Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2001-02-15 MinutesCITY OF MIAMI SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 15, 2001 PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK/CITY HALL Walter J. Foeman/City Clerk 9Ir 4CF.` Qt 1�j �w SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 15, 2001 PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK/CITY HALL Walter J. Foeman/City Clerk MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA On the 15th day of February 2001, the City Commission of Miami, Florida, met at it's regular meeting place in the City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida, in special session. The meeting was called to order at 9:51 a.m. by Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort, with the following members of the Commission found to be present: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort (District 1) Commissioner Johnny L. Winton (District 2) Commissioner Joe Sanchez (District 3) Commissioner Tomas Regalado (District 4) Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr., (District 5) ALSO PRESENT: Carlos A. Gimenez, City Manager Alejandro Vilarello, City Attorney Walter J. Foeman, City Clerk Sylvia Lowman, Assistant City Clerk An invocation was delivered by the Reverend John White, followed by Commissioner Sanchez leading those present in a pledge of allegiance to the flag. 1 February 15, 2001 Commissioner Teele: Well, let me ask this: Is there anyone here that wants to participate in the public hearing? Would you raise your hand? So, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven. Mr. Clerk, do you all have a good handle on this and you all have some cards? Walter Foeman (City Clerk): We have a log. The people can sign up prior to... Commissioner Teele: Would you all begin to sign up with the Clerk just so that we can, at least, not ... Vice Chairman Gort: We're here. Commissioner Sanchez: All right. Let's go. Commissioner Teele: Willy, all I did is just told the people that are going to speak to go sign up with the Clerk and ... Vice Chairman Gort: At this time we'll have the invocation by Commissioner Teele; pledge of allegiance by Commissioner Sanchez. Commissioner Teele: Let me yield to the Reverend John White. Reverend White, would you -- Commissioner Sanchez: Lead us into prayer. Commissioner Teele: -- lead us into prayer, please? The pastor of Greater Bethel AME (African Methodist Episcopal) Church, the historic church that was founded the same year as the City of Miami. Reverend John white: Thank you. Let us pray. Vice Chairman Gort: At this time, while we're waiting for the people to sign up, I'd like to call up Carol Romine, who is the Executive Director of the Coconut Grove Arts Festival. Yes, ma'am. Carol Romine: Good morning. I'd just like to take a second of your time to thank you once again for your support. This is the 38`h year of the Coconut Grove Arts Festival. We are expecting at least seven hundred thousand people here, and what we realize in our survey is that we bring in an economic impact of about thirty 2 February 15, 2001 million dollars ($30,000,000) over the three days to the City. We want to invite you to all join us at the Grand Bay Hotel on Saturday evening for a wonderful indoor event in our VIP (Very Important Person) tent in Peacock Park. Contrary to The Miami Herald article this morning, we have the best artists in the nation here. We recruit them; we go after them; we bring them to you, and we're very proud to be here in Coconut Grove and we thank you for your support. Vice Chairman Gort: Well, thank you. Good luck to you. I know it will be a good show. Ms. Romine: Thank you. February 15, 2001 Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Good morning, and welcome to Special CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) fund day. My understanding, first item of business, adopting the planning calendar for the following program, 27th Year of CDBG. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, I move that adoption of this be postponed to the end of the full presentation, just to ... Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Vice Chairman Gort: We don't have a make a motion for that. 4 February 15, 2001 Vice Chairman Gort: What would you like to hear first, then, in looking at the -- second - - Item 2 will be the amendment -- the substantial amendment to the previously approved citizens participation. You want to go (inaudible) to the last two? Commissioner Teele: No, sir. Move the adoption of the plan. Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved. Is there a second? Commissioner Regalado: Second. Vice Chairman Gort: Any discussion? Commissioner Sanchez: Which one is this one? Commissioner Teele: Citizen Vice Chairman Gort: This is Item 2, Citizen Participation Plan. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, the only thing that I would urge -- I guess the Attorney and Ms. Warren would urge it as well -- is that we really should have a public hearing on all aspects of this. If we're going to approve a citizen's plan, we ought to at least open it and have a public hearing on that issue. Gwendolyn Warren (Director, Community Development): Commissioner? Vice Chairman Gort: Yes. Ms. Warren: The City Commission did, in fact, have a public hearing. Gwendolyn Warren, Director of Community Development. The City Commission, last May, did hold a public hearing on this process, and what we're requesting, per the federal regulations, is that you amend the actual written plan to incorporate the changes that were approved during the public hearing in May of last year. So, this is a technical correction. We have to amend the plan and you would have to direct us to do so, although you've already had the public hearings and gone through the process. Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Commissioners Vice Chairman Gort: Further discussion? Yes. 5 February 15, 2001 Mr. Vilarello: I believe what Ms. Warren is telling you is, technically, there is not a requirement for public hearing; however, given that you're presenting the amended plan, perhaps it would be wise to go ahead and take any comments from the public, if they have any on that amended plan. Commissioner Sanchez: Pertaining to the amendments, the changes to this? Commissioner Teele: Absolutely. Vice Chairman Gort: To Item 2, yes. Anyone would like to address the Commission on Item 2? Item 2, Citizen Participation, the amendment that has been made? Being none, close the public hearing on this matter. All in favor state... Commissioner Teele: So moved. Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved and second. All in favor state by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): "Aye." The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 01-142 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING THE SECTION ENTITLED "AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN," OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN, ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED, TO REFLECT THE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PROCESS FOR THE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS ("HOPWA") PROGRAM AND TO IMPLEMENT THE REVISIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT. (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: Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort 6 February 15, 2001 NAYS: None ABSENT: None February 15, 2001 Vice Chairman Gort: Item 3. Gwendolyn Warren (Director, Community Development): Commissioner, Item 3, as you may recall, this previous program year, the City implemented the new fiscal year for Community Development. Previously, our fiscal year ran from June 1 to May 30th of each year. Through a very complicated process, we were able to amend our fiscal year to match that of the City and the federal fiscal year, which would go from October 1 to September 30th. Additionally, we implemented a process -- you implemented a process that each -- at the end of each fiscal year, all grants would be closed out, based on actual performance, under the contracts. Those agencies that needed to reserve the resources that had been awarded them in the previous year would come before you as a rollover item. Staff is basically, in this item, recommending those agencies who have been committed funds but need to maintain those funds, either complete ongoing projects and/or just to roll them into the new fiscal year. You have been provided a correction on the floor here that includes three agencies who were inadvertently not included in the rollover. So, again, it's only an update of the original information that were provided you, and those agencies is the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency), Small Business Assistance Center, as well as the Association for the Developmentally Exceptional. There is forty thousand eight hundred and forty dollars ($40,840) for their kitchen renovation project was left from the list. The total amount to be rolled over under Community Development, including those agencies, would be a corrected figure of six million, four hundred sixteen thousand and twelve dollars and sixty-five cents ($6,416,012.65). Again, this is to allow the agencies that you have awarded funds to maintain those funds for the completion of contract activities. Vice Chairman Gort: Let me ask a question. The revised plan that you had given us, it changes from five million of CDBG funds to six something? Ms. Warren: Yes. Vice Chairman Gort: Your HOME, it goes to seven one. So, we should go by the new numbers then? Ms. Warren: Yes, you should go by the new numbers. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Ms. Warren: With an addition of forty thousand eight hundred and forty for the Development of the Exceptional. 8 February 15, 2001 Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Let me... Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, may I inquire? Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: Gwen, you know, this is a new process. This is the first time this has come to the Commission. Where is the policy document that outlines -- is there a policy document that the Commission has approved or that the Manager is recommending that outlines what the effect of this is? I guess the question is: What is the effect of rollover, other than to acknowledge, which is very helpful -- other than to acknowledge that these funds were not used, and we're rolling them over? Heretofore -- and this is the problem -- from year one to year 23, 24 -- what are we in now, 25, 26? Ms. Warren: We're in the 26th year. This is the first year we've ever closed the books. Commissioner Teele: From year one to year 25 -- 24 really, we had no clue as to what was rolling over. There were no grant closeouts. We went through this for three years in a row, OK. So, this is very positive in that regard, because at least we know what was not expended. The real question in my mind is, of the funds that were rolling over -- we're recommitting those funds to those agencies? In other words, we're allowing those agencies to continue to work off of those funds. Are there any rollovers that are being recaptured? Ms. Warren: Yes. That is in your next item, which is called reallocation. Commissioner Teele: OK. But this rollover, there is no hidden... Ms. Warren: No, sir. Commissioner Teele: There is no hidden recaptures contained -- this is exactly what it is. This is rolling over the funds from one year to the next? Ms. Warren: Yes, sir. Commissioner Winton: Gwen, I just have a question just on the gross number you used. Ms. Warren: Yes, sir. Commissioner Winton: You read a number in as the modified number for the grand total of six million, I think, four hundred and something. Ms. Warren: Sixteen thousand. Commissioner Winton: Six million four hundred and sixteen thousand? 9 February 15, 2001 Ms. Warren: Twelve dollars and... Commissioner Winton: I can't find that -- this is the revised thing. Vice Chairman Gort: I have six million three seventy-five, is what I have. Commissioner Winton: Yeah. And I still have six million three seventy-five on everything I'm looking at here. Commissioner Sanchez: Of CDC (Community Development Corporation) funds. And then there's seven point million in HOME. Commissioner Winton: So, I'm just trying to make sure that we're approving the right thing. Ms. Warren: The difference in the figure that you have in your correction is the forty thousand eight hundred and forty dollars ($40,840) that needs to be included for the Association for the Development of the Exceptional's kitchen. So, if you add forty thousand dollars ($40,000) to that figure, that's the total amount. Commissioner Winton: Oh, so it's forty thousand -- Ms. Warren: In addition to that. Commissioner Winton: -- on top of 13/5? Ms. Warren: Yes. Yes, sir. Commissioner Winton: OK. And then we have the right numbers in front of us. Ms. Warren: Yes, sir. Commissioner Winton: So -- got it. Ms. Warren: Yes, sir. That correction was found last night. Vice Chairman Gort: I think it's very important that we clarify this because you have many agencies in here and to make it -- where my understanding is -- and that happened to some of the agencies that called me -- that some of the funds that was not used at the close of the year is going to be brought back and utilized because they're not ready to accept those funding yet. But my understanding is, they'll have an opportunity to apply for the same amount in next year's funding? Ms. Warren: Absolutely. 10 February 15, 2001 Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Ms. Warren: All of Vice Chairman Gort: OK. I want to make sure everybody understands that, OK? Ms. Warren: These are -- again, these are two separate issues. Vice Chairman Gort: Right. Ms. Warren: This is money we're recommending remain with the agencies to complete the projects... Commissioner Winton: Right. And they don't even have to apply for that. I mean... Ms. Warren: No. This is money we're... Commissioner Winton: That's still... Ms. Warren: They've already applied. Commissioner Winton: Applied, it's committed, and we're keeping it for them. Ms. Warren: Yes. Commissioner Winton: It's not going somewhere else. Ms. Warren: Correct. It's their money. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. That's very important. It's very important people understand that. All right. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman? Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: I think -- there are two or three things that really need to be -- because this is a new process. The normal outlay -- the normal outlay for capital projects, that is, the point and time that you spend money in the bank, you present something to the treasury, is three to five years for CDBG projects, OK. The normal outlay period, as opposed to the planning period, the design period, et cetera -- and I think, you know, we need to be very cognizant of the fact and we need to get a little bit more policy documents and reference so that these numbers have a little bit more bearing because it is not at all uncommon to have these rollovers, if you will. The second thing is that these numbers are not cumulative, are they? 11 February 15, 2001 Ms. Warren: No, they are not. Commissioner Teele: So, this only gives us a one-year period of the rollover. In other words, there may be some previous year dollars that are in there, and I would think that, in the next cycle of this, we need to add another column that just shows the aggregate. In other words, the current rollover, which is fine, then we need to have the aggregate rollover. Because there may be -- I can tell you right now, on the Little Haiti micro -- on the Little Haiti Job Creation Project, there is supposed to be about seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($750,000) in that account, right, from previous years? Ms. Warren: Again, this would only be through the 25th Year. Commissioner Teele: Right. Ms. Warren: So, this is the 26th Year. So, we're rolling over anything that was not completed or funds that need to remain in those accounts as of October 1. The 26th Year allocation, Mr. Commissioner Teele, to that project, is not here. That's current year money. It doesn't require to be rolled over. Commissioner Winton: No. He... Commissioner Teele: Yeah. But this was a 24th Year. When that program was begun, that program was -- began in the 24th Year. Ms. Warren: So, you would have the 24th, the 25th, and any moneys that have been spent, the balance would be rolled over, and that's what's here. So, the 26th moneys would not be in this. Commissioner Winton: But, he's makingh a point that you're -- so, are you telling us that this isn't just 25th Year. This could be 24t Year or 23rd Year or... Ms. Warren: In some cases, yes, it is. Commissioner Winton: So, this is a cumulative number. Ms. Warren: This is a cumulative number. In that case, it is. Commissioner Teele: Well, that's -- these numbers aren't correct, then. Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman? Ms. Warren: You have the 24th and the 25th Year, and, again, on the Little Haiti Project, it was a budget of two hundred and twenty-five thousand, which would have made it 450, minus one hundred thousand, and the balance is what we're rolling over. Vice Chairman Gort: Commissioner Sanchez. 12 February 15, 2001 Ms. Warren: And it does not include the 26th Year. Commissioner Sanchez: Thank you. That is one concern that I have, being that if these rollovers go back several years and they continue and continue, do we have anything in policy that says, after a certain amount of time, if the money is not used, it would -- I mean, to continue to roll it over and roll it over, we basically have to focus on one thing that we have focused in the past, which is productivity. Have these organizations done what they set out to do? Or are we just -- if they don't fulfill their agreement with CDBG or the City, are we just going to continually, automatically just roll over the money, roll over the money? Because, I mean, we -- if you're not producing, if you're not doing what you're supposed to do, then we should take that money and put it into programs that are being productive. Ms. Warren: Sir, all of the contracts and activities on the rollover log, staff has either met with or has done an evaluation. These are active projects for legitimate reasons have fund balances. Commissioner Sanchez: OK. Well, here's my next question. Here's my next question. Is there any certain guidelines set forth -- and who determines whether we roll over or we don't roll it over? Ms. Warren: The Commission. Commissioner Sanchez: And what's -- well, but to the recommendation that comes to us, who sets that? That is a staff.. Ms. Warren: The recommendation comes from me to the City Manager, with justification, and then it comes to you as a policy decision. Commissioner Sanchez: OK. Commissioner Teele: Yeah. But I think, you know -- it goes back to the point: we need a little bit more policy because, you see, Commissioner Sanchez is raising a valid point, but that point is in direct conflict with some of the policies of this Commission, which you say we're going to have multi-year -- somebody comes in and needs a million dollars ($1,000,000). We don't have a million dollars ($1,000,000) to give them. We say, OK, we'll fund you, but we've got to fund you over three years, OK. So, you're going to roll those dollars over until they get to that million dollars ($1,000,000). I mean, that's been the history of this Commission for time in memorial and, in fact, it's good and prudent planning, in many ways. You wind up with District dollars that you're trying not to over commit in one District versus another in certain areas. So, you're going to wind up having multi-year funding of one project. A rollover, in and of itself, should not be viewed as a negative or moneys that are not going to be used. And that's the only point that I'm trying -- and I agree with what Commissioner Sanchez is saying. We want 13 February 15, 2001 productivity; we want that, but there are a number of other policy considerations in which we may be directing roll over. Vice Chairman Gort: I think what Commissioner Sanchez is saying -- and correct me if I'm wrong, Commissioners -- I do believe that we have a policy that, if we have to locate funds and that entity is no longer going to exist or they cannot do the project or whatever they were working on, that that fund be distributed to something else. I think we asked -- we do... Ms. Warren: Yes. That's your next item. These are moneys that have been recaptured from unproductive projects or projects that have ended with fund balances. Commissioner Sanchez: But, Commissioner... Commissioner Winton: Mr. Chairman? Commissioner Sanchez: Wait. It shouldn't be based whether they could do it. It should be based on performance. Vice Chairman Gort: Right. Well, if they can't do it, it's because they can't perform. Commissioner Winton: But there is a way -- Commissioner Sanchez, there is a way to get at what you're looking for, and for everybody's benefit here -- because I think the process actually is working pretty well, but there's only one missing part, and I think Commissioner Teele hit on it, and that is that this schedule that shows the amount rolled over probably ought to be a schedule -- Gwen, the schedule probably ought to include the rollover amount per year. So, as an example, if we've got rollover funds that go back to 23rd Year, as an example, then it ought to list 23rd Year -- a schedule for 23rd Year, 24th Year, 25th Year, 26th Year. Now, you're doing the right job in terms of evaluation and deciding what's going to be recaptured. That's in a subsequent resolution here that we have to approve. So, the Commission gets to look at that. They get to look at this. But if we have in front of us, as well, a schedule that's an annual schedule, that doesn't give you a cumulative total as the only number, but gives you an annual total by line item in there, then Commissioner Sanchez can look at it and say, "well, you know, I understand that you haven't done a recapture on this one, but this has been going on for five years now. What's going on here?" and then we have all of the information we need and can ask the right kind of questions about those that are really, really kind of dragging behind. And Commissioner Teele is absolutely right, from a policy standpoint: we're going to absolutely want to have multi-year -- significant projects. Model City is a classic example. Model City is going to take a long time to get that thing done, and there are going to be many projects who are going to have overtime that will take two, three, and four years to get them done. So, I fully expect to see multi-year things on here, but it is good to know and be able to see what the longest remaining rollover is out there so that you could question it. 14 February 15, 2001 Ms. Warren: Again, this is -- what our intent is. This is the first year that we've ever closed out and rolled anything over. So, this would set the policy that you've -- and Commissioner Teele's question is: Is there a policy direction? The Commission has directed staff to close out the books annually; to present that information, and to bring it back. And this is the implementation of that policy. Commissioner Sanchez: And, hopefully, there is only room for improvement. Ms. Warren: Yes, sir. Absolutely. Commissioner Winton: Right. Vice Chairman Gort: Also, my understanding, most of your rollover becomes, and your capital improvement and not really in those Social Service part of it. Ms. Warren: Literally, none of it is Social Services. Vice Chairman Gort: Literally, none of them come to the Social Services part. Most of it comes from your capital improvement. And we all know how difficult it is when you do affordable housing in getting your finance put together. Sometimes it takes two to three years to put the finance together for any of these foreign projects. So, whenever the City commits to help any one of those projects, we have to understand that rollovers and this type of compensation will take at least two to three years for them to get the final finance. So -- yes, sir. Commissioner Winton: I'm sorry. Mr. Chairman, I'm -- this is Item 3, right? Ms. Warren: This is Item 3. Commissioner Winton: I'm told by staff I need to put this on the record. There is some unallocated funds in District 2, a small amount, and we have an opportunity to go after a very, very substantial grant, and, so, I would like to ask staff to meet with my staff to discuss the unallocated funds for District two, to determine whether or not we have the ability to go after a very, very substantial grant that we're working on. Ms. Warren: Yes, sir. Commissioner Sanchez: Also, is that the only District that falls under that? Is there any other District that could qualify for the same grant? Ms. Warren: What you may recall is, during previous CD (Community Development) funding processes, those Commission Districts that did not have a designated Economic Development agency set aside their moneys for that activity for the year that they were unrepresented. During a previous program year, there was not a funded Economic Development agency in Commission Winton's District. There's fifty thousand dollars 15 February 15, 2001 ($50,000) that was set-aside for that purpose, and those are the moneys he's wanting to use as a match on a federal grant. Commissioner Winton: But they won't be used unless the grant comes through? Ms. Warren: But all the other Commission Districts haven't -- except District 5 -- also is falling into that category, where there have been, I think, two -- three consecutive years with no Economic Development agency designated, and, so, there is a cumulative hundred and fifty that was -- because each agency is a base of fifty thousand. So, for those three years, there is a hundred fifty thousand for District 5; there is fifty thousand for District 2, and every other district has consistently been awarded several Economic Development Agencies. Commissioner Sanchez: Ms. Warren? Ms. Warren: Yes, sir. Commissioner Sanchez: You gave me an explanation, but I don't think you answered my question. I'm going to make it a direct question: Does my district fall under the -- does my district, District 3, does it fall under Johnny Winton's -- can I qualify for that? Vice Chairman Gort: For that grant? How many districts can apply for that grant? Ms. Warren: This is a special grant that an agency -- I am not really aware of all the details. Commissioner Winton: I think the question is the wrong question. What you really want to know is, do you have another allocated fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) in CDBG funds in your district? And her answer was: the only two that did -- who didn't allocate all of their CDBG funds to agencies were Commissioner Teele and me. Everybody else allocate all of their CDBG dollars to agencies. Commissioner Teele: And that's the facade improvement... Ms. Warren: Yes. Commissioner Winton: Right. Commissioner Teele: I mean -- you know, that's the whole point. I was saying, when they did this -- I said, look, remember, Commissioners, you all are using your moneys this way. Now, Commissioner Winton is saying something -- and Commissioner Sanchez is right. And what I'm about to say is maybe not as collegial as it should be or could be, but I'm going to say it, Commissioner Winton. If you have found a pot of money, you're to be -- if you found a pot of money, you're to be commended. And you know, let me tell you something. When you go after money, whether it be state dollars in the legislature, state dollars from the Governor, or federal dollars, you can't compete 16 February 15, 2001 against yourself. It's a first come, first served. We can't have me too -ism on this Commission when we're going for discretionary and challenged funds. We've got to say, first, whoever finds out about it, obviously gets to go. And if there's a question, whoever has the best proposal. But we can't start sending -- I don't even know where the money is coming from. But... Commissioner Winton: It's coming from the feds, one. And number two, the -- and you haven't -- and I haven't had a chance to talk about the plan, and I won't until it's finalized. But the funds will actually be used in at least three of the five Districts. So, it isn't just a District 2 spending thing. It's going to be used all over the -- at least in the three Districts that I know of, and maybe more. Commissioner Teele: Well, I think that's very helpful, but I also think it's very important that each Commissioner be encouraged to go out here and find programs to bring back to their district, and not fear that we're going to try to rage you as you bring it in. I mean, part -- you're going to take away the incentive to get up early in the morning and stay up late at night if you're going to go out here and then have to, you know, sort of share it every time it comes in. Obviously, if it's something that's Citywide, it's helpful. And if it's multi -district wide, it's helpful. But I say go and get it. Go get the money. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Yes, sir. You want to address Item 3? Rufus Witherspoon: Yes. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Mr. Witherspoon: My name is Rufus Witherspoon. Hello everybody. I'm just against anything... Commissioner Winton: I'm sorry. I didn't hear your name. Mr. Witherspoon: I'm Rufus Witherspoon. Person living with AIDS (Acquired Immuno Deficiency Syndrome). Vice Chairman Gort: Your address. Mr. Witherspoon: 12275 Northeast 19th Avenue. Yes. I'm against anything here. Under the HOPWA (Housing Opportunities for Persons Living with AIDS) funds, you have one point eight mill — one point eight million dollars ($1.8 million) from the accounts of (inaudible) activity. I'm against anything being approved here today because there is no citizen in participation and the Department of Community Development and Block Grants arbitrarily taken upon themselves to exclude participation from the consolidated plan that is regulated under federal rules and regulations. We have no input -- we have a housing committee under the partnership. We have no input whatsoever. Gwendolyn Harris -- we have wrote Gwen Harris and Joni Harris on maybe five or six occasions and now we're organizing to -- possibly sue the City of Miami because we write letters to also 17 February 15, 2001 -- we have wrote letters to the Mayor; we have constantly wrote letters to Gwendolyn Harris, Joni Harris about information about the knowledge, and we perceive that there is a little corruption there because we're up on this program, but we need information about these contracts that are for brick and mortar that they don't present to the board. No City representatives even come to the meetings. I mean, it's just outrageous the way we've been treated. And under the HOPWA Program, you have four EMSAs, you have Miami, Miami Beach, you have Hialeah, and you have the City of Miami. And this is not just the City project, and they have taken upon themselves to just do things arbitrarily on their own. They only have contacts with providers --just between the cities and certain providers and exclude people from the meetings. And we're not informed. And this is just outrageous. So, this is why I'm against anything going on with the HOPWA program; that we need to sit at the board as regulated under HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development) regulations. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Thank you, sir. Ms. Warren: No comment. I have a question. We have met with the partners -- Dade County has what is called the Partnership. Vice Chairman Gort: I think it's important that you explain the process. The money comes from the County, but they want us to do it, and so on. Commissioner Teele: No, that's not true, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Warren: The money comes from the federal government to the City of Miami. Commissioner Teele: We administer for the County. Vice Chairman Gort: Right. Yes. Ms. Warren: And the County has... Commissioner Teele: The money does not come from the County. Vice Chairman Gort: I know. We administer, yes, I understand that. Ms. Warren: And the County has established what is known as the Partnership Penelas, which, as a coordinating body for all of the agencies or organizations that provide services to individuals with HIV (Human Immuno -deficiency Virus). The HOPWA Program, however, is a program that is designated to be administered by the City of Miami, and is under the auspices of the City Commission. The Partnership, the County committee does have a housing subcommittee. I have met with the director/chairperson of the Partnership, and the County representatives, and their consultants. We have discussed some of the concerns or the confusion regarding the City's relationship to the Partnership. They have been advised that the County's Advisory Board has no jurisdiction over the City Commission. We have -- and I, as recently as two days ago -- I 18 February 15, 2001 spent two hours with members of their executive committee and their chairperson, and we are in accord on all recommendations. The gentleman, again, I haven't had the pleasure of meeting him, but he's a member of their subcommittee of that Partnership, and, again, we've tried to, as articulately as possible, tell them that County Commission have no jurisdiction over the City of Miami, and that we are definitely participating in the meetings that awards contracts to the City Commission are not subject to the preview of the County or any of its committees, and we're trying to keep communications open, but there seems to be, again, some confusion because of our old HOPWA board, that no longer exists, but we're trying to work it out. The hierarchy in the County is very clear about our relationships, but there seems to be some concern at the community level, their ability to communicate to their subcommittees. So, we're working on it. Commissioner Sanchez: Gwendolyn, this is not the -- relating to the restructuring of the HOPWA Program, right? We have not gotten to that yet. Ms. Warren: No. This is -- what this does include, however, is a rolling over of current contracts, but that's all. Commissioner Winton: And that's all this is. Ms. Warren: That's all this is. Commissioner Winton: This doesn't have anything to do with future dollars. Ms. Warren: No, it does not. Vice Chairman Gort: That's all this is. OK. Okey doke. Mr. Witherspoon: It has to do with not letting -- having citizen participation. Under the Consolidated Plan, when you submit your consolidated application, you have to have citizen participation. And what I would make available -- I'm sure you have -- you know that already. You have to have that in the plan. And, also, this program includes four eligible Metropolitan (inaudible). Miami just has 1500 people with HIV /AIDS (Acquired Immuno Deficiency Syndrome). They are just the grantee. You cannot exclude Hialeah; you cannot exclude Miami Beach, and you're not -- you cannot exclude the rest of the County for participation implementation of the plan -- of the Consolidated Plan. Vice Chairman Gort: Sir, my understanding, this motion here today, right now, is to pass money over so they can have the money. That's what we're discussing in this Item 3. Commissioner Winton: That's already been allocated. Already been allocated. Mr. Witherspoon: Sir, I understand that. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman? 19 February 15, 2001 Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: I don't understand the issue very clearly. Before I move forward, I'd like to at least understand. What is the name of your board? Mr. Witherspoon: Housing Community. It's under the Partnership. Commissioner Teele: Housing -- so, you are a subcommittee of the Partnership? Mr. Witherspoon: No, it's a committee of the Partnership. HIV/AIDS Partnership, under regulation from her City department, Health Community Service -- it was developed... Commissioner Teele: Who's the Chairman of your board? Ms. Warren: Petera Johnson Hopson is the chairperson. Mr. Witherspoon: Petera Johnson Hopson. Ms. Warren: Yes. And she's the lady, again, that I meet with. Mr. Witherspoon: She's PWA (Persons With AIDS) also, yes. Commissioner Teele: And does -- has your board ratified or approved the position that you're taking here before us today? Mr. Witherspoon: Yes. Because we're not given information. They don't -- the City -- I can -- as a citizen... Ms. Warren: That's not true. Actually... Commissioner Winton: Do you have a resolution in support of that position from your board? Mr. Witherspoon: The chair asked me to speak today. The chair is my Chairman. I'm sure you know him. He asked me to speak today. Ms. Warren: He's -- the chairperson of the Partnership is Petera Johnson Hopson. I met with her and the advisor and the County's liaison. That's the designated person who's in charge of the Partnership. And that is... Mr. Witherspoon: They sent you several letters and you never answered them. Also, Joni Harris, who's standing behind you-- and this is documented and I don't want to get in an argument with you. 20 February 15, 2001 Ms. Warren: They also indicated during the meeting that they would prohibit any unauthorized representation on their behalf at any future meetings, but if you'd like, we could -- but, no, this is the chairperson. Vice Chairman Gort: Gentlemen, let me ask you a question: This is very confusing: What we do, we can pass a resolution without the HOPWA funding. Let the HOPWA funding be there. Let them come back this afternoon, later on. But they better get a hold of them fast because there are still things we can do here today. Mr. Witherspoon: And, also ... Vice Chairman Gort: Because there are two things we can do here today. Mr. Witherspoon: You have a HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development) representative that oversees this program and ... Vice Chairman Gort: We have -- excuse me. There's two things we can do here right now. Move this, with the exception of the HOPWA funds, and the HOPWA funds would not roll over until you guys work it out, and you would not have the funds. And all -- it's up to this board. Mr. Witherspoon: Thank you. Commissioner Winton: Well, I'm not ... Vice Chairman Gort: It's up to this board. Mr. Witherspoon: And I will -- any information you need... Commissioner Winton: I'm not... Ms. Warren: We need to make payments. Commissioner Winton: I'm not sure that I'm prepared to do that. I want to understand something. He's saying that we have not followed the public process here. Mr. Witherspoon: Consolidated plan. Commissioner Winton: And -- of the consolidated plan. Now, these are rollover dollars that have already -- we've already voted to use these dollars in the past. Ms. Warren: Correct. Commissioner Winton: -- for these specific agencies in the past. These are allocated dollars. 21 February 15, 2001 Ms. Warren: These are dollars (inaudible). Commissioner Winton: What are the regulations in regard to public hearings, in terms of rollover? Ms. Warren: The requirement is that the moneys -- you've designated them for a specific purpose. That purpose is in your plan. These moneys are being used for the payment of client services we need to rollover so these agencies can make payments. Commissioner Winton: Because we've had the public process in the past -- because there was a public process that allocated these dollars to begin with. Ms. Warren: Correct. Commissioner Winton: So, we're not allocating new money to new projects or future projects. This is only a continued authorization that allows the agencies to spend the money that we've already had a public process for and this Commission has voted on; is that not correct? Ms. Warren: Yes, sir. Commissioner Winton: So, it seems to me then that we follow the rules and regulations that are in front of us and the only thing that we're doing is continuing to -- just like we did on all these other things -- provide the funding agencies that have already gone through the process, and we should move this whole agenda. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman? Vice Chairman Gort: Well, that's what I tried -- excuse me, sir. Mr. Witherspoon: That's not true. Vice Chairman Gort: Well, that's what I tried -- excuse me, sir. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman? Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: I'm going to be extremely candid about this, Commissioner Winton. You need to be very careful when you want to omit public process, because the -- I'm here to date highly tuned to not cutting off things while there is a public process that is still in the making. So, I want you -- no, no, no. Commissioner Winton: That's very -- no. That's very different. The public process, we've gone through is my point. 22 February 15, 2001 Commissioner Teele: But -- no, no, no. No. No. But this is the point. Under the federal rules -- first of all, this decision is a nullity. The decision we're making now has no impact on anything, other than it is a formal process that otherwise would happen administrative -- if we take no action on any of this today, the administration is going to do exactly what we're being asked to do because that's the way it's been done for the last 24 years. Dollars that get rolled over do not have to formally be approved for a roll over, OK. So, what we're doing now is we're doing what is good management and good procedure and consistent with the federal guidelines. However, if we take an action, a formal action, we, the Commission, we need to ensure that the public process is protected. Because what he's saying is exactly right. This is a consolidated plan. We're talking about HOPWA, which is literally on a scale of one to 10, what we did with everyday is a point five, but in the terms of the HOPWA community, it's a one hundred, if you follow what I'm saying. What he's saying is really not as important to me than he's objecting to these projects -- as he's objecting to the fact that they are not aware of what is going on with the process, and I think we have an obligation -- we always have an obligation to sit down, to slow it down -- if it's not going to do violence to anybody -- and not roll over the people. I want to know who is the staff assigned to the committee. He says they meet. Nobody comes. You see, one of the problems about being in charge -- and we're taking all of the HOPWA funds for all of Dade County. This is the only program, that I am aware of, where the City of Miami is the lead for the entire County. In other words, Dade County gets its own CDBG funds; Miami Beach get its own CDBG funds; Hialeah gets its own -- there's at least six entitlement areas, but in the context -- HOME funds, the same thing happens, they get their own money. But in the context of HOPWA funds, we're the only one -- Dade County doesn't get HOPWA funds. And, so, we are the board that is responsible for ensuring that Homestead is protected, that Opa- Locka is protected -- and I'm not sure that we know that. I think what he's saying, quite candidly, is just that there's been no communication because there's no -- he can object on the merits of BAME (Bethel African Methodist Episcopal) Development getting money to build home, housing for people with AIDS (Acquired Immuno Deficiency Syndrome). There's no way they're going to object to Miami-Dade County receiving long-term funds for people with AIDS. I mean, the things that are being rolled over, the one point eight million dollars ($1.8 million) are motherhood and apple pie. I mean -- and you can refer it to them. They can discuss it, debate it, but at the end of the day, it's going to come back to us pretty much the same way it is now. So, unless we're doing violence to something -- some timetable, we ought to defer to the public process. It makes our consolidated plan, particularly in the area of Community Development and other areas, stronger, and it shows that we're paying attention to the public. Mr. Warren: May I ask -- may I make a suggestion? Commissioner Winton: I think I agree with you completely. Mr. Warren: May I make a suggestion? We have requested that the chairperson -- Vice Chairman Gort: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Commissioner Winton. Go ahead. 23 February 15, 2001 Ms. Warren: -- for the Partnership come. Commissioner Winton: I just was (unintelligible) Commissioner Teele that I think that his points absolutely right, and he pulled me out of the soup again. Vice Chairman Gort: That's what I say. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, I would make the motion that you recommend that we make, Mr. Chairman, and that is that we approve this item, with exception of the HOPWA funds, and instruct the committee -- Vice Chairman Gort: Let him go back to his board of directors and let's... Commissioner Teele: -- to hold public hearings, additionally, and to work with the committee and to report it back to us at the -- soonest convenient time. Ms. Warren: Again, there is no committee that reviews HOPWA at the County. But what we have done is, we have requested that the chairperson for the Partnership come to the City Commission meeting. We're currently trying to get in touch with the County staff. Vice Chairman Gort: Let me tell you... Ms. Warren: They'll talk about the... Commissioner Teele: Well, maybe we can bring it back up this afternoon. Vice Chairman Gort: Let me tell you what the problem is. Ms. Warren: That's what I would suggest, is that the real Partnership representatives be brought here and they have review the information. We have met with them and they understand their relationship to the City. Vice Chairman Gort: Well, let me tell you what I'm trying to do. This gentleman chairs a part of a committee and he doesn't agree with his board of directors or his executive director and the process. Let them work it out and not get us involved. If they have a problem on themselves, let them fix it up and come to us. So, we're going to do that by taking this action. What's the motion? Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Mr. Chairman? Vice Chairman Gort: Yes. Mr. Vilarello: If I could just address one issue with regard to the record that's been created. The question was asked by one of the Commissioners as to whether or not his position was endorsed by his board. His answer was, I believe, that he has the right, as an 24 February 15, 2001 individual, to come and express his opinion, and that's correct. However, he should have... Vice Chairman Gort: No. My understanding, is... Mr. Vilarello: -- considered it as a position of the board because he has not indicated that he's been authorized by the board to speak on their behalf. Mr. Witherspoon: Yes, yes. The chair authorized me to come here today. Ms. Warren: But he's saying that he has been. Vice Chairman Gort: No, he's saying it differently. He said he has been authorized... Ms. Warren: We have just contacted the chairperson. They're sending a representative. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Mr. Witherspoon: And as a citizen. Call me -- yes. Vice Chairman Gort: Right. And he said he's been -- thank you. Mr. Witherspoon: And there's one more thing. I have the federal regulations. I went over them. And also that -- another reason for this because she cut our-- arbitrarily cut our programs and she didn't even give any kind of reason or statements. And all of these is in the federal regulations of the CFR, and I'd like to thank you. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Thank you. Do I have a motion? Commissioner Teele: I move the adoption of the item, with the exception of the matters relating to HOPWA, with instructions for the staff to bring it back later today or as soon as convenient after consulting for additional citizens participation from the chairman of the board. Vice Chairman Gort: Is there a second? Commissioner Winton: Second. Vice Chairman Gort: Further discussion? Commissioner Sanchez: Point of clarification. Can it come back this afternoon? Ms. Warren: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Gort: We don't know. 25 February 15, 2001 Ms. Warren: They -- again, we have contacted the County staff. They're going to come down. Vice Chairman Gort: It's up to them. Commissioner Winton: Or next meeting. Vice Chairman Gort: It's up to them. Ms. Warren: Again, the project belongs to the city. It's not a county project. What they'll come to clarify is that he's not a representative of theirs. They have reviewed the information, and there is no conflict. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. All in favor state it by saying aye. The Commission (Collectively): "Aye." Mr. Vilarello: Mr. Chairman? Vice Chairman Gort: Yes. Mr. Vilarello: I believe, as part of the motion, was that it was going to come back this afternoon. In order to avoid any advertising issues, this matter will be heard this afternoon. Commissioner Teele: It would come back this afternoon. We may further defer it this afternoon, but it will come back this afternoon. Mr. Chairman, on that point. Ms. Warren, I think we should take a comprehensive review of the citizen's participation process for the HOPWA funding. I think we're doing an outstanding job in HOME and Community Development. Because we have this unified plan, we cannot use the same citizens plan for HOPWA funds. We probably need to have hearings that the City conducts; City staff conducts, in at least two or three parts of the County. That would just be a recommendation. Ms. Warren: Yes, sir. 26 February 15, 2001 The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 01-143 A MOTION AUTHORIZING THE ROLLOVER OF THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR (FY 2000-2001) OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,416,012.65, HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP (HOME) FUNDS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,185,491.09 FROM THE ACCOUNTS OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ACTIVITIES/PROJECTS THAT WERE NOT COMPLETED DURING THE 1999-2000 FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 Upon being seconded by Commissioner Winton, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort NAYS: None ABSENT: None 27 February 15, 2001 Gwendolyn Warren (Director, Community Development): Item 4 on the agenda is a companion item to the first item. Again, consistent with our policy to closeout the books at the end of each fiscal year to do the roll over, we have identified certain resources that are available for recapture and roll over. For Community Development funds, from prior -year activities that have been closed out through an official closeout process, we have identified eight hundred and ninety-five thousand two hundred and seventy-six dollars and fifty-five cents ($895,276.55) of closed out funds, and we have an additional two hundred and thirty-nine thousand seven hundred twenty-eight thousand and ninety-five cents of available money in the CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) line of credit. Additionally, we have identified two million two hundred thousand dollars ($2,200,000) of program income. These are funds that have been generated from various loans and principal and interest repayments. And for a total amount from CDBG funds, three million three hundred thirty-five thousand five dollars and fifty cents ($3,335,005.50), which are funds that are available for reallocation. Additionally, under our ESG (Emergency Shelter Grant) Program, which is our Emergency Shelter Grant, we have identified one hundred and ninety-two thousand nine hundred and fourteen dollars and sixty-five cents ($192,914.65) in our available line of credit, and eighteen thousand eighty-eight dollars and thirty-nine cents ($18,088.39), which is closed - out grants, for a total of two hundred and eleven thousand three dollars and four cents ($211,003.04) of available ESG moneys for reallocation. In the following categories, what the staff has -- the process that the staff used to make its recommendations to the Commission on the use of those funds -- we will start with CDBG funds first. There are three categories that were a part of the consideration of the administration. One is we had some outstanding items from the 26th Year RFP (Request for Proposal) process that needed resolution. During that process, agencies were either not recommended for funding as a result of monitoring a programmatic or 28 February 15, 2001 other kinds of issues or funding availability. We have come back to the Commission to bring some closure to those outstanding items. The third area of recommendation is, during the fiscal year, separate and a part from RFP items, the Commission has made certain motions and provided direction to staff that, once the reallocation process occur, there were certain projects that you wanted funds to be directed toward. So, we have included those in our funding recommendations. And the third area of consideration was to include projects that were consistent with the Five - Year Plan or our Community Revitalization Projects. So, those are the three principals that staff has used in recommending the award of the money. The first area is for two agencies that were involved in the RFP process. They would include JESCA (St. James Community Association), and Alternative Program. During the RFP process they were identified with outstanding performance or monitoring issues, which was the reason that precluded them, at the RFP time, from being awarded funds. Staff has been unable to, at this point, resolve those issues. What staff is recommending is that those agencies apply at the 27th Year application process, and that staff continue to work with them to resolve the issues. The other agency, which is an outstanding RFP issue, is the Coconut Grove LDC (Local Development Corporation). At the time of application and the RFP, that organization owed the City forty-five thousand two hundred and forty-four dollars ($45,244), and they also had some organizational and performance issues. Since the RFP -- and staff was directed to work with them. Since the RFP, they have remitted to the City the full amount owed, which is forty-four thousand two hundred and forty-four dollars ($44,244). And, additionally, the agency has restructured its board of directions, its mission, and its whole organizational structure. So, staff is recommending the award of a hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) to be used in the area of Economic Development. And, again, we have been working with that agency through the Commissioners' office for the last six months. Commissioner Winton: And the important point there is not housing. Ms. Warren: Not housing. Commissioner Winton: No construction out of the development business. Ms. Warren: So, this is Economic Development activities only. Additionally, the City Commission passed a Motion 00-584, and there were two directions in that resolution. One was to provide an additional ten thousand dollars ($10,000) to the Small Business Opportunity Center, if funds became available through the reallocation, and the second motion in that resolution was to provide twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) to the Planning Department to coordinate the planning of certain Economic Development activities in the Little Haiti Job Creation Project. 29 February 15, 2001 Those funds have been identified for funding. The other issue is that the Commission has requested that reallocated funds -- that the priority for funds be in the area of Capital Improvement. The staff is recommending that one million two hundred thousand five dollars and fifty cents ($1,200,005.50) go to Capital Improvement projects throughout the City. And, additionally, through a Commission directive, the Word of Life Community Development Corporation was recommended for an additional fifty thousand dollars ($50,000). Staff has recommended that the eleven thousand eight hundred and eight dollars ($11,808) remain available through them during the roll over process, which you already approved, and that an additional thirty-eight thousand dollars ($38,000), which would be the total of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000), be made available through these new funds. Under your Social Service cap, as you may recall, there is a fifteen percent limitation on Social Service funds for CDBG. You have received a waiver. We're in the second three years of that waiver to increase your Social Service cap to 25 percent. There is an organization, De Hostos Senior Services, we're recommending an additional fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) for them to provide senior meals at the Claude Pepper Towers, which is a project that was recommended for funding, but no funds had been appropriated, and we're recommending that that agency receive the appropriation to provide those services. That would leave a balance of thirty-two thousand dollars ($32,000) in your Social Services reserve for the Commission's discretionary fund or for your award. The final recommendation is that the Commission -- Commissioner Sanchez, under another initiative, has recommended some Capital Improvement funds be appropriated for the Domino Park expansion, and staff is recommending that the forty thousand dollars ($40,000) in soft costs be provided out of this award to commence that project. Additionally, the City -- we're recommending that the City Commission appropriate an additional five hundred thousand to your demolition program that is handled through the Building Department because of increased code enforcement, and our need to, again, increase the amount of funds available. The final -- we're also recommending a hundred thousand dollar ($100,000) increase in your Citywide Lot Clearing Program in order to insure that that budget is properly balanced and administered. The final recommendation is that a million three hundred thousand be set aside for a lot clearing and maintenance program for the Model City Homeownership Program, that would be handled under a separate RFP and contract for that development project, which is an issue to be discussed later in the Commission agenda. So, in total, those are staff's recommendations for CDBG funds. Yes, sir. Commissioner Regalado: We still have thirty thousand from Social Services, right? Ms. Warren: You have thirty-two thousand from Social Services. And as Dan is reminding me -- because we added the forty thousand dollars 30 February 15, 2001 ($40,000) to the roll over for the Association's kitchen, we need to reduce forty thousand dollars ($40,000) from the available balance to be reallocated. OK. Commissioner Regalado: So, what does it mean? Ms. Warren: What that means is that we would recommend that the forty thousand dollars ($40,000) come from the Capital Improvement projects, and that we reduce that Capital Improvement project by the equivalent amount of the increase for the kitchen. Vice Chairman Gort: So, the one point two million will be reduced by forty-seven thousand. Ms. Warren: There you go. Forty thousand eight hundred and forty dollars ($40,840). Commissioner Regalado: But, still, the kitchen will be available? Ms. Warren: Absolutely. This would insure that we have the funds for it. Commissioner Regalado: OK. On the Social Services, there is an agency in Commissioner Sanchez' district, on the Artime, that recently the rent was raised and for them it's either we help them with the difference or they are going to have to let kids go. So, I guess that this -- it's a no brainer. It's very simple. Commissioner Sanchez: Are we talking about Catholic Charities? Commissioner Regalado: We're talking about Catholic Charities, yes. Since we cannot reduce the rent, which, by the way, would be the logical thing to do -- because what we're doing here is, we're spending money that we could apply to a much-needed cause, while we own a building that has increased the rent to a Social Services agent. But that's not your problem, Gwen. I'm just saying that we're doing this the wrong way. Vice Chairman Gort: From one hand, goes to the other hand. Commissioner Regalado: But, you know, Willy, we could apply that money to a much -- Southwest Social Services in Flagami area, they have a waiting list of more than 60 people to get food. They can't provide it. De Hostos, you know -- Claude Pepper dining room has been closed for more than a year now, and they had a lot of people on disability. But what I'm saying is, you know, since we cannot fix that right now, I think we should -- 31 February 15, 2001 Commissioner Sanchez: Sure, you can. That's emergency funded at -- Commissioner Regalado: No, no, no, no, no. I mean their rent. Commissioner Sanchez: Oh. But we could vote on that. If you're willing to make a motion to give Catholic Charities, I would be more than glad to second it on the amount that you would like. Commissioner Regalado: No, no. But, Joe, what I mean is that we cannot resolve the issue of the rent increases now, but we can apply some money Commissioner Sanchez: Commissioner Regalado, we cannot resolve the needs of our community with thirty-two thousand dollars ($32,000), period. Commissioner Regalado: No, no. But listen to me. The rent issue is something that we should consider in the future for Social Services agencies, but I will make a motion for seven thousand dollars ($7,000). Commissioner Sanchez: I would ask you to take it up to fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000). Commissioner Regalado: The only thing is that we have an urgent need, I think, for transportation (inaudible). Commissioner Sanchez: Ten thousand dollars ($10,000), Catholic Charities. So moved. Commissioner Regalado: Second. Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Commissioner? Vice Chairman Gort: There is a motion. Is there a second? Mr. Vilarello: Perhaps we can -- that item is not before you. We have a special called meeting. Vice Chairman Gort: That's (inaudible). Mr. Vilarello: Perhaps we can bring it back at the March 8. I'm not sure what the issue is with regard to the -- Commissioner Sanchez: No. That item -- Commissioner Regalado: The issue is that we can -- we don't have to allocate the money. 32 February 15, 2001 Mr. Vilarello: I thought you were doing something with regard to the rent of -- Commissioner Sanchez: Now, wait, wait, wait. Ms. Warren: No. Commissioner Sanchez: Let's get on track here. Ms. Warren: No. They are allocate -- Commissioner Sanchez: It's thirty-two thousand dollars ($32,000) for Social Services that are there for this Commission to -- Vice Chairman Gort: Allocate. Commissioner Sanchez: -- allocate. So, we could do it now. It's -- Ms. Warren: And the only condition is that it would have to be for agencies that are already approved. Commissioner Regalado: Right. Commissioner Sanchez: And this is an agency that's approved. Commissioner Regalado: And that agency is already approved. So, we are allocating ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for Catholic Charities. Commissioner Sanchez: And there is a motion and a second. Open for discussion. Commissioner Winton: I'm not going to argue over this at all, but it just seems to me that, in all of these Social Services agencies out there, there isn't a single one of them that I know that isn't asking for more money, because they are all in the same boat. I mean -- you know, it's -- Commissioner Regalado: No. Johnny, if I may. This is a different case. Let me tell you why. We allocate some money. They have their budget, so they -- the Manuel Artime Theater building sent them a letter. "As of this date, your rent is increased." So, with the same budget that they have, they either have to let some kids go and close part or get some money to defray the costs of the rent increase. That's why I was saying that it doesn't make sense, you know, for us to raise rent and then go around and use that much needed money that we can apply to other programs. But that's another issue. So, this is why this agency -- it's 33 February 15, 2001 either they close or we give them this money. Commissioner Sanchez: Is anybody here from Catholic Charities? Vice Chairman Gort: Gentlemen, let -- Alicia Del Toro: Good morning. My name is Alicia Del Toro, and we have emergency services at the Artime and the childcare. My question is this - - this building was under the Community Development until it was transferred to Management Asset, and then is when all the problems started. We're a Social Service agency all across there and I feel that if the Community Development will take back this business like it was before, who will be in a better condition to provide Social Services that we're providing for the City of Miami? It all started when it was transferred. So, that's my question. Why was it transferred? Commissioner Winton: Could I respond to that? I mean, with all due respect, ma'am, there are a lot of Social Service agencies out there that are providing very badly needed services to the community and many of them pay rent from the private sector, from the private sector, and their rents do go up because the private sector increases their rent. So, they are at a real disadvantage because they are renting space from the private sector and they can't come begging to the Commission to lower their rent. And, so, I think that this whole issue over how the City is treating its assets is something that we do need to pay careful attention. Frankly, I think we're doing the right thing, and I think that y'all are at a distinct advantage over the other agencies because you probably do get a significantly reduced rental rate over market already because it is a City building. Vice Chairman Gort: Johnny, my understanding is that the problem is all of those agencies, like you stated, need additional funds. The problem is, they have the budget and it's a very tight budget, and they need deviation from any year budget (inaudible) are completely out. So they changed the rules in the middle of the budget -- of their budget, and that's why they are here. Ms. Del Toro: We even have to pay a deposit. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, ma'am. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman? Unidentified Speaker: Excuse me. Just a moment. Vice Chairman Gort: No. We're not going to have a public hearing. Sorry. Thank you. We have to listen to everybody when we have public 34 February 15, 2001 hearings. The reason you came up is because the Commissioner asked you a question. Commissioner Regalado: OK. Let's vote on -- Vice Chairman Gort: Commissioner Teele. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, it's 10:52. We need to really get focused on -- this is an amendment -- this is not a motion. This is an amendment to this plan. So let's accept it as an amendment. It's in the plan. Can we have the public hearing on the plan? I mean, because, you know, we're going to be out of here at 12:00. Then we're going to be back here at 3:00. We're going to be doing this. We're going -- we need to dispose of this program this morning, I think. Commissioner Sanchez: There is a motion on the table. Vice Chairman Gort: There's a motion to the amendment. Commissioner Teele: Is the motion to amend the Catholic Charities funding by -- Vice Chairman Gort: To amend the existing -- Commissioner Teele: -- ten thousand dollars ($10,000) and there is no objection to amending it in. We're not passing it. You can't pass it. You've got to amend it in. That's what Ms. Warren is trying to say. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Commissioner Sanchez: Call the question. Commissioner Teele: So, it's now added on (unintelligible) objection. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Do I have a motion and a second? All in favor state by saying aye. The Commission (Collectively): "Aye." 35 February 15, 2001 The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 01-144 A MOTION EARMARKING $10,000 OUT THE REMAINING AVAILABLE BALANCE (IN THE AMOUNT OF $32,000) PRESENTLY EXISTING IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE CONTINGENCY FUND TO BE REALLOCATED TO CATHOLIC SERVICES TO DEFRAY COST FOR RENTAL OF OFFICE SPACE AT THE MANUEL ARTIME CENTER. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Regalado, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort NAYS: None ABSENT: None Vice Chairman Gort: OK. I'll now open the public hearing. Diane Silverman: Good morning. My name is Diane Silverman. I'm the Executive Director of Partners for Self -Employment, Inc., operating under the name Micro -Business USA. We give business training and loans to low and moderate -income people who can start or expand a small business, even if they lack credit or collateral. Our organization gave over six hundred loans last year and trained 1255 people. We have been in business since 1994. Last year was the first year that the City ever gave us a contract. It was for a hundred thousand dollars ($100,000). We had three months to perform and we exceeded all expectations in that time. We have an approved organization with the City. We've met all City requirements. This year our funding was cut to fifty thousand dollars ($50,000). We have to support the people that joined the program last year and increase their capacity to develop sustainable businesses. Now, when you talk about economic development -- I just want to go on the record. I'm sure many of you know -- there really are only two ways to create sustainable development. One is through businesses and one is through home ownership. We are unsurpassed in our ability to give loans and training to people to start businesses, and I'd like to go on record with 36 February 15, 2001 the Commission requesting that we be included for at least another fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) in the reallocation of funds. Thank you. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, ma'am. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, quick question. Are they in this funding cycle? We're talking now about people that have been funded and either eliminating their money or rolling over their money or reallocating some of the money. Ms. Warren: We're reallocating right now available funds. This particular organization was funded in April and you did fund them for a full year, from April to April, for a hundred thousand, and then staff recommended that, since they were mid -year funded, that we give them an additional fifty thousand to take them to September. They have a hundred and fifty thousand. What she's saying is that she's exceeded her performance and she would like some more money. We're not making that recommendation. Ms. Silverman: Excuse me. That's not accurate, Gwen. Our contract was only until September. We had from April until September, and we didn't get funded until July. We had three months to perform and we did. The fifty thousand that we were given was from this year, from October to October. The contract said so. And it's only fifty thousand dollars ($50,000). We had to support all the people that came in last year, as well as to bring in new people and train them and support them for this year, and fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) is a drop in the bucket for an organization to do that when you're talking about inner-city people that require a lot of education, training and support to meet the City's goal of sustainable Economic Development. We're partners in this and we're not being funded to the level that we need to be, and I want to go on record as saying so. Ms. Warren: Again, staff is not making that recommendation. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. OK. Leroy. Mr. Jones. Georgia Ayers: Good morning. Georgia Ayers, 151 Northwest 60th Street, the Alternative Program. And I would like to acknowledge the chairperson of my board, who just got out of the hospital, Ms. Athalie Range. Vice Chairman Gort: Welcome, Ms. Range. Ms. Ayers: I have passed and hopefully you have received it by now, just 37 February 15, 2001 an update from October 2000 through February -- and February is not gone yet -- of what the Alternative Program has done for the City of Miami. Every person -- every number you see there represents persons who I have gotten out of jail or who are new clients, since October 2000 through what has already passed in February, and February is not over. Now, I beg to differ with Ms. Warren. She did tell the truth. I faxed to her a copy of what she says that the reason you all are not funding me because of nepotism, and I don't want to go through that whole ball game again. This program was started by me. Commissioner Teele: Ms. -- let me just understand the facts before we get into the name-calling. Just -- Ms. Ayers: I'm not going to call any names. Commissioner Teele: Well -- but hold it. Ms. Ayers: That's her name. Commissioner Teele: The thing before me is an Alternative Program -- is this closed out? Read me the numbers because I'm having a little difficulty now. Ms. Warren: The Alternative Program, which is Item 4, Commissioner, it's mentioned on page 2, under issues identified during the 26th Year request for proposal process, and it's in the second paragraph, and basically staff's concerns are that we were to resolve the issues, in this case, related to nepotism and some other issues, and that staff has been unable to resolve them. The directions were to, if we could resolve them, to bring it back during the reallocation process and, at that time, if the issues were resolved, funding recommendations would be made. We have been unable to resolve the nepotism and other issues, and staff is not recommending, at this time, that funding be provided, but that we continue to work on the issue and that they apply in April for next year's funding. Ms. Ayers: That is not true. Ms. Warren made an appointment with me, several weeks ago, to come out, and I also faxed to her copies of what my board -- and I see Mr. Gimenez has left the box there. But the Police Chief and the City Manager were at my office, at one of our board meetings. The board agreed to say that they -- anything dealing with my grandsons, that they would deal with them. I faxed that copy of our amended by-laws to Ms. Warren 's office. Ms. Warren met with someone else -- I'm sorry. But see, you're talking about economic development. Vice Chairman Gort: Go ahead. Go ahead. Finish. 38 February 15, 2001 Ms. Ayers: Human develop -- economic development without human development is wasted time. I know for a fact. I've gone through every problem you've had here in Dade County. I'm on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week. All of these people you see here, I got them out of jail, and if I don't get them out of jail, where will these poor people be? Vice Chairman Gort: Georgia, we're looking at this. We're trying to so solve the problem. My understanding is -- Ms. Ayers: Yes. Vice Chairman Gort: My understanding is -- Ms. Ayers: Well, it just hurts me for somebody not to tell the truth. Ask her why didn't she keep the appointment with me so this could have been resolved? Ask her that. Vice Chairman Gort: My understanding is, your board of director made a change on your hiring policy, where the board of director will be dealing directly with your grandsons. Ms. Ayers: And it was faxed to her office. She doesn't return calls and she doesn't come out and do what she's supposed to do. Additionally, I think this board should know this. The City Manager came to the office and he did ex -fund me through the Police Department from October through December. These signatures you see here, from January 1 through now, I have been working for nothing. I'm not going to tell these people who called for my services, which come in for food, who come in for clothing, and I'm not going to serve them. I am more humane than that. Commissioner Teele: Ms. Ayers? Ms. Ayers: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: What is the funding issue before us now? What do you want -- what are you asking us to do? Ms. Ayers: The funding -- I'm asking this Commission to continue to pay me for the work I've already done from January until now. You only given me forty-four thousand three hundred and thirty-four dollars ($44,334) for a full year. You don't pay Rich. You don't pay me. You're getting a hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) worth of work for forty-four thousand dollars ($44,000). You started with fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) in the year fifteen, and you have decreased it from fifty thousand dollars 39 February 15, 2001 ($50,000) down to forty-four thousand dollars ($44,000), while the work has increased. And I don't mean to be rude, but it hurts me for someone who's supposed to be caring about people, don't follow her own guidelines and own rules. Ask her why she didn't come to the office and keep the appointment. Tell the truth, Gwen. I love you, but you're not truthful. Ms. Warren: Again, we did receive a copy of an amended nepotism plan. It did call for the individual, which is a family member, to report directly to, I think, the board of directors. That does not meet the standard. What we have requested is that the... Commissioner Teele: Where is the standard, Gwen? Let me read the standard. Ms. Warren: The standard is that, if you're a director of an agency, you cannot be in charge of personnel for the agency in the hiring. And what we've merely suggested is that -- Commissioner Teele: Wait, wait, wait, wait. Ms. Warren: -- you can't hire your relatives. Commissioner Winton: You did not say that. Ms. Warren: What did I say? Commissioner Winton: You said you can't be responsible for hiring. Ms. Warren: I'm sorry. You cannot hire or be responsible -- you can't be responsible for hiring and have relatives work for you. What we have -- Commissioner Teele: Has your attorney -- has the attorney for your agency reviewed this matter and given you a written opinion on this? Ms. Warren: We do not have a written opinion, but, yes, we have reviewed this issue. Commissioner Teele: You all have an oral opinion from the attorney? Ms. Warren: We have from HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development) and from the Law Department, yes. Commissioner Teele: Who at HUD reviewed this? Ms. Warren: We've talked to our own analyst, Nora Casada (phonetic). 40 February 15, 2001 She's the -- she's our analyst. Again, the rules are that the nepotism provision -- and what we recommended as a corrective action is merely that there be -- that the executive director, again, do all -- and that merely that a subcommittee of the board of directors do the final approval, and this issue would resolve itself. But she -- Vice Chairman Gort: In other words, what you're saying is, the director will interview all personnel. Ms. Warren: Make all the formal recommend -- Vice Chairman Gort: She will suggest and will come -- and the board of director, the final decision makes according -- Commissioner Teele: Is that acceptable to you, Ms. -- Ms. Ayers: Mr. my grandson has been working with me. I'm saving him from your Police Department and others. He has been -- he was working with me before this came about. Vice Chairman Gort: We understand that. What we're trying to do is do the right paperwork so you would not have any problems. We could go ahead and continue to fund you. My understanding, what they are saying is, you have the power to sit down, talk to the people, and recommend to the board of directors, "I would like to hire these individuals," so the final decision is made by the board of directors, then you don't have any problems. Ms. Ayers: It's over. The board has been -- I don't know where -- all these -- 15 years I have been having this program. I'm the founder. I cannot bear (unintelligible). I don't know what to do, other than to just wipe the City off. I'm too frustrated with this, dealing with her. First, she said she didn't get it. Now she admits that she got it. Vice Chairman Gort: We're not saying that. Ms. Ayers: The board -- well, I tell you what I'll do. This is frustrating to me. Vice Chairman Gort: We want to work with you. We want to help you. You know how it is. The bureaucrats -- Ms. Ayers: You're not working with me, Commissioner. You -- I don't mean to be rude to you. You know I know you from way back. What I'm talking about, I am serving people. You all are talking about housing. I'm talking about human beings. The Reverend White is sitting back 41 February 15, 2001 there. He's been to court with me. He knows just (inaudible) ongoing to courty4vith all the problems he's having. This is frustrating me to have to come up here for some measly forty-four thousand dollars ($44,000), and here I have served 835 people from October till now from the City of Miami and I've got to go through this. Vice Chairman Gort: Nobody is arguing that with you. All they are asking you is to change the manner you hire and confirm the people. That's all. Ms. Ayers: Sir, I sent it to her. What more you want me to say, that I'll resign as founder/director of the Alternative Program? I can't do anything else. Vice Chairman Gort: No, that's not what they are saying. That's not what they are saying. The final -- Ms. Ayers: She had it, Commissioner. I sent it to her. Vice Chairman Gort: Can you draft the documents so the board can sign them? Ms. Warren: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. All right. We'll draft the document and we'll get it for you. Ms. Ayers: Oh, it goes a little further. You all are going to pay me for the work -- for these 835 new clients that I have taken over? Vice Chairman Gort: The process, you get "X" amount of funding, and what is the funding? Ms. Warren: Forty-four thousand dollars ($44,000) annually. Commissioner Winton: But we don't have forty-four thousand left, do we? Ms. Warren: It's a social program, and it would have to come out of the 32, and the -- Commissioner Winton: And we just gave ten out of the 32. Ms. Warren: Yes. The Law Enforcement Trust Fund did, in fact, provide funding for the first -- until January, so we're looking at the balance of the year. But, again, the correction shows her as the appointing -- final appointing authority. And, again, it's just a technicality, but it's an issue. 42 February 15, 2001 Vice Chairman Gort: It's a technicality. Why don't you draft it, the document, and have it given to her and to the board. All right? Draft the document so we can comply with that. All right. What do we need? Ms. Warren: We need that agency to agree and Ms. Ayers to agree to do that. Ms. Ayers: I don't -- agree to what? The board -- Vice Chairman Gort: She agree -- we're going to have a document -- yes. Ms. Ayers: The board -- Ms. Range is there. She could tell you. She's there. She voted for it. Vice Chairman Gort: We're going to have a document and has to sign, OK. Draft the document so you can present it to the board and to her, all right? Because she tried to do that but you understand, you're saying that does not comply, so, why don't you make the changes, let her know and let the chairperson know, OK? What do we need here now? Ms. Warren: Just a second. Again, we will draft a letter, putting in what would work, and, again, it would be up to their board to adopt it or not. Commissioner Sanchez: To fall under the HUD regulations? Ms. Warren: Yes, sir. Again, the Manager and I did attend the meeting. And, Ms. Ayers, I apologize for not coming to my meeting. I was ill that day and I'm sorry. Ms. Ayers: A telephone call would have done better and I would have made another arrangement. I follow through. Ms. Warren: That's -- again, sorry about that. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Ms. Ayers: OK. May I get a clear understanding because I have working people, that I don't have funds to pay them. I'm funded just like everybody else, through taxpayers' dollars. Vice Chairman Gort: Right. Ms. Ayers: And I have been working these people since January 1 through now. How am I going to pay them? 43 February 15, 2001 Dena Bianchino (Assistant City Manager): Commissioners? Vice Chairman Gort: Yes. Ms. Ayers: This is 400 -- I mean eight 835 new clients. Vice Chairman Gort: We're going to -- we're going to try to find out. Yes. Ms. Bianchino: As you're aware, you have twenty-two thousand dollars ($22,000) left in Social Services and any funding would have to be suggest to an acceptable legal plan that follows HUD guidelines in order for any money to be dispersed to this agency. Vice Chairman Gort: I understand that. But this agency is already being funded, am I correct? Ms. Warren: No. We withheld all funding, pending the resolution of this issue. We've attempted -- the Manager, as she's indicated, provided interim funding through the Law Enforcement Trust Fund. We're here today saying that we have not been able to resolve it to the satisfaction to be able to enter into a federal contract. Vice Chairman Gort: My understanding is, some funds being left that could be allocated. At the same time, we might be able to work with the other unit to get up to the funding to what year? I mean, our new cycle begins in September. Ms. Warren: It will begin again October 1. October 1, yes. Vice Chairman Gort: In September. October 1. Ms. Warren: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Gort: So, there is a need of funding from January to September 31? Is it 30, 31? Ms. Warren: All the funds available in the Social Services category remaining is the twenty-two thousand dollars ($22,000) balance and, again, you could set that aside for this agency, subject to -- Vice Chairman Gort: I understand. But one of the things we talked about is trying to combine our offers with the other funds from the police -- Commissioner Winton: Law Enforcement Trust Fund. 44 February 15, 2001 Vice Chairman Gort: -- the police has and see what we can do with that, OK? Ms. Warren: They've already received funds from them. I could talk to the Police Chief to see if they have any other available funds. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Okey doke. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Leroy. Leroy Jones: Good morning. Leroy Jones, Director of Neighbors and Neighbors, 180 Northwest 62°a Street. Fiscal year 1999/2000 our agency was approved -- was recommended and approved by the Commission for eighty thousand dollars ($80,000). This year funding source was cut in half by the City of Miami although we did way more than what we was requested or required to do through the City of Miami. In sale of the brief of our (inaudible) business we assisted, we helped 17 businesses, 17 businesses, which 13 is in the City of Miami, received grants from fifty to ninety-eight thousand dollars ($98,000). Commissioner Teele: Excuse me. Let me -- what number -- where is -- Ms. Warren: Again, we're still on Item 4. This is not a recommendation to fund any other agencies. Mr. Jones is recommending, I guess, advocating that he be included as an increase in his funding from the pot of reallocated funds. Am I correct? Mr. Jones: Right. That's what I'm doing, because, Commission -- Vice Chairman Gort: Now, let me ask you a question, Leroy, so make sure everybody understands the process. My understanding is, we requested an RFP (Request for Proposal) people answer an RFP for the allocation of these funds. Ms. Warren: The 26 -year funds have already been awarded. There is a current year that's under contract. These are funds that are from last year, that were not spent, that are here for reallocation. Commissioner Teele: But this year 25 -- Ms. Warren: This is 25th Year moneys, not current year moneys. Those contracts are done. They are -- Vice Chairman Gort: My understand -- I understand that. Ms. Warren: OK. 45 February 15, 2001 Vice Chairman Gort: My question is, did we ask for an RFP to allocate those funds? Ms. Warren: No. This is -- no, you did not. Vice Chairman Gort: This was -- OK. This was staff recommendation -- Ms. Warren: Based on the three criteria of old motions and -- Vice Chairman Gort: On the -- OK. Things can be changed here by us? Ms. Warren: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Thank you. Go ahead. Ms. Warren: This is not an RFP. Mr. Jones: All I'm asking, Commission, is that we get some of these reprogrammed dollars, based on our services, based on our target area, based on our commitment to the City. No agency in the City of Miami or Dade County duplicate services with us. None. We the only agency in the City of Miami provide the type of services that we provide to small businesses. And when we got the recommendations for the forty thousand dollars ($40,000), you know, I couldn't decrease my staff, you know, based on recommendations from eighty thousand dollars ($80,000) to forty thousand dollars ($40,000), although we received money from Miami -Dade County, but most of the businesses that we help, 90 percent of the businesses that we help is located in the City of Miami, and for us to always go and beg Dade County to make up for money that the City don't give us to help businesses in the City of Miami is unfair. So, all we're doing is, when the reprogramming dollars -- because I see all this money here. When it takes place, is that we want to be included in the process. I want to be able to pay my staff what they worth. And if we're not delivering services, cut the funds off, but if we're doing more than what required of us, we want to be compensated for it. We want to be compensated for it. Commissioner Winton: Mr. Chairman? Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir. Commissioner Winton: Leroy, I just want to make a point of clarification for the record because I've always admired your tenacity here. Mr. Jones: Thank you so much. 46 February 15, 2001 Commissioner Winton: So -- but the clarification for the record, and that is that you said you go to the County and get money and it's not fair because, you know, it's all in the City of Miami. The point I want -- the clarification I want to make to the whole world out there is that when businesses improve and real estate values go up, the County gets almost a third of the ad -valorem tax. So, as far as I'm concerned, the County should be sitting at the table in every one of these ventures, helping all of you with their CDBG funding because they get a big chunk of the taxes that come out of the improved real estate values. So, that's the only clarification there. Mr. Jones: Commissioner, you're right, but the City do get its portion. But not only that, the City collect -- Commissioner Winton: That's right. But you just don't want anybody to think that, you know, that we want both. Mr. Jones: Right. And I'm glad you said that. But the City also collect the fees from the licenses, the fees from the garbage disposal. So, the City do collect its fair share. Don't make it seem like the City not getting its money because the City is taxing these small businesses from every end that they can tax them from, and you know who have to save them? Me. You know who have to go out and picket for them and protest? Me. You know what I mean? And my staff. And that's not fair to us, for me to pay them money when I know they worth way more than what I'm able to pay them based on what the City giving me. I just want to be fair, you know. When you go to work, Commissioner, you want to be fair. You know, you want to get what's due to you, and I want to pay my staff what they worth. I'm not taking no forty thousand dollars ($40,000) from the City of Miami next year. I'm not taking it. But I'm going to be down here raising sand (sic) and doing everything else. So, what I'm saying is, give me my fair share and then I won't have to come down here raising sand. But other than that, I will be down here, and if I have to close those businesses up, that I hate to do -- because when I do that, they miss money -- I will bring them here, OK. But if I'm not doing what y'all expect me to do, then cut the money off. But if I'm doing way more than what you require, forty thousand dollars ($40,000), I have to do the same amount of work as if I got the eighty thousand dollars ($80,000). If I got a thousand dollars ($1,000), it's still the same paperwork that I have to do through the City of Miami as if it was a million dollars ($1,000,000), you know. So, to give me forty dollars ($40) and have me work like a dog -- have my staff work like a dog -- because we got a commitment there. I get the money, they do the work, but I'm just saying. But to have my staff to work as hard as they -- OK. I'm finished. Work as hard as they work, Commissioner, I just want them to be compensated. That's all I want. OK. Thank you. 47 February 15, 2001 Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, Leroy. We understand. Yes. Commissioner Teele: What is your request? I never heard your request. Mr. Jones: Sir? My request is that we be put in this reallocation process. When reallocation dollars rolls around, we want to be a part of the process. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Jones? Mr. Jones -- Mr. Jones: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: -- and to anyone else, you know, it's very helpful if, before you give us a speech, give us the facts. Mr. Jones: OK. Commissioner Teele: How much money are you requesting? Mr. Jones: Well -- Commissioner Teele: You still haven't said it. You've given us -- Mr. Jones: OK, OK. All right. Based on what I got last year from the City and the County, our budget decreased by twenty thousand dollars ($20,000). What I'm asking for, Commission, is the staff to be -- at least -- a hundred and twenty thousand dollar ($120,000) -- an additional eighty thousand dollars ($80,000), plus the forty thousand dollars ($40,000) that we have, I think would be adequate, you know, for this year. Unidentified Speaker: What was that number? Mr. Jones: Eighty thousand -- we got forty thousand dollars ($40,000). An additional 80. So, -- what I'm saying is, because we superseded what was asked of us, when we received eighty thousand dollars ($80,000), that we should have gotten more money instead of less money. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Jones is the eighty thousand dollars ($80,000) that you're requesting for loans or for administration? Mr. Jones: No. It's for my staff. It's for the bills. It's for administration. Commissioner Teele: It's for administration. All right. I understand what your request is now. Thank you. 48 February 15, 2001 Mr. Jones: OK. All right. Thank you. Ellen Gilligan: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Ellen Gilligan. I am on the board of directors. I'm the secretary for the Board Of Directors of De Hostos Senior Center and I'd like to thank the Commissioners for their allocation of the fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000), which will help us to provide forty meals from February through October daily -- forty meals daily to the residents at the Claude Pepper Tower. I come before you to request, if, at all possible, an additional six thousand seven hundred and sixty-seven dollars ($6,767) because that's the amount that it will take to administer the meals. The fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) will cover the cost of the meals, but we have to have someone on the premises in order to serve the meals and clean the area and things of that nature. We'd like to thank you again, and we hope that you will consider our request. We're very grateful to you. We were asked, by the center, to provide these meals to the Claude Pepper Towers, and it's our pleasure to be able to do so. Thank you. Clyde Pettaway: Good morning. I'm Dr. Walter Clyde Pettaway, Senior Administrator of James E. Scott Community Association. When the funds was allotted earlier during the year, we were not given any funds, and some of the reasons were the facts that we did not have proper recreation for our seniors, the meals were not as warm as they should have been, the activities taking place within the centers were not what they should have been, and we addressed all those things. What we have done, we have gotten a driver that's dedicated and hired specifically for the center. We've gotten a center -- a brand new bus, air conditioned, fully automatic, and we have other buses that -- at disposal. We'll be able to take our seniors to -- all down Key West and all over the state. We've hired additional staff to make sure that activities within the center -- we've purchased state -of -the -art -type stereo systems and etc. within the system - - in the center. We have increased the activities to make sure no seniors are just sitting around doing nothing, being bored. But what appears -- what it appears is that each time we reach the end, the end moves. We submitted -- we did all of those things, which are human -type things for our seniors. The main thing that I'm asking for simply is -- I'm not asking for anything for administration. I'm not asking about anything about the buses. All I'm asking for is to help us feed the seniors, and I say -- you know, I was just listening to the young man in front of me. He said, you know, you have to go to the County and beg. You know, I'm 57 years old and I'm not really in the process of feeling like begging anymore. All my life I have been begging. But for senior citizens, I will beg you, and I beg you, help us feed the seniors. But what has happened is, JESCA, when the money was cut off, JESCA has had to spend money that we do not have to feed the seniors, but we made a commitment that not one senior 49 February 15, 2001 would go without a meal. But we just can't keep doing that. And all we're asking now is that you help us feed the seniors. That's all we're asking. Because we have done everything else that you have asked us to do. Everything that was a negative, we've turned and made it a positive. We've taken the lemons and made lemonade, and the seniors are happy. The seniors are moving around. The seniors are full of activity and energy, and now -- but we've got to keep feeding them. And that's all we're asking for, food for our seniors. And I just don't -- I don't know what else to say. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Pettaway, I'm -- I guess I'm a little bit concerned about what you're saying here today. It was my understanding, first, that you all had been working with the staff and that you will be eligible in the next -- in the next round -- the first round of funding cycles, which is scheduled -- which we're going to agree on the schedule, but be coming out literally in April/May time frame; is that right? Ms. Warren: Yes, sir. We're recommending April. Commissioner Teele: That they -- have they been cleared of the -- Ms. Warren: There are a few more things to work on, but they should be cleared by then. Yes. Commissioner Teele: OK. Without getting into what they are not -- what bothers me, though, is who did we fund to provide the service that JESCA was providing? Are you all still providing? Mr. Pettaway: We're still -- I can answer that. No one. We are still providing the services. That's my point. But we're providing the service without any assistance here. Commissioner Teele: Well, no, that's not consistent with what staff told us. Staff indicated, when -- because that was my issue. I said, look, I support JESCA. I think it's well known; that I think JESCA has served and stood in the gap long before any of us on this dais were here and most of the people, even in Community Development, even in the City of Miami, James E. Scott was standing in the gap when nobody else was here. But, you know, at some point -- they don't give metals to yesterday's heroes. We all know that. You've got to earn your stripes. Mr. Pettaway: Exactly. I understand that. Commissioner Teele: Everyday. That's unfortunate, but that's just the way it is. So, I didn't fight the staff's recommendation for JESCA because I said what you're saying, the real issue is that the community be served. 50 February 15, 2001 Now, are you telling us that you all have continued -- we're talking now about the seniors in Overtown? Mr. Pettaway: Yes. Commissioner Teele: It's about 40 to 60 -- how many -- Mr. Pettaway: It's about 60, I think. Commissioner Teele: It's about 40 to 60. I've gone in there and, quite frankly, there is a TV broken. I think I made a promise to somebody, at Christmas, -- did y'all -- did we get the TV thing -- is it fixed? OK. Mr. Pettaway: It's taken care of, yes. Commissioner Teele: But are you all still providing the service? Mr. Pettaway: We're still providing the service, Commissioner. Commissioner Teele: Without pay? Without -- Mr. Pettaway: Without pay. Commissioner Teele: Without a grant? Mr. Pettaway: Without a grant. We -- Commissioner Teele: But who -- who's providing the service, Gwen? Ms. Warren: We did fund another agency to provide the service, and my staff is checking on which agency that was. We were directed to continue to work with JESCA. We have. And, again, we are assuming that they will be available for refunding this year. Commissioner Teele: Well, let me just understand. Are you all in there everyday? Mr. Pettaway: We're in there everyday. Commissioner Teele: Monday through Friday? Mr. Pettaway: Monday through Friday. Commissioner Teele: Is anybody else in there providing the service? Mr. Pettaway: No one is in there providing the services. 51 February 15, 2001 Commissioner Teele: Well, somebody -- I want to see -- somebody who's a contract auditor or a monitor needs to come in here today and explain to us what's going on in JESCA. I want to hear from the person responsible for that site, in this -- you've got to have a contract monitor. Somebody's got to be responsible for this contract. Ms. Warren: Again, you mean whether or not JESCA is -- they have their -- Commissioner Teele: No. No, no, no. What I -- JESCA is here. What I want is the Community Development staff person that is responsible for the elderly feeding in that site. Because I want to figure out right now, in the public, who's responsible and who's been feeding. Ms. Warren: Again, we would not be responsible for the site. Commissioner Teele: You have to be responsible for the site. You go in there -- you just said that the food was cold; that the roaches were this, you have this, you have that. You've got monitors. You have to have monitors. And I'm sure, if you started funding somebody new, you had a technical assistant -- Ms. Warren: OK. Then it was no one -- in the JESCA program, we did not -- you're talking about another agency that we provided resources to do? Commissioner Teele: When we defunded JESCA, you stood up here and said we were funding another agency -- I don't remember who it was. Ms. Warren: Me either. Commissioner Teele: But the Clerk can tell us who it was. Who -- you know, probably. Who was it supposed to be? Mr. Pettaway: I don't know, Commissioner. All I know is that, we made a statement that no seniors would go without meals, as long as JESCA was involved, and we have maintained ourselves within the center five days a week, providing hot meals everyday, including holidays, and full services agenda, without any assistance or any funds, which is really hurting us. Commissioner Teele: Who is your contract monitor? Who monitored your contract? Mr. Pettaway: Homer -- 52 February 15, 2001 Ms. Warren: Whitaker. Mr. Pettaway: -- Whitaker. Ms. Warren: Yes. He's the new NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) Director for Coconut Grove. That's OK. We still have the records, and his supervisor is on the way down, so it's fine. We did -- again, it is my understanding -- and I do believe that we did fund another agency in the Overtown area to do meals. Staff is checking on which agency that is. We have been working with JESCA. We do believe that there will be -- all of the issues will be resolved and they'll be available for funding this year. Commissioner Teele: But, Gwen, I'm not concerned about -- with all due respect to JESCA, I am concerned -- I want to know about who's -- Ms. Warren: Which agency? Commissioner Teele: -- who's taking care of those 60 people. Because our commitment is not to JESCA or this unnamed organization, it is to those people. And, I mean, I'm all -- absolutely shocked. I have open mouth astonishment to learn that nobody knows who's taking care of those 60 people. If we defunded them. I mean, first of all, I'm responsible. I should know. Forget you. I mean; I'm responsible. I'm mad at myself. But the fact of the matter is, when you get into these funding and defunding, I try hard not to get in the middle because there is nothing but finger pointing and name calling. I'm trying to work and let the staff do their job, but, obviously, if we're here talking about JESCA, somebody gave some thought to all of this. It's written in. We should know exactly what's going on that program, please. Mr. Pettaway: Commissioner, we were defunded but we never stopped providing the service, even though we received no -- Ms. Warren: That's my understanding. They have other funding. Mr. Pettaway: We just -- JESCA is paying, actually. And we just couldn't leave seniors with no food or no service. We couldn't do that. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. I apologize to staff for a minute. Where are we? Mr. Pettaway: And all that I'm asking is that we -- Commissioner Teele: Are you all going to be open today for lunch? 53 February 15, 2001 Mr. Pettaway: Oh, yes. Everyday. Yes, we will definitely be open today. No question about it. We've not missed a day. Not a day. Commissioner Teele: Have the same people been coming that were being funded -- fed before? Mr. Pettaway: Yes, they have. Commissioner Teele: So, it's not possible that somebody's providing the same service for these people at a different site? Mr. Pettaway: No. That's impossible. Commissioner Teele: Well, don't say it's impossible. Mr. Pettaway: No, I won't say impossible. It's almost like speaking terms absolute. You never go absolutely about anything, but I -- very unlikely. Thank you very much. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Good morning. Leonie Hermantin: Good morning. I'm Leonie Hermantin of the Haitian American Foundation, 5080 Biscayne Boulevard. We did move and our rent did increase since we're on Biscayne, Commissioner Winton. I'm here because we were not recommended for funding last June because of the site, that we had not completed our 1998 audit. Our audit is now completed, and we're here -- and we submitted it to the City for their review, we have. And we'll have a copy for your review here. But we have submitted it to Homer. We are recommended -- we are requesting that the funding that was denied for our child abuse prevention program in the amount of sixty-seven thousand dollars ($67,000) be reinstated, again, understanding that the year -- you know, some of the time has elapsed, but we would like to get some of our funding reinstated for the programs. We also were partially funded for a job placement and training program, and we would like some partial training for that, as well. Vice Chairman Gort: Let me ask you a question. This funding that's being requested, is there money there? Ms. Warren: No. The funding has been allocated. The moneys that are available on Social Services was the thirty-two thousand. That would bring you up to the 25 percent maximum that you can spend. What the Commission's actions have, you've allocated ten thousand of that. You have twenty-two thousand dollars ($22,000) left of Social Program Funding. And there is no RFP on the street. 54 February 15, 2001 Commissioner Winton: For all of these requests? Vice Chairman Gort: For this request -- for these people are allowed to come back for the new cycle for next year. Ms. Warren: We would encourage it, yes. Ms. Hermantin: But we are providing it -- the problem is that it's -- we are providing the services. We have also suffered an incredible gap in our budget. For example, we have -- you know, we've had to make up -- Vice Chairman Gort: No. I understand. I understand. How much are you requesting? Ms. Hermantin: I'm requesting approximately sixty thousand dollars ($60,000). Approximately sixty thousand dollars ($60,000). Commissioner Teele: Is that -- Vice Chairman Gort: Social Services? Commissioner Teele: -- Social Services dollars? Vice Chairman Gort: Yes. Commissioner Teele: Gwen is that Social Services? Ms. Warren: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: Child abuse is Social Services. Job placement is Social Services. Is that right? Ms. Warren: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: Did they clear the audit issues, and have we gotten a release from the IRS (Internal Revenue Service)? Ms. Warren: I have not seen their audit. Ms. Hermantin: It was submitted. We -- Ms. Warren: She's indicated that's it's been submitted to staff. I have not seen it. Commissioner Teele: The justification last year for not considering them for funding was an IRS issue. 55 February 15, 2001 Ms. Warren: We had IRS and we had audit issues that went back, how many years? Ms. Hermantin: We had not submitted a 1998 audit. We completed three audits in a year. Ms. Warren: We hadn't received the management letter from '97. There was no completed in '98 or '99 audit and, so we were three years behind on audits and the IRS issue. Commissioner Winton: And, Leonie, for the record, would you tell -- Ms. Hermantin: And everything was submitted to -- pardon? Commissioner Winton: For the record, would you tell us how long you've been there? Ms. Hermantin: Two years now. A year and a half, two years. Ms. Warren: A little less, yes. Commissioner Winton: Right. So, that's an important point here. Ms. Hermantin: Oh, OK. Well. Ms. Warren: Yes, absolutely. Commissioner Winton: That the discrepancies here or the problems associated with the agency were predated your -- Commissioner Teele: Involvement in administration. Commissioner Winton: Yes, involvement. Ms. Hermantin: Right. Ms. Warren: And I would add that, not only they are predated, but the energy of the director to get the IRS and the audit issues resolved have been -- to use the Commissioner's words -- commendable, and I think that, again, three years of these kinds of audits and IRS issues, to take care of them in the six month period of time -- I think, if we read those records and if everything is in place, again, April, the new RFP is out and there is a definite need for their service and that was the only real issue, is we had the audit and the IRS issues and they were significant. 56 February 15, 2001 Vice Chairman Gort: My understanding is, they were sixty thousand out of Social Services and we only have thirty-two thousand. Ms. Warren: Twenty-two. Commissioner Sanchez: Twenty-two thousand. Commissioner Teele: You have twenty-two now. Vice Chairman Gort: Twenty-two thousand now. So, that's something that we need to look at. But they will qualify for next year's new funding? Ms. Warren: If everything is corrected and -- yes. Commissioner Winton: Well, by my math, we've got requests for almost two hundred thousand in front of us, and we have twenty-two thousand. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, ma'am. Ms. Hermantin: Thank you. Commissioner Teele: I am going to be recommending that you all receive five thousand dollars ($5,000) at the end of this, so just know where I am. Vice Chairman Gort: Yes. Anita Rodriguez-Tejera: Good morning. My name is Anita Rodriguez- Tejera. I'm with East Little Havana Community Development Corporation. And the reason we're here is because you probably remember when we did -- you did the CDBG allocation last year, our budget or amount of allocation was cut by half from what it was the previous year, and the organization ended up with a deficit in operating funds for project staff from what we had in the previous year. What we did with the allocation that staff recommended, that you approved, is that we stretch those dollars for the first six months of the fiscal year, and the remaining six months, we have a gap that we need to fill. We have met with Ms. Warren back in August or September, last year, right, to express a concern, and also to express that we did need the additional funding to retain the additional funds we had last year, to be able to continue operating for the full year. We did agree that we would attempt to operate at a less amount instead of the two hundred and fifteen thousand that we still needed additionally, that we would accept one hundred and fifty thousand. But I don't see any recommendations for us. We have two major projects, we're working on, Latin Quarter Specialty Center, which the GC (General Contractor) contractors were in line to come in yesterday, but we extended them 12 additional days, through the 26th of 57 February 15, 2001 this month. By the end of the month, by the 29th, we should have the GC under contract and notice to proceed the first week of March. We did some demolition work already on the site, and I'm very concerned about entering into a full term construction contract with a GC, knowing full well that I don't have the staffing to ride us through the construction period and thereafter, and even the selling of the units before construction. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, Anita. Commissioner Sanchez. Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, I realize you have two projects going on. Ms. Rodriguez-Tejera: Yes Casa Grande (inaudible). Commissioner Sanchez: Now, I know it's very frustrating. It is frustrating for you as it is for us, and when I say us, I say the City. But the Latin Quarter Specialty Center, you know, there isn't a day that I don't pass by that area. People say when is that project going to go up? And I'm glad to see that you have cleared the lot and you have fenced it, and at least there is some movement towards starting the process of building it. But that project has been going on for how many years now? Ms. Rodriguez-Tejera: The City started work on it in 1980. Commissioner Sanchez: In 1980? Ms. Rodriguez-Tejera: Uh-huh. Commissioner Sanchez: Nineteen eighty, and we still have not -- Ms. Rodriguez-Tejera: The City of Miami -- I can't say the organization was involved with that. Commissioner Sanchez: Just for the record, how much funds have the City given you for that site? Ms. Rodriguez-Tejera: For the development of the project, the City allocated two point six million dollars ($2,600,000) for the construction of that project. Commissioner Sanchez: Just that project. I don't want to mix -- Ms. Rodriguez- Tejera: Just that project alone. Absolutely. Commissioner Sanchez: Just that project. So -- and you still need more 58 February 15, 2001 money to do that project? Ms. Rodriguez-Tejera: No, no, no. The one hundred and fifty thousand that we're requesting is to pay for project staff. These are not pro -- these are homeownership projects that do not generate a development fee for the organization. We break even. What you gave us was to construct the project and break even upon selling the units. The one hundred and fifty thousand is to pay for all project staff to carry the development forward. Commissioner Sanchez: That is going to be ownership, not rental. So you don't qualify for the Investment Partnership Program, correct? Ms. Rodriguez-Tejera: Well, these are for sales unit to -- Commissioner Sanchez: I know. That's only for rentals. We allocate, what is it, 25 percent of HOME to go towards rental? Jeff Hepburn (Assistant Director, Housing): Yes. Jeff Hepburn, Assistant Director. The policy is basically 25 percent of our housing dollars are allocated for rental projects. Commissioner Sanchez: Rentals? Mr. Hepburn: Yes. Commissioner Sanchez: Now, the reason why I bring this up is this project -- both of your projects are in my district, correct. Correct me if I'm wrong -- and I have other projects that are coming up. And I want to know if the City has a commitment to fund these projects based on those reallocated funds that come from HOME at 25 percent. I know that the investment -- the HOME funds under the Investment Partnership Program, recaptured funds are coming up, and -- as a matter of fact, there is an RFP that they have put in to seek more funding. Mr. Hepburn: Currently, the developer has already received -- Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah, but not -- I don't want to mix apples and oranges because they don't qualify for that. That's just -- what I brought out is just for point of clarification, that that money -- it's rental, think could still tap into that. Ms. Warren: Are you talking about the current RFP that we're reviewing? Commissioner Sanchez: No. We're talking about the HOME funds under the Investment Partnership Program, which 25 of the HOME funds are supposed to be directed towards rental. 59 February 15, 2001 Ms. Warren: Yes, sir. We have an RFP out. Commissioner Sanchez: Right. Ms. Warren: Twenty-five percent of the moneys are set aside for rental projects, which a little over eight hundred thousand dollars ($800,000). I do believe -- you're not in that batch -- Commissioner Sanchez: They are not. Ms. Warren: -- they are homeownership -- Commissioner Sanchez: They are homeownership -- Ms. Warren: -- project. And they have an application in for the homeownership portion and that -- the committee will be meeting on the 21" to make it a formal recommendation -- a final recommendation. Commissioner Sanchez: And I apologize for derailing in the thing. I just wanted a point of clarification. Ms. Warren: That's OK. So, there is a -- this current project and then there is an application for a future project, correct? Ms. Rodriguez-Tejera: Right. And the funds we requested were exclusively to pay for the construction costs of that project, not for paying for staff. Ms. Warren: Well, if I understand correctly, you're requesting additional administrative dollars to support your projects, for your staffing? Ms. Rodriguez- Tejera: To support the staff -- Commissioner Sanchez: But which project are you talking about? Ms. Rodriguez-Tejera: My staff, that is, the people that work on carrying the projects forward. Commissioner Sanchez: But what project are you talking about? You're talking about the Latin Quarter Specialty Center? Ms. Rodriguez-Tejera: Well, it's to carry both projects forward. Commissioner Sanchez: Both projects. 60 February 15, 2001 Ms. Rodriguez-Tejera: It's the same staff for both. We're basically working on both projects simultaneously. Commissioner Regalado: So -- yield. Commissioner Sanchez: You know -- wait, wait. It's very frustrating. It's frustrating that we go years and years and years before we finally see the tree bearing a fruit here. I mean, when -- on the record, I want you to tell me when do you think that you will start that project? Ms. Rodriguez-Tejera: We are taking in, on February 26 -- because we extended the deadline for the general contractor -- February 26 at 3 p.m., he's bringing us his one bid -- or bid, and on the 28th, we should be signing a contract with them and the first week of March, we should be issuing a notice to proceed. Commissioner Sanchez: OK. Getting back to the staff. Do we have anything in place that requires developers in their profession, that we have a (inaudible) your project will go up in "X" amount of years or "X" amount of time. Ms. Warren: Yes, we do. And -- because of other issues, the Commission has extended the implementation deadline for this project on at least three different -- at least two different occasions. And, yes, we do -- all the contracts have a drop dead date for a construction. In order for that to be changed, the Commission has to change it. You have authorized to change the extension twice. Ms. Rodriguez-Tejera: And I want to remind you, it took us about two years to get the contracts out of the City, after the funds were allocated. Vice Chairman Gort: No. I think it's very important -- I think it's very important that we all understand that this type of finance is not as easy. It takes -- the project like this -- what's the total cost of the project? Ms. Rodriguez-Tejera: Seven million. Vice Chairman Gort: Seven million. A project like that, put the finance together, it takes forever because it's affordable housing. It's homeownership, but it's affordable housing. They have to go to different agencies. They have to go through different process. And we know how long all these things take. I mean, we've been trying to push this for a long time. I think -- so, what you're asking for is additional funding. Is this to finish this year's cycle or next year's? Ms. Rodriguez-Tejera: To finish the 12 month fiscal year, this year, after 61 February 15, 2001 -- from March to September, because basically we've got sufficient funds to get us through March. Commissioner Regalado: Excuse me. I have a question. Vice Chairman Gort: Now, my understanding is, you were cut -- I'm sorry, Commissioner Regalado. I'll yield right away. The original budget was cut by how much? Ms. Rodriguez-Tejera: By two hundred and fifteen thousand dollars ($215,000), from what we had received the previous year. So, we're saying, we don't want the two fifteen. Just give us one hundred and fifty. We're not going to retire one of the positions, and staff has taken an overload, actually to just carry the period forward with less money. Vice Chairman Gort: Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: OK. I just have a brief question. Gwen, do we have money available to allocate now for administration, in this case -- for administration purpose, not for construction? Ms. Warren: The Commission does have the discretion. Housing and Economic Development are activities that are eligible from the moneys that you have available. Vice Chairman Gort: Well, that's not here. That's next -- Ms. Warren: No. You're currently dealing with your reallocation -- Commissioner Regalado: No. It's on this one. But let me ask you this. If we fund part of their administration, can we require that, indeed, the dates that she's been talking about be compliant and that would be a condition to release those funds? Ms. Warren: Of course, you could. Commissioner Regalado: I mean, not the entire (inaudible) of funds. Ms. Warren: You could require that of them, yeah. Vice Chairman Gort: Question. If an allocation was to be made by this Commission, where would those funds come from? Ms. Warren: It would either have to come from the recommended demolition moneys or the recommended Capital Improvement moneys, or the recommended moneys from -- for the maintenance of the 62 February 15, 2001 Homeownership Zone. Vice Chairman Gort: So, you're talking about Capital Improvement, demolition -- Ms. Warren: Or the Model City -- Vice Chairman Gort: The other, I think, is -- the others are very important. That's not -- OK. Ms. Warren: Yeah. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Ms. Warren: Yeah. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Thank you. Commissioner Regalado: On this third, you said, was? Ms. Warren: Model City Homeownership Zone. Commissioner Regalado: We don't want to touch Model City homeownership because that would be a pilot project for the -- but we could use some funds, not the entire (inaudible) fund that she is requesting from the demolition -- Unidentified Speaker: Capital Improvement. Commissioner Regalado: From the demolition, I said, because Capital Improvement is -- Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, ma'am. Ms. Rodriguez-Tejera: Thank you. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. We'll now close the public hearings. Commissioner Teele: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, may I just inquire one thing. Ma'am, would you just state clearly, the same question I asked the previous gentleman -- what is the amount of money you're seeking? Ms. Rodriguez-Tejera: One hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($150,000) to get us through the rest of the fiscal year. Commissioner Teele: And is that -- how much of that is administration 63 February 15, 2001 and how much of that is program? Ms. Rodriguez-Tejera: All of that is to pay for staff that carries out the programs. Ms. Warren: It's all administration. Ms. Rodriguez -Tejera: Well, how do you divide up administration and programs? We don't charge for project managers to the projects. It's paid through CDBG. Ms. Warren: Again, the money that we provide to the agencies that are not brick and mortar is considered administration. Commissioner Winton: Mr. Chairman? Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir. Commissioner Winton: And I know we've got to vote on this, but I think it's important, since all the agency people are still here now, to reiterate a point we made last go round, and that is that we're only fed -- federal guidelines only allow the City of Miami to allocate fifteen percent of our CDBG funding for Social Services. We have an exemption that allows us to distribute 25 percent, and that exemption ends in how many years? Ms. Warren: One more year. Commissioner Winton: One or two years. One more year. That exemption ends. So, that these extra twenty thousand here and fifteen thousand there and six thousand here and seven thousand there, all of that extra that you're asking for today is going to disappear in another year because our allocation will be going down from fifteen percent to 25 percent. So, there is going to be less money. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman? Commissioner Winton: Point one. Point two is that -- and it goes back to the point that I made to Leroy, about the County. The City is not the agency of government that is provided funding from the feds for Social Services by -- probably, you know, as (inaudible) Charter -- by -- I don't know the technical way that this all happened and -- but the fact of the matter is, Miami -Dade County is the recipient of big chunks of dollars from the feds for Social Services. So, while Leroy would like to yell at me about being fair here, the real fact of the matter is, the system doesn't run through here. It runs through the County. And, so, each of you, on the Social Service piece -- that's what I'm talking about, Social Service 64 February 15, 2001 piece -- each of you need to do a -- probably a better job of dealing with your individual County Commissioners in your districts, to get them behind your programs from a Social Services standpoint. Because there is a train coming and that train is going to lop off some of the cars and that's coming in a year. So, it is the County that has responsibility, not the City. We've got just a piddling amount of money. It's not enough to meet anybody's need for anything. So, for those of you who need help, I'll be glad to help you with County Commissioners in my district, lobby on your behalf for that set of funds, but understand that's coming and that's where you guys have got to start looking for funds. Vice Chairman Gort: Johnny, I think it's important also to understand, one of the things that we're doing -- and I want to make sure everybody understands -- is we are analyzing those agencies providing services, and those that are not providing the service, funds are going to be taken away because we have to maximize them. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman? Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: I would move the item. Now, you know -- we all know that one of our colleagues is supposed to leave here about 11:50, so Commissioner Sanchez: If I may, on this, and it basically falls in my district, and I don't want to get into parochialism. Commissioner Teele: What are you talking about? Commissioner Sanchez: What we're discussing here. Commissioner Teele: No. I'm moving -- Commissioner Sanchez: You're moving what? Commissioner Teele: I'm moving the entire resolution. The entire Item Number 4. Is that what was before us? Ms. Warren: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Gort: But we have to make several amendments. Commissioner Teele: Well, let's get -- I'm moving the entire item. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. There is a motion to move. Is there a second? 65 February 15, 2001 Commissioner Winton: Second. Commissioner Regalado: Second. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Amendments. Now, any amendments let's do them and let's go ahead on and do it. Commissioner Sanchez: All right. Amendment would be that we allocate hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for them to complete the two major projects, at 50 percent coming from demolition and 50 percent from Capital Improvement. So move. Vice Chairman Gort: There is a motion. Is there -- Commissioner Teele: As -- it's an amendment to the main motion, I will accept the substance of the amendment, which is the one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000), but I would ask that you take it from Capital Improvement. Commissioner Sanchez: What is the recommendation from -- Ms. Warren: That it comes -- Commissioner Regalado: No. You can take it whatever you want. Commissioner Sanchez: OK. Hundred percent out of the Capital Improvement. Vice Chairman Gort: Any other amendments? Commissioner Teele, you want to make an amendment? Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, I would amend on two things. Number one, I would amend that the funds withdrawn from the Haitian American Foundation Child Abuse Plan of four thousand seven hundred and four dollars and fifteen cents ($4,704.15) be restored, and that the one thousand four hundred and forty-nine dollar and sixty-one cents ($1,449.61) for the Haitian American Foundation Job Placement, which is being withdrawn, be restored and transferred into the child abuse category, for a total of approximately six thousand two hundred dollars ($6,200). Now, I'm not giving them any new money. They are being able to use out the money that they already have, but that should reduce your public service by about six thousand dollars ($6,000), if you've already allocated that -- I mean, if you've -- Ms. Warren: Yes, it would -- 66 February 15, 2001 Commissioner Regalado: We'll still have twenty thousand left. So, you can take it -- Ms. Warren: It would reduce the twenty-two thousand by identical amount that is not being rolled over. Commissioner Teele: Exactly. So that would be my motion. In other words, to give them the authority to go forward with their Child Abuse Program, to get it in place and give them at least a head start for the next round of funding. OK. That's -- that would be my first one. The second one would be to authorize a sum of money not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or ten thousand dollars ($10,000) to pay the salary of the director of the Alternative Program for the period that she has not received the funds. That's ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for the Alternative Program, of public service dollars from the remaining -- it would be approximately -- Ms. Warren: Eighteen thousand. Commissioner Teele: -- eighteen thousand dollars ($18,000) for the purpose of paying the contribution salaries of the executive director during the period that has been in question. Commissioner Winton: Is that subject to -- Commissioner Teele: Subject to all of the other requirements of the agency -- of the department. Commissioner Winton: Right. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Commissioner Teele: Is that -- Commissioner Regalado: You still have four thousand left, right? Commissioner Sanchez: No. Commissioner Teele: No. She's got eighteen thousand. Ms. Warren: Approximately -- no. Commissioner Regalado: No, no, no, no. She still has four thousand left. Ms. Warren: There was twenty-two thousand when we restored the 67 February 15, 2001 proximate five thousand five hundred to HAFI (Haitian American Foundation, Inc) that reduce your twenty-two thousand to seventeen thousand. Then the recommendation was to pay the ten thousand dollars ($10,000) to alternative for the executive director for the time in question. That will reduce it to seven thousand dollars ($7,000) available, approximately. Commissioner Regalado: OK. So, we still have the seven thousand dollars ($7,000)? Ms. Warren: In that ballpark. Commissioner Regalado: OK. I would move that we transfer that money to action for transportation purposes in Little Havana. Commissioner Teele: What's the organization? Commissioner Sanchez: Action. Commissioner Regalado: Action Community Agency. Vice Chairman Gort: They are funded by the City. They provide transportation for the City. Commissioner Regalado: They are funded by the City. Commissioner Teele: Are they currently funded by the City? Ms. Warren: They are currently funded in their transportation for seniors. Vice Chairman Gort: Yes. Commissioner Regalado: Oh, yeah. They just need -- they need matching dollars for a bus for transportation, the State is going to use. Commissioner Teele: I have no objection as amendment. And the final amendment would be, in light of the hundred thousand dollars ($100,000), is that what you're moving, Commissioner Sanchez? Commissioner Sanchez: Yes. Commissioner Teele: I would move -- Commissioner Sanchez: Capital Improvement. Commissioner Teele: Forty thousand dollars ($40,000) to the neighbor -- 68 February 15, 2001 neighborhood. Ms. Warren: NANA (Neighbors and Neighbors Association). Commissioner Teele: NANA for Economic Development purposes, again, from the Capital Improvement Fund for the purpose of -- they asked for 80, I think, and that's half of the amount -- you all asked for 125, and I think you all are getting a hundred? Vice Chairman Gort: Yeah, a hundred and fifty. That's right. Commissioner Teele: OK. So, that would be my amendment, if it would be acceptable to you, Commissioner Sanchez? Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Does anyone accept the amendments? Yes. Commissioner Sanchez: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Gort: Any further discussion on the amendments? Commissioner Winton: Yes. Commissioner Teele: JESCA (James E. Scott Community Association) is still not on the table at this point, but there is no funding mechanism for JESCA at this point. We've just got to find where that money went because you all made money available. Ms. Warren: The organization that we funded -- Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, I would have one technical amendment, that the report -- that the Manager's report and the report going into the Consolidated Plan be amended to contain a language that basically indicates that this Commission is waiving its policies regarding our five-year consolidated plan that we previously approved, relating to carryover funds, as it relates to the determinations that we've made here today. Because -- all right Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Commissioner Teele: All right. So, I want to -- Vice Chairman Gort: You need that. Yes. Commissioner Teele: -- specifically say that we are waiving the language in our Five -Year Plan -- 69 February 15, 2001 Vice Chairman Gort: Ms. Warren: To adopt -- Commissioner Teele: -- to adopt whatever we're doing today. Because I don't want this to be a precedent. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Any further discussion? Commissioner Winton: Yes. I didn't speak for any of these additional dollars and I wouldn't, and I think that we've -- I think we're making a mistake here. The mistake we're making, from my view -- and, you know, we're going to vote and the day goes on -- but what we've done here is created a process whereby we've literally encouraged -- and, Commissioner Teele, Commissioner Regalado, I hope everybody is listening here -- we've created a process here today whereby we now have sent out a message to the agencies, "do not miss this meeting. Make sure you come to this meeting, and make sure you come to this meeting with hat in hand asking for more money, and if you do that, then there is a real good chance that we will do, as a Commission, reallocate some things, reshuffle the deck, and get you additional money," and I'm not sure that's a process -- I mean, that isn't what we've been doing since I've been here, and I think you all have been doing and we've been doing a real good job, but we sure did kind of reshuffle the deck today. And for some of these organizations that asked for the additional money, some of them were -- a number of them -- this same amount of money was on the agenda the last time and we said no, and it was a rational reason for that no, that staff had gone through and we accepted. Now, today, there is a come back. I still need the money, but there is no analysis of the rational behind all of them and why they need the money. Some of them is (inaudible). Some of them are clear there. But we still said, OK, we're going to cut something else that everybody thinks is important here and we're going to give it away. And, so, I just -- I think we're making a mistake in that regard, and that's all I'm going to say. Commissioner Sanchez: I just have one question for the report. Vice Chairman Gort: Commissioner -- Commissioner Sanchez: Every agency that we've funded in the last five minutes, they have all qualified. Is that correct? Ms. Warren: Yes, sir. Commissioner Sanchez: They have all qualified. 70 February 15, 2001 Commissioner Teele: Previously. Commissioner Sanchez: Previously. Ms. Warren: They have been previously qualified, yes, sir. Commissioner Sanchez: Thank you. Vice Chairman Gort: Let me tell you the difference -- Commissioner Teele: Call the roll. Vice Chairman Gort: -- in where I tend to disagree with you and I've been on the other side of the fence and I understand the process. We have asked staff, that have never been asked before, to go through the audits, sit down with these individuals, and then find certain falls that they come back to us and tell us we're not going to recommend the funding because they have certain falls that they have to get straightened out. What I've heard here today, some of these people have come in front of us and say, look, the falls that we had, we have taken care of. We are a good agency. We have performed and we have taken care of the matters that we have. And some of them still need to do some of the technical matters. So, one of the things that I'm also going to request of staff -- and of all of the agencies sitting here, I'd like to have a meeting where all the agencies come together and our staff sits down with them, and gives some technical assistance. I know you're doing one to one basis. But I want those rules to really be printed in black and white. All those rules be presented and make sure, not only today, but invite the board members or the chairpersons of the boards because they have a responsibility to come and participate and they are aware of the process. So, a lot of this -- we have a lot of very good agencies, a lot of good people, but they lack the technical support, and that's where they fail a lot of times. That's why any time someone comes here asking for the economic assistance, I like to give technical assistance also because money alone would not do it. It would help a lot, but having the right technical assistance, not only with us, but like Johnny was stating -- like Commissioner Winton was stating, we will support you and we'll go to the County, but to them you have to have the right technical assistance, the right paperwork -- they are looking for any excuse to turn you down. And if you can sign your name on this dot and you sign it here, hey, that's it you're disqualified. So, we need to continue to work on this. So, this is why I don't have any problem in making these changes, and I hope you look at it that way also because that's why we sit here, to -- and staff, we order them to do certain things and they have to go black and white. We don't want to sit here and make the difference. 71 February 15, 2001 Commissioner Winton: Well, except the point, though, is, Commissioner Regalado, at the end, you know, out of the clear blue -- and I'm not criticizing him. I'm not criticizing him at all. I don't want him to misinterpret this, but there is, you know, seven thousand dollars ($7,000) left over and he recommended somebody. I don't even know who that somebody is and it's somebody that probably -- that already gets City funding, so there is -- but why them? I mean, why not any of the other groups that were already here? Why not somebody else? And that's the troublesome part of this process that we're creating here that just makes me very unsettled, and that's one of the points. Vice Chairman Gort: But, Johnny, thank God we are improving this. All in favor state by -- oh, OK. I'm sorry. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, the point of -- no, no, no. A point of order. I know that Commissioner Regalado had wanted to vote on this, but I don't want the public to think that everything is going to change after they leave if we hold this vote. So, I'm trying to inquire -- Mr. Attorney, what is the best procedure for us? Can we vote now and then allow a revote when he comes in or what? Vice Chairman Gort: Let's vote on it. Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): If you vote now, the only way for Commissioner Regalado to vote is to -- Vice Chairman Gort: Reconsider. Mr. Vilarello: -- reconsider the item, and he -- Commissioner Teele: All right. I think we should vote now, so that the public doesn't get a sense that we may change something after they leave. Commissioner Sanchez: Call the question. Mr. Vilarello: And, for the record, the public record -- the public hearing has been closed. Vice Chairman Gort: Yes. It was closed a little while ago. All in favor state by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): "Aye." 72 February 15, 2001 The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 01-145 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION DIRECTING THE REALLOCATION OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $854,436.65, AND EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANT (ESG) FUNDS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $18,088.39, FROM THE CLOSEOUT OF COMPLETED PRIOR YEAR ACTIVITIES AT THE CONCLUSION OF FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2000; DIRECTING THE ALLOCATION OF (1) CDBG FUNDS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $239,728.95 AND EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANT (ESG) FUNDS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $192,914.65, FROM EACH RESPECTIVE AVAILABLE LINE OF CREDIT FUND BALANCE AND AVAILABLE PROGRAM INCOME, IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,200,000; DIRECTING THE TRANSFER OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CDBG FUNDS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,000 FROM THE LITTLE HAITI JOB CREATION PROJECT TO THE CITY'S DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TO COORDINATE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES IN THE LITTLE HAITI AREA; AND FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENTS, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, WITH THE DESIGNATED AGENCIES. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Winton, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort NAYS: Commissioner Johnny L. Winton ABSENT: Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, on the point by Commissioner Winton, which I didn't want to debate before the vote. You were one 73 February 15, 2001 hundred percent right in what you're saying, but you're hundred percent wrong in where we are today from where we were five years ago. Commissioner Winton: No -- no question. Commissioner Teele: And let me just say this, Johnny. And this is what - - you know, this is called breaking the code, which I'm prepared to do now. We basically have made available some three point three million dollars ($3,300,000), OK. Staff made it available. To get your point and do what you said do, we would then have to go out with a supplemental RFP. That's the only way we could do what you're doing, and give everybody a chance. The staff didn't do that, OK, and they should not have done it. You know why? You know who's getting the money? The City of Miami. More than 70 percent of this money is going back to the City. And I'm going to tell you something. You see, what little dollars we're giving out here is totally inconsequential because of the three point three million dollars ($3,300,000), three point one is City sponsored projects. So, your argument is a fair argument, but if the City had to stand up now and defend each of their projects against all of these people, you know what? We would be winding up giving most of these people about a million and a half dollars ($1,500,000) and we give the City a million and a half. We would cut it -- Commissioner Winton: Well, why don't we do that? Commissioner Teele: Because the City has short-circuited itself for the last twenty years. The City has funded every community-based organization, ahead of the needs of the overall community. I mean, you cannot argue that the buildings that need to be demolished need to be demolished, and, yet, we all complain about them. And the people who benefit from those buildings being demolished are basically, with few exceptions, not the people in this room. Ms. Range, you're an exception. But you had a building demolished right across from you. There is no advocate for the things that the City needs to get done and the City staff is recognizing that, the Manager's doing that, so this process comes back to us without an RFP, but the beneficiaries of no RFP are the City policies and our Commission policies to get it done. So, I don't feel badly at all about redistributing probably no more than two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) of three million dollars ($3,000,000). Vice Chairman Gort: Come back at 2:30. Mr. Pettaway: Commissioners, I just have a question, please. Commissioner Gort. Vice Chairman Gort: Yes. 74 February 15, 2001 Mr. Pettaway: And I can understand, since we do not have any moneys allotted to feed the seniors in Bass, Peters, Culmer, and Stirrup, am I to understand that we would receive what someone else was supposed to receive to carry on the services that we've been carrying on since the last allocation? Commissioner Teele: We've got to find out who's getting the money and where that money is. Vice Chairman Gort: My -- yes. Ms. Warren: Commissioner, we were able to identify the agency that was identified during the RFP that would serve meals in that area. It was Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese Services for the Elderly. Commissioner Sanchez: Ten thousand. Ms. Warren: (Unintelligible) church. That was the group that was -- Commissioner Teele: How much money was associated with that? Ms. Warren: Twenty-eight thousand five hundred dollars ($28,500). Commissioner Teele: Have they entered into a contract? Ms. Warren: Yes, they have. Commissioner Teele: Well, it's very obvious somebody needs to get a lawyer, then. Ms. Warren: I'm confused. Commissioner Teele: Well, if they've got a contract to provide the services, and we know who the people are and they ain't getting the services from them, they are getting it from somebody else... Ms. Warren: The services were never intended for particular individuals. Commissioner Teele: It was for particular location. Ms. Warren: It's for -- Commissioner Teele: They provide service at a particular location. Vice Chairman Gort: To existing population. 75 February 15, 2001 Ms. Warren: Again, they were deemed ineligible to receive funds. Their organization provides certain services under a variety of contracts. They were to come back after resolving those issues for consideration of future funds. There was no -- Commissioner Teele: Gwen, you stood up here and told this Commission -- and we'll get the record -- that -- Ms. Warren: Please. Commissioner Teele: -- that the services that are being provided will not be disturbed. That's what we did. Those services are provided at the Culmer Center in the Dade County owned building for forty some people. Now, you know, we said that -- we committed to that, the record will speak for itself, and if the people got the money, they are supposed to be provide -- we're not funding them to take the money from Overtown and fund it into Little Haiti, Liberty City or anywhere else. Ms. Warren: Commissioner, I would agree with you, but I'm not sure I made that statement on the record, but I would be more than willing to look at it. I don't think I ever would say anything like that. Vice Chairman Gort: The people receiving -- Mr. Pettaway: If the money is -- Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me. The people receiving the services, they are the ones that should continue to receive those services, be it provided by them or be it provided by whoever got the funds. Mr. Pettaway: But the fact of the matter is, Commissioner, we have been providing those services with the understanding that we would come back and clear up the matter -- the problems that we had. The services have not been interrupted. I don't know who is receiving the moneys, but I do know that JESCA is not receiving the moneys. But JESCA is providing the services. Commissioner Teele: Well, I know one thing. When I voted, I voted that the people -- I didn't vote for JESCA. I didn't vote for Catholic Services. I voted that the people that were receiving the services -- Vice Chairman Gort: Will continue -- Commissioner Teele: -- will continue to receive the services, and I know everybody on this Commission understood that. 76 February 15, 2001 Commissioner Winton: No, I -- I remember that. Commissioner Teele: I can -- we'll pull the transcript up on that. But if they -- we need to get the internal auditor or somebody out there to interview these 40 or 50 people because the people can speak for themselves, and if they have been getting the service and somebody needs to reimburse this City some money and somebody needs to pay JESCA for continuing to provide the service -- because this is not about JESCA and it's not about Catholic Charities or Greater Bethel or anybody else. It's about those people who have a right to believe that they are going to get those services. And I've got to tell you something. If you add up the number of people, elderly people -- and I'd like this as a report today -- the number of elderly people that receive food support in the City of Miami, in the entire African-American community, as compared to everywhere else, I will be willing to bet you that the African American elderly receives less than one tenth of all of the food services that are being funded in this County -- in this City, and I challenge you to prove me wrong. And for the one program that does work -- you know, in Hadley Park, there is nobody providing services to the elderly out there. We don't even have a building. We have the one at De Hostos. We have the one at Orlando Urra. But you know, Willy, you represented that area for years, long before I came here. The black community doesn't have anybody providing elderly service to them, to my knowledge. Vice Chairman Gort: They are the only organization providing -- Commissioner Teele: To my knowledge. I mean; it's pitiful. To my knowledge, is there anybody providing food service to the elderly in Little Haiti, in all of Little Haiti? Is there anybody providing food services in all of Liberty City, Model Cities? I don't know of any. And the one program that we had in the black community, which has been in Overtown, which has been run by JESCA, and every politician goes there skinning and grinning -- and they'll be -- half of them are already on their way there now to say how much we love you. It's only 60 people there. And we're not going to terminate that program. I beg to differ. And if anybody got that money or got allocated that money, they better return it back to the City. Vice Chairman Gort: They may be serving the same people. We'll get back to it. Commissioner Winton: So, how is this going to be resolved, Commissioner Teele? Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Vice Chairman, just -- 77 February 15, 2001 Vice Chairman Gort: Come back at 2:30? Commissioner Sanchez: Just a point -- Commissioner Teele: Have to get the facts. Commissioner Sanchez: Just for point of clarification. I have been asked that -- to state on the record, the hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) going to Anita Rodriguez to all -- a hundred percent will come out of Capital Improvement. Vice Chairman Gort: In the motion that we passed? Commissioner Sanchez: East little -- yes. That's on the record. East Little Havana. Vice Chairman Gort: East Little Havana, CDC (Community Development Corporation). Commissioner Sanchez: East Little Havana, not to you. Ms. Warren: Commissioner Gort? Commissioner Gort, Vice Chairperson for the Dade County Partnership is here and wanted to clarify for the record what their... THEREUPON, THE CITY COMMISSION WENT INTO RECESS AT 12:09 P.M. AND RECONVENED AT 2:56 P.M., WITH ALL MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION, EXCEPT COMMISSIONER TEELE, FOUND TO BE PRESENT. 78 February 15, 2001 Commissioner Sanchez: -- CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) meeting, and I think we have like maybe four more items. So, as soon as the Commissioners get here, we'll start with that. So, as soon as we're done with that, we'll get to the stadium issue or the Marlins issue or the City/Marlin/County issue. (Inaudible) are against the item will have to register with the City Clerk. Vice Chairman Gort: Item 4 was approved with the exception of HOPWA. Now, we have the representative from HOPWA here? Gwendolyn Warren (Director, Community Development): Actually, we're -- the item that was approved was item 3, with the exception of the HOPWA (Housing Opportunities for Persons Living with AIDS) rollover. We have invited the chairperson for the Partnership here to provide some clarification, and Joni Jones, our direct services director. Commissioner Sanchez: I just have one question for him. Was the gentleman that was here -- he -- yes. He stated -- and correct me if I'm wrong. We can always get the transcript out -- that you were here at the direction of the board? Rufus Witherspoon: The chair of... Commissioner Sanchez: The chair. Mr. Witherspoon: The chair of the House Committee, Mark Trimmings. Commissioner Sanchez: OK. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Your committee, not the chairman of the whole board? Mr. Witherspoon: No. Vice Chairman Gort: Oh, OK. That's not what was stated before. OK. Ms. Warren: OK. The chairperson of the Partnership is the gentleman standing at the mike, so, perhaps, you could introduce yourself. 79 February 15, 2001 Vice Chairman Gort: OK. John Muhammad: Good afternoon. Yes. My name is John Muhammad and I'm the Chair -Elect of the Partnership. I spoke to the chair. She's in Tampa conducting a meeting, and she asked me to come here and represent. That's why you see me, you know, dressed as I am. I got a page from her, and she said that -- what we did -- and I was at that meeting -- we approved at the Partnership level to support the City in the rollover funds for continuation. So, we can continue with the Partnership approved. The committees are set up to do work. After they do certain work at that committee level, they come to the full Partnership for approval, and at that full meeting, we approve for these funds to be allocated by the City to assist people with HIV (Human Immuno- deficiency Virus) and AIDS (Acquired Immuno Deficiency Syndrome). Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Thank you. Ms. Warren: Additional Vice Chairman Gort: Now, my understanding, the statement that has been made here is that the public would not represented in your decision; that somehow their input was not part of the decision-making when it came to you. That's what the gentleman behind you is one of the -- supposed is one of the board members or one of the committee members. That's the allegation that's been made here today, and that's why we have this coming back to us. Mr. Muhammad: OK. Well, let me restate that again. The committees are subcommittees of the Partnership. They're committees set up, but at the full Partnership, they're members, and the person that's here now, Rufus Witherspoon, he's on a committee, but at the full Partnership, which I am the Chair -Elect -- next month I will become the chair of the full Partnership, but as I stated this morning, I spoke to the chair, Petera Johnson, and she asked me to come here and support what we're talking about now, to have that money rolled over and give the City authority to do that. So, I'm representing the Partnership. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Commissioner Teele. Commissioner Teele: Is there any other public input? Is there any other public input on this issue? Commissioner Sanchez: No. Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, the gentleman from the... Mr. Witherspoon: As I stated and restated, I'm on the Housing Committee, but ... Commissioner Teele: Your name and -- just for... 80 February 15, 2001 Mr. Witherspoon: Rufus Witherspoon. You have a Consolidated Plan. The City doesn't have any input with the four EMSAs that sit on the Housing Committee. They haven't presented any reports; they don't even attend the meeting, and through the Consolidated Plan, you've got to have the participation of the whole County or the four EMSAs. And what I'm saying here is that we haven't had that participation because the City doesn't attend the meeting, and it's on record, and I don't know why they would deny it now. And, also, I would like to state this also: the City has -- just like they read under -- item -- other items -- they had taken money from me -- from the HOPWA Program, and it's done what they -- feel that's necessary that they see needs to be done with it, but under the Consolidated Plan, you cannot do this. You have to address the needs of the whole community in your -- under the consolidated community plan also, these needs have to be -- they have to coincide with each needs assessment of the City. So, the City is doing things like under the table. You know, I think what the problem is here, that we have on the board, we have a lot of community participation, but we don't have a lot of community education about these programs, and you have people handling dollars that they are not educated about the Consolidated Plan and the process that the City has to go through in implementing these dollars. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Thank you. My understanding is, the gentleman stated that the -- this is in front of us and not in accordance with rules and regulations of HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development). Can we answer that? Ms. Warren: Again, that is the issue before us, is that the organization in the County that has been coordinated through the County to represent all of the organizations and individuals who are affected in this area is called the Partnership. The Partnership, which is a County committee -- Commission, has subcommittees. We have gone before that public body, presented the plan, and they have adopted it. It meets all of the requirements of the public hearing process. Vice Chairman Gort: My question is: This is for the first time City program, but Countywide. I've always been told and representation here, that all the other cities and the County do have representation at these meetings. Ms. Warren: Yes. They are members of the Partnership. Vice Chairman Gort: The Partnership is represented of all the... Ms. Warren: All of the agencies who provide services, as well as there are representatives from all the major cities. Commissioner Sanchez sits as the City's representative. There are members from Hialeah, South Miami, the Beach -- I'm sorry -- and Dade County and other cities, as well as service providers and other agencies. Yes. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Thank you. Commissioner Teele: Public hearing closed? 81 February 15, 2001 Vice Chairman Gort: Public hearing is closed. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman? Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Witherspoon, I've always defended the rights of anyone from the public to address us as a Commission when dealing with federal funds because I think there can be no first among equals, if you will. The citizen process is very real and it's very important. However, I think you do damage to the record -- and I'm going to afford you the opportunity to correct the record -- by saying that the City is doing something underhanded, because you know that's not correct. You know that's a statement made in an emotional moment to get carried away, and this is a public hearing. It is a part of a public records process, and I think that's wrong. I think you need to correct the record, sir, on that point, on the point that you say that the City is doing something as it relates to the HOPWA funds underhanded. Now, your problem is not with this City Commission. The fact that we did not act upon that -- just because you came shows that we're listening to the public, and whether you're a member of that committee or if you were just a person affected or with AIDS (Acquired Immuno Deficiency Syndrome), with the HIV virus, and you came before us, I would listen to you anyway. As long as I'm here -- I don't care about anybody else -- I'm going to listen to you. But I don't think it's right for you to say -- because things may not be going your way -- that something's being done under the table. You just did, yes, sir. Did he not just say that? Ms. Warren: Yes, he did, sir. Commissioner Teele: So, I think you need to... Mr. Witherspoon: Well, I didn't mean to say that. Commissioner Teele: Well, you need to say that on the record. Mr. Witherspoon: Well, to set the record straight, I mean that people on the board need to be -- when you have public participation and you have people on the board, you just can't go out and get people and do as you please and then bring them to the Commission meeting. I'm not saying that the City did anything wrong, but I'm saying, what they are doing -- what the CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) doing is wrong. They do not even... Commissioner Teele: OK. OK. Now, listen, I allowed you -- I didn't interrupt you when you spoke, but I gave you the mike to clarify the record. Now, it's very clear to me -- I've spoken to several people in the federal government on this. It's very clear to me that there is a failure to communicate, but the problem that we're having is this: we are the Countywide agency for HOPWA funds. HOPWA funds are primarily for the capital and housing assistance, but that's a part of a much broader matrix and regulatory and grant scheme, Ryan White 1, 2, 3, 4, et cetera. I happen to think that what the City staff should 82 February 15, 2001 be instructed to do -- and I'm going to not do that today, but take it under advisement and invite you and your committee to come back to us -- is that we need to specifically say, we need to hear from your subcommittee. Because the Partnership is dealing with everything, and I think there is some benefit in having a coordinated plan. But we're not here on behalf of the coordinated plan. We're here only as it relates to one component. We're administering only one component of a coordinated plan, and that's the HOPWA portion, which is what your committee primarily is dealing with. And, so, I think the real problem is the communication between your subcommittee and the committee and to the extent, you know, that you would indicate to us that you all would like for the City staff to work more closely with your subcommittee, I think that's appropriate. Because we're the ones that have to approve the funding for HOPWA funds, and HOPWA funds are limited to the housing and the capital aspects of it. So, I think you've been heard. Mr. Chairman, if you're ready, I will move the adoption of the resolution relating to the HOPWA fund rollover. We're not allocating any new money, OK. We're just simply saying that the people who got money last year can roll it over and use it this year. That's all we're saying. So, I don't think there's any damage done. And I would hope that before -- in the immediate process that we're going to look at -- and one of the reasons that I pulled back the citizens participation is that I will move, at the appropriate time today, to ensure that the citizens participation includes input from the Partnership and the subcommittee that specifically related to HOPWA. OK. Vice Chairman Gort: Commissioner Teele, if you have a motion to reconsider, then we can incorporate and do the whole thing again. A motion to reconsider... Commissioner Teele: To reconsider, yes, sir. Commissioner Sanchez: Second to reconsider. Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved and second. Is there any discussion? Being none, all in favor state by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): "Aye." 83 February 15, 2001 The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 01-146 A MOTION TO RECONSIDER PRIOR VOTE ON MOTION 01-143, WHICH AUTHORIZED ROLLOVER OF CURRENT CDBG FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,416,012.65, HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP (HOME) FUNDS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,185,491.09. Note for the Record: Said item was immediately thereafter passed as Resolution No. 01-147 with the inclusion of HOPWA [Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS] fund in the amount of $2,808,273.22. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort NAYS: None ABSENT: None Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Now, I have a motion to... Commissioner Teele: Move the full rollover. Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Commissioner Teele: What's that Item Number 4? Commissioner Sanchez: Four. Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved and second. Three. Mr. Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Item 3. Vice Chairman Gort: Item 3. Three. Commissioner Sanchez: Four. It is three? Commissioner Teele: It's Item 3. 84 February 15, 2001 Vice Chairman Gort: Three. Commissioner Sanchez: OK. Vice Chairman Gort: There's a motion and there's a second. Any further discussion? Being none, all in favor state by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): "Aye." The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 01-147 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE ROLLOVER OF THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR (FY 2000-2001) OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,416,012.65, HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP (HOME) FUNDS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,185,491.09, AND HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS (HOPWA) FUNDS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,808,273.22, FROM THE ACCOUNTS OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ACTIVITIES/PROJECTS NOT COMPLETED DURING THE 1999- 2000 FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2000. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort NAYS: None ABSENT: None 85 February 15, 2001 See Gwendolyn Warren (Director, Community Development): Mr. Chairman? Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman? Vice Chairman Gort: Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: A public hearing was advertised for 3 p.m. on the other issue, and we have many people that are here for this, and we still have about 12 other items. So, I -- you know, in deference to the visitors, if we can just move on with the second item and after that we can do this. Because this is an in-house kind of thing. We have 12, and I have some questions, and I really don't want to take the time of the people. Vice Chairman Gort: I'll follow what the majority wants to do, and I think it's a great idea. We have a lot of people here. Now, let me explain so people will understand before we go on. I think it's very important that people understand the Community Development Block Grant, a federal grants fund that's coming in here, and it's only certain neighborhoods that qualify for those grants, and that's what we're doing here today. 86 February 15, 2001 Ms. Warren: Mr. Chairman? Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, ma'am. Ms. Warren: We have one other item, which is HOPWA related, which is Item 9. It has also been approved by the Partnership. Because the chairperson was called to come in, again, we did receive the endorsement. We have reviewed the plan with them. We would respectfully request -- because he did come here -- that we can please hear Item 9. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the public hearing be opened on Item Number 9. Vice Chairman Gort: Item 9. Yes, ma'am. Commissioner Sanchez: Is that the restructuring of the... Ms. Warren: This is the restructuring, again, of the HOPWA program. Commissioner Sanchez: So moved. Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved already and second. Commissioner Sanchez: Oh, it did? So, it's open for discussion? Vice Chairman Gort: Discussion. Commissioner Regalado: I'll second it. Ms. Warren: OK. Commissioner Teele: Public hearing. Ms. Warren: The -- Joni, would you like to do the presentation? Introduce yourself. 87 February 15, 2001 Joni Jones -Harris: Joni Jones -Harris, Assistant Director of Community Development. Item 9 is basically asking that the department be allowed to restructure the HOPWA program so that we will basically roll clients who are receiving short-term housing assistance into the long-term program. The reason that we're making this request is that we have discovered, as a result of some situations that we had in November, October, December, that many of the people that are receiving short-term housing assistance, is limited to 21 weeks by the federal guidelines, are really clients that have long-term housing needs. So, after 21 weeks, either we drop the people from the waiting list or we continue to -- I mean, drop the people from the short-term program and then have them to get on a waiting list for long-term assistance, which could take more time than -- Ms. Warren: Just to -- Ms. Jones -Harris: -- is available. Ms. Warren: -- clarify. The short-term program -- just because -- in the interest of time, it's for individuals who are in the program and then they immediately get on the waiting list to become long-term clients. Of the 213 clients that we have on short -term, 99 percent of them are on the long-term list. If you're on the short -term program, you have to be recertified every 30 days. It's a really cumbersome process, and most of those clients, what we're asking, is that they -- we eliminate the short-term program; put them in the long-term program. That means they only have to be recertified once a year. It takes the burden; it reduces staff costs. That's one thing. In May you authorized a restructuring, and we have -- wanted to update you on the audit. We've done all the internal work. The external audits are oing on. One of the organizations that we had -- you had extended through March 30t of this year, which is Economic Opportunity Counsel, their contract ends at the end of March. What we're recommending is that we do not extent that contract. As a result of financial and programmatic and some other issues, we're asking that that contract be completed add the end of March, and versus the implementation of the City services in September, we're asking your authorization to implement it as of April 1 because of the impact with the clients. We are going to be working with the Partnership to ensure a smooth transition. But there are several issues. One, the short -term program, we have deemed through our evaluation, to be too cumbersome and the clients need not wait on the list since, ultimately, what they are trying to do is get into the long -term program. To eliminate it, we're basically going to take the short -term clients; put them in the long -term program at no additional cost. We can do that with the money that's currently available, and that we have one service contractor, whose contract ends at the end of March, and for variety of reasons, we need to let that contract elapse and we need to continue direct payments to this vendors for the clients. And there is another organization, Douglas Garden, which is on Miami Beach, which provides services in that area, we're asking that you provide them six months of additional funding for the balance of the year, and that would be payments to landlords for the clients. Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman? 88 February 15, 2001 Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir. Commissioner Sanchez: Gwendolyn, the federal government entrusts us with millions of dollars for the AIDS (Acquired Immuno Deficiency Syndrome) program. Ms. Warren: Yes, sir. Commissioner Sanchez: First of all, I want to start commending the City for addressing the problem that existed with so -called -- and I don't want to get into name calling of the agency that was responsible for administering the program -- but let me tell you. The last thing that anybody who has AIDS or HIV (Human Immuno -deficiency Virus) is to be thinking about how they're going to pay their rent or how they're going to get their medicine, or how they're going to get to the next day. Ms. Warren: Yes, sir. Commissioner Sanchez: So, I want to have an assurance from the administration that the next business or organization that's going to run this program, does not commit the same sins of the other organizations. Because let me tell you: When it comes down to this humanitary, there isn't any -- I mean, it gets to a point where you can't discuss the issue because it gets very personal. And people that are in this community -- and not only in Miami because we are responsible for the whole County who are inflicted (sic) with this horrible disease, to be thinking how they're going to pay their rent and how they're going to pay their bills, and stuff. So, I want -- a year from today, I don't want to come back and say, well, we're not going to be using -- I want to commend you for identifying the problem; solving it, and making the necessary steps to correct the problem. Ms. Warren: We have the full support of the Manager to make sure that this happens smoothly. Vice Chairman Gort: Any other Commissioner? I'll open the public hearings. Anybody from the public would like to make a statement? Rufus Witherspoon: Yes. This is another problem on the consolidated plan, the City (inaudible) got rid of programs; they got rid of a lot of agencies, and they didn't tell them the reason why. And one of the programs they got rid of, short -term. That's very important because a lot of people don't know the different aspects, the stages of AIDS (Acquired Immuno Deficiency Syndrome). Short -term is for people saying, I'm working out of AIDS and I get sick and I don't have no way to pay my rent. Then you pick me up for five months. In the meantime, while I'm sick, then I'll go back to work, and that's not -- that's for -- to prevent people from becoming a burden to society and people want to continue to work. So, you prevent people from working an you're not addressing the needs assessment of the community because when you change a program, you've got to put in writing why you change the program; does it address the needs of the community? And also, this program, not only address low-income people. It address low income people; medium income people, and people with money under the HOPWA program. 89 February 15, 2001 So, what the City has done is the got rid of these programs that is necessary for people to survive with AIDS when they get sick while they are working. And also -- the City also got rid of a lot of programs and they got -- they didn't inform the agencies about the dismantling of the program. All that -- in the consolidated plan, I -- if my reading -- understanding -- is that you can do this arbitrarily. The City has a one on one relationship with organizations and they just rule by -- you know, this is what happened. So, you have to understand HIV/AIDS (Acquired Immuno Deficiency Syndrome) and understand all the different aspects of HIV /AIDS and also, when you make these changes, you should address the needs, assessments of the different communities, san let us know why you're making these changes because -- there you go again -- it's neglecting the consolidated plan. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Can we allow to Chairman to speak? Thank you. Mr. Witherspoon: Yes. Thank you. John Muhammad: Thank you very much, Commissioner Sanchez, Commissioner Teele. What we're doing -- I spoke to the City and we -- we're adamant about having a long going dialogue in working these issues out. These are one of the issues -- this is one of the things that I questioned when addressing this item, was that fact that would there be a smooth transition and would services be interrupted? And I was assured -- and thank you very much for asking the City to make a firm commitment that -- and guarantee that these services will not be disrupted because that's one of our concerns. Also, we have to look at the other side of it. We're looking for efficiency and with the representation on the Partnership on an ongoing basis, we plan to work out some structure where it will be feasible, it will be workable, and then therefore we won't have to deal with situation after it's a crisis. We want to be proactive. So, this is what we in the process of doing now to help build a strong working relationship with the City, and continuing the assistance for people with AIDS and housing on an ongoing basis and to make sure that the services won't be disrupted but they will have some assurance that these bills will be paid by the providers that are actually able to and be efficient at doing it. Because as you mentioned, the other stress end of it -- because I'm a recipient. I'm a person that's living with the virus and not dying from -- I was stressed out when I heard and alarmed that they say, "Well, people are going to be out in the street. You know, they're not going to be able to get their rent paid. "You know, there was some problems with the landlord and -- stress is one of the things that contributes to our illness and escalates our illness, so we want to reduce stress, but we want to be proactive. So, thank you very much for ... Vice Chairman Gort: Let me ask you a question. Mr. Muhammad: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Gort: Because since I've been here in the last four years, the representation has been made to us -- the gentleman keep addressing to the City -- my understanding is, the City is the conduit; that there is a board that's represented of people 90 February 15, 2001 that are infected with the virus, and they're the one that make the recommendation; they're the one, along with the City, go to the public meetings, and get the input and make the recommendation according to that. My understanding, what happened is -- and we've asked the City, not only in this program, but all the CDBG programs, to audit and to make sure -- because those funds are scarce -- we want to make sure that they are performing, and those that are not performing, we're going to take their funding away. We're going to get someone else that can do the job. Is this correct, to my understanding? Ms. Warren: You're absolutely correct. Vice Chairman Gort: Because they keep saying the City, and I want people to understand that the City makes their decisions according to the recommendations of the board. Ms. Warren: We definitely do. And, again, the issue here is, we have not defunded an agency. We're recommending that they not be continued, and in order to avoid the stress in our client's lives from late payments, we're asking that that contract not be ... Vice Chairman Gort: And my understanding is, those agencies will be informed -- or they have been informed and the reason why their funds are being taken away from them. Ms. Warren: Those funds are not being -- their contract ends March 30th Vice Chairman Gort: Not taken away their contract... Ms. Warren: Yes. Once approved, they will definitely be notified that their contract is not going to be extended. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Anyone else? Mr. Muhammad: But what I would like to see is more initiative because what happened is, the board that would comprise of mostly PWAs, people living with AIDS, they had more input. They had more -- like Rufus is one of the people, and you know, we were all involved. And what happened is -- I don't know. It was some type of disconnection there, if I can -- you know, when we formed the Partnership, there was a little break. So, but what we want to have is to make sure that this committee that's representing the Partnership from HOPWA is heard. Vice Chairman Gort: Well, that's what we're going to make sure, that we have the public input and the decision. Because we base our decision on the information given to our staff by you all. OK. Mr. Muhammad: OK. Thank you. Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Gort: Anyone else? 91 February 15, 2001 Eric Hankin: Hello. My name is Eric Hankin, and I live at 2505 Flamingo Place. I am a member -- a volunteer member of Board of the Episcopal AIDS Ministry, which works out of Trinity Cathedral, I'm also an architect. I'm a housing advocate for people with AIDS, and I sit on the Housing Committee for the HIV/AIDS Partnership for Miami - Dade. And the reason that I'm here today -- thank you for getting me out of my office and across the beautiful causeway and to Scotty's for lunch. But there's clearly a problem of communication. I started sitting on this committee about a year ago and, at that time, we received as a committee, clear information from the City about how funds were being distributed; about how the HOPWA funds were being distributed. And at that time, as a committee, we were able to make educated decisions regarding our position in how the HOPWA dollars were going to be spent, but in the past several months this has not been happening. So, in other words, these two resolutions that have been brought before you today have not been taken specifically before the Housing Committee and, therefore, we were not able to look at this in an educated way. And I think that that's all we're asking for, is prior to any resolutions being adopted or accepted, that the information be brought to this committee, which happens to be the only voice in the community for Housing for People With AIDS, and I think it's very important that ten million dollars ($10,000,000) that comes into this City that's being distributed county -wide, that it be clearly understood by the citizens of the community how this money is being distributed. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, sir. Commissioner (inaudible) Lieberman I want to recognize you. It's a pleasure to have you across in this part of town. Come more often. Anyone else? Close the public hearing. Commissioner Teele: What's the name of that committee you just spoke about? What's the name of the committee? Mr. Hankin: It's the Miami -Dade HIV/AIDS Partnership Housing Committee. Commissioner Teele: And are you and Mr. Witherspoon on the same committee? Mr. Hankin: Yes, we are. There are several members of the community who volunteer their time to sit on this committee. We meet once a month and our sole purpose is to determine how this money is going to be -- not how it's going to be distributed, but to look how the City decides that it's going to be distributed, and to see if we agree with that. And I... Commissioner Teele: OK. You got your time to speak. Now, let me just asking -- how is your relationship or how is the committee's relationship with the City and the City staff? Are we briefing you all? Do you all get information from us? What's your -- are you here to say thank you or you're here to say something a little different? Mr. Hankin: I would say -- when I first... Commissioner Teele: You're here to praise us or bury us? 92 February 15, 2001 Mr. Hankin: We need your help. We need you to get the -- we used to have technical support from the City of Miami through HOPWA, and every year our committee is supposed to do a needs assessment for the housing needs for people with AIDS. Now, we don't have the resources to do that. HOPWA has the resources to do that, but the needs assessment hasn't been done in over two years. So, we don't even know if the money that we're spending is actually going to the place where it's needed to be spent. And that's all -- we're trying to do this in a, you know, real sort of systematic way, and we're having a little trouble getting the assistance we need from the City. Ms. Warren: Mr. Chairperson? Vice Chairman Gort: My question is: does the City -- does the study or someone else contracted to do the study? Ms. Warren: We have asked -- the Partnership has been provided counsel and staff support through Mayor Penelas' office. We have talked to and have been in communication with the Law Department at the County to inform them that their subcommittee needs legal support, staff support, and that that is a part of the Partnership. Commissioner Teele: But, Gwen, I don't think that's the role of the City, to tell... Ms. Warren: Well, we're basically saying what they want, but... Commissioner Teele: No, no, no. Excuse me. Ms. Warren: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: Excuse me. We have oversight over a piece of this. The piece that we have is the housing lines up or in alignment with the Housing Committee. There is a lot more pieces to this, and I'm strongly in support of the notion that we should support the Partnership concept, but that's the County's job to run the Partnership. Our job is to support the HOPWA related components to that. I believe we should be providing the staff support, the technical support, whatever resources are necessary for that committee or that subcommittee, so long as we're not really working in conflict with, but information is never in conflict. So, I guess the point here is, I think we're putting too much -- we're not the County Commission. The County Commission has the overall overview of this entire problem -- process and funding. Our aspect of this is the HOPWA funding and, in that regard, we're not the City of Miami. We're the entire Metropolitan Dade County area. So, I mean, I would like to just be on record as saying, we need to support the Housing Committee. We need to work with them in doing assessments. We need to hear their subcommittee recommendations unfiltered. Now, if they go to the Partnership and there's something different, we need to hear from Partnership. But the part that we're participating with is the Housing Committee's input, and we need that unfiltered. Ms. Warren: Yes, sir. 93 February 15, 2001 Commissioner Teele: And we need to support them and provide staffing every time they meet. Do we get administrative dollars out of HOPWA? Ms. Warren: We get three percent. Yes, we do. Commissioner Teele: Is the City taking administrative dollars from HOPWA? Ms. Warren: Yes, we do. Commissioner Teele: Well, it would seem to me that one of the first things we would do would be to work closely with that committee. Ms. Warren: We have tried. Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Thank you, sir. I'll now close the public hearings. What is the wish of this committee? Commissioners? Do I have a motion to move nine? Commissioner Sanchez: So moved. Vice Chairman Gort: Moved. Commissioner Regalado: Second. Vice Chairman Gort: Second. Any further discussion? Make sure that we get together and keep all the information that you all have given us. Make sure they have an understanding reason why making some of those changes. Ms. Warren: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Any further -- being no further, all in favor state by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): "Aye." 94 February 15, 2001 The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 01-148 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO REORGANIZE, RESTRUCTURE, AND IMPLEMENT THE CITY'S HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSON WITH AIDS ("HOPWA") PROGRAM, INCLUDING THE TRANSFER OF LONG- TERM HOUSING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM TO THE CITY OF MIAMI DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT; AUTHORIZING THE ALLOCATION OF HOPWA PROGRAM FUNDS, IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $3,058,000, TO TWO SERVICE PROVIDERS AS FOLLOWS: (1) THE CITY OF MIAMI DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, THE AMOUNT OF $2,700,000, AND (2) DOUGLAS GARDENS COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH CENTER OF MIAMI BEACH, IN THE AMOUNT OF $358,000, TO PROVIDE HOSING ASSISTANCE AND HOSING RELATED SERVICES TO LOW INCOME PERSON LIVING WITH HIV/AIDS; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENT(S), IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY TO EFFECTUATE THE ALLOCATION, TRANSITION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAM. (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: Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort NAYS: None ABSENT: None Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman? 95 February 15, 2001 Vice Chairman Gort: Yes. Commissioner Teele: Before we leave this, before you all leave, sir, we're going to put this item aside and take up the other item. But would you all work with our staff and look at Item Number 1, which we deferred, which is the public process, and can you all give us some language to amend that to ensure that, as it relates to HOPWA, that both the Partnership and the Housing Committee will provide the Commission with their views, et cetera, and that we will provide an opportunity for a public hearing and a public process that involves the Partnership? Mr. Muhammad: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: Please. Mr. Muhammad: Thank you. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. OK. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman, just wanted to recognize former Miami City Manager and Miami -Dade County Manager, Merrett Stierheim, that is here, and we remember Merrett of -- a very troubled time. (Applause) Vice Chairman Gort: Are you relaxing now? 96 February 15, 2001 Vice Chairman Gort: Mr. Manager? Carlos Gimenez (City Manager): Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Gort: What's the wish of the -- I'll tell you one thing: I think this is going to turn out very much the same as when we had the meetings for the HAC (Homeless Assistance Center), the Homeless Assistance Center, where we had to rent another place where we could have everybody in and everybody could sit comfortably. I understand 97 February 15, 2001 there's -- we have all these people standing up here. We're not in compliance with fire marshal 's request, and we have people standing outside. Somehow, I think we need to have this meeting in a place where we can accommodate everyone, be in the Convention Center or any other place. Commissioner Winton: Mr. Chairman, I would like to understand what the planned process here from the Chairman's standpoint. Vice Chairman Gort: Well, that's why I asked the -- that's why I asked the City Manager to let us know what the plan is. As I recall, we requested from the City Manager to come back to us, look at the different proposals that had been given by different individuals, and who knows, maybe in a little while another proposal will come out, and give us all the pros and cons of each one of them, mainly the effect it would have economically, the feasibility of those, and so on. Mr. Gimenez: Yes, sir. I'm prepared to do that. Copies are being made as I speak, so I beg your indulgence for a couple of minutes. We have a presentation in terms of the different numbers an the costs that we have found out, and at the end of the day, if there's still a lot of issues that need to be resolved. So, that would be quite evident once I make the presentation. It's being prepared now. Vice Chairman Gort: Now, my understanding also, we have instructed you to hire some consultant to look at our side because so far, we have received a presentation from other individuals, other consultants, not the ones that work for the City of Miami. Has that taken place? Mr. Gimenez: Yes, sir. The consultants met today with the Florida Marlins for the first time, and the Marlins were quite cooperative, and they are going to need some time in order to compile their information and data. And one of their tasks is to conduct a (inaudible) survey and an analysis and determine in their mind, which would be the best site for a potential ballpark. Vice Chairman Gort: Now, my understanding is, also, there is going to be at least four different sites that these consultants are going to be looking at, and they'll be coming back to us with a recommendation on each of those sites? Mr. Gimenez: Yes, sir. And they'll give you a recommendation as to (inaudible) site, if that's your wish. If you do not wish to have that in that format, then I can direct them to, again, do the same thing we've done in the terms of pros and cons, and (inaudible) and I've been working basically -- I -- you know, we spent a lot of money on these 98 February 15, 2001 consultants and I think we need to find out what, in their best opinion, would make the most sense. Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman? Commissioner Winton: Mr. Chairman? Vice Chairman Gort: Commissioner Sanchez. Commissioner Sanchez: I'll defer to Johnny. Johnny, go ahead. Vice Chairman Gort: Commissioner Winton. Commissioner Winton: Well, I'm curious. You said that you understand that our consultants have narrowed this down to four sites. I don't know anything about that. The only thing I know about is that there were seven sites or something the last time we met. Vice Chairman Gort: Well, whatever. I'm sorry if I used the wrong number. How many sites do we have? Mr. Gimenez: Well, this were three different proposed -- there were three different alternatives for a -- two different alternatives for Bicentennial Park and then one on the west side of Bicentennial Park, and then you had the Riverside, the Orange Bowl, Arena East and Arena West. And -- but that doesn't mean that that's all they would be looking at, if they, in their opinion, find another site that's more suitable, they'll also take a look at that. Vice Chairman Gort: Well, my understanding. I was in a restaurant the other day and somebody came up with some great ideas. If we can create a floating stadium, then we can maybe move it around and make everybody happy, if we could do that. Mr. Gimenez: (Inaudible). Commissioner Sanchez: I'm glad to see we've got some sense of humor here. Mr. Chairman? Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir. Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, I think that we have hired a consultant firm that has just met today with the Marlins and the County. These are our experts that will give 99 February 15, 2001 us a recommendation. I just don't see -- and I could be wrong -- but I don't see a move today by this Commission to take action on this, and this is a decision that I think we're going to live with for the rest of our lives, and I do not want to rush to judgment today. So, what I would like to recommend and put in a motion is that we extend up to thirty days to allow our consultants to complete their tasks and to report their finding to the administration and this Commission. This would allow our administration to continue to negotiate with the Marlins and the County, and our consultants, Stanford/Sports, LTC, would complete their task. And, also, it would also allow the Bicentennial Planning Committee to finish their study. So, this is something that, you know -- I have two reports, and we've talked about seven possible sites. I have one report given to me by the Florida Marlins Baseball Club. It's a very good report. It's basically done by their consultants. The timeframe that exists, unfortunately, did not allow our administration to put forth a report. The report that was given to us was just a basic report on seven sites with the advantages and disadvantages. So, we are in the process of negotiating. So, I also want to be very careful on the words that are used and what's discussed here today. But I think that it's only fair that we have sufficient time to allow our consultants to study the sites, to study the preliminary engineering costs of all this, and come back and give us a expert opinion to protect our assets. And I think it's only fair -- and I would just like to say, would the County agree to that and would the Marlins agree with that? Because I think that if we're doing something here is, to work in good faith. I think that we have set forth that we support baseball; that we are in the process of looking at some terms and conditions on this matter. We don't want to rush into this. I think this is a decision that's going to be a tough decision to make, but we want to do it hearing our side and having well information that were basically -- by hired by our consultants. Because right now we have heard one side of the coin, but we have not heard the other side. So, that is my recommendation. There is a motion to extend it up to 30 days to allow our consultants and our City administration to continue to negotiate. Vice Chairman Gort: There is a motion. Is there a second? Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman? Vice Chairman Gort: Is there a second? Commissioner Regalado: I'll second it for discussion. Vice Chairman Gort: For discussion. Before you go on, I'd like to recognize the Mayor Penelas. It's a pleasure to have you with us, and now we can maybe negotiate something. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman? 100 February 15, 2001 Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir. Commissioner Regalado: I guess that everybody that read the morning press know by now that most of the members of the Commission are not ready to make a decision today, so, I think that it's important that we clarify several issues. Number one, I mean, this Commission has been in favor of Marlins Stadium and we have said that threw five to zero resolution. But the Manager just said a few minutes ago that we are paying good money to the consultants, and I think it's only fair to understand the process. The City is one major component, if we were to participate on the land basis on this project, but also the County and the state and as we all know, the state legislature starts their regular session just a few days from now. The committees will start very soon. We all know that you can't -- at least I've been told by at least five state legislatures that I have talked to -- that they are waiting for us. Johnny mentioned that in the last meeting. They are waiting for the City to make a decision. The County is holding on to funds that could be used for the stadium. So, I think it's only fair that we tell these consultants that we are paying them and they -- that they have to hurry up. Joe, I think that 30 days -- it could be another issue. It could be a logical time, but I think that we should shorten that... Commissioner Sanchez: It's up to 30 days. It could be 14 days. Commissioner Regalado: Yes. We should shorten -- right. That time frame and (unintelligible) -- because, you know, the people in the legislature are ready to start working, but if there is no decision on site by the City of Miami, then there is nothing to legislate. Most of the legislators are hoping that they can push through what this Commission mentioned, the parking surcharge extension as part of one of the revenue streams. So, I would second -- I second your motion, and I would ask the Commission that if that is the will, to shorten the period, and we set a definite day for a decision. Vice Chairman Gort: The Mayor is going to chair the meeting for now, but I'd like the Mayor make a statement before I pass the gavel to you. What I'd like to see, personally, is there has to be a special meeting just for the stadium; it's got to be in an area where everybody can sit down and be comfortable, and I would like to have all of the information on every one of them, the pros and cons -- because right now, there's a lot of misinformation out on the streets, and I want to make sure that everybody understands and that everyone has all the information necessary because I think it's important they know why we make the decisions that we make. Thank you. Mr. Mayor. Mayor Carollo: Commissioner Sanchez, go ahead. 101 February 15, 2001 Commissioner Sanchez: And just for a point of clarification. It's up to 30 days. However, once again, I do not think that we should rush into this. Our consultants will have the opportunity to come back and give the administration and us a full report, with recommendations, that would add credibility instead of just jumping in this, taking a leap of blind faith. If the consultants come back and say that the site is not acceptable or the site is acceptable, that will come from experts, which I am not and no one on this Commission is, nor neither do we have anyone in this administration to make those statements. So, I -- once again, it is up to 30 days. If the experts come back in 21 days, that is fine. I know there are certain timetables. We want to act in good faith here. I think there has always been that, that we want to work with the County and with the Marlins, but you know we're not going to be rushed into this. Commissioner Winton: Mr. Chairman? Mayor Carollo: If I could, Commissioner Winton. I just want to confirm that we have a second to the motion. Commissioner Regalado, you heard what Commissioner Sanchez said, up to 30 day, but not necessarily the 30 days. Commissioner Regalado: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, but I really think that we should set -- I mean, we are paying these people. I really think that Vice Chairman Gort is right, that we should set a special meeting -- that you should set a special meeting, that it be somewhere because it seems that this is too small. But I still think that we should send a clear message, at least to the County and to the state legislature in terms of -- so, you know, I second the motion, but I really think that we should decide on the timeframe. Mayor Carollo: Well, I understand what you're saying. And I wanted to confirm the motion was seconded. Now, that it's -- you have a motion and it's been seconded, we could open it for discussion from the Commission side. If I may, while putting the gavel back to Commissioner Gort, say the following: One of the things that I'd like to request of the maker and seconder of the motion is that if the motion stays as -is, up to 30 days, but not necessarily 30 days, that within the motion it's clearly specified that within that time frame, once this Commission -- once this body meets again, we will choose a site and there will not be extension after extension after extension because, if not, in essence, what we would have done is to have killed any possibility of keeping the Miami Marlins in Miami. Because they will not have the time then to go before the state legislature and to be able to acquire the assistance that they are going to need from Tallahassee. And you have many state legislators that are anxiously waiting to get this up there so they can begin to work on it, but they can until we decide what final location we want. That doesn't mean, however, that the terms have to be agreed within that time. We will have plenty of time afterwards to go through fair terms for the City of Miami, but all that I'm 102 February 15, 2001 asking the maker and seconder of the motion, that it's specified within this motion that once this comes back, in no more than 30 days, that in that meeting, we will choose, without making any further extensions, the site. Commissioner Sanchez: The maker of the motion accepts. Commissioner Regalado: I think you said it from the beginning, and I said it, too, that when this time is over, we'll have to decide son a site. But I still think -- Mr. Mayor and to the maker of the motion, I still think that we should be fair with the other bodies that need to address this. The County Commission meets on March the 6th I think, and then won't meet again for a month or something like that. So, I really think that we should decide on a date certain. Mayor Carollo: I agree with that, Commissioner Regalado. Not only that, but I don't think that this motion should mean that the consultants bring back their study on day 30, where this body would not be able to then determine this with sufficient time to look at that time what they gave us. And we also have to give the time to the County and other bodies. Vice Chairman Gort: Any further... Commissioner Regalado: I will amend the motion -- if you all want to follow that line of thought -- to have a deadline of March the 2nd. From today to March the 2nd. Vice Chairman Gort: Are we going to have all the information by March 2nd? Commissioner Regalado: Well, we pay them, you know. They've got to work -- they can't work -- that's two weeks. We can -- you know... Commissioner Sanchez: Is there anybody representing the consultants here? Mr. Gimenez: I spoke to the consultants this afternoon and, you know, I gave them a pretty tight timeline on what I thought they would need to get going, and they have committed to having the study in your hands in 27 days. That gives you three days if you do a Commission meeting, you know, 30 days from now to look at the material and make some kind of decision. Vice Chairman Gort: But, also, whenever we have the meeting, I'd like to have all the different options, all the costs that have taken place, all the revenues, and at least an idea or the deal that the City would get. That's for sure. 103 February 15, 2001 Mr. Gimenez: We can put all those things in -- and that will be part of the report. My concern in trying to rush them to two weeks is that they have a great deal of work to do. They need to have some time in order to do quality work. The faster that you do those two weeks, I think will be a little bit discretionary? Commissioner Sanchez: And as the maker of the motion, it still says up to 30 days. Now, if they come back in 14 days, 17 days, it's acceptable, but up to 30 days. And I think there's really more to this because there are other terms and conditions that this legislative body has directed you to sit down and negotiate with the County. A lot of issues that are on the table that could be negotiated. I'm not going to get into specifics, but we are -- you know, if one thing that this City has shown is that we're a new city and we're going to negotiate and we're going to bring the best possible deal, whatever it may be, to this City. And we are here to protect, once again, -- I always say this -- the public's assets. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. You're going to chair it? Mayor Carollo: Commissioner Winton. Commissioner Winton: Well, I think that the direction we provide the consultants is crucial here because there's lots of -- this isn't a level playing field and there isn't a level analysis going on. As an example, just internally within our City, I've heard this kind of comparison, and that is that taking -- as two examples only, not all of them -- but the river site versus Bicentennial Park, and there's a mind set out there that suggest mindset out there that suggests that the riverfront site is more costly to the City than Bicentennial Park. Well, that is absolute nonsense because while there may be a dollar ($1) exchanged to an investment group that owns land today, which would be the riverfront site or one of the other sites, the fact ... Vice Chairman Gort: Orange Bowl. Commissioner Winton: Well, we own the Orange Bowl land, but all the other sites someone else owns. Most of the other sites someone else owns at least a piece of that land, so it has to be bought. But the argument that Bicentennial Park is a new cost or won't be a new cost to the City is complete bologna because Bicentennial Park happens to be the most valuable land we have probably in South Florida. (Applause) 104 February 15, 2001 Commissioner Winton: No, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no. Please. No clapping, no nothing. Happens to be the most valuable land you have in South Florida. And the point that I'm trying to here is, from a public policy standpoint, if we're saying that we're comfortable putting a 28-story building that, in essence, can take three -- two and a half blocks consecutive blocks, of the Bayfront and block it off with a building, then forever we've lost the view corridors for public good for that land. So, from a public policy standpoint, if we're interested in doing that kind of thing, then it seems to me an alternate consideration that this body needs to undertake is a consideration to turn that into commercial land. Because in that park we could build -- we could -- that land every major developer in this world would love to buy it. You could build at least three to four billion dollars ($4,000,000,000) worth of product on that site. Three to four billion dollars ($4,000,000,000) worth of product on that site would generate 90 to a hundred and twenty million dollars ($120,000,000) each and every year forever in ad-valorem taxes only. Now, before us we've had our residents come before us in the last few months, and they've had serious problems with flooding in Flagami, part of Little Havana, in your neighborhood, part of my neighborhoods, part of Commissioner Teele's neighborhood. We've had severe flooding problems, and we're looking for the fed to feds and to the state and everybody else to figure out how to pay for that. We also know, as an example in East Little Haiti, we have no parks, period. We know that in Commissioner Sanchez' district we've got very few parks. We also know that we've been pounding on the administration to figure out how they're going to fix all the sidewalks and bring new sidewalks in our neighborhoods and landscaping and all that stuff in the public right-of-way. With a recurring revenue stream to the City -- and let's say the City's piece of that 90 to a hundred and twenty thousand is 30 percent, so you've got thirty million to -- lost the math. Thirty to forty-five million -- no, thirty to sixty million to the City alone in recurring revenue stream that could rebuild the infrastructure of our City forever. So, the point here is that as we're doing this analysis -- and the thing that worries me in the analysis -- because I've already heard it internally -- is this argument that Bicentennial park might work because it doesn't cost us anything, and, so, I'm very nervous about the ground rules that we set here for our consultants. Because this concept that I've already heard that suggests that you can't look at some of these alternate sites because you have to pay cash money upfront to get them creates an unleveled playing field in terms of the analysis, and that's only one example. And as we continue to push this process forward -- and I'm going to read this. I got this from one of the news reporters. It was part of the press release that was sent to them from -- on the polling that was done. And this just goes to show -- I mean the point to this and you'll see it. This is the poll and here is the question, one of the questions. Supporters of a stadium at Bicentennial Park say that the construction of a new ballpark will revitalize an abandoned and contaminated site. Supporters also point out that a ballpark at Bicentennial Park, along with the Performing Arts Center and American Airlines Arena will be part of the 105 February 15, 2001 redevelopment of downtown Miami. However, some environmentalists -- frankly, I never knew I was an environmentalist. I didn't think I was -- however, some environmentalists have expressed concern about developing Bicentennial is one of the few open waterfront properties in Miami. Do you agree with supporters or opponents of Bicentennial Park? This was clearly written -- you could -- anybody and their grandmother would only answer this one way. Yet, surprisingly, 55 percent is all that said they would still support Bicentennial Park, even if it's written this way. Point so that is -- and it goes back to the primary point that I made -- if we don't make sure that the ground rules are properly set for a consultant, there is huge pressure all over the place. The Marlins have hired every single consultant I can think of to get on Spanish radio, to get in English media, to get into the neighborhoods to do everything in their power to effect one thing and that is a vote only on Bicentennial Park. And they have chosen, at every single turn, to reject -- I've been in at least four meetings with the Marlins, minimum of four, and everybody and their grandmother is sponsoring a new site. And the reason everybody and their grandmother is sponsoring a new site, it's the site of the week contest is because I think everybody really, in their hearts -- most people want to get the Marlins into downtown Miami. That's a positive. So, people are trying their damnest to do it. But when the Marlins are sitting in the room and a new site is presented or an alternate site to Bicentennial Park is presented, the comments go like this: We can't do that site because it's got this problem, this problem, this problem, this problem. Now, all of you in the normal course of your business, when you meet a challenge and there is an issue in front of you and you've got a whole series of negative points that you've got to resolve, what you typically say when you're running out of alternatives is, look, here are the impediments to me doing what I can do. But the team out there -- and in this case there are several teams paying attention to this, including the one that the Governor appointed -- will typically say, you will give that team those impediments and say verbally, I'm willing to do it this way, but here is the impediments. Help me figure out how to do it. The Marlins, in every single instance, have laid out the impediments to the alternate sites, and never once have they said I would accept that site if you, the community, the City Commission, the County Commission. The Governor's task force could figure out how we can solve this problem. And I asked John Henry, in a telephone conversation I had with him yesterday, that I -- I made that very point, and I gave him every opportunity to accept any alternate site by simply saying, Johnny, you're right, we will accept an alternate site. Here's the impediments to that. Figure out how we can get those solved. And you know what his answer was? It was "change the subject." So, I asked him one more time later in the conversation, and you know what the answer was? It was "change the subject." The point to this is that the Marlins are focused on one site and one site only, and they don't give a hoot about any other site and they're not going to consider any other site. So, what's the point to this whole thing? The point is that each of you, our staff, and everybody else is going to be under huge pressure for the next 30 days, 106 February 15, 2001 from money that's immense, which is the Florida Marlins, to do everything in their power to see to it that the process is steered to one site and one site only, and that's Bicentennial Park. And, so, the idea to postpone because we don't have enough information, Commissioner Sanchez, is rational as heck. We don't have enough information yet, but this is a battle that isn't going to be played on a level playing field, and I'll give you one more example of that. Most people know that I've been promoting the riverfront site because, from a policy standpoint, it makes a lot of sense and we won't talk about it. And I won't get into that detail right now. There has been many other alternate sites brought forward and the Mayor has brought forward several alternatives. There was the Biscayne Boulevard moving east alternative that was presented, and in the Biscayne Boulevard East presentation -- I'll use that as the example -- this 's been a lot of pretty renderings done and all that jazz, and it's managed to excite the public. The difference between that site and say a river site or one of the other sites that this Commission really thought ought to be seriously considered, the difference between those two plans is twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000). They had twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) to do all that work. I got none to even -- we've got none to do the kind of real thinking and rendering created that was done in this particular instance. So, the playing field is stacked against us, hugely. The pressure is going to escalate dramatically on everybody at this dais and our staff, and it will all go to one direction. So, I'm very nervous about extending the deadline. I think that, frankly, we should have a vote today and we should have a vote today only on one thing. Not on all the alternate sites available. We should have a vote on one thing and that vote should be on taking Bicentennial Park off, off the field here, and force the Marlins to truly come to the table as real partners with this entire community, in helping to figure out how we can make any of the alternate sites work. And until that's done, there will be absolutely, absolutely, will not be an unbiased commitment of review to alternate sites. Mayor Carollo: Commissioner Winton, are you making that in the form of a motion? Commissioner Winton: Well, there's a -- I think... (Inaudible Comments) Mayor Carollo: Well, there is, but that would be a substitute motion. That's why I'm asking. Commissioner Winton: All right. Yes, I would love to make that substitute motion. Mayor Carollo: OK. There is a motion to make a substitute motion to the motion we presently have. Is there a second? Is there a second? OK. Hearing no second, the -- 107 February 15, 2001 yeah, you could. If there is a second, you could substitute the present motion for a new one. But there is no second, so the motion that was presented by Commissioner Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, stands. Vice Chairman Gort: Mr. Mayor, discussion. Mayor Carollo: Commissioner Gort. Vice Chairman Gort: Mr. Mayor, under discussion. Mayor Carollo: Commissioner Gort. Vice Chairman Gort: And, Johnny, I want you to know this. And the reason I did not second your motion — (inaudible), let me tell you, very clear in here, the way it stands here right now, this guy is not going to vote for Bicentennial, and I stated it from before and I'm stating it right now. But what I'd like to do is -- yes, and I can see where you're coming from, and I'd like for you to instruct the consultant that when they look at the prospect of going up in Bicentennial, the 28th floor, what it will do to the property value west of Biscayne Boulevard? I would like to have those numbers. I would also like to have the numbers with the present zoning restriction in that area. What can be built on Biscayne Boulevard -- west of Biscayne Boulevard? That should be part of the information that we should get. Mr. Gimenez: West or East, sir? Vice Chairman Gort: The west of Biscayne Boulevard. Because once you build 28th floor, the property value is going to go (inaudible) and they're not going to build to the full capacity. And the reason, Johnny, I wanted to make sure Commissioner Winton that we look at all sites because, unfortunately, there is a lot of misinformation out there, and that's why you see so many different individuals here. I want to make sure, when we come back, that we have all the numbers; we have all the information, and we know the benefit that the City of Miami is going to receive. Because I think it's very important that people understand, the City of Miami has suffered a lot of already because of regional impact. For those of you that remember, Biscayne Boulevard used to be a beautiful street, very commercial within the City of Miami. We built I-95. That destroyed that. Northwest 36th Street used to be a commercial area between 17th and 27th Avenue. That used to be a downtown there. We built 112. That destroyed that area. Little Havana, Allapattah were destroyed by 826 -- 836. So, the City has suffered quite a lot. I understand we can stop progress. The County needs to continue to move, but at the same time, we have to make sure that we take care of the City. That's all. 108 February 15, 2001 Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman, just a question to the Manager. Mayor Carollo: Go ahead. Commissioner Regalado: I was told by Assistant City Manager Bob Nachlinger that there was an appraisal being done on the land of the park. Then somewhere -- I read or I was told that it will be done by February the 20th. Is that -- that's a separate thing from the consultants? Is that going to be the date to know the appraisal of the land? Mr. Gimenez: (Inaudible) get the information. The information that I have is two weeks from (inaudible) to get the final appraisal. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman? Mayor Carollo: Go ahead, Commissioner Teele. Commissioner Teele: On the motion, Commissioner Winton, I'm very much in support and agreement with several of the components or several of the elements of your statement, particularly that we have to ensure that this is a level playing field. I think one of the concerns that I had in the previous -- the last presentation that we had is that we were talking about two or three different projects, and I think for this motion to be full of proper -- we really have to agree upon what it is -- what's the mission of the consultant? I have some other disagreements. I don't think the consultant should make that report to us. I think the consultants should make the report to the Manager and to the attorney. I want you to think about that in the context of our charter and several other things, because I don't think we pay our Manager considerable sum of money to give us advice and I don't think that the Manager should be afforded the opportunity to not be given a full opportunity to make the input to us, and in that the Manager is instructing the consultant, I think it's only appropriate that the consultants report to come back to the Manager, but before I ask the questions, Commissioner Winton, that I want to ask of you, the motion is a motion to delay and as a matter both of courtesy and as a matter of the missing link, I would very much like to know what our Mayor from the County feels in the context that we're operating -- as I've said a week ago, not under a deadline imposed by the Florida Marlins, but under, from my reading and understanding of a time line that Mayor Penelas and Mr. Henry and others have initialed, and I want to ensure that we do nothing to place the City's opportunity to be a part of ensuring that the Florida Marlins become the Miami Marlins and that the Miami Marlins are playing baseball here is not impacted. So, Mr. Chairman, as you -- Mr. Mayor, as you know, I would never have allowed you to just stand there if I were presiding. I'm not saying that at all to be 109 February 15, 2001 disrespectful of anybody that is presiding, but one of the first rules is to always welcome an elected official and to give them an opportunity to speak when they're here on an official duty, and given your pay grade now, I'm not sure that we should jump over everything because, I mean, you're probably the highest paid person in the audience. So, I just wanted not only to welcome you here, but to gain the benefit of your input because I think the motion directly relates upon the time constraints that I think you, in your position, will have to try to convince the County Commission to continue this process to work through. I'm well aware of the fact that the County had voluntarily voted, based upon your urging, a suspension of entertaining additional funding for a period of time. That period may be -- and we need a clear statement from you that you will use all of your power and the good offices to ensure that that deadline will be extended. So, welcome, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Alex Penelas: Commissioner, thank you very much. Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. After discussions that I've held over the last several days with several members of the Commission, in light of their, I think, very reasonable request to receive more information, you know, we stand in a position to support a reasonable extension of time in order for you to make an appropriate decision. We certainly don't want to stand in the way of that. I mean, we agree that this is a significant and fundamental decision; something that will impact the residents of this City and County for many, many years to come, and we want you to have all the information. Therefore, Commissioner Teele, certainly, we -- if you vote today to extend the period of time which to make a decision, I will be very happy to extend our letter of agreement with the Marlins and with Mr. Henry. I also believe that our County Commission would find that to be a reasonable position as well, and be willing to continue the moratorium that they set forth on use of the CDT money. However, I do think it's important that whatever extension you all vote on today, that it be as short as possible. And perhaps the Marlins should be responding to this part of the equation, not the County, because the County would feel comfortable, quite frankly, with whatever timeframe you all set because all we want is to keep the Marlins in South Florida and we'd love to have them called the Miami Marlins, and the County's not taking the position on where the site should be. I've said since day one, that's your decision. I'm not trying to throw the hot potato to you all, but it is your decision. It's not our decision. We're not the ones that should decide where that stadium should be located. However, there are a couple of issues that are driving this. One is the Marlins restated position that they need to be in a new ballpark by April 2004, and when you work back from that time period, you know that construction, design, et cetera, takes a lot of time and they're almost at the point right now where, if they don't have a site, they can't meet that deadline, but, again, they would need a response to that. The second piece of this, which is critically important -- that's why there is a big difference between 30 and 15 days, as Commissioner Regalado is 110 February 15, 2001 mentioning, is because the legislature goes into session the 6th of March, and there are two critical issues that make or break this deal that need to be approved by the legislature. One is the extension of the parking surcharge, which we would be willing to go hand in hand with you to support, and secondly is the issue of the sales tax rebate. Without either one of those two components, quite frankly, this deal ain't going to happen. And as you all know, you all are aware of how the legislative process works; they're already holding committee meeting now. So, this issue is after the table. And they're not going to move on this issue until there is a local determination. They're not going to vote on something not knowing where the site is. So, I just proffer that to you for your information. My recommendation, for whatever it's worth, is that the extension be as brief as possible, and that you establish a date for a City Commission meeting now so that your administration, the consultants could work towards that date with a commitment, as Mayor Carollo said, that a decision will be made when you meet, whatever it is, whatever site you choose. Because I think, if you get past that point, then 2004 is not a reality. I hope I've answered your question. . Commissioner Winton: Mr. Mayor, could I ask you a question? I want to make sure I understood this. The County is going to go hand in hand with the City in support of extending the parking surcharge surtax? Mayor Penelas: I believe we will be willing to do that Commissioners. I'm speaking for myself at this point. The County Commission has not taken a position on that issue, but I will... Commissioner Winton: Does that mean the County is dropping its lawsuit and (inaudible)? Mayor Penelas: No, that doesn't mean that. That doesn't mean that. I think they're two totally different issues -- questions. Commissioner Winton: I just wanted to be clear on that. Mayor Penelas: OK. Mayor Carollo: Welcome to the Miami City Commission, Alex. Mayor Penelas: I've been here before, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Carollo: First of all, thank you very much for being here today, and all the time and effort that you have been putting to this very, very important issue, not just to the 111 February 15, 2001 City of Miami, but to all of Greater Miami. I'd like to publicly compliment you for all the work that you've done. We would not have been this far if it hadn't been for that effort that you have put out. One area that you mentioned there that, I think we need to put it in perspective as to what it means to the City of Miami's future, and that's to have the County join the City of Miami as partners in going to Tallahassee and asking for the surcharge extension to be extended for 44 years what that means to the City of Miami, plainly, ladies and gentlemen, is some eight hundred million to over a billion dollars ($1,000,000,000) that we will be receiving during those 40 years. And, frankly, if it was not for that surcharge, the City of Miami, today, would not have been able to have lowered its property tax rate to the lowest, in the last 40 years like we have. We will be back to the maximum by law. So, I think that based upon what Mayor Penelas said, and the deadlines that we're faced in Tallahassee, we can put in perspective just how important it is for us to deal with this issue as soon as we can in time before the state legislature to be able to tackle this on right away. This goes much more beyond just building a stadium that is going to revitalize and help jointly with other main constructions that we have in downtown or in other parts. This goes to the hardcore survival of the City and to the future. We're talking about a bringing in and guaranteeing some eight hundred to over a billion dollars ($1,000,000,000) for the City of Miami during the next 40 years, and, frankly, if the County would not join with us, the City would not have any chance whatsoever in getting this in place, and just a few more years, we would lose that surcharge. Commissioner Teele: Mr. -- who's chairing the meeting? Mayor Carollo: I'm taking the gavel back. I am now. Commissioner Teele: All right. If I may regain the floor when I yield to Mayor Penelas. Mr. Mayor, again, the motion before us is one of a delay, so I really won't go into the issues, but I would really hope that on some of these very, very important issues relating to the City/County relationship, that there can be a dialogue. Because one of the things I think that has been a very difficult stumbling block is just getting an open dialogue and I think your statements today are literally a breath of fresh share. I'm still a little bit, like Commissioner Winton, trying to understand how we can rationalize the legislation with the litigation, but I'm sure that the smile indicates there may be some hope there, but I think that's just one of several issues, the pilot, the thing that bothers me most, as you know, is the Water and Sewer and the rate of return issue on a what legally, I think, is extremely objectionable and challenging, and one of the resolutions that I'm prepared to make today is that the City Commission, working with the City of Hialeah and Coral Gables and Miami Beach, form a task force, a working group, to begin to look at the water and sewer issues, and how we can do that. But I think it would be much better if 112 February 15, 2001 we can come to some agreement, rather than bringing in other people because then it just makes getting an agreement -- but on the issue of the motion, I think, Commissioner Winton, the real issue here -- and you've got to sort of fill in the blanks because we're all going -- most of the dialogue, at least I've heard three people now -- four people say the same thing, not more than 30 days, so everybody's got that drum beat. The real issue to me is, I'm not tied up with the 30 days, whether it's 30 days or 31 days or 40 days, to me is really not the issue. The issue is we have a process that you're chairing, and as a colleague, I've said to the press, I think they quoted me correctly, by saying I'm going to defer to you, Commissioner Winton, because if we give one of our colleagues a responsibility to chair a committee, and we involve, as you have done so ably, two to three hundred, maybe as much as three hundred and fifty people to look at the design -- these are people who are just -- who have citizens, who are not being paid -- we owe it to the public to at least not trample on that, and what I'm looking to you is really we need to set some specific dates. I'm in agreement with what Commissioner Sanchez is saying, as far as it goes, but I really do think we'd be much better off leaving here with a definitive timetable because, you know, if we don't have a definitive timetable, there is going to be manipulation of information, manipulation of place, the things that you've already eluded to. The Manager has passed out a memo, and I asked him, during the lunch break for some of this -- I don't know if this is why he passed it out, but at least it answers my questions. The last paragraph says that the Bicentennial Park FEC (Florida East Coast) waterfront renewal committee urban design and economics analyzing and will be presenting design options with funding mechanisms to the Commission into early March. Now, we have a meeting -- the only early March meeting is March the 8`h. Is that the timetable that you're looking at? Because I really do think we need to tie this down because what I don't want, Johnny, honestly, is for an honest mistake in communication. You need another two weeks, or another five days or 10 days, then there's going to be recrimination. Well, you're just delaying it and you're just doing that, and I think we all have got to take a deep breath. We need to be very careful about the reference to where polling is done. I'm sure that polling was done in all three communities. We need to make sure that we don't, in any way, inflame any of this now, and just work through these details right here, right now, where everybody is here, and I would like to hope that we can come up with a firm date, as a friendly amendment to Commissioner Sanchez' 30 -day motion, and at a firm place because I think -- my experience, Johnny, if you don't have a firm date, and you don't have a firm place, nobody's going to be satisfied when it comes down, and whoever -- and then it escalates. So, I'm respectfully asking, if I may, through the chair, that you give us a firm date in which we can expect to hear from the committee so that we can agree to hold a meeting that the Commission, the County Commission is scheduled to meet on March 201h. We certainly need to be ahead of that process, and today is what, the ... 113 February 15, 2001 Vice Chairman Gort: 15th Commissioner Teele: February 15th. So... Commissioner Winton: Our process is started without the Marlins driving the bus, first of all, and in the extension -- the last extension that we asked for, even again before the Marlins came to the plate on this issue of this February 15th deadline -- and our commitment was to be done and to have a presentation to this Commission by the last meeting in March. Now, we're pushing because of all these other things to get... Commissioner Teele: Did you say the last meeting? Commissioner Winton: The last Commission meeting in March. We're pushing, however, to be done by the 8th, which is the first Commission meeting in March, but we've had -- the committee is meeting almost daily, working on details. It's relatively complex. Everybody's trying to do the right kind of job. So, you know, I can't -- I think we can -- I can give the committee directions that they've just got to be finished by the first meeting in March, but we've been working toward the goal, but understanding we had the flexibility to be done by the second meeting in March and that's been the process. So, that's point one. Point 2 is, though, that, frankly, the concept here, Commissioner Teele, that we're waiting on this committee -- the concept that we are waiting on this committee's output, I guess there's two things I ought to say about that. One is that there is a value in our -- at the Commission waiting on the committee to be done, because there will be two to three different models brought forward that are alternative design schemes for creating a great park setting for our downtown area. One. But two, I can tell you already that one of the alternatives that won't be coming, this will not be an alternative that comes before the Commission that shows a Marlins baseball stadium in Bicentennial Park. So, in terms of how you're thinking about this, Commissioner Teele, I just want you to know right now, that alternative isn't coming. This will be at least two models, maybe three models that come before the Commission to show what the alternatives are there with funding mechanisms tied to it, but there won't be one with a baseball stadium on the east side of Biscayne Boulevard. Commissioner Regalado: If I may, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Carollo: Go ahead, Commissioner. Commissioner Regalado: You know, I attended Johnny's charrette last Saturday, and I think it was extraordinary. I mean, and I said it. I haven't seen so many people since the Stallone gate here in the City Commission. But we also need to realize that this 114 February 15, 2001 Commission appointed two persons and the Mayor appointed one to the state committee, who has a process, and we should respect that. That committee, according to the schedule, sent by the Manager, will vote on the site selection on the 27th and the full committee will meet on the 28th of February. Since the County Commission meets on the 6th, that's why I suggested no later than the 3rd or the 4th of March for a special meeting. I go with the majority. This Commission works very well, and I'll just follow the majority. That is my suggestion, but what I would suggest is that -- and I agree with Commissioner Teele -- that we need to set a place, a place and we need to say, we are going to hear the people of Miami and of Miami -Dade County, and I don't mind to spend hours an hours -- Willy was talking about the Homeless Assistance Program. I remember that in Knight Center, and I think that we should either decide, are we going to do it on the Knight Center, are we going to do it on Artime Center in Little Havana, or you've got almost 700, 800. So, it's fine by me. But I think that at least the people, the Marlins -- but the state legislature -- as a radio and TV anchor I talk to a lot of state legislature, an they're really looking at the City Commission to make a decision. They will not start the process until and unless they have some concrete direction from the City of Miami on the side, and they are very opinionated on the side too, by the way, most of them. So, I just would hope that we can all figure out a way -- I'll follow the majority, but I think that it's important that we do not derail the state legislature process, and that is why I was hoping to do it sooner than later, and within the timeframe that Commissioner Sanchez decided. Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman? Mayor Carollo: Go ahead, sir. Commissioner Sanchez: The motion stays just how I placed it. This is not a delay. It just gives us an opportunity to have our administration continue to negotiate terms and condition, and it gives our consultants, the ones that we have paid to give us expert advise, to come back with a recommendation to hear both sides of the mountain and then we can make on intelligent, credible vote. This is probably -- and I can speak for Teele because he's had the most experience -- probably one of the most important votes that this Commission is going to make, and we should not rush to judge and take a leap of blind faith into this. Thirty days, up to 30 days isn't going to kill anybody, and I think that it shows -- sand I think that the Marlins are willing to accept that, with the County, because we want to work in good faith. But, basically, you know here, we are being put in a situation here where we -- you know, it's almost a push to shove situation, and we want to be in, you know. We understand the timeframes in Tallahassee. I understand them very clearly. And everyone up in Tallahassee is basically looking at the City to give them either a thumbs down or thumbs up on the site, but the motion stays. The consultants can come back in 21 days; could come back in, you know, 29 days. You want to set a date? 115 February 15, 2001 Let's go ahead and set a date. That's going to even -- not going to be that good anyway because if you set a date, how about if the consultants come back and say, OK, we're able to analyze and do all our studies and make a recommendation in 18 days. But if you set a date for like the first week or second week of March, you're setting a date -- and, of course, this is going to take public input where we must find a place that everyone is comfortable to come and basically give them an opportunity to express themselves. So, that is one of the concerns that I have. Thirty days, up to 30 days, I think is reasonable. And I want to hear it. Do the Marlins accept it? I mean, does the County have a problem with it? Julio Rebull: Well, I think you heard from the Mayor. For the record, Julio Rebull, Jr. with the Florida Marlins, 2267 Dan Marino Boulevard. Commissioner Sanchez, we fully accept the extension, with the understanding that a decision will be made at the end of that extension. It is for all of you to decide the period of that extension, up to 30 days. I think that Commissioner Regalado has expressed some of the issues, as we've discussed also, and I've discussed with all of you. Some of the time frames in Tallahassee, but I think that we'll all work towards that. I think the positive thing is, you have Commissioners talking with legislators; you have the Mayor of Miami -Dade County here talking to you all, so I think the positive out of this is that everyone is working towards a solution. So, I -- we fully accept and endorse the extension, with the understanding that a decision gets made at the end of the extension. Again, it's for all of you to decide exactly whether that is maximum of 30 days or it can be done beforehand. Commissioner Sanchez: Call the question. Mayor Carollo: Mr. Manager, can you get someone to get a calendar and find out when d 30th day comes to? Unidentified Speaker: March 15th. Commissioner Sanchez: March 151h Mr. Gimenez: (Inaudible) just 28 days because it's 28 days in February. So, actually, it's -- March 17th is 30 days. Mayor Carollo: What day's that? Mr. Gimenez: March 17th Vice Chairman Gort: Saturday. 116 February 15, 2001 Mayor Carollo: That's a Saturday? OK. Mr. Gimenez: Yes, sir. Commissioner Winton: How about March 15th Vice Chairman Gort: March 15th sounds good. Commissioner Sanchez: March 15th is accepted by the maker of the motion. Mayor Carollo: At the latest date that we will have this before to have a meeting on that date. Commissioner Teele: No, I can't live with that. The report has got to come out at least three days before the meeting. I mean, none of this -- get the report and then you're reading and voting. The meeting -- if March 15th is acceptable to the maker of the motion, then the report needs to be out at least by March the 12th. I mean, if the maker of the motion would accept March 15th and Commissioner Winton would publicly agree that that's, you know, something that, you know, your committee process would live with, I would support it. And I think Commissioner Regalado's point of having it at a venue that is acceptable. What did you say, the... Commissioner Sanchez: The Convention Center. Commissioner Regalado: Either the Knight Center or the Artime. Vice Chairman Gort: We have Dinner Key auditorium right next door. Plenty of parking; it's a lot easier; it's accessible to everybody. Commissioner Sanchez: Or the Artime Center. Commissioner Teele: Or the Arena. What about the Knight Center? Mayor Carollo: Yeah, the Knight Center is a fine place... Commissioner Winton: With a 20 percent parking surcharge, it's pretty expensive there. Commissioner Regalado: Well, that's what we want, right? 117 February 15, 2001 Mayor Carollo: Anyway Vice Chairman Gort: Dinner Key will probably be the best place. Mayor Carollo: ... that could be a second motion that we make, but I think that the maker of the motion, the seconder have agreed that to incorporate into that motion March the 15th is the date we'll meet, and that the report will come no later than three days before, March 12th. Commissioner Regalado: Excuse me, Mr. Mayor. What is -- March 15t", what day of the week is it? Mr. Gimenez: Thursday. Commissioner Winton: Thursday. Mayor Carollo: It's a Thursday. Commissioner Regalado: It's a Thursday? And that will be on -- a special meeting only for this purpose? Mayor Carollo: Absolutely. Vice Chairman Gort: That's it. Commissioner Regalado: And I think that in deference to the people that would want to speak and need to go to work, we should start this meeting in the afternoon, and be prepared to listen to what the residents have to say. I don't have no problem, but my problem is that if we start at regular time and then go on, a lot of people will be missing the opportunity to come. So, I would really like to set afternoon, 2 p.m. on... Commissioner Winton: Or three. Mayor Carollo: Afternoon? Commissioner Regalado: Afternoon. Mayor Carollo: Two p.m.? Commissioner Regalado: Two p.m. 118 February 15, 2001 Commissioner Winton: Three. Commissioner Regalado: Two p.m. On. Mayor Carollo: OK. Commissioner Winton: I think -- because two starts pretty early. Commissioner Sanchez: Also, can we provide copies of the report -- can we put it on Channel 9. If it's too length think, can we provide, through the City Clerk, to the public copies of the report? Commissioner Teele: Post it on the Internet. Commissioner Sanchez: Post it on the Internet? Commissioner Winton: We need to do all of the above. Commissioner Sanchez: On all of the above. Commissioner Winton: It needs to be widely -- easily accessible to the public, and distributable to anybody who wants it, as easily as they can get it. Commissioner Sanchez: They could either pick it up at the City Clerk; post it on Channel 9, and post it on the Internet or pick it up in any of the Commissioners and the Mayor's office. Mayor Carollo: Hearing no further discussion on this item... Commissioner Sanchez: Call the question. Commissioner Winton: At what time -- what time did we say? Commissioner Regalado: Two p.m. Mayor Carollo: Two p.m. Vice Chairman Gort: Two p.m. 119 February 15, 2001 Mayor Carollo: Can you call the roll. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 0l -149 A MOTION DEFERRING CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED BALLPARK STADIUM FOR THE MIAMI MARLINS BASEBALL TEAM UNTIL MARCH 15, 2001; FURTHER SCHEDULING A SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION MEETING FOR MARCH 15, 2001, BEGINNING 2 P.M.; FURTHER ESTABLISHING A DEADLINE OF MARCH 12, 2001 TO SUBMIT THE REPORT TO THE COMMISSION FROM THE CONSULTANTS REGARDING SAID PROPOSED BASEBALL PARK. Direction to the Administration: by Commissioner Sanchez to advertise the March 15 special meeting, including the report from consultants, on the Internet, and governmental access cable Channel NET -9. Note for the Record: Commissioner Teele stated that in his view the consultant's mission is as follows: 1) The City is not to participate in the financing of the construction of the stadium; 2) Analyze sites and evaluate various issues relating to regulatory, Development of Regional Impact (DRI), utility relocations, level of service, those kind of issues that are essentially municipal; 3) Identify level of service, as it relates to the transportation/traffic impact as to all of the proposed designated locations; 4) Quantify what is a state of the art facility (Note: Commissioner Teele indicated that he would not be a part of another Miami Arena scenario) 5) Parking: Whether parking is a part of the essential core element (minimal amount of parking required); 6) Identify the minimal scope of project (agreement as to seating capacity; have consultants evaluate project based on same standards; manager should look at policy issues to ensure that same are protected; identify what project is and quantify same) 7) Consultants should give report to the City Manager; Manager shall give a written recommendation to the City Commission. 8) There should be an understanding of the actual cost associated with each of these options. Note for the Record: Commissioner Regalado stated that the City 120 February 15, 2001 Attorney should give the City Commission his views on the Orange Bowl contract with the University of Miami; further stating that the Orange Bowl option as a proposed site for the baseball park be included in the report by the consultants. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Regalado, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort NAYS: Commissioner Johnny L. Winton ABSENT: None Mayor Carollo: OK. It passes four to one. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman? Mayor Carollo: Go ahead. Commissioner Teele: May I inquire, Commissioner Winton -- I mean, I thought we adjusted the time to your liking. Is there something we could do now to... Commissioner Winton: You mean to get my vote on extending this? I don't -- my -- I'm not opposed to the time at all. That isn't the issue I'm voting in opposition to. Commissioner Teele: OK. Well, could we then go, sir, to the issues that I think are really the issues that you laid out that I'm in agreement with you on? I would like, Mr. Manager, for you to inform us and so that we can agree in a direction to you by a motion, as to what is the project. What is the mission of the consultants? Because I don't want to walk out of here sand assume away from problem. Mr. Gimenez: Their mission is to look at all the aspects of this particular deal in terms of, A, the site that would be in the best interest of the City for the Marlins to locate, and B, look at the different aspects of the deal to make sure that the interest of the City are protected, and C, come up with alternative funding that -- for the stadium; what different ideas that they may have so that -- to make the financing, et cetera, easier. 121 February 15, 2001 Commissioner Teele: Well, let me just inquire. I thought our Vice Chairman Gort: Could you yield for a minute to recognize another elected official here? Commissioner Teele: I'll be happy to. Vice Chairman Gort: To recognize another elected official here? Commissioner Teele: Sure, be happy to. Vice Chairman Gort: We have Mayor Jose Diaz here from Sweetwater. It's a pleasure to have you with us, Mayor. Mayor Carollo: Welcome. I didn't see you back there. Good to have you here. Commissioner Teele: I'm a little bit concerned about the last thing that you said. We're going to analyze the funding of what, of the deal and what? Mr. Gimenez: We're going to analyze the deal that's on the table to make sure the City's interest are protected and whatever deal is on the table, any deal that we negotiate. Commissioner Teele: Let me tell you: I have a lot of confidence in Mayor Penelas and the County staff and I have a belief that the County is going to finance this deal. What I don't want to do is get us in a position where we are going to be participating in the financing. Now, as it relates to the revenue stream, whether we have a percentage of the net, the gross, something, that's one thing. But when you say that we're -- that the consultants' mission the to analyze the financing, and we know that the -- what I've worked hard and what the Commission, I thought, instructed you before was that we would not participate in the financing. And, see, this is going to wind up becoming -- I have no problem with that, as long as the focus of this group is to analyze sites and to evaluate the various issues that relate to regulatory DRI (Development of Regional Impact), utility relocations, levels of service, those kinds of issues that are essentially municipal issues, and what I have seen in all of this -- in much of this process is that we rare not focusing on the things that are our responsibility. I want to understand what the levels of service are going to be as it relates to the transportation impact in all of these locations. I don't want to make a decision without that information. And, so, I really believe, you know, that I -- I have no objection to studying anything and everything, but I think it's important that this Commission at least indicate what we believe the mission to 122 February 15, 2001 be, and to what the parameters to be of what it is the minimum that we're looking for. The thing that I really want to put on the table, Mr. Manager, is the discussion that we had relating to Bicentennial and the Park West, and the Miami River. I will not participate -- I will not vote on any site or any plan if I have to vote to build another Miami Arena. Now, I don't want to be misunderstood by my colleagues. I know the newspapers are going to say, well he's running if I don't vote. But I'm saying it. I don't care what the press says. I don't care what the public says. I am not going to be a part of a vote that builds a new -- another Miami Arena. Because that vote was done by the City Commission and we built half of an arena. We built an arena that doesn't work. And because we built a forty, fifty million dollar ($50,000,000) -- forty million plus dollar arena that was built improperly, we wind up having to spend another two hundred -- a hundred and fifty million dollars ($150,000,000) of taxpayers' money. And, so, what I want to be very clear on is that we're talking about the same project. We talked in the last resolution about a state-of-the-art facility. I don't know what a state-of-the-art facility is, but I think you all need to quantify that and give it to us, but what I do know is that I'm not looking for new art and new science and new technology in building something that's not proven that doesn't work. We talked on -- in the last meeting, where we were trying to determine whether or not the parking is a part of the essential and chore elements. I've learned, subsequent to our Commission meeting last week, that parking is an essential component. The Miami River site that you showed us had parking down the street, OK. To me, if the baseball association requires in-house parking, if the players require parking based upon their contract, if the staff requires parking, we have to have a minimal whatever that number is, amount of parking, and I don't want a facility that is going to be built that is not going to be, you know, a complete facility. So, I think it's very important for you to give us today in writing or at some point today, what the scope, the minimum scope of this project is. I'm not talking about the geometry now of how it fits because the geometry of each site is going to be different, but, Carlos, I am frightened to death, as we rush through this, that I'm going to be asked to vote on something that I will regret, and Commissioner Sanchez, let me just say this. This is not a tough vote on the site for me, because I've stayed repeatedly, I want the Marlins in an urban setting. What is a tough vote is to vote for something that doesn't work when we build it. And I think there is a great possibility, and as we begin to compromise, you know, designs to make it fit, that we're all going to do something that we're going to be sorry for and I don't really want to be a part of that. My real concern is that we agree that we're all talking about a thirty - thousand seat stadium or a forty -thousand seat stadium, but I don't want forty thousand on one site and thirty-seven thousand five hundred on a different site, you know. And I think it's very, very important that we at least quantify what the project is, and have the consultants to evaluate projects based upon the same standard. Because I think that's the point -- one of the points that Commissioner Winton was making. I think there are some other subjective standards that have to be evaluated, and I think we're looking to your 123 February 15, 2001 office, as the Manager, to look at what the policy issues that we have taken as a Commission and ensuring that those policy considerations are protected: I do know that, Commissioner Winton, on view corridors, you know, we have not -- on the Brickell case up there, we did not protect view corridors, when the guy turned the building the long way as opposed to the short way, and that was a very controversial vote, and I do think that's a legitimate issue. But I do think we need to all be saying the same thing so that we don't wind up with members of the public feeling like we did not give there a full review. And, so, my concern is just simply two fold: We need to identify what this project is and quantify it, and, secondly, we need to ensure that the consultants give the report to you, the Manager, so that you can endorse that report an give us a written recommendation of what you're recommending, and at the same time that we understand what the cost, the actual cost associated with each of these options are going to be. And I think that's a lot because I think there are going to be utilities in one area. I know they are doing a study on the relocation of utilities under U.S. 1, and, apparently, it's a pretty big number and a pretty long time line number, and we need to get all of that information to you. So, Commissioner Winton, I would welcome, if you would formulate some motion, if you're comfortable with it, that ensures what -- and I'm building off of what you said -- is that you want to make sure that we're talking about the same thing here. Commissioner Winton: Let me... Commissioner Regalado: If I may -- Johnny, just sort of a friendly amendment, if you all going to vote on this. I would also request that the City Attorney, on a separate issue, be involved because when we discussed the Orange Bowl site two or three days after that, the Manager, through his chief of staff, told me, well, we're told that it's going to cost us thirty million dollars ($30,000,000). I immediately called the City Attorney. No one had asked the City Attorney his opinion. He has seen the contractors. But I would ask that the Orange Bowl scenario be included and all the consultants, but also that the City Attorney will give us his views on the contract, which seems to be the only obstacle. It seems to be according to the Manager -- I mean the biggest obstacle, the contract with UM (University of Miami). So, I would ask the City Attorney if you are going to set the rules in a resolution, to look into that contract, and to give us an idea of that contract, the life of it, and the amount of money. Commissioner Winton: Mr. Chairman? Mayor Carollo: Go ahead, Commissioner Winton. Commissioner Winton: Commissioner Teele, you asked if I would proffer a resolution or at least put some further meat on this skeleton here, and let me tell you what the giant 124 February 15, 2001 dilemma is here. Why the task that we've set out is virtually impossible for our consultants. The impossibility is this. This is a real estate development deal. The real estate development is the construction and building of a baseball stadium and the tenant is Major League Baseball. It's a development deal. In development deals, developers come up with general concepts for a use that they have. They go out and find a site and they design a building that fits the site. The Marlins have designed a stadium -- they don't have the blueprints of it, but there is a specific stadium design that they are fixated on, and they want to then find the site that fits that design which is completely backwards. Development doesn't work that way. And, so, the point to this is that there will be no alternate sites; that the consultants can appropriately analyze to determine if you get the state-of-the-art facility because who's deciding that? The Marlins are deciding if it's a state-of-the-art facility, and every time you meet with them, they are telling you all the reasons why this site doesn't work because it doesn't fit that dumb design that they've already created. So, we're in an impossible situation here. And I don't care how many times Julio shakes his head. The fact of the matter is, they've designed a stadium and says, this is the stadium we want; this is the state-of-the-art and we better find a site that fits. And, so -- no clapping. And, so, within the City of Miami, there are almost no sites that work. Bicentennial Park works. It will work because it's large enough. It has the landmass. Curtis Park works, Commissioner Gort. It's got the landmass. Morningside Park works because it's got the landmass. Robert King High Park works because it's also 16 and a half acres. Charles Hadley Park works and Moore Park works because they're large enough. There isn't a single one of you sitting at this dais that's willing to allow the Marlins or even encourage the Marlins to consider those parks for locating their stadium. But the fact of the matter is that we're focused here on a landmass and that's the problem. No site is going to be acceptable to the Marlins. The consultants can't figure out how they make a site work because there will be a parking issue. Well, if you design the stadium differently, and you didn't have the design that's on the table, how do we know that we can put parking on that particular site? If the design of the stadium was differently, how do owe that all of the other plans that everybody's looked at couldn't actually work? I don't know how to give the consultants the appropriate guidance because they have to work in a vacuum. And, so, we're going to be forced to make a decision, again, where the whole process has been in our vacuum and the Marlins are going to come back and tell us all the reasons why this doesn't work. And this only thing they're going to be willing to accept is, again, Bicentennial Park because there's a landmass that fits their design. So, I wish I had a good answer to the question in terms of how to give appropriate guidance here. But the whole process here, including, by the way, my report coming back to you all, just seems totally stacked. I don't see rational, objective, unbiased view working in this process, as long -- and I'm going back to this again -- as long as the Marlins are saying, and as long as we, as public officials continue to dangle Bicentennial Park. And who, in their right mind -- if I had an option 125 February 15, 2001 of Bicentennial Park or any other option out there, which one am I going to take? I'm always going to have some reason why those others aren't as good or don't work for me than this one. But we've dangled it. We continue to dangle it. It continues to stay on the table, and today not only have we dangled it, but we've voted four to one to tell them that site is very important to the process. So, tomorrow, they go away. They've won in their mind because I voted against continuing delaying the process. Everybody else -- I voted. I -- no, I offered -- actually, there wasn't a vote. Excuse me. Correction there. There was no vote because there was no second. I offered a motion to take Bicentennial Park off the table. That motion died for lack of a second. Had we taken it off the table, then our consultants could go to work; the Marlins would be at the table shoulder to shoulder with them; the County would be shoulder to shoulder with the Marlins; there would be a real partnership here to objectively figure out how you make a stadium work in downtown Miami. That objectivity can't work and our consultants are stuck in a box. So, I don't know how to solve this problem. Mayor Carollo: Any further statements from any member of the Commission? Commissioner Sanchez: Just one. That the Orange Bowl be considered as one of the possible sites. Mayor Carollo: All right. Commissioner Teele: Commissioner Winton, let me -- there was not a vote on -- so, that's correct. Commissioner Winton: That's correct. No vote, lack of a second. So, no vote at all. Commissioner Teele: But, you know -- see, the awkward position I think you put all of us in by making that motion -- and I sort of have a rule that I think every motion that's intelligent should be second, and that -- and that's an intelligent motion. Commissioner Winton: I get the point. Still thought it was. Commissioner Teele: It's a very intelligent motion, but the problem is is that it's an unfair motion. You see, if you're not going to study all of the sites, then what you're basically saying is, is that we're afraid of that site. Commissioner Winton: We're what? Commissioner Teele: We're afraid of that site. 126 February 15, 2001 Commissioner Sanchez: Afraid. Commissioner Teele: Afraid. Commissioner Sanchez: Afraid. Commissioner Teele: Afraid. Afraid. And, so, it just seems to me to be very unfair not to study a site, no matter how much someone may not want it at that point in time. Commissioner Winton: Are you willing to consider Charles Hadley Park as an alternate site, Commissioner Teele? That's fair. It's got a landmass that's large enough. Commissioner Teele: Well, I mean, that's sort of a trick... Commissioner Winton: It's in an urban environment. Commissioner Teele: That's sort of a trick question, but the intellectual answer to that would have to be, we consider any site... Commissioner Winton: Any park site. Commissioner Teele: But, Johnny, I just think that letting the consultants study all of the sites -- and if there are other sites that are deemed to be reasonable, that a Commissioner or someone wants to advance, I mean, reasonably, then it should be looked at. I mean, there is no shortage of sites. Isn't it seven, at the last count? Or seven... Commissioner Winton: Or eight. Commissioner Teele: Potentials. But I just wish -- I just hope that we can leave here without the -- the sense, you know, that this is a foregone conclusion, because I really do think that it's going to take sat least three votes to approve a site and we should not pre judge, I think, what the consultants are going to come back with and what the Manager's recommendation ultimately is going to be, but the point that I just want to be very clear about: We're looking -- at least I'm looking for a Manager's recommendation on this, and -- I just -- I don't want you to walk away -- I mean, you know, Johnny, I don't want you to feel as if nobody is willing to cooperate with you because I've said repeatedly that these sites are largely in your district. There is only one site, other than the Orange Bowl site, that's not in your district, and I'm saying, publicly as I've said before, that I'm going to not base my decision on how you vote, but I'm going to weigh very carefully every decision 127 February 15, 2001 an every statement that you make in casting my vote, because I do think that if we're going to have a form of government that is the called single member districting, we have to respect each other and we have to respect, you know, the fact that you're working with the constituents of your district, although I think both Bicentennial and the river site are really sort of have Citywide impact for sure. Commissioner Winton: And I agree with that statement a hundred -- this isn't a District 2 thing, at all. That land is almost regional kind of land. I mean, we are the epicenter, the center of the County, and I'm not looking at this as my district, and I don't want to suggest that to any of you that I'm looking at it as my district. This is a Citywide issue that I'm greatly concerned about. Vice Chairman Gort: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Carollo: Commissioner Gort. Vice Chairman Gort: I want to repeat once again the reason I didn't second the motion, but I agree with you, I think the is a regional park or baseball stadium that we want to create, and I think that the burden should be carried by the region, by the whole Miami - Dade County, not just the City of Miami like we've had in the past. But the reason I didn't second your motion -- and I wanted the studies to be done in the Bicentennial because right now, there's been a lot of misinformation out there in the community and I want to make sure that when we make the decision and when the public hearing takes place, that the public understands every bit of it. Because right now we've only heard one side. We have to hear all the sides, and that's the only reason why I didn't second your motion. And why I agree with Commissioner Teele, that we should look at all the sites and have all the information and all of the sites. So everyone can have it and then we can make an intelligent decision. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, I have a resolution that the City Attorney has that restates the previous resolution, but in response to one of the comments that Commissioner Winton made in public, that I want today be clarified on, and I would offer that resolution at this time. The restated... Mayor Carollo: I'm sorry, Commissioner Teele. You want the previous resolution to be restated? Commissioner Teele: It has been restated. That is, the resolution -- Mr. Attorney, did you pass it out? 128 February 15, 2001 Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): No, I have not. Commissioner Teele: OK. It's a resolution that was passed last week. Commissioner Regalado: But it has... Commissioner Teele: It has two clarifications in it. I think the resolution -- the way it was drafted... Commissioner Sanchez: Can I be afforded one, please? Commissioner Teele: The way the resolution was crafted in the previous form; I think it did not contain the intent that I had and that is... Commissioner Regalado: Plus, Commissioner, the first resolution -- Mr. City Attorney, the first resolution -- I read it. You sent it to me. It did not contain the line that said that the Commission wanted the stadium in an urban setting, and that probably caused some misinformation. It wasn't there. Now, this resolution, I read a copy. It also goes further in terms of the City's involvement in the economic side of any development? Commissioner Teele: Right. Commissioner Regalado: It does? OK. Mr. Vilarello: Commissioner Teele, I can address those issues that you... Commissioner Teele: Why don't we -- I think, given the fact that you have a lot of people here, why don't we just take a minute and read the resolution so that it's clear to everybody. Did Mr. Nachlinger give you some clarifications on some concerns? Mr. Vilarello: I do have that included on the draft, yes, sir. A resolution of the Miami City Commission restating the endorsement in principal of the concept of the construction of a state-of-the-art baseball stadium of the Florida Marlins in the City of Miami on real property to be provided by the City, conditioned upon the City being exempt from environmental remediation responsibility of any real property provided for this purpose. Restating its intent to accept the funding sources outlined by Miami -Dade County Mayor Alex Penelas and the Florida Marlins, and to assist in the committing of those funds for this purpose; further restating that the City will not participate in the financing of the construction of the stadium, except to the extent that the parking surcharge is part of that financing process, and that the City will be provided with a 129 February 15, 2001 revenue stream for real property to be provided by the City. And that Miami -Dade County will resolve all outstanding financial issues pending between the City and the County to the satisfaction of the City. Commissioner Teele: Commissioner Winton, I read in the paper that you had some very public discussions that the City would not pay for any environmental remediation on any site, and this resolution codifies that and says we're not going to pay for any environmental remediation on any site, but it also say that's we would be responsible for a acquiring land if -- the way it was written before, it's suggested that it would only be on land that we already own, and this clarifies that we would be responsible for acquiring land if we didn't own it. Commissioner Winton: And the other one suggested that we were providing free lands, which keeps being reported in The Miami Herald, and there's -- the end piece of your resolution states that there will be an income stream and that doesn't -- that takes free land out of the formula, and I don't think it says anything about free land in this resolution. Vice Chairman Gort: It never did. Commissioner Teele: It doesn't comment on whether or not the land is charged or rented or leased. It merely states, very clearly, what I thought we had all agreed on, is that there must be a significant -- I think it says that the City will be provided a revenue stream for the real property to be provided by the City. I would so move, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Vice Chairman Gort: That was passed already, right? Mayor Carollo: There's a motion. There's a second. Commissioner Teele: It's restated in a clear language, and it also goes further because it contains a clear statement that supports what Commissioner Winton said, that we will not be responsible for the environmental clean-up of any land. Commissioner Regalado: Does it mention that the City wants the City on an urban setting? Commissioner Teele: I don't think it specifically does, but I would accept that as an amendment, where it says that the -- to be located in an urban setting in the City of 130 February 15, 2001 Miami, in the very first whereas. Mayor Carollo: Mr. Manager, if you could send out, by week's end, a list of all the pending issues that have a financial impact on the City, that are out there with the County? Mr. Gimenez: Yes, sir. Mayor Carollo: OK. Hearing no further questions, all in favor say aye. The Commission (Collectively): "Aye." Mayor Carollo: It passes unanimously. 131 February 15, 2001 The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 01-150 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION RESTATING THE ENDORSEMENT, IN PRINCIPLE, OF THE CONCEPT OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF A STATE OF THE ART BASEBALL STADIUM FOR THE FLORIDA MARLINS IN THE CITY OF MIAMI ("THE CITY") ON REAL PROPERTY TO BE PROVIDED BY THE CITY, CONDITIONED UPON THE CITY BEING EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION RESPONSIBILITY OF ANY REAL PROPERTY PROVIDED FOR THIS PURPOSE; RESTATING ITS INTENT TO ACCEPT THE FUNDING SOURCES OUTLINED BY MIAMI-DADE COUNTY MAYOR ALEX PENELAS AND THE FLORIDA MARLINS AND TO ASSIST IN COMMITTING OF THOSE FUNDS FOR THIS PURPOSE; FURTHER RESTATING THAT: (1) THE CITY WILL NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE FINANCING OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STADIUM, EXCEPT AS TO THE USE OF THE PARKING SURCHARGE FUNDS, (2) THE CITY WILL BE PROVIDED WITH A REVENUE STREAM FOR THE REAL PROPERTY TO BE PROVIDED BY THE CITY, AND (3) MIAMI- DADE COUNTY WILL RESOLVE ALL FINANCIAL ISSUES PENDING BETWEEN THE CITY AND MIAMI-DADE COUNTY TO THE CITY'S SATISFACTION. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) 132 February 15, 2001 Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort NAYS: None ABSENT: None Commissioner Sanchez: Can we take a recess and come back to the CDBG (Community Development Block Grant)? Commissioner Regalado: Excuse me. Mr. Mayor, before we go, we should address the site, not of the stadium, but of the next meeting. Mayor Carollo: Yeah, the location of the meeting. Commissioner Regalado: The location of the meeting on March 15th is at... Commissioner Teele: Two p.m. Commissioner Regalado: Two p.m., March 15th Commissioner Sanchez: I would like to see if we could do it at the Artime Center, which is a beautiful... Mayor Carollo: There's a motion by Commissioner Sanchez for the Artime Center. Commissioner Sanchez: It's a beautiful -- if the site is available, the Artime Theater. Commissioner Winton: What's the parking like there? Commissioner Sanchez: Parking? There's plenty of parking. Plenty of parking. I want everyone to go see the improvements in that area, that's why. 133 February 15, 2001 Commissioner Winton: Why wouldn't we do it at the -- right here? Commissioner Sanchez: I want everyone to go see the improvements there, that's why. Commissioner Winton: And how many people does it hold? Commissioner Regalado: Seven hundred, 800 it carries... Mayor Carollo: Yeah, it's big. It's big enough. Commissioner Sanchez: So moved the Artime Center. Commissioner Regalado: And it has a sound system. Commissioner Winton: And, actually, having the public see that facility, City facility... Mayor Carollo: It's been moved by Commissioner Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Regalado. All in favor signify by saying aye. The Commission (Collectively): "Aye." Mayor Carollo: It passed unanimously. 134 February 15, 2001 The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 01-151 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION SCHEDULING A SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION MEETING ON THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2001, BEGINNING 2 P.M., AT THE MANUEL ARTIME CENTER, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING, PER RESOLUTION 01-139, LOCATION OF PROPOSED BALLPARK FOR MIAMI MARLINS BASEBALL TEAM. (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: Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort NAYS: None ABSENT: None Mayor Carollo: For all those that came on this issue today, we thank you, and we'll see... Commissioner Winton: Excuse me, Mr. Mayor. Could we provide the address right now of the Artime Center? Commissioner Regalado: Nine zero one Southwest 1St Street. Commissioner Winton: Thank you. Commissioner Regalado: The Manuel Artime Center. 135 February 15, 2001 Mayor Carollo: We'll see you on March the 5th, beginning at 2 p.m., at the Artime Center. Thank you. We're now going to recess for a short time. Ten minutes. THEREUPON, THE CITY COMMISSION WENT INTO RECESS AT 5:03 P.M. AND RECONVENED AT 5:24 P.M., WITH ALL MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION, EXCEPT COMMISSIONER WINTON, FOUND TO BE PRESENT. 136 February 15, 2001 Vice Chairman Gort: We have a lot of business to address. Item 5. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman? Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: I move the adoption of Item Number 5. Vice Chairman Gort: There's a motion. Is there a second? Commissioner Sanchez: Which one is that one? Commissioner Teele: Involving the software for loan servicing. Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved and second. Is there any further discussion? Being none, all in favor state by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): "Aye." 137 February 15, 2001 The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 01-152 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION BY A FOUR- FIFTHS (4/5THS) AFFIRMATIVE VOTE, RATIFYING, APPROVING AND CONFIRMING THE CITY MANAGER'S FINDING OF AN EMERGENCY, WAIVING COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROCEDURES, AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF MORTGAGE LOAN SERVICING SOFTWARE FROM APPLIED BUSINESS SOFTWARE, INC., TO ASSIST THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IN ITS EFFORTS TO ADEQUATELY ADDRESS AND CORRECT WEAKNESSES AND DEFICIENCIES CITED IN THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL AUDIT PERTAINING TO THE CITY'S HOUSING AND COMMERCIAL LOAN PORTFOLIO AND COLLECTION PROCEDURES, WITH FUNDS ALLOCATED FROM SHIP PROGRAM FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $17,490; FURTHER, BY A FOUR-FIFTHS (4/5TH.) AFFIRMATIVE VOTE, RATIFYING, APPROVING AND CONFIRMING THE CITY MANAGER'S FINDING THAT IT IS NOT ADVANTAGEOUS OR PRACTICABLE TO OBTAIN COMPLETIVE BIDS FOR THE ACQUISITION OF ADDITIONAL COMPUTER SOFTWARE TO MEET THE CITY'S GROWING NEEDS AND TO UPGRADE ITS EXISTING LOAN COLLECTION SYSTEM, WAIVING COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROCEDURES, AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF SAME WITH FUNDS TO BE ALLOCATED FROM SHIP FUNDS, IN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $10,495. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort NAYS: Commissioner Johnny L. Winton ABSENT: None 138 February 15, 2001 Vice Chairman Gort: Item 6 Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman? Vice Chairman Gort: Yes. Commissioner Teele: I move the adoption of Item Number 6. Vice Chairman Gort: There's a motion. Is there a second? Commissioner Sanchez: Which one is that one? Vice Chairman Gort: Item 6 is the allocation three million dollars ($3,000,000) in HOME funds to Single Family Rehab Homebuyer's Finance Program. Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Vice Chairman Gort: Any further discussion? Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): It's a public hearing. Vice Chairman Gort: Public hearing. Is there anyone in the public would like to address this item, Item 6. The resolution from HOME funds for Single -Family Rehab Homebuyer Finance Program. Is anyone in the public would like to address this? Let it 139 February 15, 2001 show no one in the public. Close the public hearing. There's a motion and a second. All in favor state by saying "aye." Commissioner Sanchez: Wait. That's a motion by Art and I'll second it. Vice Chairman Gort: All in favor state by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): "Aye." The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 01-153 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION RELATING TO THE EXPANSION OF THE CITY'S SINGLE FAMILY REHABILITATION AND HOMEBUYER'S FINANCING PROGRAMS; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ALLOCATE $3,000,000 IN PRIOR YEAR HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS ("HOME") PROGRAM FUNDS TO PROVIDE HOME IMPROVEMENT AND HOMEBUYER'S FINANCING ASSISTANCE TO VERY LOW, AND LOW AND MODERATE INCOME RESIDENTS IN THE CITY; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO DEVELOP PROGRAM GUIDELINES FOR SUBMISSION TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT FOR APPROVAL AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAMS; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT APPLICATION(S) TO MIAMI-DADE COUNTY AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOR PRIOR YEAR STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP (SHIP) PROGRAM FUNDS THAT MAY BE AVAILABLE FOR EXPANSION OF THE HOUSING PROGRAMS; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO IMPLEMENT AND ADMINISTER THE HOME PROGRAM FUNDED SINGLE FAMILY REHABILITATION AND HOMEBUYER'S FINANCING PROGRAMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH GUIDELINES. 140 February 15, 2001 (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort NAYS: None ABSENT: Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman? Vice Chairman Gort: Yes. Commissioner Teele: Relating to Item Number 6. 1 have discussed with the Manager and the Manager has no objection. One of the concerns that we have in looking at this program and doing some analysis of it is the manner in which contractors are being selected by the homeowner of the rehab properties needs and requires a lot more formalization. I am moving or requesting, by motion, that the Manager be instructed, pursuant to this program, to develop a list of qualified construction companies to provide the work, and that that list of qualified construction companies will be made available to all persons who are qualifying for this; further that any person that is not on the list may be selected with the approval of the Manager or his designee, and what this is doing is it appears that there is a small group of contractors who are doing all the work. We are having a lot of discussions about the quality of that work, and rather than getting in he said/she said, we need to start this process in a very transparent manner in which any contractor that would like to do the work be prequalified, and the Manager and Public Works, Building and Zoning, Community Development, they can figure out what it is. I'm not trying to tell you who does it and how you qualify. But I think there's two issues. One, the people who are being selected or awarded the funds need to have a list of companies that they can go to, and not rely on word of mouth, referrals or informal referrals or even worse perhaps. And secondly, the companies that are going to do the work need to -- really need to be prequalified. Doing work on someone's house with someone living there is a lot different from being a great builder. It requires sensitivity; it requires a whole series of things. So, that would be the motion, is to instruct the Manager to develop a process and a list of prequalified companies to provide the work and further upon that list being impaneled, that all of the grantee will receive that in the future; and further that the grantee may select someone not on the list with the approval of the Manager or his designee. So moved. 141 February 15, 2001 Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved and second. Commissioner Teele, I'd like to add to that. One of the biggest problems that we've had in the past... Commissioner Sanchez: There has to be a second. Vice Chairman Gort: You seconded it. You told me you seconded it. Second by... Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Vice Chairman Gort: -- by Commissioner Sanchez. I'd like to -- one of the problems we've had in the past is the subcontractors or the contractors that are being utilized by these people, all of the sudden they fade out of business. They fade out, and the people are left, that they made the payments or the payment has been made. I want to make sure that somehow this works on a draw system; that work has to be finished before we make payments. If you don't mind, Commissioner Teele, if we could have the draw payment, which means the people have to finish their work -- certain amount of work before they could get paid. Because, in the past, some of these individuals that had been paid, and they walked out on the job. Commissioner Teele: I certainly would add -- accept that as an amendment, that as a part of the prequalification process, a payment schedule, including retainage and other safeguards, be a part of the process, including prompt payment for the work that's done. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Any further discussion? Being none, all in favor state by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): "Aye." The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 01-154 A MOTION INSTRUCTING THE CITY MANAGER TO DEVELOP A PROCESS FOR THE CITY'S SINGLE FAMILY REHABILITATION PROGRAM AND A LIST OF QUALIFIED CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES TO PROVIDE HOME IMPROVEMENT WORK; FURTHER INSTRUCTING THE MANAGER TO PROVIDE GRANTEES OF SAID REHAB FUNDS WITH A COPY OF SAID LIST, STIPULATING THAT THE GRANTEE MAY SELECT A COMPANY WHICH IS NOT ON THE LIST WITH THE APPROVAL FROM THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE; AND FURTHER STIPULATING THAT A PAYMENT SCHEDULE, INCLUDING RETAINAGE, SAFEGUARDS AND PROMPT PAYMENT AFTER WORK IS DONE, BE MADE A PART OF THE PROCESS. 142 February 15, 2001 Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort NAYS: None ABSENT: Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Johnny L. Winton Mr. Vilarello (City Attorney): Mr. Chairman? Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, on that issue, I am asking the Manager -- the department director, through the Manager, to please review this program and develop more appropriate ways that the recipients of these funds can make feedback and input regarding the quality of work that's being done, and I think that really needs to be reviewed, Gwen. Gwendolyn Warren (Director, Community Development): Yes, sir, I agree. Vice Chairman Gort: At the same time, the contract, I think we should be very much sort of supervising it. Make sure the work is done, and you can come up with a mechanism, maybe using the NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) or the inspectors and so on. OK. Thank you. Mr. Vilarello: Mr. Chairman? Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir. 143 February 15, 2001 i aIn 11 g � Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Mr. Chairman? Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir. Mr. Vilarello: A point of order on Item 5, it does require a four-fifths vote, and I ... Walter Foeman (City Clerk): We have... Commissioner Sanchez: We had four-fifths. Mr. Foeman: It was a four-fifths. Commissioner Winton was absent. Mr. Vilarello: Four Commissioners present? Commissioner Sanchez: We had four-fifths. Mr. Foeman: We had four votes. Vice Chairman Gort: Yeah. 144 February 15, 2001 Vice Chairman Gort: Item 7. Resolution deobligation, seven hundred and forty-two thousand in SHIP (State Housing Initiatives Partnership) funds and allocating nine hundred in HOME funds. Commissioner Teele: So moved. Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Vice Chairman Gort: Now, it's been moved and second. Under discussion. My understanding -- and this happens with couple of organizations -- that they were not able to use the funds this year, and we're reallocating those funds, but there's a commitment that the funds will be there for next year? Gwendolyn Warren (Director, Community Development): In this particular case, you awarded SHIP (State Housing Initiatives Partnership) dollars, which has a two-year expending requirement. And what we're recommending is that you replace those dollars with HOME moneys to allow those projects to be completed. So, it does allow these agencies to go forth. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Any further discussion? It's a public hearing. Anyone in the public would like to address this item? Anyone in the public would like to address this item? Show that no one has come forward. By the way, for the information, Mariano called me house and left a message. He wanted to know the allocation of CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) funds. For your information, Mariano, we miss you today. For your information, Allapattah supposed to have received, according to standard, 14 percent of the funding. We are receiving 16 percent. Thank you. All in favor state by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): "Aye." The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption: 145 February 15, 2001 The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 01-155 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 00-90, ADOPTED JANUARY 27, 2000, IN ITS ENTIRETY, THUS DE -OBLIGATING $742,000 IN STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES (SHIP) PROGRAM FUNDS ALLOCATED TO THE LITTLE HAITI HOUSING ASSOCIATION, INC. AND HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF GREATER MIAMI, INC. TO FINANCE NEW HOMEOWNERSHIP HOUSING UNITS IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF EDISON-LITTLE RIVER AND OVERTOWN, AND REPLACING SAID DE -OBLIGATED FUNDS WITH $900,000 IN HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS (HOME) PROGRAM FUNDS FOR THE SAME PURPOSE IN THE AMOUNTS STATED IN SECTION 4 TO BANYAN TOWNHOMES, L.L.C. AND HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF GREATER MIAMI, INC.; REALLOCATING SAID DE -OBLIGATED FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $742,000 TO THE CITY'S SHIP FUNDED SINGLE FAMILY REHABILITATION AND HOMEBUYER'S FINANCING PROGRAMS; AND FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT(S) WITH THE AFOREMENTIONED HOUSING DEVELOPERS, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, SUBJECT TO CERTAIN TERMS AND CONDITIONS. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. NAYS: None ABSENT: Commissioner Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Gort: Make sure you let him know. 146 February 15, 2001 Gwendolyn Warren (Director, Community Development): Item Number 8, Commissioners, is an information item just to update you on the HOME RFP (Request for Proposal) process. The -- in your Commission package, we had indicated that, by today, we would have the final recommendations from the Housing Loan Committee. Although they were able -- the agencies did their presentation, we were one member lack of a quorum. They will be reconvening. There's been a commitment. On the 21St it will be insufficient time. The -- so this is an update to basically say that the process is going forward. There's two really important issues that we're also asking in the letter, and that is to seek a waiver of the leveraging requirement for both BAME (Bethel African Methodist Episcopal) and for ABDA (Allapattah Business Development Association) for the completion of their housing projects. These two agencies, the City made financial commitments on construction projects prior to the implementation of our leveraging requirement that's in our annual -- our five-year plan, an that we would seek direction from you to seek a waiver from HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development) so that they would be able to receive the funding and complete their projects. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Any... Ms. Warren: The other significant issue is that we do have another agency in Palmetto Homes, which is a new agency. They met the financing requirement; the site control requirement, but as a new applicant, they were -- they had some significant problems with completing the application process. Staff is recommending that their funded be held in abeyance; that we sent them to our technical assistance agency to provide them technical assistance, and, at that time, we would come back with a recommendation. Vice Chairman Gort: Which... Ms. Warren: There's a new agency. It's called Palmetto Homes of Miami, Inc. The City did provide them some land, but they have received -- they have been able to get their zone financing. They do have site control. But they had some difficulty with the package and, again, in consistent with our policies, we would like to provide technical assistance and then (inaudible). Vice Chairman Gort: The lady was here today -- this morning. My understanding is, we funded -- we provided funding for her agency. Ms. Warren: This one would have to go to greater Miami Neighborhoods. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. 147 February 15, 2001 Ms. Warren: Yes. Vice Chairman Gort: There are three different ones that they're -- and I think it's very important that we provide technical assistance to this group, because we have a lot of qualified people that can do the work, but they need technical assistance to make sure they comply with the guidelines. OK. Any other questions? Sir, do you have a... Paul Bilton: Yes, please. If I may have a moment. Good afternoon. My name is Paul Bilton. I'm here for Ruby Swezy and St. Mark Affordable Housing. We're in the process of putting together a deal to construct 336 affordable housing apartments at the old Bobby Maduro Stadium. I'm sure you're aware of. We do own the property. We bought it from you. We have a major use special permit. The only thing that is pending is the complete financing package. That's what we've been working on every since we got that property. I'm happy to say we did just receive a bond allocation from the County, so we do now have the major portion of the funding in place. The problem is, however, that those bonds deals, they are not complete funding packages. They do require the builder to go out and find other sources of financing to compliment the bond funds. Commissioner Teele: Let me ask you this. What number are you here? I mean... Ms. Warren: They didn't submit a package. They're not in this RFP (Request for Proposal). Vice Chairman Gort: So, my understanding is, we did allocate some funds. Gwen last year you allocate some SHIP (State Housing Initiatives Partnership) dollars for their application to -- for state tax credits. The moneys were allocated contingent upon them being funded by the state. They were not. Mr. Bilton: Actually, I believe there were HOME funds, and we had until the end of the year... Ms. Warren: HOME funds. I'm sorry. Mr. Bilton: We had until the end of the year, and I don't know if it was contingent on tax credits. I thought it was contingent on a complete financing package. Commissioner Teele: Excuse me. Where are the funds now? Then I don't see them -- they've not been de -obligated, have they? Vice Chairman Gort: They're not here. They're not part of this package. My understanding is... Commissioner Teele: Well, that doesn't answer my question, Mr. Chairman. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Sorry. 148 February 15, 2001 Mr. Jeff Hepburn (Assistant Director, Housing): Commissioner, there was a resolution that awarded the funds had a drop date, December 31, 2000. If they didn't get the financing for the project, those funds would be recaptured by the City. Commissioner Teele: Where is the document that recaptures those funds? Ms. Warren: We do not have that resolution. This is not a part of the agenda package today. We don't have that with us personally here today. Commissioner Teele: But, see, this is it? Ms. Warren: We weren't anticipating... Commissioner Teele: OK. Yeah, but, be very clear. If we're de -obligating funds... Ms. Warren: They're sitting in the HOME account. We have not come to the Commission to de -obligate them. Commissioner Teele: So, the funds are available now? Ms. Warren: The funds that were allocated still remain allocated. The resolution... Commissioner Teele: Under HOME, right? Ms. Warren: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: We're talking about HOME fund dollars, right? Ms. Warren: Yes. That is not a part of the new allocation that's out for bid right now. This is old money. Those moneys were allocated -- the date for reallocation would have been December. We have not brought that back to you at this date for deobligation, but that's not a part of this RFP. This is current year available dollars, instead of prior year moneys. Commissioner Teele: But, the issue before us now is HOME funds, OK. Ms. Warren: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: Just like action wasn't here before us on -- getting Commissioner... Ms. Warren: Their moneys are 25th Year moneys. You're dealing with 26th Year moneys. Commissioner Teele: And that's the question I'm asking. Has anything happened to the 25th Year money? 149 February 15, 2001 Ms. Warren: No. Commissioner Teele: I have not seen a deobligation document or a reprogramming document. Ms. Warren: No. Commissioner Teele: So, there won't be any problem if there is a motion attached to this that basically asks you to give us a report and a plan on those funds. I mean, that's what I'm going to do, unless the Chairman won't accept it. But it seems to me we're talking about HOME dollars and it's noticed as HOME dollars, and I'm not moving dollars; I'm not taking dollars. I'm simply asking for a report, with instructions to work with them, and to provide us a report within 90 days on this obviously -- and if it works, it works. If it doesn't, it doesn't. Ms. Warren: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Gort: Mr. Chairman, the -- one of the reasons this is in front of us today is because I wanted to assure that the projects -- they've been working on it for a long time now -- the Bobby Maduro has been a sore sight within the Allapattah for a long time. These people pay a premium for the land and the maintenance of the land -- those constructions are very important. I just want to make sure that -- my understanding is, the funds is not needed immediately, they could be for the new funds -- but I accept the -- your motion, if you're making a motion... Commissioner Teele: When you close the public hearing -- I mean, Mr. Chairman, you're a very fair, you know, and I think everyone that watches this Commission meeting realizes that you have to be fair to everybody and all of that, but this is something that's in your district. It's something that you have fought very hard. We've had people yelling up sand down here about the way the things looks; the stadium look, and all I'm trying to say is, is that I know you can't -- I'm only trying to say the fact that the Chairman asked repeatedly that we work to get this project done, and they've had problems getting funded. In they got funded with the County, it will speak for itself. If they didn't, obviously, the money is going to be gone. So, I think the motion is going to be to instruct the Manager to report back on this and to evaluate the funding and to give us a recommendation within 90 days or some reasonable period. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, Commissioner. OK. Mr. Bilton: Is it possible to add to this that -- possibly, when -- back when we applied for the HOME fund, we applied for nine hundred fifteen thousand. I believe the resolution asks for -- provided we could get between 250 and 500 and we ended up with a commitment for 250. Back then -- I'm not sure how that amount was arrived upon, but it might have had to do with the tax credits, which is a more complete package. Is it possible now to go revisit the 915? 150 February 15, 2001 Commissioner Teele: Don't lick the plate. Don't lick the plate. Get the 250, if you can work it out, and then there's going to be a new round of bids -- isn't there going to be a new round of bids? Ms. Warren: This April. Commissioner Teele: This April. And you'll be qualified to do that. But I think you ought to work with them and maybe they'll be more inclined to try to help you. So, I mean, obviously, this is a very important -- it's a highly visible project. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Thank you. Does anyone else in the public? Anyone in the public? We'll now close the public hearing. Mr. Bilton: Thank you. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, I would move it, with the amendment that the management report back within 90 days regarding the existing funding that was provided, and with a view of working toward this very, very important neighborhood program project. What's the name of that project? Ms. Warren: Bobby Maduro. Commissioner Teele: What's the name of the -- the proper name of your project? Ms. Warren: St. Martin. No. That's the owner. Mr. Bilton: Miami Stadium Apartments. Commissioner Teele: Miami Stadium Apartments. Vice Chairman Gort: Miami Stadium. Commissioner Teele: I just wanted to put it on the record. Vice Chairman Gort: Okey doke. It's been moved. Commissioner Sanchez, you're seconding it. Mr. Bilton: Am I to -- do I understand that I can work with staff on renewing, is that how it -- what came out of this? I'm confused. Commissioner Teele: That's the only thing you've got, is an appointment with staff. Vice Chairman Gort: You need to sit down with them. You need to -- OK. Commissioner Teele: You got an appointment with staff. 151 February 15, 2001 Mr. Bilton: Thank you. Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Vice Chairman Gort: Second. Any further discussion? Being none, all in favor state by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): "Aye." The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 01-156 A MOTION INSTRUCTING THE CITY MANAGER TO REVIEW PAST ALLOCATION OF HOME FUNDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN CONNECTION WITH THE "MIAMI STADIUM APARTMENTS" PROJECT AT THE BOBBY MADURO BASEBALL STADIUM AND COME BACK WITH A RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE EXISTING FUNDING PETITION ($915,000 REQUEST) WITHIN 90 DAYS. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort NAYS: None ABSENT: Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. 152 February 15, 2001 Vice Chairman Gort: Item 9 has been moved. Item 10. Gwendolyn Warren (Director, Community Development): Commissioner, Item 10 is a presentation on our Model City Homeownership Zone project. I would add that this item comes with four companion items. So, we will do -- what staff would like to present Item 10 and, again, if you adopt item 10, it does affect the allocation and appropriation of funds in four subsequent items. Additionally, we would like to, from the floor, request that a fifth item, which we would deem 10A be added as a potential item, which is the direction to go out for an RFQ (Request For Qualification) for a project Manager for the project. Again, what I would like to do is take this opportunity to provide the Commission a brief overview of the homeownership project. In some of our previous discussions, the Commission did, in fact, ask that we also provide them information on the other -- on all seven community revitalization districts. So, I'll ask Sharlene Adelman on my staff to provide you with two maps. First, Commissioners, again, per your request, there is a map that indicates all seven community revitalization districts. As you may recall, when we developed the Five -Year Plan, the City -- our Planning Department went through a very deliberate planning effort and we established the criteria for the revitalization districts. The criteria was those census tracks where the homeownership rate was less than 20 percent, and the median income was less than 50 percent of the County. In developing -- identifying those areas, we additionally, looked at those Economic Development corridors or business corridors that would be a relationship to those districts that could create jobs for City residents. If you'll note on your map, we have identified on the left hand the seven districts, which is Allapattah, Wynwood, Overtown, Little Havana, Coconut Grove, Model City, and Edison Little River community revitalization districts. Additionally, on your map outlined in red is the economic opportunity zones or those business districts that would be included in the revitalization plan for each district. Again, this is information is being provided -- the details are in your Five -Year Plan, but, again, per your request, we're providing you a map of all of the districts with the boundaries that were approved and adopted during the public hearing process. At your May ... 153 February 15, 2001 Vice Chairman Gort: Let me ask you a question. Ms. Warren: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Gort: In looking at your map, you have put together here, you didn't consider Northwest 36th Street as the economic opportunity zone. If you recall, at one time there used to be a downtown between 17th Avenue and 27th Avenue. On Northwest 36th Street. Ms. Warren: Again, what occurred, there are several areas. The Five -Year Plan is a living document. What would occur is that during the public hearings, these are the areas that were identified by the Commissioners, and their communities, what they felt the business areas that would most contribute to job creation. Annually, when we do our public hearing, which will be a part of the 27th year, if there is a desire to amend, add, additional business opportunities, based on the change in the economic climate, the time to do it would be during that public hearing, and then we would modify our plan and then incorporate it. Vice Chairman Gort: But food for thought. Ms. Warren: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Gort: If you look at the -- and the most industrial area within the City of Miami is within that corridor you have there in green. If you look at the 22nd Avenue and 17th Avenue, those are areas that could provide Economic Development and could provide a lot of jobs. So, I'd like for you to look at it in the future. Ms. Warren: Yes, sir. So, again, this is information to, again, refresh your memory; to, again, say that we're going to be doing the public hearings; there will be an opportunity to look at this again, possibly based on changes over the last year or two, again, either add areas, et cetera. The Model City Homeownership Zone project, which the Commission on May 11th of 2000, which established the first pilot, project under the new Five -Year Plan. The Commission has agreed to do -- this is our pilot project for the implementation of our whole community revitalization strategy. The -- if you'll note, we have a small presentation for the Commission and the public, and the -- my PowerPoint presentation behind me. Again, what we're identifying here is, this is a map of the City of Miami. The Model City project area; the zone itself is from 71s' Street to 54th Street, and it runs from I-95 to 17th Avenue. Inside of that revitalization district there are two designated homeownership zones. One of the zones is one that has been designated as our first pilot project. That area -- that geographic area is between Northwest 54th Street on the southern portion, to Northwest 62nd Street on the northern area, from 12th Avenue to 17th Avenue. It is a quarter -by -quarter mile area. Based on our five-year comprehensive plan, it would be the City's intent to commit significant resources to the development of homeownership opportunities in this area. As well as the revitalization of the business corridor, which is 17th Avenue. The plan calls for the -- this is an aerial view of the area, and as you'll note, in the center of the community is Orchard Villa Elementary School. 154 February 15, 2001 Again, there's -- the concerns or the issues that we're dealing with in redeveloping the community is, as you'll note, we have some significant zoning problems that have contributed to some of the economic problems that exist currently in the community. In the southern portion of the community, which is south of 58th Street in that 16 Block area, what you primarily find is a community that is owner occupied an primarily homeownership. Their residents have lived there for a significant period of time. They're primarily low-income individuals on fixed income. It would be a part of the plan to do a significant rehabilitation in that area, with an emphasis on infrastructure improvements, street scape, fixing swales, sidewalks, et cetera. The -- also in that southern section there is a significant historic area. What we would be doing there would be historic restoration of the older homes. The northern section of the community (inaudible) some significant obstacles because some years ago that area, unlike the southern portion of the area, which is zoned single family, was zoned for multifamily. The multifamily issues have created in the past some significant ... Vice Chairman Gort: Let me ask you a question. Ms. Warren: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Gort: Because -- are we coordinating our efforts with the County? Because on 62nd Street, on the south side belongs to the City, the north side belongs to the County, and they have the Liberty Square Public Housing. Are we working with them to try to get them aboard to work with us on this program? Ms. Warren: We're working with them, not only to get them aboard on this project, we've been talking to them consistently through out the process. We also have a pledge of three million dollars ($3,000,000) of surtax dollars for second mortgage funding. Also, the there are some public housing in that area that we're currently in the process of negotiating to turn into homeownership and/or remove. So, they're working very closely with us on this project. Vice Chairman Gort: But that's my -- make sure this might be the best time to negotiate. Ms. Warren: They've been quite open to discussions, and to assisting us in this project, including financing. In the northern section, as I indicated, the primary problem there has been high density from the multifamily housing projects. If you recall, about a year ago, the City, as well as the County, had significant Section 8 projects there. We had residents who, again, came to the City Commission meetings complaining about the quality of the housing; crime in the area, et cetera. Since that time period, we have been able to relocate those families, both County and City family, as well as do some significant land assembly, not as much as required in order to build. What we're projecting to be between four to five hundred homes, new homes in the area. The plan also required costs for the development of new entryways and, again, significant infrastructure improvements in the area for the development of the new houses, as a result of the age of the infrastructure. Per the Commission's direction, again, moving through the process -- most of the Commissioners have had an opportunity to go to the area, an one of the idea in the plan is 155 February 15, 2001 that, again, consistent with our new Five -Year Plan, the City has a policy of not having a high concentration in terms of density in housing, as well as not having a saturation of all low income housing in any one area, but to actually take on the activity of whole community revitalization process. As you'll note in the past what the City or over the last 24 years or so of Community Development, we've primarily been in the business of rehabbing old structures. Those old structures were developed in the 40s and the 50s. They do not meet the family size or needs of our community, and have actually contributed to the deterioration, crime rate and, again, some of the social and economic issues in our community. Again, these are examples of the quality of the housing that is currently in the area. The multifamily structures. The City has gone through significant effort through our Code Enforcement, demolition, and other activities to rid the community of the blight that currently exists in that area. Again, what we would like to talk about is what you've seen is an example of what has existed there and we've talk a little bit about some of our policies of rehabbing old housing stock, and how that's created more of a problem, and, again, you can't really see the community benefit. Our intention or at least the commitment based on the Five -Year Plan is to take significant resources, go into a community, build new housing, finance it in a way that it would be affordable for our residents, which it include the provision, if necessary, of second and third forgivable mortgages that would allow low, moderate, and middle income individuals to live in a quality neighborhood that included, again, open spaces, parks, business opportunities, as well as restoration of any historic sites in that community. The Planning Department has provided us with some examples, not necessarily the final example, but the example of what that community could look like, versus what you have previously seen. This is Ana Gelabert Lane. Ana -- this is Ana's vision of the quality for the same kind of money that we've been pumping into rehabbing, with a concentrated effort and based on the commitment of this body, this is what -- an example of what the community could look like. Again, we're talking about designing new signage, the new infrastructure. Again, putting in, not only single-family homes, but condominiums that would allow for homeownership, development of green space, lessening the density in the area, and obviously putting in some activities support the commercial development in the area. One of the issues is that, again, we've talked about the housing stock in the southern portion of this community, and what staff is trying to exemplify here is that if you look at the housing, if we were to put some money into rehab, we have some significant -- some nice homes. We have some nice neighborhoods. We have full grown vegetation. We also have a historic district. Our intent would, again, be to -- through our homeowner rehab program, to provide rehabilitation funds for the homeowners, but, again, through the City's own efforts to do landscaping, fix the sidewalks, other kinds of infrastructure improvements, which would not be done at the expense of the residents themselves. Vice Chairman Gort: Can you go back if you... Ms. Warren: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Gort: One more forward now. 156 February 15, 2001 Ms. Warren: Right there? Vice Chairman Gort: Yeah. Ms. Warren: That's an idea -- that's what it currently looks like. Vice Chairman Gort: That -- the green space on this side of the sidewalk, which is -- that is City property? Ms. Warren: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Ms. Warren: Again, we're ... Vice Chairman Gort: In those neighborhoods we can utilize CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) funds and hire people within the local community to maintain those areas. Ms. Warren: Yes. And one of your previous items you did commit significant funds for us to get a contractor in there, which would include hiring local residents to maintain those lands, those properties in a more appropriate way. Vice Chairman Gort: Because if we were to maintain that and keep the grass short, you would not have that much debris in it. Ms. Warren: We understand. Again, these are some of the historic homes in the area. Again, we're looking to make a commitment, again, based on the Five -Year Plan, and a commitment of the Commission to put significant resources in the area of historic preservation and, again, to not go in and destroy a community but to, again, cherish and upgrade what is there, and to build new homes that would provide a decent and a safe and quality environment for children, and for residents to live in. One of the other factors that we're looking at is that, what this map basically shows is the areas of concentration. First, one of our primary commitments is, again, to the 17th Avenue Business Corridor. We've heard -- we've done a business survey. We've heard on numerous occasions that one of the reasons why this area on 17th is not flourishing like it is in the southern section is because of a lack of parking, crime, and, again, the condition of the community. It would be staffs intent to, again, make significant commitment in the area of infrastructure improvements, parks, open space, to support business development, not only to businesses that are there, but include business expansion to create additional jobs. The other commitment that we're making is to put in new gateways into the community. Because a statement about a community is based on what you see when you approach that community. So, if you're driving into a community and you're not seeing anything that is fresh and homely, again, it detracts away from, not only the value, but the comfort level of individuals moving in. It would also be our intent to work with the educate the Board of Education, school district... 157 February 15, 2001 Commissioner Teele: You know, before... Ms. Warren: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: Before you do, I realize this is going on and we need to -- but the concept of gateways is something we're talking about here but I really do think -- and I know that Commissioner Sanchez, I can see he's so excited. He wants to hurry up and get this program over because he wants to get to the next one, and I really think that's important because, you know, everybody's not going to wait one by one by one. Ms. Warren: No, sir. Commissioner Teele: And the longer you go on with this, the more nervous you make people be about number one. But one thing that I do think that comes to mind is that we ought to look at all seven of these that we're looking at, and we really ought to look at gateways in all seven of them. Because I think one of the things that we can do is we can identify those critical points and they're not going to go away and they're not going to get cheaper -- and I really think we sought to look at gateways for all seven of them. Maybe we don't move forward completely, but we ought to at least get the land under control and all of that because that's something we can do, I think, across the board, as opposed to just waiting sequentially to do one by one by one. Ms. Warren: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: Gateways are very important. Every time I go into places like Coral Gables, -- I mean, every neighborhood has its own gateway. You know, Dena -- I don't know. Have you ever been over there in the Spring Garden area? Spring -- is it Spring Garden? Dena Bianchino (Assistant City Manager): Spring Garden. Commissioner Teele: Right off of Jackson -- coming off of Jackson, I don't know what street that is. Is it 11th Street? There are two beautiful old -- they're just -- I mean, the whole thing has been destroyed by DOTs (Department of Transportation) roads coming through. But they're two beautiful gateways that must go back to the 20s or the 30s. I mean, you know, I'm not talking about -- but it just shows -- when you drive by there, you say, God something great must have gone on here. We owe it to every one of our neighborhoods that we can identify -- you remember that process? We kept talking about identifying the neighborhoods and going through that? We need to make gateways a very high priority, as a part of this whole revitalization strategy, other than the one we're talking about now, but in all of them. And I would like to think about that with the staff as we move down. Dena. Ms. Bianchino: Just for your information, the Empowerment Zone is already started gateway programs for Wynwood an Allapattah. We have a designer under contract that 158 February 15, 2001 hopefully will come up with the concept that we're looking for. We can certainly try to expand it to all the areas. The second thing that I wanted to mention to you is that the Manager has asked us to come up with a gateway to the City program, so that when people arrive in Miami, they know they're in Miami. These would be very special things that say you're in Miami. Commissioner Sanchez: Isn't that under the beautification project? Dena Bianchino: Yes. And we have a preliminary report from our consultants, and we're going to get a (unintelligible) and then we're going to get a cost and then we'll be coming to you to see if you like it. Commissioner Teele: And I'm encouraged. But I would say, the one thing that I think that Commissioner Winton was very successful in capturing, in his efforts to be elected to the Commission, is that what we've really got to do is build this neighborhood by neighborhood, and gateways to neighborhoods give neighborhoods a sense of community, of special (inaudible). I don't want to get you off track, Gwen. But I did want to say that I think gateways are something that we can look at in terms of all seven of these proposals at this time, of these neighborhood revitalizations at this time. Ms. Warren: I guess -- just to say, the things that I have learned about this whole process, from the Planning Department, in terms of how do you revitalize a neighborhood, the several mistakes you don't -- we should not recreate -- recommit ourselves to. One is building neighborhoods that are all low income. Secondly, we need to have communities that have open space and you need to enhance the value, not only of the culture, but the properties that are there, so, this needs to be commitment to Historic Preservation. And in order to support a community, you have to do economic revitalization simultaneous with housing development. The other thing that I've learned is that, it's very important when you go into a community that you do adequate communication, and that the residents understand that this is not san effort to remove them from the community. So, a part of the financing structure that we're putting into place includes, again, financing to support forgivable second, possibly, third mortgages, so that low income families can also afford to live in this community; to provide an opportunity, again, through some financial mechanisms to move City employees back into the City, and to ensure that we have the proper foundation and the education -- elementary school so that it's a draw for new families. So, again, a combination of those things. And, I guess, finally, the other most important thing is that in order for us to do significant land assembly, replatting, that will allow us to restructure, we need to realize that there is going to require significant demolition, construction, and land acquisition, and it's very important that as we go through this process, we do not go in and disrupt, destroy, a community and that it's important that we put moneys in resources into maintaining the community so as we go through the process, the quality of life is improved and maintained. Again, in the interest of time, I know you gentlemen have had an opportunity to read your Five -Year Plan. We've had an opportunity to discuss the project. It's staffs intention today to present to you three resolutions. One. It is also -- the final thing I did not mention is that it's important that we move as swiftly as possible 159 February 15, 2001 to get this project completed. Government has a set of expertise in skill sets, and one of them is not development. So, what we would anticipate is working very closely where the private sector in the development of a homeownership trust for a lack of a better word, to actually fast track this project. We have a commitment from Fannie Mae on the financing for construction; we're currently talking to them about a public private partnership between the City and Fannie Mae; they're providing financing, again. Providing Land, infrastructure, and other kind of administrative support. We're also looking to, again, establish organizational structure that's based on a private sector model that will allow us to expedite this process. We can't afford to take 10 years to build these homes, after going in there and acquiring land and et cetera. We need to, again -- if we're doing it on a large scale, we need to be developer friendly and we need to use a private sector model to do this. I'm sorry, sir. Commissioner Sanchez: Ms. Warren, cost certain, I see the amount of money -- the project certain, also -- what is the time certain? Ms. Warren: Well, I've -- the time -- long time out is four years. The short time in is about three years to do this. The -- and that is contingent upon -- absolutely contingent upon the ability to outsource a lot of the activities that will be necessary to do this site assembly, to be able to do some of the legal working active... Commissioner Sanchez: And that's set forth on the four resolutions that you have here today? Ms. Warren: Yes, sir. Commissioner Sanchez: OK. Ms. Warren: So, again, the idea here would be -- we have three resolutions before you. One is that the City staff be directed to come back in 90 days, working with the Law Department -- I'm sorry. Commissioner Teele: OK. I think -- could we just sort of open this up to a public hearing on this and the four resolutions? Ms. Warren: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: I think that is probably the best way to do it so that we don't get -- I've talk to all the Homeowner's Associations and they're fine with it, Mr. Chairman. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Commissioner Sanchez: Is there anyone in opposition here? 160 February 15, 2001 Vice Chairman Gort: Is this any other question -- well, let see. Is there anyone in the public that would like to address item 10? Is there anyone in the public would like to address item 10? Show that no one comes forward. We'll close the public hearings. Commissioner Teele: I would move resolution number 1, relating to approving, in principal, the establishment of the Model Cities Homeownership Zone Trust. Vice Chairman Gort: There's a motion. Is there a second? Commissioner Winton: Second. Vice Chairman Gort: Moved and second. Any further discussion? Unidentified Speaker: How large is this site? Unidentified Speaker: We've already had that joke. Commissioner Sanchez: We could build a stadium there. Commissioner Regalado: You want it there? Commissioner Sanchez: All right. Call the question. Vice Chairman Gort: Any further discussion? Being none, all in favor state by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): "Aye." 161 February 15, 2001 The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 01-157 A RESOLUTION — (PENDING) (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Winton, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort NAYS: None ABSENT: None Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman? Vice Chairman Gort: Yes. Commissioner Regalado: OK. Excuse me. Commissioner Teele: There's four resolutions. Commissioner Regalado: Yeah. We were told about this on the retreat and now we have voted on, but there is also a public relation component to it. So, somebody has to start 162 February 15, 2001 working tomorrow morning, Madam Manager, organizing a press conference. Monday is a holiday, but I would request that you organize a press conference, and that this will be policy. Every time that this kind of project is done in one district, the district Commissioner will invite the other members of the Commission and the Manager and the Mayor and the Director of Community Development in this case, you need to invite the Fannie Mae people, the NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) Director, the lieutenant, the commander of the area, because, see, the problem that this may have is that we're spending a lot of money. You have spent many years working on this, and the worse fear that a person can have is that he or her house is going to be demolished to give way to a new development for rich people or whatever, or people. So, before you do anything, you have to preempt those fears. You need to do a press conference in this case, Commissioner Teele. I am willing to participate because I think this is a citywide. Since it's a pilot project, you need to have the Parks Department bring all the resources to do the sound, and organize through the Manager's office a press conference, and invite neighbors, residents, and, of course, the press. I will tell you that with these drawings placed in a nice way, members of the Commission, the Manager, the Mayor, if he wants to go yourself, the NET Director, some neighbors, this will be something that the press will be interested in it. At least it's a visual thing if we get thirty seconds on the night news, we're fine. Because it's something that is really worthwhile. I don't know if we need a motion, Mr. Chairman. But -- and this should be policy. This should be policy. Any time -- the next project will be in District 3, so the policy will be that every time that there is a project of this magnitude, the district Commissioner can invite the other members of the Commission and the Mayor, of course, and the City Manager, would have a press conference to announce to the neighbor and to the press this kind of project. Commissioner Teele: Second the motion. This coming Tuesday. Vice Chairman Gort: There's a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Commissioner Winton: Yes. Commissioner Regalado: This coming Tuesday. Commissioner Winton: Could I make a comment on that? Commissioner Regalado: Sure. Commissioner Winton: The only Vice Chairman Gort: Discussion. Commissioner Winton: I think that -- I completely agree, conceptually, with what you're saying, and I agree with one of the earlier points you made, that -- and that is that the people will get scared to death and selling is absolutely the key to making this whole thing work. I am, I guess, just want to sound a bit of a cautionary note, and you're the expert here, but sometimes I've seen press conferences blow up in communities' faces in 163 February 15, 2001 the past, and a lot of times what seems to have worked in some areas is kind of a grass roots communication program going on early on where you're meeting with the neighbors and the individuals that are living there and kind of behind the scene selling people, and when you've got some grass roots support built up for the concept an they're understanding because they've had a chance to ask questions and all that stuff, and then you can have a press conference. Because sometimes you can have -- I've seen press conferences and read about press conferences in a lot of my journals where they do these things in other parts of the country, where the people that showed up were -- I'm waiting a call that the Mayor of Greenville is coming and I've got to meet him, and I don't know how to find him. So, but where the people showed up were actually hostile to the whole process, and that makes the news conference not so nice. Commissioner Regalado: Yeah, but let me tell you this, Johnny. The only thing we hope with this press conference sooner than later, like on next Tuesday, is to get on the 6 o'clock news or the 11 o' clock news, a brief story, 30 second story, because it's about redevelopment; it's about an area that has been sort of forgotten, and eventually someone in the area will see it, and the word will spread around. What You're saying is the follow-up project, that they have to do, and that would be up to the NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) and lieutenant commander, the commander of the NET area, the Homeowner's Association. Commissioner Teele: The Homeowner's Association is briefed. Commissioner Regalado: But I'm telling you that if we wait for a press conference until all the community agrees, it would sort of not be welcomed as a major news of development because then everybody knows, an the purpose of the news media is to get to you the information that you don't know. So, I think -- let's try it. I think it's going to work. I think that we can get some press out of this, and you know, it's a very visual thing. So, I would move that we do this on a regular basis. Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved and this was under discussion. I'd like to add. I think it's an excellent idea, but at the same time, the follow up needs to be done by the NET inspector, by the people there, an they should be able -- your NET Office should be very knowledgeable of the whole project, and they be part of it, they have to be part of this so when people call asking questions, they can go ahead and answer it. At the same time, this type of presentation -- and this is something we can maybe make it some kind of a tape -- it should be on Channel 9, and it should be there every once in a while so people can see it on Channel 9 what's taking place. OK. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman? Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: On the motion, I'll call the question. I just want to make a statement about this. 164 February 15, 2001 Vice Chairman Gort: All in favor state by saying aye. The Commission (Collectively): "Aye." The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Regalado, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 01-158 A MOTION ESTABLISHING A POLICY WHICH INSTRUCTS THE CITY MANAGER TO ORGANIZE A PRESS CONFERENCE EACH TIME A LARGE PROJECT IS PLANNED; FURTHER STIPULATING THAT THE CITY COMMISSIONER OF THE AFFECTED DISTRICT BE INCLUDED IN SAID PRESS CONFERENCE AND FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, MEDIA REPRESENTATIVES, ALONG WITH RESIDENTS OF AREA BE INVITED TO ATTEND; FURTHER STIPULATING THAT SAID PRESS CONFERENCE IS TO BE TELEVISED ON NET CHANNEL 9; AND FURTHER DIRECTING THE MANAGER TO ORGANIZE A PRESS CONFERENCE IN CONNECTION WITH THE MODEL CITY HOMEOWNERSHIP PILOT PROJECT FOR NEXT TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2001. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Teele, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort NAYS: None ABSENT: None Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. 165 February 15, 2001 Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, on the motion. There are several factors. The homeowner's associations are aware of this. We've briefed them. I mean, I even got -- I think Patrick Range has agreed to be one of the co-chairs of this, Mrs. Range's son. I mean, there is a lot of work going on around the clock on this. However, I think Commissioner Regalado makes a very valid point. One of the things that has been going on -- and I know this was not your intent, Commissioner Regalado -- but whether it's coming out of the press office or the Manager's office, people are running around holding press conferences, quite frankly, that are upsetting people and are misleading people. I read about there was going to be a press conference the other day in my district about demolition houses, and people are beginning to -- because they don't understand and then people don't show up. We need to get a little bit more -- I don't want to get into a -- but we've got to get a little bit of control about how things are being rolled out in the community. We had one situation where someone gave, in Little Haiti, some statements and awards and all that, and people turn them back in because they said, you know, this isn't the way we want this done to us. So, we've got some communication problems. I think, you know, this is a very important project. Everybody's that's in the loop on it, the homeowner's associations, especially, are briefed on it. They would welcome it. It would give the homeowners a chance to basically be a part of -- and that's why I think it's so important -- but I will say this, and we've three or four other things here -- the one thing that this project has done is, it has really been, in my judgment, the best example of City coordination of cross -coordination with the Planning Department working with the Community Development Department, with the NET Administrator that's here now, I mean this has been model. And I don't want to lose sight of that. So, I just think that we ought to try to take all of this energy. We ought to do what Commissioner Regalado is saying. We ought to agree tonight or tomorrow morning on a time and a place for Tuesday, and then let's go ahead and get the people out over my letterhead and my signature, and let's really let the neighborhood know that we really are serious about this. So, I would move Item Number 2, which is allocating the HOME funds for the Model City Homeownership Zone. We technically did that this morning didn't we? Ms. Warren: What you've done is, you have a resolution that allocated five years of HOME moneys to this project you've allocated three. What we're asking is that you allocate the other two years, contingent upon the funds becoming available from HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development), so that we could do the full budget appropriation for the project. Commissioner Teele: Second the motion. I mean, I move it. Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved. Is there a second? 166 February 15, 2001 Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Vice Chairman Gort: Second any further discussion? Being none, all in favor state by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): "Aye." The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 01-159 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO ALLOCATE A TOTAL OF $3,000,000 FOR HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM ("HOME") FUNDS ($1,500,000 IN FY' 2001-2002 AND $1,500,000 IN FY' 2002-2003) TO ASSIST WITH FINANCING RELATING TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW AFFORDABLE HOMEOWNERSHIP HOUSING UNITS IN THE MODEL CITY HOMEOWNERSHIP ZONE. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort NAYS: None ABSENT: None 167 February 15, 2001 Commissioner Teele: Resolution number 3 authorizes the Manager to move certain -- with predevelopment and project related activities. I would so move. Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved. Is there a second? Commissioner Winton: Second. Vice Chairman Gort: Any further discussion? Being none, all in favor state by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): "Aye." The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 01-160 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY TO EXPEDITIOUSLY MOVE FORWARD WITH CERTAIN PREDEVELOPMENT AND PROJECT RELATED ACTIVITIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, LAND ACQUISITION, RELOCATION ACTIVITIES, SECURING OUTSIDE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO PERFORM ANY LEGAL, ARCHITECTURAL, INFRASTRUCTURE, ENVIRONMENTAL/SITE ASSESSMENT AND ANY OTHER SERVICES NECESSARY TO FACILITATE REVITALIZATION IN THE MODEL CITY HOMEOWNERSHIP ZONE; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $21,634,364, FOR SAID PURPOSES AS DESIGNATED HEREIN. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) 168 February 15, 2001 Upon being seconded by Commissioner Winton, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort NAYS: None ABSENT: None 169 February 15, 2001 Commissioner Teele: And the fourth one is the one on the ... Gwendolyn Warren (Director, Community Development): We have one that we'll pass out to you now, which is the -- the Law Department loves me when I do this. This is another companion item, which directs the City Manager to issue an RFQ (Request For Qualification) for the Model City Homeownership Zone that would assist in the selection of a project manager. Commissioner Teele: I would so move. Ms. Warren: -- to help coordinate this project... Commissioner Winton: Second. Ms. Warren: -- project so that this project tracks along with the master plan development. Vice Chairman Gort: There's a motion and there's a second. Any discussion? Commissioner Teele: One discussion item. Alex, the Attorney, look, the reason that I want the trust is that I think, if you get the project manager -- and he's got a contract or she's got a contract with us -- you know, you're controlling to a great extent -- you're not giving turning everything over. In other words, the project manager is, in effect, going to be the executive director kind of concept of a CDC (Community Development Corporation) in the context of the way we would normally do that. So, I think it's very important that that RFQ contract and legal document be woven into your concept of the trust, as well, but they're reporting back to us or at least they're accountable to the City. You follow what I'm saying? So move. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. It's been moved. It's been second. Any further discussion? Being none, all in favor state by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): "Aye." 170 February 15, 2001 The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 01-161 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO ISSUE A REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS ("FRQ") FOR THE PROVISION OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MODEL CITY HOMEOWNERSHIP ZONE PROJECT; FURTHER, DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO PRESENT HIS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE MOST QUALIFIED FIRM(S) TO THE CITY COMMISSION WITHIN SIXTY (60) DAYS. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Winton, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort NAYS: None ABSENT: None Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman? 171 February 15, 2001 Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, just one point. The largest single source of funds from one project is Section 8 reprogram dollars. In other words, what is that, six million dollars ($6,000,000)? Gwendolyn Warren (Director, Community Development): Yes. We are also... Commissioner Sanchez: Six point three. Ms. Warren: -- requesting your approval to ask to apply to HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development) to reallocate six million dollars ($6,000,000) of unused Section 8 voucher money into homeownership dollars. Commissioner Teele: And that -- I didn't see the resolution in here. Is that in here? Ms. Warren: Yes. It's a part of the budget. Commissioner Teele: I would so move that the Manager be authorized and the City and - - and the governmental representatives in Washington be so instructed, as to expedite the reprogramming of the unused Section 8 as contained in the budget. Vice Chairman Gort: Moved and -- Commissioner Winton: Second. Vice Chairman Gort: -- second. Discussion? Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, you remember, for two years we had all those women and families that lived there? Vice Chairman Gort: Right. Commissioner Teele: Now that we've got them out, now that we bought the buildings back, the money that would have kept them there is now going to go, be reused and made a part of this program. So, I think that's very important that we all understand that. And instead of having people in rental situations, now they have the opportunity for home ownership. Vice Chairman Gort: To buy. I think it's very important you stated that because unfortunately and -- what I'd like to also, also, if can have -- it doesn't have to be right away, but I'd like to see how many Section 8 housing that the City has throughout the... 172 February 15, 2001 Ms. Warren: Two hundred and forty units. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Those I would like to get a report of the address and so on. Commissioner Sanchez: Most in my district. Vice Chairman Gort: Most in your district. And, also, I'd like to know what kind of inspection we're doing to make sure -- because we get a lot of calls and complaints from people that live in Section 8 vouchers and the owners do not pay attention to them. Ms. Warren: Yes, we will. Vice Chairman Gort: And if -- we can use those funds and better utilize them, be even better. Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman? Vice Chairman Gort: Yes. Commissioner Teele: Call the question on that motion. Vice Chairman Gort: All in favor state by saying aye. The Commission (Collectively): "Aye." 173 February 15, 2001 Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, based on the seven revitalization plans and the funds coming from the federal government, Congresswoman Carrie Meek is basically pushing for this very strongly. Ms. Warren, when would be -- would it be a problem having two going at the same time? Ms. Warren: It would not be a problem having two go in at the same time. What we would have to do is get the initial structure of the first one off and running, and I would say, once we were in a place to award -- to complete the master plan, get the structure and financing, then we should start immediately on the second one. Commissioner Sanchez: And I agree with you. I agree with you. But based on District 3 being the largest population per poverty, and not to mention the historic sites -- and I know some people here would argue that -- I would like to make a motion that Little Havana be the next revitalization district to go online. Commissioner Teele: Second the motion. Commissioner Regalado: Well, Little Havana is the next project. Commissioner Sanchez: It's not. Commissioner Regalado: Yes, it is. Commissioner Sanchez: No, it's not. Commissioner Regalado: She told us on the retreat that after this... Commissioner Sanchez: Well, I want to make sure it's next. Ms. Warren: It would be subject to the Commission's approval. That would be staffs recommendation. Commissioner Regalado: But that's what you said on the retreat that Little Havana is next. Ms. Warren: Subject to your approval. Commissioner Regalado: Huh? Commissioner Sanchez: Well, let's just vote on it. Commissioner Regalado: Huh? 175 February 15, 2001 Commissioner Sanchez: Let's just vote on it and make it official. Commissioner Regalado: And you know what? You should be at the press conference to announce also that Little Havana; District 3 is the next pilot project. I mean, it's important. No, it's important. Commissioner Sanchez: I will be there. Commissioner Regalado: No. It's important. Commissioner Sanchez: Call the question. But wait. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. There's a motion. This 's a second. Any discussion? Being none, all in favor state by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): "Aye." The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 01-163 A MOTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SCHEDULE THE LITTLE HAVANA REVITALIZATION DISTRICT AS THE NEXT NEIGHBORHOOD ZONE TO BE APPROVED FOR REVITALIZATION. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Teele, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort NAYS: None ABSENT: None 176 February 15, 2001 Commissioner Sanchez: And, Mr. Chairman, if I may. Vice Chairman Gort: Now, I have a question. Wait a minute. I have a question for clarification. My understanding is, can we go over what we had passed, that the Clerk and the City Attorney gets all the resolutions? 177 February 15, 2001 Commissioner Sanchez: I had something that was companion to that, if I could just -- I'd like to make a motion. Vice Chairman Gort: Go ahead. Commissioner Sanchez: I'd like to make a motion directing the City Manager to direct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution to be approved by this Commission, to approve the principle creation and establishment of the Little Havana Homeownership Trust; and further direct the City administration to come back within 90 days with the appropriate legislation for the creation of such Trust, which is basically you're already doing, but in 90 days, some time around April, that we could have it in front of this Commission to establish such Trust. So move. Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved. Is there a second? Commissioner Teele: Second? Vice Chairman Gort: Any further discussion? Being none, all in favor state by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): "Aye." 178 February 15, 2001 The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 01-164 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION APPROVING, IN PRINCIPLE, THE CREATION AND ESTABLISHMENT OF THE LITTLE HAVANA HOMEOWNERSHIP TRUST; FURTHER DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY TO EXPLORE THE CITY'S OPTIONS AND PRESENT DRAFT LEGISLATION ESTABLISHING SAID TRUST TO THE CITY COMMISSION WITHIN NINETY (90) DAYS. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Teele, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort NAYS: None ABSENT: None Vice Chairman Gort: Can we now go one by one, the resolution that we have passed? Will you start over again? Ms. Gwendolyn Warren (Director, Community Development): Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Gort: The first one, second, third and fourth. Ms. Warren: The first resolution was the approving, in principle, the creation and establishment of the Model City Homeownership Trust, and directing staff to come back in 90 days with the process. That was the first one that was approved. Commissioner Teele: And number t0. Ms. Warren: Item 10. 179 February 15, 2001 Vice Chairman Gort: Second resolution. Ms. Warren: OK. Item 10, the first resolution in Item 10 on the agenda. Vice Chairman Gort: It's IOB now. Ms. Warren: It's IOB now. OK. Vice Chairman Gort: Resolution IOB. Mr. Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): OK, guys. All right. You guys are talking past... Vice Chairman Gort: IOB. Mr. Vilarello: You're not making the record any better. OK. Commissioner, maybe we can come back to this issue and clarify. Because I'm -- I'm afraid we're making the record worse. If you give me five minutes, we can come back to this issue. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. While you're thinking about it, one of the things that I would like to do -- and I think this is very important -- that we coordinate all the efforts. We have the Empowerment Zone allocating funds for beautification programs, and I think, somehow, where ever we qualify, those beautification plans should go along with the plans that have being put together. And I like to bring the example, once again, if you go to Southwest 8th Street and 27th Avenue, you look to the west, you look to the East, and you can see the differences that the landscaping and the trees make. And even though this project might take a little while, if we can start working on the public right-of-way and show the commitment from the City in landscaping and trees, people will begin to see the differences. And maintenance, above all. The maintenance. Ms. Warren: Yes, sir. 180 February 15, 2001 22. CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS PASSED - ITEM 10, 10 A, 10 B, AND RELATED POCKET ITEMS (See #15, 16, &17), Gwendolyn Warren (Director, Community Development): Alex, I know what the order should be. I've got the resolutions. OK. Again, you were on Item 10. Item 10 has three resolutions. We also added a fourth item, which was the RFQ (Request For Qualification), which is the fourth resolution. The first -- the first -- you voted -- this is just for record clarification. The first resolution dealt with the establishment of the empowerment -- the Model City Homeownership Zone Trust. The second resolution... Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Refer to the number on the agenda. Ms. Warren: 10 B was the allocation of three million dollars ($3,000,000) or the final two years of HOME funds... Mr. Vilarello: Ten -B is the first one. These were out of order when they did them. Ms. Warren: You did them out of order. Unidentified Speaker: The Trust, IOB, they were done out of order, according to your memo. Ms. Warren: OK. Let Ilene do it. She -- they were done out of order. Mine is not... Commissioner Teele: Well, I made the motions, so I'm going to tell you what happened. Number one was the approval and principle of the creation of the Homeownership Zone. Ilene Temchin (Assistant City Attorney): That was item 10... Ms. Warren: Again, they're named Vice Chairman Gort: Yeah, but it wasn't numbered. Ms. Warren: Again, they're names... Commissioner Teele: He needs a l OB designation? Ms. Warren: The agenda is labeled differently. The Law Department will basically give us what the numbers are. Commissioner Teele: What is the number for that? Vice Chairman Gort: Ten -B Ms. Temchin: Ten -B, Commissioner. 181 February 15, 2001 Commissioner Teele: The second one was the allocation of three million dollars ($3,000,000) from HOME program funds to model... Ms. Warren: That's 10A. Commissioner Teele: Ten -A. That was the second one. The third one was a resolution authorizing the City Manager to move forward with certain predevelopment project - related activities. Ms. Warren: That's 10. Commissioner Teele: That's 10. The fourth one was the -- Ms. Warren: Is a new one, which is... Commissioner Teele: -- resolution that was passed out. Ms. Warren: Yes. Which we'll call IOC, which is to -- for the project Manager RFQ (Request For Qualification). Commissioner Teele: And the fifth one was a resolution instructing the Manager and the Washington representative to work to expedite the redevelopment -- I mean, the waiver of the six million -- of the eligible six million dollar ($6,000,000) plus of Mod re -- Section 8 Mod rehab. Ms. Warren: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: So, that will be l0E -- "D" or "E" or what? Ms. Temchin: "D". Ms. Warren: "D". Commissioner Teele: 10D. Ms. Warren: "D". Ms. Temchin: Thank you, Commissioner. Ms. Warren: Got that alphabet. Vice Chairman Gort: Got them all now? Mr. Vilarello: Yes. 182 February 15, 2001 Leroy Jones: How you doing, Commissioner. All of those items were bunched in one Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me. Who are you? Mr. Jones: Leroy Jones, Neighbors and Neighbors Association, 180 Northwest 62nd Street. When it was open for public comments, I was using the restroom, so I apologize. And I'm not blaming you. But what I want to say, since all of them was linked together, Commissioner, my only concern with this is that -- in none of these resolutions did it include the businesses. I mean, I seen the video and I seen, you know, where it said commercial, but in the resolution -- in none of the resolution does it include the businesses. Vice Chairman Gort: We haven't finished yet. Mr. Jones: So, that's going to come up? Commissioner Teele: Well, just so that you're clear. This component of this redevelopment area is called the Homeownership Zone. Mr. Jones: OK. OK. Commissioner Teele: So, we're dealing with -- the overall is the Model Cities Community Redevelopment District. Mr. Jones: OK. All right. Commissioner Teele: But you saw the line that said 17'h Avenue. Mr. Jones: Right. Commissioner Teele: And then across to 54'h, I believe it was. There is another companion resolution that deals with those areas. Mr. Jones: Today? Commissioner Teele: They're not on today, are they? Ms. Warren: The budget does, in fact, on one of the items, identify resources to start land acquisition and other activities in that area. I think, specifically, to talk to Mr. Jones' issue, economic revitalization, including working with businesses that are there, will be a part of the master plan. There will be -- the reason why we have a business representative on the Trust is to facilitate the -- again, make sure that there's financial support, as well as other programs developed for current businesses as well as to assist new business establishment. 183 February 15, 2001 Mr. Jones: I just hope the agency that I'm a part of is a part of that process because we are located in that area and we're familiar with the needs of the businesses. So, thank you, Gwen, for clearing that up. But I just want to -- you know, it makes me feel better seeing it in writing. You know, it makes me feel better. And I'm going to close with this. In the housing part of this process, I mentioned before a year ago, when they was thinking about doing the Hope 6 in Liberty Square, was that why tear down the structure and relocate all the residents to different areas, when the City could build the houses on 62nd Street, south of 54th Street, and relocate those residents in those new houses that's built. And the reason why I say that is, I notice that the City is demolishing a lot of the apartment structures in that area, which have took a grave affect on those businesses. I can't -- over 2000 people done been relocated out of that area alone. So, you can imagine what happened -- what has happened and are happening to those businesses in this area. And I'm going to close with this, Chairman. The only thing I would like the City to consider is that let the people and let the agencies in that area be a part of the process because we're familiar with the people and the businesses, and please build the structures so that the people that living there can benefit. What good is it if you build a structure and move the people out and let the new people move in benefit from the area? Vice Chairman Gort: Leroy, the idea is the biggest problem you've had, you've had concentration of low income, and that affects your neighborhood. If you come back with homeownership an you mix it, your low income with moderate income and maybe a little high income, you've power structured the power -- the buying power -- a person in power of that group will be a lot higher so the businesses will benefit a lot more. And that's the idea of what we're trying to do. Mr. Jones: I agree with you. I agree with that, Chairman. But let the people Vice Chairman Gort: And you're going to be a part of that because we know you're going to get in, so don't worry about that. We'll make sure you're a part of that. Mr. Jones: I just want to see the people that living there now, Chairman, benefit from the process. Vice Chairman Gort: Well, part of the things that we're doing is -- and we requested and Commissioner Teele made a motion a little while ago, that the people be certified, especially the construction companies that are going to be working within that area doing the rehab and doing the new constructions, and to make sure they come from the neighborhoods, and that they receive technical assistance to make sure they can get the job done. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, you've been very patient, but I think Mr. Jones makes a very, very important point. And I think the point, Mr. Jones, without belaboring this, is that you, and the Planning Director and her staff -- I would like to be in that -- we ought to have sort of a meeting with some of the business owners because what we're 184 February 15, 2001 doing is, we're designing a homeownership zone now, but it needs to be done in consultation with business owners. Now, let me just say this. And, you know, I'll say what I think to be the truth, and I don't want you to get mad at me. I don't want the people watching to get mad. But I'm prepared to take whatever consequences that come from what I really believe. Most -- you're right. We probably have moved out a good 12 to 15, maybe 2000 people in this area. The problem is is that that area never should have been zoned the way it was. And it was zoned that way to facilitate some Section 8 housing. This neighborhood, I mean, if you look at it, is all single homeownership, with the exception of where they stuck those -- you know where the Miami Limited was, where they stuck that? A lot of people live there. It's hurt those businesses. There's no question that it's had a negative impact on every one of those businesses on 17th Avenue and 62°a Street. And you're right to advocate that. But on the other hand, it has -- it damaged and destroyed the unique homeownership character in that neighborhood. What we've got to do is provide more direct support to the businesses until we can get this plan on line and bring the people back. And there is a way to work together in this. Ms. Warren: Yes, there is. Mr. Sam Mason: Thank you. Mr. Chairman? Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir. Sam. Mr. Mason: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, we endorsed the redevelopment of the area. I've been in that area for over 20 years. Vice Chairman Gort: Sam Mason. Your address? Mr. Mason: Sam Mason, 5524 Northwest 7th Avenue. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, sir. Mr. Mason: What we're saying, as a community, if we want to be effective and do the kind of job that there must be community participation. You have organizations in that community who have been there for years, who can help you make this a smooth transition, and you could go back to Hope 6, Liberty Square, it should have happened. It didn't happen because the community participation wasn't there, and we figure that we've cut our participation. If this is going to happen, we're saying: we're out there; remember us; we want to help, too. We're a part of Miami, too. Thank you. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, Mr. Mason. Those are the instructions. That's why you have your NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) Director in here from that area because we're going to work, for the first time, you have the community, the Planning Department, the Community Development, and everybody working as a team, and we 185 February 15, 2001 have seen it work. We have put pilot programs in other areas and it has worked, if we all work as a team and bring all the resources together. Thank you. 186 February 15, 2001 Vice Chairman Gort: OK. What else do we have? Gwendolyn Warren (Director, Community Development): We have a companion item, which is Item Number 11. The Commission -- we're requesting that the Commission rescind Resolution Number 00-415, which authorized the hiring of a architectural firm, which is R. J. Heisenbottle Architects, to do the master plan for the area. The Planning Department has determined that they need a broader scope of services to complete the master plan for the Model City area. So, we're asking that you rescind the previous award and secondly, that you increase the amount of funds to two hundred and twenty- five thousand, and that that's what we're requesting. Commissioner Teele: So moved. Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved. Is there a second? You're going to have an additional -- another RFP (Request for Proposal)? Ms. Warren: They're -- you've authorized at your last Commission meeting them going through a process to select a master planner and this basically would allocate funds for that purpose, once the selection is made. Vice Chairman Gort: Let me ask a question. Because I work with planners and we have lot of dreamers. And sometimes we have to bring them to reality. I want to make sure that whatever planners we bring in, he understands the means and the power and the economics of putting the plans together. Because I hate to put a plan that is unfeasible. We have to make sure, whatever plan is together, that it's feasible within that community. OK. Ms. Warren: We will. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Do I have a motion? Commissioner Teele: I moved it and Commissioner Regalado seconded it. 187 February 15, 2001 Vice Chairman Gort: OK. It's been moved and second. Yes, ma'am. Anyone in the public would like to address this item? Is anyone in the public that would like to address this item? Show that no one is here to address it. You know, it's a shame. Such important items that we're working on. There's nobody here and the press is all gone. OK. Commissioner Teele: Not all of them. Vice Chairman Gort: Except The Miami Herald. I'm sorry. He stays here. Commissioner Teele: What is he, chopped liver? Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, Chuck, for staying. All in favor state by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): "Aye." The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 01-165 A RESOLUTION — (PENDING) (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) 188 February 15, 2001 Upon being seconded by Commissioner Regalado, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort NAYS: None ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Johnny L. Winton 189 February 15, 2001 Vice Chairman Gort: Item 12. Ms. Warren: Item 12 is request for ratification. Commissioner Teele: So moved, Mr. Chairman. Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved. Is there a second? Ms. Warren: It's a fourth -fifths. Ilene Temchin (Assistant City Attorney): Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry. (Inaudible) four- fifths vote. Commissioner Teele: All right. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Commissioner Teele: We'll defer this until ... Vice Chairman Gort: Thirteen. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, let me just ask one thing. You know, the thing that doesn't make sense. Has somebody in the Law Department looked at the CLUC-90 (County Land Usage Code) rules? Are we over paying or -- when we buy this stuff for taxes, we're paying for it and then we get ours reimbursed by the property appraisers? Ms. Warren: You're talking about the taxes? Yes. Commissioner Teele: Yes. Ms. Warren: We paid the tax, and that basically -- we're paying the tax deed and basically that means the City's getting their... Commissioner Teele: Let me ask you this. Ms. Warren: The City gets its share -- the County share. Ms. Warren: Yeah. I understand. 190 February 15, 2001 Commissioner Teele: Yeah. I understand. Gwen, let me ask you this. Let's say a piece of property has a tax lien on it for fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000), but the property is assessed or has a fair market value of twelve thousand dollars ($12,000.00). Do you all buy property like that? Ms. Warren: Yes. Commissioner Teele: We pay the fifteen thousand. Ms. Warren: We pay the tax certificate rate. Commissioner Teele: Amount? Ms. Warren: Yes. Commissioner Teele: So, in some cases, you may actually be paying more than the assessed value? Ms. Warren: In two cases out of the fifteen, I think we did. But they were important for the gateways. Commissioner Teele: But it doesn't matter because we're getting more than half of it back anyway. Ms. Warren: Correct. Commissioner Teele: With the way -- it comes back to us anyway. Ms. Warren: Correct. 191 February 15, 2001 Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Did Commissioner Sanchez leave? Ms. Warren: Item 13 requires a four-fifths also. Vice Chairman Gort: How about 14? Gwendolyn Warren (Director, Community Development): Fourteen is an item that basically -- it's another companion item. As you may recall, when we settled the OIG (Office of Inspector General) audit, the City was required to repay the grant four million one hundred and thirty-four thousand three hundred and sixty-five dollars ($4,134,365) in disallowed costs. Those funds, because of the way we negotiated the settlement by paying it in one lump sum, was returned to our line of credit. In order to finalize the process, we, through a public hearing process, have to identify the use of the new funds that are in our line of credit. Staff the recommending, because these funds were primarily from the Model City area, they be included as a part of the budget appropriation for the Homeownership Zone. The funds are in two sources. One is HOME dollars, which would go to second mortgages, and land acquisitions, et cetera. And that approximately that a one million six is CDBG (Community Development Block Grant), and that those funds would be used because HOME dollars cannot be used for land acquisition in the commercial corridors; that they, again, this would be allowed use for activities such as infrastructure improvements, the gateways, and non -home qualifying activities. Commissioner Teele: So moved, Mr. Chairman. Vice Chairman Gort: There's a motion. Is there a second? Commissioner Winton: Second. Vice Chairman Gort: Under discussion. Gwen, we made this payment last year? Ms. Warren: We made the payment -- I do believe, this past July. The agreement has been solved and we made the payment. Now we have to allocated it and tell them what we're going to do with it, and this is our recommended usage. Vice Chairman Gort: But we are going to have a public hearing and the allocation of those funds? Ms. Warren: This is the public hearing for the allocation of these funds. 192 February 15, 2001 Commissioner Teele: This is a public hearing. Ilene Temchin (Assistant City Attorney): This is the public hearing. Ms. Temchin: This is the public hearing. Vice Chairman Gort: This is the public hearing. OK. Is anyone in the public would like to discuss this item? Is anyone in the public would like to discuss this item? Show that no one has come forward. Ms. Warren: We now have four members. You want to go back to 12 and 13? Commissioner Teele: Well, we have to vote on that. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Any further discussion? Being none, all in favor state by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): "Aye." The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 01-166 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE ALLOCATION OF THE HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP (HOME) FUNDS, ON AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $2,521,668, AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDS, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCED $1,612,696, TO SUPPORT THE MODEL CITY HOMEOWNERSHIP ZONE PROJECT; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENTS AND DOCUMENTS IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, FOR EXPENSES RELATING TO SAID PROJECT; AND FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO AMEND THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ANNUAL ACTION PLAN TO REFLECT SAID ALLOCATIONS. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) 193 February 15, 2001 Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort NAYS: None ABSENT: Commissioner Johnny L. Winton 194 February 15, 2001 26. APPROVE AND CONFIRM MANAGER'S ACTION IN AUTHORIZING ACQUISITION OF NINETEEN PROPERTIES LOCATED" IN MODEL CITY HOMEOWNERSHIP ZONE BY ACQUIRING PROPERTIES FROM MIAMI-DADE COUNTY FROM "LIST OF LANDS"; ALLOCATING HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM (HOME) FUNDS, $527,312, TO SATISFY' OUTSTANDING REAL ESTATE TAXES AND ACQUIRE TAX CERTIFICATES FROM MIAMI-DADE COUNTY FOR SUBJECT PROPERTIES. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring up Item Number 12, which has a motion and a second. This is a ratification of the City Manager's actions to acquire land under the tax deeds. So moved requiring four votes. Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved. Is there a second? Commissioner Regalado: Second. Vice Chairman Gort: Any further discussion? Being none, all in favor state by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): "Aye." The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 01-167 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 ACTION IN AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF THE NINETEEN (19) PROPERTIES LOCATED IN THE MODEL CITY HOMEOWNERSHIP ZONE AND DESCRIBED IN THE "EXHIBIT A," ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED, BY ACQUIRING THOSE PROPERTIES FROM MIAMI- DADE COUNTY FROM THE "LIST OF LANDS"; ALLOCATING HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM ("HOME") FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $527,312 TO SATISFY OUTSTANDING REAL ESTATE TAXES AND ACQUIRE TAX CERTIFICATES FROM MIAMI-DADE COUNTY FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER, WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, TO EXECUTE ALL DOCUMENTS, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, TO FILE QUIET TITLE ACTIONS CLEAR TITLE TO SUCH PROPERTIES. 195 February 15, 2001 (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: Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort NAYS: None ABSENT: Commissioner Johnny L. Winton 196 February 15, 2001 27. APPROVE AND CONFIRM MANAGER'S ACTION IN AUTHORIZING ACQUISITION OF FIRST MORTGAGE INTEREST ON FIVE PROPERTIES LOCATED WITHIN CITY'S MODEL CITY HOMEOWNERSHIP ZONE, FROM FOUR FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS INCLUDING EASTERN NATIONAL BANK, COMMERCE BANK, N.A., HAMILTON BANK AND INTERNATIONAL FINANCE BANK, AND ALLOCATIONOF HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP (HOME)` PROGRAM FUNDS, $150,000 FOR SAID PURPOSE. Commissioner Teele: And Item Number 13, which also requires four votes, is a resolution ratifying and approving and confirming the City Manager's actions to acquire Miami Limited II Housing Projects as listed. Vice Chairman Gort: There's a motion. Is there a second? Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Vice Chairman Gort: Any further discussion? Being none, all in favor state by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): "Aye." The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 01-168 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENTS, BY A FOUR-FIFTHS (4/5THS) AFFIRMATIVE VOTE, RATIFYING, APPROVING AND CONFIRMING THE CITY MANAGER'S ACTION IN AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF THE FIRST MORTGAGE INTEREST ON THE FIVE (5) PROPERTIES LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY'S MODEL CITY HOMEOWNERSHIP ZONE AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A," FROM FOUR (4) FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS INCLUDING EASTERN NATIONAL BANK, COMMERCE BANK, N.A., HAMILTON BANK AND INTERNATIONAL FINANCE BANK, AUTHORIZING THE ALLOCATION OF HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS ("HOME") PROGRAM FUNDS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $150,000, FOR SAID PURPOSE; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER, IN COLLABORATION WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY TO TAKE SUCH ACTIONS AS MAY BE NECESSARY, INCLUDING THE EXECUTION OF ALL DOCUMENTS, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, FOR SAID ACQUISITION. 197 February 15, 2001 (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort NAYS: None ABSENT: Commissioner Johnny L. Winton 198 February 15, 2001 Vice Chairman Gort: Fifteen. Office space for Department of Community Development. Commissioner Sanchez: So moved. Commissioner Teele: Second, for purposes of discussion. Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved and second. Commissioner Teele: Why do you all need so much office space? Gwendolyn Warren (Director, Community Development): Currently, we have vacancies that we're not able to fill because we do not have appropriate office space. Commissioner Teele: Thank you very much. Commissioner Sanchez: Call the question. Vice Chairman Gort: All in favor state by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): "Aye." 199 February 15, 2001 The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 01-169 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO INSTRUCT THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ASSET MANAGEMENT TO NEGOTIATE LEASE AGREEMENTS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ONE STOP CENTERS IN THE LITTLE HAVANA AND COCONUT GROVE NEIGHBORHOODS AND THE RELOCATION OF THE MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, UTILIZING GRANT FUNDS AVAILABLE FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT TO COVER LEASE AND RELOCATION COSTS; AND FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE LEASE AGREEMENTS AND NECESSARY DOCUMENTS, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, FOR SAID PURPOSES. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Teele, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort NAYS: None ABSENT: Commissioner Johnny L. Winton 200 February 15, 2001 Commissioner Sanchez: Motion to adjourn. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman? Gwendolyn Warren (Director, Community Development): Commissioners, we need to go back to Number 1. We did meet and Dan has a schedule that incorporates public hearings for HOPWA (Housing Opportunities for Persons Living with AIDS) so that we could set the 27th Year schedule. It's very important. Commissioner Teele: Let's get to the most important thing. What is the week that you all are requiring Commissioners to have their district public hearings? Ms. Warren: We have a time frame, and that timeframe is what Dan? Commissioner Sanchez: April? Was it April? Commissioner Teele: It's in April, right? Commissioner Sanchez: April or June? Ms. Warren: It would be the 9th through the 16th of June. Commissioner Teele: The 9th through the 16' of April. Ms. Warren: Yes. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, I would move the item relating to the public notices, Item Number 1, as amended, to include the HOPWA negotiations and that-- and specifically amending it, requiring that the City Clerk is instructed to provide public notice of the district meetings pursuant to the direction in writing by each district Commissioner of not less than one or more than three locations. So, it's up to each district Commissioner -- I had one last year. I know that Commissioner Winton, I think, had two. But what I'm saying is that the notice needs to be in the newspaper. The Clerk needs to be able to advertise it so that it's convenient -- each Commissioner will determine when theirs are going to... Commissioner Sanchez: But you're saying what, no less than one and no more than three? 201 February 15, 2001 Commissioner Teele: No more than three separate locations. Really, it shouldn't be no more than two because staffs got to support it. Commissioner Sanchez: OK. Second. Commissioner Teele: No more than one -- I mean, no less than one, no more than three. Vice Chairman Gort: Moved and second. Any further discussion? Commissioner Regalado: And that the NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) Offices will cooperate in notifying community leaders. Commissioner Teele: The NET Offices as well, as the requirement that every department of the City affected by public services, must and shall have a representative present. Because we had Public Works wasn't in some and some other people. Every department that is affected must have a representative. Vice Chairman Gort: Right. Commissioner Sanchez: Does it require a hearing? Vice Chairman Gort: All in favor state by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): "Aye." The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 01-170 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ADOPTING A PLANNING CALENDAR FOR THE FOLLOWING PROGRAMS: TWENTY- SEVENTH (27TH) YEAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ("CDGB"), HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS ("HOME"), HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS ("HOPWA") AND EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANT ("ESG"). 202 February 15, 2001 (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort NAYS: None ABSENT: Commissioner Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Gort: Motion to adjourn. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman Vice Chairman Gort: Yes. Commissioner Teele: Did you have a pocket item? Vice Chairman Gort: No. Commissioner Teele: With regard to the 242 -- 232. Mr. Vilarello: No. I'll have it prepared for next meeting. Commissioner Teele: All right. Motion to adjourn. Vice Chairman Gort: Take care. Ms. Warren: Thank you. Commissioner Teele: OK. Thank you. 203 February 15, 2001 The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 01-171 A MOTION TO ADJOURN TODAY'S CITY COMMISSION MEETING. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort NAYS: None ABSENT: Commissioner Johnny L. Winton 204 February 15, 2001 THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME -BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 6:50 PM. ATTEST: Walter Foeman CITY CLERK Sylvia Lowman ASSISTANT CITY CLERK JOE CAROLLO MAYOR (S E A L) 205 February 15, 2001