogart: Hello. I'm Sonia Shreffler-Bogart with David Plummer & Associates,
1750 Ponce de Leon, Coral Gables, and I am here to represent the developer on the traffic issues.
The traffic study was done in accordance with the methodology discussed, submitted to the
City's traffic consultant and approved, and we did not start the study until after approval. They
established the study area, the intersections to be analyzed, and what intersections should be
counted, the segments to be analyzed, and it was all based on the approved methodology from
the City consultant.
Mr. Shubin: Two questions: Did you firm prepare a traffic analysis for the Finger properties as
part of its MUSP submission?
Ms. Shreffler-Bogart: Yes.
261 July 24, 2003
Mr. Shubin: Were you personally involved in that submission?
Ms. Shreffler-Bogart: Yes.
Mr. Shubin: And prior to your appearance here today, did you ever secure the consent --
Chairman Winton: This has already --
Mr. Maxwell: I think he said --
Mr. Shubin: -- to anyone at the Finger companies?
Mr. Pastoriza: I object to that line of questions. That has nothing to do with what she's
testifying on.
Mr. Shubin: Well, we're simply making the objection for the record so, when appropriate action
is taken, there can be no question that we have not waived our rights.
Chairman Winton: Are we done?
Ms. Shreffler-Bogart: I just want to (UNINTELLIGIBLE) say that everything was done in
accordance to the approved traffic methodology submitted to the City's traffic consultant.
Chairman Winton: Thank you. Are -- now, are both sides on the legal group, are they -- are we
done? Do I have to hear more? Do we have to hear more?
Mr. Maxwell: You --
Chairman Winton: Do we need to hear more?
Mr. Maxwell: -- still didn't open the public hearing, believe it or not.
Chairman Winton: I understand that, but I've got to -- I don't open the public hearing until the --
Mr. Maxwell: Yes, sir.
Chairman Winton: -- all the hired guns are done.
Mr. Maxwell: I think they're out of bullets now, sir.
Chairman Winton: All right. Ah, man, thank you, so am I. This is a public hearing. Anyone
from the public that would like to speak on PZ. 1, please come to the podium. Anyone from the
public who would like to -- yes, sir, and all of you who would like to speak on PZ. 1, would y'all
please come forward, line up at both podiums so we can bounce one off of the other and get this
done as quickly as possible. Thank you. Yes, sir, you're recognized. We need your name and
address for the record, and for the public hearing part, I'm going to limit public hearing
262 July 24, 2003
testimony to two minutes each person. Madam Clerk, would you please set the clock? You're
recognized, sir.
Robert Ader: Good evening. My name is Robert Ader. My office is at 1825 Northeast 4th
Avenue. I'm immediately behind the Quantum project. We own the property that used to be the
1800 Club, and we sold the 1800 Club to Mr. Baumann and Mr. Palachi. We now have a 20 -unit
building to the rear of what is the Quantum. We're sort of the old kid on the block, and that we
were here several years ago seeking to have that rezoned SD -6, so to the Commissioners and to
the Chairman, we're very familiar with the neighborhood. My father built the 1800 Club in 1955
and I've been there since I was born in '54. I think it's a dense project, but I think it's a great
project for the neighborhood. I see now Margaret Pace Park has finally come on board. For me
to drive by there at night and see the kind of activity that's happening in the park is something
we had been looking for for many years. It's just -- it's great. To have -- if there's any place that
you could have a project of this size I think in the City of Miami, my familiarity with the area,
you're right across from Margaret Pace Park; you're walking distance to Omni; you're walking
distance to Metromover, so if you're going to have a project, to me this area could accommodate
it more than, I think, any other area that I could say in the City of Miami, in the sense that you've
got this beautiful park in the front. I think it's well designed, and I think it would be obviously
very beneficial to the neighborhood, and I support it.
Chairman Winton: Thank you.
Mr. Ader: Thank you.
Chairman Winton: Yes, sir.
Rick Kalwani: Good evening. My name is Rick Kalwani, the address is 1717 North Bayshore
Drive. I'm here to speak for the condominium association. I have a letter here signed by the
president of the condo association. We support the Major Use Special Permit requested by
Terra-Adi International for their project at Metropolis. Our condominium association represents
810 residential units, 152 hotel rooms, 100,000 square feet of retail space; the tax base annually
is $175 million, and we have 500 registered voters in our building, and once again, we support
this project.
Chairman Winton: Thank you.
Mr. Kalwani: Thank you very much.
Chairman Winton: Yes, sir.
Manuel Alonso Poch: Manuel Alonso Poch, 3520 Rockerman Road, in the City of Miami,
resident, business owner, and taxpayer, and I'm here to urge you to support this project. It's a
project that will add to the tax base of the City of Miami; it will improve the City skyline in the
Omni area, and will, in general, continue to cause development of the Omni area, which is
greatly needed, and I urge you to support it.
263 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: Next. Are you going to testify? Please, come forward so we don't -- thank
you.
Tim Foremon: Good evening, Commissioners. I'd like to applaud your stamina, number one.
My name is Tim Foremon. My address is 10650 Southwest 77th Court. I grew up in the
Edgewater neighborhood, and I have real estate interest nearby. I come here as a strong advocate
of Metropolis. I think the development deserves your unanimous support. We all know the fits
and starts at the Omni area has experienced in the past in terms of development. This is the first
large -scaled residential community, which is ownership -based, that has been attempted since
1986. I think its success is critical. The cornerstone of the American Dream is home ownership,
and I think it's an important element in a vibrant community. The Omni quadrant was
envisioned by the City to be a multifamily high-density sector. Pedro Martin and the Terra-Adi
team deserve your help in taking the concept -- excuse me, the vision from concept to reality.
The developers have adhered to the SD -6 zoning. The architects have conceived a beautiful
building, which will be a compliment to the City's skyline. Finally, low interest rates and a
moderate pricing of these homes will put the dream within the grasp of a very large market who
wants to live in their homes in the City on Biscayne Bay, across the street from a beautiful
activity -filled park, and near a world-class cultural facilities. The final amenity is -- benefits the
entire City, and that those who want to live and work in the urban core can do so during peek
hours without the need for transit -- for private transportation, and my final comment would be,
don't let the side issue of jockeying for market advantage deter you from doing what's in the best
interest of the City and its citizens. Please approve this application. Thank you very much.
Chairman Winton: Thank you. Next.
Javier Cervera: Javier Cervera, Cervera Real Estate, 1492 South Miami Avenue. I'm the sales
director for the Quantum and, obviously, in favor of the project. I believe something that hasn't
been mentioned, talking about the density is that unlike past projects and what this new
urbanization has taken us to is that the -- 70 percent of the units at the Quantum are one
bedrooms and efficiencies included in there, so there'll be a lot less people actually living in this
building, unlike buildings in the past, where the majority of the buildings were two and three
bedrooms. I'm a real estate professional, and I can tell you that mixes in the buildings who never
had any one bedrooms like in this building, so it'll be a lot less people, and that goes to the
density, which I believe is -- I believe one of the only issues that were presented here underneath
-- on the other underlying issues that might be presented, and other situations was mentioned
earlier was that a lot of these people that buying these type of apartments, we deal with these
clients every day, are from out of the United States or is well snowbirds and move here, so will
not be in the area full time, but it's important to remember that 70 percent are one bedrooms, and
I know I stated I was real estate professional, so --
Chairman Winton: Thank you.
Mr. Cervera: Thank you very much (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Chairman Winton: Yes, sir.
264 July 24, 2003
Mr. Maxwell: One question. Sir.
Mr. Cervera: Yes, sir.
Mr. Maxwell: You said Quantum. Are you speaking as --
Mr. Cervera: Yes, sir.
Mr. Maxwell: Is this Metropolis?
Mr. Cervera: That's the D/B/A (doing business as), I believe --
Mr. Maxwell: It's the same project, correct?
Mr. Cervera: -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Metropolis (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Quantum, yes.
Mr. Maxwell: All right. Thank you.
Chairman Winton: Thank you.
Mr. Shubin: Can I ask two questions?
Chairman Winton: I don't think so. I think they're just -- can he --
Mr. Cervera: Yeah, we're not --
Chairman Winton: -- of the public?
Mr. Maxwell: Yes, he could.
Chairman Winton: OK, I guess you can.
Mr. Shubin: Are you familiar with the ratio of parking spaces to units as proposed in this
building?
Mr. Cervera: Somewhat, but again, I'm not a professional in that field. I'm a professional in
real estate industry, not in the specific codes and all that.
Mr. Shubin: Are you familiar that it's one space per unit, no matter how many bedrooms there
are in a unit?
Mr. Maxwell: I think he just said that --
Mr. Cervera: Yeah, but -- if you -- can you -- now I have an attorney. I hope he's going to
charge me.
265 July 24, 2003
Mr. Pastoriza: John, to the extent that he talked about parking ratios and all of that --
Mr. Cervera: I didn't mention parking ratios. I --
Chairman Winton: Can --
Mr. Shubin: I'll be done in a second. (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Chairman Winton: Just let him ask the last question, so he can go.
Mr. Cervera: My point was very simple; that 70 percent of these units are going to be one
bedrooms and smaller. There's a lot less people, young professionals. They're unlike other
buildings, where there's couples --
Chairman Winton: OK, you've answered.
Mr. Cervera: -- and more people --
Chairman Winton: Next question, please.
Mr. Cervera: -- less density.
Chairman Winton: Next question.
Mr. Shubin: Shut up with a yes or no. Yes or no: One parking space per unit, as proposed in
this project, regardless of how many bedrooms it has, yes or no?
Mr. Cervera: The question is what?
Mr. Pastoriza: He's not coming here as an expert.
Unidentified Speaker: Right.
Mr. Pastoriza: He's just a lay person.
Chairman Winton: Well --
Mr. Cervera: But what is that? I didn't understand.
Chairman Winton: -- so, he can --
Mr. Shubin: Talking about the desirability of the project.
Chairman Winton: Excuse me. Hold on, hold on, hold on. He can say he doesn't know --
Commissioner Regalado: Density.
266 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: -- or he can say he knows, you know. Just --
Mr. Maxwell: There's no obligation to answer the question --
Chairman Winton: Right.
Mr. Maxwell: -- as posed. He can simply say he doesn't know, if he doesn't know --
Chairman Winton: Yeah.
Mr. Shubin: Do you know?
Mr. Maxwell: -- and he (UNINTELLIGIBLE) --
Mr. Cervera: Do I know what?
Chairman Winton: Do you --
Mr. Cervera: I'm sorry. Ask me specifically, because I've been --
Mr. Shubin: This project, as proposed --
Mr. Cervera: -- hearing you talk all night and I don't always understand what you mean.
Mr. Shubin: This project, as proposed, and is recommended by staff, is it one parking space for
each unit, no matter how many bedrooms there are in a unit?
Mr. Cervera: That is correct, by the way --
Mr. Shubin: Fine.
Mr. Cervera: -- I understand it. I'm not being --
Chairman Winton: OK, thank you. Anyone else from the public would like to speak on PZ. P
Anyone else from the public? Apparently not. We will close the public hearing, finally. Yes,
ma'am.
Ms. Slazyk: What I'm going to do is I'm going to put the goals, objectives, and policies of our
comprehensive plan into the record, and just reference land use 1.2.4, land use 1.4, land use
1.6.5; housing 2.1, housing 2.1.2; transportation 1.5.2, and transportation 1.5.10, as specific
goals, objectives, and policies that are consistent. These are the ones that talk about promoting
residential projects near places of employment, promoting residential projects near mass transit,
creating a livable downtown using special districts and higher densities to do the -- I mean, I can
read all of them into the record, if you want. I just thought it'd be easier to submit them.
267 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: Is this cross -examinable?
Mr. Maxwell: No. This --
Ms. Slazyk: I'm just putting them into the record.
Mr. Maxwell: I don't believe so.
Chairman Winton: OK, thank you.
Mr. Shubin: Well, can just --
Mr. Maxwell: She's just submitting that information into the record.
Mr. Shubin: I'll shut up with one objection. This is a real pet peeve of mine, and I practice in
municipalities all over the state. I'm going to make a formal objection to the policy of this City,
which I think needs to be reformed, which is after the public hearing closes, as opposed to before
the public hearing, someone from the Planning & Zoning staff gets in and attempts to cure all the
defects that are identified, and then when someone either from the public or from an affected
party comes forward, Mr. Maxwell says the public hearing is closed, and you need to stop that.
Chairman Winton: Thank you.
Ms. Slazyk I don't get to rebut.
Chairman Winton: What do we got to -- I guess we have a new circus going. Yes, ma'am. Are
you -- do you have more?
Ms. Slazyk No. That was it.
Chairman Winton: OK. Actually, I have a question, Lourdes. Didn't -- we passed, was it an
ordinance sometime ago, or a resolution that, I think, as memory, but didn't we set up a system
whereby the City would hire its own traffic engineer?
Ms. Slazyk Yes, and that's who --
Chairman Winton: It was --
Ms. Slazyk -- that is who they were talking about during the presentation.
Chairman Winton: And which one was that?
Ms. Slazyk It's URS, and they're the ones that reviewed the traffic studies prepared by the
applicant and have found them to be in compliant --
Chairman Winton: OK.
268 July 24, 2003
Ms. Slazyk: -- so this is independent. They report to us.
Chairman Winton: OK. Just wanted to understand that.
Mr. Shubin: He only reviewed Plummer. He never reviewed Mr. Ahlstedt's, and --
Chairman Winton: OK.
Mr. Shubin: -- we have an objection to that, and we've had a continuing public records act
request and it's not been provided.
Chairman Winton: Thank you. OK.
Ms. Slazyk Just for the record, he -- they reviewed both of them.
Chairman Winton: OK, for the record. Next step. Do you want to take the --
Commissioner Sanchez: You're recognized.
Chairman Winton: Yes, and actually -- I think I won't say that. I'm going to move
recommendation of City staff on this project.
Mr. Maxwell: You want to pass the gavel -- has the gavel been passed?
Chairman Winton: I already passed it to Joe.
Commissioner Sanchez: I --
Mr. Maxwell: OK, thank you.
Commissioner Sanchez: For the record, I have the gavel.
Commissioner Regalado: Second.
Commissioner Sanchez: There's a motion to approve the special use permit?
Chairman Winton: Yes.
Commissioner Sanchez: There's a second. Open for discussion.
Commissioner Gonzalez: No discussion.
Commissioner Sanchez: Discussion. I just want to state something. Mr. Shubin, your case is
based on the substantive issue of the code. I truly think that a lot of the concerns that you had
and a lot of the requests that you made have been answered by the Administration, just to take
269 July 24, 2003
into consideration that you took almost two and a half hours stating your case and building your
record, which is, in all due respect, you did very eloquently. This -- we all know that it'll
probably end up in a higher court based on the record that you established here.
Chairman Winton: It's got to get to a regular court before it gets to a higher one.
Commissioner Sanchez: Well -- but I --
Chairman Winton: We're not a court.
Commissioner Sanchez: -- feel that the staff addressed your response to all your inquiries. The
project applies with all regulations, requirements, and conditions. Once again, the Planning --
Planning recommended the approval, and Planning Advisory Board also recommended approval
for the City Commission, and based on that and the testimony that you made here, I have not
heard any substaining [sic] evidence that makes me rebut the application request, so therefore,
I'm going to vote yes when it comes time to vote, so there's -- it's been closed. City Attorney.
It's a resolution.
Chairman Winton: It's a resolution.
Commissioner Sanchez: All in favor, say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Commissioner Sanchez: Anyone opposing, having the same right, say "nay." Motion carries.
The following resolution was introduced by Chairman Winton, who moved for its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-879
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
ATTACHMENTS, APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, A MAJOR USE
SPECIAL PERMIT PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 13 AND 17 OF ZONING
ORDINANCE NO. 11000, FOR THE METROPOLIS PROJECT, TO BE
LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1852 AND 1900 NORTH BAYSHORE
DRIVE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO BE COMPRISED OF A MIXED-
USE/RESIDENTIAL BUILDING WITH UP TO 752 UNITS, 8,470 SQUARE
FEET OF COMMERCIAL USE; RECREATIONAL AMENITIES AND 845
PARKING SPACES; DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL; MAKING FINDINGS OF
FACT AND STATING CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; PROVIDING FOR
BINDING EFFECT; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
270 July 24, 2003
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Regalado, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Ms. Dougherty: Thank you very much.
56. ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER APPROVE
FINDINGS OF EVALUATION COMMITTEE, PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR
QUALIFICATIONS NO. 02-03-139 THAT MOST QUALIFIED FIRMS TO PROVIDE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT LOBBYING SERVICES IS JOINT VENTURE OF KATZ,
KUTTER, ALDERMAN & BRYANT, P.A. AND PATTON BOGGS, LLP.; $300,000.
Chairman Winton: OK. We're going to --
Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Winton: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Regalado: Remember --
Chairman Winton: Yes, I do. I'm going to -- we're going to deviate from the regular schedule
again, which we've done all day long, and by the way --
Commissioner Sanchez: I'm going to take a five-minute recess.
Chairman Winton: OK, but -- that's fine, you can, just so you only go. We're going to go to --
Commissioner Regalado: Contract.
Chairman Winton: I know what I want to do. I want to go to Supplemental 5, which is -- and
then we're going to go to Commissioner Regalado's issue, which I forget what number that is,
but he'll remind me.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Which one is Supplemental 5?
Chairman Winton: His is supplemental -- yours is supplemental also? Supplemental blue, yours
is? What number is yours?
271 July 24, 2003
Commissioner Regalado: The adult living facilities in the blue page --
Chairman Winton: OK.
Commissioner Regalado: -- on the regular agenda.
Chairman Winton: OK.
Commissioner Regalado: It's on the -- it's "D" on the regular agenda.
Chairman Winton: Quickly, please, Supplemental 5. Yes.
Glenn Marcos (Director, Department of Finance): Item S-5. The Purchasing Department issued
a request for proposal for federal lobbying services. The actual request for proposal was issued
on May 16, 2003. The City Manager appointed an evaluation committee on June 25, 2003. The
actual committee made a recommendation to the City Manager, which was approved by the City
Manager on July 3, 2003. The recommended firm is Katz Kutter and Patton Boggs.
Chairman Winton: Need a motion.
Commissioner Sanchez: So move.
Chairman Winton: Second.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Second with --
Chairman Winton: Discussion.
Commissioner Gonzalez: -- discussion.
Chairman Winton: It's all yours --
Commissioner Gonzalez: OK.
Chairman Winton: -- Commissioner Gonzalez.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Is -- Mr. Manager, part of the work of these lobbyists --
Joe Arriola (City Manager): (INAUDIBLE). Who told you?
Commissioner Gonzalez: Pardon me?
Mr. Arriola: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Commissioner Gonzalez: I still have enough battery to stay here for a couple of more days to
continue. You don't know me. You don't know me. I already reload my batteries.
272 July 24, 2003
Mr. Arriola: (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Yes, sir.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Is part of these lobbyists to work for or to lobby for more money for
social programs in the City of Miami or to increase the cap of the federal government of US
HUD (United States Department of Housing and Urban Development) for social services?
Mr. Arriola: All of the above, sir.
Commissioner Gonzalez: That is included, right?
Mr. Arriola: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Gonzalez: That is going to be part of their work in Washington?
Mr. Arriola: Absolutely.
Commissioner Gonzalez: All right.
Chairman Winton: OK. Any other comments?
Commissioner Gonzalez: That was my question.
Chairman Winton: If not, all in favor, say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. The motion carries.
273 July 24, 2003
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved for its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-880
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ACCEPTING THE
RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER APPROVING THE
FINDINGS OF THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE, PURSUANT TO
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS NO. 02-03-139 THAT THE MOST
QUALIFIED FIRMS TO PROVIDE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT LOBBYING
SERVICES IS THE JOINT VENTURE OF KATZ, KUTTER, ALDERMAN &
BRYANT, P.A. AND PATTON BOGGS, LLP.; AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
("AGREEMENT"), IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, WITH
SAID FIRMS, FOR AN INITIAL ONE-YEAR PERIOD, WITH AN OPTION
TO EXTEND THE AGREEMENT FOR FOUR ADDITIONAL ONE-YEAR
PERIODS, SUBJECT TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN THE
AGREEMENT, INCLUSIVE OF EXPENSES, IN AN ANNUAL AMOUNT
NOT TO EXCEED $300,000; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM ACCOUNT
CODE NO. 00 1000. 920216.6.270. SUBJECT TO BUDGETARY APPROVAL.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Chairman Winton: You had -- you stayed here all that time for just that one, but see how --
Commissioner Gonzalez: He wanted to talk?
Chairman Winton: See how good it feels by -- you know, just -- you got to see real government
in action about real issues in real neighborhoods finally.
Commissioner Gonzalez: And real people.
Unidentified Speaker: Appreciate the support.
Chairman Winton: OK. Thank you.
274 July 24, 2003
Unidentified Speaker: I'll remember this.
57. DIRECT MANAGER TO CREATE PILOT PROGRAM AND ESTABLISH TASK
FORCE MADE UP OF MEMBERS FROM DEPARTMENTS OF PLANNING, ZONING,
FIRE -RESCUE AND CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION TO INSPECT ADULT LIVING
FACILITIES IN SHENANDOAH AREA AND REPORT BACK TO COMMISSION ON
SEPTEMBER 11, 2003 ON FIRST VISITS.
Chairman Winton: Commissioner Regalado, what item did you have?
Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman, it's on the blue page and by -- no. It's just that by
memo we requested a time certain of 6:30 Cuban time.
Chairman Winton: Well, we've certainly met that and exceeded it.
Commissioner Gonzalez: We're almost there.
Commissioner Sanchez: Oh, no, no. I still got time. I'll be back later.
Chairman Winton: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Regalado: So, it's a -- this is only one item of the blue page. I'll do my others --
Chairman Winton: Later.
Commissioner Regalado: -- you know --
Chairman Winton: Right.
Commissioner Regalado: -- along the way. A group of residents have been meeting with us; we
met with the Mayor, and they have a lot of issues with the adult living facilities in the
Shenandoah area. To be brief, first of all, Mr. Manager, we've been trying to get information
from the Planning Department so the City Attorney can take some kind of action. We have not
been successful. The Planning Department has not responded with details on zoning and
planning matters regarding the adult living facilities, especially six new or -- old but new
addresses in the Shenandoah area. However, the residents have provided the City Attorney,
myself, and the Mayor also a lot of information, and we believe that most of these adult living
facilities are in violation of the State and the City ordinance and codes and all that, so we need
your help. I'd like to ask the Manager to direct the Planning Department and the Zoning
Department to facilitate all the information that has been requested by the City Attorney in the
next two weeks, and I have a motion to create a pilot program, a task force from Planning,
Zoning, Fire Department, and Code Enforcement to inspect adult living facilities in the
Shenandoah area, as a pilot program that the Commission may choose to extend, and I think it
will when they see the results when we come back in September --
Commissioner Gonzalez: Second your motion.
