Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2001-10-10 Minutes,MINUTES OF SPECIAL, MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF MIANII, FLORIDA On the 10`x' day of October 2001, the City Commission of Miami, Florida, met at its regular meeting place in the City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, 1V4iami, Florida in special session. The meeting was called to order at 4:25 p.m. by Presiding Officcr/Commissioner Wifredo Gort with the following members of the Commission found to be present: Commissioner 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 Gimenez, City Manager Alejandro Vilarello, City Attorney Walter J. Foeman, City Clerk Sylvia Scheider, Assistant City Clerk An invocation was delivered by Commissioner Teele, after which, Commissioner Sanchez led those present in a pledge of allegiance to the flag. I 10/10!01 a s 1. DISCUSSION CONCERNING PROPOSED GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND ISSUE TO BE PLACED ON UPCOMING NOVEMBER 13, 2001 SPECIAL ELECTION BALLOT. 1.1. INSTRUCT CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH LEGALLY SUFFICIENT NOTICE IN MIAMI HERALD IN CONNECTION WITH PROPOSED GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND REFERENDUM ON NOVEMBER 13, 2001 ELECTION. 1.2. INSTRUCT CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE BALLOT REFERENDUM QUESTION TO BE SUBMITTED TO ELECTORA'T'E ON NOVEMBER 13, 200.1: "SHALL THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ISSUE GENERAL OBLIGATION' BONDS FOR HOMELAzVD SECURITY, NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS, CAPITAL PROJECTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS IN AN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT EXCEEDING S255,000,000, WITH INTEREST PAYABLE AT RATES NOT TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM RATE ALLOWED BY LAW, TO BE PAYABLE FROM AD VALOREM TAXES TO BE LEVIED ON ALL TAXABLE PROPERTY IN THE CITY PROVIDED THAT THE DEBT MILLAGE NOT EXCEED THE CURRENT RATE OF 1.218?" 1.3. DESIGNATE COMMISSIONER TOMAS REGALADO AS CITY'S MEDIA CZAR; INSTRUCT MANAGER TO WORK WITH COMMISSTONER R.EGALADO TO DEVELOP PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM FOR PURPOSE OF INFORMING VOTERS OF CITY PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS. Vice Chairman Gort: 'Thank you alt. Mr. Manager, we all have received the copy of the CLP (Capital Improvement Program) Bond Proposal that you'd like for us to look al.. And before we go into that, 1 want to ask you a few questions, which I think Would be very important in this. My understandings is we're still 1313A. What's our rating right now? Robert Nachlinger (.Assistant City Manager): Commissioner, Bob Nachlingcr, Assistant City Manager. Our rating, bond rating with Moody's Investment Services is "B" doable `A" 3. Our rating hasn't been raised by Standard and Poor's yet. We're still below investment grade. Vice Chairman Gort: I'm glad we have our financial advisors in here. And T bclievc it'll be very important, because I was discussing; with some of the people in New York, and I don't know if YOU all agree. But somehow, we've been balancing the budget for the last five years. We never defaulted on our debt services. And we have over seventy million dollars ($70,000,000) in su►•plus, which many cities today, that rated higher than we are, do not have those components. So 1 think somehow, before we go out, we should try to go up to New York and tell them our stories, and try to upgrade our bond rating. Carlos Glmenez (City Manager): Yes, sir. You all -- we have a presentation. There was the October G, 2001 memo and the proposed bond program that I sent to the Mayor and Commissioners. I'd like to say what -- how we got to this. We first looked at our bonding capacity, and it's obvious that we used -- that we would not raise the debt service millage above 1.218, which is the debt service miliage currently on the books. We know that we have a -- we have not ensued significant debt for a long time, and that we have -- a lot of this debt is maturing and coming off the books. And we had a capacity to bond without increasing the millage rates of the citizens. We also analyzed what --what resources the City actually had currently, and in the budget book, it was enumerated that we currently had a hundred and nine million dollars 2 10/ 10!01 ($109,000,000) of unexpended funds that were appropriated. What I'm saying is there was a hundred nine million dollars ($109,000,000) in different projects that were either underway or going to be undertaken in the fi.iturc. There was thirty-eight million dollars ($38,000,000) that is totally unallocated at this time, and we put all those numbers in the mix. We also projected anticipated revenue that would go into other CiP projects that we have. We have revenue sources that increase the amount of money that goes into CIP, but they are dedicated revenue sources, and they have to be used for dedicated projects. So what we wanted to do was to come up with a program that used both the existing, the unallocated future and then the proposed. And what we are asking for in the proposed general obligation bond issue is to actually acquire funds for those projects that either did not have money now or will not have money in the future, or may need additional money from some of the sources that we're getting to make these projects happen. So that's the reason, and that's how we carne up with a two hundred and fifty five million dollar ($255,000,000) bond issue over 10 years. Bob Naclilinger will take you through that in terms of the money and in terms of our capacity and how the money would be issued. Vice Chairman Gort: '['hank you. Bob. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman Vice Chairman Gort: Yes. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. ;Manager, there is this question about -- I mean, did we found that money in a drawer? Or how long ago did we know that we had that money available. If we had that money available, why we weren't told? Could you give us an idea, sort of a technical thing about this? First of all, we were told there were eighty million dollars (S80,000,000) that we had available for projects. And I think it's more. At least I was told eighty million dollars ($50,000,000) two or three weeks ago, 1 think, by you. So, I mean, did we really lost that money? I mean, every Manager knew that that money was there? What's the ,tory on that? Mr. Gimenez: 1 can't speak for previous Managers. I can only speak for myself and this administration. Sometime late last year., we know -- we knew or noticed that we had an issue of how the capital programs, C[P budgets were organized. We knew that because, a lot of our own directors weren't aware of exactly how much money they could use and how much money was available. So in January, we had a workshop that put together all the CIP projects that we had, and put them all together, put them in an orderly fashion, and also asked each director, all right, this project, on a one -- on a project -by -project basis. This project, what do we have? Is it going to he spent? is it something which is -- which we're going to do? Some of these projects had been appropriated some years back. And we went into a process like that. And we identified all the different projects, all the different amounts that were -- had already been spent, and all the different amounts that were yet to be spent. And in this year's budget book, you see it, you know, and there is an appendix called Capital Improvements that clearly delineates each project, how much is available for each project, and the hundred and nine million dollars ($109,000,000) is the bottom line figure of what projects have been appropriated already, and what has yet to be spent on those projects. 3 10/10/01 w 0 Commissioner Winton: What page? Mr. Gimencz: It's on Page 142, is the bottom line of that. On Page 143 of the budget book, there is another page that's called Summary of Unallocated Funds. Now, some of those unallocated fiends we have on Page 143. It tells you the description, basically what the revenue source was. it tells you how much is in each one of these, and what the purposes were to be used for. Some of the unallocated funds, we were getting bogged down with opinions as to what it is that we could use them for. A big chunk of this is the 1995 sanitary sewer line. We were getting -- I think either we have it or we're about to get, you know, bond counsel approval as to what we could use it for. As soon as we have our bond counsel opinions, then we can come back to you and allocate these funds. We think we know what they can be used for. And they have heen incorporated Into the bond issuance proposal that we have. And when you see Mr. Nachlinger's presentation, it's a combination of existing unallocated and new bonds, and you will see how it all fits. And there are percentages for each category of expenditure. I hope that answers your question. It's about the best I can do. 1 don't know what other, previous administrations, how they handled it. But I know that in the budget books, I don't think it was ever this clear and specific as to each category, each project, what was available in each. We did this in this fiscal year. Vice Chairman Gort: OK? Commissioner Regalado: Yeah, Vice Chairnian Gort: Go ahead, Bob. Nlr. Nacltlinber: Thank you, Commissioners. What were here to talk aboutis the proposed authorization to issue two hundred and frfly-five million in general obligation bonds over the next 10 years. What we've done, in conjunction with the current and future funds available for capital improvements within the City, the administration is proposing a ballot question for (lie November 13"' election f'or the authorization of two hundred and fifty-five million in general obligation bonds for additional City improvements. The administration has structured the proposed issue to complement the existing future funds that will be available for the City capital improvements. The proposed bond authorization is slated towards City parks, simply because. City parks have do dedicated funding source as streets and drainage projects do, and also the fire fee for public safety issues. I have a chart here of the composition of the proposed bond issue. The bond issue, itself, is, as I said, heavily weighted for parks, a hundred and eleven million dollars ($I 11,000,000) of the two hundred and fifty-five is toward park projects, with forty-eight million fir streets and drainage, sixty million for public facilities, five million for historic preservation, arta thirty-one million for public safety projects. This is the same information delineated in a bar chart if that's easier for you to review. The photos that you have in front of you out of the budget book, the current existing funds, plus the projected funds, which is about seventy-five million dollars ($75,000,000) in ten years worth of fire fee, gas tax monies and the storm utility fee that will be generated over that 10 -year period, totaling about seventy-five million. If you notice, in this particular category, it's simply weighted toward the streets and drainage projects, simply because of the storm water utility fees and gas tax monies, which are dedicated funding sources Ibr those type of projects. 4 10/10!01 Commissioner Winton: Bob. Mr. Nachlinger: Yes, sir. Commissioner Winton: 1 don't understand what you're saying. What did you just say? Mr. Nachlinger: What I said was we have about fifty to sixty million dollars ($60,000,000) over the next ten years of money coming in from the storm water utility fee and gas tax monies, which are dedicated towards streets and drainage projects. In addition to the monies that we have already available, allocated projects. Commissioner Winton: So the hundred and nine million that we talked about that's in our book, and you just added to that how much? Mr. Nachlinger: About seventy-five million. Conunissioner Winton: Seventy-five million. Mr. Nachlinger: Plus the unallocated dollars, totaling about thirty-seven, thirty-eight million Commissioner Winton: Gets us to two hundred and fourteen million. lir. Nachlinger: Yes, sir. Commissioner Winton: And those are projected, not the hundred and nine million that we just talked about a little while ago that was already in our budget, but the difference there, which was -- 4ve said it was a hundred and nine million. So you got another hundred and -- hundred and five million. Mr. Nachlinger: For rounding; purposes, think of it as a hundred and forty million existing dollars, and seventy -rive million new dollars over the next 10 years. Commissioner Winton: And those are projected revenue streams that are coming over the. course of that next ten-year period, you said? Mr. Nachlinger: Yes, sir. Commissioner Winton: So that -- and is it seventy-five million in cash that's coming? Mr. Nachlinger: Yes, sir, it is. Out of the annual seven and a half million dollars ($7,500,00), approximately, of the combination of the fire fee, storm water utility fee and gas tax dollars. Commissioner Winton: OK. Thank you. 5 10/10.101 Mr. Nachlinger: And again, this is the bar chart of that current and existing dollars available to the City. Commissioner Regalado: Bob, excuse me. Mr. Nachlinger: Yes, sir. Commissioner Regalado: Why would you include fire fee in the gas and the storm utility? I mean, we always get the gas and the storm. Why would we include the fire fee in there? Mr. Gimenez: The fire fee is added to the public safety component of this. This is existing and future monies, capital improvement monies Commissioner Regalado: Well, I understand that. But -- Mr. Nachlinger: Commissioner, the way -- the reason that I added ten years worth of those dollars is if we're talking about a ten-year program, I wanted to show you exactly what would be available to the City over that 10 year period. I wanted to bring all the information that I could to You. Commissioner Regalad0: OK. Mr. Nachlinger: The bottom line of this, when you put the current funds, the future dollars we'll be pulling in Gom those revenue sources, plus the bond issue proposed together, you have a total program over the next 10 years of four hundred and sixty-nine point one million dollars (5469.1 million). That breaks out fairly evenly between streets and drainage projects and parks projects at ;I hundred and thirty-eight million for streets and drainage, and a hundred a thirty million for parks and recreation projects. The solid waste has an allocation currently is set for one million per capita infrastructure. The municipal facilities, which is the MRC (Miami Riverside Center), the Artime Center, and the Knight Center, the Orange Bowl, all of our marinas have an allocation of a hundred and two million. Public safety has eighty-seven point two million dollars ($87.2 million), and there is the five million for the historic preservation. And again, these are the numbers on the bar chart, if that's easier for you to read. Commissioner Sanchez: Bob. Mr. Nachlinger: Yes, sir. Commissioner Sanchez: Before you go on, hypothetically speaking, if we didn't bond out, what would be the proposed capital amount for the programs, without bonding out? What would be the total, if we didn't bond out? Mr. Nachlinger: It would be -- Commissioner Sanchez: Not the combined that adds up to four hundred and sixty-nine point one million dollars ($469.1 million), 6 10/10/01 Mr. Nachlinger: It would be two hundred and fourteen point one million of existing funds. plus -- Commissioner Sanchez: Storm sewer and gas. Mr. Nachlinger: That'd be fourteen point one. And then you add in the two hundred and fifty- five in GL (general liability) on top of that. That's where you get to the four hundred and sixty- nine million. Commissioner Sanchez: OK. Mr. Nachlinger: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Gort: You're going to go -- excuse me. Later on, you're going to explain how you're going to do the bonds, so the tax would not go up.' Mr. Nachlinger: That's what I'm doing now. The existing general obligation bond that the City has, has declined graphically, principally because the City hasn't issued any debt in six years. The chart, this chart shows graphically the annual debt service cost for the general obligation debt until its final maturity, with the last payment in 2000 --excuse -- 17. You know, it's a very quick and large decline in the next few years, and then virtually, a leveling until the 2015, where the last two years, we only have like eight hundred thousand dollars ($$00,000) worth of annual debt service cost on these general obligations. If we maintain the debt service millage rate at. the current level of 1.218 mills and look at the historic rate of increase in our assessed valuation, both fi-om new construction and reassessments, it's been over the last 20 years, an average of four and a half percent a year. So if you look at that and try to chart out what our capacity is at that 1.218 mills, all of that green area represents bonding capacity or available monies annually for the City for general obligation debt without raising the millage rate. It is our intention, should this be placed on the ballot and the voters approve it, to use the growth of the tax base, along with the decline in our annual debt service cost, plus I'll have the financial advisors talk about a potential refunding of some general obligation bonds, which will produce further savings, plus the money we have in the fund balance of the debt service fund, we fund these items, and later, you know, at the same debt service cost annually. I have an example. And this is, you know, merely an example of how you would layer in those annual dent service costs by a phased issuance over a ten-year period. And each one of those lines or areas represents an additional bond issue on it year -by -year basis, taking advantage of that capacity as it becomes available. Commissioner Sanchez: Bob. Mr. Nachlinger: Yes, sic. Commissioner Sanchez.: Before you go on, the existing general obligation debt right now, which is about 17 mill, could we refinance that, now that the interest rates are very -- you know, what savings would that be with the rates now? 7 10/10./01 Mr. Nachlinger: Well, I'm going to have the financial advisors from the City go over that because we're already under discussion on doing; that. They have a number, and I'll let them talk about it. Commissioner Sanchez: OK. But that is in the process to refinance that? M.r•. Nachlinger: Yes, sir. Commissioner Sanchez: OK. Mr. Nachlinger: Finally in conclusion, we have an opportunity to issue two hundred and fifty-five million dollars ($255,000,000) to fund the needed capital improvements for this City without any increase in our' tax rate. This comprehensive capital program, along with all our dedicated rcvcnuc streams will produce a availability of an average of forty-seven million dollars ($47,000,000) a year, in additional capital expenditures for needed community improvements. And ifyou have any questions, I'll be pleased to try to answer them. Commissioner Regalado: Bob. Nlr. Nachlinger: Yes, sir. Commissioner Regalado: How can we be certain? .How can we say to the people, without any doubt that there will be no increase in the tax rate of the City of Nliami with this bond issue? Mr. Nachlinger: Well, there's two ways you call do that. First, you could say it and do what you say. The second way, we need to put back into the bond authorization itself that you'd have a maximum millage rate within the item that the people vote on. Commissioner Regalado: And that would guarantee that, that will not raise the level of taxes, now or in the -- Mr. Nachlinger: Well, to be totally honest, the amount of tax revenue would increase. The tax rate would 1101. Commissioner Regalado: .1 understand that. I understand that. But what I'm saying is that there will be some people who will not like this kind of bond issue, I mean, and they will combat that by saying, you know, you're having a mortgage on the City, on the taxpayers, you know, they're mortgaging your home, and this will increase your tax rate by some amount. Mr. Nachlinger: I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be true, because we aren't increasing the tax rate. And if you want to talk about a term that, you know, we're asking philosophical here, but our intergenerational equity, where it's nott exactly fair for the citizens right now to bear all the costs f'or a capital improvement that has a long life, in favor of generations yet to come. They should hear a part of that cost, also. And if you issued that, then the cost to you is reduced by the amount of the cost goes forward into those future generations, where they can help pay for that improvement, also. 8 10/10!01 r Vice Chairman Gort: Bob, what I think is important, if we get our rating upgraded. And I don't know what's the interest rate that we're paying right now, but we can probably at this moment refinance a lot of those bonds that are outstanding. We can reduce the debt services on those. So 1 think it would help, because it's an election year. A lot of people arc going to use this as an issue. It would be very important, because at the same time as we're paying off bond issues, in other words, our debt is dropping, because we're paying off. A lot of the debt, outstanding debt that we've had for a long time, they're being paid off. And I think it would be good to show the difference, so they can see why the taxes would not increase in debt services. Mr. Nachlinger: All right. I -- Vice Chairman Gort: If we could do some kind of a chart showing; that, I think it'd be very important. Mr. Nachlinger: OK. I could do that, sir. We do anticipate the first bond issue we do, and we anticipate doing that fairly soon. It is a general obligation refunding, and we want to go to New York, visit all the rating agencies, get a formal debt rating re -issued on the City. I'm anticipating it's going to be substantially upgraded from what our current rate is now that both of the rating agencies arc waiting for us to come to them with a deal in hand, so they can review our credit and give us an appropriate bond rating. The financial advisor is here to make a little presentation if that's -- Aleiandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Mr. Chairman. Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir. 11r]r. Vilarello: If 1 can .just note, as we go through the discussion, in response to Commissioner Rcgalarlo's question, the ordinance which will call for this question will be all authorization to issue general obligation bonds in a specific amount, and generally describe the capital improvement projects. I'm concerned that there might be a desire to limit the debt miliage in this ordinance. My recommendation is you do not do that. You can pass, as a matter of policy, that you shall -- that the Commission does not want to issue debt that will increase the taxes. But i don't think you should put it as part of the call of the question. I would defer to bond counsel in that respect, but I'm concerned that we might linut inappropriately in the call of the question. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman. Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir. Commissioner Tecle: Mr. Attorney, l have not had an opportunity to diseu:>s with you, so I apologize. I'm -- I have no objections to what you said until you bot to the end. 1 have a strong concern about the ballot question. i have no objections to the ordinance being what you said, but I think the ballot question must be clear, must be direct and must address on point the issue that Commissioner Regalado raised, because this is the kind of thing that lends itself to a lot of hypocrisy and demagoguery and if not mischief. And i think the ballot question must state, 9 10/10/Q1 provided - provided that the tax rate may not exceed the current rate of whatever it is. 2.1. 1 think we have to, we have to agree to limit ourselves. We have to all tie ourselves at the hip and be joined on that issue. Otherwise, we're going to protect nothing, because if the voters disapprove it, we have nothing. And, you know, eight years from now, some Commissioner ntay say, well, those guy_, were crazy back there. Why did they limit them? And A,c want to send them a message in a bottle right now that they will be limited if there is a majority that will approve this. But l think not to tie this into the ballot question -- and I'll yield to your legal counsel on the ordinance or the legislative documentation -- but T think not to tie the limitation, because at the end of the day, the only way we can go out with a straight face is we've got to be able to say to the public, if you approve this two hundred and fitly -five and maybe the language should be up to two hundred and fifty-five, or whatever it is, and that gives you the flexibility on that issue. But if we approve this, your tax rates will not increase. And we need that in writing from the guy who's about to speak now. We need that in writing from him, over his seal that the lax rate will not increase, and then we need the Manager to endorse that to us over his seal that the tax rate will not increase. Because if the tax rate's going to increase one tenth of one percent, I'm voting "no." And 1 think, you know, the demagogues, you know, will make the difference between one tenth and one percent, and the world is coming to an end. So we've got to he able to say clearly, candidly, and it needs to be in the ballot question, in my opinion. And I don't know how Commissioner Regalado or (lie other Commissioners feel, but picking up on that point, we need to limit future Commissions, future Mayors, future Managers fi-oni being able to do anything, based upon this bond issue that will increase anybody's taxes. And that's what it gets down to. Nobody's taxes can be increased as it relates to this bond issue. No one's tax rate can be; increased. And, you know, simple laymen's word, nobody's taxes will be increased Commissioner Winton: As it relates to this bond issue. Commissioner Tecle: -- as it relates to this bond issue. And I think that's very philosophically important. With all due respect, mister counsel, I don't waist to take exception, but I think this is a policy question that we need to address head on, that we need to have this in the ballot question, provided that the rates will not increase. And we need to say what the current rate is. Mr. Vilarcllo: Commissioner, when you refer to the rate, you're referring to the debt millage. Commissioner Tecle: I'm referring to the debt millage rate. Commissioner Regalado: And the reason that I raised that issue, and I was troubled by what Alex said, that we have to separate the issues and say as a matter of policy. Well, the reason that I did that is because i feel that all of us here would want to do this because it's good for the City, and it reaches all the City. But, unfortunately, maybe if we do this, and if we start using that money and not leaving for other Commission to find that there is eighty more million floating around, maybe if we do this, people would trust government. But as of now, if we say here, oh, it's a matter of policy that we feel that we will not raises taxes, and all that, but it's not written, it's not there, people won't believe it, because don't trust government. Simple as that. And, you know, 1, for one, you got two votes, if anybody tells me that this would raise taxes on this issue, 10 10/10/01 • • I'm gone. I'm out. Rut I feel that we need to say to the people what is right, and what it will bring to the people. So. Commissioner Sanchez: And the appropriate person is bond counsel, who is about to speak. Correct? Commissioner Teele: Financial advisor. Vice Chairman Gort: Financial advisor. Commissioner Sanchez: Financial advisor. Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir. J.W. Howard: Good afternoon. Vice Chairman, Commissioners, my name is J.W. ]-toward, from Daiit Rauscher, Financial Advisor to the City on your general obligation proposal for refunding. And I'm glad to be here today. My presentation's going to focus - we were asked to do a couple different things. We were asked to look at the general obligation bonds that you have outstanding, look at what savings opportunities are out there. We'll talk a little bit about the rating process, but 1 think your staff has come up with an excellent strategy. By really re-. entering the market with this general obligation issue ill terms of a refinancing, you've given us the opportunity to go to New York and do some things for rating agencies to put the City on solid footing from a financial perspective, in terms of a rating, help set up this phased bond program strategy that you're discussing today. So keeping in mind that the refunding helps lay the groundwork for that, I think that's a great strategy. We were also asked to lookjust generally at the special obligations that you have out there, since there's been this six-year absence from the market. '['here are some saving opportunities in special obligations that you may even consider taking up front to fund some of your objectives. So with that in mind, I'll go through this presentation, which will take about five to ten minutes. Certainly, ask questions as I go along. Thank you. Just a quick review, i thought it would be useful for the Commissioners to see what their obligation debt is outstanding right now by principal amount and basically, the average interest rate. I think that's helpful to you, just to understand. And you've already seen a debt profile of your existing debts, so you kind of know how it looks. We'll sec it again here. But .going back to 1977 all the way through your last general obligation issue in 1995. And there's some interesting things. 1 mean, the interest rates in the 1977, and then there's this unique interest rate in 1981. Pardon me? Commissioner Winton: When rates were sky high. Mr. Howard; Yeah. It -- 1 think it's some t*ederal subsidy program. Vice Chairman Gort: Sunshine pool. Mr. Howard: Maybe so, yeah. What 1 really focused on, given that those two were so old, and the rates Nvere so, so low, 1 focused on the '91s, the '92s, '93s and '95s. And as you can see here, we've broken out -- and we'll be happy to present this chart. to you in hard copy. But each i l 10/ 10/01 i issue is broken out and how the overall debt service is going. It's declining, obviously, as stated before, in the range of 2015, and it almost drops to nothing in 2016 and ' 17. So you have this capacity that we were talking about. And then there's a green line across the top that is really what your current millage is. And that's the 1.2 number. So in the refunding analysis, there are really three refunding opportunities. There is a fourth, but it would require a little bit different financial structure that we'll bring to you when we think it's appropriate. But we have the series '91, which has an outstanding amount of four million; series 1992, and series 1995. And what we would suggest is doing a refunding where the savings are taken over the life of those remaining issues. In other words, level savings. So the new issue would be approximately thirty-four million. The average interest rate that we were projecting is 4.18 today, the average interest rate. And that's going out to the maturity on the series '95, which goes out to 15. Taking advantage of three hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars ($325,000) per year in average annual savings, reducing your general obligation debt payments by that amount. And in rough times, what's that economically worth to you today? That's worth about two point seven million dollars (S2.7 million). And in percentages, most -- for policy issues, many cities and counties establish anywhere bctwecii a three and a five percent present value savings target before they'll refinance anything. Given the level of savings here, it's certainly advisable to go forward. And this will only augment the capacity that -%ve'll be looking at in the future fbr your general obligation authorization. This is a small chart, and again, I apologize. But we were asked to look at all your special obligation debt. And I'll take the arrow here. This is really housing related over here. There's several issues here. This is Convention, Community Redevelopment, Convention Center, Guaranteed Entitlement, Community Redevelopment. And then ,ve focused on this, your covenant to budget and appropriate. We basically reviewed all these issues. We didn't review the housing so much, because it didn't seem to have a financial impact on the City, as much as these issues here -- the self-insurance trust, the admin. Certainly, you have the taxable pension bonds. And over here, you have a series of what are variable rate issues. So this kind of overall outlines your debt profile. So in a quick analysis, looking al all the issues, what we could find were four opportunities, all in different areas of what we would call security that's pledged to these bonds. The 1987's, there's one maturity out at 7.4. You could pick tip roughly two hunched thousand dollars ($200,000) there, maybe a little bit more today, because it's only one year remaining on that particular maturity. Series 1990, '94 and '95. It's surprising the 1995 doesn't generate as much savings. But that's called an advance refunding, and there's some issue with When you borrow money and then reinvest it to "defease" old bonds. The reinvestment rates are very low right now, so that impacts savings. Even though borrowing rates are low, reinvestment rates, the opportunity to reinvest those funds to defense debt is also very low right now. We expect improvements on that. So you should prepare yourself to looking at refunding these. And then i think this is something that -- where You could structure an up front payment, if you so desire. It equates to about a million -three to a million -three -fifty right now. Again, re-entry into the capital markets, I think Bob talked about stetting a substantial upgrade, I think at a minimum, we have to get Standard and Poor's back to invest grade. We want to get them up as high a category as we can. We're going to push hard for that. I think we bring in Fitch. i think your staff has suggested we go to Fitch, which is a third rating, in order to help leverage, ourselves. And 1 think that your staff has a good relationship with Moody's, so hopefully, we'll see sonic improvement there. And again, utilize cu]7ent opPortunities. I guess as we'll go into the market, we'll present these opportunities in terms of the general obligation as our focus. And I'll -- and we'll talk about how the capacity issue, in 12 10/10/01 terms of looking -- authorization for two hundred and fifty would also impact that rating profile. And then I think a very significant thing that I think will benefit the City long-term, especially with this program, is having one-on-one or one -on -five investor meetings. That means going to New York, going to Boston, going to Chicago with institutional investors, since those arc the most frequent investors that trade their bonds on the secondary market, and we'll be trading the City of Miami name. So we want to make sure that we have restablished a relationship with them on all the good things that you've done up until this point. With that, Mr. Vice Chairman, 1 conclude my presentation. I'm certainly available for questions. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Any questions? Commissioner Tcele: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir. Commissioner Tecle: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Have you given any written memorandum to the Manager regarding the two hundred and fifty-five -- or to the staff regarding the two hundred and fifty-five thousand and the ability, in effect, to extend the current rate without increasing the tax burden or the tax rate on the citizens of Miami? Which appears to be the assumption underlying this. Have you independently evaluated that? Mr. Howard: We've been working with staff. We became aware of this -- Commissioner Tecle: Let me ask you, have you evaluated this assumption? Mr. Howard: Yes, I have evaluated it. Commissioner Teele: Have you formed an opinion on the assumption? Mr. Iloward: I have not completed my formed opinion on it, no. I think it is viable, given the assumption of growth rates. And l think if you want to -- Commissioner Tecle: But see, viability, it's clearly viable. We've got -- I've got one simple clear issue. And I assume -- I don't want to assume away the problem. I assume I have great confidence in the Manager and Mr. Nachlinger. But, you know, you're the TA (financial advisor), SO you're sort of in a unique relationship with the Commission, in that you advise us directly, like 0111• external auditors, like our attorneys. And let me reframe this -- rephrase this. Will you provide us a written opinion confirming the assumptions, and will you call mc: at home if your- opinion ouropinion is different from what I'm about to vote on? I think -- I mean, I want to vote "yes," but if you've got an answer, I mean, I think you have an obligation to call each one of its at home or wherever you can find us and tell us if the answer is different, because, you know, this whole thing is clearly sort of a no-brainer, except if' you live in Miami. And then, this thing gets real complicated. So it's very viable. 1 mean, you know, anybody can figure out, given where the interest rates are now, it's a great time to go out for a bond issue. But, unfortunately, you know, we've got to deal with a series of crosscurrents. And sone people are willing to demagogue something, just for a moment, if it -- if it sounds right. And so, we've got to be able to say to the 13 10/10/01 • media, to the press, to the public, to the voters that we voted on this, based on the assumption that no one's tax rates are going to increase. in other words, all we're doing now is extending debt on a level basis. We're not raising it. one tenth of one tenth of one percent. And that's the real issue. And I'm asking you respectfully if you could give us that in writing, give it to the Manager, in particular. If it's bad news, give it to all of us. But we need to know that you all have -- you know, that someone else -- check and balance, if you will -- has also looked at this. And that was what I specifically asked the Manager before. And I trust the Manager. l trust Mr. Nachlinger. But, you know, unfortunately, if a candidate for Mayor were to decide to take this issue on, you know, they're political entities, as well. You, Hopefully, have no political axe to grind. So you can go before the press and say you analyzed this, and put your credentials on the line, and assure the public that we're not increasing taxes. Mr. Howard: This is an interesting day. But thank you, Commissioner Tecle. It is -- I would be happy to form an opinion and put it in writing.- Obviously, I'm going to qualify my opinion with certain assumptions. For example, and I alluded to those options. We'll have to figure out what some of them are going to be. But one of them is, what happens if they have an overall decline in real estate taxes'? I can't deal with that. But certainly, if you're going to do something from a general obligation -- do something called a limited general obligation, which limits the rate, based on the assessed valuation, you can pretty much, you, yourselves, as the Commissioners, which, again, I don't have any power to buy into the future for it. Only you could issue -- Commissioner Tccic: No, the public can. We can't, really, but the public can. The public can bind by saying in the referendum; they will not pay more than this amount. Nlr.:Howard: And if you're saying to me that's going to be in the referendum, then my opinion would say, well, they can't exceed 1.218. Certainly. Another underlying assumption -- Commissioner Tecle: See, I hedged ort that when I talked to the Attorney by saying "up to." Mr. Howard: Yes. I think you've struck on a very good point there. What would happen is if you had a decline in real estate prices, and -- Commissioner Winton: You mean taxable values. Right? ,Mr. Howard: Well, yes, sir, in my mind. Yes, sir, that's absolutely right, taxable values, which could be a reflection of real estate transactions, what have you. And we seem to find support in our issue, as you've well seen significant increases in overall averages. And I. think the advantage you have by the staffs phased bond program, through the phased bond program, you can manage any risk, number one, from increasing those rates, because what you'll simply do is delay the bond issue until some future point in time. That would be one of the things that I would qualify in my opinion. But 1 would be happy to put in writing my thoughts, my opinions to support the City of Miami and support staff in this endeavor. Vice Chairman Gort: Did you work with this chart? 14 10/10/01 Mr. Howard: Yes, I worked with -- well, no. Staff prepared that chart. I prepared an identical chart. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. So you're.in agreement with this? Mr. Howard: And I know what the assumptions are behind that chart, absolutely. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Because that, 1 think it's very important to explain that, the way you explained it now, the -- our debt services go down. And that's what we would do, is to maintain the same millage. Mr. Howard: Yes. Vice Chairman Gort: And like you're saying, if for some reason, the property value drops, well, you're going to do the issues within 10 years. You're not going to do it all at once. Mr. Howard: It may extend your capital plan. It may extend the maturity of the bonds that you're actually issuing. I would give yourself that flexibility. Or shorter maturities, whatever the case may bc. Commissioner Winton: In your presentation, could you go back? Tell me, if you refinanced the existing bonds in place today at whatever rate you assuming we could refinance at, what did you say -- what kind of additional bonding capacity would we actually get out of the refinancing of the existing bonds today, tomorrow, you know, the next? Mr. Howard`: In a very simple -- There's all sorts of ways you can increase capacity. But the present value savings effectively represent what that value is today, that additional capacity, if you will, if you hold it to the same maturity. If we extend the maturity of the debt, then that capacity increases. And I didn't run that number. But basically, it's three hundred thousand dollars out to about 2015. Commissioner Winton: How much? Three hundred thousand? Mr. Howard: Yes. Three hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars ($325,000) average annual savings, which goes out. So I mean, it produces about -- Commissioner Winton: In annual, in annual debt service. M•. Howard: In annual debt service reduction. Now, how you take that debt service, whether you do a shorter -term debt, will obviously impact the amount you bring up front. Or if you extend that delft out into 20 or 25 years, you'd be able to generate even more, quote unquote, capacity. So froin a savings perspective, holding everything constant in terms of maturity of the debt, it's worth two point seven million dollars ($2.7 million) today with the existing maturity. 'that's the middle road. Shorter it would be less. Longer it would be greater. Vice Chairman Gort: Any other questions? 15 10/10/01 Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman. Sir, one of the things that you said that we could do is look into our savings opportunities from existing debt that we have. That could be used to fund some outstanding issues in the refinance. Refinancing - and Johnny, you talked on that -- refinancing, you said was -- I believe it w. -s at seventeen million. Refinancing that could bring a savings to the City of an estimated what? Mr. Howard: Maybe I should bring my chart back up. It may be helpful to do that. Commissioner Sanchez: i mean, T want to explore all the opportunities here. I really want to look outside of the box, although the presentation is made and the recommendation is being made by the administration. i want to make sure that I look at this from all the angles, to make sure that at least when it's my time to vote on this issue, 1 want to be making the right decision for the City, because as what you've stated and some of the Commissioners stated here, we cannot predict the future economy headlines. Although, you know, right now, you open up the paper and we could all predict that our economic is doing very bad, and airlines are laying off people, and the cruise industry is laying off people, and it's pretty bad. The opportunity that exists now for bonding out is a good opportunity Cor the City. Of course, that doesn't mean that the voters are going to approve it in November and we're going to run to New York quickly. It's all about timing and trying to get the best investment for the City. And that's when bond counseling would come in. So getting back to the question that I asked. What would be the significant. savings if we were to refinance our existing debt now, which is 17 mill? V11'. Howard: Now, you're talking about the general obligation debt. Commissioner Sanchez: Yes. GOD (general obligation debt). Mr. Howard: OK. The debt that saves you money -- OK? -- That you can refinance on a tax- exempt basis -- you can refinance theoretically all your debt Maybe not all the taxable. I mean tax-exempt. Some of it may be -- have to be done taxable if you've already taken advantage of certain refinancing opportunities in the past. So let me say, first of all, you could restructure your general obligation debt. 1 wouldn't do that. It costs money. You're not accomplishing anything. What i truly believe -- and I'll he happy to put this in the memo, 1 guess. The two point seven million dollars ($2.7 million) is what -- my best guesstimate of what you can capture and what saves you money today. There may be one other increment of debt that we're looking at that may add another two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) worth of capacity. I'm working with the senior manager on -- in looking at that. It's a little bit different structure. 