Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2001-12-11 Minutes• CITY OF MIAMI CITY COMMISSION MEETING �� iljf y MINUTE 74[E� i INCO fly' aR,aT I �+ S CITY COMMISSION MEETING MINUTE S OF MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 11, 2001 PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK/CITY HALL Walter J. Foenaan/City Clerk • • MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA On the 11th day of December 2001, the City Commission of Miami, Florida, met at its regular meeting place in the City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida in regular session. The meeting was called to order at 9:21 a.m. by Chairman Tomas Regalado with the following members of the Commission found to be present: Commissioner Angel Gonzalez (District 1) Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton (District 2) Commissioner Joe Sanchez (District 3) Chairman Tomas Regalado (District 4) ABSENT; Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. (District 5) ALSO PRESENT: Manuel Diaz, Mayor Carlos A. Gimenez, City Manager Maria Chiaro, Assistant City Attorney Walter J. Foeman, City Clerk Sylvia Scheider, Assistant City Clerk 1 December 11, 2001 Chairman Regalado: Good morning. If we could all stand, please. Commissioner Sanchez will do the invocation. Commissioner Gonzalez will do the pledge of allegiance. An invocation was delivered by Commissioner Sanchez, followed by Commissioner Gonzalez leading those present in a pledge of allegiance to the flag. 1, PRESENTATION A PRO0IaAMATI0INS5 s, fin.,, s- 4O A MMENT O SPLEN I M.EMOR; OF V4�TIM% OF SEPTEM R 11 H T GED ' N ITS MONTH A TN V RSAR Chairman Regalado: And we'd like to welcome, on his first Commission meeting, the Mayor of the City of Miami, Manuel "Manny" Diaz. (APPLAUSE) Vice Chairman Winton: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Regalado: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Winton: I'm assuming you're also going to welcome the newest Commissioner, who's obviously here to -- Chairman Regalado; Of course. Vice Chairman Winton: -- show people like -- he's here to show people like me up. I can't even turn my computer on and he's got one up here on the dais. Chairman Regalado: Of course. 1. was saving that for -- in the next half an hour. But we'd also like to give a warm welcome to our newest City Commission, Commissioner Angel Gonzalez. (APPLAUSE) Commissioner Gonzalez: Thank: you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Commissioners. Really appreciate it. Chairman Regalado: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Diaz: I'm trying to figure out how to work the microphone. Chairman Regalado: OK. That's -- Mayor Diaz: Thank you. Before we get started, I'd like you, please, all join me in a moment of silence. As you know, today is the third anniversary of the 9111 tragedy. So, if I could have a moment of silence, please. Thank you. I also have -- I guess that was part honeymoon period. I also want to welcome Commissioner Gonzalez on his first meeting, and recognize the rest of the 2 December 11, 2001 Commissioners and all that you have done during your years of service for the City of Miami, on behalf of the citizens of Miami. I thank you for the job that you've done. You certainly moved this City forward during your terms, and I look toward to working with you as we develop an agenda to keep the City moving forward. There's much to be done. There are great challenges, but I think, in those terms, we're going to have tremendous opportunities to make this a City that we're all going to be proud of I'm proud to be a part of this group. I'm proud to work with you to develop that agenda and to execute on that agenda. I look forward to it. I have some -- by the way, congratulations, Mr. Chairperson of the Commission, and Mr. Vice Chairperson of the Commission. (APPLAUSE) Mayor Diaz: And at this time -- Chairman Regalado: Thanks to you. Mayor Diaz: At this time, I have to accept the check and -- no, I'm not accepting a check. Five minutes I will accept a check. OK. I have a proclamation. We are here today honoring the Liberty City Health Services Center, if the representative would please come forward. Would somebody like to accept it on behalf of the Liberty City Health Services Center? How about you, sir? Chairman Regalado: OK. What we're going to do, we are going to move on on the regular agenda. We'll stop for a while, when we have the honorees here, and then the Mayor and Commissioner Sanchez will give the proclamations. We have no vetoes from the Mayor. Hey. So, we are going to move on to the consent agenda. 3 December 11, 2001 0 0 °` PROVE ` EQUES ECE—vtp Pto'g'n �ROYAL� C'� 13E .. CR E L INE5� �I1QN W4TH P , EMENT -M, BANNS ONATA. CIT ,THORO-UG, TO PR( 1V 0 i domiI . ` O L C' QBE'GQL EV 28, 2001 Q H F uA 3,2002 ,.. _:. Chairman Regalado: Anybody wants to pull -- I understand that Commissioner Sanchez wanted to -- oh, there is no consent agenda today. Commissioner Sanchez: No. Just -- Mr. Chairman, this is the Commissioners' items. Chairman Regalado: OK. OK. So, we are going to go into the Commissioners' items. Commissioner Gonzalez, you have anything on your blue page? Commissioner Gonzalez: No, Mr. Chairman, I don't. Chairman Regalado: OK. Vice Chairman Winton. Vice Chairman Winton: Yes. This is a banner for the Royal Caribbean Classic street light banner. So move. Chairman Regalado: There is a motion and a second. All in favor. The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Regalado: Passes unanimously. The following motion was introduced by Vice Chairman Winton, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 01-1257 A MOTION APPROVING REQUEST RECEIVED FROM ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISE LINES IN CONNECTION WITH PLACEMENT OF BANNERS ON LIGHT POLES ON CITY THOROUGHFARES IN ORDER TO PROMOTE UPCOMING ROYAL CARIBBEAN CLASSIC GOLF EVENT, SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 28, 2001 THROUGH FEBRUARY 3, 2002. 4 December 11, 2001 0 u Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Tomas Regalado Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzdlez Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. 5 December 11, 2001 • 0 1JPDAT iON I E Q CA G� O W 8 �5TT HAv Chairman Regalado: Anything else? Vice Chairman Winton: No. That's all for me. Thank you, sir. Chairman Regalado: Commissioner Joe Sanchez. Commissioner Sanchez: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have several items on the Commission's agenda. I would like to start off with my number one item, which is the discussion concerning an update on the issue of traffic change on Southwest 8th Street, also known as the Trail and Calle Ocho. This is an issue that I have brought to this Commission for over the last two and a half years. I think that we have worked very hard into trying to bring an economic impact to an area that has suffered economically for quite some time now, and to be honest with you, I think that we have been able to do this through the private sector and the dedication and commitment of many merchants and community activists to that area. However, I think that we need to go a step further. I think that every study that has been done in the United States on economic impact or in economic enhancement to an area has shown that people stop and do all their shopping from their way from work to their home. Well, Calle Ocho has been deprived of that for many, many years. This is a corridor that travels eastbound to -- into downtown Brickell, and other areas in the east portion of the City, which are basically businesses. And most of the residents are on the west side. So, therefore, the traffic flow, people going from work, home to work, stop for three things: They either stop for coffee, gas, or to use the bathroom. They do not stop to shop. And I have been on this administration to try to work with me to change that traffic pattern, because it shows that people on their way from work to their house stop and do all their shopping. Now, if you look at the traffic flow of that corridor that we speak about on the record here today, we see that the travel flows from eastbound into downtown Miami and westbound on 6th and 7th. Well, this is a benefit to the area, economically. People will -- if we're able to change the traffic, whether it be -- whatever the concept may be -- and we have been working with FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation) and we have been working with everyone on this to try to change that -- it would enhance the businesses in that area. The merchants want it. The residents want it. And I, as a Commissioner, want it. So, the City did a traffic study that I believe it's taken a long time, that I think it's almost completed. After that, I think we need to go a step further, and I will make a motion to prepare a resolution for the -- to have the City Manager or attorney bring it back to conduct an economic benefit study -- because this is a pattern that we have to do here. We have to do the traffic study first. Then we have to do an economic benefit study. And then we have to send it to MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization). And let me tell you something about MPO. MPO has addressed several issues on a lot of the City of Miami -- and, you know, I am not one to be up here to say, hey, you know, they're doing too much for that area and they're not, because everyone out here is looking for the best interest of this City. But the MPO right now has addressed issues pertaining to the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency), The MPO right now is addressing issues pertaining to the downtown Miami. They're also addressing issues on Coral Way that they have looked into. All that I'm asking is they also address this issue. When the appropriate time comes to get an MPO, my colleague, Commissioner Teele, will support this in the MPO, and we could get it 6 December 11, 2001 i 0 done. I have spoken to Mr. Abreu, FDOT representative, who has clearly stated that this is a benefit to the area. And all that I ask today is that we finally finish the traffic study and then, before this is over, I'm going to present a resolution, which I'm prepared to do right now. As a matter of fact, I move that the prepared resolution for the next Commission meeting, and that is to conduct an economic benefit study, not to exceed fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) for the area. The money's available in SHIP (State Housing Initiative Partnership Program), strategic money, and also there's other fundings that are available for that. So, I move that motion. Chairman Rcgalado: There is a motion. Is there a second for it? Vice Chairman Winton: Second. Discussion. I don't even know what this says yet. So, I'm kind of -- I feel like I'm jumping the gun by seconding the motion. I'm sure the answer is still going to be the same, but just in terms of process, before I said "yea" for fifty thousand, I'd rather hear your presentation in terms of -- I'm assuming you're going to -- you're moving to transform this from one-way to two-way? Commissioner Sanchez: Johnny, no, it's not a two-way. I think that I have been advised by FDOT that to do it a two-way is nearly impossible, because you lose the parking space and you know how important parking is to any commercial corridor. Vice Chairman Winton: Well, to me and you and FDOT may have a much longer discussion. Commissioner Sanchez: OK. But my -- Vice Chairman Winton: Because -- and I want to get -- where is Frank Rollason? We need to get him up here also. I think we're going to have to have a debate about the future of two -- of one-way streets in the City of Miami. And I have a great deal of respect for FDOT but I also know that when they get stuck in some of their rules, it can have a significant major impact on the City and where we're going. And sometimes we have to figure out ways to get a little brighter vision going, if you know what I mean, related to where we're going. So, I would like to hear the presentation and I'm going to support -- because I second this, I'm going to support your motion, but I'm real interested in hearing what this presentation is. Commissioner Sanchez: Johnny, I'll tell you what. We'll table the motion until after the presentation. And then I -- but -- and then I would just reserve two minutes to speak on behalf of the matter. So, Mr. Chairman -- Chairman Regalado: OK. If -- could you just yield for a second? Commissioner Sanchez, with your permission, we have now some of the honorees, and the persons with the check. If we can just bring the Mayor back and do this. And then we'll go on with the time that we need for the presentation. So -- is it OK with you? 7 December 11, 2001 Note for the Record: All presentations and proclamations are on file in the Office of the City Clerk's via cassette tape. [At this time, Commissioner Toole enters the Commission chambers at 9:43 A.M.] 8 December 11, 2001 Chairman Regalado: Now we go back to the Commissioners' items. And, Commissioner Teele, we did not have a Consent Agenda on this morning, and now we're doing the Commissioners' items. Commissioner Sanchez was discussing his Number 1 issue on the blue page, and he's about to renew the presentation on Southwest 8th Street. Commissioner. Joe. Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah, they could go ahead with the presentation. Jorge Avino: Yes. My name is Jorge Avino, Assistant Director of Public Works. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. As you were saying, Commissioner Sanchez, the first part of this 8th Street Corridor is the traffic study. The Public Works Department has been preparing the traffic study from 27th Avenue to I-95. This is a progress presentation that we will be making. We have our consultants on board and they are ready to make the presentation, and we will begin. The consultant is Kunde Sprecher. Chairman Regalado: You need to have a portable mike, and then identify yourself for the record. And just go ahead with the presentation, sir. Adriano Foti: Good morning to you all. My name is Adrian Foti with Kunde Sprecher and Associates. I'm here to give the partial results of the traffic analysis being conducted on this corridor. First of all, we're going to look at the existing condition briefly, how the traffic flows on the corridor. We have eastbound flow on 8th Street in the morning, and we have heavy traffic -- and we have a westbound flow on 7th Street in the afternoon. We're going to look at several alternatives that we have prepared. The first one is reversing traffic between 7th and 8th. There are two ways of accomplishing that in the area of 27th Avenue. One is going eastbound through Beacon Road, and the other is going through 27th Avenue. Familiarize yourselves with the corridor. We're going to look at 8th Street, that has off-street parking, and has three lanes and one-way. We have 7th Street that has parking -- head -in parking with houses and condominiums. And you're going to see the other option that we have today. It's the same reverse traffic. We have made a modification on 7th Street. As we were speaking on 7th Street - - on 7th Street you have off-street parking, and we have a slight distance problem with the cars coming back into the lane. So, we have prepared this option that includes a shoulder on 7th Street, and reducing the 7th Street to two lanes in the eastbound direction. The other option that we've prepared for analysis is a two-way roadway, both 8th and 7th to two-way, with a scramble lane in the middle, and all these options are being analyzed to see the impacts in traffic capacity. Go ahead. Again, we have the -- option one is reverse traffic. Option two is reverse traffic with shoulders on 7th Street. Option three is the two-way traffic on 7th and 8th Street. The existing condition is going westbound on 7th, eastbound on 8th. The option one is reversing these three 9 December 11, 2001 0 0 lanes. The modifications in the reverse has the shoulders. By reducing one lane, you're able to put a shoulder, a buffer on 7th Street. And the last option, the third option, is two-way traffic, with a scramble lane and a turning lane in the middle, on both 7th and 8th. We're going to go through the existing traffic flow. As we said, we're looking at it on the board. Go ahead. In the middle section and at the end, the 1-95 just to make you aware of what the existing condition is. Traffic does this and it come around to I-95. The option one, at 27th Avenue would take the traffic eastbound on 8th Street. They would go on Beacon and make it eastbound on 7th Street, while the traffic from 8th Street will come straight out, resting to 8th Street. In the mid-section, in the area of 17th Avenue, we're going to see that the traffic is simply reversed from one to the other. The next is at the I-95. The way we're doing it, the traffic will come this way onto 7th Street in the morning. It will come down. It will make it back to 8th Street, into downtown. Now, the traffic coming westbound on 7th Street will come down this way and will make it to 8th Street going westbound. This is the reversed traffic with shoulders. We'll start again on 27th Avenue. We're looking -- the only difference is that it has shoulders, and ub the middle section you see the shoulders that has -- and we've reduced a lane. The other is just the same. There's no difference. The next one is a two-way. And we see how we accomplish it. We use Beacon to come into 7th. In this way, it comes westbound into 8th. Next. In the middle is just a scramble section through the corridor. And at the end of I-95, this is the way we connect to 1-95. There's no impact to the highway, as far as the interchange. We're going to talk about some details about the pull out of parking related to other options. Option 1, on 7th Street, when the resident pulls out against traffic to leave, then the traffic has to either stop and wait, or it can change lanes and bypass. For option 2, the shoulder -= that's one of the reasons for a shoulder. The cars will have -- they have the possibility to maneuver and bypass without changing the lane, and much less impact to the traffic flow. And it would also add some safety, since there's no need to look into the rear mirror to start making the lane change maneuver. Option 3 is from - - viewing this from 7th Street. We have to look at the issues of the cars again, who are coming to a stop and waiting, or they have to get into the scramble lane to bypass the car that's being -- that's pulling out of his driveway. Other technical data on the project is the FDOT crash history. We have found that there's statistical data from the Department of Transportation that both State Road 7th and 8th are high accident segments. This segment is about 2.4 miles long. We have -- we can see on this table that 7th Street is significantly higher than 8th Street, and sometimes 50 percent, sometimes more than 8th Street. And we're going to look at the next table. We have done an average of crashes per moving vehicles per mile, per year, and we came -- these are the actuals on 7th and 8th. These are the actuals. And we have compared to give to you the -- provide State Road averages fir -- we compared it to two type of roads. We compared it to (UNINTELLIGIBLE) section in one direction, which is equivalent to either 7th or 8th, and these are the values for that section. And we compared it to (UNINTELLIGIBLE) three -lane, undivided, which is the scrambling section. So, we're looking at some high accidents in the corridor. Next slide. We have summarized the types of accidents occurring on 7th Street and on 8th Street, to see if (UNINTELLIGIBLE) if the parking maneuvers and the backup maneuvers are a cause of accident. So we've looked at-- the percentage on 7th Street is about eight to 10. While on 8th Street, the same boundaries is much closer to zero or two percent of the total. This will tell us the difference -- this is one of the reasons we're looking at our shoulder on 7th Street. Next slide. OK. This is traffic capacity result for analysis -- these are partial results. We're working on it currently, and it's maybe a little bit hard to see. And we have the existing condition is about 73 percent of capacity in the a.m. through 81h Street, and 100 percent capacity 10 December 11, 2001 0 0 in the p.m. through 7t" Street. If we're looking at the option reverse, in the a.m. will be happening through 7" Street, it will be working at 64 percent in capacity, and 81h Street will be working at -- it can be 68, 69 percent. Nothing alarming here. On the reverse with shoulders we're going to see 7th Street reaching 100 percent capacity, and 8th Street 69. There's a drop in capacity for the reverse with shoulders here, given the fact that we're reducing a lane on 7th Street to the benefit of the shoulder, and the driveway pull-out maneuvers. The last option is the two-lane traffic, and what we're looking at is, it would take the highways in the morning to 157 percent of capacity, and in the afternoon, about 130 percent capacity. The total drop in capacity is approximately 50 percent in the morning and 33 percent in the afternoon. These arc the partial conclusions we have. Vice Chairman Winton: Would you explain to me how the reverse actually drops capacity? Mr. Foti: The reverse -- Vice Chairman Winton: How many lanes are there on 7th Street? Mr. Foti: The reverse will show the exact capacity. Vice Chairman Winton: I mean, decreases capacity. But -- I'm sorry. Mr. Foti: It drops because we were -- this one is with the shoulders on 7th Street. We're taking one -- one lane off and we're providing a shoulder for the benefit of safety. Vice Chairman Winton: No, on the reverse. The reverse has better capacity. Mr. Foti: The reverse is better -- Vice Chairman Winton: Explain how that happens. Mr. Foti: It has to do a little bit -- these capacities are computed at the lights. So the arrangement of the side street maneuvers, with the corridor, will yield a little bit better or worse capacity, because it's measured at the light, that includes the side movements from the major cross streets. Vice Chairman Winton: That didn't help me. Mr. Foti: Because the capacity through the arterial is controlled by the lights. So when we move the traffic from 8th to 7th, it rearranges with the maneuvers on the -- the turning maneuvers, the lefts, the rights, occurring at the major cross streets. So there is a little fluctuation in capacity, which has to do with the actual capacity of the light. Vice Chairman Winton: Well, I must be real slow, because that logic doesn't seem to work yet. Mr. Avino: It has to do also with the a.m. traffic and the p.m. traffic. I 1 December 11, 2001 0 0 Commissioner Sanchez: Absolutely Mr. Avino: Because right now you have the traffic -- the existing traffic on 81h Street is going eastbound. The reverse does exactly the reverse, So, in the morning, the traffic is goinM eastbound. But if you reverse it in the morning, the traffic is going westbound. That's on 8t Street. That's why one of the reason -- Vice Chairman Winton: What's the -- how many lanes on 8th Street and 7th Street? Mr. Avino: Three each. Vice Chairman Winton: Three each, right. So, there are three lanes going one way right now. There's going to be -- Mr. Avino: But it has to do -- Vice Chairman Winton: -- three lanes going the other way right now, and we're going to switch it so that there's still three lanes and three lanes. Mr. Avino: Yes. But it has to -- there's a change when you do it in the morning or in the afternoon. It has to do with the volume counts in the morning in the a.m. and in the p.m. That's where the difference is. Vice Chairman Winton: What does that have -- Commissioner Sanchez: Johnny, also -- Vice Chairman Winton: If there's three lanes, there's three lanes. Mr. Avino: No. But it does -- there's three lanes, fine. But in the morning, three lanes go eastbound. Commissioner Sanchez: No, no. Wait a minute. No, no, no. Wait a minute. Vice Chairman Winton: In the morning there's going to be one of them three lanes eastbound and one of them -- you don't -- Mr. Avino: But it's not the same volume that goes in the morning eastbound, as it is westbound. Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, may I? Chairman Regalado: Go ahead. Commissioner Sanchez: Johnny, people use it as a shortcut. People -- on p.m.'s, they don't want to get on I-95, or go north, or they don't want to take US -1 going south. So what they do is, they cut through there, and then they either get on 27th Avenue or they try to pass 42nd 12 December 11, 2001 0 • Avenue, where traffic slows down a little bit, and then they cut in. So they use that road specially 6tn and 7"', they use it as a way to cut across from I-95 and US -1. Carlos Gimenez: (City Manager): Are you basically saying that you have more traffic going westbound than eastbound at night? Mr. Foti: No. What I'm saying is, when we move the traffic from 81h Street to 7th Street, it meets a different light, a different signal. It doesn't meet the signal -- let's say 17th Avenue and 81h. It meets it with 7" and 17th. So, the computation of capacity is done at a different light. So, there's some fluctuations in capacity, depending on what kind of traffic you meet. Vice Chairman Winton: Wait, wait, wait. The computation is done at a different light, at a different intersection? Mr. Foti: Yeah, because you're moving your eastbound traffic -- Vice Chairman Winton: So how are you measuring apples to apples then? Mr. Foti: You're moving your traffic -- for example, in the morning, everybody's using 8th Street to go to downtown. In the reverse, they would use 7th Street to go to downtown. So, these vehicles will meet 17t" Avenue on 7th Street, no longer on 8th Street. So the computation of capacity is with the intersection of 7" and 17t". Vice Chairman Winton: I've got three lanes going one way. I've got three lanes going the other way. You're going to switch them. I'm going to have three lanes going one way. I'm going to have three lanes going the other way. Now, you made a decision to measure the traffic flow at a different intersection that seems to have done something, but -- Mr. Foti: No. Wait. See, this flow of traffic is going through a light of 7t1' Street and 17th. It's a different light. It's a different location, because we're moving the peak traffic. We're moving it to 7th Street. So they're ping to go through the light on 7t" Street and 17th Avenue. They won't go through the light of 8' Street and 17th Avenue. Vice Chairman Winton: How many cars are going eastbound in the morning? Mr. Foti: Eastbound in the morning, in the peak hours, there are approximately 1,500 vehicles. Vice Chairman Winton: Fifteen hundred in the morning, eastbound? Mr. Foti: Yes. Vice Chairman Winton: How many westbound? Mr. Foti: I would have to look, but it's less than that. It's about 800 or 1,000. 13 December 11, 2001 i • Vice Chairman Winton: So, a thousand. That's current. Now that thousand is westbound in the evening or westbound in the morning? Mr. Foti: In the morning. Vice Chairman Winton: OK. How about evening? Mr. Foti: We could consider, for purposes, that it's reversed, flipped. It's -- Vice Chairman Winton: OK. So eastbound is going to be 1,000 and westbound is going to be 1,500. How many cars -- when you do this reverse, how many cars are you going to have eastbound and westbound in the morning and in the afternoon? Mr. Foti: It's reverse. Vice Chairman Winton: Right. It's exactly the same numbers, is that not right? Mr. Foti: Yes, sir. But that's what I'm trying to explain to you. Vice Chairman Winton: And I still have three lanes and three lanes, Mr. Foti: Yes. But, you see, the capacity of an arterial is not measured through the through lanes exclusively. You have to measure at the lights that it cuts through, that it meets. At which point, it meets the cross street arterials. So at those lights, you do -- it's the minimum capacity that you're going to get. The through section, the through lanes is not the controlling capacity, because the light is the more restrictive component. Vice Chairman Winton: So, where's the light that's the problem here? Mr. Foti: Well, it's a -- when you recompute capacity, you recompute it at a different light. So, there's some fluctuations. Vice Chairman Winton: OK. If I recompute at a different light, what happens to these cars that created this new capacity that went from 100 percent capacity to what, 69 or 68, or something like that? Mr. Foti: We've computed the drop in capacity due to the facility at the light. For example, at the juncture with the cross street, the capacity drop could cause either -- or increase could cause either more back ups or less back ups, depending on the severity of the congestion. If it causes congestion, depending on the option. Vice Chairman Winton: I have never, in my life, heard more -- Mr. Foti: See, the arterial -- it's not like a freeway. It's not -- in a freeway, you would do that. In a freeway, you'd take the through lanes, but at the arterial, it's all controlled by the signalized intersections. The through -- the block section is not the control. 