275 July 24, 2003
Commissioner Regalado: -- so --
Chairman Winton: And I would recommend that you add to that "and any other agencies that
may be able to provide support to these efforts."
Commissioner Regalado: And I think that we should invite the State to send someone because
they do regulate, and what happened -- what is happening is the following, so you know: The
City allows a maximum of six. However, the residents have obtained information where those
living facilities have sent to the State the names, in order to get paid, of more than 14 to 18
residents in places where only six are allowed by City code, if not by special exception. Some of
these so-called grandfathered adult living facilities have gotten a special exception from the City
Commission back in '79, but it only last 20 years, so it expired. However, there is no record that
we can -- been able to find if that -- and I'm certain that -- I have been here since 1996. I am
certain that we never granted a special exception or extending for 20 years more in a special
exception to adult living facilities because I have been dealing with this issue since I came to this
City Commission the month after that. I -- we have residents. Jackie met with me and
Representative Luis Moise about five or six years ago dealing with this issue, but the thing --
situation has gotten worse, and I was wondering, Jackie, if you'd come to the podium and just
briefly -- you know, we have a long night -- but just briefly tell the Commission the problems
that we are facing, you, me, and all the residents in the Shenandoah area.
Jackie Cotarelo-Echagarvua: Well, I think the main problem --
Commissioner Regalado: Your name.
Ms. Cotarelo-Echagarvua: Excuse me. Jackie Cotarelo-Echagarvua, and I reside at 1815
Southwest 16th Street. I've been living there for about 18 years, and the main problem is the
quality of life. We have an overconcentration of adult living facilities in Shenandoah. We have
one that houses 111 mentally ill. Now they're accepting felons. We have these other six
facilities down on 19th Avenue that house up to 72, if not more individuals, and we have other
ones that house less, but the main problems are these, and if you have -- this as an open-door
policy. These individuals leave in the morning, wander throughout the neighborhood; they go
ahead and go into people's yards, steal things in their yards, and I don't want to go ahead and tell
you too much because I know that you're going to have a long night. It's just a quality of life
issue, and I think -- you know, I thank the Commissioners and the Commission for addressing
this issue, and I hope that this task force can go ahead and get underway very quickly. We've
been waiting for this for a very, very long time. Thank you.
Commissioner Regalado: And Mr. City Attorney, what do we need from the Manager in terms
of information, because we have not gotten any information regarding the grandfather issue, the -
- all the issues?
Chairman Winton: I think that, Mr. Manager, what we need is a full team of folks -- I mean,
what's going on here is absolutely outrageous; all of us recognize that, so we need a full
complement of every expert we can find within the City and outside the City to go attack this
276 July 24, 2003
problem, and I think that's the resolution, essentially, that Commissioner Regalado is offering,
and we need a -- and we have a second to that motion. Do we have any other discussion on this
item? If not, all in favor, say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. The motion carries.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Regalado, who moved for its adoption:
MOTION NO. 03-881
A MOTION DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO CREATE A PILOT
PROGRAM AND ESTABLISH A TASK FORCE MADE UP OF MEMBERS
FROM THE DEPARTMENTS OF PLANNING, ZONING, FIRE -RESCUE
AND CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION TO INSPECT ADULT LIVING
FACILITIES IN THE SHENANDOAH AREA, SAID TASK FORCE TO ALSO
INCLUDE PERSONNEL FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY
DEEMED ABLE TO SUPPORT THESE EFFORTS, INCLUDING THE STATE
OF FLORIDA, AND REPORT BACK TO THE COMMISSION ON
SEPTEMBER 11, 2003 ON THE FIRST VISITS OF THE TASK FORCE.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, the motion was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Commissioner Regalado: And report back on September 11, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Manager, on
the task force, on the --
Chairman Winton: Yeah.
Commissioner Regalado: -- on the first visits of the task force.
Chairman Winton: Perfect.
Commissioner Regalado: We -- the City Attorney will be providing the first addresses to be
looked at it.
277 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: And -- thank you.
Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Yes, sir.
Commissioner Regalado: Thank you.
58. CONTINUE TO COMMISSION MEETING CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR
SEPTEMBER 25, 2003: APPEAL OF ZONING BOARD DECISION, WHICH GRANTED
SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW REDUCTION IN REQUIREMENTS FOR LOW-
INCOME FAMILIES AND INDIVIDUALS; AND APPEAL OF ZONING BOARD
DECISION, WHICH GRANTED VARIANCE TO ALLOW SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 0'-0"
(10'-0" REQUIRED) AT 2415 NW 16TH STREET ROAD
Chairman Winton: Now, I understand that there's a deferral of a PZ (Planning & Zoning) item;
is that correct?
Commissioner Sanchez: Let's hear all the deferrals.
Chairman Winton: Hold on. Yeah. PZ -- I understand, PZ.3 and PZ.4, y'all want to defer; is
that correct?
Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): Yes. PZs 3 and 4 are -- is an appeal;
they're companion items, and I believe that the applicant and the appellant have agreed to a
continuance so they can continue discussing it. We have no objections to the continuance to --
we'll go to September 24.
Chairman Winton: September --
Commissioner Gonzalez: Move to what --
Chairman Winton: Continue --
Commissioner Gonzalez: -- continue --
Chairman Winton: -- to September 24.
Commissioner Regalado: That's 3 and 4?
Commissioner Gonzalez: -- or to defer? Defer or continue?
Chairman Winton: Three and four.
Ms. Slazyk: Yeah, continue so we don't have to re -notice it.
Chairman Winton: Yeah.
Ms. Slazyk Continue to September 24.
278 July 24, 2003
Commissioner Gonzalez: OK, move to continue to September 24.
Chairman Winton: Got a motion; need a second.
Commissioner Sanchez: Second.
Chairman Winton: Motion, second. Discussion. Being none, all in favor, say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. The motion carries.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Gonzalez, who moved for its adoption:
MOTION NO. 03-882
A MOTION TO CONTINUE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS TO THE
COMMISSION MEETING CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER
25, 2003:
• APPEAL OF ZONING BOARD DECISION, WHICH GRANTED SPECIAL
EXCEPTION TO ALLOW REDUCTION IN REQUIREMENTS FOR LOW-
INCOME FAMILIES AND INDIVIDUALS, PURSUANT TO PLANS ON FILE
WITH TIME LIMITATION OF TWELVE MONTHS IN WHICH A BUILDING
PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED AND SUBJECT TO 1) APPROVAL OF THE
SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE, OR MODIFYING THE PLANS TO
COMPLY WITH ALL SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND 2) APPLICANT
MUST PAY FOR ADDITIONAL NOTICE TO RETURN BEFORE THE
ZONING BOARD TO DISCUSS PARKING AND NECESSITY, IF ANY, OF
ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES TWO YEARS AFTER OBTAINING
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY; AND
• APPEAL OF ZONING BOARD DECISION, WHICH GRANTED A
VARIANCE TO ALLOW A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 0'-0" (10'-0"
REQUIRED) PURSUANT TO PLANS ON FILE WITH TIME LIMITATION
OF TWELVE MONTHS IN WHICH A BUILDING PERMIT MUST BE
OBTAINED AND SUBJECT TO APPLICANT PAYING FOR ADDITIONAL
NOTICE TO RETURN BEFORE THE ZONING BOARD TO DISCUSS
PARKING AND NECESSITY, IF ANY, OF ADDITIONAL PARKING
SPACES TWO YEARS AFTER OBTAINING CERTIFICATE OF
OCCUPANCY.
279 July 24, 2003
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the motion was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Chairman Winton: OK. Do we have any other deferrals or continuances?
Commissioner Gonzalez: Anybody else has a deferral, so we can --
Chairman Winton: Apparently not. What are you giving me? No. I mean, you know,
everybody here wants their item heard now. That's -- there's a whole audience here. We're
going to go back in order and we're going to go through this, so everybody's waiting for
somebody. We're on PZ items --
Commissioner Sanchez: It's going to be a long night.
Mr. Arriola: PZ. Why don't you go back to the regular agenda?
Commissioner Sanchez: No, PZ. Let's get PZ --
Chairman Winton: Because we're --
Mr. Arriola: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) go home.
Chairman Winton: No chance. PZ.2.
Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ.2 is a request for official vacation
and closure of a public right-of-way. It's not a street closure. If you look at the aerials in your
package, it's really a corner --
Chairman Winton: OK. Excuse me. We need to make a correction. The motion to continue is
to September 25, Mr. -- Madam Clerk.
Ms. Slazyk: OK.
Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): September 25.
Ms. Slazyk: Twenty-fifth, OK.
280 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: So, the motion to continue -- do we need to rehear this then, since we got the
wrong date, or can we count that as a scrivener's error?
Mr. Maxwell: No. That's what --
Commissioner Gonzalez: Continuance.
Mr. Maxwell: -- it is, a --
Ms. Slazyk: Yeah.
Mr. Maxwell: -- scrivener's error.
Chairman Winton: OK, so I'm just correcting the scrivener's error by saying that the
continuance date is September 25 as opposed to September 24; is that all we need to do?
Unidentified Speaker: Yes, sir.
Chairman Winton: Thank you.
59. CLOSE, VACATE, ABANDON AND DISCONTINUE FOR PUBLIC USE PORTION OF
PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY PORTION OF SW 52ND COURT LOCATED AT NW CORNER
OF INTERSECTION OF SW 8TH STREET AND SW 52ND COURT (Applicant(s): M.E.D. of
Miami, LLC).
Chairman Winton: OK, back to PZ.2.
Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ.2, like I said, it's a request for
official vacation and street closure; recommended for approval by Planning & Zoning, approval
by Plat and Street. If you look at your aerial photographs in the backup in your package, it's not
really a street; it's a --
Chairman Winton: Right.
Ms. Slazyk: -- right-of-way. It's the clipping of a corner, and it's been recommended for
approval.
Commissioner Regalado: I'll move it.
Chairman Winton: We have a motion --
Commissioner Sanchez: Well --
Commissioner Gonzalez: Second.
281 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: -- second. This is a public hearing. Anyone from the public like to speak on
PZ.2? Anyone from the public like to speak on PZ.2? Showing no one, we'll close the public
hearing. Do we have any further discussion? Is this a resolution? OK. Any further discussion?
If not, all in favor, say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. The motion carries.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Regalado, who moved for its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-883
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
ATTACHMENT(S), CLOSING, VACATING, ABANDONING AND
DISCONTINUING FOR PUBLIC USE THAT PORTION OF A PUBLIC
RIGHT-OF-WAY, BEING THE PORTION OF APPROXIMATELY
SOUTHWEST 52ND COURT LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER
OF THE INTERSECTION OF SOUTHWEST 8TH STREET AND
SOUTHWEST 52ND COURT, MIAMI, FLORIDA, LEGALLY DESCRIBED
IN ATTACHED "EXHIBIT A."
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Unidentified Speaker: Thank you.
Chairman Winton: Thank you.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Four and five is done.
Chairman Winton: PZ (Planning & Zoning) —
Commissioner Sanchez: Lucky you who gets out of here early tonight.
Chairman Winton: -- 3 and 4.
282 July 24, 2003
Ms. Slazyk: We're on 5.
60. APPROVAL OF THE CORAL WAY BEAUTIFICATION MASTER PLAN AND
DESIGN STANDARDS.
Chairman Winton: PZ -5.
Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ -5 is approval of the Coral Way
Beautification Master Plan and Design Standards. We're approving it in concept. This is
something that is a component of a longer-term plan, which will then come back with other
regulations, a regulating plan, maybe zoning amendments for Coral Way. We do have our
consultant here, who can do a presentation.
Unidentified Speaker: Short.
Chairman Winton: Yeah, he can, but we don't necessarily want it.
Ms. Slazyk: Right.
Commissioner Regalado: I'll move it.
Ms. Slazyk It's been recommended approval by the Planning Advisory Board and by the
Planning Department.
Chairman Winton: We have a motion --
Commissioner Gonzalez: Second.
Chairman Winton: -- and a second. This is a public hearing. Anyone from the public like to
speak on PZ -5? Anyone from the public on PZ -5? Being none, we'll close the public hearing.
That was a great presentation. We have a motion and a second. Resolution. All in favor -- any
further discussion? Being none, all in favor "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. The motion carries.
283 July 24, 2003
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Regalado, who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-884
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION APPROVING IN PRINCIPLE
THE CORAL WAY MASTER PLAN AND DESIGN STANDARDS, HEREINAFTER
REFERRED TO AS THE "CORAL WAY MASTER PLAN," AS A GUIDING TOOL FOR
THE FURTHER DEVELOPMENT AND PRESERVATION OF CORRIDOR
CHARACTER AND THE CONTINUED ECONOMIC VITALITY OF THIS
SIGNIFICANT CORRIDOR AS DEFINED IN THE "CORAL WAY MASTER PLAN."
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
61. DENY PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 10544, FUTURE LAND USE
MAP OF MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BY CHANGING LAND
USE DESIGNATION FROM "HIGH DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL" TO
"RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL AT 1770 NORTH BAYSHORE DRIVE.
Chairman Winton: PZ -6.
Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ -6 and 7 are companion land use
and zoning change applications. The land use, which is PZ -6, is for 1770 North Bayshore Drive,
high density multifamily residential to restricted commercial. This is in the area where we just
saw PZ -1, the Metropolis project. The zoning has been changed for most of the parcels that front
Pace Park. This is one of two parcels that are left that have yet to be rezoned to the SD -6
category, which is the same as the rest of the parcels in that area. It has been reviewed by the
Planning Advisory Board, recommended for approval to the City Commission, and the
companion, which is Item PZ -7, is a request from R-4 multifamily high density residential to
SD -6. It's also been recommended approval to the City Commission from the Zoning Board.
Both of these were unanimous recommendations. The Planning and Zoning Department
recommends approval, finding that it's consistent with the zoning and land use changes that have
taken place there, and it's recommended approval.
284 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: Could I ask you how old this aerial is that's in our packet?
Ms. Slazyk: I don't know the date.
Chairman Winton: Would you please find out, because it doesn't look very current to me, you
know, and I don't think it's good that we can't get current -- relatively current aerials. This one
looks pretty old to me; maybe I'm wrong, and if I'm wrong, I will apologize to you publicly, but
if I'm correct, would y'all work on that a bit, please? Thank you. OK.
Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): An ordinance.
Chairman Winton: This is an ordinance.
Mr. Maxwell: It's a public hearing.
Chairman Winton: It's also a public hearing. This is a public hearing. Anyone from the public
like to speak on PZ -6?
Gil Pastoriza: Yes, Mr. Chairman. For the record, my name is Gil Pastoriza, 2665 South
Bayshore Drive, and I'll be very brief on my original -- you know, my presentation, but I do have
some opposition, and I do need to set some --
Chairman Winton: Oh, you have opposition here tonight?
Mr. Pastoriza: Yeah, there's some opposition here tonight --
Chairman Winton: OK.
Mr. Pastoriza: -- and I do need to establish certain things --
Chairman Winton: All right.
Mr. Pastoriza: -- for the record. Back on July of 1995, this Commission approved Ordinance
11308 and 11309. In so doing, it established a policy and a vision for all the properties located
north of Northeast 17th Terrace, along North Bayshore Drive. These properties, the visions and
the policy was to have the properties re -designated to restricted commercial, and to -- and for the
properties to be rezoned from R-4 to SD -6. It is important to point out that this policy
commends with the property which lies immediately to the south of ours, and this right here, this
is our property in blue, and this is the property to the south, and this policy commends with that
property immediately to the south, and interestingly enough, that's the opposition here tonight.
The one who first took advantage of this policy is now -- will be here before you today in
opposition to this rezoning. The vision policy was to create a pedestrian interactive area all
along North Bayshore Drive with a mixed-use projects with resident -- retail and restaurant
activities at the ground level. This Commission, through the years, has been consistent in the
implementation of its policies, and they continuously -- and has continuously acted in
furtherance with this vision by doing many things. The most important thing, I think, that this
285 July 24, 2003
Commission did was to -- that it improved the Margaret Pace Park, which is across the street
from us, and then it re -designated and rezoned the properties which are north of ours, and I have
-- I distributed a comparison of approval chart for you, which shows that all the properties that
are immediately to the south, which is called here Miramar, the properties to the north, starting
with the 1800 Club, the Metropolis or the Quantum, which you heard the Major Use Special
Permit today, and then even north of that, the Fingers property, all of these properties, all of them
got a Comprehensive Plan amendment from R-4 to restricted commercial, and they got a
rezoning from R -- I mean, from -- they went from multifamily high density residential to
restricted commercial, and they were all rezoned from R-4 to SD -6. We are seeking the same
designation and the same zoning classification as the rest of the properties in this area. We are
the hole in the doughnut in reverse, which needs to be filled in. For purposes to establishing a
record, I would like to amend your professional staff s analysis and recommendations by saying
that this application is also consistent with the following policies and objectives in your
Comprehensive Plan. It is consistent with Policy LU -1.1.10, HO -1.1.9, and TR -1.5.2, in that it
provides a high density residential development, and the development of this site, which is in
close proximity to the Metrorail Station -- the People Mover Station, which is here on 15th
Street, just a couple blocks to the south. It is also consistent with Policy LU -1.4.3, in that the re-
designation and rezoning will allow ground level retail restaurant activity, and further promoting
an active pedestrian sidewalk environment. It is consistent with LU -1.6.4, in that your Planning
Department has conducted a concurrency review and determined that the proposed amendment
does not fall below the minimum adopted levels of service and is not in conflict with the Plan.
It's also consistent with 802.1.2, in that a re -designation and rezoning the property provides
greater flexibility for the design and development of a contemporary mixed-use development
with the application of new higher density zoning. The proposed re -designation and rezoning is
also consistent with your comp -- the goals in your comp. plan for the parks and coastal
elements, in that they will allow for mixed-use development and a pedestrian interactive North
Bayshore Drive, which will encourage more people to use the park and the Bayfront areas. In
summary, this request is the same identical request that our neighbors to the south and our
neighbors to the north have come before this Commission and gotten approval of.
Commissioner Sanchez: And what is that?
Mr. Pastoriza: They all went from a high density multifamily residential to restricted
commercial, and they rezoned them from R-4 to SD -6, which is the same request that we are
asking for. You did it for the property here, for the Miramar project. You did it for the 1800
Club. You did it for the Quantum, which you just approved today, and you did it for Fingers, so
we ask you that you continue implementing your policies that you started out back in 1995 and
approve this application, and I would just like to reserve sometime for rebuttal. Thank you.
Santiago Echemendia: Are you the Chair, Commissioner Regalado? Mr. Sanchez --
Commissioner Sanchez: Yes.
Mr. Echemendia: Good evening. Santiago Echemendia, 201 South Biscayne Boulevard, on
behalf of Miramar Center, which is now -- has a building on it called Bay Park Plaza. I'm
accompanied by Tibor Hollo, Wayne Hollo, and Jerry Hollo, who are my clients, as well as Jack
286 July 24, 2003
Luft, who is our expert. I'm going to lay a little bit of the factual predicate, and then I'll let Jack
talk to some issues. Mr. Hollo is going to speak to some of the history behind the development
of his property and the economic impacts on his property, and then I'll touch upon some issues
regarding compatibility, Class II, how that is deficient in terms of a subsequent review;
inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan, et cetera. In terms of the factual predicate -- and if
you can help me, Alex -- not Alex Vilarello, that is, Alex (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- and I'll have
something to (UNINTELLIGIBLE). One of the things that -- and first, a little -- just a little
housekeeping. I want to incorporate into the record of this proceeding -- from the proceeding
below, the cross-examination of Guillermo Olmedillo, Lourdes Slazyk's cross-examination,
Allen Tinker's testimony, and Jack Luft's testimony. I'd like to incorporate that, by reference, as
part of the record in this proceeding, that way we can do away with asking the same questions of
Lourdes.
Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): No. I would recommend that not be done, sir. If you
want -- I would suggest, if you want their testimony on the record, you need to ask them those
questions. That wouldn't be relevant to this, unless you have the same questions and --
Mr. Echemendia: Joel, I mean, I'll incorporate it into the record of this proceeding, by reference.
If you want to object, you're entitled to object, but I've, at least, made that request, that it be
incorporated into the record.
Mr. Maxwell: That's fine.
Mr. Echemendia: I may go ahead and ask some of the questions. I was doing it for purposes of
time efficiency --
Mr. Maxwell: When we -- I'm sure --
Mr. Echemendia: -- as they're the same questions.
Mr. Maxwell: -- the Commission appreciates that, but I think --
Mr. Echemendia: The same --
Mr. Maxwell: -- for purposes of this particular item and this -- you probably need to make that
record.
Mr. Echemendia: Fair enough. I think some of the same principles apply. Let me just go ahead
and incorporate it by reference, and depending on how this evolves, we will ask the questions
directly or not.
Mr. Pastoriza: Mr. Chair, if I could, I would strongly object to this exhibit because there is no
building being proposed here. I don't know where he got --
Mr. Echemendia: Yeah.
287 July 24, 2003
Mr. Pastoriza: -- this building from --
Mr. Echemendia: Mr. Chairman, I'm still --
Mr. Pastoriza: -- but we're strictly --
Mr. Echemendia: -- in my presentation. He's had his.
Mr. Pastoriza: No, no, but --
Chairman Winton: Hold on, hold on.
Mr. Echemendia: He doesn't have the opportunity to object now.
Mr. Pastoriza: You put this --
Chairman Winton: Hold on, hold on.
Mr. Pastoriza: -- into the record without even --
Chairman Winton: Hold on.
Mr. Echemendia: Hey, you're entitled to object.
Chairman Winton: Mr. City Attorney. I'm not the attorney.
Mr. Maxwell: The application before you is for a comprehensive land use change -- plan
change. In order to review this application, you're looking, as we've said many times in the past,
at one thing: All the uses that this property can be put to, if this particular application was
approved. There is no project in front of you, that I'm aware of, so your review is based on --
utilizes the standards and criteria for this particular land use designation, not any particular
project or anything of that nature.
Mr. Pastoriza: I would just make a blanket objection to any exhibit or any items that are
distributed that indicates any type of a project on this property.
Chairman Winton: That objection —
Mr. Echemendia: Bear with me for a second. I mean --
Chairman Winton: -- is duly noted.