1 don't want to get into the technical end of it right now, but it's a little bit different. But it will save about an additional two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000). So in my mind, in terms of the general obligation debt, and saving money -- because if you go back -- and I looked at all the general obligation debt. And you're not going to save any money on refinancing the series '81. 1 mean, it's impossible. And the series 1997 is so small. We maybe can fold it in there, but I'm not. sure it saves any money. I mean, I made a -- a gut actuarial determination when I saw four percent, I'm not going to save money. So -- Commissioner Winton: 1-11us there's no principal amount left. 16 10/10/01 Mr. Howard: Yes, sir, absolutely. In the series '91, there's still not very much left that is enough to put in and make it economically viable. In series '92, yes, absolutely. That saves money. In series '92, yes, there's a -- it's already been refinanced once. If we wait a year, there may be an opportunity to refinance the debt. But it's just not that much there, believe it or not, because the `92s have what's called non -callable debt in it. So they're pretty much -- nothing we can do with them on a tax-exempt basis. And you -- you just don't do that. It cost you too much money. The only reason you'd want to do that is to totally restructure your current debt service profile. That's the only way you'd want to do it if you want to flatten out that curve, that chart, for whatever reason -- and I wouldn't recommend that at this point, because economically, we have in hand a bird in the hand, one that we can go to the rating agency. What makes sense, standard operating procedure, refinances, saves money, create capacity for further authorization. The `93s, no. And the '95s, yes. And we do save money there. So 1 truly believe I've gone through it. And I had -- to be honest with you, I had the senior manager that we selected independently do his numbers and send them to me today to verify where we were. And we're right on top of each other on the same numbers. So in terms of the general obligation, that's that opportunity. The special obligations is an opportunity, too, but I don't know if that's what you're talking about right now, since we're focused on the general obligation. Commissioner Sanchez: General obligation, yeah. All tight. Thank you. Commissioner Winton: Can I ask one more question about -- apparently, I'm missing something here. You said the annual debt service savings will be three hundred thousand dollars (5300,000) a year in this refinance. Yet, it will only generate 2.7 million in new bonding principal. Mr. Howard: Yeall. That's on a present value, so we discount it back. Commissioner Winton: Why do we do that? I mean, why is that necessary'? Because ,you're you're going to take three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) -- the idea here is that we're going to have that three hundred thousand dollars in annual debt service that's -- that we're currently paying that's a part of the what's the number? 2.18? What's the millage? Mr. Ginienez: 1.218. Commissioner Winton: Oh, yeah. 1.218. So you've got that three hundred thousand dollar ($300,000) annual debt service in there. We're going to refinance that. We're going to save three hundred thousand. So if we can service new debt, and we can spend three hundred thousand clollars a year, because that's what we're already spending, why doesn't that generate three and a half million, three million, three and a half million at lower interest rates? I mean, at ten percent, it seems to me that capitalizing the -- Mr. Howard: Well, the savings are discounted back (unintelligible). What I'm looking for right now is my debt service comparison in my book here. So if you'd give nie a moment. Yeah. Let tile -- 17 10/10/01 Commissioner Winton: I'm applying my just standard old real estate formulas that, obviously. don't apply. And I don't get it. So let's -- Mr. Howard: Sure. I understand. 'These numbers show an average between three twenty- seven and three twenty-four over the period through 10/1/2017. OKAnd that generates about five point two million dollars (55.2 million), gross. Gross. That's gross. That's three twenty- seven, three twenty-three - 1'11 add it up for us. That's five point two million dollars ($5.2 million). So the brand -- and the present value, with that back, that's about four point four million dollars (54.4 million). There's some transfers from existing debt service funds that we have to offset against that, because you basically allocated funds as you've gone along. You've got all sorts of different bond payments. This could get very technical. We should probably work one- on-one. But essentially, it's stating you have five -- in your real estate tax, you have five point two million dollars ($5.2 million). OK? This will add this -- l think this will make sense in rough terms. I'm doing a real estate transaction. 1 figure over a certain period of time, I'm going to spend -- just like a house payment. You do a home mortgage or something like that. You borrow a hundred thousand. You're going to pay two hundred thousand over the life, even, you know, depending on how long you go. Here, it's a very short period of time from 2017. Commissioner Winton: And that's what's -- that's what you're treasuring against, is a quicker amortization period. So if you -- but if you -- if' you did a formula that had where you were extending that amortization period to 30 years, as opposed to picking 15 or 16, then there would be greater capacity. Mr. Howard: Yeah. And I maybe didn't make -- l tried to make that point before. It was up to you -- Commissioner Winton: You did. And I just -- Mr. Howard: -- the more you extend that. Commissioner Winton: Got it. Mr, Howard: That'll increase that -- Commissioner Winton: I understand. 1 understand clearly now. Thank you. Mr. Howard: Thank you for your question. It's a good one. Got me swcatinp; now Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Any other questions for our financial advisor? Thank you, sir. Mr. Howard: Thank you to the Commission, I appreciate the opportunity to present today I look forward to working with you all. Vice Chairman Gort: Mr. Manager. Mr. Gimene: 'flat's the end of our presentation, sir. 18 10/10/01 Vice Chairman Gort: You have a list of the projects that you recommended to meet the two fifty- five, right? Mr. Ginenez: Yes, sir. There is a -- Vice Chairman Gort: There's a list ,you all have. Mr. Gimencz: Two lists of the two fifty-five on page -- the third -- amendment number -- Attachment Number l is a broad category, although there are sonic specific proiects. Behind it, there is a narrative of the proposed projects and there's more detail on Attachment Number 1 continuing, which goes on into specific parks that will be impacted by the two hundred and fifty- five million dollar ($255,000,000) issue. There's sixty million dollar:; (560,000,000), thirty-one million dollars (531,000,000) in neighborhood park improvement acquisitions, broken down into - - by (unintelligible) by area. Commissioner Winton: Mr. Chairman. Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir. Commissioner Winton: I've got a number of specific questions, but I've got a -- kind of a policy, philosophical issue that I would really like to start with first. And that is -- and 1 just got a chance to read this last night. So -- but 1 have a bit of a concern here in terms of the items we've chosen. And I guess when l brought this tip originally, and -- about two weeks ago, whenever it was we met -- I was really -- I think I was thinking about this a bit diirerently, because my -- I think the intent was to -- and obviously, none of this can be done tomorrow. You know, it isn't about tomorrow. But it is about setting; the wheels in motion to position our City to take maximum advantage of a -- of an improvement in the economy, and some of the steps that we can take relatively quickly. I think, contrary to a few things 1 might have read in the paper today, I think that we can create jobs out of sonic of this work. I think we can get real dollars into the local community. And I think that, most importantly, this whole process was, I think, in my mind, geared towards us doing the kind of public works projects in our contrnunity that will make out- community urcommunity shine, make our community a better place to live for the residents here, and position our community to be at the top of the investment list when that arena kicks back into high gear. And what we have here, however, was -- is a program -- and there's no criticism here of the Manager, at all. I mean, I think they've done their job. Their job is to figure out what all the capital needs are in the City and bring; something back to us. But it is certainly different than I was thinking about, because you've got ninety-onc million out of two hundred and fifty-five million, which is 36 percent of the total that really is administrative in nature for the City of Miami. And while a lot of that may have a real positive bearing; -- and I have no doubt about the -- well, I'll Back up. While it may have a real positive bearing; on how efficiently and effectively City government can work, it really isn't what I was thinking about when we started this. 1 was really focused on things that the public could really see, that our neighborhoods would really feel, and the investment community could also really see out there. So -- and the kinds of things that 1 found to be lacking, as examples -- and this isn't a thorough analysis of all, just because I ran out of energy last night to think about it. But as an example, I know that we've talked about 19 10/10/01 • 0 gateways in our individual neighborhoods. And there isn't anything in here about gateways. There isn't anything in here about greenways to connect our neighborhoods, one neighborhood to the next, to the next, so that people can get out of their cars, and ride their bicycles, or do roll er-biading, or do those kinds of things. There isn't anything in here -- as an example, you get on 37"' Avenue, Douglas Road, and you've got Coral Gables on one side and the City of Miami on the other side. There isn't anything in here that's designed to make the City of mami look just like the City of Coral Gables on the other side. I mean, there's that clear demarcation line and you conic out of Coral Gables, and you just walked into -- ugh. And we don't have anything to make ugh go away. You know, there was a Coconut Grove master plan done in 1977 that had a whole series of recommendations in there. There isn't anything in there for that kind of thing. And there's probably sonic others. You know, we know that we projected the cost of doing Bicentennial Park at -- 1 forget now -- twenty million or something. And there's ten million in here instead of twenty. Downtown, as an example, I think we all recognize the needs for infrastructure improvements, which lead to additional investment, are probably in the neighborhood of fifty million dollars ($50,000,000), just in the core and Park West. And we've got ten million in here. So -- and again, I'm not quarrelling with nor criticizing the management for what they've done. I think they've done the job that-- they've done probably what I would have done in the same spot. But I'm not sure that I'm -- I'm just. struggling with the ninety million dollars (590,000,000) that we put in stuff that goes into the City that the public is not going to see. So -- and 1 don't want to -- Then I've got some individual questions about some of the recommended dollars in here, but I don't want to deal with those until I get an understanding philosophically where the rest of you all want to go with this. - Commissioner Teele: May 1 just inquire, Commissioner Winton? I'm a little bit -- I'm trying to locate the ninety million dollars ($90,000,000) that you're making reference to is the -- Conliiiissloner Winton: Oil attach -- Commissioner Teele: Now, that includes existing projects, right? (:'ommissioner Winton: Well -- Commissioner Tecle: I mean, that includes existing -- That's not ninety million of bond money. Commissioner Winton: Well -- Commissioner Teele: As I read those numbers, it's more like 60. It's more like -- Commissioner Winton: Let me go to those pages. I was in -- Vice Chairman Gort: Why don't we go through it, and let us know what you believe is heing done. Commissioner Teele: You know what I would really.like to do though, Mr. Chairman'? Vice Chairman Gort: Yes. ?0 10/10/01 • 0 Commissioner Teelc: l mean, I think we ought to open it to the public. Commissioner Winton: That's a good idea. That's a great idea. I'm sorry. Commissioner Tccic: .rust for enough to get a send of that. But I think we need to be clear on what set of numbers we're really looking at and we're voting on. I was commending Mr. Nachlinger in my mind until he got to the end. And then I realized ,you probably did give us too much information. And we never get enough information. You're darned if you do, and you're darned if you don't. I guess. But we need to be very clear on the ninety -- on the two hundred and fifty-five million, because I'm having some difficulty following Commissioner Winton's -- Vice Chairman Gort: Yeah, the ninety million. Commissioner Tecle: Ninety million Commissioner Winton: If you go to -- the proposed general obligation bond issue projects list. Attachment 1 is where i really started with that. What is it? Mr. Gimenez: Talking about the sixty for municipal facilities and thirty-one for public safety? is that the one you want? Commissioner Winton: There's three line items in public safety. There's homeland defense Preparedness initiative, eleven million; neighborhood fire stations and training facility, ten million; police training facility, tcn million. That's thirty-one. Then you - C'ommissioncr Tecle: OK. So you're taking thirty-one, plus the -- Commissioner Winton: Plus the sixty of municipal facilities, Citywide municipal facility upgrades, public facility improvements. This sixty more. So that's sixty with the thirty-one is how .0 bot to the ninety-one. Commissioner Teele: Commissioner Winton, if I may, sir. Commissioner Winton: Please, Commissioner Tecle: This is very difficult for the Manager, I know, trying to negotiate, 1 guess, with six people. I guess 1 was one ol'the last ones to go and see him on Thursday or Friday. And we need to inquire on the record, Mr, Manager, regarding your consultation with the Mayor. I only know what I've read in the press. '['he Mayor has not called me on this matter. But without getting into that, Commissioner Winton's comments in part were the same comments that I had. I feel very strongly that the process is really a very good analysis. And 1 strongly support the public safety issues. And if we could separate the public safety issues. And very briefly, Johnny, why is it the police training facility, for example, and the fire station training facilities, which -- a total of twenty million dollars ($20,000,000), and the homeland defense preparation initiative are probably the three things right now that the public can best understand. 21 10/10/01 0 0 But if you really listen to what we did in the Citizens Independent Review Panel, the shortcoming that we, as a City have is a lack of adequate police training facilities. So to me, that's something that I'm prepared to go out and -- especially into the community that I represent and say, look, the best way to stop trigger happy police is to properly train them, if we have trigger-happy police. And obviously, having the urban infrastructure stuff'-- !.mean, we watch, we see the bin Laden people training, unfortunately, on CNN, you know, with every film clip. Our police don't even have a -- our own training facility for urban training. We have to go use County facilities, borrow, el cetera. So those issues, I would distinguish from the other sixty million dollars ($60,000,000). And my concern on the other sixty million dollars ($60,000,000) is very similar to yours. This is not -- this is something that the public needs to feel good about. We're not walking away from our capital commitment. And we have an obligation to continue to fund government and do the capital stuff. So I -- I mcan, I'm much more interested in vetting the sixty million dollars ($60,000,000) of municipal facilities as opposed to the whole ninety million dollars ($90,000,000). But I would hope that we could have some discussion about the sixty million dollars ($60,000,000), because we need to make sure that everybody -- that every citizen in this City feels that every one, every one of these dollars are for them and not for us -- that is "us," being government. And that's where the rubber is going to meet the road here. But I think, by and large, what the Manager has tried to do -- I mean, I can see the various issues here. He's tried to really weave a fabric that touches every neighborhood and every community, Vice Chairman Gort: Let me ask a question. Excuse me, Do we have a proposal also for the two -fourteen, for the two hundred and fourteen million? Mr. Gimenez: Sorry, sir. What was the question? Vice Chairman Gort: This is two components. We have two hundred and fourteen million dollars ($214,000,000) that we can utilize right now. A lot of that is existing CIP projects. Mr. (:;imenez: NVe have -- it's a blending of projects that are already existing; and on the books. ft's a blending of unallocated funds and future funds. We have a hundred and nine maybe (unintelligible) we spent -- we think we've spent about twenty million dollars ($2,000,000) since ,lune, plus thirty-eight, So it's about ninety and thirty-eight of available CIP, plus another infusion of cash in the next ten years. Vice Chairman Gort: The question is, are those committed? The hundred -- Mr. Gilnencz: The cifghly-nine or ninety are committed. Thirty-eight is not. Vice Chairman Gort: Thirty -tight is not, So -- Mr. Gimenez: No. And then future funds are not committed, either. Vice Chairman Gort: I think what we should probably look into is the municipal facilities, the Citywide municipal, if you can give us a breakdown of those sixty million dollars ($60,000,000). 