14 December 11, 2001 0 0 Vice Chairman Winton: In the morning, when you have 100 percent capacity, I think, on 8th Street -- I forget. If you go back to that capacity thing, it'll tell you -- you're measuring that 100 percent capacity on 7th Street at what intersection? Mr. Foti: Excuse me. Which option is that? Vice Chairman Winton: That's the existing -- Mr. Gimenez: Are the timing intervals different on Southwest 81h Street and 7th Street on the lights? Is there a difference in timing, and that's what's affecting the capacity? Mr. Foti: Well, it's elevated -- the timing, the crossing of the volumes, and the left turn maneuvers. So it's an event -- each time an arterial crosses a light, it's an event. So it's not the same event that you -- the whole -- the only thing that moves, from one street to the other, is the through traffic. So, it's the commuters. So, they meet at different lights, creating a different scenario of capacity. Vice Chairman Winton: So, why don't you change the lighting configuration? Mr. Foti: It has to do with the people using the cross street at that point. Vice Chairman Winton: The 100 percent 7th Street demand capacity that's -- is that in the morning or in the evening? Mr. Foti: That's in the evening. Vice Chairman Winton: OK, 100 percent in the evening. Then it goes -- if you reverse it, it goes to -- I can't read that -- 69 percent in the evening? Mr. Foti: Uh-huh. Vice Chairman Winton: OK. Where are you measuring both east and west morning, and east and west evening in current configuration? And where are you measuring in reverse? Mr. Foti: OK. In the morning, I'm certainly measuring the -- here's the a.m.. This is going to be on 8th Street. Vice Chairman Winton: Eighth at what intersection? Mr. Foti: At 17th. I'm just showing you 17tH Vice Chairman Winton: So all of these are 17th Avenue? Mr. Foti: Yeah. See, I'm not putting all the lights here. I could show you the whole arterial, and we could go on and on forever. I'm just picking an example in the middle of the corridor to 15 December 11, 2001 0 • show you what happens as an average. So I'm showing you what is happening at 17th Avenue, when we reverse traffic and recompute the capacity at the other light. Vice Chairman Winton: OK. So I -- and I'll let you go on, because I want to sit here and kind of visualize 17th Avenue at both these intersections, and see if I can create some logic out of this that doesn't seem to hit me, yet. Go ahead. Mr, Foti: OK. Mr. Chairman: Go ahead, Commissioner. Commissioner Sanchez: May I? Johnny, it's complicated when you look at the flow of traffic. Vice Chairman Winton; There ought to be -- there should always be a logic that can be described. I don't give a damn how complicated it is. Commissioner Sanchez: OK. But the point that I want to make here, the flow of traffic does not benefit the area economically. Vice Chairman Winton: I'm not disagreeing with that. I agree with you 200 percent. Southwest 8th Street, Southwest 7th Street are a mess. They need to be fixed. I'm 100 percent on board with that. The question is, what the fix is? And that's the only issue here I've got. Commissioner Sanchez: Well, the fix -- and what they're doing here is, they're providing us with three options, and they're giving us, broken down in numbers, what the three options can bring to the area. One is, the computation of light to me is not an issue. It's economic stimulation to an area that, as of one, the traffic flow that goes into downtown is usually people that are going from their homes to work. And all major studies show that those individuals only stop for three things: Coffee, donut and gas, or whatever else they stop for. But the people that are leaving from their work home do all their shopping, and therefore, Calle Ocho, 8th Street, the Trail, is deprived of that, because the traffic flow flows westbound on 6th and 7th. The study that was asked, that is here before us today, clearly shows the three options that we have. I think that we need to go to the next step, and that is the motion that's on the floor, with a first and a second. It's under discussion. And that is to direct the Administration to conduct an economic benefits study, not to exceed fifty thousand dollars ($50,000); that that would be the next step before it goes into MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization). I have brought here letters of merchants that are asking for this. Because -- you know, the bottom line are the merchants that are suffering, and they clearly say it. When we -- the morning traffic flows eastbound, nobody stops. Vice Chairman Winton: Joe, no one's quarreling with that issue. No one. I have zero -- that statement is 100 percent accurate. I'm only trying to get at what the right solution here is, and that's the whole discussion. That's where I'm going with this, and that's the piece that I want to understand. 16 December 11, 2001 • 0 Commissioner Sanchez: And, Johnny, the solution here may be two things. One is, switch the traffic over and have Calle Ocho, 8th Street, or the Trail, head westbound, and have 6"' and 7th eastbound, or two way on 8`h Street. But the concern that I have -- Vice Chairman Winton: Two-way on all of them. Commissioner Sanchez: -- after speaking to the secretary of FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation) is that, once again, it focuses on doing away with most of the traffic, and that continues -- I mean, most of the parking. And, of course, on commercial corridors, a key element is parking. So, you know, here we are, once again, trying to correct the sins of the past. That street has a lot of history. I believe, at one time, it did flow westbound, or it was two -ways. Commissioner Gonzdlez: Two ways. Vice Chairman Winton: Two ways. Commissioner Sanchez: But the changing of traffic has clearly shown -- and, listen. You know, I could sit here and talk all day about the economic impact that it may have on the area, but we need studies to be able to sell this concept. And it's very important to have this study done, and then have the Economic Benefit Study and, therefore, we could send it over to MPO and get it done through that process. Vice Chairman Winton: Could I ask you guys another question? What is the -- in the terms of your study here and the study area, how does this dovetail with the study that's being done at 8th Street and Brickell, and in that zone there that is the worst mess in the entire City? Mr. Avino: That study is complete. That was part of another study that was performed by the Public Works Department, and that is complete. That's the -- let's call it Phase I. This would be Phase II, and then there's another one, which is the I-95 interchange, which it would be the Phase III. The one you're talking about is already done. Vice Chairman Winton: And in terms of the Economic Impact Study that Commissioner Sanchez is doing. I'd like to understand a little more about that. Will that Economic Impact Study analyze all three options, or is it only going to analyze one? Mr. Avino: I would have to defer it to -- Vice Chairman Winton: Is that our choice, internally? Mr. Avino: Yes, it would be our choice. Vice Chairman Winton: Oh. Well, that's easy then. So, I think, Joe, that we need to put enough money on the table to do an economic impact statement of all three alternatives, not choose one yet, and I don't know what that's going to cost. But you need to look at the economic impact of each of the three options that you have available here so that, at the end of the day, you really have all the data out on the table that looks at all the complexities associated with making this 17 December 11, 2001 0 change. We're going to get to do this once, so it's best to take every step we can take right now to make sure we've looked at all of the elements associated with the impact of this in these three options, and then we're going to be much better informed to make a decision in terms of what we move forward to the MPO. Commissioner Sanchez: And, Johnny, that's why it's very important to conduct an Economic Benefit Study to take it to the next step. Vice Chairman Winton: Well I just hope -- is fifty thousand enough to do this? Ms. Bianchino (Assistant City Manager): We need to get proposals. I don't think fifty thousand is enough to do three options. Vice Chairman Winton: I wouldn't either. Ms. Bianchino: So maybe you want to pick two. Vice Chairman Winton: Why? How do I know what two to pick? Ms. Bianchino: Because if you -- one would be the switching alternative that Commissioner Sanchez is talking about, and one would be the two-way alternative. Commissioner Sanchez: Well it's only two for 8th Street that we're focused on, Johnny. Ms. Bianchino: The existing one -- Commissioner Sanchez: We're either talking either switching it westbound -- Vice Chairman Winton: What are the three options again? One option is to reverse, one option is to two-way, the other option puts the shoulder on 7`h Street. So those are three different options. Ms. Bianchino: OK. I didn't realize the shoulder one was a separate one. Vice Chairman Winton: Yeah, it's a separate option. Mr. Foti: It's a sub -option. Commissioner Winton: Right. Mr. Foti: But for 8th Street, it has no impact. So if you are studying 8"' Street -- Commissioner Sanchez: So, let's go with the two options, Johnny. Vice Chairman Winton: Which two? Commissioner Sanchez: I think fifty thousand dollars ($50,000), is -- I mean -- 18 December 11, 2001 • Vice Chairman Winton: Which two are you talking about? The reverse and the two-way. Commissioner Sanchez: And the two-way on 8"' Street. Vice Chairman Winton: That's all right with me. Commissioner Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Regalado: Go ahead, Sir. Commissioner Gonzalez: I have a question. How many lanes do we have, actually, on Southwest 8t�' Street now, three lanes? Mr. Foti: We have three lanes in the eastbound direction, on that segment of 8th Street. Commissioner Gonzalez: In the eastbound direction. OK. Have you considered, at all, the alternative of having four lanes, and parking on one side of the street only? Mr. Foti: No. That option has not been included in the study. Commissioner Gonzalez: It's not? Mr. Foti: No. Commissioner Gonzalez: It's not feasible? Mr. Foti: We haven't looked at it, but you would have to remove the parking and the islands. And the lane width of the parking -- the parking lane width is not enough for a traffic lane width. Commissioner Gonzalez: All right. Thank you Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Regalado: Commissioner Teele has the floor. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, let me try to understand two or three things. Mr. Avino, are you coming to us with any recommendation? You know, studies are great, but we pay you pretty good to advise us, so, -- Mr. Avino: Well as you can -- Commissioner Teele: -- don't just roll this thing out and -- 19 December 11, 2001 i . • Mr. Avino: As you can see, this is a preliminary. It hasn't been completed yet. Either all of the three alternatives, all of them reduce capacity on the corridor. Commissioner Teale: All of them what? Mr. Avino: All of them reduce capacity on the corridor. Commissioner Teale: OK. Just -- let me ask you a couple of dumb questions. Who owns Stn Street? Mr. Avino: The Department of Transportation. Commissioner Teele: So that's a state road? Mr. Avino: Correct, Commissioner Teele: Who owns 7t" Street? Mr. Avino: The City of Miami. Mr. Foti: They're both State Road 90. Mr. Avino: No. I'm sorry. The -- Mr. Foti: They're both a pair called Stake Road 90. Mr. Avino: Right, Commissioner Teele: So, I think the point that I want to make is this: Unlike John Henry, who started studying Bicentennial Park without our permission, we don't want to be -- we need to understand what our role is in this. Even though those streets run right through the heart of the City, they're not City streets, OK? Let me say that again. Even though those streets run right through the heart of our City they're not City streets. I would strongly suggest that, before we undertake any further studies, that we sit down with the district secretary and his staff, and see what options he would like to work with us on, one. And two, let's see if we can get some matching dollars from the Department. Because I can tell you this, a study that is totally operating on parallel, but not under the DOT auspices, is going to be treated totally different from a study that is under the DOT auspices. In other words, I commend the management. I, particularly, commend Commissioner Sanchez for moving this forward. But I think we're at the point now where we're really -- and I think Commissioner Winton raised one of the right questions and, that is, why we would -- you know, we need to study all three options, if we're going to study them, and that's going to mean a lot more money. And I think we're at the point now where we really ought to try to get the DOT to buy in. And I'll do everything that I can to work with Commissioner Sanchez and with the Manager in trying to get a buy -in from them, but I think, if we fast -forward, any recommendation we have, we've got to go to them and try to sell 20 December 11, 2001 0 • it. We cannot even fund any implementation, even if we had the money. We've got to get their permission. Is that a fair statement, Mr. Avino? Mr. Avino: Yes, it is Commissioner Teele: So, I think we're at the point now where we could lose nothing by trying to get the DOT to be a part of this study and to participate. Vice Chairman Winton: And on that point could I -- Commissioner Sanchez, I'm Iistening to Commissioner Teele here. He has done absolute wonders at helping. You now, you pointed out a couple of studies that are going on. One's the Biscayne Boulevard Corridor, and the other is the downtown thing, and had I pursued my thought process with the logic I was applying, I would still be trying to figure out how I'm getting something done. So he's very, very -- you know, his support and guidance, roaming through this maze associated with the MPO and FDOT, is huge. Mr. Avino: Commissioner, yesterday we had a meeting with the DOT, and Mr. -- Commissioner Teele: Who did you meet with? Mr. Avino: There was Mr. Abreu, Mike Siskar (Phonetic), the PD&E (Project Development and Environment), Rafael DeArazoza, with the Planning Department, and a couple more from the DOT. They looked at what we presented. They are -- they know that it's a preliminary. They think that it's a good move, but like you say, there's a component missing, and the component that needs to be addressed is the economic impact. They -- as far as the traffic is concerned, I believe they are on board and they would -- in my opinion, it looks like they would recommend what we are presenting, but without an economic study, they will not go to the next step. Commissioner Teele: Well, did you query them as to whether or not they would participate with the finance -- funding of the economic? Mr. Avino: No, I didn't Commissioner Teele: I think one of the things that Commissioner Sanchez would -- think it would be helpful is, we should resolve and ask that the DOT and the MPO, by reform or resolution, participate in the funding of the economic. But I think the key thing that we need to keep in mind is that these things have a way of dragging on, if we're not careful, Commissioner Sanchez, and I don't want to do anything to make this drag on. The other point that we sort of gloss -- by the way, what are the levels of service? You gave numbers, but what are the LOS (Levels of Service)? What are the levels of service for State Roads 7 1 and 8th in this? Mr. Foti: The existing condition is about "C". In the options where the capacity will be reduced, it could be reduced to a "D" or an "E." It will drop, depending on the option. Commissioner Teele: Now here is one of the rubs: The DOT is really not going to do anything, in my judgment, to reduce levels of service. So, no matter what the economic impact is to the 21 December 11, 2001 • r business, that's just sort of one of their unwritten rules. They're not going to voluntarily do much to reduce the level of service. Anything that we do has got to at least maintain or improve the level of service in the long run, is one thing. Have you had that experience with the DOT? Mr. Foti: That's true. That's their objective. Vice Chairman Winton: Well, I beg to differ. I've had a series of dis -- Commissioner Teele: US -- Biscayne Boulevard is a big exception. Vice Chairman Winton: Right. And I think that FDOT, and much, much to their credit, understands what we're dealing with from an urban environment standpoint. And, frankly, I've been so thrilled with FDOT I can't -- I just -- I've been really, really, hugely, happily surprised that they're understanding what's going on in our City. Commissioner Teele: Yeah, but don't -- please don't view the Biscayne Boulevard experience as being the rule. That is the huge exception that has been carved out by years and years of beating them over the head. But the other thing is the accidents. The Department is going -- Vice Chairman Winton: Right. Commissioner Teele: -- to focus very closely on those accidents, too. That's a part of their -- Vice Chairman Winton: And they should. Commissioner Teele: -- state standard and, obviously, 7th Street is a major problem in comparison to 8th Street. So whatever, Commissioner Sanchez, you know, you'd like to do -- Do we have a cost, an estimated cost, of the economic study of the three options? Mr. Avino: Not at this time, no. Commissioner Sanchez: Thank you. Commissioner Teele, let me just address two issues that you brought out that really need to be addressed. One is working with FDOT. I have been -- this is a project that has been on the table and moving forward for almost two years, if I'm not mistaken. I have been in contact with the Secretary of FDOT, Jose Abreu, for most of those two years, We are basically following his advice here on the Economic Impact Study that is required, and he even told me that that is a necessity. So, we have been working with them, and the Administration, to try to get this flowing in the right direction. The funding, I agree with you that, at a later date, we could present a resolution having the MPO and FDOT assist the City in funding of this study. But we have been working on this, not only with FDOT, but with the merchants of 8th Street, and the surrounding neighbors that are very in favor of this. So, we have been working very hard on this matter, and I think we need to continue to move forward. So being -- taking your advice and your leadership on the MPO -- your advice is well taken into consideration. But I think that what we need to here today is that the motion that's on the table -- and there's a second and open for discussion -- is that we need that Economic Benefit Study, and that is -- the Administration tells me, if we're going to study both options, fifty thousand isn't 22 December 11, 2001 0 enough. Well, I would amend that to seventy-five thousand dollars {$75,000} to get those two studies going. If we could -- maybe I'll yield to you. Commissioner Teele: Second. Commissioner Sanchez: If you would like a resolution to have the MPO and FDOT assist the City with those funds, we could also present that. I mean, I'll yield to you since -- Commissioner Teele: No, no. I second the motion. See, we get -- how much gas tax money do we get a year, roughly? Mr. Avino: I'd have to defer to Mr. Jackson. Commissioner Teele: Secondary. John Jackson: John Jackson, Director of Public Works. It's approximately seven million dollars ($7,000,000). Commissioner Teele: How much? Mr. Jackson: Seven point two million in gas tax. Commissioner Teele: See, one of the problems, you know, that we -- sir? Vice Chairman Winton: Where's that money? Commissioner Teele: One of the problems that we get into, as we unscramble this egg, is that we get money from the DOT to do studies. The problem, traditionally, has been like -- the problem traditionally, has been these dollars have just gone to pay basic staff organizational support, and we need to, more and more, as we reach a system of financial strength, we need to also look at the structure of our finances. And gas tax dollars, to the extent that we receive them, really should be for studies, and for projects and not for staffing, more and more. And that -- we've got to sort of back out of this thing, and we need to do this carefully, but intelligently, and that's going to be the response of DOT. We give you secondary gas tax money. We don't get any more from the County on that five -cent gas tax, do we? Because that got rolled back to three cents. But at one time, you know, when there was five cent, we even got some of the County dollars. So, these dollars are here for studies and projects, and really not for staffing. And I would think if, Mr. Jackson, you could give us, you know in 60 days or so, a memo that would lay out how much of the dollars, historically, have been used for staffing, and how much has been used for studies, and how much has been used for projects, it will open all of our eyes. Because I don't really know, but I did do some studies four years ago, and I was horrified to find out that most of that money was consumed in our basic overhead. Vice Chairman Winton: Mr, Chairman, Chairman Regalado: Yes, sir. 23 December 11, 2001 0 0 Vice Chairman Winton: Commissioner Sanchez, I'd like to offer, an amendment, and the amendment would increase the amount of money allocated for the economic feasibility study, for the three options, to a hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars ($125,000), with the added provision that we pass a resolution today asking FDOT and the MPO for support in doing this study. However, if we don't get that support, I think my motion is still that the City's going to commit up to a hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars ($125,000) for doing the Economic Impact Study on all three models. Chairman Regalado: I -- Commissioner Tecle: Second. Chairman Regalado: There is -- Commissioner Sanchez: There's a motion. Chairman Regalado: There is a motion already -- Commissioner Teele: It's an amendment. Commissioner Sanchez: Oh, it's an amendment? Chairman Regalado: -- and an amendment. Vice Chairman Winton: Yeah, that's an amendment to your motion. Chairman Regalado: Would the maker -- Commissioner Teele: It's a question. Do you accept it? Commissioner Sanchez: Yes, I accept the amendment Chairman Regalado: -- accept the amendment? One thing that needs to be very clear, because, you know, people may think, "Well, we are using a lot of money for this study and this possibility." But the fact of the matter is that all of this is about the survival of Southwest 8"' Street. If we don't do something and do something quick, we are going to have a major problem. I mean, Commissioner Sanchez has done a lot with the Cultural Fridays, but this is only one Friday, one night, one month that brings people to Southwest 8`h Street. Other than that, we've got a problem. We've got a major problem with the empty stores, and business people hurting, and we've just got to do something. I mean, I wanted today to urge this Commission to think about an economic stimulus program, so we can just help the business community in this area, and the people that are unemployed. But I think it's important -- and, Joe, you have to tell the people that what we are doing is not because Joe Sanchez wants to chane the way traffic goes in Southwest 8th Street, but because it is about the survival of Southwest 8t Street. So, I just wanted to make sure that this goes on the record, because I think it's important that people realize that 24 December 11, 2001 we're trying to do something to help the economy, especially in that important area. Another thing that we have to take into account is, FDOT is going to start, on January the 7th, a major reconstruction of Coral Way. So, a lot of people would decide that they will not go through Coral Way on the next 300 days, and take 8th Street, and 7th Street and 6t Street. So, just, you know, be aware of that. And there's nothing we can do about it, but it's important that we don't confuse the regular flow with the flow that we're going to have for a while because of the Coral Way repairs. So there is a motion. The maker of the motion has accepted the amendment. It's been second -- Commissioner Sanchez: Just for point of clarification. The motion directing the administration to hire a consulting firm to conduct an Economic Benefit Study, not to exceed a hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars ($125,000), and also asking MPO and FDOT to assist the City in funding with the economic study. Vice Chairman Winton: And it said we -- we probably need to pass -- and I'll yield to Commissioner Toole there. We probably need to pass a separate resolution -- Commissioner Toole: Right. Vice Chairman Winton: -- requesting that specifically from both the MPO and FDOT. Commissioner Sanchez: OK. So, motion directing the Administration to hire a consulting firm to conduct the Economic Benefit Study, not to exceed a hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($150,000). There was a first and a second? Commissioner Toole: A hundred and twenty-five. Commissioner Sanchez: A hundred and twenty-five. Chairman Regalado: A hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars ($125,000). Commissioner Sanchez: We'll vote on that one, first. Call the question. Chairman Regalado: All in favor say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Regalado: Passes unanimous. 25 December 11, 2001 0 :7 The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved for its adoption: RESOLUTION NO.1258 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION DIRECTING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO TAKE STEPS NECESSARY TO CONDUCT AN ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY OF THE SOUTHWEST EIGHTH STREET COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR TO ANALYZE ALTERNATIVES TO IMPROVE THE TRAFFIC FLOW AND ENCOURAGE AND PROMOTE INCREASED PATRONAGE FOR THE BUSINESSES LOCATED ALONG THE CORRIDOR; AUTHORIZING THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS, IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $125,000, FOR SAID STUDY FROM AN ACCOUNT TO BE IDENTIFIED BY THE CITY MANAGER; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT(S) AND DOCUMENTS, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, FOR SAID PURPOSE. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Teele, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Tomas Regalado Vice Chairman Johnny Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. NAYS: None ABSENT: None Commissioner Sanchez: And the other is a reso -- Chairman Regalado: Commissioner Teele. Commissioner Sanchez: The other resolution is a resolution asking MPO and FDOT assistance - - providing assistance to the City of Miami, with funding of the Economic Benefit Study. So moved. Vice Chairman Winton: Second. Commissioner'reele, is that the -- what we need to do? Chairman Regalado: There is a motion and there is a second. All in favor say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Regalado: Passes. 26 December 11, 2001 The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved for its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 1259 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION REQUESTING FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FROM THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION FOR THE MIAMI URBANIZED AREA OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY ("MPO") FOR A STUDY OF THE SOUTHWEST EIGHTH STREET COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR TO ANALYZE AND EVALUATE COSTS AND ALTERNATIVES TO IMPROVE THE TRAFFIC FLOW AND TO ENCOURAGE AND PROMOTE INCREASED PATRONAGE FOR THE BUSINESSES LOCATED ALONG THE CORRIDOR, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $125,000; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, FOR SAID PURPOSE; AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO TRANSMIT A COPY OF THIS RESOLUTION TO THE HEREIN DESIGNATED OFFICIALS. Upon being seconded by Vice Chairman Winton, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Tomas Regalado Vice Chairman Johnny Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. NAYS: None ABSENT: None 27 December 11, 2001 0 0 Chairman Regalado: Commissioner Sanchez. Commissioner Teele: Commissioner, would you yield just for a minute? Commissioner Sanchez: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, I note on your agenda, you have 4-E. I don't know -- you know, I get nervous when we have lawyers, as expensive as Mr. -- as the person sitting out in the audience for two hours. He's probably doing four or five other matters, but we're going to get billed. If it would be all right, could we bring that item up? Chairman Regalado: You are so right. Mr. Matthew Leibowitz is on the clock, so he's -- I mean, he doesn't mind, I guess, sitting there watching. Commissioner Teele: The City Attorney minds. Chairman Regalado: But the City Attorney has a problem with that, so you're right, if Commissioner Sanchez will just yield for one second? You know, we have -- this is under District 4 blue page, and it's about AT&T (American Telephone & Telegraph) and retaining the services of Matthew Leibowitz. The reason it's here is because you all wanted me to discuss this matter with the City Attorney, AT&T, Matthew. And it's about -- Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman? Chairman Regalado: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: I'll be pleased to make the motion, since you're presiding, and that is -- would be to continue the retainage of Mr. Leibowitz, under terms and conditions that are satisfactory to the City Attorney. Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I've already retained Mr. Leibowitz under the level of my authority. And if it's necessary to go beyond that, we'll come back before the City Commission. Chairman Regalado: Right. Mr. Vilarello: But we believe the representation will be concluded before that's exhausted. Chairman Regalado: But the reason that he's here, Commissioner, is because he needs to tell us his views on the ongoing negotiations with AT&T, and it's important that you all hear this 28 December 11, 2001 because we -- we've been discussing back and forth, but we still have not reached an agreement that we can bring to the Commission. So, Matthew, if you -- just briefly, if you can, give us your ideas on what should we do, if anything, or what are you going to do in the next weeks and come back to the City Attorney and the City Commission. Matthew Leibowitz: For the record, my name is Matthew Leibowitz. Commissioner Teele, thank you for your continued support, and Commissioner -- and Chairman Regalado. I have been involved in the discussions in a very minor way. Elaine Buza, Yamile Trehy, and Alex and I have been talking about this over a period of time. Essentially, as I see it, the issues break down as follows: One is to calculate the correct amount of the fine that's been running as a result of their failure to comply with the September 1st deadline. Two is to analyze the offer on the table from AT&T, vis -A -vis, the lane, their rate increase versus giving a direct credit to the cable subscribers; therefore, being able to solidify and stabilize the exact economic benefit that the subscribers are going to get. Three is to look at the proposed new sites for the peg access origination and to do a cost analysis. AT&T suggested some pricing or some costs that we feel are potentially beyond the PAO (Peg Access Origination), and what we may very well need is authorization of a higher and outside engineering firm to validate or to provide further insight into whether those numbers are legitimate. Ultimately, in terms of the legal, I would recommend that we amend the franchise to recognize a firm completion date and define what substantial completion will be. During early negotiations that culminated in the franchise you have before you, there was substantial flexibility given to AT&T. Given their failure, that flexibility should be eliminated. So, substantial completion should be very tight and defined. And then, finally, I would suggest that in the event that they don't make the next date and they don't meet the substantial completion, that the fines be increased substantially, so they recognize an economic incentive to finally finish the work that they've promised. Chairman Regalado: What I think is important, Matthew and City Attorney and members of the Commission, is that I feel you should concentrate all your efforts, not in the original contract, but in what we have now before us, which is the -- either the fines or what are we going to do in lieu of fines. Your recommendation is just keep -- for now keep the fines running. Mr. Leibowitz: Correct. Chairman Regalado: And discuss with AT&T and Ms. Bisno and her people what are the different scenarios. One thing is important: If we are going to have some kind of rebate or reduction, it's important to understand that they can, in any minute, go to the FCC (Federal Communication Commission) and get approval for raises in the rate. We do not have control of the rates. But if FCC were to approve a bigger raise than the rebate that we're discussing, then we get nothing. So, this is why I think that Matthew should be -- you should concentrate on the issue of what are the different options in lieu of fine. And, yes, I agree, I think that we should have an independent agency to look into the connections or to see if the price is right. So, is that satisfactory with you, Mr. City Attorney, members of the Commission? What -- do you want any timeframe to come back to the Commission, members of the Commission? Mr. Vilarello: Well, Commissioner, we certainly concur with Mr. Leibowitz' recommendation. The fines are continuing to run. And if AT&T wishes to reach an accommodation, I think the 29 December 11, 2001 i Commission has given enough information and detail to -- solution that takes into consideration what the City Com continue to fine because they have not completed the system. Chairman Regalado: OK. So, do you -- let us -- Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman? Chairman Regalado: Yes, sir. 0 for them to come back to us with a mission wants to do, as opposed to Commissioner Teele: I guess I'm a little bit confused. I thought we were doing well with AT&T, and we have a very dynamic, intelligent spokesperson for AT&T. She certainly smiled and cajoled me into believing everything was great. Chairman Regalado: Everything is great. Commissioner, if I may. Everything is -- the concept of what AT&T is offering is good. The product is good. What the Commission wanted wiring on different locals. It's important. It's going to be there forever. The problem is the price. AT&T places a very high amount of money in each of these work. We think -- I'm not an expert, but I think, you know, that we can get probably an independent -- a contractor to do something. Commissioner Teele: I thought that's what Mr. Leibowitz was recommending, and I would -- Chairman Regalado: Right, that is what he's recommending. Commissioner Teele: And I would assume that under the traditional rules of litigation counsel, Mr. Leibowitz would only have to go to the City Attorney to get approval to hire that entity. That's normally how, when you have an attorney -- Mr. Attorney, is that correct? Mr. Vilarello: There's a variety of different options, but certainly we could also pass on that cost to AT&T and it would not be a cost to us, as long as we retain the expert. Commissioner Teele: Well, let me understand this. And this is where the City is woefully in dangerous conditions. Does anybody know how much, in fines, right now, December 11th, how much in fines is AT&T approved? Chairman Regalado: Two hundred and seventeen thousand dollars ($217,000), as of December 15. Commissioner Teele: Two hundred and seventeen thousand dollars ($217,000)? Chairman Regalado: Yes, sir. From September I" to December 15th, the fines are running up to two hundred and seventeen thousand dollars ($217,000). Now -- Commissioner Tecle: I think it's important, though, that we establish a policy of at least, monthly, giving AT&T a statement of their fines. Because I know these things have a way of, at the end of the day, they come back and say, "Well, we didn't know." And government rarely 30 December 11, 2001 0 0 documents. And I'm impressed, Mr. Chairman, that you have that information at your fingertip. Most impressive. But I really do think, in fairness to AT&T, that we give AT&T a statement of account monthly on these fines. I want to be very clear that I'm much more interested in service than fines, and it would be my expectation that AT&T would not be making a payment until we get to the end and we know exactly where we are. So, I just want to say that on the record. I think that is helpful. Chairman Regalado: Commissioner, I think that the Commission, as a body, Director, the City Attorney and the City Manager and everyone, even AT&T, that we do want some kind of remedy instead of fines. That's been determined. Now, the question -- there are two problems, which is what Matthew has addressed. One, the costs. I think -- I mean, if we can save two or three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) on those connections, I think we can use that in other services. And in terms of the rebate or reduction, we just need to know if AT&T is going to go to FCC to have some kind of request. They have already sent a list of rates that are going to be raised as of January 1St, Susan. I read that rates -- and we are going to have a rates in different services, not -- I think the basic, but in the other areas, plus the broadband, plus digital, plus whatever. So, it is important that you come back with a product that members of the Commission can really understand. Mr. Leibowitz: But we have clarification. They don't even have to go to the FCC. They can raise their rates, other than the basic rate, independently, with no government oversight whatsoever, at any level, and that is one of the concerns. Pardon me? Vice Chairman Winton: (INAUDIBLE) decrease in the same way? Mr. Leibowitz: Absolutely. Vice Chairman Winton: OK. Chairman Regalado: But that's up to Susan, not to us. Mr. Leibowitz: In twilight zone, they can. Chairman Regalado: I mean, we cannot -- we don't have anything, at all, to say on the rates and that is the problem. The problem, Johnny, is that we get the heat from the consumers, but we don't have the power to do anything about the rates. Although, people will say, "Well, we entered into a contract" and all that, but there's no mechanism to go into the rates. Mr. Leibowitz: Well, there is a minor mechanism for the basic rates, assuming you get compliance. Chairman Regalado: Well, the basic rates, yes. Mr. Leibowitz: But the effectiveness of that remedy is truly in question, and I could never represent to you, at this point in time, that that's worth your time and dollars -- 31 December 11, 2001 0 0 Vice Chairman Winton: So, there's nothing we can do? Mr. Leibowitz: On the rates issue. Chairman Regalado: On the rate issue. Mr. Leibowitz: But on this issue, you know, the question -- as I understand it, this Commission has spoken, is that they really don't want fines. They want the economic benefit to go to the consumers, number one, and they want a higher level of service, number two. So, in terms of the economic benefit, I question whether that economic benefit should be in deferred raises, which we cannot get our hands around, versus a direct credit. That's the method I would propose. Secondly, in terms of the upgraded services, the City's identified a number of locations, and AT&T has come back and said it's going to cost these number of dollars to essentially cable those locations. For instance, the amphitheater. If we put a center at the amphitheater at Bayfront Park, they had estimated -- and I don't know if this is the current number -- but at one time estimated over two hundred and forty-seven thousand dollars ($247,000) -- Chairman Regalado: It's about three hundred thousand now. Mr. Leibowitz: -- to provide service. Chairman Regalado: It's like the cost of the stadium: You know, it goes up and up and up. Mr. Leibowitz: Yeah. -- to provide service to that one location. And I'm suggesting to you that before I could, in good faith, endorse that, I'd like an engineer to check that number. Vice Chairman Winton: So, I think the question is -- I think Commissioner Teele asked it earlier -- do you need -- Mr. City Attorney, do you need a resolution or authorization from us to hire that consultant or can you do that under your -- Chairman Regalado: No, he doesn't. No, he doesn't. No, he doesn't. No, he doesn't. Mr. Leibowitz: What I've been advised -- Vice Chairman Winton: So, we don't need to act. You can tell us that you're going to do something and we can move on now and move on with the agenda. Chairman Regalado: OK. We are -- that I think, Matthew, is important that you brief Commissioner Gonzalez. He needs to be briefed on everything that is going on on this matter. Mr. Leibowitz: Sure. Chairman Regalado: So, if you can communicate with his office to see whenever he has time so you can meet with him and explain to him, because he's going to have to make a decision sooner than later. So thank you very much. 32 December 11, 2001 • Chairman Regalado: We are corning back to Commissioner Sanchez. Commissioner Sanchez: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For time sake, I'm going to defer to the next -- well, to January the 10`" both Items "B" and "C," and we'll move on to Item "D." Just for the record, the items that I'm deferring are the discussion concerning the issue of transferring Southwest 13"' Avenue, which is also known as "Cuban Memorial Drive," into a promenade. And "C," which is discussion concerning the issue of Dominos Park Plaza. So we'll move on to "D," which is discussion concerning an update on the issue of workmen's compensation. And what we'd like to do here is just an update on where we are on the cases, and what is the Fraud Task Force doing and what are they pursuing at this time. Mario Soldevilla: I apologize, Commissioner. Mario Soldevilla. I'm the Director of Risk Management. Commissioner Sanchez: Yes. What we'd like is just an update on where we are on the cases, what the reductions are, and basically give us an update on what the Fraud Task Force is doing. And just give us an update on what we're doing on the workmen's comp., please. Mr. Soldevilla: OK, Commissioner. For last year, the number of cases that we had opened pretty much remained at a level base within around fifteen hundred and forty- eight. We ended up with one thousand, six hundred and forty-five at the end of the fiscal year. We had approximately nine hundred and forty-seven new claims during 2001. We closed about a thousand thirty-five. In terms of expenditures, the -- Vice Chairman Winton: How do the new -- how do the new claims, that nine hundred and something new claims, how does that compare to the past five years, in terms of new claims per year? Mr. Soldevilla. Actually, we had an increase, Commissioner, of approximately -- about a hundred. I want to say that a significant amount of that were heart related claims. Vice Chairman Winton: Who? Mr. Soldevilla: Heart related claims. Vice Chairman Winton: Heart related? 34 December 11, 2001 • Mr. Soldevilla: Yes, sir. 0 Vice Chairman Winton: Are we hiring wrong? Leading our people wrong? Mr. Soldevilla: No. This is for Police and hypertension cases that we had. We had about 70 cases for Police and 25 for Fire. As you know, Fire is covered under statute. However, Police is covered under contract. Vice Chairman Winton: I'm told that there are statutory and contractual issues regarding these issues. Mr. Soldevilla: That's correct. Vice Chairman Winton. And if they're contractual, we have an opportunity to do something about it. We're in negotiations. And I find this -- it almost makes my blood boil, sitting here listening to this. And so, if there are contractual issues, then it seems to me that we need those issues brought to the Commission, and then we need to have another executive session to talk about contract issues so that the Commission can set some direction as it relates to how those negotiations ought to go, particularly in this regard. Mr. Soldevilla: Commissioner, let me bring some -- I wanted to kind of like break it down in terms of what I consider, like current claims and claims that are fairly old. What I did is that we did an analysis in terms of claims. Commissioner Teele: Excuse me. Mr. Soldevilla: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: Before you go -- I'm not sure you heard what Commissioner Winton was saying. Because let's don't duck the issue here. We've got a problem with these new claims. We don't have any document before us. The first time I sat here, I heard everybody talk about how Solid Waste was driving this issue, right, Commissioner Sanchez? Commissioner Sanchez: And I was wrong. Commissioner Teele: We were all wrong. We were misled. Now, of the one hundred heart claims, how many are Solid Waste? Mr. Soldevilla: Well, none. They're not -- Commissioner Teele: You know why? Vice Chairman Winton: Yes, because it's not (INAUDIBLE). 35 December 11, 2001 0 • Commissioner Teele: Because it's not under the law. You see, what has happened is, we've created two classes of employees by state law, and we need to focus in on this, as Commissioner Winton is suggesting. Because this is something that clearly is driving all of the numbers. Those are -- it's not the slip and falls, and the people who need to be out for two weeks that's driving these numbers. It's these lifetime cases, and if you say 100 of them -- about 100? Mr. Soldevilla: Yes. Commissioner Teele: And what departments are they in, primarily? Mr. Soldevilla: Police and Fire. Seventy of those were Police. Twenty-five were -- you know, 75 Police and 25 Fire. Commissioner Sanchez: How many? Mr, Soldevilla: Seventy-five Police, 25 Fire. Commissioner Sanchez: On the heart bill? Mr. Soldevilla: On the heart -- for this -- Commissioner Sanchez: On the heart issue. Mr. Soldevilla: -- 2001. Fiscal year 2001. Vice Chairman Winton: How many heart claims the year before from Police and Fire? Mr. Soldevilla: For Police, I believe the prior year was like around 58, and Fire was around 22. Fire hasn't changed much during the last three years. Police have, in fact, you know, increased. I will tell you, in 19 -- I'll go five years -- 1997 they had 35 claims. In '98, there was 48; '99, 57; in 2000 it was 58; 2001 is 76. Vice Chairman Winton: So word's spreading, you can get out of work by having a heart problem. Mr. Soldevilla: Yes. Vice Chairman Winton: So wait until next year. Mr. Soldevilla: Yeah. Vice Chairman Winton: So, Commissioner Teele, I think back to the point here. It seems to me this is a policy issue, very much a policy issue, because this whole problem, as you said, is set by either contract or state law. It's costing the taxpayers a huge amount of money, and I think it's an issue that we need to take up, from a policy standpoint, and 36 December 11, 2001 0 0 make some real decisions about both as it relates to the law in Florida and as it relates to the contractual issues in our contracts, with both of those bargaining units. Mr. Soldevilla: Let me -- so I can put it in perspective. In terms of claims that are older than five years, we have approximately 577 of those claims. However -- which represent about 35 percent of our total number of open claims. However, we spend 60 percent of our total funds for the year in paying out on those claims. So, last year we spent approximately eleven million in worker's comp. Six point six million of that were for claims that are older than five years. One point eight claims -- one point eight million -- Vice Chairman Winton: I don't understand the significance of that. What does that mean? Mr. Soldevilla: Because we have very old claims, and the majority of those claims are the ones that are expensive that we keep funding. So, it's -- Vice Chairman Winton: We keep what? Mr. Soldevilla: We keep funding. We keep paying on those claims. Vice Chairman Winton: OK, So what you're saying is that those claims that are over five years old, those people have been claiming this problem for over five years and we pay each year; is that what you are trying to say? Mr. Soldevilla: That's correct. Commissioner Teele: How many people does that involve? Mr. Soldevilla: Five hundred and seventy-seven. Vice Chairman Winton: And how much money was that over five years, again, you said? Commissioner Teele: Six million -- Mr. Soldevilla: For last year, we paid six point five million, Vice Chairman Winton: Six point five million just last year. Commissioner Teale: Five hundred people, right? Vice Chairman Winton: Holy mackerel, Mr. Soldevilla: All types of injuries. Commissioner Tecle: Five hundred people. The question -- 37 December 11, 2001 0 0 Vice Chairman Winton: We can get rid of the fire fee or the -- Mr. Soldevilla: Of those -- Commissioner Teele: The question -- and Commissioner Regalado wrote a memo on this some time ago, and it always stuck in my head because it was never answered. What is the Limited Duty Policy that we have? Do you remember that? You wrote a memo about a year ago -- Chairman Regalado: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: -- that I saw, and we talked about the limited duty. You asked a question. It never got answered. What is the Limited Duty Policy for worker's comp? Do we have in the Police Department, right here -- the Chief rushed back in when all this started coming up. What is our Limited Duty Policy in the Police Department? For these -- how many of these five hundred or so claims are Police? Mr. Soldevilla: We have -- no. Those are claims that are older than five years. Commissioner Teele: I understand. Mr. Soldevilla: Of those that are older than five years, 353 are Police. Now, that doesn't mean -- Commissioner Teele: Of the -- Mr. Soldevilla: -- that 353 people are out. It does not. Commissioner Teele: The question is, what is our Limited Duty Policy? Do we have, department -by -department, a Limited Duty Policy for worker's comp? Mr. Soldevilla: Yeah, we have Light Duty Pot -- Commissioner Teele: No, no, no, no. I'm asking as a matter of policy for the City. Do we have a policy? Mr. Soldevilla: Yes. We have -- Commissioner Teele: Could I see that policy? And could you tell me what it is, please? Mr. Soldevilla: Well, an idea of what it is. Commissioner, any -- whenever there is a -- Commissioner Teele: It's a written policy? Mr. Soldevilla: Well, it not -- like an APM (Administrative Performance Manual)? 38 December 11, 2001 9 0 Vice Chairman Winton: It's not like a what? Mr. Soldevilla: Like an APM, we're working on one for the Police. Vice Chairman Winton: What's an APM? Mr. Soldevilla: Administrative Policy. Commissioner Teele: Wait, wait, wait, wait. Hold it, hold it. Vice Chairman Winton: He just asked if it's written. Commissioner Teele: I'm asking -- I mean, I'm going to ask this one more time in English. Do we have a written policy related to limited duty for the City of Miami, citywide policy? Mr. Soldevilla: We have -- yes, we have a light duty program that is -- I can give you a (INAUDIBLE) -- Chairman Regalado: No. He didn't say program. He said policy. Mr, Soldevilla: Yes. We have a policy for that, individuals who are out for a specific number of time -- for days, where they fall within the departments. Yes, I can give you that, Commissioner. Commissioner Teele: What is the policy in the Police Department, as an example, since the Chief is here? Because this -- really, in fairness this thing is about Police and Fire and, to some extent, Public Works. I mean, Solid Waste, to some extent, but not nearly to the extent we thought. Raul Martinez (Chief of Police): Yes, Commissioner. Raul Martinez, Chief of Police. We do have a policy in the Police Department, but it impacts a lot the type of limitation that the officers do have. We have quite a few officers that are basically filling a full duty job, even though they're limited. Examples are, officers who work communications, they're limited duty officers, but their limitations allows them to go to work on a daily basis. Most of the officers that work the background unit -- there's only like seven or eight of them -- are limited duty officers. They have back problems or leg problems, but they can still do their job as an investigator. In the background unit, they'll do that. We do have some people that only work three, four hours a day. So those are, obviously, can't fill a full duty job and are plugging holes somewhere. There are some officers that are completely out at home, because their limitations -- the doctor notices this, "Raul Martinez can't come back to work, and so it depends on the type of limitation. Commissioner Teele: Thank you. Commissioner Sanchez, do you know -- would you -- have we reviewed our Limited Duty Policy? I mean, if -- it just seems to me that if we're hearing that over half or at least half of what we're dealing with are these cases that are 39 December 11, 2001 • over five years, it seems to me that one of the things, other than fraud, that we would look at is the Limited Duty Policy. And has anybody -- has any outside entity been brought in to look at something like that? It just seems to me that we spend a lot of money. You know, eleven million dollars ($11,000,000) and if you -- we need some oversight. We need some independent oversight of this. Vice Chairman Winton: And I think we need an independent review, you know, where -- because I'm no expert here. I don't know what kind of steps you can take to solve these problems. But we need to get an expert in here that can help us. And I don't care if it cost us a million bucks ($1,000,000). Thai's a drop in the bucket compared to what we're spending. You know, eleven million dollars ($11,000,000) a year is a lot of money. So maybe we need a -- Chairman Regalado: Vice Chairman, on January, I probably will try to place on the agenda presentation of an agency that I think has met with Commissioner Sanchez and you. It's an agency that does this kind of oversight that we're looking for. So, this is an issue that Commissioner Sanchez has always been, so I would look at him for the leadership on this issue. But if you wish, we can place this on the agenda for next month, in January. Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, if I may. What I wanted to get accomplished today is to have an update on what the Fraud Task Force is doing. And simply, three years ago, when we reviewed -- and I was basically going through the books here in the City. This is an issue that basically the flag, not only did it go up, but it slapped me on the face a couple of times. Basically, we -- the numbers, we had 3,100 employees; yet, we had, if my numbers are correct, 2,793 open claims. Alarming. And that's where everything started. Of course, I am going to say that we have made significant progress. From 2,793 cases, today we have 1,540 -- Mr. Soldevilla: Six hundred. Commissioner Sanchez: Almost 1,600 cases. And we did create the Task Force to go out and look, and I believe that the Task Force was created. They're reviewing six cases. You need to let us -- Mr. Soldevilla: Yes, we have -- the Task Force was created. Commissioner Sanchez: -- brief us on that. Mr. Soldevilla: We've been meeting since July. There are eight cases that have been identified that the Task Force has been reviewing. Three of those have been submitted to the State, and there's five that are still under investigation. Commissioner Sanchez: See, Johnny, let me tell you. If you have a dog that doesn't bite and doesn't have teeth, he's not going to scare anybody. But when we put -- we implemented something that now it's going to bite people. Because I don't care how you 40 December 11, 2001 0 describe it, it's theft. You're stealing. Several years ago, when we put out those four cases that we studied those one hundred percent total disability, came back based on a percentage, fifty percent came back fraudulent, and those -- that fifty percent or those two individuals, I don't know what happened. They weren't prosecuted. That's why following that, a legislation was passed to create the Task Force to go out there -- listen, we've got to protect our employees. If you're hurt, we're going to take care of you, OK? It is our obligation. It is our duty. It is our responsibility. But if you're not hurt and you think that you could go out there and lie and try to deceive the City of Miami, well, we're going to go after you, and that is what this Task Force needs to do. If we investigate cases and we find that they're fraudulent, we take them to the State Attorney's Office. As a matter of fact, in the resolution that we passed, the State Attorney's Office must participate in that Task Force to find these individuals that are basically stealing. It's theft, So those are the things that we need to do. And let me tell you, the more we dig, the more we're going to find, Johnny. Vice Chairman Winton: I don't -- Commissioner Sanchez: And we're doing that right now. Now, I'm telling you, the Law in Tallahassee, that it was passed with the heart bill, they're protected under that, and I'm all for it. If you are -- if you have a bad heart and it's under conditions that you were at, you deserve to be taken care of. I have no problem with that. But when you have people that are being out on a hundred percent disability because they have high pressure -- let me tell you, I leave here every Commission meeting with high blood pressure. Vice Chairman Winton: I'm on medication for high blood pressure. Commissioner Sanchez: OK. So, but -- you know, we've got to do what we've got to do. We have to basically protect the interests of the City of Miami and we've got to work with them -- if we need to put people that are light -- disability or they're hurt on light duty, well, we bring them back to work as quickly as possible to get them on light duty. We have to do everything we can to reduce the expenditures of workmen's comp. And, Mario, I commend you. You know that you and I are at adverse positions in many ways. I'm constantly not in agreement with you. We are both professionals. But I have to commend you, because you have done a good job. And there has been times that I've been up here very upset, which this legislative body passed the legislation to create that Task Force (UNINTELLIGIBLE), and the City Manager took it upon himself and he said, "Hey, listen, get that task force going," because as long as we don't have that task force out there looking at these individuals that are creating -- that are committing fraud, if we don't have that, then it's free for all. There's no one looking over my shoulder, so I'm going to do what I want to do. So, I know that there's going to be times when cases are going to go up, because if you're out there and you're a police officer, and you're chasing somebody, you're going to get hurt; you're going to be involved in an accident, you're going to jump over a fence, and you're going to get hurt. Well, we have to protect you. That's why workmen's comp is there. But when you have an officer who breaks a finger and is out from work for six months and doesn't want to come back to light duty. He just wants to stay home and collect that check with that, there's a problem there. Get 41 December 11, 2001 0 • people back to work light duty, as quickly as possible. In that way, it's not that much of an expenditure to the City. Mr, Soldevilla: And, Commissioner, let me make a point. In terms of the open claims, it does sound like a large number of claims. However, you've got to realize -- and, obviously, not all those people are out at one time. At any one time that we have people out, there are maybe fifty individuals total for a week. The remainders are either because they're back on light duty or they are on limited duty. They, however, still have a claim that is open and that they might be treating. So, it's not that everybody is out, obviously. It is that certain individuals are out. Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah. But here's the thing -- and I've been there, all right? I have been inside the belly of a beast, all right? I was a State Trooper, and we don't get the benefits that the City of Miami gets. I could guarantee you that much. But when you have somebody who gets a hundred percent -- and it's more than one hundred percent because it's tax-free -- you have no incentives to come back to work, other than off-duty, OK? So what you want to do is try to get people to come back to work as quickly as possible, OK? Mr. Soldevilla: Absolutely. Commissioner Sanchez: And then what they do, they get a light position. They enjoy it so much that they continue to go to the hospital and they continue to say that, "You know, well, hey, I don't feel well because I want to stay in that position." It's OK for you to be light duty for an "X" amount of time, you know. But once you've got to go back to work, you've got to go back to work. Now, if someone's on light duty, can they work off duty? Chief Martinez: No, sir. And, Commissioner, that is a big disincentive for people to stay out. Commissioner Sanchez: OK. Chief Martinez: You know, there is a lot of officers that work a lot of off-duty. The second they get hurt or go on light to limited duty, they cannot work in any off-duty work. And I'm not saying that we don't have one or two who are abusing the system. And we work very hard, you know, especially in the last couple of years. The number of claims in Police, in comparison -- in percentage rate to the other departments, has gone down drastically in the other departments. We've had officers who have been out for years for serious injuries who, on their own, have come back to work. Have even challenged their doctors. You know, like when they say, "Don't go back to work. Well, I want to go back to work." They've come back to work full duty to do this. It is a challenge for all of us. Because, you know - and, unfortunately, sometimes we focus a lot on the couple of bad apples that we have that are trying to milk the system, and we all know that it's a couple of those. 