Mr. Echemendia: Fair enough. Mr. Chairman, the graphics are based. They're CAD (Computer
Aided Dispatch) -generated. One is based on the site plan, the conceptual site plan that was
shared with Mr. Hollo by the applicant in a -- not so much a settlement conference because
attorneys weren't there, but just a meeting between the applicant and Mr. Hollo. It is computer -
288 July 24, 2003
generated. It is to scale as to what it would look like in the event that his proposed project would
be built. The other one is also CAD -generated to scale based on what's permitted under the SD
(Special District), and that shows you exactly what the setbacks would be based on what's
allowed in the SD district. Mr. Pastoriza, give me a chance to make my presentation. You can
object later. Just note it in your notes.
Chairman Winton: Right. Thank you.
Mr. Echemendia: One of the things that Mr. Pastoriza didn't tell you is that all of the other
properties that you've rezoned SD -6 are an assemblage of lots. Mr. Hollo's had eight lots. The
Pedro Martin site has three lots. The Bowmen site has three lots. This site has one lot. It is one
20,000 square foot lot that is 63 feet in width to 93 feet in width. It doesn't even meet --
Chairman Winton: It's what, 63 feet in width and 93 feet in width?
Mr. Echemendia: Because of the crescent.
Chairman Winton: Oh, OK.
Mr. Echemendia: It's a wedge.
Chairman Winton: Got it. Thank you.
Mr. Echemendia: It doesn't even meet the minimum requirements of the R-4. The R-4 has a
minimum lot width requirement of a hundred square feet. It doesn't even meet that. The
preliminary plans shared by the applicant with Mr. Hollo are reflected -- are right beside me to
the right. As you can see, there would be a five -feet setback at some points. Between a 13 and a
5 -foot setback are northerly views; that is, the northerly views of Bay Park Plaza, as you can see
from that graphic, would be completely obliterated. That would be 235 out of the 471 units
would literally have no views, and to the extent that it's -- it's a single -loaded building that would
be proposed by the applicant to the north. They would basically be looking into a wall 13 to 5
feet away from our building. Let me tell you a little bit about what the current zoning allows and
what the proposed zoning allows in terms of FAR (floor/area ratio), and that's what's depicted in
the graphic that's on the floor. As you can see, clearly, there are deleterious effects on the
adjoining property. Currently, the FAR that is allowed is 1.72, or a hundred and -- that is 35,000
square feet. With a proposed SD zoning on a 20,000 square foot lot, Mr. Chairman, you'd have
up to -- between 4.8 and 8.4 FAR, for a total of 185,000 square feet to conceivably be placed on
that site, based on the SD -6 zoning. At the Planning Board, there was some discussion regarding
that there's unlimited height on the R-4, and therefore, the SD -6 also has unlimited height. That's
a little bit misleading because the height is driven by the FAR. Under the height -- under the
current zoning today, based on the FAR, they would only be allowed approximately seven
stories. Based on the increase in FAR and based on the conceptual plan that was provided to Mr.
Hollo by the applicant, they would go up as much as 32 stories or 31 stories with an 11 -level --
with an 11 -story or level parking structure, 25 cars per floor. The setbacks are currently 20 feet
in the front, 10 on the sides; those would go to five feet, respectively, both the front and the side.
Considering the size of the lot, 93 to 30 -- I'm sorry, 93 to 63, the unlimited height, the five-foot
289 July 24, 2003
setbacks, the 185,000 square feet that would be allowed, we believe that it would be untoward to
allow this rezoning to go forward. The lot is too small for the requested rezoning. It would
engender an incompatible development and we, therefore, think the rezoning is premature and
inappropriate. At this point, I would like Mr. Luft to lay the foundation for his expertise, briefly,
and then he will talk to you a little bit about the history of the North Bayshore Drive crescent;
that the area was driven by views, and dependent on open space; that the subject lot is too small;
that, ironically, though the R-4 has a minimum lot width requirement of a hundred feet, the SD -6
does not, notwithstanding the fact that you can get about four times as much FAR, and then Mr.
Hollo will tell you a little bit about the substantial depreciation to the value of his property. He'll
testify that, after having told you the years of experience that he has as a developer and the
expertise that he has relative to the values of property and depreciation in value of the property,
he'll also give you a little bit of a historical perspective regarding the development of his site. I
understand that Mr. Pastoriza may have made a comment regarding when we were approved, and
I was unfortunately chatting with somebody else at the time. I'm sure that Mr. Hollo will correct
the record relative to that comment, and then he will also tell you a little bit about the fascinating
whistler effect that this building being setback five to thirteen feet from our building will cause,
and then I will talk a little bit about compatibility, and I'll wrap up rather quickly after them, too.
Thank you.
Jack Luft: Jack Luft, 1717 Windward Way, Sanibel Island; 35 years experience as a planner, 28
years with the City of Miami; actively involved in the Downtown Master Plan, and in particular,
the shaping of the SD -6 zoning for the Omni district. The City knew, looking ahead for many
years back, that, ultimately, the day would come when the crescent on Bayshore Drive would
emerge as one of the large prime windows on the Bayfront. This is an -- almost an invaluable
asset, both for the community and for the people that build and will ultimately live there.
Incomparable views across the park and the bay. I say this because it is understood that
everything that happens on this crescent is essentially view -driven. The inherent value of this
site, the inherent desirability, the quality of life that will impart to the people that will ultimately
live here, or that already live here is, part and parcel, intricately tied up with views. The City, I
believe, has appropriately established a high density zoning district that allows for urban
densities to occur, and within the context of this particular segment of Bayshore Drive, we
already see the scale of development that's going, and we see developments are coming forward
that are utilizing every available density and intensity limit that they can get under SD -6. The
issue before you today, frankly, I think boils down to Mr. Pastoriza's comment, which said,
"Everybody else to the north had it. Everybody else to the south has it, and we deserve it, too."
The argument is basically saying like properties in a like circumstance must be treated in a like
manner. That's a fundamental principle of zoning. However, I would argue that this property
and the one to the north of it, unless they are assembled, are not like properties. They are, in
fact, half the size, half the frontage, and are irreparably compromised in terms of achieving and
sustaining the kinds of view amenities that this district was set up to accommodate. Where
you're headed with this one, and the only reason to change the zoning to SD -6 -- this is not use
question; we're talking about residential. Residential can happen today in a multifamily. There's
no other reason to change the zoning than to get more intensity. The question you need to ask
yourself is, is it appropriate for this community to put more intensity on a site that is 60 feet wide
at one end and 90 at the other that will impose sure walls within 20 to 25 feet of each other,
literally compromising and blocking the views. I would argue that there is no reason to do that;
290 July 24, 2003
that a reasonably development of this property, a reasonably use can be sustained under the
multifamily R-4 zoning, and that the protections are there in that process and in your SD -2 or
your SD -2 per -- your Class II Permit and the design standards therein to deal with that. The
problem you're going to have is that when you get to a Class II Permit, as you ultimately will on
this property, regardless of what happens, you're going to be dealing with standards that say
buildings -- and this is specific here -- shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize
impediments to water views from principal public viewpoints at the upper levels of buildings
located inland along Biscayne Bay. That's Section 606.3.2, subparagraph one. The question is,
why are you going to change zoning and then confront how to take triple, quadruple the FAR and
protect and minimize the impact on views? It will be a -- virtually impossible. It's going to be
difficult enough at the multifamily level, but if you extend this thinking, for sure you have set a
precedent in rezoning this site for the yellow building, which is the second lot to the north. If
you say, in effect, it's OK to do the red building, you're going to get the next one. It's almost
foreordained, because the next one actually has a street next to it, and they are the last one in the
row that can turn their back to the other buildings and preserve some semblance of the view
corridor to the bay, so now you've destroyed, effectively, the value of two buildings to the south
to gain one more on the single lot to the north. We're headed down a path, from a planning
standpoint and from a zoning point, that you do not want to go down. There is no need to change
this zoning. This is not a like circumstance, it's not a similar property, and you need to preserve
the ultimate quality of life measures that prompted this entire area to develop in the direction it's
going. It's going nicely, thank you, and this is going to ultimately collapse that effort. I strongly
urge you to deny this zoning application and this request as unnecessary and counterproductive
to the plan and objectives of the City and the standards that it operates by.
Mr. Echemendia: Ask you one question. I just need to ask him one question. Could you save
your cross-examination for after we finish our presentation, like they did in the other one,
please?
Chairman Winton: Correct.
Mr. Echemendia: Mr. Luft, is it your opinion, based on a review of the application, as well as
the Comprehensive Plan, that this is consistent or inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive
Plan?
Mr. Luft: I believe that the multifamily high density zoning that is there -- or the desig -- land
use designation that's there today is appropriate and is consistent with that, and that the zoning
should remain as it is. To change the master plan to create this kind of --
Chairman Winton: Could you answer his question, please?
Mr. Luft: It's -- it is not -- it is consistent with today's designation. It would not be consistent
with the designation he's seeking.
Chairman Winton: Thank you. Santiago, you have -- are you done?
291 July 24, 2003
Mr. Echemendia: Yes. Mr. Hollo is going to now tell you a little bit about the economic -- the
depreciation of the value of his asset --
Chairman Winton: Thank you.
Mr. Echemendia: -- and some historical perspective.
Tibor Hollo: Good evening, gentlemen. I know you had a long day. My name is Tibor Hollo,
100 South Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida. I just want you to be aware of the fact that last
night, in the building, which is just south of the subject property, there was a meeting of 471 -unit
occupants. Approximately, 850 people showed up at the meeting. A great number of them
wanted to come down to this hall, and I have asked them not to make a circus out of it, a three-
ring circus, and I have asked them to allow me to speak for them so you wouldn't have to be
exposed, until tomorrow morning, into objections. The effect is not as Mr. Pastoriza has stated
to you. We have gotten the approvals, prior to 1995, to proceed with a building according to the
plan at that time that established the northern boundary of the SD -6 overlay district at the north
property line of our property, and at that time, it was deemed that the properties north of us
would create the buffer. Next to us there was a three-story building built according to the RU -4
designations, except they didn't conform to the lot size. They only had allowed 63 feet on one
end, 93 feet on the other end. The lot was required to be a hundred foot wide. However, they
managed to build a three-story, thirty -some unit building on the site, and equally on the
following side, which is also only 63 feet by 93 feet, they also built a building with, I believe,
approximately 35, 40 units, which was, again, consistent with the RU -4 zoning, but wasn't
consistent or conforming to the hundred -foot minimum lot size designation. We have been
building this building upon encouragement from the City, who wanted us to revitalize the Omni
area, and we have committed to build a rental building, which most people are building
condominiums, to attract young people to the area, which we have done. This was our purpose
of doing, to revitalize this part of the City. Then, in your consideration, you decided to help
continue the SD -5 overlay district further up to the north, and approved a couple of big
assemblages. I believe it was mentioned that the project on -- the 1800 Club, I think there was
five sites assembled there to do a -- I believe it's a 450 -unit building, and then north of it was Mr.
Pedro Martin's, whom you heard, another assemblage of, I think, three lots, as well. We have
assembled eight lots to build our building, and according to the request of the City, we have
maintained in all our buildings, in all our buildings, at least a hundred feet from tower to tower,
because that was an important requirement of the City in order to allow the light, to allow the air,
to allow the views of the bay to pervade to the deck part of the lots beyond the frontage on
Bayshore Drive, and going back and further away from it, so we have met upon the request. We
have met the contract -- a person who contracted to purchase this property, and there -- and his
architect, who presented us with a plan that they want to build. It is a 31 -story structure, built
basically as a loft -type of development, single -loaded --
Commissioner Sanchez: But are they -- there are no plans in front of us for a building.
Mr. Hollo: Oh, yes, they presented us the plan, what they wanted to build, Mr. Commissioner
Sanchez.
292 July 24, 2003
Commissioner Sanchez: Yes.
Mr. Hollo: They did present us with a plan.
Mr. Pastoriza: We will rebut that.
Commissioner Sanchez: Huh?
Mr. Pastoriza: We -- he's not --
Unidentified Speaker: No. We never presented anything. No.
Commissioner Sanchez: I mean, what -- that's --
Unidentified Speaker: We only presented a sketch.
Commissioner Sanchez: Let me just state this. We keep talking about a big project, a project
that's going to, you know -- there's no project in front of us today here. I mean --
Chairman Winton: Correct.
Commissioner Sanchez: -- anything that -- any project that's going to be built there has to get a
special permit, and then it would have to come in front of this Commission for final approval.
No?
Mr. Hollo: No.
Commissioner Regalado: No.
Mr. Echemendia: No. Commissioner Sanchez, they don't have to go for a Major Use Special
Permit with the number of units that they're going to have. They would only have to do a Class
II, and I'll go into the arguments as to why a Class II isn't really a stopgap because they will
argue that. They have -- it's as a matter of right, just like you hear relative to the Major Use
Special Permits, and as was said in the earlier proceeding that even staff was saying in hearings
that -- or at least there was some comment that --
Commissioner Sanchez: But the Administration wants --
Mr. Echemendia: -- as a matter of right.
Mr. Maxwell: That -- if I may --
Mr. Echemendia: Commissioner --
Mr. Maxwell: -- Mr. Chairman.
293 July 24, 2003
Mr. Echemendia: -- to answer your question directly --
Mr. Maxwell: Pardon me, Mr. Echemendia.
Mr. Echemendia: -- they presented a conceptual plan --
Chairman Winton: Hold it.
Mr. Echemendia: -- at our meeting, and that's why we're --
Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Echemendia.
Chairman Winton: Hold on.
Mr. Echemendia: Excuse me?
Mr. Maxwell: Excuse me. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Winton: Yes, sir.
Mr. Maxwell: Again, the application before you is to re -designate this property --
Commissioner Sanchez: High density.
Mr. Maxwell: --restrict --
Commissioner Sanchez: To restricted commercial.
Mr. Maxwell: -- restricted commercial, so the question before you would be how could this
property be used? What's the maximum density under that designation? What's the largest
building that could be put there, largest structure, and what methods of use the property can be
put to, and whether or not that panoply of uses is compatible with the surrounding property under
the criteria and standards to use for making those evaluations? Not -- it doesn't have anything to
do with what might have been discussed. As you well know, projects come before you all the
time that are never built, so that's pure speculation, but whatever you re -designate that property
to is a use to potentially -- it could be put to, so that's what you're supposed to look at --
Chairman Winton: Thank you.
Mr. Maxwell: -- the total uses.
Mr. Echemendia: And, Mr. Chairman, that's exactly what we're doing; we're showing you a
massing expression of what could be done under the Code. That's exactly what is depicted in
those graphics.
294 July 24, 2003
Mr. Hollo: I would like to just point out that that kind of a mass to our building will destroy our
building. There are 240 apartments facing the north, out of 471. These apartments have
currently the beautiful Biscayne Bay views. Those views will be completely shattered and
blanketed by a mass of a building, like we have before you. That really means that a $75 million
investment that I have made into this City will be gone. It -- we have obtained against the $75
million investment a $50 million loan from HUD (Department of Housing and Urban
Development). I will have no choice but to tell HUD it is my building, because that building will
empty out, and I was told that last night; that if it's allowed to happen, they'll be gone. All these
people who came in in good faith to our area, they will be gone out of this area. The project of
this sort creates, by the way, an incredible venturi effect. If you look at this plan, it's nothing
more but a giant behemoth whistle. Regardless of how small the wind will be, the wind will be
pushing through this area and will create a noise, a sound that will not be unbearable to the
people in the building, but will be unbearable for people a mile away. We have a complete
analysis of the economic effect on that building. You have been -- wisely rezoned other areas in
this particular section. However, you rezoned large parcels of land that were entitled to be
rezoned. In this particular section, these people have one lot. Now, there are two such lots left
in the area used to the absolute maximum as an RU -4 zoning; two buildings, each of them
separate, 20,000 square feet; roughly 20,600 square feet to each of them. Now, think of it, that
the next -- Mr. Julio Marrero, who owns the building next to this site, he'll run down — he's
chomping at the bit to come down to you and ask for a zoning change also. What that will do is
that will destroy the use for the gentleman who wants to build the first building. You know,
interesting things happen socioeconomically. One of the item is that when you offer a
condominium document, you have to, under the penalty, a criminal penalty, tell the truth in those
documents, if the truth comes to your attention, and they -- the truth is in their attention; that
another building will be built, so they will try to sell condominiums with views of the bay that
would be also covered just as they want to cover our views. This is not an assemblage; this is a —
one lot that, in the time of yores, was a single-family lot and didn't even qualify for a single-
family, because a single-family RU -1 lot had to have a hundred feet frontage. Then they zoned it
to RU -4, and RU -4 require it to be a hundred feet minimum frontage; yet, they build the building
to the full extent of RU -4, and now they're attempting to do something even more, so when we
have met -- when we had met Mr. Menendez, who is the proponent of this project, and said that I
-- we told him that it's impossible for us to accept such a plan because it will destroy our
building. He says, well, you can buy my building for $6 million -- my plan for $6 million, and
that was -- that --
Chairman Winton: I'm not sure that's part of the relevant testimony. We're not --
Mr. Hollo: No, of course not, but I just wanted --
Chairman Winton: --so --
Mr. Pastoriza: You know --
Mr. Hollo: -- to relate to you --
Mr. Pastoriza: --I haven't objected --
295 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: --I'm --
Mr. Pastoriza: -- in difference to Mr. Hollo, but --
Chairman Winton: Thank you.
Mr. Pastoriza: -- I mean, he's gone on and on rattling about things that are really not at issue
here.
Chairman Winton: I've --
Mr. Hollo: I understand that. What we'll have here is an absolute loss of our building. I have
brought it -- I don't want to submit it to you, or I could, if you so desire. The building will be
worthless. It will be maybe tenantable as a Section 8 building, maybe, but HUD will have to
worry about it. If that -- if it goes back to HUD, City of Miami will be redlined by HUD, I
assure you.
Mr. Pastoriza: I obj ect to all of this.
Chairman Winton: Right.
Mr. Pastoriza: This has got nothing to do with this hearing.
Mr. Hollo: Well --
Mr. Pastoriza: Redlining, HUD --
Mr. Hollo: --that's --
Mr. Pastoriza: -- what does this --
Mr. Hollo: I think --
Mr. Maxwell: I agree, I agree.
Mr. Hollo: -- that it's very relevant to our city.
Mr. Maxwell: I --
Chairman Winton: Excuse me.
Mr. Hollo: I labor in this city.
Chairman Winton: Excuse me.
296 July 24, 2003
Mr. Maxwell: It's not --
Chairman Winton: Excuse me, excuse me. Mr. City Attorney.
Mr. Maxwell: I don't think it's relevant, respectfully. I don't think it's relevant --
Chairman Winton: OK.
Mr. Maxwell: -- to the question before you today, though. It's important maybe to Mr. Hollo,
but it's not relevant to --
Chairman Winton: To this --
Mr. Maxwell: -- the application before you.
Mr. Hollo: I labor in this city for --
Chairman Winton: We understand.
Mr. Hollo: -- almost 50 years now, and the best of the city is in my heart. This would be going
against what was developed in this city. The understanding that between towers you have at
least a hundred -foot distance. You have a very, very competent Planning Department, who
could really evaluate the econo -- effect of such a plan, and you can evaluate rather a zoning
from that standpoint should be allowed, and the physical effect on the neighborhood. The
physical effect on its immediate neighbors and the entire neighborhood, that should evaluate the
socioeconomic effect and the physical effect on the immediate neighbors and then the immediate
neighborhood. I am -- I thank you very much for allowing me to speak, and I thank the other
people that didn't come in to bother you. As a closing, I can say to you that what you see there is
like putting two elephants on a drum in a circus; that's what will develop there, and that's what
will create the terminate effect in the best part of this area that you just put in $4 million into
improving the Pace Park. Thank you very much for allowing me to speak to you.
Chairman Winton: Counsel, do you have other expert testimony?
Mr. Echemendia: No, Mr. Chairman. I just have four main points that I wanted to articulate just
for the record. The reason that we submit to you today, the reason that we're requesting that you
not allow the rezoning -- and Mr. Pastoriza will argue that after the rezoning, there's a Class 11
Permit -- is that as you've heard before -- well, the Class 11 just doesn't afford us the protection.
There are no public hearings. Though it's appealable, there's a courtesy notice, but it's not
required. It's inevitable that once the zoning is in place, they'll assert that in the absence of any
variances, that they will be entitled to the FAR. You hear it all the time with respect to your
Major Use Special Permit applications; that they argue that they're entitled to the FAR as a
matter of right, based on the zoning, regardless of the design and compatibility issues. That's the
first issue. The second issue is that we believe the application, as concurred to you by our expert
Jack Luft, is inconsistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan,
specifically Goal LU -1, maintaining -- "maintain land use pattern that protects and enhances
297 July 24, 2003
quality of life in the City's residential neighborhoods." We would submit that this doesn't
enhance the quality of life at the Biscayne Park Plaza. The land use policy 1.1.3, "City must
provide protection from encroachment of incompatible land uses." We submit that what would
be allowed under the SD -6 and the attendant land use designation would engender an
incompatible development. Thirdly, the City must protect against adverse impacts of future land
uses and adjacent uses that disrupt or degrade man-made amenities. I would submit that, clearly,
Mr. Hollo's property would be adversely affected. We would also argue that the SD -6 is -- FAR
is inconsistent with the Downtown Master Plan, as well with the City's Comprehensive Plan, and
that the restricted commercial designation violates the goals, policies, and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan, generally. Let's talk a little bit about the rezoning. I will be very quick. I
know that -- thank you for indulging us. I know you've had a long day. The standard that you
have in front of you, Commissioner Sanchez, is a standard under Snyder. First, the applicant has
a burden of showing -- and the standard is in front of you -- for a kind of ease of just reading it
for yourselves, but it basically says that the applicant has the burden of showing consistency with
the Comprehensive Plan. Once they've shown consistency, then the burden shifts to the local
government to show that they would be furthering a legitimate public purpose by retaining the
status quo of the existing zoning. I would submit to you, in this case, that the burden has not
even shifted. Their application is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan insofar as the SD, as
well as the land use designation would allow incompatible -- would engender, in fact, almost, by
definition, incompatible development, and that if we were to assume that, in fact, it's
inconsistent, it would be a legitimate public purpose for you to retain the existing zoning on this
lot because it is just that; it is one substandard deficient lot, and that's one thing that's very
important in this case, because Mr. Pastoriza went on and on about the Pedro Martin site, and the
1800 Club, and Tibor Hollo's site. Those are all assemblages of a number of lots, so we would
submit to you that in order to avoid the detrimental effect, that that is, in fact, ensuring
compatibility is a legitimate public purpose to be furthered, and that in the -- well, I'll leave it at
that, with respect to the rezoning. We would submit that there are -- there is one thing that you
could possibly do that, I think, would be in everybody's interest and in the public's interest, and
that would be to defer the application to afford the applicant an opportunity to submit a site plan,
proffer -- a voluntarily proffered site plan that would ensure that the development is compatible.