22 10/10/01 • • Mr. Gimenez: We can do that. The reason we put that much for municipal facilities is that there really isn't very much either in the way of current funding or future funding for the upgrade and maintenance of City facilities. That's why we had to put, you .know, money in there. If not, our infrastructure, the internal City infrastructure is going down, and there will not be a funding mechanism for it. Vice Chairman Gort: No, I understand. But if we can identify those facilities, I think. it'd be it lot easier for the public, and for us, also. Commissioner Winton: Mr. Chairman, I think Commissioner Tcelc had suggested that we get public comments, since everyone from the public is here. And I think it would be valuable for the -- for my thought process to get that, i1'we could. I mean. Commissioner Sanchez: But ifwe -- before we do that, Mr. Chairman -- Vice Chairman Gort: You thinking for parks? You think -- Commissioner Sanchez: I think everyone here is for parks, museum park and some other parks. But parks is not the issue, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Winton: Go ahead. Commissioner Sanchez:. Thank you. First of all, this is all based on high priority City projects that we have addressed for many years. I don't think anyone would dispute that we don't need a park in Little Haiti, or that we don't need to address the issue of sewers and drainage in Flagami, and just top priority needs, based on needs and assessment throughout the City that we've done. Fiat looking at all the projects that are in front of its, I have to agree with sorne of the statements made by my colleagues. On the capital commitments, they are grossly inflated. If you look at the -- and once again, I'm not pointing the finger or criticizing; the administration. They put together, I believe, a great report of what we need to fix in the City. But I don't think that, you know, we could do this, either all at once, or a lot of this may be inflated to a point where it's questionable. I tend to look at it two ways. One, based on -- I will not dispute the public safety. That is something that is top priority now. Just look at the stats. About it year Igo, or eight months ago, the number one priority was education. Well, today, it happens to be terrorists. And that is something that we need to focus on. The public safety, I don't have a problem with when looking at it Parks, I do not also have a problem with parks. I think if it's something that we lack in this City, it's adequate parks for our community and our residents. But one of the things is that you. want to do here, you've got to show the residents and the visitors that visit Miami is, Johnny, look at our streets. Our streets could be compared to third world country streets. When are we going to start paving streets? And I know there's some projected funds programmed into, but yet, we have not seen the fruits that we have planted the seeds several, several years ago. They continue to destroy our streets and patch them up, and they continue to look like third world countries. So people are going to vote for things that they could see for themselves as an improvement to our community. I thunk it has to he a marketing selling strategy to the taxpayers. I will make it very clear that one of the things that we need to focus on while we take this leap into trying to mold this City into a City of the future is that we have to 23 10/10/01 0 • address this geographically evenly throughout our community, in order to get this passed. Thcrc are other concerns. One is that the County will also be putting out a bond issue that will jeopardize ours, or ours will jeopardize theirs. When people look at the amount of money that's going to be bonded out, people are going to, one, either shy away fi•om it or get scared of it, because the County's going to bond out for one billion dollars ($1,000,000,000). We're bonding out for two fifty-five, whether we agree with it on today. But let's look at some of' these things. l think that the administration needs to really analyze and make sonic type -- or we, as the policymakers will make some recommendations on the municipal facilities. A hundred and two million dollars ($102,000,000), 1 think it's a lot of money. You look at a lot of the facilities that we have. Our facilities are not that old. We spend money in fixing, and I think our fire stations are much better off today than they were years ago, when they were falling apart. Parks, also. I mean, we could put -- God knows how much resources we could put in parks, and it isn't going to be enough. But there's also going to be the question out there that people have to be educated, because they're going to say, well, not too long ago, 1 voted for safe neighborhood park bond money. Well, where's the money going? And we need to tend to do that. If there's one thing that we could do here as legislators, and as administration and employees is say, look at our parks. Although they've improved, we have a long way to go, we show improvement, so people are going to well perceive that as, you know, hcy, at least we're making progress. All our parks have playgrounds, they have fencing now, they have light. And I usually tend to not commend people, but the Parks Department, AI Ruder and your staff is doing an excellent job. So that's a department that I will never question and doubt. Maybe there'll conic a day where I will question it, but I don't see it in the near future. Historic preservation, I'm all for it. We tend to destroy things that are bone forever, ever. They're not going to come back. The only way you're going to see them is through a picture, or old clipping or something, So I think that the five million there is not enough. So looking at the whole concept of it, Commissioner Regalado, 1 think that -- and he's not here -- lie is here. You know, he has to be a strong advocate of the streets and drainage, because of the situation that is in his district. Johnny, your district, of course, you're always looking at improving the downtown area in Coconut Grove. But the bottom line here is that I think that this plan, Mr. City Manager, not to criticize you, and I think You did -- your staff has done an excellent job to present to us -- but the capital commitments are grossly inflated in some areas. And l think -- 1 am willing to slash it down, because I think there was money there that it's on program that people have not seen, and I think people need to start seeing the ground shake and improvements before they're willing to jump into a bond issue of :this kind. So at the end of the clay, when I listen to all the arguments here, I'm prepared with my colleagues to either, one, reduce sonic of the amount of the bonding that we're going to be doing out, but i also encourage them to look at other savings, and in those savings, we could pass on to other issues pertaining to the bonds. Vice Chairman Gort: Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman, what Commissioner Sanchez and what Commissioner Winton just said in very simple terms, i think, is we have to do things that people can see and enjoy. And I feel that municipal facilities -- well, the Knight Center may need dozens of millions of dollars, but i would rather use that in a gateway in hlagler, Southwest 8"' Street, Coral Way, a green path, because what this bond -- the theme of this bond should be neighborhood enhancement bonds. And if we do not reach each and every neighborhood with something 24 10/10/01 tangible, something that they can see, something that the people can enjoy -- a park facility, a street landscaping, light, new lights for streets, even new signage, although that will not be our responsibility, historical markers, all that -- then we will not have achieved what we wanted to do with this. We could have generated some work, but at the end of the day, if we do want to leave a mark in the history of the City of Miami, these bonds should be for the people to see and enjoy, not for the government to spend in the next 40 or 20 years, or whatever the time is. So I am supporting this. I will support this. My only problem was that I want to make sore that this is air tight, that no tax increase will come out of this. Now, after that, l would rather reduce money for public facilities and do more greenways, something that is closer to the people. 'chat is up to you guys to decide. But I'm telling you, there is an urgent need for flood remedy in Flagami. You cannot continue having water pumps in 64"' Avenue and 62"" Avenue every time that it rains a little. I just gave Drank a picture of something that happens in 50'h Avenue, and i think -- is it 211`i Street, Frank? Or it's -- 2`1 Street. Well, that picture shows that there was a drainage work done several months ago, right in front of the driveway of a house. Well, that drainage collapsed. And there is a huge hole there. So we need -- and these people cannot enter or exit their home, because of that hole. And that is -- you know, it really sucks, because -- for the people to have to jump over the fence and all that. So what ]'in saying to you -- That is the picture, right'? You see that? Well, we paid good money for that just a few months ago. And we had several -- But, you know, what I'm saying is %ve've got to do this, and do it, and do it well. So I really believe that we should do this for the neighborhoods, something that the people can sec, something that the people can enjoy, something that the people can use every day. So 1 -- Johnny, I agree with you, totally. Commissioner Winton: Well, my question is, how -- we'll get at this a little later, but I still -- I'd like to -- Commissioner Regalado: Well, you don't. You just take some money out of, for instance, I mean that list, and move it. Coin missioner Winton: Yeah. Commissioner Regalado: That's all. We can do that. :Vice Chairman Gort: We could look at this. Commissioner Regalado: We can do that. Mr. Gimenez: Commissioners, we can take -- Commissioner Regalado: As a matter of fact -- excuse me, Mr. Manager. As a matter of fact, we have until late October, early November to have everything printed in terns of what you're going to say on the ballot, because, remember, the absentee ballots are not printed until November the 7t" Commissioner Winton: November what? 25 10/10/01 Commissioner Regalado: The 7`h, Commissioner Winton: Oh. Commissioner Regalado: Because we're talking to the -- of the runoff here. Absentee ballots are not printed until November the 7`h. So we have to be very clear on that. 1 -- I would suggest, as 1 did to the Manager, that whenever %vc arc going to do a project, we plane a sign. Instead of doing a sign after, this project is done by blah blah blah, we place a sign. The bond issue that will go on the ballot on November 13`' will give this park, this street whatever we allocate, If we give an exact number to the penny, people may believe it. But if we. say, you know, we want like a bond issue for progress, I mean, progress is the word that everybody uses whenever they want a bond issue. I would call them the neighborhoods bond issue, because it has to reach the neighborhood. So but if we do that, maybe, just maybe it would be approved by the voters of the City of Miami. And hopefully, the County Mayor does not have the vote for tomorrow to approve the billion and some dollar bond -- billion, billion, yeah, a billion and some -- not to approve the bond issue, because if they do that, then we just can kiss it good-bye, you know, because people will tend to vote "no" un everything. But I think that wt! should -- what we should do, if want it, is take some money from here to there, and establish exactly what we want, which is what the people want, by the way. Thank you. Vice Chairman Gort: OK, We're now open to the public and all those who would like to speak, you're welcome to conic forward, please. Just limit it to two minutes. Yes, go ahead. State your name and address for the record. Commissioner "feel e: Mr. Chairman. Vice Chairman Gort: Yes; Commissioner Teele: Before we hear from anyone on the museum park thing, the Sunshine Law does not allow me to talk to any of my colleagues. In deference to Commissioner Winton, who has led this process, which i have bought into, 101 percent, and not inconsistent with what Commissioner Regalado just said, I do think we have to have something that's out there that continues to move Miami forward, as the capital of the Americas. It's not enough just to improve .our neighborhoods, which I fully embrace and support. We've got to have sonic project out there that sort of -- I guess one of those presidential candidates said it's the vision thing. We do need a broader vision. in that regard, i have -- I am strongly supporting what Commissioner Winton began in the charette and in the process, along Bicentennial Park. I think the real question that we have before us today is three things: First and fbreniost -- and I'm going to submit a resolution, i would hope, and I'll try to get a draft copy of it out, But there are three issues nn illy mind that we need to look at. Number one, the City owns tine land. Arid before anybody does what Wayne Huizenga and Mr. Henry both did, please don't conic down and start claiming City -owned land, because we've not made that decision yet. And that's not how to win Giends and influence people. But if that park is to go forward, we've got certain infrastructure commitments that Commissioner Winton identified and that process identified. So we've got to first and foremost jointly recognize that we've got an -- we, the City, have Mot an infrastructure commitment. Even if we, quote, give away the land -- for use, that is -- for the parks, which is 26 l0/10/01 really giving it away to the public, it's not question that that's different from a private use. We've got an obligation. That number is somewhere between ten and twenty million dollars ($20,000,000), 1 think, Commissioner Winton, on the infrastructure, and I hope you will guide us in this deliberation now, because there was an issue of roads, and green space, and all of that. And so -- and the bulkhead, and all of those kinds of things. So 1 don't want you to come down and lick the plate, if you will, about this thing. We've got to balance two things: One, which it sort of goes without saying, do we want to give -- allow that Bicentennial Park to be.used for a muscum? I think the answer is pretty obvious. At least two or three of us up here do. The question is, as we put together this bond referendum, do we want to commit specific dollars to the 111UseulnS, themselves? Which I think would be very helpful for your fund-raising activity. But do we want to keep the flexibility to ensure that the first money we used is the money to fix up and to design and do the bulkhead? Which obviously inures to the benefit of the park issue. The third issue -- and I want the City Attorney to listen to me, Because the resolution is very clear -- is this is only the beginning. And so let's don't anyone see this as the end. The third issue in my mind is, can we take this bond issnc and leverage toward a much larger commitment, such as the parking surcharge extension or something like that? We won't he able to address that issue today fully, htit I do think that itis important that we recognize the fact that there is nothing going to generate Tore traffic and more parking in the redevelopment area, in the Bicentennial, in the Park West and Omni areas than the Performing Arts Center and the museums and the park. And there's a real nexus, if you will, between the two entities. That is between parking surcharge and the museums, as long as we don't turn the: Bicentennial into a parking lot. And so -- and I would hope that we can restrict tremendously the number of parking Spaces that are on - Commissioner Winton: Absolutely. Commissioner Teele; -- the muscum, on t11c cast side of the boulevard. We need the sheet clow of people. But my only point in saying this is this: The resolution that I would offer up is a resolution that will commit "X" number of dollars, which I'm going to look to Commissioner Winton to establish that, as we move forward, for both the infrastructure improvement, as well as the tlluseunls, the two museums, themselves. And so I don't want to catch anybody by the blind side, because, see, everybody is going to conic in arguing for the money for the muscunls, I would hope. And I want to make sure that we also advance for the infrastructure improvements _that the Planning Department and others -- and we all agree have to be done. So that's the only little trick. I want to make sure that everybody is aware that Illy resolution talks jointly about the Bicentennial infrastructure and shoreline improvements for the muscunls, as well as jointly funding for the museums. And I would ask that we look at those resolutions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (APPLAUSE-) Vice Chairman Gort, Thank you. Yes Ma'am. Lori Ferrell: For the record, my name. is Lori Ferrell. That's F -E -R -R -E -L -L. I live at 451 1 Lake Road in the City of Miami. And I really wear three hats today. I wear a hat as a City of Miami resident in the area of Little Haiti, near Northeast 45t1' Street and Biscayne Boulevard. I wear the 27 10/10/01 • 0 hat of being the past president of the Miami Art Museum and chairing the site committee currently. I've worked on sites over the past five years. 'file one message that i can send to the group of Commissioners, because I've spent the past couple of years meeting; with some of you and talking before the Commission, is that don't allow yourselves to settle for mediocrity, and allocate the appropriate amount of funds for whatever it is you decide to do, becaupe you have the opportunity to maximize and leave a legacy to this community for generations to come. One thins that I think is incredibly important is that Miami, doesn't have a heart. The heart of Nfiami is downtown. The neighborhoods and linkages that could be provided by maximizing on what has been started by expanding the Performing Arts Center and continue with the museum park concept. l"urthermore, providing linkages to the neighborhood parks, because i strongly believe, being a resident in the City of Miami, that we need one -acre neighborhood parks where parents can take their children. A museum park concept will be a destination spot for residents, tourists, but most of all; it will be an educational center. Right now, teenagers, children in Miami, where do they have to bo? The main library. This would allow children to have a place to go and spend the day, cat a meal, and truly, it's in your hands, And I just want to say; I've been incredibly impressed with the process of the charette. i went through the charette at my table. I just want to tell you this very quickly, and then I'm finished. I had a member of Dade County, Miami -Dade Water and Sewer. I had green space people. 1 had baseball people. 1 had a teacher from Miami Country Day School. We all debated very strongly. I felt I had a conflict by even putting anything on the paper, because I had served as chairing the site committee. And at the end of the day, l sat there and watched ten people who were really mad at each other at the beginning of the process all agree the museum park concept was the best. But I do hope that you (unintelligible) a part of this City for everybody and for the future. Thank you. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, ma'am. (Ai)1'LAUSL) Greg Bush: Good afternoon. I'm Greg Bush. I chair the City's arks Advisory Board Commissioner Winton: Greg, come into the microphone. Mr. Bush: Closer? I always do this. f don't know why I do this. Anyway, I chair the City's ['arks ..Advisory board, a recently created board that reflects your own advisors, as well as others elected by the public. We met on this issue last night and got a copy of the bond -- projected bond. And we heartily endorsed the overall idea of this bond issue. I think the idea, as you all recognize, more parks and more park space in Little Haiti and Little Havana. Really upgraded spaces for kids and elders around this City is really important. But let me just mention a couple things that l think are important. This process, for obvious reasons, was fast -tracked. And we wish that we could have been consulted in the process. 1 think it is important that there be more public input as the process continues, which is part of our message. As you all know, the City has had no master plan for parks in lord knows how long. We have now initiated a process Under Carlos Arboleda (phonetic) to create a new master plan, including a whole series of churches in the City. So we are looking for your support overall. We passed two resolutions last night, and I'd like to niention them briefly. The first one is that I think that the money allocated to this bond issue needs some flexibility. In other wards, there are certain formulas that were 28 10/10/01 0 • created, and certain standard monies that need to be more flexible. So what we're asking for is that projects come back to the Parks Advisory Board for sonic recommendations as you go through the process. And then, of course, it conies to you. What we said was that the board recommends that the Commission utilize available public input through the Parks Advisory Board in our ongoing master plan process in implementing the bond issue. The second thing that we passed last night relates to Bicentennial Park, which, as you know, is allocated ten million dollars ($10,000,000) from this. And we've established what we see as the chief criteria that should be considered in funding and redesigning this park. And I don't want to read all of them, but l just want to mention a couple of them, if I may. We believe, among other things, that the park should be planned with its primary purpose being a world-class park with the commercialized entertainment functions being subservient to its role as an accessible and attractive public facility. Most people are going to agree, I think, with a lot of these. A community center should be mandated as part of any building program. And let me add, too, one of the things that I would urge you -- this is very personal -- is that I don't see much money in all your bond issue for community centers. And I think it's an important aspect of building a community to have a place for people to meet. So i would urge you to try to find sonic money for community centers in this, too. We also called for, among other things, that there should be a coherent theme of fi•cedom associated with the park, in honor of those from the American Revolution to the present who sacrificed their lives so that others can live in freedom, extending the idea of Bicentennial Park that exists. An overall planning effort for the entire Miami waterfront is needed to site cultural facilities, we believe; create a water transportation system; make the best use of our public waterfront. And then finally, among -- there are about fourteen of these, so I'm not -- I'll try not to bore you with all of these. Priority should be given to water - related and water -dependent uses. And if it can be shown that there's some such water -related, water -dependent uses, then we would endorse that. We are, in many ways, fully in support of the museum park, but we also believe there needs to be some degree of sensitivity, real sensitivity that I think a lot of you have shown to the fact that this is an open space, and it needs to he enhanced as open space and preserved for all our people. Thank you very much. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Tcele: Mr. Chairman. _Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir. Yes. Commissioner Teele: Mr. -- Vice Chairman Gort: Bush. Commissioner Tecle: Mr. Bush, there is a proposal that appears to be -- I agree with you about the community center. Have you seen the proposal on the Antonio Maceo Park? Mr, Bush: Albert Ruder just showed tile that briefly last night. Conimissioner Tecle: OK. When you get a chance, 1 really would appreciate your counsel to melon that. 29 10/10/01 Mr. Bush: Sure, absolutely. Commissioner Teele: On that community center. Thank you. Mr. Bush: OK, sure. Robert McCabe: Robert McCabe, 1601 South Miami Avenue, on behalf of the South Miami Avenue Neighborhood Association. 1 just want to say, first of all, I feel good about living in the City of Miami, listening to the quality of the discussion tonight. This Commission has taken a lot of hits over the years. And if you act like you act tonight all the time, you're not reserved. I'd like to nuke that comment first. My comments are really very brief. Commissioner Winton: Don't we always act this way? Commissioner Sanchez: I thought we did. Mr. McCabe: 'rhe other comments are very brief, and that is that l liked very much what I've heard tonight. I'm particularly interested -- 1 think you have an important movement on foot in Miami in the redevelopment of older neighborhoods. I can cite a half dozen where good things are happening that will be important to the City. 1 hope that there will be an interest, as many of you have stated, in money going back to specific projects in some of those neighborhoods. And I would particularly like to add the issue of neighborhood lighting to your list of issues in those neighborhoods. Thank you very much. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Yes, sir. Albio Castillo: My name is Albio Castillo. I live in 2386 Southwest S'h Street. 1 would like to ask this question: What is the bond rating for the City of Miami at the present time? And is this a good time for the City, with all the problems we're having, including the sixty-eight million dollars ($68,000,000) in debt, the thirty-eight million in Miami Arena, and the half a million dollars in AT&T (American Telephone and Telegraph) that we have spent in Bedminster, the combo, the (expletive deleted) we call it. Vice Chairman Gort: To answer your questions, one of the things we talked about is that we balanced the budget for the last live years. We never fell in debt services. We always paid out- debt urdebt services. We have a surplus right now of around seventy million dollars ($70,000,000). Our people are willing to go to New York, and I think we can upgrade the bond rating for the City of Miami. At the same time, we can issue bonds, which is very important, without raising the taxes oft the bonds, because we're paying off a lot of bonds. OIC? Mr, Castillo: And I also -- if it's going to be another fiasco like it happened with the park bonds that -- years ago, that the park, the parks are still deteriorating. When we -- Commissioner Winton: Well, 1 don't know where you've been hanging out, but I can tell you, I've been to parks all over this City, and the City of Miami, from that very parks bond issue, has 30 10/10/0 spend tens of millions of dollars in improvements in parks that I've seen all over the City. So 1 don't know. I don't know where your neighborhood is exactly. Mr. Castillo: I'm just asking. .I'm just asking as a taxpayer. Commissioner Winton: But I've seen improvements in parks all over this City. Mr. Castillo: I'm just asking as a taxpayer. I just want to find out. Commissioner Winton: Well, except you called it a fiasco. So i guess 1 was understanding that you thought we -- that there was nothing done in parks, Mr. Castillo: There you go. That's -- Commissioner Winton: And you did say the parks were deteriorating. Mr. Castillo: That's one way -- Commissioner Winton: So I was suggesting to you that i haven't seen deteriorating parks, I've seen improved parks. Mr. Castillo: That's one way of opening somebody's mouth. That's why I did it like that. Commissioner Regalado: The closer -- Mr. Castillo: 'Thank you. Commissioner Regalado: Excuse me, Albio, Albio, Vice Chairman Gort: You've been working; you've been working too much. You need to take sonic, time off and go to the parks. Commissioner Regalado: No, no, excuse me, Mr, Castillo: I've been coming here, you know, for 29 years. How more can you ask that of ine? Commissioner Regalado: The park, the closest park where you live is Bryant. And we have just have -- Mr. Castillo: Shenandoah, too, Commissioner Regalado: Well, Shenandoah and Bryant. But in Bryant, we just had new lighting installed. And in Shenandoah, we will be finished, hopefully, the community center in September. Well, we are in October. So we were supposed to finish in September. Mr. Castillo: See? See? 31 l0/10/01 Commissioner Sanchez: And how much was that? That was what -- Tomas? Mr. Castillo: See? I had to do it like that to open somebody's mouth. Thank you. Commissioner Sanchez: That was what? One point two or one point three million dollars ($1.3 million)? Commissioner Regalado: 1.2. 1.2. Athalie Range: Thank you very much. Mr. Vice Mayor, honorable Commissioners, my name is Athalic Range. I reside at 5727 Northwest 17`h Avenue, Miami, Florida. And I am here today representing the Virginia Key Beach Park Trust. I was most pleased to sec that we are included for the improvements. I would have you know as an advance that when we come before you, 1 believe in December, to bring you a report on what has thus far been clone, just on Monday, the 2"'1 of October, we were pleased to have on the beach several thousand people in celebration of the Caribbean Festival. They were there in spite of the many, many inconveniences that the beach has suffered over these year, I believe since 1982, when no funds were expended for Virginia Key Beach. At this point, a portion of the funds that were raised at that time will go into our Trust. And I think that's a matter of a success report to you. I certainly wanted you to know that. I want you to know, also, and these ladies and gentlemen who are here represent the museum that we are certainly in your corner, also. In the event you do not know a museum is being planned for Virginia Key Beach. And even though it will be some years -- because the beach still remains in quite it hit of disrepair. We're still having to bring in portable facilities. But I certainly trust and do support the fact that we will have a bond issue that will bring forth the improvements that we're so anxious to have. Thank you so much. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, ma'am. 'Thank you. (APPLAUSE) Louise Valdes-Fauli: Good afternoon. My name is Louise Valdes-l',auli. I live on Quiora Street in Coconut Grove, and I also serve as chair of the Board of 'Trustees of the Miami Museum of Science and ,Space Transit Planetarium, As a resident, I am delighted to hear words today. I think it's wonderful that we're thinking about the citizens of our great City. Miami is a very, very special place to ine, and i know that you all feel the same way. I would like for you to really consider one thing about museum park in particular, and how this is an opportunity to use good money to generate great money for this City. We all know that better educated youngsters provide a better -educated and more productive work force. And 1 would like to share with you something wonderful that has happened to the Museum of Science, which, unfortunately, didn't have yaitc the publicity that it was supposed to. We were scheduled to be at the Whitehouse the Monday after September 11, to accept an award from the First Lady, from the Institute of Museum and Library Sciences. This is a federal agency that oversees museums of science in this country. And we were to be awarded the highest award given to a museum, which is service to underserved youth for the program that we have to mentor students from middle school through high school, and to encourage them to enter into careers in science and 32 10/10/01 technology. We know that this -- that the Museum o1' Science and that the Miami Art Museum can create very wonderful places for our people in Bicentennial Park. We would expect to have approximately a 1. billion -- 1.7 billion dollar, economic income over the first several years, and create 1500 new jobs in our community. We think this is very important for our community, and again, very much in keeping with what you've been saying about improving our neighborhoods, of doing everything really for the people, with visible things so they can sec a differctice. Thank Vo 11. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. By the way -- (APPLAUSE) Vice Chairman Gort. Excuse me. Commissioner Regal ado: Miss. Vice. Chairman Gort: Miss, you're still going to get the grant, aren't you? You're still getting the grant, right? Ads. Valdes-Fauli: Still getting the grant? Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, uh-huh. Ms.Valdes-Fauli: Oh, yes, yes. We're getting the award. ,lust unfortunately, it didn't happen when it was supposed to. Vice Chairman Gort: OK, OK. Commissioner Regalado: I wanted, also, Ms. Valdes-Fauli, 1 wanted also to thank you and the museum people, because you took the initiative and participated in the discount to bring people in a two for one discount, to bring people after the crisis that we had. And 1 was just given this draft of the ad page that is going to be published throughout the state. And I see that tiie Miami Museum of Science and Space Planetarium is offering two for one admission. So it's important that you understand the different situations that the community live, and I think I -- and I hope that if we ever have an agreement, and l hope that we will, I'm all for it, to do this in the City of Miami in the new site in Bicentennial, The residents of Miami will be taken care of, especially, by the museum, with discounts, and with programs, with in-kind services. And I think and hope that this will impact more on our neighborhood and will raise the education level and the quality of life of many people who would not have an opportunity to go, and pay and see the planetarium and the museum. Ms. Valdes -Faun: 'That's very true. And, you know, all of our programs for youth are to reach them. And, in fact, we even provide jobs for them in the summer. So we do everything in our power to give back to the community. 33 10/10/01 Commissioner Regalado: And if and when we do this -- and I hope that we will -- i hope that you will consider naming one of the halls of the Museum of Science and Space Transit Planetarium in the memory of Rolando Millas, your faithful servant for so many years. Ms. Valdes-Fauli: Absolutely. Commissioner Regalado; Thank you. Commissioner Winton: Ms. Valdes -Pauli. Vice Chairman Gort: 'Thank you. Commissioner Winton: Do you all have; still have a question about availability of site? Ms. Valdes-Fauli: Yes, Commissioner Winton: That's the wrong answer. That's the wrong answer. Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir. Fred Joseph: Fred Joseph, 1717 North Bayshore Drive. The Grand Condominium. I'm on the Omni Advisory Board. I'm also on the PAC (Performing Arts Center), the Performing Arts, And I am very happy to hear you speaking about the possibility of having something for the public to be able to enjoy. We're here to support the idea for Margaret Pace Park, a park that has already started construction. And we're looking for those funds, also, to complete it. The surrounding* area is a great improvement made. With the Performing Arts coming, with the other proiects on line, slur property value in the area, as we had disclosed at a meeting with Commissioner Tecle, Chairman of the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) and Commissioner Johnny Wilton, who is our district representative, that the property values have gorse up quite substantially in our area. So that chart and graph will look a lot better to everybody if that continues. What we'd like to say is that your input, public, would be visible. This is one of the Biscayne Bay's most gorgeous sights. Margaret Pace was a park that was always left Nvay, way, way behind, when I showed you pictures of the contrast of the parks back in 199-5. So now is the time. I'm glad that we're stepping up and we're able to look forward to getting this park to the prestige that it should be, with the vista of the bay that it has. Thank you VCI'y InLICh. Vice Chairman Gort: 'thank you, sir. Yes, sir. Yes, ma'am. Lavinia Freeman: Good evening. My name is Lavinia Freeman with the 'frust for Public Land. And I'm here to respectfully request that the Miami River Greenway Project be included in the list of funding for this initiative. The Greenway Plan was approved in concept by the City of Miami Commission in May, on May 10"I of this year. And the Miami River is a tremendous resouree. Arid even in its current condition, it generates over four billion dollars ($4,000,000,000) annually and -- via the shipping industry. But the greenway will give residents and visitors an opportunity to experience the river at work. Other cities across the country have 34 10/10/01 invested in their river, and it's had tremendous returns. The river is a destination Iandscape, and those who know how to get to it, they enjoy it. And so we'd like to do the greenway, give more people an opportunity to experience our Miami River. The, greenway will connect neighborhoods, businesses, parks and other amenities along the 5.5 -mile corridor. And it also has alternative transportation benefits in health, recreation, and just a number of benefits that will be good for our community. So far, we've secured over 5.5 million of the estimated twenty- four million dollars ($24,000,000) that will be needed to construct the pathway on the north and south sides of the river. And that 5.5 million includes a 2.5 million dollar grant from the Knight I'ounclation that we were awarded in June of this year. If this project is included, those dollars that we've already secured will be able to be leveraged, and also, we'll be able to use these Fundings -- the funds for matching dollars that are required, as we continue to go after grants that are available on the federal and state level. So we appreciate your consideration and we thank you for your support that you've given us to date. Commissioner Winton: And what's the range that you think that you're looking for, range. of dollars? ;\FIs. Frecinan: To be included in this particular -- We're looking -- maybe around one million would be a good seed amount to include, just based on all of the other priorities that we have, that you all have before you. But there are dollars out there that we could use to match with. Commissioner Winton: Great. ']'hank you. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Yes, sir. Clay Hamilton: 11i. My name is Clay Hamilton. I live at 1455 Michigan Avenue, Miami Beach, actually. But I am here representing the Dade Cultural Arts Alliance. Our board has not, obviously, taken a position on the bond issue, itself But at a previous board meeting, we did go on the record in supporting Museum Park as an obvious beneficial, not only economic generator f'or tourism, but also as a quality of life issue f'or residents, and as a recognition that the arts are one of' the few things in this town that we could get excited about and actually enjoy ourselves, all at the same time. So just to let you know, the Dade Cultural Arts Alliance is on record in support of Muscuin Park. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. (APPLAUSE) Commissioner Winton: Hey, Clay, when are you moving ofT'the Beach and moving to Miami? I-]uh? Mr. Hamilton: Not any time soon. I thank you, that encourages me. Vice Chairman Clort: Yes, sir. Brett Bibeaux: Honorable City Commission, City 35 10/10.01 (INAUDIBLE COMMENT) Commissioner Teele. Thank you. Mr. Bibeaux; Honorable City Commission, City administration and members of the public, good evening. My name is Brett 131beaux, and I'm the Assistant Director of the Miami River Commission, with offices at 4600 Rickenbackcr Causeway, Miami, Florida, 33149. I appreciate this opportunity to read the Miami River Commission's official statement to the City Commission, requested in City Resolution 00-320, regarding the proposed CIP bond issue, which directly impacts the Miami River. The City Manager's Office was kind enough to provide the Mianti River Commission with an October 2"d draft of the proposed general obligation bond issue projects list, which is Enclosure i of the statement that Lavinia was kind enough to pass out. 1 commend the City administration, NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) offices and City Commission for a progressive list of major improvements, and the following itemized projects directly affect the Miami River. The first two, which I'm going to point out, are the most critical to the river. And unfortunately, although they were in the October 2"id draft, they have both been completely removed from the list in the Manager's memo, which was provided to trte today. The first item is Number 29 on the draft, Citywide rights-of-way beautification and sidewalk construction, thirty-five million dollars ($35,000,000). Really, a lot of this support of the Greenway Action Plan is really what Lavinia said. i won't say -- repeat things that have already been stated. But essentially, the Miami River Commission strongly supports the Miami River Greenway Action Plan, which has been unanimously approved by the Planning Advisory Board, Urban Development Review Board, Historic and Environmental Preservation Board, the City Commission, Parks Advisory Board, the Waterfront Advisory Board. And the Miami River Commission's Greenway Subcommittee respectfully recommends at least six million of this lint item, which was thirty-five million dollars ($35,000,000) be allocated to partially fund the Miami River Greenway, which has a total price for development of twenty-three million. The second item is crucial to the Miami River, and that's retrofitting the Miami River storm water system. The draft had a Citywide storm sewer improvement line item of thirty million, and a Citywide curb and gutter improvement of eight million. The main polluter of the Miami River is the storm water system. The Miami River Commission Storm Water Subcommittee, consisting of representatives from the City of Miami Public Works Department, the EPA (Environmental ..Protection Agency), the DEP (Department of Environmental Protection), DERM (Department of Environmental Resource Management), Water and Sewer Department will release a comprehensive Miami River water quality report in November 2001. The Miami River and its tributaries which flow into Biscayne Bay are amongst the most polluted waterways in the State of .Florida. The long-term success of the eighty million dollar ($80,000,000) Miami River Dredging Project is dependent on retrofitting the Miami River storm water system, which, again, is the main polluter ofthe river. And the Miami River Commission supports the necessary Miami River Corridor storm water system retrofitting be funded by a portion of the thirty million dollar ($30,000,000) Citywide storm sewer improvement line item, and the eight million dollar ($8,000,000) Citywide curb and gutter improvement bond issue line item, again, both of which, unfortunately, were in the draft, but didn't make it to the final. And I'll just mention one more, and then i'll pass on the rest of my time, which is Number 17, which is was it line item for twenty-two million Citywide shoreline stabilization and seawall replacement. Enclosure Number 36 10/10/01 ! 0 2 of our official statement is an April 2000 photo of a half -acre City -owned property on the Miami River located at 460 Northwest North River Drive. I told you a number is included in our statement. And the condition of this City -owned property is a prime example of the Miami River Corridor's dire need for a significant portion of this twenty-two million dollar ($22,000,000) Citywide shoreline stabilization bond issue line item. Several ,years ago, the City of Miami cut funding for the Miami River "MISS CLEANUP" vessel, and the Miami River Commission is applying to assist the City and the County for a Florida Inland Navigational District Grant to partially fund the return of this ;Miami River debris removal vessel. And the FIN[) (Florida Inland Navigational District) Grant does require a 50 percent matching fund, which may be allocated from this bond issue. I thank you for your time. Vice Chairman Dort: Thank you. Yes, sir. Steve Hagen: Steve Hagcn, 725 Northeast 73`d Street, Miami. I originally carne here just to speak in favor of harks. This is interesting, looking at all the upcoming proposals for the bond issue. The one thing that I would like to -- and you've mentioned it here. I mean, I would just as soon have all the money spent on parks. But the improvement of streets is extremely important. And I think I sent -- wrote all of you several months ago. 1 mean l -- in fact, I was waiting some necting sone time, and I had a lot of -- sonic time to waste, and I just took a drive around some of the neighborhoods I wasn't familiar with in ;Miami. And I live in a neighborhood that has curb and gutter. And that's probably five percent of our streets that have curb and gutter. Maybe it's tcn percent, 1 don't know. But I don't know how the curb and gutter got in my neighborhood, whether it was done by the developer when it was first built, or whether it was an obligation that came later. I kno-vv one neighborhood that I came from in Michigan, we voted ourselves, just for our neighborhood, and it was -- became an obligation on our taxes. So I commend the administration for coming up with the proposals in the different areas that they've addressed here in terms of improving our neighborhoods. And perhaps that's one thing that they could look at in terms of neighborhoods taxing themselves- a minimal amount. In terms of museums in the park, certainly, Bicentennial has to have, you know, something to draw people there, and to briny; -- and to create this foot traffic that we want. i would hope that the percentage of land that used for construction, if' it's one museum or two museums that it be limited to, you know, a maxinum of 20 percent of the land, perhaps 15 percent as a maximum. And I've been out of town. I heard sonic talk about a marine -- maritime museum in relation to -- as a small element of the project on Watson Island. Now, to mc, a maritime museum is a no-brainer for the City of Miami. Has that idea been totally discarded, or was it a part of this Watson Island? Mr. Gimenez: I believe that's part of the Watson Island Project. Mr. Hagen: is that going to be a major component, or is it just a small element? Mr. Gimenez: (Unintelligible). If you want some more information, Dena Bianchino; she can give it to you (unintelligible). Mr. Hagen: 'Chat, to me, I mean, if I'm -- when I'm -- as a tourist, as I'm visiting -- and 1 understand that Bicentennial Park is not -- should not be aimed only at tourists, that it needs to serve our local rornmunity. But i know when l travel, I choose -- if Pani going to one museum, I 37 10/10/01 choose to go to 'a museum that offers something special in relation to that City. And if it's nothing special, my next choice is an art museum. So I just want you to keep those things in consideration when you're looking at the total foot traffic that we want to generate, you know, in the whole downtown arca. And on another note, I think this is a -- I guess a done deal. But I think the placement of the County, Miami -Dade County Tourist Authority Building on Watson island is a mistake. I think that should be in a downtown central location where it could really benefit from the foot traffic between the -- you know, all the elements that's going on downtown. Having that on an island by itself, I don't think it's going to be visited the way it should be. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, sir. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Valdes-Fauli: Commissioner Winton, may I have a chance to redeem myself? Commissioner Winton: Because I was going to call you back. You were not leaving. 