42 December 11, 2001 Commissioner Sanchez: But those are the ones that mess it up for everybody else. Chief Martinez: There are a couple of those that ruin it for the rest of us. That ruins it for the rest of the officers. Chairman Regalado: Charlie, you wanted -- Charlie Cox: Yes, I want to clarify what was said. We have a light duty policy -- Chairman Regalado: Your name. Charlie Cox: Charlie Cox, 4011 West Flagler Street. We have a light duty policy, but it's not like the other employees in -- and the general employees are a real minute part of this problem, and Solid Waste also has -- that are different. And let me caution you on what's going on now. We're dumping all of these cases on Pension, because what happens is, when somebody gets hurt, they say that they don't have a position that they can put these people in, give them light duty or easier assignments. Say you're a mechanic. You hurt your back. You can't lift anymore. And a lot of these positions, they're -- no longer have open positions. So what happens is, they go over and they fill out their disability applications and the doctors may say, "Yes, they can do other things," but when the City doesn't have a job for them, then the Pension Boards are granting the disabilities. And we had eleven -- we had eleven -- Commissioner Tecle: See, Charlie. Mr. Cox: -- at our very last meeting. And they're not making an attempt -- Commissioner Teele: See, Charlie, you just made my point that I was trying to ask. Mr. Cox: Well, let me go farther, Art. Because what happens is that they take us under the State policy to where they cut off every benefit we've got, like in 180 days. So the individual has no right. I mean, they out off their money, and then they have to start using their sick time, their vacation time and everything else. And we've had people out there -- the last one we had at the Pension Board was out there with no money whatsoever for almost three months, and dying to come back to work, and they couldn't give him a job because there was no vacancies in the City for light duty. So, don't let him tell you that he's got a light duty for everybody in this City, because it's not true. They're forcing them -- we approved seven at our last Pension Board meeting, and we used to never approve any disabilities. And what -- we're dumping them on the pensions left and right. I think there was 11 between the last two from Solid Waste employees, because they say they can't go out there and lift garbage anymore, and there's no other place to put them. So now they're all coming to the Pension Board. And, ultimately, that cost is passed on to the City. Mr. Soldevilla: Commissioner. 43 December 11, 2001 Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, I don't know what Commissioner Sanchez -- this is his item. But I really think there's much more to this than meets the eye. And, you know, I don't want to jump to conclusions, but the one thing that I'm very concerned about is the lack of comparable data. You know, everybody stands up and talks about (UNINTELLIGIBLE) transit. The one thing we've got to in transit was, every transit manager stands up and talks about his vehicle breakdown rate isn't that bad, and to him it may not be. But when you compare against national averages, something begins to stick up. So you can statistically see where you have a problem. I don't know if we have a problem or not, but what would be very impressive -- and I'd like to defer this item until Thursday. What would be impressive for me would be to look at comparable cities, because we're sort of all in the dark. At least, I'm in the dark. I don't know how Miami compares to Fort Lauderdale, to Tampa, to Orlando. But, you know, my sense is, the way this thing is going and the way this discussion is going, there's a -- I don't want to use the word cover-up, but we don't see the whole picture. I've got a really bad feeling right now about this, Commissioner Sanchez. And this is eleven million dollars ($11,000,000) a year, and if two or three or four million of it is outside of the norm, then we really need to focus on this. Because you're the main person who sits there during the budget meeting with a broken record: "I'm not going to increase taxes. I'm not going to increase revenue. We need to get savings." Commissioner Sanchez, you know, you vote against all of the tax increases and, you know, you may be -- this may almost be total vindication of some of your positions. I think we need to look at this right now, because if we're going to be in a position in September not to raise taxes or not to raise fees, we've got to figure out where we're going to get these savings between December and July. You're not going to get them -- I think we figured out -- you've asked each of the department heads to come forward and offer savings. I think you've got two department heads to offer savings, the Attorney and the Clerk. And the only reason they came up is they work for us. So I think -- you know, what I would really like to do is defer this to Thursday, and let's look at some statewide or national data as it relates to this, and also this dumping on the pension fund. I'll accept these numbers, but we don't have anything in writing before us and we ought to give them an opportunity to come back before with this data, and then give us the comparables in Tampa, or the comparables in Ft. Lauderdale, or the comparables in Orlando and let's, you know, look, because you've got to look at Florida, Florida cities. Mr. Soldevilla: All right. Commissioner Sanchez: Mario, can you compare -- because I know you did that when we first started this years ago. Mr. Soldevilla: Yes, sir. Commissioner Sanchez: Compare then to now -- Mr. Soldevilla: OK. Commissioner Sanchez: -- where we're at. 44 December 11, 2001 i 0 Mr. Soldevilla: All right. Commissioner Sanchez: Just for comparison sake, OK? Commissioner Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Soldevilla: What I would like -- Commissioner, however, is I can't do that in one day, to bring it up-to-date, simply because I've got to ask the information from other cities to obtain it. I mean, I've got -- I have information now that I can give you, but it's outdated data. Commissioner Sanchez: How about an update on January 10`x'. Mr. Soldevilla: Definitely. Commissioner Sanchez: I'll put it back on the agenda. Mr. Soldevilla: Definitely. Commissioner Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Chairman Regalado: Yes, sir. Commissioner GonzAlez: Mario, you said that we have 353 claims that are five years old just from the Police Department. Mr. Soldevilla: Yes. Commissioner Gonzalez: How many claims do we have total that are five years old? Mr. Soldevilla: Five hundred and seventy-seven, five years or older. Commissioner Gonzalez: OK. Is workmen's compensation something that it is indefinitely? You can be on workmen's' compensation for ten years, fifteen years? Mr. Soldevilla: Yes, you can. If you are permanently and totally disabled, it's for life. We have approximately 130 of those that are five years or older. Commissioner Gonzalez: If you're permanently disabled, isn't there any other system that the person can get compensated, other than workmen's' compensation? Mr. Soldevilla: The worker's compensation is by state statute and you are entitled to it. The only thing we can do is try to settle the claim. Commissioner Gonzalez: Settle the claim? 45 December 11, 2001 • Mr. Soldevilla: Correct. Commissioner Gonzalez: OK. Do we have any cases that we may be able to settle? Mr. Soldevilla: Sure. Certainly. Commissioner Gonzalez: Do you think it would be better to settle some cases instead of paying year after year after year after year? It'd be better just to settle those cases and get it over with and -- do you agree? Mr. Soldevilla: Absolutely. Commissioner Gonzalez: I mean, it makes more sense if we would. Because maybe these cases that we've dealing for five years, we may end up dealing with them for 20 years. Mr. Soldevilla: Oh, yeah. Commissioner Gonzalez: This Commission may end up dealing with them for whatever years we'll be here and, probably, the next three or four City Commissions that takes over after us will continue to deal with these. So let's try to settle whatever we can settle and get it over with. I think -- you know, I think that makes sense. Vice Chairman Winton: Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Gonzalez: Thank you. Chairman Regalado: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Winton: This issue is going to come back on January 10th. But I hope that the dialogue next time -- you know, right now we've managed to kind of -- you know, we've gotten ourselves stirred up a little more. You know, you get stirred up -- we need some real action, and I think that if we don't direct the administration to hire an appropriate kind of consultant to gather all of the data, independent of, and to analyze what's going on internally and to make recommendations to us, we're going to continue to ran in circles. So, I hope that at the next Commission meeting we focus on that. Chairman Regalado: Mr. Vice Chairman, on the -- also, on the 10th, I will have some presentation by a group that will -- Vice Chairman Winton: Well -- and I'm going to say that I'm a little nervous about that because what I would hate to -- I'm not opposed to the presentation, but I think in terms of who the consultant is, you know, we need to direct the Manager to the issue an RFP (Request for Proposal) -- Chairman Regalado: Oh, yeah. 46 December 11, 2001 0 • Vice Chairman Winton: -- and go do a search, and -- Chairman Regalado: But, no. But the presentation, it's about the concept, not about -- Vice Chairman Winton: Good. OK. Chairman Regalado: -- the group itself. Also, Mr. Manager, just whatever -- he says he cannot do it in one day. So, if he can gat the information in one week, please copy the members of the Commission so we are not blind when we come here on the 10`h Mr. Carlos Gimenez (City Manager): As we gat it, we'll submit it to you soon as soon as possible. Absolutely. Vice Chairman Winton: And I have one more point and -- actually, a request. The five hundred and some -- 577 claims that are more than five years old -- and this will take a little bit of time -- I'd like to get a grid that lists all those claims. I don't care about names, but I want to know department, how old the claim is, what the status of the claim is, how much money has been paid out to that claimant, and what that claimant is actually doing today. Is he on light duty? Is he not working, at all? You know, that kind of grid. So, I'd kind of like to get a picture -- and don't do all 570. You know, pick a hundred, because I'll never be able to read the 575. Mr. Gimenez: We can also do -- tell you what the injury category is. Vice Chairman Winton: Yeah, exactly. Mr. Gimenez: I mean, I'd find it interesting to find out what these people are off on, mean, what would happen to them. Vice Chairman Winton: Right. And maybe you pick the top -- the oldest 100, as opposed to all 575, and then that'll give me a view. And if I decide I want the rest of them, I'll come back and ask. But, absolutely, what the claim was in there, as well. Mr. Soldevilla: Yes. Definitely. Vice Chairman Winton: Thank you. Mr. Soldevilla: Commissioner, can I make one -- can I make one point? Chairman Regalado: We've got to move on. You need to -- Mr. Soldevilla: All right. 47 December 11, 2001 Chairman Regalado: Commissioner Sanchez, you have other things? Commissioner Sanchez: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I have with us Mr. Camille Merilus to extend his appreciation to the City Commission for the surplus vehicles he was awarded. They were sent to Haiti. And he is here to present us with a token of his appreciation and Haiti's. Camille Merilus: Yes, good morning. Chairman Regalado: Good morning. Mr. Merilus: The Honorable Mayor, Manny Diaz, Commissioner Joe Sanchez, who has been pushing for this project to be a success; Commissioner Arthur Toole, who has provided us storage room to put the goods; Commissioner Regalado, Commissioner Gonzdlez, Commissioner Winton, Mr. Manager, Mr. City Attorney, City Clerk, all of the members of the audience, good morning. My name is Camille Merilus from Camille and Suelette Merilus Foundation for Haiti Development, Inc., and Operation Save Eyes, Inc., and I have with me my wife, Sullette Merilus. You can understand the important role played by my wife, because of my blindness to make this activity a success. We are here to say thank you on behalf of the Haitian people, on behalf of the Haitian community, for the vehicles, the equipments that were donated to our Foundation by the City of Miami, and to put together that (UNINTELLIGIBLE) project for economic development within the southeast region of Haiti. Commissioners, last week we were told that 300 people left the country of Haiti, but nobody knows, you know, what happened to these people. One hundred and eighty-five succeeded to make it, but the 200 others, who left the southern part of Haiti, never made it. So I'm going to ask your permission so that the audience could spend even ten seconds in remembrance to all the tens of thousands of people, Haitians, Cubans, who died in high seas in search of a better existence, but who, unfortunately, never had a chance to make it. If you could please allow the audience to spend 10 seconds of silence, so that -- (MOMENT OF SILENT MEDITATION Mr, Merilus: We are here to call upon this City to play a leadership role in helping our Foundation to reverse the boat people situation. We don't know how far we're going to go. The City has already started. As a matter of fact, some of the materials and equipment that you donated to us have been used in our office in Jacmel, Haiti. And I'm here to extend an invitation to all of you to go to Jacmel on April 27th' We're to have officials of 14 cities gathering together on April 27th to put together a blueprint that is going to be an instrument to go to the business community to invite them to invest in that region, so we can try to create jobs, to try to make life better for the people over there, so they don't intend to get on unsafe boats to come to Florida shores, risking their life, their existence. So we'd like this City to help us to make that dream a reality. And because 48 December 11, 2001 • 0 we plan to set up a -- to set up to do a feasibility study over there. We'd like the City to help us. We plan to call upon the Cuban -American business community to explore the possibility of investing over there, so it can create jobs. And we plan to have the City to really help us to spread the word, so that the people of the City of Miami could understand that they've got a responsibility to help Haiti so it can reverse the boat people situation. So, we have here something corning from the area, the southeastern part of Haiti, Jacmel, the city where our activity is being based. We'd like to hand it to the Commission of the City of Miami, (APPLAUSE) Chairman Regalado: Thank you very much. Thank you. 49 December 11, 2001 Chairman Regalado: Commissioner Sanchez, anything else or -- Commissioner Sanchez: Yes, sir, M. Chairman. You know -- and I'll make it very brief. We; must honor our heroes. And I think that after ,September lith, in New York, we really, really know what police officers and firefighters really do for us. They basically put their lives on the; line in a lot of situations. And we here at the City, in the City of Miami, we have lost four firefighters, and the last one was in 1949. And we've also lost 35 City of Miami police officers that have died in the line of duty. I think that it is our responsibility, as leaders of this community, to recognize these individuals who have given the greatest sacrifice and, that is, their life, in the line of duty. And we ask this resolution, that I am presenting to you, will basically give these individuals that have given their lives to this great City and our County an opportunity to have their names on a street, for as long as -- possibly, they could put their names on the streets and be recognized for what they've done. And as I look at this list, I see at least five that were friends of mine, and it's really touching for me. So, I would ask this legislative body to support this resolution that reads as follows: It is a resolution of the City of Miami Commission supporting the codesignation of certain streets in honor of City of Miami fallen officers and firefighters; waiving the deposits and application fee required pursuant to Section 54-138 and 54- 139 of the Code of the City of Miami, Florida, as amended, for such codesignation; further strongly urging Miami -Dade County to also codesignate certain streets for said purpose; directing the City Manager to instruct the Administration to initiate the formal process for the implementation of said codesignation and direction; directing the City Clerk to transmit a copy of this resolution to the officials designated herein. Basically, what this resolution does, it -- we would allow each officer, who has died in the line of duty, and the firefighters, to have their names put on a major street in our City. And I think it is with great honor that I ask each and every one of you to support this resolution. Commissioner Teele: Second the motion. Chairman Regalado: There is a motion and there is a second. Commissioner Teele: May I inquire? Chairman Regalado: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: There have been at least two persons from GSA (General Service Administration) -- would you consider an amendment to allow -- Commissioner Sanchez: Yes, sir. 50 December 11, 2001 0 0 Commissioner Teele: All right. --GSA. Chairman Regalado: That is, as amended, there is a motion. All in favor say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved for its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 01-1260 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION SUPPORTING THE CODESIGNATIONS OF CERTAIN STREETS IN HONOR OF FALLEN CITY OF MIAMI POLICE OFFICERS, FIREFIGHTERS, AND EMPLOYEES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; WAIVING THE DEPOSITS AND APPLICATION FEES REQUIRED PURSUANT TO SECTION 54-138 AND 54-139 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, FOR SUCH CODESIGNATIONS; FURTHER STRONGLY URGING MIAMI-DADE COUNTY TO ALSO CODESIGNATE CERTAIN STREETS FOR SAID PURPOSE; DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO INSTRUCT THE ADMINISTRATION TO INITIATE THE FORMAL PROCESS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SAID CODESIGNATIONS; AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO TRANSMIT A COPY OF THIS RESOLUTION TO THE OFFICIALS DESIGNATED HEREIN. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Teele, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Tomas Regalado Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. NAYS: None ABSENT: None Commissioner Sanchez: Also, just for the record, the County is also waiving all their fees. OK. 51 December 11, 2001 Commissioner Sanchez: And we move on to the last one of my items, which, as we know, public safety continues to be at our top priority. And this is a motion to direct the City Manager to provide for one new rescue apparatus, effective on January 2, 2002, to serve low response areas of the City; to appropriate, fund such apparatus from recurring revenue sources as appropriated. And, as you know, there are two areas in the City of Miami which response time is anywhere from 12 to 18 minutes. And, of course, it is our obligation to provide those services as quickly as possible to all our residents. So move. Chairman Regalado: There is a motion. Commissioner Teele: Second. Chairman Regalado: Second. All in favor say "aye." Vice Chairman Winton: Hold it. Wait, wait, wait. So how are you dealing with the other area? I mean is this -- did you say this apparatus is going; to -- what? Commissioner Sanchez: There is two, but right now we're going to provide one for funding and, later on, as the funds become available, we'll provide the other one. Vice Chairman Winton: So, do we know which of those is going to get -- where the apparatus is going to go? Commissioner Sanchez: Do you want to flip for it? Vice Chairman Winton: Huh? Commissioner Regalado: The Coral Way area. Commissioner Sanchez: Do you want to flip for it? Vice Chairman Winton: It ain't in my district, anyhow. It's in Commissioner Teele's. Commissioner Sanchez: All right. I don't have a problem putting it in Coral Way. 52 December 11, 2001 Vice Chairman Winton: But I think it's an issue that I'm -- and the reason I raise this issue is I -- it makes me very uncomfortable, as the policymaker, directing the staff to go buy, you know, one thing and directing it to a specific area. It seems to me that if we voted to get it, the staff ought to do an analysis and determine which of those two is worst, and it goes to whichever is worst at this particular time. And then the one that is second worst gets the next chunk of money. I mean, it seems to me that that's the way it ought to work. Chairman Regalado: Well, that's his purpose. It doesn't say an area here, specifically. Vice Chairman Winton: OK. I just want to make -- Chairman RegaIado: It says to the lowest response. Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah. Chairman Regalado: That's -- so it's -- Commissioner Sanchez: It'll be appropriated as needed by the Chief. Chairman Regalado: As needed. Vice Chairman Winton: Fine. I'm very comfortable with that. I'm very comfortable with that. Commissioner Sanchez: OK. Chairman Regalado: OK. All in favor? The Commission (Collectively): Aye. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved for its adoption: MOTION NO. 01-1261 A MOTION APPROVING THE REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF ONE NEW FIRE RESCUE TRUCK TO SERVE SLOW RESPONSE AREAS OF THE CITY. 53 December 11, 2001 0 i Upon being seconded by Commissioner Teele, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Tomas Regalado Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. NAYS: None ABSENT: None Chairman Regalado: Thank you. Vice Chairman Winton: Is this corning out of the fire fee, by the way? Shorty Bryson (Fire Chief): No. Chairman Regalado: Well, it should. Vice Chairman Winton: It's coming -- wait, wait, wait. Carlos Gimenez (City Manager): This will come out -- well, part of the fire assessment is used for operations. So, it partly will. But, also, it'll come out of the general fund. Vice Chairman Winton: That makes zero sense to me, I've got to tell you right now. Commissioner Teele: Wait, wait, wait. Hold it, hold it, hold it. Vice Chairman Winton: Zero. Commissioner Teele: Did you say it's going to come out of the general fund? Mr. Gimenez: Actually -- yes, sir. The fire assessment is based on fire. This is a rescue unit. We may be able to purchase some of the equipment that goes on that fire unit and fund some of the personnel, because they also do their -- they do cross -unit. They either do cross -- they cross - utilize. But, also, part of it will be coming out of general fund. The fire assessment, part of it goes to the general fund to offset operations. Part of it goes to CIP (Capital Improvement Projects). You're talking about -- buying a truck is one thing. That'll probably come out -- that may come out of the fire assessment. But the actual operations of it is a combination of fire assessment and general fund. Commissioner Teele: What is the cost of the truck, roughly? Chief Bryson: The cost of the operation of the truck or the capital? 54 December 11, 2001 • 0 Commissioner Teele: The capital cost of the truck. Chief Bryson: A hundred and thirty thousand, Commissioner. Commissioner Teele: And what is the annual reoccurring operating costs associated with this action? Chief Bryson: As of next year, which will be a full year, eight hundred thousand. Commissioner Teele: So by this vote, we just added eight hundred thousand dollars ($800,000). And I don't have a problem with it, conditioned on two things that Commissioner Winton raised. One is that we're treating all areas alike. And if the history is -- if the past is any guide to the future, this will go into the south end, and the Little Haiti/Upper East Side will be left out. That's if the history is any guide to the future. That's -- Chairman Regalado: But, Commissioner, I thought we discussed need. Commissioner Teele: Well -- but there's a need — we've identified the need in both areas. We identified that need when we talked about the bond issue. We talked about building two stations as a part of our bond issue; is that right? Am I -- Chief Bryson: You're correct. Commissioner Teele: And we identified that the need was a twin need, relatively similar. You see, this is what I want my colleague, Commissioner Sanchez, and my new colleague to really pay attention to. It's -- Angel, the old version of what Steve Clark used to talk about. "Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die." We're adding eight hundred thousand dollars ($800,000) of annual costs in a motion; doesn't have a dollar amount, any of that. And that doesn't bother me. It should, but it doesn't, because I understand what we're doing. What does bother me, when it gets down to budget time, and the eight hundred thousand dollars ($800,000) is short from the budget, there ought to be five votes for the budget enhancements to pay for this. And, see, I've -- you know, with all due respect to Commissioner Regalado, who's voted against -- voted "no" on everything -- and I'm not pointing fingers. I am making a direct appeal to you, Commissioner Gonzalez, that if you're not prepared to vote for certain budget enhances, this is a very good time to vote "no" now, and earn my support. In other words, my support for you. Because what we're doing now is, we're adding eight hundred thousand dollars ($800,000) to this budget. And come September, I know my -- Vice Chairman Winton: Annually. Commissioner Teele: Annually. Come September, I know what Commissioner Regalado is going to do. I have no idea what you're going to do. And I'm only saying this right here, right now, publicly. I'm not going to ever say anything about you behind your back. But it really bothers me if we're going to add money, add money, add money, and then when it's time to pay for it, head for the hills. And so we just added eight hundred thousand dollars ($800,000) of reoccurring cost to the budget, potentially, beginning next -- by next September/October, and we 55 December 11, 2001 just need to be keeping this in mind, I think it's the right thing to do. I mean, I think we need to address the shortfall in both areas. It's not fair to tax people, and then have one -- they pay the same taxes, and then have one level of service in one area and a different level of service in a different area, So in terms of doing it right, I'm all in favor of it. What I want to be very clear about is in passing this, Commissioner Gonzalez, that we're really talking about adding the eight hundred thousand dollars ($800,000), or finding savings of eight hundred thousand dollars ($800,000), because there's no free lunch. The money has to come from somewhere. It's a zero sum gain. I don't mean to single you out, at all or question your vote, at all, but I'm just simply saying, as we get into this -- this is how we get into these problems at the end of the year with the budget, because we do these things all through the year. But when it comes time -- and the Manager is sort of a computer. I mean, a green -eye shades guy. He's not going to object. It's a policy decision. But then at the end of the year, he's going to give us the bill for it. And the bill is in his budget. So I just think Commissioner Winton is right to throw the caution flag up, and I want to explain a little bit of what this caution flag means, because I don't have any problem with doing it. I support it. But it costs eight hundred thousand dollars ($800,000) a year, from now on, to do this. And we don't -- we didn't pass a revenue stream at the time, you know -- in a sophisticated legislative body, if you come up with a bill like this, you would have to also come up with a revenue stream. So we sort of defer those actions to the end, and we do that annually. Or sometimes we'll do it in February, in the midyear budget adjustment. And since we've got to buy the truck, it probably really won't hit until October of next year. You know, I guess it'll take us six months -- Chief Bryson: No, sir. We're -- Vice Chairman Winton: What did the resolution say again? I think the resolution directed something to happen now. Chief Bryson: We're ready to go now. Yes, sir. We have a truck. Vice Chairman Winton: So I think we're taking on this obligation of the eight hundred thousand dollar ($800,000) expenditure now, and I don't know where that money's coming from. Commissioner Sanchez: May I? May I? Chief Bryson: Well, for this year, it's five hundred and seventy. Vice Chairman Winton: Yeah, well -- Commissioner Teele: Well, I have the floor, and I'll be happy to relinquish the floor to Commissioner Sanchez. But the point is the point, and the point is simply this: If you -- the rule of this Commission, traditionally, has been, and the rule of even these budget ordinances, which we don't enforce, is that if you come forth with money and expenditure, you must identify the place where the money is coming from. You then ask the Manager to do that, which is appropriate. But you also have to identify a revenue stream, and what is not being identified is a revenue stream. Now, obviously, what it's going to come out of is the reserves or move some dollars around. But this is eight hundred -- you can move around one time, but this is what got 56 December 11, 2001 the City in a lot of trouble in the past. You move it around, you move it around but, eventually, you've got to come up with a revenue stream to cover this. And I'm all in favor of it, if -- what's the appropriate amount of money to add to the fire fee to pay for this, Madam Budget Director, about? Linda Haskins (Director, Budget): I don't -- Commissioner Teele: Two dollars ($2)? Ms. Haskins: I don't believe this can be done with the fire fee, because it's a rescue operation. And it must be -- we must find a recurring revenue source to fund this. Commissioner Teele: Yeah, But I'm saying, why couldn't we do it out of the fire fee? The fire fee is -- Ms. Haskins: Because it's -- it's just Fire, and this is -- Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): It's for Fire services only. Chairman Regalado: It's Fire. Mr. Vilarello: Not rescue services. Commissioner Sanchez: Not for rescue. Mr. Vilarello: And this is a rescue apparatus. Mr. Gimenez: We could have the fire assessment also take up more of the burden of the fire side of the operation, also. Commissioner Teele: Well, one of the ways to get it, the money, is to get the County to pay their annual cost associated with the provision of fire services. That's a simple way to get it. I mean, you know, we've got a bill. It's almost six -- it's almost a million two, wasn't it, from the study that was done by those folks out of Tallahassee? But, again, you know, here we go. Here we are. Mr. Gimenez: Commissioner, it's about three dollars ($3). It's a three -dollar ($3) increase in the Fire assessment if you wanted to go -- it's about a million dollars ($1,000,000). Three dollars ($3) will give you about a million dollars ($1,000,000). Chairman Regalado: Commissioner Sanchez. Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Teele, your point is well taken. You know, we've got to -- if we come up with the money, sooner or later we've got to find recurring revenue, how we're going to pay it every year. But, you know, if there's anybody here that's conservative when it comes to spending, I think I'm right behind Commissioner Regalado. 