Now, Gil will argue that, in the City of Miami, a site --
Mr. Pastoriza: How do you know what I'm going to say?
Mr. Echemendia: -- plan isn't required. It's not required in Dade County either, but
unequivocally --
Commissioner Gonzalez: Excuse me.
Mr. Echemendia: -- in rezoning cases -- excuse me?
Chairman Winton: Yes.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Mr. Attorney, does the design of the building, or the future design, or
whatever has anything to do with this?
298 July 24, 2003
Mr. Maxwell: No, sir.
Commissioner Gonzalez: It doesn't?
Mr. Maxwell: No.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Thank you.
Mr. Echemendia: And Mr. Gonzalez, just to maybe -- my point in answering that question, I
think it's not so much not a -- it's not so much a design issue; it's if the design will adversely
affect the existing as -built environment. Obviously, you don't want to allow a building or the
possibility of a building that would adversely affect an existing building. By allowing the
rezoning, it would allow -- and I'm sorry. Through the Chair, Mr. Gonzalez, it would allow
incompatible development. Our argument is that the Class II doesn't ensure us anything because
they will argue, in effect, that they're entitled to everything, but let me just wrap up, so what I
was going to suggest as a reasonable compromise -- and what the County typically does, the
County will not approve a rezoning application, though it's no longer part of the special
exception because of Omni Point, they will not approve a rezoning application, unless the
applicant -- and all developers that go in front of the County know that they must voluntarily
proffer a site plan to ensure compatible development. Clearly, compatibility is part of a rezoning
criteria. You have to ensure that you're not going to adversely affect adjoining properties.
Lastly, I think Gil will argue that -- he argued reverse spot zoning. This isn't reverse spot zoning.
The subject property is not surrounded by SD -6. It has another property to the north that is R-4.
It is not SD -6. The subject property is different. Reverse spot zoning is based kind of on an
equal protection argument. This is one lot. All of the other lots that have been rezoned SD -6 are
multiple assemblages of lots. They're assemblages of lots, so I would submit to you that this is a
different case. Lastly, spot zoning means change conditions result in the zoning "being so
unreasonable that it amounts to a taking," but to be a taking, regulations must "prevent all
reasonable use of property." That's Kugel versus the City of Miami Beach. It's a Third DCA
(District Court of Appeals), 1968 case, 206 Southern Second 282. That's not the case here. The
existing zoning allows reasonable use of property, which would be seven stories. There's
currently a three-story building, and a seven -story building on the other side. Now, Mr.
Pastoriza will argue that -- and he will show you a graphic that shows our building right on the
property line, and isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? But I submit to you that our building
on the property line is compatible with the existing three-story building today, and when you
approved the building, it was compatible then and it's compatible today. What is not compatible
is to allow a rezoning with no real stopgap because a Class 11 is not; it's an administrative permit
that may not even come before you, and enable them, vis-a-vis, the SD -6 to put a building that
looks just like this.
Chairman Winton: We've seen it.
Mr. Echemendia: Looks just like this, and that's -- this — these are not just pretty pictures. This
is a computer-generated --
Mr. Maxwell: On the record, please, sir.
299 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: And --
Mr. Echemendia: This is -- and this is just massing. This is not design. This is not a design
issue. This is a massing issue. This is what would be allowed under the zoning, and I guarantee
you that Mr. Pastoriza will argue that their -- that's it. They're almost vested, if you will. It's a
matter of right, and then it becomes a design issue, so we would, therefore, request -- I think, a
reasonable compromise would be to defer to require a site plan. I would submit that Mr. Hollo
hasn't even authorized me to take that position. I think that is a reasonable compromise. I didn't
even run it by him. He would rather have -- he's very concerned that he's going to lose all of the
economic viability of this asset. He would suggest that the rezoning be denied. There is
sufficient, competent, substantial evidence to deny the rezoning and to remand it back, or not so
much -- you can either deny it or you can defer the item, indefinitely -- or not indefinitely. We
should put some period of time, a definite period of time, maybe six months to allow the
Planning Department to look at the issue of the impact of maybe coming up with a minimum lot
size as it relates to the SD -6 district, because otherwise, you're going to have these problems
recurringly [sic], especially if you have a single lot that is attempting to rezone to SD -6, so we
would submit either deferral, allow them to come with a site plan; defer six months, allow the
Planning Department to look at it, or deny. Those would be the only reasonable options. If there
is additional, not that it's his testimony, but if there is additional factual evidence, I would like to
reserve the time for surrebuttal. Thank you.
Chairman Winton: Thank you.
Mr. Pastoriza: Another rebuttal for him? He's --
Mr. Echemendia: It's called surrebuttal --
Mr. Pastoriza: -- taken --
Mr. Echemendia: -- and it's only if there's additional testimony --
Mr. Pastoriza: -- 12 hours.
Mr. Echemendia: -- that's factual.
Mr. Pastoriza: Listen --
Chairman Winton: Go.
Mr. Pastoriza: -- I'm going to disappoint counselor because I'm not going to call the pot or the
kettle black, whatever. What I'm going to say to you is this is the Goliath punishing David
because David is small. I was very -- you know, it was very interesting to me that they come up
to you and they say, you know, when we build our 40 -story buildings and we put it 10 feet away
from that property line, we were compatible with the building next door. Hello.
300 July 24, 2003
Mr. Echemendia: There's a 26 -foot setback.
Mr. Pastoriza: Let me tell you what is really at issue here. The real issue here is that the
property owner to the south wants to make sure that he has his view to the ocean, and there is no
question about it, that the laws in the State of Florida says that, basically, in the absence of some
contractual or statutory requirement, there is no obligation. A land owner has no absolute legal
right to an unobstructed air and light from the adjoining land. That's really the real issue here.
The real issue is that our property owner to the south really doesn't want any development on this
property because the development on this property is going to block his views. Well, can I tell
you? Either he has to buy the property so that he has the ocean view, or you know, I am entitled,
as an abutting property owner, to the development of my property. The site plan requirement.
Well, I think that if -- as a matter of policy, this Commission can set a requirement that whenever
you have a rezoning or a Comprehensive Plan amendment, that there is a site plan included, but
the fact of the matter is that this Commission has not, by policy, said that. There's no
requirement that I come to you and bring you a building, so again, I do not know where they got
the information for those buildings. That's not what is at issue here. Then is the issue of
approvals. The SD -6 zoning district has -- or the project itself -- if we build a project on this
property that is 200 or more units, I need to go through a Major Use Special Permit, OK. If I
build a project that is less than 200 units, I have to get a Class 11 Special Permit, OK. Class II
Special Permit requires notices to the property owner to the south, to the west, to the north; all
the abutting property owners. There is a set of standards in your Code, OK, that would -- that
this Department has to measure my Class II Special Permit against, and that is Section 1305, and
guess what? Those are the same standards that this Department uses to measure Major Use
Special Permits, so there is a set of standards that we need to comply by, and when we bring in a
project, your staff, which is very competent, are -- is going to review all of these things. Now,
assuming that our neighbor to the south is not in agreement with -- and I'm assuming that the
staff will recommend approval or will issue a Class II -- he has the appellate right to bring that
Class II Special Permit position, just like we do, too, to the Zoning Board, OK, and if we are not
happy with the decision of the Zoning Board, we're going to come before you and we're going to
hash it all out here, so there is a mechanism and there is set of standards that controls Major Use
Special Permits and Class II Special Permits, and they're the same set of standards that saying
absolutely the same. In summary, -- I mean -- and you look at them. You look at the chart that I
gave you. None of these projects, including our neighbors to the south project, when they came
in for their zoning and comp. plan amendment, they did not come in with a site plan. You know
how long after the approval -- the project to the south was approved from July --
Chairman Winton: I don't think the prior project is relevant, so --
Mr. Pastoriza: Only to the extent that they didn't bring a site plan, OK, only to that extent, and
that none of the other ones --
Chairman Winton: And that point's been made.
Mr. Pastoriza: -- on North Bayshore Drive have brought a site plan. All in all, you have your
professional staff that has reviewed this project; they're recommending approval. We're asking
301 July 24, 2003
for no more, no less than what we -- than all of our neighbors have gotten. I thank you very
much. I know it's late. I'm out of here. Thank you.
Chairman Winton: Is there more counsel stuff?
Mr. Echemendia: Mr. Chairman, I just had one question, if you would allow me, just going back
to one of the housekeeping items with Joel. Well, I just wanted to confirm the reason I didn't
cross-examine Lourdes was because I had incorporated into this record the record of the
proceeding below, which is proper and is doable, and I do it -- I've done it in a hundred zoning
cases.
Mr. Maxwell: I don't --
Mr. Echemendia: If that's OK with you, that's fine. If you want me to go ahead and ask Lourdes
questions -- I just want to make sure that we're clear on that issue, that the record has been
properly incorporated, et cetera. I would imagine you're OK with it.
Mr. Maxwell: You're asking to cross-examine Ms. Slazyk?
Mr. Echemendia: Ms. Slazyk is the person, I imagine, who signs the recommendations. To that
extent --
Mr. Maxwell: Yeah, but I mean --
Mr. Echemendia: -- I think I would have the right to cross-examine her on anything in the
recommendation, and I would still incorporate into the record the record of the proceeding below
Chairman Winton: You've said that.
Mr. Echemendia: -- in any event.
Mr. Maxwell: You've made that request. I don't agree with that request.
Mr. Echemendia: Fair enough.
Mr. Maxwell: You have a right to cross-examine Ms. Slazyk, but -- I mean, as to her testimony
here today.
Chairman Winton: Not prior.
Mr. Echemendia: As to her testimony --
Mr. Maxwell: Not prior.
302 July 24, 2003
Mr. Echemendia: -- as reflected in the Planning Depart -- Planning and Zoning Department's
recommendation.
Mr. Maxwell: That's correct, as to her test -- testimony today.
Chairman Winton: No.
Mr. Maxwell: Her testimony today.
Chairman Winton: Tonight, this evening.
Mr. Echemendia: No. I am suggesting that I have the right to cross-examine her regarding her --
the Planning and Zoning report and the analysis that went into drafting that report. Now, if you
object, that's fine. For the record, I do not acquiesce to your -- I mean, I acquiesce to the extent
that your objection is noted and I will not cross-examine her.
Mr. Maxwell: No. She presented the report, I believe, so I think you can ask her questions on
that.
Mr. Echemendia: Fair enough.
Chairman Winton: But may -- but we need to be clear, and I want to make sure we're real clear.
He can only -- can he only cross-examine her on her testimony that she made tonight --
Mr. Maxwell: I think he specifically --
Chairman Winton: -- not prior testimony that was made in any other meeting or --
Mr. Maxwell: No, no. He's not --
Chairman Winton: -- at any other time?
Mr. Maxwell: No, not any other meeting. He's talking about her testimony today, and she -- I
believe she did mention what he's asking for now, the recommendations and
(UNINTELLIGIBLE), so she -- he can cross-examine her about that, not about --
Chairman Winton: About -- only --
Mr. Maxwell: -- her testimony --
Chairman Winton: -- about her testimony tonight.
Mr. Maxwell: That's right, but I'm saying that she --
Chairman Winton: I'm just making sure. Clear.
303 July 24, 2003
Mr. Maxwell: -- did testify about what he just asked about.
Chairman Winton: Well, Joel -- so, you can --
Mr. Maxwell: So --
Chairman Winton: -- cross-examine her, but only as it relates to whatever testimony she made
this evening.
Mr. Echemendia: Fair enough; though, I do not waive the right to argue that I had the right to
cross-examine her --
Mr. Maxwell: Noted.
Mr. Echemendia: -- with respect to anything --
Chairman Winton: Duly noted.
Mr. Echemendia: -- in the Planning and Zoning recommendation.
Chairman Winton: Thank you.
Mr. Echemendia: Thank you.
Chairman Winton: Lourdes, I think you're going to be examined, cross-examined.
Mr. Echemendia: Just two -- Lourdes, just two quick questions. The -- in 6066, it says that with
-- with respect to the SD -6, there are no minimum lot size requirements, but must conform to
other requirements and lawful regulations. What does that mean exactly, just if you can help us
out here? This isn't a trick question. I just --I don't know the answer, so I was asking you.
Ms. Slazyk: That --technically, I guess that's a zoning question. I don't know if you want my --
Mr. Echemendia: Fair enough. In that case, I'll ask the Zoning person.
Ms. Slazyk That -- yeah, in that --
Mr. Echemendia: With respect to this particular application, did you review the Downtown
Master Plan as it relates -- did you review this application as it relates to consistency --
Mr. Pastoriza: I object.
Mr. Echemendia: -- with the Downtown Master Plan?
304 July 24, 2003
Mr. Pastoriza: There's no evidence on the record about the Downtown Master Plan whatsoever
here, not -- neither on her direct, nor in any of the -- on the planning fact sheets, so I object to
that.
Mr. Echemendia: Fair enough.
Chairman Winton: Mr. City Attorney.
Mr. Echemendia: Mr. Chairman, the recommendation is devoid of any reference.
Chairman Winton: Hold it. Excuse me.
Mr. Echemendia: I'm asking if they had --
Chairman Winton: Hold on.
Mr. Maxwell: He's absolutely right.
Mr. Echemendia: -- included it.
Chairman Winton: Who's right? Which "he?" OK, so --
Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Pastoriza --
Chairman Winton: -- new question, please, sir.
Mr. Maxwell: -- is correct. As I said, he's -- he has --
Chairman Winton: We got it.
Mr. Maxwell: -- a right to cross-examine her about her testimony --
Chairman Winton: Tonight.
Mr. Maxwell: -- on this item, and there was no testimony on that item on this item.
Mr. Echemendia: We do not waive the right to argue that to the extent the Planning and Zoning
recommendation is silent as to that issue that I wanted to ask of her directly, and that's really all
there is, Lourdes. Just wanted to refer back to that. Could somebody from Zoning answer the
question regarding 6066?
Joyce McPhee: Good evening, Mr. Chairman. I'm Joyce McPhee from the Department of
Planning and Zoning, and presently, I'm the interim Zoning administrator.
Chairman Winton: Ask your question, please, counsel.
305 July 24, 2003
Mr. Echemendia: Joyce, thank you.
Ms. McPhee: Yes.
Mr. Echemendia: The 6066 that we were looking at earlier, it says no minimum -- and I'm not
really quoting because I just took notes from it, but it basically says no minimum lot size, but
must conform to other requirements and lawful regulations. How do you interpret those and --
how is that interpreted? What does that mean exactly? I guess --
Ms. McPhee: Well, if I was the one accepting the application and if I had reviewed the survey, I
would expect that to have meant, if they were rezoning to R-4, to meet the R-4 minimum width,
if I was the one reviewing it.
Mr. Maxwell: Sorry, we can't hear you.
Ms. McPhee: I'm sorry.
Mr. Maxwell: Could you move the microphone around?
Chairman Winton: You melted away.
Ms. McPhee: Is this R-4 or SD -6?
Mr. Echemendia: It's currently --
Ms. McPhee: SD -6?
Mr. Echemendia: -- R-4. It's currently R-4 --
Ms. McPhee: R-4
Mr. Echemendia: -- and they're proposing on rezoning to limited commercial and amending the
land use -- I'm sorry, rezoning the SD -6, and amending the land use designation to restricted
commercial. The current zoning is R-4.
Ms. McPhee: OK. If the current zoning is R-4 and they're going to SD -6, SD -6 does not require
a minimum lot size. It just requires that you meet all of the criteria that's in the SD -6.
Mr. Echemendia: OK, fair enough. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Thanks for indulging us.
Chairman Winton: OK. Any other -- hold on. Let me finish one part of -- yes, sir.
Mr. Echemendia: I'm sorry. Mr. Hollo -- there was one thing that Mr. Hollo wanted to state for
the record. Apparently, there was a three-story wall originally when we -- Mr. Hollo, you can --
it's just one comment.
306 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: I don't know what --
Mr. Hollo: Mr. Pastoriza has said that -- showed you a picture. When we acquired the land, that
building on the site called Bay Watch was already built, and there was a wall next to us, which
was three-story high, two and a half story high, covering the three-story building that they built.
I didn't build that wall, and the wall later on collapsed and --
Chairman Winton: I'm not sure I understand the relevance.
Mr. Hollo: -- we rebuilt it. We helped them to rebuild the wall. Relevance is that he said that to
you, that the kettle -- the pot calls the kettle black, you know --
Chairman Winton: OK.
Mr. Hollo: -- which is incorrect. We have -- we — the site was --
Mr. Pastoriza: Thank you.
Mr. Hollo: -- it was there already.
Chairman Winton: Thank you. OK. Counsel, are y'all done? This is a -- OK. The -- what is
Commissioner Teele's favorite saying, the Gucci shoes are done. This is a public hearing. We
will now open the public hearing portion. Does anyone from the public like to speak on PZ.6?
Anyone from the public on PZ.6? Apparently, there is no one from the public. We'll close the
public hearing. You get the gavel.
Commissioner Sanchez: The gavel has been passed to Commissioner Sanchez. Commissioner
Winton, you're recognized.
Chairman Winton: This whole thing is troubling to me, and -- because I am -- this is a train
wreck about to happen; there's no question about it, if -- there have been few times, since I've
been elected, that I voted on an upzoning because upzonings, more times than not, create all
kinds of problems, and when you have a lot size that has the narrow nature of this one, there's no
question, there's a problem. The problem was initially started, however, by Mr. Hollo, who did
choose, for whatever reasons, to build close to the lot line, knowing that, even in R-4, something
larger could be built and including wider, and so, you know, that kind of sets this domino effect.
However, he did build -- he was allowed to build and it was built. If you upzone this site, the
other developer will absolutely have a right to build a substantially larger project that, I think,
frankly, from a real estate professional standpoint, he would absolutely destroy the value of the
project that's already been built; probably destroy the value of his own project. I don't see how
that would work, but two destroyed values don't make anything necessarily good for our city,
and while I'm not necessarily -- if you look at the map -- just from looking at a map standpoint,
to me, it made sense to overlay the SD -6. That was my initial reaction when I wrote my notes
here. I didn't understand the logic of not doing so, but when you look at the individual
circumstances surrounding this, and you consider that this lot size is probably not a lot larger
than my house sits on, and consider that you can build a very substantial project on that site, I
307 July 24, 2003
think that we head, by granting this rezoning, for a major train wreck that we're going to have to
deal with as we continue to move on, because this thing is going to be far from over if we do this
rezoning. You simply can't put two buildings that are that significant side by side, and then the
third one will pop in; we will have to deal with that, and you've got nothing but a giant mess only
because of site size here, and that's the real issue, in my mind, that turned me from the point
where I thought, I don't get it. This should be SD -6. The whole thing should be SD -6, but I do
get it now. These site sizes are simply absolutely too small, at least in my mind, to allow for this
rezoning that creates a new train wreck that, trust me, we're all going to have to deal with. If we
leave the zoning where it is, the worst that happens is they build a bigger building than the one
that's there, but that bigger building will be smaller than what would be allowed by us rezoning
this, so as far as I'm concerned, my motion isn't to do anything except deny the rezoning of this
site, period, because I don't want to have to deal with a train wreck that I see coming down the
road, and that's what would be coming if we allow for a rezoning of this extremely small site, so
my motion --
Commissioner Sanchez: All right.
Chairman Winton: -- is to deny the rezoning; to go against the recommendation of the --
Mr. Maxwell: This is the Comprehensive Plan here. The zoning is the comprehen --
Chairman Winton: OK. Well, what --
Mr. Maxwell: -- is the companion item --
Chairman Winton: --so --
Mr. Maxwell: -- so you're denying the application to re -designate the Comprehensive Plan.
Chairman Winton: Thank you.
Commissioner Sanchez: Right.
Chairman Winton: That's my motion.
Commissioner Sanchez: The motion is to deny --
Commissioner Regalado: Second.
Commissioner Sanchez: -- the changing from high density multifamily residential to restricted
commercial; there's a second. It's open for discussion.
Chairman Winton: Which, by the way, has been consistent with my position since I got here; I
have almost always voted against upzoning anything, and I will tell you this final part. We
haven't seen the end of the train wreck that's coming in Edgewater because a Commission, long
before we got here, made the awful decision to take what, in effect, was a single-family and
308 July 24, 2003
small multifamily neighborhood called Edgewater and upzoned it to high-rise, and we haven't
come close to seeing the train wreck that's coming in that regard, and so you -- from my view,
we always have to be extremely cautious when we take any step to upzone properties, because
the end result can end up in something that most of us don't want to have to deal with, end of my
story.
Commissioner Sanchez: Under discussion. Just -- it was mentioned the Class 11. Now, a Class
II has standards. In other words, we have standards. It has to be approved by Planning and
Zoning. It has to be approved by Planning --
Ms. Slazyk: Design review, yeah.
Commissioner Sanchez: -- Building, Fire. I mean, they all have codes and they have to meet
those codes. Now, less than 200 units is Class II.
Ms. Slazyk: If the zoning gets changed to SD -6. If it stays R-4, then they could get up to 200
units by right. They just go get a building permit.
Commissioner Sanchez: But I tend to agree with you, Commissioner Winston. You're going to
open up a can of worms here, so what could they build there on that land? So whoever bought
that land has to, what, make a soup and eat it, or what?
Chairman Winton: How much square feet is this site, by the way?
Ms. Slazyk The property is about 20,000 -- little over 20,000 square feet.
Chairman Winton: By the way, my house sits on a 19,000 square foot lot.
Ms. Slazyk It's a little bit under half an acre, so they could do 200 units by right. You know,
the big issue, I think, with us was design review. I need to put something into the record. One of
the comments made by Mr. Echemendia was that they could only do a seven -story building.
There are some projects that have come before you in R-4 already --
Chairman Winton: Right.
Ms. Slazyk -- that came looking for extra FAR, that did 36 stories in an R-4, if you do just one
unit per floor, so seven stories is -- you know, R-4 is unlimited height.
Chairman Winton: It makes my point, exactly. That makes my point, exactly. You can still get
an awful lot of -- potentially, an awful lot of density --
Ms. Slazyk Right.
Chairman Winton: -- on this site at R-4, never mind going to SD -6.
309 July 24, 2003
Ms. Slazyk: Yeah. The concern was no design review with R-4. They would just go get a
building permit.
Commissioner Sanchez: All right. Any further discussion? Hearing none, there's a motion and
a second. All in favor, say "aye."
Commissioner Regalado: No. It's an ordinance.
Commissioner Sanchez: Is it an ordinance? No.
Mr. Maxwell: It's an ordinance, but this is a motion to deny.
Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah, it's a motion to deny, so all in favor, say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Commissioner Sanchez: Anyone opposing, having the same right, say "nay." Motion carries.