1 knew that you didn't understand my question, and I was going to call you back up here. Ms. Valdes-Fauli: You know, I'm a former banker. I just need a signature. We have no doubt that all of you are very much in support of our museum. Commissioner Winton: Thank ,you. Good. Now you can go sell your donors. That's the bottom line here. Raise the money. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. We will now close the public hearing. Commissioner Tecle: Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: I really need some -- Mr. Manager, could you give me a list somewhere, or have one of your staff people point out this list of the municipal -- i see the reference repeatedly to thirty million dollars (530,000,000), sixty million dollars ($60,000,000), thirty, Citywide municipal facilities upgrade; thirty, public facilities improvement. But where is the details of those sixty? Is that -- Chip or somebody, could you -- Mr. Gimcnez: No. It's just with the new bond program, there is no detail. I can tell you that we have some -- obviously, we have sorne significant public facilities. We have no or very little money to upgrade them. We are -- they are getting older, and we need, you know, money to make improvements. In other words, the Orange Bowl, Knight Center, the Artime. I mean, there's just a whole slew of them. In terms of individual facilities you're talking about, that -- talking about this facility here, the MRC, those types of facilities, the marinas, et cetera, that need to be maintained and upgraded. We have very little, if any money to maintain those facilities. And we really haven't been maintaining those facilities for years, And if we don't do something about it, if we don't invest money in those facilities, they're going to come down around our ears. 38 10/10/01 Commissioner Winton: But this is about capital improvements. It's not about maintenance. 1 mean, maintenance should he done out of the general funds. This is capital improvements. Mr. Gimenez: And -- but there are major capital improvements that can be done. In other words, the Orange Bowl, it needs -- it needs renovation that's going to cost millions of dollars. And we don't have that kind of money in the general fund. And we need to fund it through a general -- through a GO (general obligation) bond, because that type of maintenance is going to last for a long time. And like i said, we just don't have that kind of money in the general fund to really adequately maintain and upgrade those facilities. So I know what the Commission's wishes are, but that's the reason why we put those kinds of monies in there. Vice Chairman Gort: I sent a message over there. They know I'm in favor of them. They know -- can you yield for a minute? Commissioner Tecle: I'd be happy to, Mr. Chairman. Vice Chairman Gort: When you look at the capital budget that we have here, you have allocations for the Orange Bowl, and we have in specific how much we're going to use, how much we allocated in the previous years, how much we've used, how much is left over. 1 think mainly, if possible, to make it easy, because you need to understand, we have to go to the. voters. And unfortunately, it's an election year and people arc going to utilize this as one of the issues, and they're going to turn it around. if we don't have a specific plan, like in your capital budget here, it's a great budget, because you really show what's being done in each facility, how much money we have allocated, how much we used, how much is left. If we could have something very similar to the City facilities, it would be very important. Mr. Glmenez,: Yes, sir. I'll be -- I'll work on it tonight and we'll give you a new listing. If you reallocate funds tonight, you know, you take some from something and put it into something else, we'll work on it tonight and we'll -- following the meeting, we'll have an updated report. Commissioner Winton: Great. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. You also have the thirty-eight million dollars ($38,000,000) that have not been allocated that we already have. Mr. Gimenez: That's correct. Vice Chairman Gort: OK, Mr. Gnnencz: There's thirty-eight mullion dollars ($38,000,000) that's not allocated. Conlmissionel' Teele: Mr. Chairman, Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir. I'm sorry 1 had to -- 39 10/10/01 Commissioner Teele: Mr. Attorney, what has to be done today? 1 mean, obviously, we've got a little bit of time to refine this. I mean -- Mr. Vilarello: As juxtaposed to tomorrow, T mean, the ordinance calling the question can be adopted tomorrow. Commissioner Tecle: Yeah, but I want to make sure that we get this thing -- Why does it have to be. done by ordinance? Mr. Vilarello: That's the process that we ]lave for -- in our City Charter, and it -- Commissioner Toole: It's in the Charter. Mr. Vilarello: Yes. t.'ommissioner Teele: This is a general obligation. Mr. Vilarello: The State Statute -- our Charter requires this is adopted by ordinance, and that's how we've adopted each and every general obligation bond. Commissioner Tcele: It has to lie adopted by ordinance. What are the time lines that we have to work with, if we are to consider the potential of a veto? And this may be a good chance -- Is there any way we can get all six of the elected officials, in your opinion, Mr. Manager, in support of this? I've not received any communications from the Mayor. And again, I mean, I think it's important that we confer with the Mayor, we consult with the Mayor.. And if he's got sone issues on this, you know, I'd like to advance those or to at least consider them. But it would be much better if the Mayor is for this and we give the Mayor -- the office of the Mayor sufficient deference to give him a reason to buy -- to be supportive of this. If I'm to read what I -- what I was led to believe today in the media, which you cannot always believe everything that you read. I'm a little bit concerned that he's not for it. Now, the reason that I'm concerned means that we need to safeguard the time line, so we don't wind up talking about this thing and miss sonic critical window in terms of a veto. And if that's the case, 1 mean, .I'd rather go ahead and adopt this by an emergency ordinance, because I really don't think -- I'd rather go ahead and adopt this -- Mr. ,Attorney, T'd rather adopt this by an emergency ordinance, give the Manager -- the Mayor a chance to veto it or consider it. But if you do this by two readings of an ordinance, it's going to get us into a box. Mr. Vilarello: Could -- We contemplated this being adopted by emergency ordinance. Commissioner Regalado: And could you vield just one second? Commissioner Toole: Yeah. Commissioner Regalado: Just a question. Mr. City Attorney, we would like if we decide on this to be on the ballot on the 13`x', which is the runoff election. So there's still plenty of time. The only problem that we have is the notice that the City Clerk has to start in terms of the 45 days. 40 10/10/01 • 0 Now, my question is, if %N,c were to adopt an emergency ordinance today or tomorrow, if the Mayor were to veto that, if we were to come back on an emergency meeting to try to override the veto, now, my question is, does the veto stop the process of the City Clerk'? Yes or no'? Mr. Vilarelio: The emergency ordinance ,would be effective immediately. Commissioner Regalado: But not (lie notice. Now, if lie sends -- Commissioner Teele: IExcuse me. We - we, the Commission, can instruct the City Clerk to carry a ministerial duty. Commissioner Regalado: That's what I'm saying. Commissioner Teele: Yealr. So that's not a -- Commissioner Regalado: That's what I'm saying, No, no, but I just -- 1 just want to be clear, legally, that we can instruct the City Clcrk to go ahead with the process. In case of a veto, we come back and we try to override. If it cannot be overridden, then, you know, the process starts. But my concern is not the writing on the ballot. My concern is the City Clerk's process of the 45 days notice, which it's very tight for you, isn't it? Walter Poeman (City Clerk): Commissioner, the whole issue of notice is governed by State statute, and it has -- the fifth week, the last day I can actually publish it would be Saturday, so it's the titin week prior, So Saturday is nay absolute day I have to have it in the paper. Commissioner Regalado: I understand that, and I know that. But if' we were to approve this today -- tonight, and tomorrow, the Mayor decides to veto, you will not stop the publishing of-- Commissionct- Teele: We'll instruct him. Commissioner Regalado: Then that's all I wanted to know, Commissioner Teele: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think the only thing worse than listing everything is listing most everything and leaving something -- a whole lot of stuff out, because up until Mr. Hagen presented, I just assumed that I was missing something here, because I ve been looking through this. And like the River -- the Miami River, I've seen so many drafts until I've read into this some of the drafts that I've seen. But if we've got to list the sixty million dollars (S60,000,000) that we don't, have a list of, and we've got all these other lists, then 1'nt really concerned. Now, 1 think that everything that we've got, I'm in support that has specificity. Everything that doesn't have specificity, as far as I'm concerned is a contingent item, or should he listed as a contingent item, or an item that is being treated as a reserve. 1 don't see anything wrong with having a reserve. But I tell you what l do think is wrong is having a list of projects that we're hiding from the public. And I will tell you right here and now, if we're going to spend money on Watson Island, then we're -- you know, out of this bond issue, it's going to be with a fight from this Commissioner, and I'll tell you why. There are sonic things that we ought to do that are just good for the community. But fixing up Watson Island when we're out here saying to 41 10/10.01 0 • the voters on the ballot that we've got a developer who's going to do it, and this, I think you're opening the door now to some very confused messages. And I know that Project "A" may have nothing to do with Project "F"on Watson Island. But we need to be very careful, the messages that we're sending. If they are not voters, real, live, blood -- warm-blooded, bodied voters that live in the City of Miami -- OK? -- That are not for something or not benefited for it, we need to be very careful in trying; to move this Trojan horse. Otherwise, we're going to get caught flying some funny flags. Fin willing to say right here and now, let's move the Orange Bowl into the Parks and Recreation - if that's the issue. I nlcan, I don't have any problem, but I think calling this stuff maintenance is scary. And I'm with Commissioner Winton on that. This should not be a maintenance program. And it is up to this Commission and Commissions after us to come up with the reoccurring dollars i:or the maintenance of this building, the maintenance of the -- of everything. And we should not see this as a maintenance bill. This should be a capital program that is going to set in motion, or leverage or begin capital projects. But fixing up the -- what's that thing out there? That old stadium near the -- Commissioner Winton: Marine. Mice Chairman Gort: Marine Stadium. Vice Chairman Gort: Marine Stadium. I don't think we ought to get into that. First of all, there ain't nobody voting out there on that issue. And the people who do vote live in Key Biscayne, and they can't vote here. And the voters -- and the voters - and I mean, I realize that it's good government, and 1 realize that I'm probably getting the Director of Marinas and Conventions nlad at me, but, you know, let's -- let's -- let's don't lick the plate oil this thing. Let's take nice little polite bites and move on, and let's don't get caught up in trying to make this everything. if we want to talk about streets and sidewalk, miscellaneous street and sidewalk, and lighting, I think it's a very good -- good thing. 1 think the preservation and greenways, we ought to include greenways in that category, and put a line there, and maybe put two million dollars (52,000,000), rather than the one million that she asked for, because we -- that's all money that's going to be leveraged. And we ought to try to do that, because there's a lot of support in neighborhoods. I mean_ , that's the one thing that Lrny Martine, who's out talking all the time and, you know, illy next door neighbor is going to be for it. I mean, he'll walk up and down the whole condominium and worry everybody to death if we put money for greenways in it. But, you know, if we just say .historic preservation, which Fill all excited about -- Commissioner Winton: And so will Steve Hagen Commissioner Teele: And maybe so will Steve Hagen. So, you know, we need to tailor this to a referendum mode and not to a, quote, good government mode. Unlike what everybody on this dais has said, 1 happen to think, however, that the public safety issue or homeland security and parks ought to be the flag that we fly. Homeland security and parks, in my judgment, is where we are. 'Phis police training facility, these fire stations, we ought to even put, as far as I'm concerned, a reserve in there for -- you know, because we may be required to have decontamination facilities. Who knows where we're going to go. You know, you get a -- put a guy in like Tom Mange in, and I guarantee you, lie's going to put something on its to do. You know, good, probably good things to do, too. But we're going to need decontamination. We're 42 10/10/01 • 0 going to need things that we have never thought about needing. We may need a certain number of safe facilities or something. So 1 think we ought to have a reserve in here under public safety. And I think we ought to re -designate this to meet more with the vernacular that's coming out of Washington, domestic security or homeland security and public safety, and put a reserve in there for projects that are unseen. This capital issue, if you take the chart that Mr. Nachlinger -- we're going to be issuing bonds for the next 10 years against this. So when we do this, we need to put some reserves in here, and we need to anticipate additional public safety needs. And I will tell you, the real cost of the police training facility is about twenty million dollars (S20,000,000). I don't -- I'm trying to find the inflation or the -- Commissioner Sanchez has made reference to. Personally, I think the numbers are a little bit understated. But i do know that if we build a police training facility, the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) and several other agencies have said they will come in and co -venture with us. The only thing in that regard that 1 think we ought to be very careful about is some of the -- some of the downtown infrastructure improvements, which I support. But again, I think we need to be very careful that - - We know that we want to take most of the downtown infrastructure improvements from the parking surcharge. At least that's where I am, of the mind, because there's a nexus there. Unfortunately, we don't have anybody living downtown, but there's no reason not t.o have dollars there far downtown. But 1 am very hopeful that we can look at this with a view toward neighborhoods, voters. And you know, unfortunately, that's where this thing comes back about who lives in the City that works here and who doesn't. Unfortunately, you know, we've got to get this message out to neighborhoods and who --the people who will vote. So my vote would be to move the entire sixty million dollars ($60,000,000) or some percentage of that into a reserve to provide more monies in the reserve for street drainage, and add the category that Dr. McCabe so, 1 think, intelligently added, which is street drainage and lighting, and let's increase that category from streets and drainage to make it streets, draining and lighting; increase the category for historic preservation to historic preservation and greenways; add a reserve in there fbi- street and gutter and that. And add -- let's add -- 1 have no problem yielding to Commissioner Sanchez for the correct amount for the Orange Bowl. Again, i think the Orange Bowl is a very important asset in this community. And I've got to tell you something, The folks to five around the Orange Bowl want to see the Orange Bowl stay, and they want to see it improved. Commissioner Sanchez: Absolutely. Commissioner Tecle: So, I mean, you know, that -- while the Orange Bowl is not a neighborhood resource, there's a strong neighborhood that supports it. So, Mr. Chairman, those are my concerns, and I would like to -- Vice Chairman Gort: Commissioner. Commissioner Teele: Yeah. Vice Chairman Gorl: If I may -- excuse me -- and I think it's very important. 'Phis is why 1 keep bringing it up. If you look at the capital budget, you have for downtown street improvement, you have two million dollars ($2,000,000), which is 1.3 left. You have the Miami Design District Signage Prograrn. A lot of the things that we have talked about has been addressed already in 43 10/10101 here. So I think somehow, if we can tic the two things, we can show the public how much is being spent. I mean, we're going to do this, but we have a hundred and thirty-eight million dollars (S138,000,000), ninety-eight million dollars left, that's doing a lot of the things that's being said by the Commissioners right now, And i think somehow, we have to put these two lists together. At the same time, there is a possibility some of the sources that we're going to provide funding to, if they're going to -- also going to be matched by other authorities, it should be placed in there. Because let me tell you, people, we're talking in here, but this is something that we ]lave to go to the voters. And the voters, if they don't understand it, they'll vote against it. So we have to make sore that they understand the benefit that they're going to have in each neighborhood, and the benefit it's going to have to the overall City of Miami. It's very important. If not, it will never pass. Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman. Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir. Commissioner Sanchez: And I agree with you on that a hundred percent. ]'his is an issue that you could have 20 good, solid ideas, and have one issue that they don't agree with, and they're _going to vote against it. It is something that people have to be satisfied with a hundred percent. They cannot have any doubts when they go vote on this issue, because they foresee this as refinancing their home. And the good thing about the bill is that we're going to put a language in there where they're clearly knowing that they're not -- their taxes aren't going to be raised. But they are extending their debt. I'll tell you, my philosophy has always been I let the voters decide. There are some issues here that I don't quite agree with. One is, I look at the municipal facilities. There's no details there. That's a big concern when you're throwing out sixty million dollars ($60,000,000) and ,you're not telling me what you're going to do with those sixty million dollars ($60,000,000). To me, it's a big concern. 'There are some items here that I look at, and really, we should be turning it to the private sector to do this in same of these items. And there are sonic issues here, sonic other items that I don't think people are going to well perceive. This is something that, once again, we have to sell a neighborhood project. The neighborhoods are going to improve. The people are going to see things. They're going to see new streets. They're going to see new sidewalks, lighting. Once again, let.'s look at the curb, gutter. Once again, the gentleman stated the percentage. Absolutely, there's still so many streets in ort' community that don't even have curb gutters. Street and drainage continues to he a big problem in our community, greenways. Those are great issues. If those issues are there by themselves, there is a possibility that they will fly. But if you mix them with something else that's not well perceived, it's not going to pass. In other words, you know, the red pepper cannot be covered with brown sugar here. People are going to look at this, and if there is any doubt in their mind, they're going to vole against it. I have problems with sonic of the issues, And I'm telling you, I will let the voters decide. I've done it with other issues of great importance in our community. 