57 December 11, 2001 • 0 Commissioner Teele: No. Conservative when it comes to appropriating. Spending is a different matter. Commissioner Sanchez: OK. Well, appropriating. But this is a matter -- you can't put a price on saving lives. And if people -- if we were to ask people -- you know, I could tell you from experience that one minute makes a difference, when it comes to somebody's life. And when you have certain areas -- and, yes. You know what? If we could have two, I would vote for the two. But they told me there was only money for one, and we're going to have to settle for one. You can't put an amount when it comes time to spend -- Vice Chairman Winton: So, who gets to determine that other life that didn't get it, then? I've only got enough money for one, but I've got enough -- and I would have enough money for two if we had raise the damn fire fee. Commissioner Sanchez: Johnny, Johnny, I have the floor. I'm willing to yield for you, if you want. Vice Chairman Winton: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Commissioner Sanchez: But what I'm trying to say is, you can't put a price on someone's life. And this is something that -- you know, rescue is going to provide a service that could make a difference in somebody's life. So if you're going to tell me, all right, we're going to spend eight hundred thousand dollars ($800,000) on a Fire Rescue that may save numerous lives during this year, that's priceless. But if you're going to tell me, OK, we're going to spend eight hundred thousand dollars ($800,000) to build a -- you know, whatever, then I would have a problem with it. But what I'm saying here is, you know, people are willing nowadays -- when it comes to security, people are willing to accept us spending money, as long as we provide a service. It's -- you may think it's taxation without representation, because a certain area may not get it. But if we could shift things around, maybe, and maybe from a 12 -minute delay or response time to eight minutes, I'm telling you from experience that I've seen people, when I was a State Trooper, in less than a minute before rescue could get there, they were gone. So I don't have a problem bringing this resolution or bringing this -- presenting this and getting it passed through the Commission, because it's going to provide a service. And it's -- I think it's priceless, when you're going to be -- have -- give somebody an opportunity where, instead of being taken -- instead of having a service provided in 12 minutes, they're going to have somebody there in four minutes. I'm willing to support this any day of the week, and twice on Sunday. Vice Chairman Winton: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Regalado: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Winton: I think I find -- and Commissioner ,Sanchez is one of my best friends, but that little speech just then I found quite curious. Saving a life is priceless. If it was priceless, then when it came -- when we were at budget time this past year, we should have put a line item in the budget to do both of these facilities at the same time, and increase the fire fee, if it's that 58 December 11, 2001 priceless. But we wouldn't. We weren't willing to increase the fire fee. We weren't willing to increase the -- because life wasn't so priceless at that moment. It's priceless today, and it's only priceless for half of the need. If it's priceless, then let's bite the bullet right now and do a supplemental increase in the fire fee out there to pay for both of these simultaneously, if it's that priceless. My view is, it is not that priceless, and that we ought to be waiting and get this in a regular budget scheme, and deal with this thing at the next go around, and make a hard and fast decision about how priceless we really think this is, and raise the damn fire fee to pay what it ought to be paying to get this service done. And take some of the fire fee money that goes out of the general fund and take it out of the general fund, move it to do more fire, and then we have more money available out of the general fund to pay for the rescue side of this. Right now we're just playing these funny little games. And I can tell you and I'll all -- everybody out there, I can't -- I'm not going to support this. I think it's wrong. I think it's the wrong way to approach it. And if we're going to be honest with ourselves, let's do it up front and let's do the right thing. Bring the real revenue source to the table to match the expense we're about to put on the table. Chairman Regalado: Commissioner Sanchez, if I may. There are two options here. And one is increases and another one is saving in other areas. We are prepared to go ahead and examine the Risk Management issue in January. So, it doesn't have to be the three dollars ($3) of raising the fire fee. We need to come with some remedy for this cost. So my question to you is, what do you want to do? Do you want to put this to vote, or you want to wait and have some kind of analysis or -- Commissioner Sanchez: Well, you seconded, right? Vice Chairman Winton: 1 think so. I don't know. I don't remember. Chairman Regalado: He said he was not going to support. Commissioner Sanchez: Well, call the question. Vote on it. Vice Chairman Winton: What is it that I seconded? Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah, you seconded. Vice Chairman Winton: Mr. Clerk? Chairman Regalado: No. Commissioner Tecle seconded. Vice Chairman Winton: Oh. Commissioner Sanchez: I thought he seconded. Commissioner Teele; Well, why don't I do this. Look, look, I think, before this thing becomes a political issue -- we're about to start doing something we really haven't done in the past and, that is, we're beginning to appropriate money without a Manager's recommendation, a written recommendation. You know, we obviously -- everybody knows how this thing is being driven. 59 December 11, 2001 And I think Commissioner Winton is throwing a very important caution flag. This is the first meeting that our colleague, Commissioner Gonzalez, is sitting through, And I think we need to be careful that we don't create two tiers of how we do this, because if next week we come up with another recurring expenditure of four or five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000), we will have created this precedent this week. And, then, whoever comes up with that one, certainly, the third Commissioner is going to have a right to come up with one. And I think what we should do is ask for the maker of the motion to change the motion a little bit, and to ask the Manager to come back on January 10th with a plan, as opposed to mandating this, because the mandating of this implies that we're going to pass the eight hundred thousand dollars ($800,000), when -- or whatever it is. And I heard clearly what the Chairman said about we need to make the cuts. But the way this is done is, once you make the cuts, then you make the expenditure. You don't make the expenditure and then look for the cuts. So, I would appeal to the maker of the motion to change the motion to be a request from the City Manager to provide a plan for the deployment of this, and to return on Thursday, if it can be done that quickly, or on January 10th. I don't -- you know, I assume that there's been a lot of discussion behind the scenes between the union, and the Fire, and the Budget and the Finance people. And I assume everybody knows how we're going to fund this for this year, especially if we got the truck. Because I was voting for this assuming that we're getting ready to go out and buy a truck, and we had time to do this. I thought the truck was about a hundred and fifty thousand. But what I'm hearing is, we're getting ready to deploy the service. And obviously, the union, I assume, would support this, deploying the service. And pretty soon, what we've done is we've expended eight hundred thousand dollars ($800,000), or at least the -- Commissioner Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman. Whenever Commissioner Teele -- Commissioner Teele: -- pro rata. Commissioner Gonzalez. Chairman Regalado: Yes. Yes. I just wanted to say that I need to go to do the TV (Television) program, so the Vice Chairman will be chairing the rest of the meeting. But I want to say that I, too, believed that we were buying a truck. And I thought, well, we're buying a truck. So I don't know, Commissioner Sanchez, what you want to do. It's up to you, if you accept a change of the motion, if you want to take a vote. Angel -- Commissioner Gonzalez will be now using the floor. Before I leave, I haven't had time to take one -- several of my items. We can do this in the afternoon. There is no problem. But since I called the members of the Greater Miami Convention and Visitors Bureau -- and you will be hearing what David has to say in a few minutes -- I just want to say that I've met with them, and they have done exactly what we requested that they would do. I just want to be on record on saying that what we requested from the Greater Miami Convention and Visitors Bureau, they have done it, in terms of Raceworks. Hopefully, we'll know if this has a benefit for the race in the next five to six weeks. But I just want to be clear that, you know, since I was the one that asked them to come here and explain to the members of the Commission, I just wanted to make that clear. So having said that, I really have to go. And, Mr. Vice Chairman, if you'd yield to Commissioner Gonzalez. Vice Chairman Winton: Commissioner Gonzalez. Note for the Record: Chairman Regalado left the Commission Chambers at 11:48 a.m. 60 December 11, 2001 Commissioner Gonzalez: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to respond, since Commissioner Teele referred to me in the discussion of this equipment, and tried to advise me on what is going to happen whenever the next budget meeting comes. First of all, what we have here or what I have here in my supporting documents is agenda item, new Fire Rescue truck. Now, Vice Chairman Winton said that we may increase the fire fee in order to be able to buy this truck. According to what I understand -- and maybe I -- you know, if I'm not correct, please rectify me. The Fire Department personnel said that you cannot use fire fee money to buy this equipment. So it wouldn't matter if we raised the fire fee or we don't raise the fire fee. I think that would -- I don't know. My opinion is that what we have to look is at the entire budget of the entire Fire Rescue Department, because I'll be honest with you. How many fires do we have in the City of Miami? How many fires a year? How many fires a month? Or how many fires a week? But we see the rescue people out there every minute of the day saving lives. Every minute of the day, you see those trucks going up and down, up and down the City saving lives. And we don't see fire trucks putting out fires. You may see one every six months or every nine months. So, you know, that was the reason why I supported this item. I believe that it is something that is going to save lives. We have to look at it. And maybe we need to look at the entire budget of the Fire Department or maybe, in the future, we should be able to combine the funding of the entire department and try to look for a way that we can provide more resources to the Fire Rescue service, that really are the people that more service provide out there. Thank you. Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman. Vice Chairman Winton: Yes, sir. Hold it. OK. Commissioner Sanchez: First of all, this was never meant to be self-serving, in any way. This is basic -- Vice Chairman Winton: And I never took it as that, either, by the way. Commissioner Sanchez: It clearly stated where it's needed the most, based on necessity. We go back to the philosophy, "Pay me now or pay me later." We are looking at this -- when I was briefed or I was brought the information that there are certain areas in our district that the response time is 12 to 18 minutes, I think that once you provide -- taxation without representation -- Commissioner Teele: Is tyranny. Commissioner Sanchez: -- is tyranny, OK? But when you have representation of taxation, you're providing something. And when I say -- Commissioner Teele: That was Patrick Henry, by the way. Commissioner Sanchez: Thank you. You know, and -- Johnny, it's a necessity. I agree with you. Both of you have made a valid point on the issue of budgeting. I always look at the way -- yeah, we have to find a way of reducing in some ways and adding. It's always modifying to get 61 December 11, 2001 the best possible service out there. But I am prepared to withdraw my motion and bring it back on January the I0`h to consider putting it forward again. If we're able to come up with the funds for both Fire Rescue, which is perfectly fine with me, but ,l tell you, I do not have a problem with providing this service, and neither do each and every one of you here. I guess that your most concern is where we're coming up with the funding. And then, at the end of the year, once again, people "Well, I'm not going to raise taxes." Clearly understood. It's fine with me. I'll tell you where I'm at. I strongly believe that it's all about modifying things around, and doing away with waste, and bringing it to things that we need the most. You have brought out a case that I am going to study, and I will follow up on. You know, maybe taking some of the fire -- that are trained for Fire and Rescue, and putting them in Rescue. Chief Bryson: Everybody is. Everybody is. Commissioner Sanchez: Well, then, you know, we could, you know, maybe take someone -- get three or four out of different stations and putting them in a fire -- hey, listen, we want to work with the Fire Department. The Fire Department needs to work with us, OK? Because at the end of the day, you and I have to respond to one -- well, we have to respond to God above everybody -- but the taxpayers of the City of Miami. But, once again, I'm telling you, there are areas in the City, and I'm not going to specifically identify that area but there's two areas right now that are not getting the service that they deserve. And I just want to address that issue. Chief Bryson: Commissioner, could I just add one thing for you? Commissioner Teele: Before you do, would you -- rather than not make a motion, would you make a motion to instruct the Manager to come back on January 10"' with a plan for one or two? You know -- Commissioner Sanchez: So moved. Commissioner Teele; And I would second that motion, Mr. Chairman. Vice Chairman Winton: We have a motion and a second. Discussion. And, Chief, you wanted to say something? Chief Bryson: Yes, sir. Thank you. Chief Bryson, City of Miami, Fire. I just wanted to tell you, first of all, I commend the Commissioners that have looked to say what is going on, because for quite a while in the City, our runs have been going up, and going up, and going up. When I came on 27 years ago, there were 25,000. Today there are 77,000. We do it with less than what we did it with when I came on, less people. So we have converted people from the fire side to the EMS (Emergency Management Services) side. Even though everybody's cross -trained, we've moved more people to that side because that's where our workload is increasing. There is a minimum level on the fire side. And we do what you call a "risk analysis," and it is all a risk game. It's just like you were saying, who's -- you know, is there a place where you pick who dies? Well, in risk analysis, we say, how are we covering the City? What is an appropriate response time? Well, over that time, two areas have really become -- and when I say "areas," it's not little tiny areas, but areas that we say, these are weak spots. And, Commissioner, that area 62 December 11, 2001 you're talking about is eight to 12 minutes. I don't know how you got 18 minutes. But it's an eight to 12 minute response time on average, which is, as an expert in the field, is way too high, especially for a city like Miami. We've given great fire service over the years. The best. And these two areas are glaring every year as we go forward. And every year, the prior Fire Chief, and now myself has asked in the budget process for these units. So I want you to know, it hasn't been an all -of a -sudden -knee jerk reaction. We're down to the level where we can't shift people around anymore, because we've put our finger out of one hole in another, and the water comes pouring out. So I appreciate your studying it, and I hope we come back on January the 10th Two units is what I'd really love to have, and I'll tell you that flat out. I'd love to have it, because then I could stand up here and say, I'll tell you what, I think we're doing the job the way it needs to be done. So thank you for your consideration. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, on the motion. Vice Chairman Winton: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: On the motion, let me again commend Commissioner Sanchez, and to also say to Mr. Pidermann, with the Union, who raised this issue with me privately -- publicly, really, any number of times. I think, you know, the process is now joined, and we've really got about 30 days to try to come up with this. I'm committed to two, to putting both units in. Maybe we stagger it, you know, because of the equipment and all of that. But I think the point that Commissioner Winton made is, we can't make these arguments that it's about saving life in one neighborhood, and then don't have the same value of that life in another neighborhood. And I know that's not -- I mean, that's certainly not the case, and that certainly wasn't the intent. But I think we have to be careful about those kinds of arguments. Now, Commissioner Gonzalez has made a very good point, and that is the point that we really do have a need to put more emphasis on emergency service. Certainly, where there's one fire a year, if it's my fire, it's the only fire that year. And fire services are stand-by services. We pay a premium to stand by to be able to respond. But this is what I think, Mr. Manager, is key: We need to look at the Fire Department through the budget eye, through the magnifying glass of the Budget Office and the Finance team, to see how we can shift money around, as was being discussed. In other words, yes, we can shift money from general fund into Fire. Remember, when we started this fire fee out, it was strictly for capital. That was how it passed. And then we made an exception one year. And then, you know, the tail sort of swallowed the dog, so to speak. Now it's operation. So we've got flexibility there. But one other thing, Mr. Manager -- and I commend the Mayor for coming in with a sense that he wants to work with everybody. But, you know, you've got to be careful about this. We need to look at how much money we are paying in public housing. Now, much of this is my district, OK? But public housing, where the calls are disproportionate for EMS, we're getting zero dollars back. And I want this to be very clear. I want a section on nothing but the County's obligations to the City, and how much money we're having to support what is, in effect, a County operation. Because, you see, we keep sweeping this stuff under the rug. We keep sweeping it under the rug, under the guise that we want to get along. Well, I want to get along, too. But, you know, if you can figure out how to beat somebody out of five or six million dollars ($6,000,000) a year the way we're being beat out of each year, you'd want to get along, too. So what I'm suggesting to you is that -- I've asked the Attorney for four years whether or not, as a matter of law, a contract, without an ending date, is in violation of the statute of frauds 63 December 11, 2001 0 or the statute against perpetuity, or the statute on something that I didn't do so well in in contract law, which is arcane and old English. But I'm telling you, there was something by my contracts teacher that just keeps coming back to me that when you've got a contract that doesn't have an ending date, it's in violation of one of the restatements of contracts, or something, OK? And we've asked you, repeatedly, to get a legal opinion on this, to go and ask the Attorney General for an opinion, if necessary. And I would ask you, Mr. Attorney, to sit down with the City Mayor of Miami, before we start lighting up too many trees, and, you know, kissy-kissy and can't get out of this stuff, that you sit down with him and you let him understand and know exactly how much money -- because it was well over a million dollars ($1,000,000), if I recall, the study that we had done by the consultants from Tallahassee, Nabels Gibbler Firm, that the City is subsidizing public housing, which, by the way, is reimbursed by the federal government. It wouldn't cost the County one dollar ($1) to pay the cost of providing emergency service in public housing. It's a part of the formula under the block grants that the federal government gives to the County, just like they don't pay for the utilities. They don't pay for the Florida Power & Light bill. It's a pass-through. And, so, this is one of these things, you know, Angel, that I keep saying we're giving away a lot of money, and we're not just giving it away. We're taxing the people who live here, because of the way this relationship that predates all of us sitting here on this Commission goes. And so, Mr. Attorney, I want an affirmative commitment from you or I want a separate resolution instructing you to meet with the Mayor to brief him just on this issue, the EMS Fire issue relating to the County. And I -- in fact, I think the best thing to do, if the Chairman will allow it, after this motion is over, to pass a motion instructing the Attorney to brief not only the Mayor, but Commissioner Gonzalez, so that we all have the same set of facts. Because 100 percent of the money is right there, folks. Vice Chairman Winton: And I think that's exactly what we ought to do. On the issue at hand -- I guess Commissioner Sanchez left -- his motion was to -- Commissioner Teele: Instruct the Manager to come back on January 10th with a plan for one or two -- a comprehensive plan for one or two fire -- emergency services. Vice Chairman Winton: And we have a second on that. And one last point I would like to make, and this is to Commissioner Gonzalez, and that is, we had an opportunity to address both of these issues in this last budget cycle. That opportunity existed. The Chief, everybody had briefed all of us months and months and months ago on this need, but we chose not to address the issue, because we weren't willing to deal with the issue of where the revenue is going to come from to pay for it. So I'm struggling mightily here to support -- even when the Manager comes up with some plan in mid -year, the only thing that it seems to me we're going to be -- you know, I'm hoping that he brings us something that's expense/revenue neutral. But I have this funny feeling that this is going to be just a plain new expense that we chose not to really address in our budgeting process last go around. So that said, call the question. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Vice Chairman Winton: Like sign opposed. The motion carries unanimously. 64 December 11, 2001 0 0 The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved for its adoption: MOTION NO. 01-1262 A MOTION INSTRUCTING THE CITY MANAGER TO COME BACK AT THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING PRESENTLY SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 10, 2002, WITH A PLAN FOR DEPLOYMENT OF THE SERVICE OF EITHER ONE OF TWO FIRE TRUCKS IN ORDER TO APPROPRIATELY ADDRESS SLOW RESPONSE AREAS OF THE CITY. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Teele, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr, NAYS: None ABSENT: Chairman Tomas Regalado Vice Chairman Winton: Commissioner Teele, you have -- Mr. Gimenez: Mr. Vice Chair. Vice Chairman Winton: Yes, sir. Mr. Gimenez: On this report, we will give a report on how to do it this year, one and two, one unit, two units, and then -- but also, the implications of that on out and different either funding sources for it, what it means in terms of millage, what it means in terms of fire fee. And then I'll Vice Chairman Winton: Perfect. Mr. Gimenez: And then, you know, notwithstanding the fact that we could look for cost savings and then, you know, end up paying for it that way. But, you know, it is -- Commissioner Teele is right on target. It is a recurring expense. So we will also come up with some recurring revenue. Vice Chairman Winton: Great. Thank you. Commissioner Tecle: Mr. Chairman -- Vice Chairman Winton: Commissioner Teele. 65 December 11, 2001 9 i Commissioner Teele: -- I would move that the City Attorney and Manager be instructed to brief the Mayor and Commission -- individual members of the Commission on the -- what's the thing called, Mr. Attorney? Mr. Vilarello: The PILOT agreement, Payment in Lieu of Taxes. Commissioner Teele: On the PILOT agreement relating to the City and the County, and particularly, the impact on fire and emergency services that are unreimbursed under the PILOT agreement, with a view toward ask -- instructing the City Attorney to move forward with an effort to provide a resolution of the issue. I would so move. Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Vice Chairman Winton: We have a motion and a second. Further discussion? Being none, all in favor "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Vice Chairman Winton: Like sign opposed. Motion carries. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 01-1263 A MOTION INSTRUCTING THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY TO BRIEF THE MAYOR AND THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION ON THE PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES (PILOT) AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE COUNTY, PARTICULARLY ITS IMPACT ON FIRE EMERGENCY SERVICES THAT ARE NOT REIMBURSED UNDER SAID PILOT AGREEMENT; FURTHER INSTRUCTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION FOR RESOLUTION OF THIS ISSUE. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Chairman Tomas Regalado 66 December 11, 2001 9 Vice Chairman Winton: It's 12:04. Do we want to hear the presentation from the Visitors and Convention Bureau? Commissioner Teele: They've been here all morning. If they want to make it, we should let them. Vice Chairman Winton: Two minutes? Commissioner Teele: The CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) meeting is whenever the Commission -- it said 2 o'clock, or at the end of the Commission meeting. So, it would be up to -- Vice Chairman Winton: OK, great. Yes, sir. Name and address, please. David Whittaker: Good morning. Good morning, David Whittaker with the Greater Miami Convention and Visitor Bureau. Our office is located at 701 Brickell Avenue. Again, first let me thank you for getting me on before lunch, and I send greetings, of course, from our president, Bill Talbert. He would be here this morning, but he's speaking at a Beacon Council Breakfast, which is probably over by now, but talking about the economic recovery. Again, Commissioner Gonzalez, on behalf of the Convention Bureau, congratulations. We look forward to working with you, as we have with this Commission in the past. I think the greatest endorsement that I was very pleased to hear is Commissioner Regalado's ringing endorsement before he left, which is clearly music to our ears. As our liaison, we've kept him briefed and we commend him and commend you for reaching out to the Convention Bureau in asking us to be a very active partner with Raceworks, and the plan's moving forward with the Grand Prix of the Americas. Earlier with me -- and, unfortunately, they had to leave to attend to some of the Grand prix activities that are scheduled for tomorrow. But you may have seen Seth Gordon with GDB Partners, as well as Yami Reyes, who was sitting with me this morning, and Elsa Cristobal, who was also with me, who had to leave. She's with Travel Network, a travel organization that Raceworks has reached out to to create travel packages for the destination. All of us, as a team, are working very closely with Willie and Peter, and I think that I'm encouraged now that we're moving in the right direction to maximize this event, not only in terms of promoting the event and making sure the event is successful, but our primary goal, which is to make sure this is an opportunity to bring people into this destination, booking hotel rooms, creating economic activity for our City. And I'm very pleased about the challenge, and I think we've got a very aggressive plan and over the next several weeks and months we'lI move forward on that. There is a press conference tomorrow. I hope -- I know that you've been invited and, hopefully, you'll be able to be there. Commissioner Sanchez, I know that you're actively with the host committee and may be the representative there tomorrow. Well, really it's the official announcement of the Grand Prix of the Americas. I can't encourage how important it is to start getting that name out there, due to some of the confusion. 67 December 11, 2001 • • Vice Chairman Winton: I'm not sure everyone knows about that press conference. You might make sure that all the Commissioners get another piece of information. I just talked to Commissioner Gonzalez. Asked him. He doesn't know anything about it. And it certainly isn't on my schedule, so -- Mr. Whittaker: Yeah. And, again, I'll work with Yami Reyes from the PR side to make sure that that gets to you. We'll be at the -- in Bayfront Park, beginning at 11 o'clock tomorrow. But, again, the primary goal of that is to start communicating vis-a-vis the press, both locally and nationally and regionally that, you know, the plans of the Grand Prix of the Americas. Through partnership with GDB, a number of partnerships have been established with The Miami Herald, Hispanic Broadcasting, Clear Channel, Telemundo and Channel 4. We're building our coalition to promote this race, both locally and nationally. The Convention Bureau is looking forward to playing a very significant role in working with travel media, not only here in the United States, but especially in Latin America, creating the awareness of this race. We obviously are going to tie it into our own advertising, as we move forward. We advertise major events, whether it's this, the Coconut Grove Art Festival, or any major event that's planned for the first quarter. Some of the website development, I'm extremely pleased to see unfolding, so that we can announce ways that people can purchase tickets, purchase hotel rooms. Tomorrow morning, just prior to the press briefing, we're having a meeting with 12 of our downtown hotels -- predominately downtown, of course -- creating the travel packages, so that, again, people will have the option of traveling to Miami, of not only purchasing tickets to the race, but staying in our hotels. We're also collaborating with Peter and Willie on the selection of their advertising agency. Our advertising agency of record, Turkhill, Schwartz & Partners, has discussed some of our strategies to partner with Raceworks. Whether that's an official relationship or just a tangential one through our support, a lot of those ambitious plans are moving forward. I think, in future meetings, it'll be our wish to continue to brief you as we move forward. Obviously, continue to brief Commissioner Regalado -- Chairman Regalado. But, again, let me just reinforce our pledge to make sure that this race is not only widely supported, in terms of promotion and awareness, but also to take advantage of this opportunity to book rooms in our city. I'd be happy to answer any questions. But, again, thank you for giving us the opportunity to get so heavily involved. Vice Chairman Winton: Any questions from the dais? Thank you very much for the update. I can tell you, absolutely, Commissioner Regalado is the Convention and Visitors Bureau's greatest critic up here, and if he said he thinks you guys have done a great job, you've probably done an outstandingly great job. So, thanks for the help. And I'm glad you are working side by side with Raceworks to make this a great success in the City of Miami. Thanks. Mr. Whittaker: We'll keep working. Vice Chairman Winton: Great. Do we have any other issues that you'll want to take up before lunch? None. So, what's -- are we coming back at 2 o'clock? Two o'clock? 