The following motion was introduced by Chairman Winton, who moved for its adoption:
MOTION NO. 03-885
A MOTION TO DENY PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO.
10544, AS AMENDED, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE MIAMI
COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BY CHANGING THE
LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM "HIGH DENSITY MULTIFAMILY
RESIDENTIAL" TO "RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL" AT
APPROXIMATELY 1770 NORTH BAYSHORE DRIVE.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Regalado, the motion was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
310 July 24, 2003
62. DENY PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000,
CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT
REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM R-4 MULTIFAMILY
HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO SD -6 CENTRAL COMMERCIAL -RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT AT 1770 NORTH BAYSHORE DRIVE
Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): So, they don't do anything on PZ -7,
right?
Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): No. They take up 7.
Chairman Winton: What'd you say?
Mr. Maxwell: Should -- the motion to deny on 7.
Ms. Slazyk: Yeah, the companion item is 7.
Chairman Winton: So moved.
Commissioner Regalado: Second.
Commissioner Sanchez: There is a motion on 7, second. Open for discussion. Hearing none, all
in favor, say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Commissioner Sanchez: anyone opposing, having the same right, say "nay." Motion carries.
The following motion was introduced by Chairman Winton, who moved for its adoption:
MOTION NO. 03-886
A MOTION TO DENY PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING
ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401,
SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING
CLASSIFICATION FROM R-4 MULTIFAMILY HIGH-DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL TO SD -6 CENTRAL COMMERCIAL -RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT AT APPROXIMATELY 1770 NORTH BAYSHORE DRIVE.
311 July 24, 2003
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Regalado, the motion was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Santiago Echemendia: Thank you.
63. DENY PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000,
CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT
REGULATIONS BY CHANGING ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM R-2 TWO-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL TO R-2 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WITH AN SD -12 BUFFER
OVERLAY DISTRICT AT 3150, 3160, 3138-40 SW 21sT TERRACE.
Chairman Winton: OK, PZ.8.
Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ.8 is a change of zoning in order to
allow an SD -12 Buffer Overlay District for the properties at 3150, 3160, 3138, and 3140
Southwest 21st Terrace. This is in order to allow a surface parking adjacent to commercial. It
would increase the ability to provide parking for this area, rather than it otherwise spilling into
the neighborhood. It's an adjacent commercial use that would utilize it. It's been recommended
for approval by the Planning & Zoning Department and denial by the Zoning Board to the City
Commission.
Lucia Dougherty: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. My name is
Lucia Dougherty, with offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue. You have been incredibly patient this
evening, and therefore, I'm going to be incredibly brief. This property is located -- well, I
represent the Coral Way Medical Group, which is composed of six very prestigious doctors who
purchased the building just west of 32nd Avenue and Coral Way, and they purchased it -- it was
a language school. Ralph Moss, who is an internist, is with me this evening, as well as his
brother, Edalphonso Moss (phonetic), who is the Chief of Staff of Mercy Hospital, and he was
the Chief of Cardiology at Mercy Hospital, and Dr. Cario is also here with me. He is an
internist. Along with them is a surgeon, as well as a pulmonologist, and they've purchased this
building -- Marisol Gonzalez is also here with me. She's my legal assistant. I'm just going to
bring this up a little closer so you can see where it is. This is the medical office building that
they purchased about a year ago. Adjacent to this medical office building is a parking lot for the
medical office building, and behind it is an existing parking lot for the medical office building, as
well, and in 1965 is when that parking lot was first established for this building. This request is
to ask for a overlay, SD -12 in order to allow them to park on one additional lot, so this overlay
actually is on -- it's going to remain single-family, with an overlay for SD -12 in order to allow
312 July 24, 2003
the parking. I just want to show you this condition. This photograph was taken at 3 o'clock this
afternoon on 21st Street. You'll see, there's literally bumper -to -bumper cars parked on the street
already, so what this request will do --
Commissioner Regalado: Are you telling me -- I get all the complaints.
Ms. Dougherty: You do.
Commissioner Regalado: Of course, I do.
Ms. Dougherty: Well -- and I -- and I was --
Commissioner Regalado: And let me say this, Mr. Chairman. There is -- in fact, I have a memo
here from Art Noriega because we requested some parking signs. One block east is another
clinic, another -- and they had some signs because of the hydrant and because of there were some
parking meters, and what is happening is that they bring elderly patients, and they don't have
parking to unload, and they have to block the whole street.
Chairman Winton: We've dealt with this issue before. Is there opposition to this item? All
right, never mind.
Ms. Dougherty: There isn't --and let me just --
Chairman Winton: Go on.
Ms. Dougherty: --make some remarks. At the Planning Advisory Board, which I did not attend,
I understand that there some issues by the neighbors about the parking on Coral Way. Currently,
the doctors actually have a valet service and they park cars across the street at a restaurant, which
is -- it's a -- what kind of restaurant is that? A Peruvian restaurant, so they're actually valet
parking across the street on Coral Way, but eventually, this property is going to be redeveloped,
so there won't be an opportunity to continue valet parking across the street, and so where are the
patients going to park? They're going to park again in the neighborhood, so we have a very
prestigious doctor's group that's bought this property. You -- I assume that we'd want to make
sure that this building is viable and this doctor's group is viable in the City of Miami. We would
want to make sure that the patients can park nearby, and one of the things that the -- that this
transitional --
Chairman Winton: I didn't do that.
Ms. Dougherty: One of the things that this --
Chairman Winton: I didn't do it this time.
Ms. Dougherty: -- transitional or overlay zoning allows you to do is to keep this residential. It
requires us to come in for a special exception and bring in a site plan with a 20 -foot wall and a
buffer, and one of the things that the --
313 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: A what, a 20 -foot wall?
Ms. Dougherty: Twenty -foot landscape buffer and a wall.
Chairman Winton: Oh. Thank you.
Ms. Dougherty: There will be no entrances and exits, by Code, onto 21st Street, and one of the
things that the doctor said that they would be happy to do for the residents and the neighborhood
is to provide security in the evening for this parking lot, so with that, I would ask that we would
be able to rebut any testimony from our neighbors.
Chairman Winton: OK. It's a public hearing. Open to the public. Yes, sir. Step up. Anyone
else who wants to testify, please line up behind the first gentleman, and we'll get you one at a the
time. Your name and address for the record, please, sir.
Reynaldo Delgado: OK. My name is Reynaldo Delgado. I'm the property -- address 3132-3136
Southwest 21st Terrace. I am the property owner of the property immediately adjacent to the
east of the proposed parking lot. Can I make some corrections to what she said or can I just --
Chairman Winton: Sure.
Mr. Delgado: OK. Number one, it's six doctors. The sign has more than six, if I can read when
I drive by. It's about 14 or 15. It is not -- they're planning to -- I'm sorry. They claiming that the
patients would park in the neighborhood; they already do, and if they add about 12 parking
spaces, it's not going to really alleviate the parking situation. Twelve fewer cars is not going to
make this any wider, and the property sits on 21st Terrace, not 21st Street. OK. Right now -- I'll
make it two minutes or less, I swear. Right now --
Chairman Winton: Thank you.
Mr. Delgado: -- I have some friends who are living on the other unit next to mine. They have a
three-month old baby. This baby sleeps about 12 feet away from this proposed parking lot, 12
feet. I am here asking that you guys let this baby sleep in peace. The only way we could do this
is by not allowing this parking lot. Also, right now the property immediately behind my
property, it's -- it used to be the old Sportsman Paradise -- they opened a theater, a live theater. I
spoke to some of the actors there and the owners, and they said that the way they're going to deal
with the parking, they're going to bring in a conveyer style parking, and they'll bring the cars up.
I haven't seen the contraption, but they're basically trying to find an alternate solution, other than
steamrolling the neighbors out of there. Right now the building owner has enough space to add a
second -- a two-story parking garage, similar to the one that's already approved and in place at
3500 Coral Way. It's a new development by Renzi. There's a two -parking garage there. Why
don't they want to do this? It's simple. It's going to make their building look ugly, so instead,
they want us to pay the price for that. Right now --
314 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: I didn't understand that. Are you -- I'm sorry. Are you suggesting that they
would be building a two-story parking garage? Is that what you --
Mr. Delgado: Facing Coral Way or on the other side of Coral Way, like Renzi Development has
30 -story or --
Chairman Winton: But I'm talking about on this site.
Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Chairman Winton: Are you suggesting they would build a two-story garage on that site?
Mr. Delgado: If it's on the Coral Way side?
Chairman Winton: No, on your -- on this side right here.
Mr. Delgado: No, not on my side. No.
Chairman Winton: OK.
Mr. Delgado: I said on the Coral Way side. No, no, no, not on my side.
Chairman Winton: OK.
Mr. Delgado: We don't want any parking lots on our site. I'm sorry.
Chairman Winton: Yeah. That wasn't going to be happening.
Mr. Delgado: No, no, no, on the Coral Way side. They don't want to do that because it's going
to look -- it's going to destroy their facade basically, and they want to destroy ours instead.
Chairman Winton: Well, we wouldn't allow that on Coral Way anyhow, so --
Mr. Delgado: OK. I'm just saying it existed in Coral Way with Renzi, so they could do that.
Also, the building owner has an option to lease space across the street for employees. This is
another solution. We're not here just to complain. They could lease space across the street for
employees; have the employees park there, and use the approximate 50 spaces that they have for
the patients. If most of these people are elderly, why not lease parking anyways? They're going
to be bussed in. There's also -- this is the Terre Bank building right across from there, and there's
also the old Office Depot building next to Winn-Dixie that's vacant, and there's only a flower
lady there. They could lease space from there. Two more points. Right now also the building
owner has had plenty of time -- they bought this building more than a year ago -- to approach us
and ask us for what we thought about development of the area. They haven't done that. They
had a simple query on the neighborhood, I think, three days before the last hearing that they had,
where the petition to force or to ask homeowners to sign what they thought. That was as much
contact as we had. After the last meeting we had, we met outside and said, you know, let's get
315 July 24, 2003
together, let's talk. We haven't heard a thing, and I'm the one that's closest. Just knock on my
door; talk to me; I'm there. In essence, the big picture is that Coral Way needs parking spaces.
As residents, we should not -- we're not blind to see that this is a need. However, don't make us
life-long residents pay for this. As the old saying goes, "a lack of planning or your part does not
constitute an emergency on mine," and these people have lacked the planning. Before I close, I'd
just like to show you some quick pictures because I know they have some very, very beautiful
visuals. This is the back part of the parking lot. The wall that they proposed, as you see, it's full
of mildew. Since the last meeting, I brought the exact same picture. This is an updated one.
This one's today. It's got today's zoning hearing. They haven't done anything yet in months.
This is -- can I pass this or just leave it? OK. Another picture of the wall. Another picture of
the wall with no mildew. I mean, knowing this was going to happen, with enough foresight, I
mean a month ahead, I -- the exact picture, I made the exact same point. If you want to be, you
know, preventive about this, the least you could have done is painted the wall. I have another
picture that shows -- the other side of the property, there's a pallet. These pictures were shot
today before the meeting. As a matter of fact, they were shot at 4:30, not even 3 o'clock, a little
bit after. It was a little late, and these are pallet pictures on the side of the building, and also, if
you notice, the inside wall of the building is sparkling clean, so they keep the inside clean, not
the outside, and the last pictures, I just want to show -- it's about five of them -- they're pictures
of the neighboring properties. If you know, we take care of our property; all our lawns are
trimmed, the houses are painted. It is not like we'll -- you know, we -- most of us are owners. I
think it's only one or two buildings that are renters; the rest of us are owners. Please, do not
allow this parking lot into our neighborhood.
Chairman Winton: Thank you.
Mr. Delgado: Thank you.
Chairman Winton: Thank you. Yes, ma'am.
Miriam Ordaz: Miriam Ordaz, and I reside at 3151 Southwest 21st Terrace. Good evening, and
we've been here --
Chairman Winton: Wait, wait, wait.
Ms. Ordaz: -- since 3:30, so I thank --
Chairman Winton: Hold on, ma'am. I'm sorry. I think we needed to do a formality here about
swearing in. Have y'all been sworn in?
Ms. Ordaz: We were sworn in --
Chairman Winton: You were here when --
Ms. Ordaz: --at 3:30.
Chairman Winton: We just wanted to make sure, and sorry for keeping you so late.
316 July 24, 2003
Ms. Ordaz: OK. First of all, I want to recognize the homeowners that have stayed with us since
3:30, and we have Mr. Eddie Borden, who has been in the neighborhood since 1941; his father
built the home, and he's been living there now, so this is an established neighborhood. I've been
living in my home for 19 years. Ms. Rebecca Gonzalez has been there for 33, and Mr. Delgado,
that just spoke, was there -- has been there for 10 years. I want some clarification as far as who
is the owner of the property on 3133-40 Southwest 21st Terrace, because when we came to the
hearing in June, the Coral Gables Medical Group were petitioning, along with Emelia Diaz, who
is the present owner, but she's moved out, so I don't know if they're the owners or who are the
owners now.
Ms. Dougherty: They're the owners.
Ms. Ordaz: So they just closed on that now.
Ms. Dougherty: It's been closed.
Ms. Ordaz: OK, so I am assuming then that they were aware when they purchased the home,
you know, beforehand of the zoning, that it's an R-2 residential family, not an R-1. I kind of
walked in through their parking area and I estimated they have at least 50 parking spaces now
available for their clinic. When they invested over three -- almost $3 million in buying this
building, I felt that they should have done their homework and thought about their patients, and
their well-being, and whether they were going to have ample parking for their employees, and
their patients. If you take a look or walk around the area in our neighborhood on 31st Court and
21st Terrace, right off of 32nd Avenue, there are six metered City parking spaces. On 31st Court
and 21st Terrace, there are 10 metered parking spaces. On 32nd Avenue and Coral Way, there
are 11 City of Miami parking meters. Right on 21st Terrace, the City came by about two
weekends ago and they put up two poles. They haven't brought the meters in, but that's what
they're going to do. They also on 3127 Southwest 21st Terrace, there are three additional
metered parking spaces. On 3191 Southwest 21st Terrace, there's a parking garage available also
for patients, you know, if they need additional parking. There's even, like Mr. Delgado
mentioned, an empty lot on Coral Way an 32nd Avenue that used to be owned or leased by
Office Depot, and they now moved to Coral Way and 27th, and that's been abandoned also.
That's another option that they have, if they need additional parking for their patients. If Coral
Way Medical has, you know, this amount of money to invest in the neighborhood right off of
Coral Way, and they've invested or they paid over a quarter of a million dollars for a home that,
you know, was valued at 260, and they paid over 280,000 for it, they should have done their
homework. Why should we, as the neighbors, be forced to look at -- now, we currently have, as
you saw in the pictures, a 10 -foot wall that was built there in 1974 -- well, it was probably built
prior to that, but it was grandfathered in 1974. They haven't maintained it. They've been owners
of the property for over a year. I think it's almost a year and a half or closer to two years, and
they just recently, you know, trimmed the grass and the lawn and took care of some of the
shrubbery, but the mildew on the wall is still there. I can't imagine having to look -- because the
property that they currently bought, that they want to change into a parking space is directly in
front of my home, so when I look through my windows, I'll be looking at a 20 -foot wall encased
in a parking area that we don't need. I feel that it's bad enough to have to look at the 10 -foot wall
317 July 24, 2003
that's on the corner; it was already there when I moved in, but not have to look at a 20 -foot wall
directly in front of my property.
Chairman Winton: Well, there -- that was a -- it's not a 20 -foot wall; it's a 20 -foot landscape
buffer, so that's in-depth, not height.
Ms. Ordaz: Right, but how high is the wall? The wall is going to be at least 10 feet tall because
that's --
Chairman Winton: Yeah. That wasn't discussed, but --
Ms. Ordaz: OK.
Chairman Winton: -- it won't be -- just so you're -- it -- no matter -- I don't know what's going to
happen, but it wouldn't be a 20 -foot wall.
Ms. Ordaz: OK. I know that all of you that sit on the Commission are homeowners. I want you
to put yourself in our position, and we'd like to think, you know, would it be appropriate for you
to have to look across your home and see a wall there and a parking space? We currently have a
City ordinance that does not allow a homeowner to maintain or permanently park a boat in front
of their home; it's not aesthetically pleasing and it's against the law, but yet, they want to, you
know, have -- buy this home, knowing what the zoning was, is an R — S -- 2 residential, and
change -- you know, have it amended to that SD -12 buffer overlay, and have a wall put there.
I'm asking that on behalf of the homeowners that you carefully take into considerations the
concerns raised and the strong opposition to amending the Zoning Ordinance from a two-family
residential to a two-family residential with an SD -12 buffer overlay. We urge you to vote your
conscience and highly consider the two-thirds majority vote by the public Zoning Board that
recommended that the ordinance not be amended. They supported the homeowners, and we feel
that your vote to deny this petition is in the best interest of the community. We want you to send
a strong message to commercial businesses, whether it's famous doctors from mercy building.
When I visit the doctors at mercy building, I have to pay for parking. I lot of times I have to
walk more than two or 300 feet to get there. They should have taken that into consideration
before they made the purchase. We want you to send that strong message to these businesses
and let them know that they don't have the right to knowingly buy a home in an established
community that has been around since the 1940s and expect the homeowners to agree to such a
petition. As homeowners, we are outraged that they would even try to change the zoning for
profit without any consideration for the homeowners who will be impacted now and in the
future. Please, deny this petition and don't allow Coral Way medical group to change the zoning
classification. Thank you for your time.
Chairman Winton: Thank you. Anyone else from the public like to comment? Anyone else
from the public? Then we will close the public hearing.
Ms. Dougherty: I just have a few words in rebuttal. They -- these doctors -- there's only -- there
are 14 doctors; there are 6 owners, but not all the doctors have moved in yet. They've put in half
a million dollars in renovations of the building. One of the next things to renovate is the wall
318 July 24, 2003
and landscaping around this property, along with the special exception, should we be privileged
enough to have this rezoning, so what we're seeking today is permission to come back before
you, and we would commit today not to take down that building until we get a special exception
for a -- for the parking lot, if we are able to do so, and within that special exception, you'll see
the landscaping, you'll see any buffering. We'll buffer the area in between the baby's bedroom
and the parking lot. We'll also be showing you the lighting situation. We'll also secure the
parking lot in the evening, if that's something that the neighbors would like, so if we even get
this privilege today, we will not be able to take down the building until we come back before you
for a special exception.
Chairman Winton: OK. Anyone else from the public? Being none, we'll close the public
hearing.
Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Winton: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Regalado: Got questions here. Lourdes, if we were to deny, what would stay and
would the wall still be allowed to be there, the actual wall that we have there?
Chairman Winton: The current wall?
Ms. Slazyk: Yeah. The current wall is --
Commissioner Regalado: If we denied --
Ms. Slazyk: -- grandfathered. The only difference that this application does is it adds the one
more lot to the ability to add more parking. What the one more lot does, though, because they're
putting the SD -12 on all of it is that through the special exception, you could request a new wall
for the entire thing; upgraded landscaping. It would allow the whole thing to be upgraded, where
if you wouldn't, then it would -- that could stay the way it is. I mean, they would still probably
have to paint it under our appearance code and fix it up.
Commissioner Regalado: Under the --
Ms. Slazyk: Yeah.
Commissioner Regalado: -- under Code Enforcement --
Ms. Slazyk: Yes.
Commissioner Regalado: -- they're going to have --
Ms. Slazyk: Yes.
Commissioner Regalado: -- paint it --
319 July 24, 2003
Ms. Slazyk: Yes.
Commissioner Regalado: -- but my question and my point is, say we denied -- and I'm willing to
do that -- but if we do that, then the wall, which supposedly was grandfathered, right?
Ms. Slazyk: Stays, yes.
Commissioner Regalado: It is -- so the wall may and will stay there, and the thing that will not
be changed is the other property, but we won't be able to request the 20 -foot landscaping or other
amenities that we want to do on that.
Ms. Slazyk Correct.
Commissioner Regalado: Is that correct?
Ms. Slazyk Correct. Because one of the things that we've done in the past in some of these SD -
12 situations is, instead of a solid 8 -foot wall, we look for a combination wall with picket fence
that is really much more attractive as a buffer between the parking and any kind of neighborhood
on the other side. I think, through the SD -12 and that special exception, you could put all --
additional conditions on there to make it look nice, so that -- you know -- but otherwise --
Chairman Winton: Commissioner Regalado.
Ms. Slazyk -- yes, you're right, the existing wall would stay; it's grandfathered. They just
would not be able to expand the additional lot.
Chairman Winton: Commissioner Regalado.
Commissioner Regalado: I think this lady wants to make -- do you --
Ms. Ordaz: Our concern --
Chairman Winton: Well --
Ms. Ordaz: -- is not just the wall that's existing there. That has been, you know, the other -- the
school that was there prior that they mentioned, they didn't take care of it either. That's basically
not the concern. The concern is that they want to demolish the home, the duplex that's on 31 --
38 -- 3140, and turn that home into a parking lot, and then put up the wall. That's the one that we
don't want.
Chairman Winton: OK. Thank you.
Ms. Ordaz: OK.
Chairman Winton: And the public hearing is closed. Commissioner Regalado, I -- yes.
320 July 24, 2003
Commissioner Gonzalez: Are we talking about two properties here, because it says 3150 and
3160 --
Chairman Winton: It's a duplex.
Commissioner Gonzalez: -- 3138 and 3140. It's two duplexes, right?
Ms. Dougherty: We're actually talking about -- let me just explain this to you. The overlay is
over both the existing lot, because currently, that's a nonconforming, so we're going to make it
conforming, which means that when we come in, you'd have to have a special exception on all
of it, but the existing lot is here and that one's going to stay no matter what. The only change
would be we would add this one lot to this existing parking lot. This one doesn't go away, but
we thought, as long as we're doing it, we'd put a -- we'd make it all legal and all subject to the
one special exception.
Commissioner Regalado: OK.
Mr. Delgado: Could I say something else?
Chairman Winton: No. The public hearing's closed, so -- you have a motion?
Commissioner Regalado: Yeah, I have a motion. You know, I think SD -12 has work in other
places. We saw it work on 27th Avenue, where now the Eckerd stands, SD -12 has worked -- it's
worked in Le Jeune, where we have that traffic problem in the residential area. I'm afraid that
the parking situation is going to become worse in the area because we are about to approve a new
project where the Peruvian restaurant is. This -- there are new plans for Paseo's, which will
mean that Sears will not be able to rent the parking spaces at the former Paseo's shopping center,
so there's going to be a problem in the area for parking, but protecting the residential
neighborhood is what we're here for, so my motion is to deny the request.
Commissioner Sanchez: Second.