1 will go out and give my idea, my recommendation when it's asked, at least in my district and throughout the radio station interviews that 1 do. But 1 will let the taxpayers decide when they go out and vote on this issue, because I still say that there are some line items here that are grossly inflated. And 1 don't think that we have at least the exact amount of numbers to take into perspective. I know that the Orange Bowl, to get it to where we want it, it's probably about thirty million dollars ($30,000,000) or more, more titan that. But then again, people are 44 10/10/01 going to say, well, you know, a soccer complex for development, a soccer complex development, ten million dollars (S10,000,000). You know, and they might question. Some people may not, not with all the fans that we have in soccer in our community, and the need that we have for soccer fields in our community. But those are issues that I have concerns with. So saying -- that said, :'m prepared to do what the Commission wants to do, rearrange sonic of the fiends. I will support it to go out for a referendum, but I'm telling you right now that i cannot go along with the bond issue. Commissioner Tccic: You can't what? Commissioner Sanchez: I cannot support, as it is right now, you know, if we were to vote on it today, I cannot support it. But I'll let the taxpayers have a chance to vote on it, like they will November the 131". Commissioner Regalado: You will vote it to put it on the ballot? Commissioner Sanchcz: Yeah, I would vote to put it on the ballot, but I don't agree with -- Commissioner Regalado: Oh, OK. Commissioner Sanchez: 1 don't agree with some of the numbers here. I could tell you that much. Commissioner Teele: Well, let's do this. Commissioner Regalado: But can I -.lust one second. But Joe, why -- I mean, we have a few minutes. Why can't we just say now -- I mean, I agree with Johnny about green areas, and green path, and, you know, the different areas of the City that need attention and all that. Why can't we just say to the Manager, set aside an estimate of this for the different areas of the City that we need? i agree with you, Joe, that -- and I don't -- I will not accept so much money for public facilities. I think, .I think that, look, if we do not give the people something that is very close to the people; the people won't go to it. You know, what part of people not believing the government we are not understanding yet? And we need to give the people an exact address, And projects, because that's what we want. I mean, 1 would -- I would like to offer to the people of my district the possibility of fixing the drainage system, and sidewalks, and streets, and signage, and enhancement, and in the park, in two or three years. And this is what this is about. But by, you know, doing all these public facilities, it will fall into the category of government wants to spend your money in the government. So I would recommend to change this right now, tell the Manager what we want to change, just go ahead and vote, because if we want to do this, we should send a clear message, especially to the County. There are several mcmbers of the County Commission who represent the City of Miami, and they need to know tomorrow that we are going to do things that they can be proud in their districts, too, like Commissioner Souto, Commissioner Barreiro, Commissioner Morales, Commissioner Rolle, Commissioner Carey - Shuler. These people represent the City of Miami. And we can say to them, look, we are doing, Commissioner Rolle, this park in Little Haiti. Commissioner Souto, we're doing this drainage. Because there is also a need for some people in the County to do these projects. But if we start 45 10/10/01 deferring this and wait for tomorrow to approve whatever we want to approve or disapprove. might as well get it over now. Tell the Manager what we want. Tell the Clerk what we need and just do it. i would take money from public facilities to use it on streets and on sidewalks, and on green path and neighborhood enhancement. I would take that. Vice Chairman Gort: Gentlemen, the reason I keep coming back to the capital budget is because, for example, if you look at the streets and sidewalks, it was allocated twenty-two million dollars (522,000,000). And today, we still have sixty million dollars ($60,000,000) dedicated to streets and sidewalks. And when you look at the funds, it takes care of just about every neighborhood. So while we're looking in here at this bond issue, Mr. Manager, this is what I'm trying to do, is it's half of the picture. We have to put the full, the whole picture together. For example, you have for -- excuse me -- solid waste, you have seven million dollars ($7,000,000) right in here. Storm and sewer, you have ten million dollars ($10,000,000). That is already in existence. It'll be part of this package that we're putting together here. Mr. Gimcncz: Well, that was the original, and how we blended it all together. What we have, what we're going to have and what this bond issue -- and really, this bond issue was meant -- again, I'll say it again. Vice Chairman Gort: To supplement. Mr. Girnene: To supplement, and also, to make sure that we had funding for those things that we don't have funding for, and we will not get funding for. And that's -- and that -- 1 guess that's why I hear you loud and clear on the public facilities, and Fvc got to enumerate that. I would like to get a figure for the Orange Bowl. I would like to get some direction from. the (commission, in terms of how you want to re -divvy that up, where you want it to go to. And we can come back tomorrow and give you a different list. I mean, I hear you IOUd and clear on public facilities is too much. I still say that the reason it is, is because there is really basically no funding for it, and there's no funding for it in the future. Commissioner Teele: Yeah, but, you know, i think you're doing a good job in advocating for the institution, but we have to believe -- at least I believe that we can get the parking surcharge. If we get the parking surcharge, unlike what has happened in the Fire Department, and has nothing to do with you, now, but we passed that Fire Department -- that Fire surcharge for capital. 'file first year, it could only be used for capital. The next year, you know what happened? Union contracts, da-dah, da-dah, da-dah, da-dah. We're short. We can't hold the line on capital. We've got to convert it into operating. Today, about 70 percent of it's going for what? Or more. It's going for operating. Mr. Gimenez: Probably 15, 11 -- yeah, about two-thirds goes to operating. Commissioner Teele: Sure. So just in the span of one year, a capital program went for operating. And the same thing is going to happen to the parking surcharge if we don't basically say, right here, right now, and when we extend this thing that this money will only go for capital. If we can get the parking surcharge -- that's why I'm so strong -- well, let's get the museums for a park locked into this thing, because contrary to what the Mayor said, that the only way we can 46 10/1 U/OI pass the 40 -year parking surcharge is with the Marlins, I believe -- I'm willing to put my money on the culture community and the support that people have for education, and literacy and the arts, and say we should be a partner with the culture community as a part of the 40 -year extension. And l think there's sufficient energy out there -- there's as many people in this town who want culture, who want arts, who want libraries, who want world quality educational .facilities as there are people in this town who want baseball, on a referendum basis, when you get down to it. So my point of view is very simple. If we think in terms of the parking surcharge as going to capital, first and foremost for downtown, and where the money conies from, the Grove, downtown Brickell, Omni, et cetera, you know, we're going to have the money for the capital needs that we have. Now, if in the back of somebody's head that this money is going to wind up being used to supplement the budget for operating, then we are going to have a problem. But think we're going to have a substantial chunk of money if we can get this thing done properly. So I keep -- I don't want to take the parking surcharge offthe table yet in our thinking. We don't have it. We don't have this, either. So my point of view is, is let's try to limit this to real capital and infrastructure projects. I think we -- I'm in agreement with Commissioner Winton in that we should go back to this and put aside some money for miscellaneous road improvements, and gutter and curb improvements. One ofthe easy things you might do is just take aside a figure of two million, three million, or whatever times five, and basically say, we're going to have improve -- miscellaneous improvements in those areas, limited to those things. That's one way everybody can say that it's something in it for me, because, I'm going to tell you something. You say Citywide. They're going to say, yeah, but we'll never get ours. You mean, you always have that -- Commissioner Winton: Not our City, not our City. Commissioner Teele: Not our neighborhood. Vice Chairman Gort: Not in our neighborhood, Commissioner Teele: So, I mean, if you had a capital reserve for gutters, sidewalks, roads, streets, lighting for District 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, as a reserve, everybody can see that their community is covered. Now, that, you know, is not necessarily the way it ought to be in a perfect world. Commissioner Winton: Could I give you an example of some numbers I've been playing with here? In municipal facilities, there's thirty million, and in public facilities, there's thirty million. Where's sixty million there. Now, including -- Commissioner Tecle: Does that include the forty million -- I mean the - does that include -- what's the number that you all said is not included? Commissioner Sanchez: Thirty-eight, thirty-nine? Commissioner Regalado: Thirty-eight million. Commissioner Teele: Is there thirty-eight million that's not included in any of these numbers? 47 10/10/01 Vice Chairman Gort: Yeah. Commissioner Winton: That's right -- Mr. Gimenez: Well, the thirty-eight million is blended into the entire program that you saw. OK? Because when you look at the unallocated, there are specific projects that it could be used to -- Commissioner Winton: What page is that? Mr. Gimenez: On page 143, you'll see the unallocated, and you'll see that, really, the big majority of it is for streets and sanitary, street sewers and sanitary sewers, et cetera. So that has been blended with the entire program. Again, that's why when we asked -- when we asked for the bond program, we didn't put that much in streets and sewers, because we have a lot of money available for it right now. Commissioner Winton: Well, this may stimulate some thought on your part, because it's not cast in stone, 1 mean, this -- but it's a thought. Again, but municipal facilities in the two hundred and fifty-five million dollar ($255,000,000) schedule they gave us, in the -- back up. 1n the two hundred and fifty-five million schedule we were provided, there's thirty million for municipal Facilities, and there's thirty million for public facilities. Commissioner Tecle: All right Commissioner Winton: So if you did something such as Orange Bowl, ten million dollars ($10,000,000); Museum of Science, seed capital to get their fund-raising effort going, three and a half million; Miami Art Museum, three and a half million; the greenways, two million; neighborhood gateways, five million; Douglas Road right-of-way, from the northern end of the City limits to U.S. 1, five million or seven million. Well that -- and by the way, there's a Brickell Avenue street improvement request that's a million dollars ($1,000,000), which I put in Isere, and that's just -- but just as an example, that adds up to thirty million, what I've just listed. There still leaves out of that -- .Commissioner Regalado: Excuse me. You're doing that multiplying by five? Commissioncr Winton: No, no, no. That was just a gross number. And what 1 was going to say is that list there added up to thirty million. There's still thirty million in either municipal facilities or public facilities that some sort of'-- If you took thirty million from this sixty, ,you could do all those things that I just listed. There's still thirty million left over that could -- you could figure out that five million per district -- or is that six? Thirty-six. Six times five -- (unintelligible) -- so there'd be six million per district that could be for general public improvements for district -- neighborhood -- Commissioncr Regalado: Quality, quality of life. Commissioner Winton: Yeah. You get the words going there. But it could be -- you could do something like that in here. 48 10/10!01 • 0 Commissioner Regalado: OK. Do it. lust do it. Johnny, just do the numbers. i'll go for it. Willy, you know numbers. Vice Chairman Gort: Let me show you. in -- Commissioner Regalado: I know about words. You do the numbers. Vice Chairman Gort: In this capital budget that we have here, we have - which is not part of the bond issue -- Coll,IIli ssioner Regalado: Take that sixty, sixty million. Take -- Vice Chairman Gort: -- ihiiiy-six million dollars ($36,000,000) for storm and sewer, according to what I calculated here. 'Thirty-six million dollars ($30,000,000), which is not part of' the bond issue, because it's already here, thirty-six million dollars ($36,000,000). And still, we have in 11Cl-C -- Commissioner Regalado: Look, it's very -- Vice Chairman Gort: You have to put the two things together. That's the only way you understated it. Commissioner Regalado: it's real -- it's real easy. Viec Chairman Gort: Because you've got sixty million down for streets in here, but it's -- Commissioner Winton: So the point .I was making, following along Commissioner Tecle's and Commissioner Regalado's thought, you know, I just listed these seven items and arbitrarily put money into them. You could mix it any way you want. You could add something, you could subtract something. But I closed there, Commissioner Tcele. You didn't hear that. There's still thirty million there you could -- you could -- and there's five districts. You could also have six million per district for neighborhood -- what's the term, Commissioner Regalado, that -- ,neighborhood - Commissioner Regalado: Quality of life, beautification. Commissioner Nklinton: -- quality of life, neighborhood improvements. Commissioner Regalado: Enhancement. You know, you know, the thing is -- and the thing is that the people has to get something. It's -- you know, City Hall needs maybe a coat of paint or whatever. But it's too distant from the people. Commissioner Winton: But we'll bet that money some other way. 49 10/10/01 • 0 Commissioner Regalado: And what I'm saying is, I need to ask the Manager, and the staff and the members of the Commission, do we really want this to happen? Do we really believe that this is the right thing to do? Then we have to give to the voters exactly what iue, as a voter, would want, because, look, my corner, my corner on Southwest 24`' Avenue floods every time that it rains. I have not requested every -- anything yet. But as a resident, I deserve to have a remedy. Commissioner Winton: But presumably, that's in here. I mean, we ought to ask that question, but I would hope that that issue -- because we've got a whole bunch of storm water stuff fit here, that that issue is addressed. We ought to ask the question directly. Commissioner Regalado: Well, but that's what I'm saying. That's what I'm saying, Johnny. But also, also, I would like to see the curb redone in my street. So this is what I'm saying. And i would like to -- I would like to -- You know what I would like to see? I would like to see crews with new equipment trimming trees around lights, so I can have a more better view of my block, and branches will not be blocking. This is happening in my block. And I will vote for things that will enhance my quality of life, because I'm not moving. I'm going to be there. So if you guys want this to pass, you need to do that number, and take away the sixty million, and do it for the neighborhood. i'nl ready to vote for it. Commissioner Winton: Well, in a moment, I may bring that back, but I have another question that may get to this dollar issue, also, create another question, if you will And I'rll gust going to page i on parks. The question 1 have is -- and this isn't -- this is .just in alphabetical order. Curtis Part: is the first one here, three point -o -one million dollars. Now, we have a bunch of parks in here for -- Mr. Gimenez: Listen, I'll tell you what's going to happen. There's -- Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah, it's a new one. This one. Mr. Gimenez: I think that's where you should read from. Commissioner Winton: How did it get so different'? Commissioner'I'eele: Refinement. Commissioner Sanchez: Modifying. Commissioner Teele: I think -- i think -- Mr. Gimenez: (Inaudible comment). Commissioner Teele: I think what we need to guard against is making a sausage here. 1 think we should give the Manager some instructions tonight, and let's agree to place this back on the agenda tomorrow at a time that we can all sort of agree on, like 4 or 5 o'clock, so that we give him all day to wort: on it, and we give him individual instructions or whatever group instructions 50 10/10/01 we can sort of all agree on. l think unanimity is very important. And i think in that regard, we pretty much have agreed in principle that there's five people up here that are prepared to send this to the voters. We want to get some refinement on this. And I think how the Manager gives us a clean update on this is something; we ought to give him and his staff an opportunity to sort of'work through. Commissioner Winton: My question will still apply. I don't care what the number is. 'Che question is -- and this isn't you all's fault, at all. I mean, we've done this very, very quickly. But pick -- i'll pick Morningside Park. And it's in my district. You know, I think there's -- there might have been something; in here for Morningside Park. And let's say for the -- you know, it's "X" number of dollars. The question I have is, in these parks numbers, at the end of the day, there will be some process that will have neighborhood involvement that's going to ultimately decide what they really want to do to improve their park. If, at the end of the day, the cost to do it turns out to be half a million dollars less than the three million we put in here, what -- what happens then'? Can we take that half a million dollars and put it in another park, or are we obligated just to, you know, well, some way or another, we've got to shove it in to that park? Commissioner Teele: No Commissioner Regalado: Well that never happens, because it always costs more. Coin missioner Teele: No, but one of' the reasons why you've got all of this water and sewer money, as an example, is because that's reprogrammed money from another project that can't intelligently spend it. Commissioner Winton: Right. So we could do that. Commissioner 'feeler So you've got a bond counsel's opinion. There is a way to roll it over. But. I will tell you this: Lf you think of this as a 20 -,year program, you know, everybody will he hack in line again. Not that this is a maintenance program at all, but some of this will be used for maintenance, capital maintenance, wear and tear of the various neighborhood parks. Commissioner Winton: Capital replacement, yeah. Commissioner Sanchez: This is a start-up. Commissioner Teele: So it's a capital replacement. Commissioner Winton: Well that answered my question, anyhow. Commissioner Teele: But I would hope, Commissioner Sanchez, that you and the Manager could work on a real number that's realistic, that doesn't create a controversy, But we ought to go ahead and do the Orange Bowl. i can remember my colleague, Commissioner Hawkins fighting, because the placement wasn't ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) accessible. And, You know, there are some basic kinds of things that we need to make sure are being; done there at the -- at the Orange Bowl. So rather than hiding; it, Tel's go ahead and put it out there. And 1 51 10/10/01 think there is tremendous neighborhood support for that. Mr. Chairman, 1'd like to hear from our representative. Esther Sandrew: Thank you very much. My name is Esthcr Sandrew, and I'm a resident of the City of Miami. 1 live at 200 Southeast 15`y' Road in Miami, Florida. I'm going to preface this with please excuse my naivete and my lack of information. But in addressing museum park, specifically, the professionals laid out plans of twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000) that would be a reasonable, necessary figure for the museum park. The budget allocates ten million. Isn't that -- not understanding the process completely, which I'tn admitting to, could someone please explain to me how ten million could be put in the budget when the projected amount necessary was twenty-five million? So therefore, a shortfall was created before the entire package was put together. Commissioner Winton: And I can answer that. The commitment to creating museum park carried with it a price tag on the part of the museums. And that price tag is that the muscurns are going to bring real money to the table to help us develop the park. And frankly, when started this process, there was no anticipation of a dollar coming from the City to get this done -- a dollar. So the museums are really going to have to figure out if we're going to turn this into museum park, how they were going to raise not only the dollars they needed to raise to build their world class facilities, but also, the twenty dollars ($20) -- not twenty dollars ($20) -- wishful thinking -- the twenty million dollars (520,000,000) to improve the park. That was the concept that came out of the planning process. So what the City is doing now in this bond issuance is, we're going to -- we're going to be able to really jump-start this process by putting this amount of money in there. And 1 think the jump-starting could actually fuel a movement that could allow us to get this park completed by 2005, 2006, if we really start pushing. And so that's the rationale for not pilting the full twenty million in there. Commissioner Teele: Nlr. Chairman. Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: I want to just amplify what Commissioner Winton said. There was some extreme naivete. You've gone from zero dollars to being in nobody's budget to all of sudden having ten million dollars ($10,000,000). And instead of saying, "thank you," the question is, "Where is the other fifteen?" So that just proves -- that just proves what I always say about Overtown and Miami, is that no good deed goes unpunished. But again, I think the thought is a positive one. What I want to say about this is that I would like to see twenty million dollars ($20,000,000) for the Bicentennial Marine Park, But I want ten million dollars ($10,000,000) to be for the infrastructure improvements, because, you %cc, you know, you've got your deal, and we've got our deal. Our deal is, we've got to -- we've got to clean it up. We've got to re -design it. We've got to shore up the shoreline. That's not in anybody's budget. And before we start, quote, "giving away money" -- and l don't mean that disrespectfully -- 1 think it's very important that we put in this budget a number for the Bicentennial Park. That is for municipal projects again, if you will. And that's why I think it's really important that we look at the two big projects that this City can do, and that is the museum parks, as well as continuing to make the Orange Bowl what it can be. I mean, we cannot lose our place in where we are in time and in location. 52 10/10/01 And that's why I really would like for the Manager to look at two numbers -- the number for the Orange Bowl, you know, and if it's ten, if it's twelve, if it's fifteen, let's put it on the table, and let's try to work through that. And let's put down at least the percentage that we agreed on that we're going to have to do as it relates to the Bicentennial. Now, the total is going to wind up being fifteen, or twenty or twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000), perhaps, I mean. But the point is, is that that is money not for the museums. It's for the project. And so let's start thinking about this as partners. We've got a lot of money to do.