Chairman Winton: We have a motion and a second, and Commissioner Regalado, and I will, as
you know, support this completely because we both feel the same way about this, but I would
say this to the neighbors. You really might want to -- see, I'm looking at this differently than I
think they are and you are. I'm looking at this as potentially, if this got deferred instead of
outright denied, an opportunity where -- and we've done this many times, where we make the
developer go back and actually meet with the homeowners and talk about a plan that works
extremely well for the neighborhood, and this it's come back to us, and I will tell you that in
virtually every single instance, the end result has been extremely good for the neighborhood,
much better than anything that's done, and if you take that process, if the developer doesn't
respond appropriately, we've said no again, but there's a potential significant win here in that you
could --
Commissioner Regalado: I will --
321 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: -- at least request of the developer --
Ms. Dougherty: And we're willing to do that.
Commissioner Regalado: And, Johnny --
Chairman Winton: Excuse me.
Commissioner Regalado: -- I will be inclined to do that, but you know, I think that there is a
sense, well, you know, those politicians favor the people with money and all that, but what's
going to happen by denying this is that the wall is going to stay as it is forever and ever, and
they're fine with it, and there's going to be a lot of parking in the residential, so you know, I wish
that they would meet with the --
Ms. Dougherty: Could I make a suggestion?
Commissioner Regalado: -- developer --
Ms. Dougherty: That we actually --
Commissioner Regalado: -- but I guess you don't want to meet.
Ms. Dougherty: I'd be happy to hire --
Commissioner Regalado: You don't want --
Ms. Dougherty: -- an architect so you could see what it looks like.
Commissioner Regalado: Resident -- you represent the residents or your next door represented,
but you don't want to meet anymore, you do not want to discuss anything else?
Mr. Delgado: They've never attempted to meet. Now, at this particular --
Commissioner Regalado: No, no, no, no, no.
Ms. Dougherty: No. That's --
Commissioner Regalado: I said --
Chairman Winton: But talk -- we're -- the future.
Commissioner Regalado: -- if you want in the future, not that they never attempted before.
Commissioner Sanchez: What do you mean, you've never met? They've never approached you
on this issue?
322 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: Yeah, they've gone about --
Mr. Delgado: Sign this petition, that's it.
Chairman Winton: -- about very poorly, no question about it --
Commissioner Regalado: No question.
Chairman Winton: -- so I don't --
Commissioner Regalado: That's not the problem.
Commissioner Sanchez: Well, let --
Ms. Dougherty: That's not the case. We wrote a letter and --
Commissioner Sanchez: All right.
Ms. Dougherty: -- invited them to our --
Commissioner Sanchez: Well --
Chairman Winton: Excuse me, we're talking.
Ms. Dougherty: OK.
Commissioner Regalado: OK, so the question is do you all want to meet with them to discuss
the possibility of landscaping and the way that --
Ms. Ordaz: They can landscape the existing wall that was grandfathered in --
Commissioner Regalado: No, no, no --
Ms. Ordaz: -- that's fine.
Commissioner Regalado: -- you can --
Chairman Winton: They're not required to do that.
Commissioner Regalado: We cannot -- that's the problem. That's what I'm saying.
Ms. Ordaz: No, that's fine. They can leave it the way it is. We just don't want the home on 31
that they bought, knowing it's a duplex and it's an R-2 family, to tear that down and turn it into a
parking lot. That's what we don't want.
323 July 24, 2003
Commissioner Regalado: OK, so my motion is to deny.
Chairman Winton: We have a motion and --
Commissioner Sanchez: Second.
Chairman Winton: -- a second. Discussion. Being none, all in favor, aye.
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. The motion carries.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Regalado, who moved for its adoption:
MOTION NO. 03-887
A MOTION TO DENY PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING
ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401,
SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS BY CHANGING THE ZONING
CLASSIFICATION FROM R-2 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO R-2 TWO-
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WITH AN SD -12 BUFFER OVERLAY DISTRICT
AT APPROXIMATELY 3150, 3160, 3138-40 SW 21sT TERRACE.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the motion was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Ms. Dougherty: Thank you very much.
324 July 24, 2003
64. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 11000, CITY'S ZONING
ORDINANCE, SECTION 946, ENTITLED "PUBLIC STORAGE FACILITIES" TO ADD
DISTANCE LIMITATIONS FOR SUCH FACILITIES WHEN LOCATED WITHIN C-1
RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS (Applicant(s): Joe Arriola, Chief
Administrator).
Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): There's only one to go.
Chairman Winton: What is it?
Ms. Slazyk: PZ. 11. It's a first reading ordinance to add distance limitations for public storage
facilities in C-1.
Chairman Winton: OK. Is -- this is a public hearing. Anyone from the public that like to speak
on PZ. 11? Anyone from the public on PZ. 11? Being none, we'll close the public hearing.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Move PZ. 11.
Chairman Winton: Thank you. Need a second.
Commissioner Sanchez: Second.
Chairman Winton: Motion, second. Discussion. Is this an ordinance?
Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): Yes, sir.
Chairman Winton: Read the ordinance, please.
The ordinance was read by title into the public record by the Deputy City Attorney.
Chairman Winton: Roll call, please.
Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Roll call.
An Ordinance Entitled —
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF
THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 9, SECTION
946, ENTITLED "PUBLIC STORAGE FACILITIES;" TO ADD DISTANCE
AND LIMITATIONS FOR SUCH FACILITIES LOCATED WITHIN C-1
ZONING DISTRICTS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
325 July 24, 2003
was introduced by Commissioner Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, and was
passed on first reading, by title only, by the following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Ms. Thompson: The ordinance is passed on first reading, 4/0.
65. CLARIFICATION BY DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ON CORRECT COMMISSION
MEETING DATE FOR CONTINUANCE OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO RESCIND
ORDINANCES NOS. 12332, 12333, AND 12346 AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10544,
MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN; AND SUBSTITUTING IN LIEU
THEREOF NEW ORDINANCE, INCORPORATING RESCINDED AMENDMENTS IN AN
UNCHANGED, UNIFIED FORMAT AS SINGLE AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO.
10544.
Chairman Winton: How about PZ. 12?
Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): PZ. 12 was continued.
Chairman Winton: Oh, it was?
Mr. Maxwell: One housekeeping --
Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): September 25.
Mr. Maxwell: You continued that, I believe they said 24 --
Ms. Slazyk: I think --
Mr. Maxwell: -- on the record on that one --
Ms. Slazyk -- I think that --
Chairman Winton: Oh, yeah, that was --
Mr. Maxwell: -- and that's a misstatement --
Chairman Winton: -- the one we corrected to the 25th, OK.
326 July 24, 2003
Mr. Maxwell: -- as well as 25. It's September 25.
Chairman Winton: OK. We'll close the PZ (Planning & Zoning) agenda.
66. DEFER TO COMMISSION MEETING CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER
11, 2003: DISCUSSION CONCERNING CURRENT PROCESS FOR DEALING WITH
ABANDONED BUILDINGS; STATUS REPORT ON BUS BENCH ISSUE; DISCUSSION
CONCERNING CITY LICENSING PRACTICES; AND STATUS OF COMPLIANCE FOR
PARKING LOT ACROSS FROM MIAMI ARENA.
Chairman Winton: What regular agenda items do we have left?
Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): We have all of the blue sheets.
Chairman Winton: Yeah, I know. Real agenda items.
Ms. Thompson: Oh.
Commissioner Regalado: Hey, this is real agenda.
Chairman Winton: Yeah.
Ms. Thompson: Beginning with Number 37, you have the board appointments.
Chairman Winton: No, we're not going to do board appointments tonight.
Ms. Thompson: OK. Discussion Items, you have 42, 43, 44, and 45.
Commissioner Gonzalez: What's that?
Chairman Winton: Forty-two, forty-three, forty-four, forty-five. We (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Mr. Manager, are there -- oh, these are all status things, so y'all mind -- we'll -- 42, 43, 44, and
45, we'll pick them up next time. Listen, if --
Commissioner Sanchez: So move to defer those items for the next Commission meeting.
Chairman Winton: Motion. Second?
Commissioner Regalado: Second.
Chairman Winton: All in favor, "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Commissioner Gonzalez: That's in September.
327 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. The motion carries.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved for its adoption:
MOTION NO. 03-888
A MOTION TO DEFER THE FOLLOWING ITEMS TO THE COMMISSION
MEETING CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 11, 2003:
• DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE CURRENT PROCESS FOR DEALING
WITH ABANDONED BUILDINGS;
• DISCUSSION CONCERNING A STATUS REPORT ON THE BUS BENCH
ISSUE;
• DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE CITY OF MIAMI LICENSING
PRACTICES; AND
• DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE STATUS OF COMPLIANCE FOR THE
PARKING LOT ACROSS FROM MIAMI ARENA.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Regalado, the motion was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Commissioner Sanchez: Huh?
Commissioner Gonzalez: That's in September.
Chairman Winton: September, correct.
Commissioner Gonzalez: I'm sorry.
Chairman Winton: Yeah --
Commissioner Gonzalez: Yeah, September.
Chairman Winton: --September.
328 July 24, 2003
67. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: AMEND SECTION 2-892 AND DIVISION 3 TO
CHAPTER 12.5 OF CITY CODE ENTITLED "ADMINISTRATION" AND "COMMUNITY
REVITALIZATION" WHICH CREATED LITTLE HAVANA HOMEOWNERSHIP TRUST,
BY REPEALING ALL SECTIONS RELATED TO TRUST, AND SUBSTITUTE IN LIEU
THEREOF NEW SECTIONS ESTABLISHING LITTLE HAVANA COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD.
Chairman Winton: We do -- do any of you have a blue sheet item that you need to take up
tonight?
Commissioner Regalado: Yeah.
Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Winton: OK.
Commissioner Sanchez: I have one that needs to be -- well, I'll yield -- OK.
Commissioner Regalado: No, go ahead, go ahead.
Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, as you know, the homeownership for Little Havana has
been in the works for quite some time now, and we have basically created the ground rules for
the Little Havana Community Redevelopment Advisory Board. It's -- in a nutshell, it's not
going to be a trust; it's going to be an advisory board, and the reason is that we want a more
package approach, and one which basically simplifies the process by almost about 80 percent, I
think. It sets -- we have already set our -- well, this ordinance basically sets our boundary from
the Miami River, 4th Avenue, Southwest 8th Street, 17th Avenue. It's created a seven -member
advisory board; all of its members selected by the District 3 Commissioner, and ratified by a full
Commission. It creates a homeownership body that is advised by the board and staffed by full-
time employees provided by the City Manager. Basically, this homeownership initiative will
focus on preserving the area's urban fabric while creating homeownership opportunities in a
neighborhood where less then 10 percent of housing is owner occupied. The advisory board will
create -- will concentrate on working with developers and private lending institutions to restore
existing building, converting them into affordable homeownership opportunities for residents of
that boundary, so therefore, I'm prepared to move the creation of the Little Havana
Homeownership Trust -- well, excuse me, not trust, an advisory, so move.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Second.
Chairman Winton: Got a motion and a second.
Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): This is an ordinance.
Chairman Winton: Ordinance. Read the ordinance, please.
The ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney.
329 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: Roll call, please.
Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Roll call.
An Ordinance Entitled —
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING
CHAPTERS 2 AND 12.5 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,
FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING THE CHAPTERS ENTITLED
"ADMINISTRATION" AND "COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION" WHICH
CREATED THE LITTLE HAVANA HOMEOWNERSHIP TRUST (THE
"TRUST") PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. 12356, ADOPTED APRIL 10,
2003, BY REPEALING ALL SECTIONS RELATED TO THE TRUST, AND
SUBSTITUTING IN LIEU THEREOF NEW SECTIONS ESTABLISHING THE
LITTLE HAVANA COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD
(`BOARD") BY DEFINING THE GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARIES FOR THE
DISTRICT, SETTING FORTH THE BOARD'S PURPOSE, POWERS AND
DUTIES, PROVIDING FOR COMPOSITION AND APPOINTMENTS AND
PROCEDURES, NOMINATION AND ELECTION PROCEDURES, TERMS
OF OFFICE, VACANCIES, MEMBERSHIP QUALIFICATIONS,
ATTENDANCE REQUIREMENTS, OFFICERS; OATH, QUORUM AND
VOTING, MEETINGS, INDEMNIFICATION, ABOLISHMENT,
SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATED PERSONNEL BY THE CITY MANAGER TO
ACT AS LIAISON TO THE BOARD, COUNSEL, BUDGET APPROVAL AND
ANNUAL REPORT AND PROVIDING FOR "SUNSET" REVIEW; MORE
PARTICULARLY BY AMENDING SECTION 2-892 AND DIVISION 3 TO
CHAPTER 12.5, OF THE CODE; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION,
A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE
DATE; AND PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CITY CODE.
was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, and was
passed on first reading, by title only, by the following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Ms. Thompson: The ordinance is passed on first reading, 4/0.
330 July 24, 2003
68. APPOINT JESSIE DINER AS MEMBER OF CHARTER REVIEW AND REFORM
COMMITTEE.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Did we -- Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Winton: Yes.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Did we do Item A this morning?
Chairman Winton: Item who?
Commissioner Gonzalez: A.
Chairman Winton: A?
Commissioner Gonzalez: Mayor's Item.
Chairman Winton: I don't know.
Commissioner Gonzalez: In reference to FACE (Film Arts, Culture And Entertainment) grants -
Chairman Winton: No.
Commissioner Gonzalez: -- Festivals and --
Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): No.
Chairman Winton: Do we need to do that?
Commissioner Gonzalez: I don't know. I'm just asking because --
Chairman Winton: Yeah, apparently not. The City Clerk says we did not.
Commissioner Gonzalez: -- it might have passed while --
Chairman Winton: Yeah, but --
Commissioner Gonzalez: -- I was out, and I have --
Commissioner Sanchez: No.
Commissioner Gonzalez: -- some --
Commissioner Regalado: No.
331 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: She says we did not do it.
Commissioner Gonzalez: -- concerns about this item, so --
Commissioner Regalado: Which one? Which one?
Ms. Thompson: Citywide "A."
Commissioner Sanchez: The Mayor's item.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Yeah, the Mayor's item.
Commissioner Regalado: No, I don't think so.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman, I've been advised by the City Clerk that I need to make
at least one appointment so the --
Chairman Winton: Oh, OK, great.
Commissioner Gonzalez: -- this board can meet.
Chairman Winton: Please.
Commissioner Gonzalez: The Charter Review and Reform Committee --
Chairman Winton: Go ahead.
Commissioner Gonzalez: -- so my appointment is Jessie Diner.
Chairman Winton: Need a second.
Commissioner Regalado: Second.
Chairman Winton: Motion, second. Discussion. Being none, all in favor, say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. The motion carries.
332 July 24, 2003
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gonzalez, who moved for its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-889
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION APPOINTING AN
INDIVIDUAL AS A MEMBER OF THE CITY OF MIAMI CHARTER
REVIEW AND REFORM COMMITTEE FOR A TERM AS DESIGNATED
HEREIN.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Regalado, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
69. APPOINT LAZARO LOPEZ AS MEMBER OF NUISANCE ABATEMENT BOARD.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Also, I heard that the Nuisance Abatement Board, they're having a
problem, so I'd like to proffer Lazaro Lopez.
Commissioner Regalado: Second.
Chairman Winton: Motion, second. Discussion. Being none, all in favor, say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Commissioner Gonzalez: I said I'd defer the other ones for next month.
Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. The motion carries.
333 July 24, 2003
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gonzalez, who moved for its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-890
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION APPOINTING AN
INDIVIDUAL AS A MEMBER OF THE NUISANCE ABATEMENT BOARD
FOR A TERM AS DESIGNATED HEREIN.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Regalado, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
70. REQUEST THAT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WORK WITH
MANUEL ARTIME CENTER ADMINISTRATION AND COME BACK IN SEPTEMBER
WITH RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING WAIVERS OF RENT FOR OFFICE SPACE
FOR CERTAIN SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCIES WHICH WERE AFFECTED BY
REDUCTION OF FEDERAL FUNDS.
Chairman Winton: OK. Commissioner Regalado.
Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman, I have two resolutions from Commissioner Teele. He
needs to do this, and I would gladly move those two resolutions. I have one resolution from the
Manager's Office. I have three from the Coconut Grove Marketing Committee, so I'm going to
start with the Manager's, but first, on the blue page, you know, the City has a moral
responsibility with some of the social programs, and we have a request from Catholic Charities
and we have a request from the Haitian Community Center, all located at the Artime Center, so I
have -- I would move a motion to have Community Development work with the Manuel Artime
administration and come back in September for a remedy that would help all the social agencies
affected by the cuts of social money from the City of Miami or the state of Florida, located at the
Artime complex. That's my motion.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Second.
Chairman Winton: Got a motion and a second. Discussion. Being none, all in favor, say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
334 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. The motion --
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Regalado, who moved for its adoption:
MOTION NO. 03-891
A MOTION REQUESTING THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT WORK WITH MANUEL ARTIME CENTER
ADMINISTRATION AND COME BACK IN SEPTEMBER WITH A
RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING WAIVERS OF RENT FOR OFFICE
SPACE FOR CERTAIN SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCIES WHICH WERE
AFFECTED BY THE RECENT REDUCTION OF FEDERAL FUNDS.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, the motion was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Commissioner Regalado: On September 11, because they have rent paid until September 30, so
we need to make a decision at that time.
71. ACCEPT BID OF WILLIAMS PAVING CO. INC. FOR ROAD REHABILITATION
PROJECT B 4653, $709,999.99.
Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman, the City Manager has given me this item. It's
recommended that the City Commission adopt the attached resolution accepting the bid of
Williams Paving Company, Inc., for Road Rehabilitation Project, B-4653, received on July 22,
2003, in the amount of $709,999.99, the total bid. Williams Paving Company is a company
located within Miami -Dade County at 11300 Northwest North -- South River Drive, in Medley,
and dah, dah, dah, dah. My motion is to approve the Manager's recommendation.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Second.
Chairman Winton: Comment. I'm a bit lost here -- not lost, perplexed. We had a supplemental
agenda. I have three spending items here in front of me that we're doing through pocket item --
Joe Arriola (City Manager): Yes, sir.
335 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: -- and pocket item spending items aren't good, so -- I mean, there was no
way we could get these on supp -- at least supplemental agenda so that it at least had some public
notice about spending money?
Mr. Arriola: Well, if you look at the dates when we opened it bids, it was a few days ago. Now,
you want me to put shovels in the ground and --
Chairman Winton: Yeah, I know.
Mr. Arriola: -- get the work done. I mean --
Chairman Winton: I understand.
Mr. Arriola: -- the Commissioner's beating up on me, so that's the only reason I brought it up.
If you want me to delay it, it's OK.
Chairman Winton: You're caught in kind of a Catch-22, but just understand that --
Mr. Arriola: I understand.
Chairman Winton: -- you know, from a basic public policy standpoint, we don't want to do this.
We do want to get shovels in that ground, so I'm -- that -- you answered my question, but we just
want to make sure that we work real hard not to do this stuff. OK.
Mr. Arriola: I promise you.
Chairman Winton: We got a motion and a second. Discussion. Being none, all in favor, "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Commissioner Regalado: And by the way, Mr. Manager --
Chairman Winton: Motion carries.
336 July 24, 2003
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Regalado, who moved for its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-892
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
ATTACHMENT(S), ACCEPTING THE BID OF WILLIAMS PAVING
COMPANY, INC., FOR THE PROJECT ENTITLED "ROAD
REHABILITATION PROJECT, B-4653," IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$709,999.99 FOR CONTRACT COSTS PLUS $92,300 TO COVER EXPENSES
AND OTHER COSTS TO BE INCURRED BY THE CITY FOR A TOTAL
PROJECT COST OF $802,299.99 AS SET FORTH ON THE FORMAL BID
DOCUMENT AND THE DEPARTMENT OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT FACT SHEET; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO. 313855; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE
ATTACHED FORM, FOR SAID PURPOSE.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Commissioner Regalado: -- Mr. Cano thank you for the signs. They look like a movie. It says
"Coming Soon."
Chairman Winton: Good. OK.
Commissioner Regalado: It could be --
Chairman Winton: What's the next item?
Commissioner Regalado: -- you know, next summer. It could be next winter.
Mr. Arriola: But they're coming.
Commissioner Regalado: Well, they're coming. I mean --
337 July 24, 2003
72. AUTHORIZE $1,000, FROM BUDGET OF OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER TOMAS
REGALADO, TO COVER COSTS RELATED TO CONCERT TO BE HELD AT MANUEL
ARTIME CENTER ON AUGUST 24, 2003, TO BENEFIT HISPANIC AIDS FOUNDATION.
Chairman Winton: OK. Let's go, next item, next item, next item.
Commissioner Regalado: Next item. Jesus, I have so many.
Chairman Winton: You have too many?
Commissioner Regalado: Yes. Let me -- A resolution of the Miami City Commission
authorizing the allocation of funds, in an amount not to exceed $1,000, from the budget of the
office of Commissioner Tomas Regalado, to cover costs related to a concert to be held at the
Manuel Artime Center on August 24, 2003, to benefit the Hispanic AIDS (Acquired
Immunodeficiency Syndrome) Foundation. That's my motion.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Second.
Chairman Winton: Motion, second. Now, what are we really doing there, Commissioner
Regalado?
Commissioner Regalado: Huh?
Chairman Winton: Tell me what we're doing.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Pocket items.
Chairman Winton: Yeah, I know, but --
Commissioner Regalado: It's -- here, but it was received by your office yesterday. It's signed.
Chairman Winton: OK. Any further discussion? Being none, all in favor, say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. The motion carries.
338 July 24, 2003
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Regalado, who moved for its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-893
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE
ALLOCATION OF FUNDS, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,000,
FROM THE BUDGET OF THE OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER TOMAS
REGALADO, TO COVER COSTS RELATED TO A CONCERT TO BE HELD
AT THE MANUEL ARTIME CENTER ON AUGUST 24, 2003, TO BENEFIT
THE HISPANIC AIDS FOUNDATION.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
73. AUTHORIZE MANAGER TO FACILITATE CITY SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH
OUR LADY OF CHARITY MASS AT AMERICAN AIRLINES ARENA ON SEPTEMBER 8,
2003.
Commissioner Regalado: I have a letter also -- I have a letter from Bishop Roman to the Mayor.
I don't know, Mr. Manager, what -- Bishop Roman is requesting City services for the Our Lady
of Charity mass at the American Airlines Arena on September 8. We won't have time, unless we
have a -- do we have a meeting in August?
Chairman Winton: Yes, we'll have a special meeting in August --
Commissioner Regalado: OK. Do you --
Chairman Winton: -- on the Charter.
Commissioner Regalado: -- have any idea when, because this is in September 8?
Chairman Winton: Probably in the --
Commissioner Regalado: I mean, the Mayor's Office referred this to me. I --
339 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: -- second or -- it'll be either the second or fourth week, because the third
week, I think I'm on vacation.
Commissioner Regalado: Well, what I'm -- I just -- I will move then that I will send the
Manager all the information on Our Lady of Charity Mass, and then, you know, maybe they can
work this out.
Joe Arriola (City Manager): Yes.
Commissioner Regalado: That's a motion.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Second.
Chairman Winton: Discussion. Being none, all in favor, say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. The motion carries.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Regalado, who moved for its adoption:
MOTION NO. 03-894
A MOTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO FACILITATE CITY
SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH OUR LADY OF CHARITY MASS AT
THE AMERICAN AIRLINES ARENA ON SEPTEMBER 8, 2003.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, the motion was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
340 July 24, 2003
74. APPROVE USE OF SHOWMOBILE FOR FESTIVAL OF SANTO DOMINGO
GUZMAN, PATRON SAINT OF NICARAGUA, SCHEDULED TO BE HELD ON AUGUST
10, 2003.
Chairman Winton: Next.
Commissioner Regalado: A motion to approve the request of the Showmobile for Santo
Domingo Guzman in Miami, the Saint Patron of Nicaragua, that is going to be held on the 10th
of August.
Chairman Winton: Need a second. I don't know. Second, second, second, second.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Is that a pocket item or -- ?
Commissioner Regalado: That is a pocket item. No, it's in my blue sheet.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Oh, in your blue sheet, OK.
Chairman Winton: OK. Got a motion and a second. Discussion. Being none, all in favor, say
aye.
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. The motion carries.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Regalado, who moved for its adoption:
MOTION NO. 03-895
A MOTION TO APPROVE THE USE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
SHOWMOBILE FOR THE FESTIVAL OF SANTO DOMINGO GUZMAN,
PATRON SAINT OF NICARAGUA, SCHEDULED TO BE HELD ON
AUGUST 10, 2003.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, the motion was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
341 July 24, 2003
75. CODESIGNATE S.W. 15 ROAD FROM MIAMI AVENUE TO BRICKELL BAY DRIVE
AS "DR. LUCIA LORENZO ROAD".
Chairman Winton: Next.
Commissioner Regalado: Also, something that was received by your office and signed;
resolution to codesignate Southwest 15 Road from Miami Avenue to Brickell Bay as Dr. Lucia
Lorenzo Road; further directing the City Manager to instruct the City Clerk to transmit a copy of
this resolution to the designated office. That's a motion.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Second.
Chairman Winton: Yeah. Motion, second. Discussion. Do we have any streets left that aren't
named yet?
Commissioner Regalado: No.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Yeah, we still have a few.
Chairman Winton: Let's hurry up and get them named so -- you know, this is nuts.
Commissioner Gonzalez: They are reserving --
Chairman Winton: We have a --
Commissioner Gonzalez: -- some for us.
Chairman Winton: Oh, no --
Commissioner Gonzalez: Remember that we --
Chairman Winton: I don't want --
Commissioner Gonzalez: -- have to die first.
Chairman Winton: Yeah. OK, we have a motion, second. Discussion. Being none, all in favor,
say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
342 July 24, 2003
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Regalado, who moved for its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-896
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION CODESIGNATING
SOUTHWEST 15TH ROAD FROM MIAMI AVENUE TO BRICKELL BAY
DRIVE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS "DR. LUCIA LORENZO ROAD"; FURTHER
DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER INSTRUCT THE DIRECTOR OF
MUNICIPAL SERVICES TO TRANSMIT A COPY OF THIS RESOLUTION
TO THE HEREIN DESIGNATED OFFICES.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Chairman Winton: It's going to the Street Codesignation Committee.
76. DIRECT MANAGER TO MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO ASSURE ORGANIZERS OF
CULTURAL FRIDAYS AND KIWANIS PRIORITY USE OF MAXIMO GOMEZ PARK,
ALSO KNOWN AS DOMINO PARK, FOR CULTURAL FRIDAYS EVENTS.
Chairman Winton: OK, next.
Commissioner Regalado: A resolution of the City Commission directing the City Manager to
make every effort to assure the organizers of Cultural Fridays and the Kiwanis the use of
Maximo Gomez Park, also known as Domino Park, for Cultural Fridays.
Commissioner Sanchez: Second.
Commissioner Regalado: This is in Commissioner Sanchez' district. It was requested by the
Kiwanis.
Chairman Winton: Motion, second. Discussion. None. All in favor, say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. Motion carries.
343 July 24, 2003
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Regalado, who moved for its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-897
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION DIRECTING THE
CITY MANAGER TO MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO ASSURE THE
ORGANIZERS OF CULTURAL FRIDAYS AND KIWANIS EVENTS
PRIORITY USE OF MAXIMO GOMEZ PARK, ALSO KNOWN AS DOMINO
PARK, LOCATED AT SOUTHWEST 8TH STREET AND 15TH AVENUE,
MIAMI, FLORIDA.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
77. DIRECT MANAGER TO FACILITATE MORE RESOURCES TO POLICE
DEPARTMENT FOR ACTIVITIES PLANNED IN COCONUT GROVE DISTRICT FOR
CHILDREN'S CELEBRATION OF HALLOWEEN ON OCTOBER 31, 2003 FROM 4 P.M.
TO 8 P.M.
Chairman Winton: Next.
Commissioner Regalado: Coconut Grove Marketing.
Chairman Winton: Jesus, how many you got over there?
Commissioner Regalado: Oh, I still have -- listen, this is important. A motion that the City of
Miami Commission direct the City Manager to facilitate more resources to the Police
Department for activities planned in the Coconut Grove district on October 31, 2003. This is
Halloween Day.
Chairman Winton: They need a "more" every day, so -- OK.
Commissioner Regalado: Well -- no, no, no, no, but this -- see, Halloween night, it's crazy in the
Grove --
344 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: Right.
Commissioner Regalado: -- but this time the Committee decided to sponsor Halloween
afternoon for the kids. It's for family, from 4 to 8, so --
Chairman Winton: We need a second on this motion.
Commissioner Regalado: -- the commander --
Commissioner Gonzalez: Second.
Chairman Winton: Motion, second.
Commissioner Regalado: The commander --
Chairman Winton: Any further discussion?
Commissioner Regalado: -- was there. They need more resources.
Chairman Winton: OK. Being none, all in favor, say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. The motion carries.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Regalado, who moved for its adoption:
MOTION NO. 03-898
A MOTION DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO FACILITATE MORE
RESOURCES TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR ACTIVITIES
PLANNED IN THE COCONUT GROVE DISTRICT FOR THE CHILDREN'S
CELEBRATION OF HALLOWEEN ON OCTOBER 31, 2003 FROM 4 P.M. TO
8 P.M.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, the motion was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
345 July 24, 2003
78. AUTHORIZE DISBURSEMENT OF $1,950 FROM COCONUT GROVE SPECIAL
EVENTS AND MARKETING COMMITTEE FUND FOR RENTAL OF TEN CARTOON
CHARACTERS FOR CHILDREN'S HALLOWEEN SPONSOR EVENT OF OCTOBER 31,
2003.
Chairman Winton: Next.
Commissioner Regalado: OK. Also, a resolution of the City of Miami Commission authorizing
the disbursement in the amount of $1,950 from the Coconut Grove Special Events and Marketing
Committee's fund for the rental of ten cartoon characters for the children's Halloween sponsor
event of October 31, 2003.
Chairman Winton: We can't deal with this stuff in September? Motion. Second?
Commissioner Gonzalez: Second.
Chairman Winton: Discussion. Being none --
Commissioner Regalado: No, they have to pay now.
Chairman Winton: -- all in favor, say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. The motion carries.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Regalado, who moved for its adoption:
MOTION NO. 03-899
A MOTION AUTHORIZING THE DISBURSEMENT OF $1,950 FROM THE
COCONUT GROVE SPECIAL EVENTS AND MARKETING COMMITTEE
FUND FOR THE RENTAL OF TEN CARTOON CHARACTERS FOR THE
CHILDREN'S HALLOWEEN SPONSOR EVENT OF OCTOBER 31, 2003.
346 July 24, 2003
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, the motion was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Chairman Winton: What?
Commissioner Regalado: They have to pay now, that's why --
Chairman Winton: Oh, they do? Got it.
Commissioner Regalado: -- the (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
79. GRANT WAIVER OF 120 DAY NOTICE REQUIREMENT FOR GRAND PRIX OF
AMERICAS EVENT TO BE HELD IN COCONUT GROVE.
Commissioner Regalado: And a motion -- this is -- it's early September. A motion that the City
Commission grant a waiver of the 120 -day notice requirement for the Grand Prix of the
Americas event to be held in the Grove. Motion.
Chairman Winton: Motion. Second?
Commissioner Gonzalez: Second.
Discussion. Being none, all in favor, say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. Motion carries.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Regalado, who moved for its adoption:
MOTION NO. 03-900
A MOTION GRANTING A WAIVER OF THE 120 DAY NOTICE
REQUIREMENT FOR THE GRAND PRIX OF THE AMERICAS EVENT TO
BE HELD IN COCONUT GROVE.
347 July 24, 2003
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, the motion was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
80. RATIFY, APPROVE AND CONFIRM MANAGER'S FINDING THAT EMERGENCY
SITUATION EXISTS; WAIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPETITIVE BIDDING
PROCEDURES, AND AUTHORIZE MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH E
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI CENTER FOR URBAN AND COMMUNITY DESIGN TO
COORDINATE AND CONDUCT BUENA VISTA HEIGHTS CHARRETTE TO ADDRESS
ISSUES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, SAFETY, TRAFFIC, LIGHTING, STREET
SIGNAGE AND FENCES; ALLOCATE $18,500, FROM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT.
Commissioner Regalado: Now, there are two from Commissioner Teele, and he requested that
the Commission will do this. A resolution, by a four-fifths affirmative vote of the members of
the Miami City Commission ratifying, approving and confirming the City Manager's finding that
an emergency situation exists; waiving the requirements for competitive bidding procedures, and
providing a contractor, the Consulting Urban Design Film of the University of Miami Center for
Urban and Community Design for coordination of the Buena Vista Heights Charrette to address
issues, such as safety, traffic, lighting, street, fences, et cetera, and allocating funds in an amount
not to exceed $18,500 from capital improvement project number 344102, account code number
such. Move it.
Chairman Winton: We have a motion --
Commissioner Sanchez: Second.
Chairman Winton: -- and a second. Discussion. Being none, all in favor, "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. The motion carries.
348 July 24, 2003
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Regalado, who moved for its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-901
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, BY A FOUR-
FIFTHS (4/5THS) AFFIRMATIVE VOTE, RATIFYING, APPROVING AND
CONFIRMING THE CITY MANAGER'S FINDING THAT AN EMERGENCY
EXISTS; WAIVING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPETITIVE BIDDING
PROCEDURES, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
AN AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, WITH
THE UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI CENTER FOR URBAN AND COMMUNITY
DESIGN TO COORDINATE AND CONDUCT THE BUENA VISTA
HEIGHTS CHARRETTE TO ADDRESS ISSUES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, SAFETY, TRAFFIC, LIGHTING, STREET SIGNAGE, AND
FENCES; ALLOCATING FUNDS, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$18,500, FROM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO. 344102,
ACCOUNT CODE NO. 859201.6.270, FOR SAID PURPOSE.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
81. PROVIDE SUPPORT TO FACILITATE COSTS FOR POLICE, FIRE, PARKS AND
RECREATION, SOLID WASTE AND ACCOMPANYING FEE WAIVERS RELATED TO
ANNUAL BACK TO SCHOOL 2003 HEALTH AND SAFETY DAY PARADE AND
FESTIVAL, WHICH PROVIDES EDUCATIONAL BENEFIT TO CHILDREN IN
OVERTOWN AND SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES, $3,000 TO BE ALLOCATED FROM
DISTRICT 5 OFFICE BUDGET FOR EVENT TO BE HELD ON SATURDAY, AUGUST 9,
2003 AT GIBSON PARK, 401 N.W. 12 STREET
Commissioner Regalado: The last item from Commissioner Teele, a resolution of the City of
Miami Commission providing support to facilitate the Police costs, Fire, Parks/Recreation, Solid
Waste, and fee waivers related to the Annual Back to School 2003 Health and Safety Day Parade
and Festival, which provides an educational benefit to the children in Overtown and the
surrounding communities, in an amount not to exceed $3,000; to be allocated from the District 5
office budget, account number 001000.920922.6.930 for this event to be held on Saturday,
August 9, 2003, at Gibson Park. That's my motion.
349 July 24, 2003
Commissioner Gonzalez: Second.
Chairman Winton: Motion, second. Discussion. Being none, all in favor, say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. The motion carries.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Regalado, who moved for its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-902
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION RELATED TO THE
BACK TO SCHOOL 2003 HEALTH AND SAFETY DAY PARADE AND
FESTIVAL, WHICH PROVIDES AN EDUCATIONAL BENEFIT TO THE
CHILDREN IN THE OVERTOWN AREA AND SURROUNDING
COMMUNITIES, TO BE HELD ON SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 2003, AT
GIBSON PARK, 401 NORTHWEST. 12TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA;
AUTHORIZING THE WAIVER OF ALL FEES AND PERMITS
PERMISSIBLE BY LAW; AUTHORIZING THE PROVISION OF IN-KIND
SERVICES BY THE DEPARTMENTS OF POLICE, FIRE -RESCUE, SOLID
WASTE, AND PARKS AND RECREATION, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO
EXCEED $3,000; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE DISTRICT 5
COMMISSION OFFICE BUDGET, ACCOUNT NO. 001000.920922.6.930;
CONDITIONING SAID AUTHORIZATIONS UPON THE ORGANIZERS: (1)
OBTAINING ALL PERMITS REQUIRED BY LAW; (2) PAYING FOR ALL
OTHER NECESSARY COSTS OF CITY SERVICES AND APPLICABLE
FEES ASSOCIATED WITH SAID EVENT; (3) OBTAINING INSURANCE,
TO PROTECT THE CITY IN THE AMOUNT AS PRESCRIBED BY THE
CITY MANAGER; AND (4) COMPLYING WITH ALL CONDITIONS AND
LIMITATIONS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED BY THE CITY MANAGER.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
350 July 24, 2003
Commissioner Regalado: I'm deferring Item A, Item B, and that's it. That's it.
82. DIRECT CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AMENDMENT(S) TO CITY CHARTER
FOR CONSIDERATION AT NOVEMBER 4, 2003 ELECTION, TO AMEND
COMPENSATION FOR ELECTED CITY COMMISSIONERS.
APPROVE, SET FORTH AND SUBMIT TO ELECTORATE AT SPECIAL MUNICIPAL
ELECTION HELD ON NOVEMBER 4, 2003, PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT,
KNOWN AS CHARTER AMENDMENT NO. 2; AMENDING COMPENSATION FOR CITY
COMMISSIONERS TO ESTABLISH SALARY INITIALLY EQUAL TO SIXTY PERCENT
OF MAYOR'S SALARY ON JULY 16, 2003, WHICH IS $58,200, AND PROVIDE FOR
ANNUAL INCREASES THEREAFTER BASED ON CONSUMER PRICE INDEX AND
PROVIDE SUCH ANNUAL INCREASE MAY NOT EXCEED FIVE PERCENT OF SALARY
EXISTING ON THAT DATE.
Chairman Winton: OK. I have two items, and that's the first blue page item, and that is to put
on the ballot, this November, the Charter change to pay City Commissioners' salaries, like we've
done the last two years in a row, so take the gavel. I will move it, as we -- the same language
we've used in the last two years. I will move it. Let's see if there's a second.
Commissioner Sanchez: Commissioner Winton passed the gavel. There's a motion to place it
on the ballot.
Commissioner Gonzalez: I will second it for discussion.
Chairman Winton: Yes, sir.
Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Technically, you have -- the first resolution, the Code
requires you to direct the City Attorney to prepare the question; the second resolution is a
question you just directed us to prepare.
Commissioner Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Winton, are you ready to direct the City
Attorney --
Chairman Winton: Yes, I am.
Commissioner Sanchez: -- to prepare the language for the --
Chairman Winton: Yes, I am, so move.
Commissioner Sanchez: OK, there's a motion to direct the City Attorney to prepare the
language—
Commissioner Gonzalez: Second.
351 July 24, 2003
Commissioner Sanchez: -- for the November elections. There's a second by Commissioner
Gonzalez. Open for discussion. Hearing none, all in favor, say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Commissioner Sanchez: Anyone wishing to oppose, say "nay." Motion carries unanimously.
The following resolution was introduced by Chairman Winton, who moved for its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-903
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION DIRECTING THE
CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN AMENDMENT(S) TO THE CHARTER
OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, FOR
CONSIDERATION AT AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 4,
2003, PROPOSING, UPON APPROVAL OF THE ELECTORATE, TO AMEND
THE COMPENSATION FOR ELECTED CITY COMMISSIONERS.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Chairman Winton: Now, this next part, I need your attention for a moment. This relates to the
subject that I brought up at the last Commission meeting about ad valorem taxes, and -- because
we've been paying attention to all this other stuff, I'm not going to get -- you're going to have to
bear with me, but Commissioner Sanchez, this is --
Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah, but you need to pass the other one.
Mr. Vilarello: You want to pass the next one, I think.
Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah.
Chairman Winton: Which one?
Mr. Vilarello: The question, the actual question --
Chairman Winton: OK, fine.
352 July 24, 2003
Commissioner Sanchez: The actual question.
Mr. Vilarello: -- to place it on the ballot, so --
Chairman Winton: OK, so moved. Question, so moved.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Discussion.
Commissioner Sanchez: OK. There's a motion and a second. Open for discussion.
Commissioner Gonzalez: OK. My concern is that, you know, unless we prepare some type of
program or --
Chairman Winton: Sales pitch.
Commissioner Gonzalez: -- yeah, or be out there informing -- we need to be able to inform the
voters of the City of Miami of the issue of the salaries, because just to go out there and ask
people to vote on whatever amount of salary is, you know -- people are not going to approve it.
It's been out to the voters three times; the voters keep denying it, so if it's going to be done, it
needs to be done right; it needs to be explained to the people; explain to them the amount of
hours that we spend here, the amount of work that is involved, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, and
then, you know, see how they feel about it, but if we don't do it that way, I know it's going to
fail once again, and eventually, it's going to become a joke. You know, tomorrow -- by the way,
tomorrow we will hear some Spanish radio commentators already making jokes about it because,
you know, they love to criticize, but none of them, you know, run for office and sit over here. I
heard them talking about avoiding taxes last night, you know.
Chairman Winton: Who's avoiding taxes?
Commissioner Gonzalez: Some people on the radio says, you know, people should not pay any
more real estate taxes. I say, how are we going to provide services to them? I don't know, you
know. Maybe we're going to go back to -- maybe we should -- you know, I was thinking about
Cuba's regime where you don't pay taxes and --
Joe Arriola (City Manager): I think that radio commentators should not run for public office;
that's the problem.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Pardon me?
Mr. Arriola: I think radio commentators and radio announcers should not run for public office.
Commissioner Gonzalez: You know, we've got -- we have some that are very good.
Commissioner Sanchez: Well --
353 July 24, 2003
Commissioner Gonzalez: We've got some that are very good.
Chairman Winton: OK, so --
Commissioner Sanchez: Commissioner Gonzalez, I tend to agree with you. I think, if we don't
have a unified force in working together to promote --
Chairman Winton: To sell them.
Commissioner Sanchez: -- it, just like we went out and we voted --
Chairman Winton: I agree.
Commissioner Sanchez: -- the --
Commissioner Gonzalez: It won't pass --
Commissioner Sanchez: -- homeland defense fund.
Commissioner Gonzalez: -- and we will be criticized.
Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah. We --
Chairman Winton: And I --
Commissioner Sanchez: Not -- this is serious because, you know, people don't realize, you
know, we've been here since 8 today and look what time it is? Probably get home about 12.
You know, it's not only the Commission; many of us sit on different boards. It's not only the
meetings that we attend, but you know --
Chairman Winton: I think --
Commissioner Sanchez: -- everybody calls your office and they want to meet with you. They
think --
Chairman Winton: Yeah.
Commissioner Sanchez: -- that you're a part -- you're a full-time Commissioner. I just think
that we need to get unified force, and we get the Administration involved and -- I don't know.
We just need to sell it. I mean --
Chairman Winton: Come first week in September, we've going to get out and start selling it, and
I agree. OK. Any other discussion? Oh, are you chairing this little -- yeah, you're chairing right
now.
Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah.
354 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: What am I doing?
Commissioner Sanchez: OK, but we voted on it, didn't we?
Chairman Winton: No.
Commissioner Sanchez: No. OK.
Chairman Winton: Not on the last one.
Commissioner Sanchez: All in favor, say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Commissioner Sanchez: Anyone opposing, having the same right, say "nay." Motion carries
unanimously.
The following resolution was introduced by Chairman Winton, who moved for its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-904
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
ATTACHMENT(S) APPROVING, SETTING FORTH AND SUBMITTING TO
THE ELECTORATE A PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT, AMENDING
THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED,
KNOWN AS CHARTER AMENDMENT NO. 2; AMENDING THE
COMPENSATION FOR CITY COMMISSIONERS TO ESTABLISH THE
SALARY INITIALLY EQUAL TO SIXTY PERCENT (60%) OF THE
SALARY OF THE MAYOR ON JULY 16, 2003, WHICH IS $58,200, AND
PROVIDING FOR ANNUAL INCREASES THEREAFTER BASED ON THE
CONSUMER PRICE INDEX AND PROVIDING SUCH ANNUAL INCREASE
MAY NOT EXCEED FIVE PERCENT (5%) OF THE SALARY EXISTING ON
THAT DATE; CALLING FOR AND PROVIDING THAT CHARTER
AMENDMENT NO. 2 WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE ELECTORATE AT
THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD ON NOVEMBER 4, 2003;
DESIGNATING AND APPOINTING THE CITY CLERK AS THE OFFICIAL
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CITY COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO THE
USE OF VOTER REGISTRATION BOOKS AND RECORDS; FURTHER,
DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO CAUSE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE
HEREIN RESOLUTION TO BE DELIVERED TO THE SUPERVISOR OF
ELECTIONS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, NOT LESS THAN
45 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SUCH SPECIAL MUNICIPAL
ELECTION; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE FOR THIS RESOLUTION.