-- you know, we're talking, just so that the Code is broken; we're talking about close to a three- to four hundred million dollar ($400,000,000) proiect. Ms. Sandrew: Commissioner -- Commissioner Tecle: We're talking about a project larger than the Performing Arts Center. We're talking about two world-class facilities -- the Museum of Natural Science, with the Smithsonian relationship and the library relationship, and it's teaching the teachers, and computers and all of that sort of stuff, as well as the art museum. But at the bottom of that, that project can't move if the City of Miami can't do its part. And what I don't want is to leave the City's responsibilities out while we're looking at this. I want to make sure that our infrastructtire dollars are being put on the table, as well, so that the number is going to he bigger than what the museums, themselves, will get. But this is the real way -- partners have to look at this as a project cost. Vice Chairman Gort: Let me tell you, in creating -- Ms. Sandrew: I would like to say that -- Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me, ma'am. In creating the entertainment district, one of the biggest problems that we have is getting WASA (Water and Sewer Authority) coming in there, and infrastructure is very costly. Bringing water in there, and bringing a lot of the infi-astructure is going to he a lot of cost. And you're right, Commissioner Teele, we have to make sure that the - - whenever we -- excuse me -- we do a project, the infrastructure is there. Ms. Sandrew: I did preface my statements with -- Vice Chairman Gort: Ma'am -- Ms. Sandrew: -- excuse the ignorance and naivete, but l do want to say thank you for all that you have given, and thank you for the ten million dollars (510,000,000) that, hopetltlly, we'll get. lt's just that I guess the culture community has always been out there doing their thing and doing their best. But 1 apologize. Conimissioner'recle: No, no, no, I -- it was lighthearted. Ms. Sandrew: And thank you very much for the ten million -- 53 10/10/01 Commissioner Teele: No, no, no. We're all in this together. We're trying to be partners. Mr. Chairman, is 4 o'clock a good time for tomorrow? Vice Chairman Gort: I have to tell you all something. Tomorrow, I have to leave here at 6 O'clock. Commissioner Sanchez: And it's a very short agenda. Vice Chairman Gort: I have to leave here at 6 o'clock. Commissioner Winton: We're capable of extending it. Commissioner Sanchez: Well, yeah. If we could just keep our mouths shut -- Vice Chairman Gort: If we can keep it -- if we can keep it short -- I'm sure if we can make a commitment to keep it short, we can do it. Commissioner Tccle: Mr. Chairman, I would move -- Mr. Vilarello: Mr. Chairman, the City Clerk does have one issue in terms of getting the notice to the Herald so it can properly be published. So the sooner in the day that you consider the item, the better for the City Clerk. Vice Chairman Gort: Does it have to be the Herald? Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, 1 would move that the Clerk be instructed to provide a notice to the Herald, sufficient, without regard to any other administrative actions that may be taken, so that proper notice can be given to the public, commensurate with the State law. Vice Chairman Gort: There's a motion -- Commissioner Winton: Second. .Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Vice Chairman Gort: -- and a second. Any further discussion'? Commissioner Regalado: Fxcuse me. We are -- I think that before we leave here tonight, we should vote at least on the will that this Commission has in terms of placing this on the ballot, for one thing. Tomorrow, the County meets, and they will be addressing this issue. There is going to be a debate. And I'll tell you what's going to happen. Uwe take -- if we don't take action tonight in terms of deciding to place this ballot, what is going to happen is that Friday morning, the media will be reporting what the County did or didn't do, and not the City. It will be contusing, and it will hurt whatever efforts we -vant to do. I would urge you to vote now, predicated on the changes that we want to do, so we prevent any negative comments that could conic out of the County mceting. Because, l mean, what we are discussing here is how we 54 10/10/01 0 • should divide the money. We are not discussing if we should do it or not. Seems to me, you know, that there are five persons here that are ready to place this in the ballot. So -- Commissioner Teele: I count four and a half. I only count four and a half. Commissioner Winton: I would move -- Commissioner Regalado: Well, it's OIC, because he says, you know, he says that -- I mean, he's going to do -- first -- Commissioner Winton: I would move -- Commissioner Regalado:. He doesn't have to do any campaign. Vice Chairman Gort: Well, we have a motion. Commissioner Regalado: 1 mean, he has a -- he has a free ride. Commissioner Winton: What's the. motion? Commissioner Rcgalado: So he's just going to go out and sing and talk about the bond issue. Commissioner Winton: Call the question on the motion on the floor. Vice Chairman Gort: There's a motion on the floor. Let's take care of that motion. All in favor state it by saying "ayc." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. '('he following motion was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved for its adoption: MOTION NO. 01-1058 A VTOTION INSTRUCTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A LEGALLY SUFFICIENT NOTICE IN THE MIAMI HERALD, PURSUANT TO STATE STATUTES, IN CONNECTION WITH PROPOSED GENERAL. OBLIGATION BOND REFERENDUM ON THE NOVEMBER 13, 2001 ELECTION. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Winton, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner ,loe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L, Winton Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort 55 10/10/01 NAYS: None ABSENT: None Vice Chairman Gort: Second motion. Commissioner Winton: I would move -- Commissioner Sanchez: What was that motion? Commissioner Tecle: Instruct the Clerk Commissioner Winton: The motion was to instruct the Clerk. Commissioner Sanchez: Yes. Commissioner Winton: And the second motion would be to accept the dollar amount recommendation from City staff that we put together a schedule, a schedule to be determined tomorrow, to put on the ballot the question of raising two hundred and fifty-fivc million dollars (5255,000,000) over a 10 -year period -- bonding out two hundred and fifty-fivc million dollars (S255,000,000) over a 10 -year period. Period. Commissioner Teelc: I tell you -- Vice Chairman Gort: There's a motion. Is there a second? Commissioner Winton: And wide open to suggestion in terms of howto better say that. Commissioner Regalado: If -- Commissioner Teele: Second. Commissioner Sanchez: Discussion. Commissioner Regalado: I'll second. Vice Chairman Gort: Discussion. Commissioner Sanchez: Discussion. I have some discussion. One is you -- you made sonic. suggestions about identifying the different districts, and saying "X" amount of money for quality of' life, whatever the amount was. I have one concern. I'd like to see -- and I think I have the support from my colleagues here -- is to see at least twenty million dollars ($20,0100,000) going into the Orange Bowl for the infrastructure improvements that it needs. And it needs much more than that. But there's nothing here for the Orange Bowl. And I think twenty million is a start. 56 10/10/01 Vice Chairman Gort: Well, we can figure that out tomorrow. Commissioner Regalado: If I can amend your motion. Vice Chairman Gort: We don't have to vote on that tonight. We can vote on that tornorrow Commissioner Regalado: if i can -- Johnny, if l can have a friendly amendment to your motion? 1 would do it more direct. I will -- I would move that the City Commission decides to place on the ballot on November 13`x' the neighborhoods bond issue, and then to decide tomorrow in how we are going to use that money, that amount. What -- what the Attorney gave me, is that is -- Commissioner Teele: That's the ballot -- Commissioner Regalado: That's the ballot question. 1 -- Commissioner Tccic: I think -- if you'd yield. I think that is the best and the clearest thing that WC could vote on tonight would be the ballot question. Cotrl11liSsi0iler Regalado: That's what I'm saying. Commissioner- Tecic: And that, without -- without -- Commissioner Winton: 'chat's a good idea. C.ommissioner'fecle: And then tornorrow, we talk about the ordinance itself. Commissioner Sanchez: OK. Commissioner Regalado: But Mr. Attorney, this is not -- is this 45 words? Mr. Vilarello: I noted on the bond 63 words as it's written right now. Commissioner Regalado: So we can use 75? NL-. Vilarello: You can use 75. Commissioner Tecle: Up to 75. Mr. Vilarello: Up to. Commissioner Regalado: OiC. There is no line here that says, "Your taxes are not going to be raised." Commissioner Sanchez: And that was -- that was clearly stated by the Commission to be put on that. 'That language needs to lie put on that ballot. 57 10/10/01 0 • Mr. Vilarcllo: Well, if you look at the question, it' you look at the question as it is presented currently, at the last line, it says that the debt millage not exceed 1.21 S. Commissioner Winton: It's current level of I . -- Commissioner Regalado: Well, could you -- you translate that? Mr. Vilarello: And it was suggested that we add -- Commissioner Sanchez: That's like written in Chinese. Mr. Vilarello: I understand. it was suggested by Commissioner Teele that we insert before that number, "the current rate of 1.218." That's fine. Commissioner Sanchez: It reminds me of the "yes" means "no' "no" means "yes." Comtnissioner Regalado: No, no, I mean, if-- 1 mean -- Commissioner Winton: Commissioner Regalado, 1 would also -- your title for this bond issuance, that needs to be up here, you know, kind of right up front, you know. "Shall the City of Miami issue the neighborhood improvement bond issue?" Whatever the -- And that ought to be right here up front, before we even get the dollars. Commissioner Regalado: I think so. I think we should. Mr. Vilarello: 1 suggest that you put it in the highlighted portion. You read -- you can -- I highlighted that -- Commissioner Regalado: You still have 13 words. Ali•. Vilarello: -- for tile purpose of telling you where you should insert it. So, for example, we can add capital projects and infrastructure improvements. You can add neighborhood, comma, capital projects and infrastructure improvements. Commissioner Winton: Why Commissioner Teele: -- why wouldn't you say, though, shall the City of Miami, Florida issue bonds for the neighborhood -- neighborhood quality of life," blah - blah -blah, in an agercgate amount, principal amount not to -- Commissioner Teele: Homeland security and rieiglib orhood. Commissioner Winton: Because you -- title, whatever the sexy title is tip front, so that as they're reading it, before they get to dollars and say, bonds for two hundred and fifty-five million -- blah. You know. Mr. Vilarello: We'll move the title in front of the aggregate amount. 58 10/10/01 Commissioner Winton: Yeah. Commissioner Teele: All right. But 1 -- we're going to have a fight about this. Because I think we need to call this the homeland security and neighborhood bond issue because -- Commissioner Winton: Oh, I'm not opposed to that. 'that's a good idea. Right, Commissioner Teele: -- because the large -- Vice Chairman Gort: What was that again? Commissioner Teele: Homeland security. Commissioner Winton: Homeland security and neighborhood -- Commissioner Tecle: You've got all of your -- your police stuff in here; you've got your fire stuff in here. And let me tell you something. Commissioner Winton: Yeah. I agree with that. Commissioner Teele: We don't have to put any of the fire stuff in here. We could take the fire out of the fire fee, ifwc want to. But the reason to do this is the Fire Department is the one thing right .now that I think people are willing to invest in. And so you want to put that up front. You want -- you know you -- Commissioner Winton: I agree. Commissioner Teele: And we have a real problem with response time. So 1 think we need to basically call this what it is. It's the homeland security and neighborhood -- what do you call it? Neighborhood, what? Neighborhood enhancement. Vice Chairman Gort: Improvement of'quality of life, Commissioner Regalado: Neighborhood enhancement bond issue. Vice Chairman Gort: How about improvement of quality of life? C:ornmissioner Regalado: And quality of life, I mean. Vice Chairman Gort: The improvement of quality of life. Commissioner Teele: Well, you're going to run out of 75 words in a minute. Mr. Attorney, the other thing in here, on the fourth line, where you say for capital, capital improvement, capital and infrastructure improvements, why do you have to say, "throughout the City"? "Shall the City of ivliami," in the first sentence. I'm just trying to cut down a word or two. 59 10/10/01 • • Mr. Vilarello: Obviously, the only improvements that we can do are in the City. So. Commissioner Teele: Right. Mr. Vilarello: We could probably lose those three words. Commissioner Winton: Which three did you say? Mr. Vilarello: `throughout. Throughout the City. Commissioner Regalado: So it's public homeland security, which includes police and neighborhood enhancement. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Who made that motion? Commissioner Winton. Commissioner Teele: Commissioner Regalado and Commissioner Winton. Commissioner Winton: Yeah. So we're -- Commissioner Regalado: Johnny Winton made -- Commissioner Winton: We're re -working the motion. Commissioner Regalado: Johnny, Johnny made the motion. Vice Chairman Gort: And you seconded. Commissioner Winton: I'll withdraw my motion as stated so that we could get to -- I think the motion is going to be that we -- that we move to ace ept_whatever -- Commissioner Teele: The ballot question. Commissioner Winton: the ballot question. And we're working on the wording yet. Commissioner Regalado: And place -- and place this neighborhood - Commissioner Winton: Yes. And we don't have that wording clear yet because -- Commissioner Regalado: Safety -- I can -- Commissionei- Teele: Homeland security. Commissioner Regalado: Homeland, homeland security. C'ommissionei- Teele: And neighborhood -- GU 10/10/01 • 0 Commissionel- Regalado: I just -- see, I have a problem. I have a problem. It's about the union contracts. You know, 1 think it's a di(Terent issue, but I don't know. It seems to me, it seems to me that this is for structure, right? But Commissioner. Teele sort of threw me off when he said that we're -- the people are willing to do anything for the Fire Department now. That do not include the contract, right? We are not finished -- Commissioner Teele: No, no, no. I'm talking about the neighborhood fire stations and training facilities. Commissioner Regalado: OiC. Because I'm clumb. I'm dumb here, you know. Commissioner Tcele: At least three. There's ten million dollars (510,000,000) there. The police training, the police training facility, there's ten million dollars ($10,000,000). Vice Chairman Gort: Ooh, he's not going to let them go. Commissioner Teele: Defense, homeland defense preparedness initiative, eleven million there. That's going to be, I assume, for radios and jeeps. Commissioner Regalado: OK. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. 'There's a motion and there's a second. Any further discussion? Commissioner Winton: No, no, wait for the wording. Mr. Vilarello: 1f 1 could read the question. Commissioner Tecle: Let's read it. Mr. Vilarello: Subject to the word count, to make sure we're under 75 words. But shall the City of Miami, Florida, issue bonds for homeland security, neighborhood improvements, capital projects and infrastructure improvements in an aggregate principal amount not exceeding two hundred and fifty-five million dollars ($255,000), with interest payable at rates not to exceed the maximum rate allowed by law, to be payable from ad valorem taxes to be levied on all taxable property in the City, provided that the debt millage not exceed the current rate of 1.218? Commissioner Teele: Beautiful. Commissioner Winton: Yeah. Commissioner Regalado: Good. Vice Chairman Gort: OK, Commissioner Teele: Who moved it and who seconded? 61 10/10/01 i Commissioner Winton: I moved it. Vice Chairman Gort: He moved it. and he seconded. Commissioner Regalado: Roll call, roll call. Commissioner Teele: Who moved it, and who seconded? Commissioner Winton: i moved it. .40 Vice Chairman Gort: Regalado moved it. Johnny seconded. Commissioner Regalado: Johnny moved it. You seconded. I amended. IIe accepted the amendment. Joe Sanchez said that he'll support -- Commissioner 'Poole: And this is for the November ] 'ballot question Commissioner Winton: November 13x' ballot question. Commissioner Regalado: So ♦ve just wanted to be clear on this. All five of us took part on this. So in case of a veto, we're just coming back. Commissioner Sanchez: Well, and tomorrow, we'll talk about the other parts. Commissioner Regalado: Oh, yeah. Vice Chairman Gort: All in favor -- Commissioner Winton: Roll call. Vice Chairman Gort: State it by saying "aye." Commissioner Regalado: Roll call. Roll call. • 11 Vice Chairman Gort.: is that an ordinance? That's not an ordinance.. Commissioner Regalado: Give me a roll call. I mean, give it. more -- Vice Chairman Gort: Roll call, 62 10/10/01 • 0 The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Winton, who shoved for its adoption: MOTION NO. 01-1059 A MOTION INSTRUCTING THE CITY A'T'TORNEY TO PREPARE THE FOLLOWING BALLOT REFERENDUM QUESTION TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE ELECTORATE ON NOVEMBER 13, 2001: "SHALL THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ISSUE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS FOR HOMELAND SECURfI'Y, NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS, CAPITAL PROJECTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS IN AN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT EXCEEDING $255,000,000, WITH INTEREST PAYABLE AT RATES NOT TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM RATE ALLOWED BY LAW, TO BE PAYABLE FROM AD VALOREM TAXES TO BE LEVIED ON ALL TAXABLE PROPERTY IN THE CITY, PROVIDED THAT THE DEBT MII.LAGF NOT EXCEED THE CURRENT RA'Z'E OF 1.21$?" Upon beim; seconded by Commissioner Regalado, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote. AYI'_S: 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: Good night. 'Thank you all for tieing here. Commissioner Winton: Walt, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, Wait. There's -- Commissioner Regalado. there's another issue here that 1 think is very important. And you pot -- you hit on it juSt a minute ago, and that's about media. Commissioner Sanchez: That's tomorrow. Commissioner Winton: No. Media. The -- this Commission, two weeks ago, passed the first resolution directing staffto get this bond issue moving forward. Now, the County, apparently, we scared them to death. So they're trying; to pre-empt the work we're doing by creating a special - 63 10/10/01 Commissioner Regalado: Johnny, that's why Fin saying tomorrow's headline is the Citv's going 1br the -- Commissioner Winton: But, wait. Commissioner Regalado, you need to -- this is about you. The -- Vice Chairman Gort: That's tomorrow. Commissioner Winton: No, it isn't, because he reported it, but the broadcast media didn't report anything. But on last night's news, the -- the network media were talking about the County's hillion-dollar bond issue for neighborhood improvements. And it seems to me that one of the things we need to do that you've been very interested in for a long time, Mr. Manager, is we've got to figure out how we crank up -- we have some PR (public relations) Department or something somewhere. Don't we? Do we have a PR Department? Mr. Gimcncz: PR, no. We have a Relations Information, yes. Commissioner Winton: We have? Who does that department -- they work for you? Mr. Gimencz: No, sir. Commissioner Winton: They work for somebody else. O.K. So, Commissioner Regalado, 1 think it would he good if Commissioner Regalado were to work -- and lie can't -- it's staff, so -- but he could work through your office to help craft a public information campaign out of the resources that we already have in place through that department to get the word out to the community at large, both the County and the City of Miami, in terms of what the City of Miami is trying to do. So 1 would love to see you in your expertise go to work on this, literally, tomorrow, working through the Manager's Office with the staff that does this kind of things, so we get the right kind of campaign going. Is that possible? Commissioner Regalado: You are appointing me the inedia czar of the City of Miami? Commissioner Winton: 1 would love to appoint you as the media czar. Vice Chairman Gort: ]'here's a motion. There's a motion. Commissioner Teele: Second. Commissioner Winton! So move. Vice Chairman Gort: Second. All in favor state it by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. 64 10/ 10/01 The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Winton, who moved for its adoption: MOTION NO. 01-1060 A MOTION _ DESIGNATING COMMISSIONER TOMAS REGALADO AS THE CITY'S MEDIA CZAR; FURTHER INSTRUCTING THE MANAGER TO WORK WITH COMMISSIONER REGALADO TO DEVELOP A PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFORMING AND EXPLAINING TO THE VOTERS OF THE CITY THE VARIOUS ELEMEN'T'S INVOLVED RELATED TO THE PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS. Ulpon being seconded by Commissioncr Teele, the motion was passed and adopted by the hollowing vote: AYES: C:omtnissionei- Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur L. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Wifi-edo Gort NAYS: None ABSENT: None Commissioncr Tecle: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, we're asking the Manager to come back with refcre.nce to the Orange Bowl, and with reference to the culture as it relates -- the culture and the parks, particularly on those two items, to help us, and the five districts' quality of life miscellaneous activities. 65 10/10/01