355 July 24, 2003
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
83. DIRECT MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY TO ENGAGE PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES OF APPROPRIATE EXPERTS ON AD VALOREM TAXATION; CITY
ATTORNEY TO ENGAGE TAX ATTORNEY, $25,000, TO MAKE IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS
OF AD VALOREM TAXES, COMPARING ASSESSMENTS TO PROPERTY OWNERS OF
UNINCORPORATED MIAMI-DADE COUNTY VS. CITY; MANAGER AND ATTORNEY
TO PROCEED WITH APPROPRIATE APPEAL OR LEGAL ACTION TO PROTECT
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF CITY TAXPAYERS.
Commissioner Sanchez: You have the gavel back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Winton: No, no, you need to keep it.
Commissioner Sanchez: I need --
Chairman Winton: This is about ad valorem taxes. You -- this is a point I brought up almost a
year ago, when I was looking at trim notices, and it appeared as though -- if you look at a trim
notice within the City of Miami, it has a City of Miami tax, and it shows what last year's was and
this year's will be. It also has a County line item, which is the amount that we pay to the County
for their services, and it looks at last year's and this year's. If you go to Unincorporated Dade,
Unincorporated Dade -- now, by the way, this is single-family homes --
Commissioner Sanchez: Only.
Chairman Winton: -- homestead exempted only. That's the level playing field here. If you go
to Unincorporated Dade, on their trim notice they have County, which matches up with our
County; County, County, that -- but -- instead of City of Miami, they have Unincorporated,
UMPSA. That's their line item that is equivalent of our City one. If you look, we did 200 or 300
City of Miami. We did just randomly pulled from records 300 City of Miami single-family
homestead exempted households, and there's some skewed (UNINTELLIGIBLE), so we took
the bottom five and the top five out of the sample size, and what we found is that in these zones,
the County portion applied to City of Miami residences was something between -- the lowest in
my grouping of a hundred each was 7.3 percent was the average; the highest in a hundred sample
size area was an average of 14 percent. That's City of Miami, which all by itself raises a
question as to how that can happen if the Florida Constitution says that our taxes are limited to 3
356 July 24, 2003
percent, or CPI (Consumer Price Index), or whichever is less, so that's the City of Miami. I
wanted to look then at Unincorporated Dade; did they do the same thing in Unincorporated Dade
with that County line item? You know, in Unincorporated Dade, in a sample size of 300 also? --
in one sample size, it was an average of 3.3; another was 2.52, and the other one I don't have
handy, but as you can see real quickly, it was between 2 and a little over 3 percent that same line
item. This is unincorporated residents, so the next step was to look at a few other municipalities,
so we did a hundred samples in Hialeah. Their county number was 7.75 for their hundred. I
looked at Miami Beach and theirs was 11.95, and I looked at the city of Coral Gables and their
average was 7.6 percent, but unincorporated residents were in the 2 to 3 and a half percent range.
Commissioner Regalado: But they're running out of unincorporated areas.
Chairman Winton: Well -- so, this is --
Commissioner Regalado: And you know what, Johnny, you are totally right; they are punishing
the cities, and they are trying to keep the people unincorporated and not incorporating into cities,
but people are doing it, and we got to either appeal or a class action suit, because you're right;
the Florida Constitution only allows for a three percent raise in property taxes value, and we're
talking of a major increase. The School Board is reducing in two mills, I think, or one mill their
taxes. However, their projection -- and they met on Wednesday -- their projection is that a
house, you know, $150,000 that used to pay 920 to the School Board will be paying $1,030
because of property increase, so the County and the School Board can say, "Well, we lowered
minimal taxes," but they are projecting to get more money. That's why the School Board budget
is growing, because of the projection in the appraisal.
Commissioner Sanchez: So, what's the next step?
Chairman Winton: So, Mr. City Attorney -- and by the way, I want to put this on the record. I
will leave room for the fact that maybe we missed something here; that there's something that I
simply don't understand. I'm going to leave some room for that, as it relates to the County. I
think our next step -- and by the way, this is one year. We haven't looked at last year or the year
before, and we haven't even seen this coming year, but I think that we need to, Mr. Manager and
Mr. City Attorney, bring on board whatever experts we need to do a more in-depth analysis, and
then be prepared to take whatever steps we need to take that protects our -- that enforces what the
Constitution has given our residents, and as you all know when -- you know, when we're going
up by 1.1 percent and the County drives them up by 7, and our taxpayers are calling us and
saying, "What are you guys doing? You're raising our taxes," and it isn't us, and so I think
there's potentially a very serious issue here. I'm hoping that at the end of the day, we find that
this was all just one giant mistake and we don't have a big battle with the County, but we still
owe it to our citizens to figure out what's really going on here, and then take whatever steps we
deem appropriate to correct what appears to be potentially a constitutional violation, never mind
a gross -- what's the term? It's late -- injustice on our citizens.
Commissioner Sanchez: Are you referring to legal action, sir?
Chairman Winton: To whatever means we have to take.
357 July 24, 2003
Commissioner Sanchez: All right.
Commissioner Regalado: Hey, class action suit --
Commissioner Sanchez: All right, so --
Commissioner Regalado: -- in behalf --
Commissioner Sanchez: -- you have a motion --
Commissioner Regalado: -- of the taxpayers.
Commissioner Sanchez: -- on the floor, what, to --
Chairman Winton: Directing the City Attorney --
Commissioner Sanchez: -- directing the City Attorney to seek professional services --
Chairman Winton: -- and the Manager.
Commissioner Sanchez: -- as to maybe a tax --
Chairman Winton: And would you help me --
Commissioner Sanchez: -- attorney.
Chairman Winton: -- here, Mr. City Attorney?
Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Yeah. From my side, I would retain a tax attorney to
address the particular issues. From the Manager's side, he may need the services of the County
firm to do some forensic review of the --
Commissioner Sanchez: Second the motion.
Chairman Winton: And we need to --
Mr. Vilarello: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Chairman Winton: -- move that fast because their budget process is going through. I'm not sure
that any of their Commissioners really understand this. I'm not taking a swipe at any of those
Commissioners because they count on staff to figure this stuff out, and I'll bet you that not a
single one of them really have ever looked at this this way, nor know it, so there's no swipe from
me at any of them, but they're counting on staff to do this, but we need to move with this within
the next two weeks, getting it all done so that we can help the policymakers at the County take
358 July 24, 2003
the appropriate next steps as it relates to their own budget for this coming year, which they're in
the middle of.
Commissioner Regalado: And, Mr. Chairman, also, not only to get a tax attorney, but we need to
find out -- and maybe the City Attorney can do that -- the process for appeal in the property
appraiser's office. This is a very complicated issue, and you need to get appointment, and
whoever appeals, they would reduce your appraisal, but we need to get the information on how
to appeal. If we can appeal as a city, or if we have to do it individually, or if we can do as a class
action, because you know, by the appealing process, people get off with -- at least for a year, for
one year --
Chairman Winton: Right.
Commissioner Regalado: -- with 10 or $20,000 less.
Chairman Winton: OK. Do we have any other items?
Joe Arriola (City Manager): Yes.
Chairman Winton: What?
Mr. Vilarello: If you could please authorize an amount not to exceed $25,000 with regard to the
tax attorney. I believe the Manager can retain the County services within his level --
Chairman Winton: So move.
Mr. Vilarello: -- of authority.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Second.
Commissioner Sanchez: Not to exceed -- OK, there's a motion and a second not to exceed
$25,000 in legal service.
Chairman Winton: So -- call the question.
Commissioner Sanchez: Discussion. Hearing none, all in favor, say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Commissioner Sanchez: Anyone opposing, having the same right, say "nay." Motion carries
unanimously.
359 July 24, 2003
The following resolution was introduced by Chairman Winton, who moved for its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-905
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION DIRECTING THE
CITY MANAGER AND THE CITY ATTORNEY TO ENGAGE
PROFESSIONAL EXPERT SERVICES TO PERFORM AN IN-DEPTH
ANALYSIS OF AD -VALOREM TAXATION, COMPARING
ASSESSMENTS TO PROPERTY OWNERS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI TO
THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS OF UNINCORPORATED MIAMI-DADE
COUNTY; DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PROCEED WITH
APPROPRIATE APPEAL OR LEGAL ACTION TO PROTECT THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF CITY OF MIAMI TAXPAYERS;
ALLOCATING FUNDS, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $25,000
PLUS COSTS AND EXPENSES AS APPROVED BY THE CITY
ATTORNEY, FROM AN ACCOUNT TO BE IDENTIFIED BY THE CITY
MANAGER, FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY'S ENGAGEMENT OF AN
ATTORNEY SPECIALIZING IN TAX MATTERS; FURTHER
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS,
IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, REQUIRED FOR
SAID PURPOSE.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
84. DEFERRED: PROPOSED RESOLUTION ADOPTING POLICY AND GUIDELINES OF
CITY'S OFFICE OF FILM ARTS, CULTURE AND ENTERTAINMENT (FACE) GRANT,
TO ESTABLISH POLICY AND GUIDELINES PARTIES SHALL FOLLOW WHEN
REQUESTING PARTIAL FUNDING FOR EVENTS AND FESTIVALS OF FUNDS
CONTAINED IN SPECIAL EVENTS FESTIVAL ACCOUNT.
Chairman Winton: And we've got the Mayor's blue page Item A on the special events policies
and guidelines -- I mean, the Film Arts, Culture, Entertainment, so move.
Michelle Spence: Michelle Spence, Mayor's Office. Good evening. I just wanted to present the
final recommendations for the FACE (Film Arts, Culture and Entertainment) grant program.
360 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: Wait, wait. Is this for -- is this the policy on how we're going to do -- ?
Ms. Spence: Yes, sir, the grant --
Chairman Winton: Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no. We're --
Joe Arriola (City Manager): Can we move the rest of the items? You've got a couple --
Chairman Winton: Yeah, and I don't want to be -- this is --
Commissioner Gonzalez: I would like to defer this.
Chairman Winton: Yeah, we need to think about this --
Commissioner Gonzalez: Yeah.
Chairman Winton: -- so we don't want to -- we'll do this in --
Commissioner Regalado: No, no. Who's going to decide this?
Chairman Winton: Well -- hey, hold it. We're not going to take this up.
Commissioner Regalado: OK.
Chairman Winton: This needs to come back in September when we're fresh.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Defer it.
Chairman Winton: It's too late.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Motion to defer.
85. EMERGENCY ORDINANCE: ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE AIRPORT
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT GRANT FROM FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,
$150,000, FOR SITE WORK IN WATSON ISLAND AVIATION AND VISITORS CENTER
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT.
Chairman Winton: OK. Do we have any other items?
Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Yes.
Joe Arriola (City Manager): Yes.
Chairman Winton: What are they, please?
Mr. Arriola: A couple of grants.
361 July 24, 2003
Chairman Winton: A couple of what?
Mr. Vilarello: One is presented by the Manager, which is to accept and appropriate an FAA
(Federal Aviation Administration) grant for the Aviation and Visitors' Center project.
Commissioner Sanchez: So move.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Second.
Commissioner Regalado: Second.
Commissioner Sanchez: Second the grant.
Chairman Winton: Got a motion, second. Discussion.
Mr. Vilarello: This is an emergency ordinance.
Chairman Winton: OK. Read the ordinance, please.
The ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney.
Chairman Winton: Roll call.
An Ordinance Entitled —
AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION
AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 12280, AS AMENDED, THE CAPITAL
PROJECTS APPROPRIATIONS ORDINANCE, TO REVISE AN ONGOING
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BY APPROPRIATING FUNDS, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $150,000, IN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO.
333126, ENTITLED "WATSON ISLAND IMPROVEMENTS," SAID FUNDS
RECEIVED AS A GRANT FROM THE FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION FOR SITE WORK ON THE WATSON ISLAND
AVIATION AND VISITORS CENTER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT;
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT THE GRANT AND TO
EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE
TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, FOR SAID PURPOSE, CONTINGENT UPON
THE CITY'S PROVISION OF MATCHING FUNDS, IN AN AMOUNT OF
$150,000; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
362 July 24, 2003
was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez and seconded by Commissioner Regalado, for
adoption as an emergency measure, and dispensing with the requirement of reading same on two
separate days, was agreed to by the following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Whereupon the Commission on motion of Commissioner Sanchez and seconded by
Commissioner Regalado, adopted said ordinance by the following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 12398.
Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): The ordinance is adopted as emergency measure, 4/0.
86. RATIFY, APPROVE AND CONFIRM MANAGER'S FINDING OF EMERGENCY,
WAIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROCEDURES, AND
AUTHORIZE ACQUISITION OF SERVICES FROM CHI ALARMS, INC. FOR PROJECT
ENTITLED "CITY OF MIAMI M.M.P.D. FIRE ALARM MODIFICATIONS, B-6433,"
TOTAL $115,928; ALLOCATE FUNDS FROM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
Chairman Winton: You have something else?
Joe Arriola (City Manager): Yeah, we do.
Chairman Winton: OK, next. Quickly.
Joe Arriola (City Manager): We got a couple of pocket items.
Glenn Marcos (Director, Department of Purchasing): We do have a pocket resolution here --
Mr. Arriola: Some cleanup. This is a cleanup of a --
363 July 24, 2003
Mr. Marcos: -- from the prior administration. Do you want me to read the actual resolution?
Chairman Winton: I don't know. What is it? Is it one of these things?
Mr. Marcos: Yes.
Chairman Winton: Which one?
Mr. Marcos: It's the one containing the fire alarm modification.
Commissioner Gonzalez: What is the --
Mr. Marcos: Chi alarms.
Commissioner Gonzalez: What's the number, J-03-679?
Mr. Marcos: J-03-679.
Commissioner Gonzalez: All right.
Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Requires a four-fifths vote.
Commissioner Gonzalez: OK. Move it.
Chairman Winton: Got a -- need a second.
Commissioner Sanchez: Second.
Chairman Winton: Got a motion, second. Discussion. Being none, all in favor, "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. The motion carries.
364 July 24, 2003
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gonzalez, who moved for its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-906
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, BY A FOUR-
FIFTHS (4/5 THS)
AFFIRMATIVE VOTE, RATIFYING, APPROVING AND
CONFIRMING THE CITY MANAGER'S FINDING OF AN EMERGENCY,
WAIVING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPETITIVE BIDDING
PROCEDURES, AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF SERVICES
FROM CHI ALARMS, INC. FOR THE PROJECT ENTITLED "CITY OF
MIAMI M.M.P.D. FIRE ALARM MODIFICATIONS, B-6433," IN AN
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $99,928 FOR THE CONTRACT COSTS
PLUS $16,000 FOR EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE CITY, FOR
ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COSTS OF $115,928; ALLOCATING
FUNDS FROM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO. 312025;
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY
DOCUMENTS, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY,
FOR SAID PURPOSE.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Read the --
Chairman Winton: The other one --
Commissioner Gonzalez: -- resolution.
Chairman Winton: No.
Commissioner Gonzalez: He don't need to read it?
Chairman Winton: No. We moved it.
Commissioner Gonzalez: OK.
365 July 24, 2003
87. AUTHORIZE INCREASE, $16,000, FROM $129,900 TO $145,900, IN CONTRACT
AMOUNT WITH PROFESSIONAL GENERAL CONTRACTORS, INC., TO COVER
ADDITIONAL COSTS REQUIRED FOR PROJECT ENTITLED "WEST END PARK
BUILDING RENOVATIONS, B-6334"; ALLOCATE FUNDS FROM CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT.
Commissioner Gonzalez: OK. We have another resolution, J-03-684.
Chairman Winton: Right.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Move.
Chairman Winton: So moved.
Commissioner Sanchez: Second.
Chairman Winton: Second. Discussion. Being none, all in favor, "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. The motion carries.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gonzalez, who moved for its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-907
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, BY A FOUR-
FIFTHS (4/5THS) AFFIRMATIVE VOTE, AUTHORIZING AN INCREASE,
IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $16,000, FROM $129,900 TO
$145,900, IN THE CONTRACT AMOUNT WITH PROFESSIONAL
GENERAL CONTRACTORS, INC., AUTHORIZED PURSUANT TO
RESOLUTION NO. 02-948, TO COVER ADDITIONAL COSTS REQUIRED
FOR THE PROJECT ENTITLED "WEST END PARK BUILDING
RENOVATIONS, B-6334"; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO. 333107.
366 July 24, 2003
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Mr. Marcos: Thank you.
88. RESCIND CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF RESOLUTION NO. 98-588 WHICH ADOPTED
HOUSING LOAN COLLECTION PROCEDURES AND POLICIES IN THEIR ENTIRETY,
INCLUDING REQUIREMENT OF APPROVAL BY COMMISSION, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND STATE EMERGENCY FINANCIAL
OVERSIGHT BOARD OF CERTAIN DELINQUENT LOAN RESTRUCTURINGS OR
STIPULATIONS OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
Chairman Winton: What else? Yes, sir.
Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Mr. Chairman --
Chairman Winton: Mr. City --
Mr. Vilarello: -- I have one item that is also a housekeeping issue with regard to the approval of
the settlements in the defaulted loan portfolio. It's an amendment to a resolution regarding the
Housing Loan Committee taking HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development) out of
the approval process. I can briefly -- it's J-03-683. It's a resolution of the City Commission
rescinding the provisions -- certain provisions of Resolution 98-588, which adopted the Housing
Loan collection procedures and policies in their entirety. This removes the approval of the City
Commission, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the State
Emergency Oversight Board of certain delinquent loan restructurings or stipulations of
settlement agreements.
Commissioner Gonzalez: Move it.
Commissioner Regalado: Second.
Commissioner Gonzalez: It's moved and second.
Chairman Winton: Oh. Got a motion and a second. Discussion. Being none, all in favor,
aye.
367 July 24, 2003
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. The motion carries.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gonzalez, who moved for its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-908
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
ATTACHMENT(S), RESCINDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF
RESOLUTION NO. 98-588 WHICH ADOPTED THE ATTACHED
HOUSING LOAN COLLECTION PROCEDURES AND POLICIES IN
THEIR ENTIRETY, INCLUDING THE REQUIREMENT OF APPROVAL
BY THE CITY COMMISSION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND STATE EMERGENCY FINANCIAL
OVERSIGHT BOARD OF CERTAIN DELINQUENT LOAN
RESTRUCTURINGS OR STIPULATIONS OF SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Regalado, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
89. ACCEPT BID OF MOBILE MINI, INC FOR PURCHASE OF FIVE METAL STORAGE
CONTAINERS, FOR DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL SERVICES, FLEET
MANAGEMENT DIVISION, $62,298.40; ALLOCATE FUNDS FROM CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM.
Linda Haskins (Deputy City Manager/Chief Financial Officer): Commissioner, I have an
ordinance to accept an airport improvement project grant from the Federal Aviation
Administration in the amount of $150,000.
Chairman Winton: This is a grant?
Ms. Haskins: Oh, you did it? Oh, OK.
Chairman Winton: Yeah, come on.
368 July 24, 2003
Ms. Haskins: I'm sorry. I didn't hear it.
Chairman Winton: Anything else?
Glenn Marcos (Director, Department of Purchasing): Yes, Commissioner. We have S-6.
Chairman Winton: Who?
Mr. Marcos: S-6.
Chairman Winton: What is it?
Mr. Marcos: The supplemental. That's the five metal storage containers. I showed you pictures
this afternoon.
Chairman Winton: Move that, somebody.
Commissioner Gonzalez: What is it? What is S-6?
Chairman Winton: That's something -- it was in a prior agenda on a CA (consent agenda) item; I
made him pull it because they did a lousy justification --
Mr. Marcos: It was poorly justified.
Chairman Winton: -- but move it, move it.
Commissioner Sanchez: Second.
Chairman Winton: Motion, second. Discussion. Being none, all in favor, say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. The motion carries.
The following resolution was introduced by Chairman Winton, who moved for its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-872
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ACCEPTING THE
BID OF MOBILE MINI, INC., FOR THE PURCHASE OF FIVE METAL
STORAGE CONTAINERS, FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL
SERVICES, FLEET MANAGEMENT DIVISION, FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT
NOT TO EXCEED $62,298.40; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM, PROJECT NO. 311702.429401.6.840.
369 July 24, 2003
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Angel Gonzalez
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Mr. Marcos: Thank you.
Chairman Winton: You're welcome.
90. BRIEF COMMENTS ON PROPOSED RESOLUTION ADOPTING POLICY AND
GUIDELINES OF CITY'S OFFICE OF FILM ARTS, CULTURE AND ENTERTAINMENT
(FACE) GRANT, TO ESTABLISH POLICY AND GUIDELINES PARTIES SHALL
FOLLOW WHEN REQUESTING PARTIAL FUNDING FOR EVENTS AND FESTIVALS OF
FUNDS CONTAINED IN SPECIAL EVENTS FESTIVAL ACCOUNT.
Chairman Winton: Anything else?
Commissioner Sanchez: No.
Chairman Winton: Huh?
Michelle Spence (Special Events, Mayor's Office): You said no to the grants?
Commissioner Gonzalez: What grants?
Chairman Winton: I don't -- what do you mean, talk about it? Are we receiving a grant?
Commissioner Gonzalez: No. That's going to be in September.
Ms. Spence: No.
Chairman Winton: Is this a motion to receive a grant?
Ms. Spence: This is a recommendation for the FACE (Film Arts, Culture and Entertainment)
grants. These are the grants for the special events funds.
Commissioner Regalado: No.
Chairman Winton: No.
370 July 24, 2003
Commissioner Regalado: No, no, no, no.
Chairman Winton: We don't -- it requires energy to think about what this is really going to be.
Ms. Spence: OK. I just want to put it on --
Chairman Winton: We're not ready for it.
Ms. Spence: All right. I just want to put it on record, if I may? Since we won't return until
August, it takes us about two months to really promote the fact that we do have the funds
available, which would not -- the process won't start until October, which will put us back --
Commissioner Regalado: But --
Ms. Spence: Yeah.
Commissioner Regalado: -- how do you know that you're going to be deciding, if the
Commission have not voted?
Chairman Winton: She's assuming we would decide, so --
Ms. Spence: No -- right.
Commissioner Regalado: Oh.
Ms. Spence: Right --
Chairman Winton: She's only assuming --
Ms. Spence: -- so I wanted to be able to give you --
Chairman Winton: -- we would decide.
Ms. Spence: -- the information --
Chairman Winton: Right.
Ms. Spence: -- so that we --
Chairman Winton: That's the earliest --
Ms. Spence: -- would be able to make a --
Chairman Winton: -- we could do it. If we put it off till September, then the earliest is going to
be October; we understand that, but we're not staying around here now to deal with this.
371 July 24, 2003
Ms. Spence: All right.
Chairman Winton: We're adjourned.
THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION,
THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 11:15 P.M.
Attest:
Priscilla A. Thompson
CITY CLERK
Pamela Burns
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK
MANUEL A. DIAZ
MAYOR
372 July 24, 2003