68 December 11, 2001 0 0 Two o'clock's fine with me, So, we'll be back at 2 o'clock. And I'm reminded we have the 1:30 holiday filming out front at -- with the Mayor. Holiday or something or other, THEREUPON, THE CITY COMMISSION WENT INTO RECESS AT 12:10 P.M. AND RECONVENED AT 2;10 P.M. WITH ALL MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION FOUND TO BE PRESENT, EXCEPT VICE CHAIRMAN WINTON AND COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ. 69 December 11, 2001 (B} DATE` QN1 , C1T A1"TQEY REGAIN} CODE EQtMET 'VrQ�A'TQ '; S IN ��SHENAND ; AH AR.E:A,... x g Chairman Regalado: Good afternoon. We're back here. The Chairman of the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) has requested that we take some of the items at three. So, the zoning items will follow immediately after we close the CRA meeting. I have some items that were left from the morning's agenda. It's a -- we'll inform Vice Chairman Winton of this item, because he was involved in this, too. But we have a discussion concerning an update from the City Attorney, regarding legal activity pertaining to code enforcement violation in the Shenandoah area. Mr. City Attorney, this was for the benefit of the viewers and the public. An aggressive violator of code enforcement, who the City took to court, and it's our understanding that that City prevailed. Mr. City Attorney, Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Yes, Mr. Chairman. The -- yesterday's hearing. Well, let me give you a little bit of background. I don't recall the particular address of the property, but it's a property that is located in a single-family neighborhood and had, over the years, come up to three or four or more units at that single-family residence, Code Enforcement had found them in violation of the Code, and the Code had been run -- the fine had been running for many years, and the property owner just simply ignored the code enforcement order. So, as the Code Enforcement Board only has the right to fine individuals, it does not have the right to order individuals to comply with the law. We took them to circuit court, and Judge Amy Dean entered an order yesterday granting an injunction request from the City, which essentially means that they'll immediately have to comply with the Code. If they fail to do that, the judge can grant further relief, allowing us -- including allowing us to bring it into compliance and liening the property. Chairman Regalado: Yeah. I was just explaining to Commissioner Teele that this is a unique case, because I think it's the first time we take to court a code enforcement violator and aggressive, for that matter, and the court granted the injunction requested by the City Commissioner. And this can be used in other areas of the City, when you have the same scenario. My only question was -- is your manpower -- because I'm sure that there are many cases similar to this, but the City Attorney's Office does not have -- Note for the Record: Vice Chairman Winton entered the Commission Chambers at 2:14 p.m. Chairman Regalado: And, by the way, Johnny, the City Attorney was explaining that we did win the case of the aggressive code enforcement violator in court yesterday. We got an injunction. And you can -- I was saying that you can model that in other areas of the City. Vice Chairman Winton: What did winning mean, though? What does that mean to us? Mr. Vilarello: Essentially, the judge does have the right to order the compliance, and the compliance would require the removal of the illegal units and return the property to its single- family residence use, which essentially brings it back to what it should be in the neighborhood, which is different than the program that we have working with you, Commissioner Winton, 70 December 11, 2001 which is going after similar violators who've ignored the administrative process. But we're going further. In that case, we're going to foreclosure. So, ultimately, the City could make a decision to acquired those properties. In this case -- Vice Chairman Winton: So that's a big win. It's a big win. Mr. Vilarello: It was a significant win, yes. Chairman Regalado: It is. It is. And I hope that we have the ability to disseminate this information through the media, because that is the way to send a clear signal to people who would not comply and it's a very simple message. We just want you to comply. That's all. We don't want to take -- you know, we don't want to take your home, we don't want to send you to jail, we don't want to hurt you or anything. We just want you to comply. 71 December 11, 2001 0 Chairman Regalado: The other case is the property located at 2020 Southwest 24th Street, and Commissioner Winton and I went there. The City Manager, Frank, other members of the administration were there. We have found many violations inside the building. The owner has a Section 8. Now, Attorney Victor de Yurre was here this morning representing the owner. He said he couldn't be here. But he said to me that the owner does not need to comply with the request from the City about the parking lot for the residents. But the owner is offering the City -- for the City to buy the adjacent property. He cannot sell the building until the third year of the contract that he has now, which is in about three years. I told him that it's nothing, because there's nothing we can do. Even if we buy that lot, then we're going to have to build a parking lot for the owner of a property, who's making a lot of money. It doesn't make a lot of sense. So my message to him was that I feel that we have to protect the residents. And the only recourse we have is an aggressive enforcement by the Police and Code Enforcement, in regards to the parking situation and, of course, other violations. Carlos Gimenez (City Manager): Yes, sir. We will inform NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team), and the Police Department, and we'll vigorously enforce the parking regulations in that neighborhood. Chairman Regalado: The other item -- thank you. 72 December 11, 2001 -skis .,0 OUSOO IRAN 4RF'JL zN-SpECIFI �T �v y rso m :.: z�ooD �TECTIo NDIM RIa 9NTs Chairman Regalado: The other item is a resolution supporting the efforts of the State of Florida to protect and restore the Everglades. Let me tell you why — Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Chairman Regalado: -- this is an important item. The State of Florida has a major plan with the Everglades. However, there are some forces within the State and the County who would rather do this in a different way than the State of Florida originally planned it, and they are more tuned into the environment. What this resolution does -- and it was passed in the County by Commissioner Rebecca Sosa -- is that it calls on the State of Florida to follow the original plan, which has to do also with the flooding situation in the Flagami area, and West Miami and Sweetwater. Because it contains funds to clean the canal system, and that would make it easier for the water to flow into the Everglades. The option that some people are trying to convey to the State is to concentrate in the area and in the environment and not -- I would say not put some priority on the different canals, So, this resolution needs to be sent to the State of Florida, Dade County, and other entities so they know that the City really wants a comprehensive plan that will include the canals in the Flagami area, the cleanup of the canals in the Flagami area, with that money. And this is supported also by the County. So, Mr. Vice Chairman, if I can make a motion. Vice Chairman Winton: Yes. You have a motion you would like to make? Chairman Regalado: Yes. I would like to make a motion to approve this resolution supporting the efforts of the State of Florida, to protect and restore the Everglades, and reaffirming the City's continued commitment to work with the State of Florida and other entities, like the federal government, with assurances that future water levels will not be detrimental to flood protection from the urban areas of Miami -Dade County and the City of Miami. Commissioner Sanchez: Second Vice Chairman Winton: We have a motion. Did I hear a second? Commissioner Sanchez: Second Vice Chairman Winton: Commissioner Sanchez, second. Discussion? The only point I would lie to make is that since I'm not familiar with the details of -- and kind of the behind -the -scenes details of this, I would like to make clear that -- and I'm going to vote in support of this -- but I would like to make clear that I'm really voting only on that which I clearly understand right now, which is the key component here of this motion, as I understand it, really specifically deals with the Everglades restoration project and how it may impact future flooding issues within the urban 73 December 11, 2001 • 0 area, and you're encouraging a track that will prevent flooding within the urban area, as opposed to some other track. Chairman Regalado: Absolutely. Just as more information to give you on this item, the problem is that the group that wants to do this their way, they want to have the level of the water in the different canals and in the Flagami area higher than is the level recommended to avoid flooding. The reason that they want to do that is to save the sparrow in some areas of the Everglades. Now, there's -- 'that's the debate between the State, the level of the water. We want a very low level for when it rains, it doesn't go back into the street. They want a very high level. So that is the whole issue of this, the level, Vice Chairman Winton: Do we have any other comments on this motion? Being none, we have a motion and a second. All in favor say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye Vice Chairman Winton: Like sign opposed. The motion carries unanimously. The following resolution was introduced by Chairman Regalado, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 01-1264 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION SUPPORTING THE EFFORTS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA TO PROTECT AND RESTORE THE VALUABLE, UNIQUE, IRREPLACEABLE RESOURCE OF THE EVERGLADES; REAFFIRMING THE CITY'S CONTINUED COMMITMENT TO WORK IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE STATE OF FLORIDA, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND OTHER PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INTERESTS TO EFFECT EVERGLADES PROTECTION AND RESTORATION EFFORTS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE GLOBAL COMMUNITY AS WELL AS MIAMI-DADS COUNTY AND CITY OF MIAMI RESIDENTS, PROVIDED THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN ("CERP") WILL INCLUDE SPECIFIC INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS FOR FLOOD PROTECTION AND IMPROVEMENTS TO THE CANAL SYSTEM, WITH ASSURANCES THAT FUTURE WATER LEVELS WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO FLOOD PROTECTION FOR THE URBAN AND AGRICULTURAL AREAS OF MIAMI-RADE COUNTY, WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION AND WATER SUPPLY ENHANCEMENTS OF THE CERP AND THAT IT WILL CONTINUE TO PROTECT THE EVERGLADES THROUGH ITS COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM; FURTHER DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO TRANSMIT A COPY OF THIS RESOLUTION TO THE OFFICIALS DESIGNATED HEREIN. 74 December 11, 2001 0 0 (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Tomas Regalado Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. 75 December 11, 2001 0 15, AP"XI1 R, $4,000 : OR�1 E TMA PAR f BY'� LI�� HAu ` A� ACTI;:V�'I NfiT ._Tl;OIv�C R Q AD s �T'U1AF THIN;T�FOR`I1S'.:_�...� Chairman Regalado: Thank you. Mr. Vice Chairman, if I can make another motion. Vice Chairman Winton: Yes, please. Chairman Regalado: On the 18`h there is the Christmas party hosted by the Little Havana Activities and Nutrition Center of Dade County. They do this every year at the Coconut Grove Convention Center. And the Mayor has been involved in this issue for one reason. Every year these people bring several thousands of senior citizens from throughout the City to celebrate Christmas, and they have a sponsor who's usually one of those clinics. I don't know. Commissioner Sanchez: Health Service Providers. Chairman Regalado: Yeah, Health Service Providers. The problem is that some of these agencies had problems and they want to distance themselves. They do not have a major sponsor. So they have been able to raise here and there some money, and they will be able to pay the cost of employees, but we need to waive some of the costs of the rent of the Convention Center. So my motion is to waive the rent and have them pay the cost of employees and any costs involved that the City cannot waive. Christina is that -- Vice Chairman Winton: We have a -- you have a motion? Chairman Regalado: I have a motion. Vice Chairman Winton: So that's the motion. We need a second. Commissioner Teele: Second. Vice Chairman Winton: We have a motion and a second. You were going to ask a question, Commissioner Regalado? Chairman Regal.ado: I was asking Christina how much would that be, employees, you know, chairs and all that? Christina Abrams (Director, Conferences, Conventions and Visitor's Bureau): The cleaning cost is two hundred dollars ($200). The tables and chairs and the rental is thirty-eight hundred dollars ($3,800). Chairman Regalado: OK. So, that is the total cost? Ms. Abrams: The total is four thousand dollars ($4,000). 76 December 11, 2001 • Chairman Regalado: OK. So that would be what they would have to pay. The rest will be waiveable. Vice Chairman Winton: How many -- how often do we waive rental on this facility? Ms. Abrams: I believe it's the first time. Vice Chairman Winton: The first time since? Ms. Abrams: Four years ago? Three years ago? Chairman Regalado: First time? I don't think so. Ms. Abrams: What usually has happened is the City's either sponsored it or it's come from the Special Event Fund. Chairman Regalado: Yeah. But we have waived -- Commissioner Sanchez: How much are we talking about? Vice Chairman Winton: Four thousand. Ms. Abrams: Four thousand dollars ($4,000). Chairman Regalado: No, no. They have to pay four thousand. Ms. Abrams: Well, the total cost: the rental is two thousand, the tables and chairs are about eighteen hundred, and the cleanup cost is $200. So the total expense would be four thousand Chairman Regalado: For them? Vice Chairman Winton: For a normal person renting, I guess Ms. Abrams: For anybody -- any non-profit renting it. Chairman Regalado: Well, how much are we waiving? Because they have -- Ms. Abrams: It would be thirty-eight hundred dollars ($3,800). Chairman Regalado: That's what we're waiving. Vice Chairman Winton: What are we waiving? Commissioner Sanchez: Thirty-eight hundred. Ms. Abrams: The rental cost. 77 December 11, 2001 0 Vice Chairman Winton: I thought you said there's -- I get two different numbers here. What is the rental? It's two thousand, Ms. Abrams: Two thousand for the rental, and then for the rental of the tables and chairs. Vice Chairman Winton: Well, there's a rental of a facility and a rental of table and chairs, so let's be -- so, which is it you're asking for a waiver on? Chairman Regalado: I'm waiver -- I'm trying to get the waiver for the rental. Vice Chairman Winton: The rental of the facility, or the rental of the table and chairs, or rental of both? Chairman Regalado: The rental of the facilities and the rental of the tables and chairs. Ms. Abrams: Rental of the tables and chairs. Commissioner Sanchez: What is both? Ms. Abrams: Both. Thirty-eight hundred dollars ($3,800). Commissioner Sanchez: Thirty-eight hundred dollars ($3,800)? Vice Chairman Winton: That's the thirty eight hundred dollars ($3,800). Chairman Regalado: That's what I'm trying to do. The rest they'll pay. The employees and whatever, they pay for, Vice Chairman Winton: But when you say we have never waived those fees before, but then you said, unless what? Ms. Abrams: When the City is a sponsor of the event -- there are events the City puts on, or, you know, co-partners in, or out of the Special Event Fund. It gets reimbursed. Commissioner Sanchez: Johnny, if I may? Vice Chairman Winton: Yes, please. Commissioner Sanchez: How many senior citizens do they bring? What, seven thousand? Chairman Regalado: Seven. Commissioner Sanchez: From all over Dade County. So if there is an event that we should sponsor, that's an event that we should sponsor. 78 December 11, 2001 0 0 Vice Chairman Winton: As opposed to waiving the fee. Commissioner Sanchez: I go there every year. I don't know if you've been there, Johnny. But, Tomas, I know go there every year. And let me tell you something, those are the type of events that I don't have a problem sponsoring. Because not only do they provide a service so needed -- I mean, for four hours they work with sponsors that bring the food, the entertainment. I mean, everybody puts a little bit. I don't see why the City, you know, wouldn't support a -- Vice Chairman Winton: So it seems to me, Commissioner Regalado, we might be better off -- your motion moving to sponsor -- making the -- having the City sponsor this event, as opposed to simply waiving all the fees. Chairman Regalado: Look, the problem is that, you know, we encounter so many obstacles when we're trying to do something that is important for the City, for the image of the City. Let's say that we won't be able to do this. What do we tell these six thousand people that are looking forward since a month ago for this Christmas party? Vice Chairman Winton: I don't understand that. I mean, if we're -- Commissioner Sanchez: Tomas, there's a motion and a second. I don't think anyone here is opposing the City of Miami sponsoring the event. Mr. Carlos Gimenez (City Manager): If we sponsor the event, we can actually just waive the entire four thousand dollars ($4,000). We would pick it up. So, you gain another two hundred dollars ($200). Commissioner Sanchez: You know, they had sponsors -- usually -- the problem came in that I was briefed on. They had sponsors on a healthcare service provider. But, you know, there's a lot of problems going on with -- the healthcare service providers are filing Chapter 11. Apparently, they don't have a sponsor. So, I don't -- I mean, I'm willing -- I second the motion. Who seconded the motion? Vice Chairman Winton: You did. Commissioner Sanchez: As a second of -- making the second of the motion here, I don't mind voting on the issue. It's a no-brainer. Chairman Regalado: No, no. I'm just making a comment. I'm just making a comment that -- you know, everything is a problem. I mean, we have not sponsored this. This is the first time, and we have not waived -- we've got to help these people. You know, either way, I'm just making that comment. Mr. Gimenez: Commissioner, were not disagreeing with you, at all. A question was asked, if we had ever waived? And we have to answer truthfully. Chairman Regalado: Well -- I mean, Carlos, then they -- 79 December 11, 2001 0 0 Mr. Gimenez: We're not saying we're against it. We want to do this. Chairman Regalado: You should have come up -- Commissioner Sanchez: As the maker -- Chairman Regalado: -- and Christina, should have come up with -- well, you know, instead of throwing all these numbers, you know. This is easy. We'll sponsor. Commissioner Sanchez: As the maker -- Vice Chairman Winton: No. I asked the question. They didn't do the -- Commissioner Sanchez: Tomas, as the maker of the motion, just go ahead and modify it to where the City sponsors the event, and I second it. Chairman Regalado: Exactly. But that's not my point. My point is that, you know, we need to have help from you. And this was on this space for several days. I mean, the Mayor's Office also is in there. I don't see the problem. Mr. Gimenez: Commissioner, there is no problem. We just answered a question from a Commissioner, We have to answer -- Vice Chairman Winton: I asked a question, Commissioner Regalado. They didn't do anything other than answer my question. Commissioner Sanchez: Call the question. Vice Chairman Winton: Right. Any further discussion? Commissioner Sanchez: None. Vice Chairman Winton: Being none, all in favor -- there was a modification of the -- Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): With regard to insurance requirements, typically insurance is an out-of-pocket expense, and cleanup is an out-of-pocket expense. At least, I would recommend you either require them to buy the insurance or we buy the insurance for the event. Commissioner Sanchez: They could pick up the insurance and they could pick up the place. We'll sponsor the event for four thousand dollars (4,000). Chairman Regalado. And, Mr. Vice Chairman, the last -- Vice Chairman Winton: Wait, wait, wait. s0 December 11, 2001 E Commissioner Sanchez: No. We have to move on it. Call the question. Vice Chairman Winton: We haven't voted yet. So, all in favor say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye Vice Chairman Winton: Like sign opposed. The motion carries. The following motion was introduced by Chairman Regalado, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO, 01-1265 A MOTION APPROVING THE WAIVER IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,000 FOR THE ANNUAL ELDERLY CHRISTMAS PARTY HOSTED BY LITTLE HAVANA ACTIVITIES AND NUTRITION CENTER OF DADE COUNTY; FURTHER STIPULATING THAT SAID GROUP MUST PAY FOR COST FOR INSURANCE. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Teale, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Tomas Regalado Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. 81 December 11, 2001 6,G RE JEST RECEiVF FRO `"T la F0� ,Q,S I g �0T�L ,C} ANUTJ ARTIN.GEIER FFF IVw ECEYIR. . Vice Chairman Winton: Yes, sir, Chairman Regalado: OK. The last item, it's about the Artime. It's a -- defer their rent for 30 days, until they get their funds from private people, Josefina Castano Kidney Foundation, for the next 30 days. That is the month of -- is it December or November? Laura Bilberry (Director, Asset Management): The Commission previously granted two 90 -day deferrals, which expired November 16"'. So one month would mean that it is due December 10. Chairman Regalado: OK, 30 days. That would be my motion. I Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Commissioner Sanchez: Well, discussion. Vice Chairman Winton: Yeah. What does -- Commissioner Sanchez: Are they ever going to come up with the money to pay rent? Chairman Regalado: Yeah, they will, Commissioner Sanchez: They will? Chairman Regalado: They will. It's just that they didn't have already the grant that they were getting, That's why they need the 30 days. Vice Chairman Winton: And are -- and is this -- are they going to make up the back rent? Chairman Regalado: No. Vice Chairman Winton: So we're giving them free rent? Chairman Regalado: Yes. Commissioner Teele: A moratorium, Chairman Regalado: A moratorium. Vice Chairman Winton: Well, for how long? Chairman Regalado: No. Until December 16"'. 82 December 11, 2001 0 Vice Chairman Winton: Well -- Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): That's not a deferral. Vice Chairman Winton: No. Mr. Vilarello: So, it's just a waiver of one month, and then -- Chairman Regalado: It's a waiver of one month. 0 Vice Chairman Winton: A waiver of an additional month. We've waived how many months already? Ms. Billberry: Six. Chairman Regalado: Six. Vice Chairman Winton: Six, you know. Chairman Regalado: So, that would be my motion. Vice Chairman Winton: You have a motion on the table. Was there a second? Commissioner Gonzalez: Yes. Vice Chairman Winton: And a second. Any other discussion? Mr. Clerk, would you call the roll. The following resolution was introduced by Chairman Regalado, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 01-1266 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 01-890 TO EXTEND THE GRANT OF A WAIVER OF RENTAL FEES FOR THE JOSEFINA CASTANO KIDNEY FOUNDATION (THE "FOUNDATION") AT THE MANUEL ARTIME COMMUNITY CENTER FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED THIRTY DAYS, FROM NOVEMBER 16, 2001 TO DECEMBER 16, 2001; AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, WITH THE FOUNDATION FOR SAID PURPOSE. 83 December 11, 2001 (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote; AYES: Chairman Tomas Regalado Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Tecle, Jr, NAYS: Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton ABSENT: None, Chairman Regalado: OK. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman. 84 December 11, 2001 �RQPOSED 'RST ADW Q N1 G SEC T QN 3 1 O 6 , RT�INAN CQDE ES $' ��SH PACKING RA S BQ TRAILER _A SEINQ3QAT LQ I A,TQTTTIBa C Q�QT�VE� 2 0 )_ Chairman Regalado: Now we go to -- it's 2;33. You want to go through the -- we've got 1, 2 items. I understand that the Greater Miami Convention and Visitors Bureau, they did -- So, we have a first reading ordinance, Item 1. Commissioner Teele: So moved, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Regalado; It's been moved. Is there a second? Vice Chairman Winton: Second. Chairman Regalado: Second by Vice Chairman Winton. Moved by Commissioner Tecle. Mr. City Attorney -- do we have anybody who wants to come before this Board and make comments on this ordinance? Read the ordinance. Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Mr. Chairman, I believe this is first hearing, so -- and first reading. Note for the Record: The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record by title only. Chairman Regalado: Roll call. Christina Abrams (Director, Greater Miami Conventions and Visitor's Bureau): Commissioner, if I could add something, please? Chairman Regalado: Oh, OK. Ms, Abrams: Thank you. In addition to the rates, we'd like add some things to the ordinance after meeting with a member of the community. We would like to say that the rates will be reviewed annually, as part of the ordinance, to determine fair pricing and to ensure adequate revenues for maintenance. And to require the Department of Off -Street Parking, which will be operating the ramp, to maintain a separate account for the revenues and expenses, and that those revenues be used only for operating the boat ramp, providing security, making capital improvements, ground maintenance for the Seminole Boat Ramp and grounds maintenance to include tree trimming, turf maintenance, watering, regular shoreline trash cleanup for Kenneth Myers Park from said revenues. Vice Chairman Winton: Just so no one's misled about this, based on the numbers I've seen, it's a -- there's a big question as to whether or not these revenues are going to cover all those things, in the first place. So, you know that's -- I think the concept's good, but I just want the public and the Commission to understand that there isn't some big profit center that just got generated here -- 85 December 11, 2001 • Ms. Abrams: Exactly. E Vice Chairman Winton: -- that's going to be, you know, some nice new kitty that pays for everything that we want. Chairman Regalado: OK. This is an open hearing, so let's hear from the public. Your name? Jack King: My name is Jack King, 4031 El Prado Boulevard, and I'm a member of the City of Miami's Waterfront Advisory Board. And, quite frankly, I do not like the fact that we are using this new found money to take care of all of Meyers Park. As far as I understood this, when we put this package together, that we were going to charge the maximum we could to take care of the boat ramp, the parking area, the long-term investment in that, because there are things that the boat ramp -- the parking area right now is being used far more than we ever anticipated, which is good. But the bad part is, you know, it requires more money to take care of this. The Meyers Park aspect of this is under Parks and Recreation. I think that they should take care of that. If we -- if Art Noriega does such an excellent job with this and we end up with more money than we know what to do with, then we'll reduce the rates for parking at the boat ramp. Again, I look at this as some sort of, like a profit center. You know, we're going to make a lot of money here, so we're going to use it for everything. That's just not the truth. It just doesn't work that way, all right. Commissioner Regalado, you and I have talked in the past about the amount of money you should actually charge for this. I think Mr. Noriega and the Waterfront Board have come up with a pretty acceptable program here that's fair, and that money should be left in that particular place right now. Like I said, if we come up with more money, we'll reduce the rate for the parking there. Is that all right? Chairman Regalado: Well, as the maker of the motion -- Commissioner Winton -- Commissioner Toole and Vice Chairman Winton, do you accept what the administration -- do you want to modify this? Do you want to -- Vice Chairman Winton: I'd like to hear just the rest of the public comments and then we can figure out what changes we need to make. Chairman Regalado: OK. All right. I didn't know. Go ahead, sir. Jonathan Blum: Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Thank you, City Commissioners. My name is Jonathan Blum. I live at 2843 South Bayshore Drive, in Coconut Grove. I was one of the individuals, I think, who had a hand in the drafting of this new vision for the Ken Meyers Park. 1, myself, and others that I've talked to do not consider this to be a new found pot of money that can be used with a free rein. The Seminole Boat Ramp is in Ken Meyers Park. The boat ramp is a public park facility. Revenues that are generated by the boat ramp are causing a park to be divided pretty much in half. When the boat ramp was renovated, I might add that Florida Inland and Navigational District funds were used, as were Dade County Safe Neighborhood Parks Ordinance funds. In the process of renovating the boat ramp, the boat ramp parking lot encroached upon the existing green space of Ken Meyers Park and, as you all know, this is kind of an issue that may have, in some of your minds, been gone over ad nauseum because of concessions made to the neighborhood regarding planting of additional trees and things like that, 86 December 11, 2001 which everyone does appreciate. However, I think what I'm asking, through the drafting or the additional information to be included in this ordinance, is that a new vision be applied to this particular area and to parks themselves that do have a source of creation of revenue. The funds that were granted to the City to renovate this boat ramp have really not been used according to the original agreement drafted between the City and the various agencies. The City is, in fact, in default of those agreements, which is not a good thing for anyone. The language written in the ordinance, in fact, addresses some of those issues and would remedy the default situation. That default situation might be investigated upon. You know, I might be in error to some degree, but I don't think so. The funds that are going to be generated by the boat ramp should and foremost be used in the boat ramp area. However, like I said before, the park is divided. And what is being asked is basically to employ a new vision to say that revenues generated within a park can be used within that park. First and foremost, they should be used for safety issues concerning the boat ramp. However, if any money is left over, why not use those funds to do something good in an adjacent piece of land, which is actually the piece of land that the boat ramp sits within? We are now creating two distinct pieces of land out of a land -- piece of land that's platted public parks. We now have two or three different government organizations managing this facility. It should probably be in the hands of Parks and Recreation. The ramp should be managed by Parks and Receration. The funds generated within the park should be used within the park. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Regalado: Thank you. Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: May I inquire? You indicated that the City was in violation or breach of our agreements. Specifically, what do you believe we are breaching? Mr. Blum: There are a number of issues. Commissioner Teele: OK, specifically. Just go by them one by one and tell me what you believe we are breaching. Mr. Blum: Depending on the agreement -- Commissioner Teele: Well, you represented -- you know, this is being broadcast, you know. And you've represented you read the agreement, and now I'm asking you specifically, because that's a pretty serious matter. And we're here as the -- sort of the City's board of directors to make sure we don't do that. So, if you could just tell me, specifically, what it is we're breaching. Mr. Blum: Absolutely, Commissioner. Thank you for asking. As a citizen, I also do feel somewhat responsible to the Commission and to the City and my fellow citizens, and that's why I stand before you today. I also do live in this neighborhood. It is a neighborhood in which this park lies. Commissioner Teele: Look — 87 December 11, 2001 Mr. Blum: I will address the question. The question is two -fold. The question is two -fold. There are two agreements that I've mentioned. The Florida Inland Navigation District Agreement, dated December 15, 1999. Within that agreement there is a paragraph that stipulates if the City turns over management or control of the property to any other non-governmental, which can be interpreted -- Commissioner Teele: No. Mr. Blum: -- quasi -governmental -- Commissioner Tecle: No, no. The Charter of the City requires that the operation of parking facilities shall be provided by Off -Street Parking, Mr. Blum: Correct. Commissioner Teele: And so that Charter agreement would be read into that agreement that you're talking about. In other words, the Charter's the Constitution. So if you have that agreement before you, the Charter, which is our Constitution, would basically be read right into that document. So that is clearly not -- first of all, it's a governmental agency, even without the Charter provision. But with the Charter provision, we have no alternative but that. So what's the next violation of the Charter -- of the agreement? Mr. Blum: Commissioner Teele, you are correct. However, as a matter of fact, that just happens not to be the way that this was handled, initially. You are correct, it was not done that way, and that's why certain issues have been brought to bear on the situation. Alejandro Vilarello (City Clerk): I don't have any clue. Commissioner Teele: But I'm only trying to address -- because you were very clear that there are violations of agreements, and I just would like -- that's one in which we have some clarity on what your interpretation is. What other agreements have we violated? Mr. Blum: OK. In addition, some of the bond monies that were provided by the Safe Neighborhood Parks Ordinance, Section 1, Paragraphs `B" and "D" stipulate -- now, again, this can be interpreted, and this is not my interpretation. These have been reviewed by counsel, and this is why I stand before you today. The monies were designed in that boat ramp to be used for aesthetic purposes, for safety issues, things along those lines. And proposals were drafted to address those issues. However, during the construction and renovation of this facility, which is wonderful and is beautiful and does accentuate the area of Coconut Grove, certain things that were put in the proposal to keep into confirmation of this agreement were simply not done. For example, the attendant booth, which was going to provide a quote -- I can quote, if you like, from various agreements -- was to provide a controlled monitored environment. I've got three different documents, which I will enter into the record, if there is such a facility to do so, that state that it -- that was the way it was supposed to be done. There's monies earmarked for those purposes and that has simply not been done and, to my knowledge, there's not an intent to do so. 88 December 11, 2001 Commissioner Teele: Thank you very much. Mr, Blum: May I finish my point, though, Commissioner? Chairman Regalado: We've got to go to the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) in 15 minutes, so I appreciate if you'd -- in two minutes, can you -- Mr. Blum: Sure. Thank you very much. I do appreciate it. Mr. King made a very good comment. He said that he doesn't think the money should be spent in the boat ramp, or should only be spent in the boat ramp and not spent anywhere else. He prefaced that by saying his reasoning for that comment, was that if we find that the funds generated are in excess of maintenance of the area, that we should lower the rates for the boat ramp. That, perhaps, should be read into the ordinance as a compromise, considering a lot of people in Coconut Grove have worked very hard with Art Noriega and Christina Abrams, who have been very accommodating and cooperative. It seems to me that the vision that is being put forth here is completely being ignored. And this is an opportunity to just maybe look at something a little bit differently, If the problem is that we have an intent and spirit to lower the rates at the boat ramp, why not include that in the ordinance that sets the rates? Chairman Regalado: OK. Frank Rollason (Assistant City Manager): Mr. Chairman, Frank Rollason, Assistant City Manager. Listen, this amended change that has hit your desk, it hit my desk this morning at the same time. This is the first time I've seen it. I would recommend that we defer this item, and next time let us get it squared away and come back to you so the administration knows what we're presenting here. Mr. Blum: And may I add that I did send, by certified mail, return receipt received by my office on the fourth of December, the same memo to Mr. Rollason, to Mr. Gimenez, to Mr. Winton, and several others. So, perhaps, it has just hit on your desk today. Mr. Rollason: No. Listen, what has just hit my desk today is this amendment that's before you. I've got all this paperwork. I've got tons of it. What hit you today, I just saw it today. I think we need to go back among staff and decide what we're going to amend to bring back to you. There are some good ideas about keeping the money for use for the upper part of the ramp. The other part about maintaining Meyers Park, that's new today to me, so -- Chairman Regalado: Did -- excuse me, Did we have in the background this amendment? Mr. Rollason: The background for the amendment? Chairman Regalado: Yeah, in the background information, did we have this amendment? Mr. Rollason: No, sir. No. This change came this morning. This is the first time I saw it. It was passed out this morning, like pocket items that come. So, I've got to -- No. I understand that. I understand that, 89 December 11, 2001 • 0 Mr. King: The information was provided, Mr. Chairman, within ample time. But there are a lot of people that have been consulted and brought in to bear on this project. Vice Chairman Winton: Now, excuse me. That's the third or fourth time you said that. When you met with me in my office, I said, if you want to make changes to what's going on here, you need to go to all of the organizations in the Grove and get resolutions. I haven't seen a resolution, not one. I've heard you say you're representing a whole lot of people. I don't know where they are, and I haven't seen them. Mr. King: Well, the ordinance before you today is the product of your advice. Vice Chairman Winton: But that's not the point. The point is, I said, whatever changes you want to make to the process that's coming forward, you need to go to the Civic Club, to all of the different organizations, Center Grove Homeowners Associations, all these groups that are kind of domiciled around this area, and get resolutions from them in support of whatever these concepts are. And then we've got real backing for a broader based support for making whatever changes we make. Mr. King: So, the same type of -- Vice Chairman Winton: But absent that, you know -- it's gone before -- Mr. King: So the same type of memo I provided regarding the lights in Ken Meyers Park. Vice Chairman Winton: But it's gone before the Waterfront Advisory Board, which is the Board that's advising us on waterfront issues. This is a waterfront issue and we're frankly looking to them for their guidance and -- for their guidance in terms of how we act on this. Mr. King: They haven't you advised you on that. This is Mr. King, as a citizen, talking today. Mr. Rollason: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Regalado: Excuse me. Excuse me. Johnny, what is it that you want to do? Vice Chairman Winton: I think I'm with Frank, Defer the thing, let him come back, tell us what they want to do, and then we're going to vote on it. Chairman Regalado: You want to do this on Thursday or you want to do this -- Mr. Rollason: Well, I think that it needs to go back. Everything we've done with the boat ramp, we've taken before the Waterfront Board. And now, if we're going to talk about doing some changes that have some impact on that ramp, I think they need to go back before the Waterfront Board. Mr. King: I'm scheduled to address the board tomorrow. 90 December 11, 2001 Mr. Rollason: And then let them have their voice, and then we'll come back in January. Chairman Regalado: The way the Commission -- excuse me. Jack, excuse me. The way the Commission wanted it always is that any issue of this matter should go before the Waterfront Board. So that's that. Mr. King: Well -- Chairman Regalado: Excuse me, Jack. We need to move -- it has to go back to you and we will have the forum here. Mr. King: Mr. Chairman, it goes back to the Waterfront Board for every issue, except the amount of money charged. Chairman Regalado: Well, you can discuss everything -- Mr. King: The funds are directly -- are the purview of the City Commission. It's just like the parking charge -- Chairman Regalado: That is the purview of the City Commission. Mr. King: And that's the only thing we're talking about today. Chairman Regalado: So, you know -- Mr. King: All the rest of this are other things that just keep coming up. Chairman Regalado: So, you know, whatever needs to be discussed will be discussed there. Mr. King: OK. Vice Chairman Winton: Mr. Chairman, this has taken way too much time already. It's relatively simple. I move to defer this item to when, Frank? Mr. Rollason; Until January -- until we get it before the Board, then we'll bring it back to you. Commissioner Teele: Second the motion. Vice Chairman Winton: Fine. Chairman Regalado: Yeah, Mr. King: I'm on the agenda for the Waterfront Advisory Board tomorrow evening. Chairman Regalado: So, you know, we can come back. 91 December 11, 2001 • Mr. Rollason: All right. Let me also clear the record. I said I hadn't seen it before. I can look right here at the document and I signed off on it myself. So, obviously, I did and I didn't pay any attention to it.. So, shame on me. We'll get it straightened out. Chairman Regalado: OK. Frank, shame on you. 92 December 11, 2001 LJ AE OLIN MMA STT NQS `31 ABLE LCE1S G AMEN' B WE .: B `FARC MAI)'1V[E T TR C7S`I' A I}. I EW QRI S C £ � 6, )Al Chairman Regalado: OK. We have a few minutes before the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) Board meeting, and it's Number 2, a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an amendment, Amendment Number 1, to the Revocable License Agreement with the Miami Bayfront Park Management Trust and Raceworks. So, Commissioner Sanchez, you are the Chairman of the Bayfront Trust. So, if you want to -- Commissioner Sanchez: I want to hear from the administration. Frank Rollason: Frank Rollason, Assistant City Manager, We have run into just a wee bit of a problem that we're straightening out between a couple of attorneys. Commissioner Teele: All right. Well, let's take it up a little later. Mr. Rollason: So we'll take it up a little bit later. We'll come back today. Chairman Regalado: OK. We'll pick up that later. 93 December 11, 2001 0 Chairman Regalado: Any pocket items that you all want to do before the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) and the Zoning? Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Mr. Chairman, before you get to pocket items. Item number one has been deferred to the January 10`' Commission meeting for first reading; is that correct? Chairman Regalado: Yeah. Mr. Vilarello: That's the item we were just discussing, about the boat ramp. Chairman Regalado: Well, we don't know. We don't know because it depends on whatever they decide on the Waterfront. Vice Chairman Winton: Until it goes back before Waterfront Board. Mr. Vilarello: So, then, it's being -- Chairman Regalado: If they're going to take that issue tomorrow on the Waterfront Board, yes, it can be back here on the 10`n Mr. Vilarello: So, then, it's being withdrawn by the administration, and it will come back at the appropriate time? Vice Chairman Winton: Perfect. Chairman Regalado: That's very fine. Vice Chairman Winton: Perfect. I like that. Yes, sir. I have one -- Chairman Regalado: Also, just for the record -- Johnny, just for the record, when we were discussing the property on 20`h Street and I mentioned that I visited the property with you, I should have said also that it was a meeting on the Sunshine. So, the record is clear that that visit to that building was a meeting on the Sunshine. Vice Chairman Winton: And it was real sunshiny that day. Chairman Regalado: It was. It was. 94 December 11, 2001 0 E Vice Chairman Winton: Mr, Chairman, I have one pocket item. It's another banner request -- Chairman Regalado: Go ahead, sir. Vice Chairman Winton: -- for Ericsson Open. So moved. Commissioner Teele: Second the motion. Chairman Regalado: Any -- there is a motion. It's been second. Commissioner Teele: May I just inquire? Chairman Regalado: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Manager, I really think that on some of these banner requests -- do these people come in and sit down with you and provide any type of in-kind services to the �- Mr. Carlos Gimenez (City Manager): No. Commissioner Teele: Well, I know that we -- you and I just left Moore Park, where we have the Arthur Ashe Facility and we have children down there. If there are any opportunities to work with the promoter, I really would like to see some of the kids that are, you know, taking up tennis in the inner city to have the opportunity to attend some of those kinds of thing, Mr. Gimenez: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: I don't want to tie it to that, but I really do think that we, as Commissioners, and the management really ought to look at ways to -- instead of just giving away everything, we ought to look for ways to leverage something back for the citizens and something back for the -- Mr. Gimenez: Yes, sir, we will pursue it. Commissioner Sanchez: Here, here, Chairman Regalado: OK. There is a motion and there is a second. All in favor say "aye". The Commission (Collectively): Aye Chairman Regalado: It passed. The following motion was introduced by Vice Chairman Winton, who moved its adoption: 95 December 11, 2001 0 MOTION NO, 01-1267 0 A MOTION GRANTING REQUESTS RECEIVED FROM REPRESENTATIVE FOR ERICSSON OPEN TENNIS EVENT TO PLACE BANNERS ON LIGHT POLES ON CITY THOROUGHFARES TO PROMOTE SAID EVENT SCHEDULED FOR MARCH 2O-21, 2002. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Teele, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Tomas Regalado Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. 96 December 11, 2001 21 A T I?O?NY;SROM QURNi)LO SQM R CHRIST 6`1 A' CITE , I 0 ED 500 DEAN D�IV?;Op a Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, I have a pocket item from the Mayor. It's a pocket item accepting donations of Christmas trees, valued at approximately two thousand dollars ($2,000). So moved. Commissioner Teele: Second Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Regalado: There is a motion and a second on this resolution. All in favor say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 01-1268 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ACCEPTING A DONATION FROM SOUTHERN BLOSSOM FOR THE DELIVERY, INSTALLATION AND DECORATION OF A CHRISTMAS TREE AT CITY OF MIAMI CITY HALL, LOCATED AT 3500 PAN AMERICAN DRIVE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, VALUED AT APPROXIMATELY $2,000; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, FOR SAID PURPOSE. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Teele, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Tomas Regalado Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. TeeIe, Jr. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. 97 December 11, 2001 0 0 Commissioner Sanchez: Also, I have a pocket item. The donation of tickets for the Lemans Race. It has been brought to my attention that the organizers and promoters would like to donate tickets to fire fighters and police officers in the City of Miami. So moved. Commissioner Teele: Second. Chairman Regalado: There is a motion and a second. All in favor say "aye." The Commission (Collectively); Aye. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 01-1269 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ACCEPTING A DONATION FROM RACEWORKS, LLC. OF TWO TICKETS FOR EACH POLICE OFFICER AND FIREFIGHTER IN SERVICE TO THE CITY OF MIAMI, TO ATTEND THE RACE/MOTORSPORTS EVENT SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 2002, IN RECOGNITION OF THEIR DEDICATION AND BRAVERY IN OUR COMMUNITY (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Teele, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Tomas Regalado Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. NAYS: None, ABSENT: None. 98 12/11/01 Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman? Chairman Regalado: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to first of all acknowledge that Commissioner Winton, on a separate track, has been doing a lot of work on this issue of the "AMISTAD." And, in fact, a member of his staff is right now at the Deep Water Port. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman and Mr. Manager, and members of the Commission, the City of Miami has the unique fortune of being able to host the "AMISTAD." The "AMISTAD" is perhaps one of the most famous vessels in the formulation of our current liberties in this country, and it stands for the proposition, ironically, that even non -citizens are fully entitled to the protection of the Constitution. You may recall the movie "The AMISTAD," but the replica ship, which is based in Connecticut, would like to call upon the City of Miami, during the entire month of February, Black History Month. This item is, actually, sort of a public/private partnership and they've been working directly with the School Board. My pocket item seeks to put the City of Miami fully behind it. And this item, quite candidly, has evolved with a lot of people having a role in it, but sort of nobody locally being responsible for it. I think that's probably a fair way to describe it. I do know that The Miami Herald is very interested in being supportive of it, and they're committing resources. This is a resolution of the City requesting that the City Manager and the agencies of the City, namely, Off -Street Parking, Virginia Key Trust, Bayfront Trust, the Downtown Development Authority, the Community Redevelopment Agency, and the Miami Exhibition Authority provide funding and in-kind services in an amount not to exceed one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) to the "AMISTAD" of the America for their port visitation expenses and educational tour of the historic floating classroom aboard and the recreated freedom schooner, the "AMISTAD," which will be stationed in Miami, Florida, between January 121h and February 28"'; and further, that the City Manager designate -- and this is very important, Mr. Manager -- that we designate an appropriate staff to fully coordinate this function; and three, that the City Manager seek an interlocal agreement with Miami -Dade County and the Miami - Dade School Board with this -- on this matter, and that the City -- and 4t]', that the City of Miami negotiate agreements with Florida Power and Light for the donation -- lots of luck -- of electricity, and with WASA (Water and Sewer Authority) -- even more lots of luck -- for the donation of water and sewer; and further that the City of Miami negotiate with the Department of Off -Street Parking to implement a ticketing surcharge, per parking slot, to reimburse the City for some of its expenses. Now, this resolution does not appropriate any money. This resolution puts the City firmly behind it. It puts dollars and it asks you to begin -- to talk to the School Board. This thing sort of started -- they were over at the School Board and the School Board invited them down. Now they need a place to be, so they've got to pretty much be at the slip, which is under the auspices of the Bayfront Park. It's obviously going to bring people into the downtown 99 December 11, 2001 development and redevelopment areas, and, so, I'll obviously sponsor something at the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) later today and trying to get everybody to sort of pitch in. But this needs to be under the City of Miami. It represents, I think, a unique opportunity, given our unique cultural make-up and our unique need for unity to come together on something. Not included in this, but I should have included, Mr. Manager, is a notion that we'll try to negotiate something that will be a benefit to the City. For example, during the day, this is going to be pretty much a School Board kind of thing, but in the afternoon, in the evenings, they host out private parties, private receptions. There's a tremendous opportunity to bring the community together. I think, you know, we have a very diverse community in working with organizations around the City. We should be able to reserve a certain number of days for this kind of opportunity. I, again, would so move this pocket item. Vice Chairman Winton: Second. Chairman Regalado: Commissioner, I -- also, as part of the in-kind services and the sponsorship of the City of Miami, I would like to amend on the resolution by including a special program that would run throughout the month of February, with a video that already exist of that ship, because it's one of the -- Vice Chairman Winton: On NET 9. Commissioner Teele: On NET 9. Chairman Regalado: On NET 9, as part of Black History Month. And that we'll be producing that program. Probably, there is one program or two or maybe 10 already produced on this ship, but, if not, we have a video available. We don't have to wait to get here and promote the visit of this ship to the City of Miami. Commissioner Teele: I accept the amendment. And I also think that it represents some unique opportunities. For example, we ought to try to go out and get some of the radio stations, Spanish and Haitian radio stations, to broadcast from there. You know, there's a -- Chairman Regalado: I'll tell you what we need to do. We need to get the Community Relations Board involved and have the Community Relations Board organize visits from every community, every area of the City, to that ship during the presence here in Miami. Commissioner Teele: I would also accept that as an amendment, requesting that the Manager coordinate with the Community Relations Board to organize the community to be able to celebrate and participate in this activity. Now, let me mention this. We need to negotiate something because, if we don't, we're going to wind up getting charged, see, So, everything that we're providing here, we need to put a dollar on it so we that we can try to negotiate something because this "AMISTAD" has its own foundation and they come in and sort of manage it as it goes along, and unless we, you know, pretty much say these are our grants with conditions, we're going to -- we could wind up being in an awkward position. I would call the question, Mr. Chairman, unless there are other -- 100 December 11, 2001 Chairman Regalado: Go ahead. Anymore comments from -- Vice Chairman Winton: Yes, I have one. Commissioner Teele, the visitation period begins on January 12th, which is a month from now, and we've got all the holidays through this period, so I think we've given them -- the Manager a pretty significant task. There's a lot of coordination they've got to do to coordinate all of these organizations that you've identified in here that could be key funding sources for pulling this thing off, both in terms of cash and in-kind. And I also understand that The Miami Herald is also a sponsor of this event, so whoever the Manager puts in charge of this, really is going to have to kind of reach out to a bunch of different people to kind of get all of these pieces put together, and so -- Commissioner Sanchez: Well, that's the beauty of it. Chairman Regalado: Did you say that the visits start on January 12th? Vice Chairman Winton: That's what this -- Commissioner Teele; Yeah. Commissioner Sanchez: Through the 28t". Through February 28th. Vice Chairman Winton: I mean, that's what the resolution says. Commissioner Teele: Yeah. Chairman Regalado: From January to February. Commissioner Sanchez: Through February. Commissioner Teele: Let me do this for the flexibility of the Manager, if I could. Let me include in here that the Manager may advance up to fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) from reserves for this project, up to the Manager's discretion. Just giving him that flexibility. Vice Chairman Winton: Accepted. Right. Chairman Regalado: OK. So, there is a motion amended, and there is a second. All in favor say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. 101 December 11, 2001 • The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 01-1270 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION REQUESTING THAT THE CITY MANAGER AND THE AGENCIES OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, NAMELY: OFF-STREET PARKING, DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND MIAMI EXHIBITION AND SPORTS AUTHORITY, PROVIDE FUNDING AND IN-KIND SERVICES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $100,000 FOR PORT VISITATION EXPENSES AND EDUCATIONAL TOURS OF THE HISTORIC FLOATING CLASSROOM ABOARD THE RECREATED FREEDOM SCHOONER "AMISTAD", CONDUCTED BY AMISTAD AMERICA, INC., WHICH WILL BE DOCKED IN MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM JANUARY 5 TO MARCH 2,2002; DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO DESIGNATE CITY STAFF TO FULLY COORDINATE THIS EVENT, WITH INPUT FROM THE CITY OF MIAMI COMMUNITY RELATIONS BOARD, AND PRODUCE AND BROADCAST A SPECIAL PROGRAM ON CITY OF MIAMI TELEVISION ABOUT THE AMISTAD AND ALL RELATED ACTIVITIES WHILE DOCKED IN THE CITY OF MIAMI; DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND ENTER INTO INTERLOCAL AND OTHER AGREEMENTS, IN FORMS ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, AS APPROPRIATE WITH: MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT (FOR DONATION OF REQUIRED ELECTRICITY), MIAMI-DADE COUNTY WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY (FOR DONATION OF REQUIRED WATER), AND THE DEPARTMENT OFF-STREET PARKING TO IMPLEMENT A TICKET SURCHARGE PER PARKING SLOT TO REIMBURSE THE CITY FOR SOME OF ITS EXPENSES. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Vice Chairman Winton, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Tomas Regalado Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. NAYS: None ABSENT: None 102 December 11, 2001 AUT Q EX EDITED > 1JOC QH OF F, V Q SI�Y �WARD1?D Q` "WO iF Ll CDC',1�00, R xe NliNIST �V�,15 '� I L G13L O OR:,Q 1NG Qj.TT 0 GqN� L� TIQ RELAM."'' °QTS TWO NEW £AFQ LEHQIS t $e¢ Commissioner Teele: And my final -- the second one would be a pocket item relating to the Word of Life CDC (Community Development Corporation), resolution authorizing the expenditure -- expended reallocation of funds previously awarded to Word of Life in the amount of twelve thousand dollars ($12,000), which was previously awarded for administrative expenses, to be eligible for closing costs of construction -related costs on the two new affordable homes. I would so move. Vice Chairman Winton: Second. Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Commissioner Gonzdlez: Second, Commissioner Tecle: And this is self-explanatory. This is not new money. And, Mr. Manager, I really appreciate the management sticking by what the Commission has dictated or mandated. But using money for the project, as opposed to administration, I certainly would have ratified it if you all had just gone ahead and done it. The Mayor was out there yesterday. Unfortunately, I was out of town. He went to these homes, This is the Word of Life and, for some reason, the management would not allow the twelve thousand dollars ($12,000), which is available for administrative costs to pay salaries, to be used for the project. And I just say thank you very much for doing what we asked you to do, but -- Chairman Regalado: There is a motion -- Vice Chairman Winton: And a second. Chairman Regalado: -- and a second. All in favor say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Regalado: Passes unanimously. 103 December 11, 2001 0 • The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved for its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 01-1271 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE LINE ITEM TRANSFER OF FUNDS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $12,000, DESIGNATED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES FOR THE WORD OF LIFE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ("CDC") TO COVER CONSTRUCTION COSTS TO COMPLETE TWO AFFORDABLE HOMES IN THE MODEL CITY COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION DISTRICT. Upon being seconded by Vice Chairman Winton, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Tomas Regalado Vice Chairman Johnny Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzalcz Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. NAYS: None ABSENT: None THEREUPON, THE CITY COMMISSION, UNDER AUTHORITY OF SECTION 160.01, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND PART III, CHAPTER 163, FLORIDA STATUTES, CONSTITUTED ITSELF AS THE SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, IN ORDER TO DEAL WITH THE FOLLOWING ISSUES: 104 December 11, 2001 • 0 MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST AND OMNI DISTRICTS On the 11th day of December 2001, the Board of Directors of the Community Redevelopment Agency for the Southeast Overtown/Park West and Omni Districts of the City of Miami met at City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida. The meeting was called to order at 3:06 p.m. by Chairman Teele, Jr., with the following Board Members found to be present: Chairman Arthur E. Tecle, Jr. Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Board Member Angel Gonzdlez Board Member Tomas Regalado Board Member Joe Sanchez ALSO PRESENT: Carlos A. Gimenez, City Manager, City of Miami Walter J. Foeman, City Clerk, City of Miami Sylvia Scheider, Assistant City Clerk, City of Miami Annette Lewis, Acting Executive Director, CRA William R. Bloom, Special Counsel, Holland & Knight 105 December 11, 2001 0 0 TTPDA Mei CrAE�':E CEF€ASB' , Board Member Regalado: It's 3:07. The Chairman of the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) had requested that we take this meeting at 3 p.m. So, Mr. Chairman, we are -- we will convene the City Commission meeting as soon as the CRA. meeting -- Chairman Teele: Hopefully, in 45 minutes. Board Member Regalado: -- ends. And we will take zoning items for anybody who is here on that item. Chairman Teele: Ms. Lewis, please come on. Board Member Regalado: And, also, other matters of the City Commission. So, we are now on the CRA Board meeting, Chairman Teele: All right. Could the City Attorney and staff assume the position? Ms. Lewis, why don't you take the seat of the Manager here. We deed to move quickly so we can try to expedite this. Sir, you wanted to be heard on this -- on something? Fred Joseph: Yes, sir. Chairman, if you wouldn't -- Chairman Teele: Your name and address. Mr. Joseph: Fred Joseph, 1717 North Bayshore Drive, Suite 3856, Omni Advisory Board. If it would not cause any hardship, would you mind taking number three out of order? Chairman Teele: All right. Mr. Joseph: We were supposed to be at the Miami Arena at 5 o'clock, and -- Chairman Teele: All right. Number three. Mr. Joseph: If you don't mind. Thank you, Chairman Teele: Not at all. Commissioner Winton and I have both expressed some concern. Where is the owner's representative? Where is the owner's representative? Come right on, sir. Ms. Lewis, you want to -- we're on Margaret Pace Park. This is the meeting of the CRA. The time is now 3:09, and the Chair notes the presence of the unanimous membership of the CRA. Ms. Lewis. Annette Lewis: (Acting Executive Director, CRA): The update on the Margaret Pace Park, 1B. We're at the stage where we're in the permitting process. Danvel Fendorf, who is the lowest bidder, has begun mobilization at the current time, and the contract is -- OK. We're still waiting 106 December 11, 2001 for them to provide all the supporting information as it relates to the contract. The estimated time for completion of this phase will be at the end of this spring, beginning of the summer. Vice Chairman Winton: But we're waiting for the contract? Where is the contract right now? Chairman Teele: That's the question. Alex Vilarello (City Attorney): The contract has been prepared. They need to execute it, provide the performance bonds and insurance, and provide it to us for signatures. Vice Chairman Winton: So, the contract is in whose hands? Ms. Lewis: Danvel Fendorf? Vice Chairman Winton: And is there a representative of the contractor here? Chairman Teele: Look, when was this contract awarded? When did we open the bid? Because this is the thing that Commissioner Winton has raised holy sand about. I promised him that we would not have a break. I've been out there. I've called. I physically went out there, Johnny. I haven't told you this. And I am as frustrated as anyone that we awarded to a competitive no bid. The same low bidder was the subsequent bidder. We should not have had a hiccup on this thing. Now, this has been going on for at least four weeks. Mr. Joseph: Six, six, six. Chairman Teele: At least four weeks. When was this -- when did we open the bids, Ms. Lewis? Ms. Lewis: We oened the bids on the 1't of October, and we had a minor waiver, which was done on October 4", So, all bids were opened by October 4th Vice Chairman Winton: So, that's eight weeks. Chairman Teele: I would really require, for the benefit of Commissioner Winton and the Board, a time line from the bid opening to this date, as to who physically -- where physically this is. Because this is just -- you know, we say the same thing in every meeting. And we've got that whole park torn up. Nobody can do anything on the park. And you know what's going to happen? We're going to wind up having to pay a fee of fifty or sixty or seventy thousand dollars ($70,000), or some amount of money, to expedite this project. Because I, for one, am not going to let that park be torn up the entire summer. That park has got to be opened this summer. It doesn't make sense to have a park that's closed for the summer. So, Mr. Joseph, you all are within your rights to crawl all over me again, because I told you we would not allow this thing to be interrupted. We have allowed it to be interrupted, and I apologize. But, you know, that doesn't solve anything. Mr. Joseph: We do appreciate your effort. And we have been begging them. And we, as you, thought this was going to be continuous. When we saw equipment pulled off of there for eight 107 December 11, 2001 0 0 weeks, we were totally in shock. I mean, you've left your neighborhood there with no sidewalks Ms. Lewis: Sir, equipment has not been pulled off for the entire eight weeks. Because, at the time the bid was awarded, they still had not completed Phase 1A. Mr. Joseph: Yes, ma'am. We anticipated the same as you're speaking about. But I live there, and we can verify to you -- I'd be happy to give you the validation of when equipment went off, and nothing has been brought back. Those sidewalks along that area are completely destroyed. So, even in this first and second phase, we were assured, as the Chairman, as our representative, Commissioner Winton, that it would not stop, and it has stopped, ma'am, a minimum of six weeks. Vice Chairman Winton: Mr. Chairman, maybe what -- you and I had a Sunshine meeting on this very issue, getting ourselves up-to-date some time after October 4th' because the bids had already been opened. And we thought everything was moving along. Maybe what we really need to do is -- Oh, man. I don't know how I get time -- I don't know where -- Chairman Teele: But, Commissioner, you know what? Vice Chairman Winton: We ought to have the contractor -- Chairman Teele: There is nothing -- listen, there is nothing that you and I can do. We approved the bid. We opened the bid. There was one irregularity. We waived the irregularity. This job should have been awarded, and the contractors should be moving now. If the contractor's got the documents -- how long has the contractor had the documents, Mr. Attorney? Mr. Vilarello: Approximately three weeks, since November 16t''. Chairman Teele: Well, we need to ask the owners rep. Mr. Owner's Rep., why are we in this mess? And would you identify yourself for the record? Cesar Calas: My name is Cesar Calas. I work for H. A. Ross and Associates. And, Commissioners, I've been in contact with the contractor and he's telling me that he is getting all his paperwork done, and he will be on site at the beginning of January. In the meantime, he's getting a trailer at the site and he's moving in. Last week -- Chairman Teele: But you know what, Cesar? He's already there. Mr. Calas: Yes, sir, he is. But he did not have a trailer at the site. Additionally, Commissioner, he was there last week working, putting a conduit for FPL (Florida Power and Light). So, they have been doing some things that were pending from Phase 1A. So, they were there last week. We were physically at the site and inspected the laying of that pipe on the park's site. Vice Chairman Winton: But there ought to be an answer as to why -- this paperwork baloney is baloney. You know, this is a major contract. This isn't some, you know, little Joe Blow out of -- 108 December 11, 2001 you know, working out of his truck. So, we ought to be able to get an answer from him. When is your paperwork going to be in order and when is the contract going to be back to the City Attorney? Date. Give me a date, Mr. Calas: I will follow up on that, Commissioner. Vice Chairman Winton: And then call me, would you? Mr. Calas: I will do that, sir. Vice Chairman Winton: No later than tomorrow or maybe today, yet, because you could still get a hold of him today and get hold of -- and let both Commissioner Teele and I know what his answer is, in terms of paperwork ready, contract ready, back in the hands of the City Attorney. Mr. Calas: Definitely so, sir. Vice Chairman Winton: Thank you. Mr, Calas: You're welcome. Mr. Joseph: Do we have a completion date? Vice Chairman Winton: I can't give you a completion -- Chairman Teele: What is the completion date, Mr. Calas, for this, based on the contract award? How many months do they have? How many days? Mr. Calas: They have 120 days, Commissioner. Chairman Teele: What's 120 days? Five months? Four months? Mr. Calas: That's four months. Vice Chairman Winton: January, February, March. End of April. Mr. Joseph: Thank you. Chairman Teele: All right. Does that meet your -- Mr. Joseph: And 1 do not mean to have any disrespect for the lady, because I -- i mean, someone's been out there, opened the gate, drove in, drove out, emptied the trash can, used a backhoe. We're not saying they were never back on the site. We're just saying nothing has moved along. Thank you. Eleanor Kluger: Yes, sir. For a project that size, we just don't see very much movement. We see two or three people, like he says, a truck, and that's about it. And we were told, too, that it 109 December 11, 2001 0 0 was the City that was holding it up with paperwork, and, you know, we get these kind of rumors going around. And the one thing we did say was a complete, keep going, and don't stop, and we want to be able to use the park. So, January 1St? Is that what we're saying, January 1St, there will be somebody move -- movement? Chairman Teele: At least by January P, yes, ma'am. Ms. Kluger: OK, third.' Chairman Teele: But, again -- Ms. Kluger: We'll give them New Year's off. Chairman Teele: Again, as far as I'm concerned, as long as we can get this park opened by July -- I mean, you know, the end of June, when school is out, you know, I think there's no real harm done, other than the fact that we want to get it done. And in fairness, Commissioner Winton, to the public, the CRA has taken the project -- it's not a -- the CRA has taken the project and advanced the funds. So, again, this project is going along much, much faster, years faster, than if it were not being -- the funds were not being advanced. So, we just appreciate, you know, cooperation with the public on this, as well. Ms. Kluger: And the Omni residents appreciate your help at pushing this along, and the Commission's help in this. Thank you. Chairman Teele: Thank you. 110 December 11, 2001 • 0 26v ACQNS QFlCY �ECTQ� LD x EST N Chairman Teele: All right. Item 1A. Now, I've been passed a revised agenda. Is that what you want us to look at? Annette Lewis (Acting Executive Director): Yes, sir. Chairman Teele: And any changes on this agenda have been underlined, is that right? Ms. Lewis: Yes, sir. Chairman Teele: Does everybody -- do all the board members have the revised agenda? Ms, Lewis: It says "revised" on the top, and you have strike-throughs and underlines. Chairman Teele: All right. Resolution IA is ratifying the actions, engaging the firm for the review of lease and financial statements. Would you move it, please? Ms. Lewis: Yes, sir. The original -- on September 24th, on an emergency basis, we were directed to hire Berkowitz, and the initial amount quoted was forty-four hundred dollars ($4,400), which we disbursed in the form of a retainer. However, we've been told that the -- it's greater than the forty-four hundred. And seeing that my limit is forty-five hundred, sir — Chairman Teele: What's the matter -- moved by Commissioner Sanchez. Board Member Sanchez: So moved. Vice Chairman Winton: So moved. Chairman Teele: Second by Commissioner Winton. Vice Chairman Winton: Not to exceed six thousand. Chairman Teele: Is there objection? All in favor say "aye." The Board Members (Collectively): Aye. 111 December 11, 2001 The following resolution was introduced by Board Member Sanchez, who moved for its adoption: SEOPW/CRA RESOLUTION NO. 01-132 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ("CRA") RATIFYING THE ACTIONS OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR RELATED TO THE ENGAGING OF THE CPA FIRM OF BERKOWITZ DICK POLLACK & BRYANT TO REVIEW THE BOOKS AND RECORDS OF PARK PLACE BY THE BAY RELATED TO LEASED PROPERTY LOCATED AT 915 N. W. 1ST STREET FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $6,000. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Vice Chairman Winton, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Vice Chairman Johnny Winton Board Member Angel Gonzalez Board Member Tomas Regalado Board Member Joe Sanchez NAYS: None ABSENT: None 112 December 11, 2001 0 • €;RATIFYik,EXGTsiTIVE 3DIRECT4I��DT �'O` ALHA�. CIATFS TO UP1�TIAI P SA. �?R D i�T: RVARY 2(}0 I♦EASED PRQPER 'Y #� ;5 '�' saa Chairman Teele: On 1 B, the same thing. Is there a motion? Annette Lewis (Acting Exectivc Director): The same thing. That is correct. Vice Chairman Winton: So moved. Board Member Sanchez: Second, Chairman Teele: Moved by Commissioner Winton. Second. Board Member Regalado: Second. Chairman Teele: Is there objection? All right. On Item 2. Vice Chairman Winton: We've got to vote. Chairman Teele: All those in favor say "aye." The Board Members (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: All opposed? The following resolution was introduced by Vice Chairman Winton, who moved for its adoption: SEOPWICRA RESOLUTION NO. 01 -133 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ("CRA") RATIFYING THE ACTIONS OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR RELATED TO THE ENGAGEMENT OF THE FIRM OF J.B. ALHALE & ASSOCIATES TO UPDATE THE APPRAISAL REPORT ISSUED IN FEBRUARY OF 2001 FOR LEASED PROPERTY LOCATED AT 915 N. W. 1" STREET IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $7,500. 113 December 11, 2001 • (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Board Member Regalado, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Vice Chairman Johnny Winton Board Member Angel Gonzalez Board Member Tomas Regalado Board Member Joe Sanchez NAYS: None ABSENT: None Chairman Teele: Let me just see the hands of everybody here from Poinciana Village that's here to be -- all right. Just so that the public is aware. 114 December 11, 2001 Chairman Teele: Ms. Lewis. Annette Lewis (Acting Executive Director, CRA): Sir, we excluded 1C, which is the actual offer from Park Place LLC for the -- Chairman Teele: Oh, a minor technicality. I'm not going to say I told you so, but all I'm going to say is this: When I stopped the Commission -- the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) from voting on this, we were about to accept hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($150,000), I think. Ms. Lewis: That is correct, sir. Chairman Teele: As payment. Mr. Attorney, would you like to come forward and put on the record your proffer, or Madam Director? Ms. Lewis: Yes, sir. At our last meeting, the offer that came from that meeting is two point two million dollars ($2,200,000), which is a combination of the one point one million dollars ($1,100,000) that's in deferred rent, and the 880, which is the updated appraisal of our interest in the Park Place, and there is also a provision to pay for all costs, as well as the lease. We requested a five -- a 10 -year lease for the NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) Office that currently exists, and I'm being told there may be an issue with that portion of it. William R. Bloom (Special Counsel, CRA): Yes. To follow up what the Executive Director said there is -- Vice Chairman Winton: Who are you? Mr. Bloom: Mr. William Bloom, Special Counsel to the CRA. There are three issues that I'm aware of. One is, the Park Place Associates has requested that there be a cap on their reimbursement of costs and expenses to the CRA for accounting fees, legal fees, and auditing fees. Chairman Teele: What's the cap they're asking for? Mr. Bloom: Fifty thousand dollars ($50,000). And that cap exceeds the anticipated expenses, so we would recommend that the board agree to that cap. The second issue is, they want the release to be -- Chairman Teele: What are the estimated expenses that we have? 115 December 11, 2001 E Mr. Bloom: We have a -- Chairman Teele: Estimate. • Mr. Bloom: -- a six thousand auditing costs; seventy-five hundred dollars ($7,500) for -- Chairman Teele: What's the total estimated? Mr. Bloom: The total estimated costs would probably be in the neighborhood of between thirty- five to forty thousand dollars ($40,000). They're requesting a cap for fifty thousand dollars ($50,000). Chairman Teele: Does that include your fee? Mr. Bloom: Yes, it does, sir. Chairman Teele: Nothing personal. Mr. Bloom: The second request from the resolution that's in your package, is they want the release to not be just a release of the rents, but all matters arising in connection with the lease, including, without limitation, issues with respect to the defer of rent. Again, the settlement number includes approximately one million, one hundred thousand dollars ($1,100,000) in deferred of rent. So, from a legal perspective, I would recommend that you accept that qualification. And the third issue is, the CRA board -- the staff had recommended that there be a lease of the -- what's now occupied as the NET Office in the building for a term of 10 years, and the developer is proposing that that lease be limited to five years, at a cost of basically a dollar, a no -cost basis. Vice Chairman Winton: Say that -- at what -- at the cost of what? Mr. Bloom: One dollar. Vice Chairman 'Winton: One dollar what? Mr. Bloom: Per year. Chairman Teele: For five years. Mr. Bloom: For five years. Chairman Teele: We've asked for 10 years. Mr. Bloom: We've asked for a total of 10 years. The developer has requested five. Chairman Teele: I think, in fairness to the developer, five years is reasonable. 116 December 11, 2001 Board Member Sanchez: Five -- you know what? Chairman Teele: And if we want to go in and -- we, the City, CRA, want to go in and rent space, we should be prepared to do it, and to the extent that the City would want to do that, the CRA should, by separate resolution, pass a resolution promising to pay for the rent for the five years, if required. But I don't think we want to hold these people up. Board Member Sanchez: You don't want us to stretch (UNINTELLIGIBLE) that far. You know, it might break. Chairman Teele: We want to be fair. The Chair would recommend that the Board accept the recommendations of the attorney. Board Member Sanchez: So moved. Vice Chairman Winton: Second. Chairman Teele: It's been moved by -- Board Member Sanchez: Five-year instead of a 10 -year. Chairman Teele: Five years instead of 10 years, with a month-to-month after that. Mr. Bloom: That's fine. Chairman Teele: With a month-to-month. Santiago Echemendia: That's correct. Till we find a tenant, correct. Chairman Teele: I'm telling you, you're not going to have a better tenant than the City. Vice Chairman Winton: For a dollar a year, who wants them? Board Member Sanchez: For a dollar a year. Chairman Teele: A lot of people do. I mean, crime and the image-- motion to accept the Director's recommendations, as modified by the City Attorney. It's been moved by Commissioner Sanchez and seconded by Commissioner Winton. Is there further discussion? Mr. Attorney, please put your name and address on the record. Santiago Echemendia: Santiago Echemendia, 201 South Biscayne Boulevard. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and on behalf of Park Place, we want to thank your staff, especially Alex Vilarello and Dena Bianchino, on behalf of the City, and Bill Bloom and Annette Lewis on behalf of the CRA. Thank you. 117 December 11, 2001 Vice Chairman Winton: And I have to -- I don't -- I hope you don't mind, Chairman Teele, but I think that we owe you a little bit here. That was -- Board Member Sanchez: This is a great deal for the CRA and the City. Vice Chairman Winton: That was one heck of a negotiation, and I think you did a great job. Chairman Teele: Well -- Board Member Sanchez: Here, here, Chairman Teele: -- again, I -- Vice Chairman Winton: Because, like you said, I can assure you, I was prepared to take a little less not long ago to get this all settled. So, good work. Chairman Tecle: I think the developer's got a great deal, and I happen to know the property, in that I did represent the original developer before the City Commission, who was awarded, Cruz Construction, and I can tell you that the developer, who has acquired this property, has probably acquired it for 10 cents on the dollar or 12 cents on the dollar, so this is a great deal for everybody, but it's going to be good for the redevelopment. Because the development team that has come in is a first-class development team, and they're going to continue to raise property values. Now, does this resolution authorize the Executive Director to enter into the agreement, Mr. Attorney? Mr. Bloom: Yes. Chairman Tecle: It does? Mr. Bloom: Basically, what we're going to do is go right to closing documents, where it's going to be a deed, a release, and assignment of lease, and a closing statement. Vice Chairman Winton: And we'll close by when? Mr. Bloom: We have to go through some notice provision, so the anticipation is, we'll close by the end of January. Chairman Teele: Yeah. And there are some specific notice provisions on the disposition of real estate that are imposed by the CRA, including publication of notice; is that correct? Mr. Bloom: That's correct. Chairman Teele: Are you satisfied, Mr. Echemendia? Mr. Echemendia: We are, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, and thank you for your efforts as well. 118 December 11, 2001 Chairman Teele: All those in favor of the motion say "aye." The Board Members (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: All those opposed? The following resolution was introduced by Board Member Sanchez, who moved its adoption: SEOPW/CRA RESOLUTION 01-134 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (THE "CRA") AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO SELL TO PARK PLACE ASSOCIATES LLC OR ITS DESIGNEE ("PARK PLACE") ALL THE CRA'S RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST IN FEE SIMPLE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED ON EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF (THE "PROPERTY") AND CRA'S INTEREST, AS THE LANDLORD, UNDER THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THAT CERTAIN LEASE AGREEMENT (THE "LEASE") BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI AND CRUZ DEVELOPMENT, LTD. ("CRUZ") AND RELEASE ITS CLAIMS FOR DEFERRED RENT UNDER THE LEASE IN EXCHANGE FOR: (I) THE PAYMENT OF A PURCHASE PRICE OF TWO MILLION TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND ($2,200,000) DOLLARS; (II) THE REIMBURSEMENT TO THE CRA OF ALL COSTS AND EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE CRA IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSACTION INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, APPRAISAL FEES, AUDIT FEES AND ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS THAT ARE INCURRED BY THE CRA IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSACTION; (III) THE AGREEMENT OF THE TENANT UNDER THE LEASE TO LEASE TO THE CRA THE SPACE CURRENTLY OCCUPIED BY THE DOWNTOWN NET OFFICE AT NO COST FOR A TERM OF FIVE YEARS; AND (1V) PARK PLACE BEING REQUIRED TO PAY ALL CLOSING COSTS AND EXPENSES, INCLUDING DOCUMENTARY STAMPS, SURTAX AND RECORDING FEES. 119 December 11, 2001 0 • Upon being seconded by Vice Chairman Winton, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Board Member Angel Gonzalez Board Member Tomas Regalado Board Member Joe Sanchez Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. NAYS: None ABSENT: None Board Member Sanchez: I'm glad we followed the rule number one in negotiating: never accept the first offer. Vice Chairman Winton: Or the third. Thank you. 120 December 11, 2001 9 0 9 I [JD T,4 STATEIVIENT �7F . E, BA1gANCE $' ,1., ESE TED BYRAE G IRL._. Chairman Teele: All right. Four -A. Annette Lewis (Acting Executive Director): Sir, before you proceed, I've just been advised that Danvel Fendorf will return all documents to the City Attorney by tomorrow, sir. Vice Chairman Winton: We should have had this meeting a month ago. Chairman Tecle: Ms. Lewis? Ms. Lewis: Yes, sir. Chairman Tecle: This should be your long suit, right? Unaudited statements of revenues and expenditures. We have it before us, 4A. Ms. Lewis: Four -A. Chairman Teele: Informational item? Ms. Lewis: Informational item. The CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) ended in a positive note with both the Omni, as well as the Southeast Overtown/Park West. We are currently still wrapping up some audited statements, and what you have is preliminary, but we did end with monies to spare, to carry over to outstanding projects. Chairman TeeIe: By the way -- I'm sorry. Board Member Sanchez: When will we get the final? Ms. Lewis: I beg your pardon? Board Member Sanchez: When would you have the final done? Ms. Lewis: I haven't gotten it. I've only gotten draft copies this week, as a matter of fact, yesterday from our auditors. Chairman Teele: Who's our auditor? Ms. Lewis: This is still the fiscal 2000, and that's KPMG (Klynveld, Peat, Marwick, Goerdeler), sir. Chairman Teele: KPMG, OK. By the way, Ms. Lewis, isn't one of the main things that people in your profession do, if there's a question, that you always say, "Well, we gave them the audited -- the statements monthly?" That's sort of a half -joke, but it's the real 121 December 11, 2001 truth, is that we're on notice of everything that's in there, so -- by the way, what did we recognize, for our budget purpose, for the building that we just let go? Was it 1.6 or 1.7? Ms. Lewis: We recognized 1.5, sir. Chairman Teele: One point five? Ms. Lewis: Yes, sir. Chairman Teele: OK. So, we're going to have to amend that budget. Ms. Lewis: That is correct. Board Member Winton: We like those kind of amendments. Chairman Teele: All right. I I 122 December 11, 2001 0 • TkQD CTIO ; F Af 1O DRI (TO ��T OP DAVID HEM ND LW Chairman Teele: All right. Four -B. Annette Lewis (Acting Executive Director): Four -B is the -- Chairman Teele: Front and center. Go ahead, ma'am. Ms. Lewis: It's Mr. David Hernandez, a gentleman with whom I've had the pleasure to work many years ago, when I was employed by the City of Miami. I am borrowing him to use him as the Acting Director for Construction Operations in the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency). Board Member Sanchez: On an interim basis, right? Ms. Lewis: I beg your pardon? Board Member Sanchez: Interim? Ms. Lewis: Yes. For as long as I can keep him. Vice Chairman Winton: So, does that mean we stop doing projects in the City? Board Member Sanchez: Yeah. Vice Chairman Winton: So, how does that work? Board Member Regalado: So, who do we call now when there is a light -- Board Member Sanchez: When the lights are off. Chairman Teele: David Hernandez. You know, I have never -- David, I don't know what they pay you, but you would think that you hold the whole darn City together, the way -- Board Member Regalado: No, just the lights. Ms. Lewis: Exactly. He keeps it lit. Board Member Sanchez: Just the lights. Chairman Teele: But I want to say this. The Manager, Mr. Giminez, was extremely reluctant and -- to let you be on detail to the CRA. And I was required to publicly announce that you are available to go back to the Public Works Department on a daily basis, as required, to carry out any matters that are important to the City of Miami. That's sort of the agreement that has been 123 December 11, 2001 • 0 made by Ms. Lewis and the Manager, is that you are on loan to the CRA. We will be responsible, financially, but you're fully available to the City. David Hernandez (Acting Director, Construction Operations, CRA): Thank you. And I just want to say one thing. It is a pleasure to be working with Annette and with the CRA. But I have to admit, I've been loyal to the Department of Public Works for almost 20 years. Everything I've learned through that department -- and I feel like, yes, I want to make sure that I will be -- trying to help with the City in all retrospect, both sides. Chairman Teele: Thank you. And I think the Manager is owed a debt of gratitude to help us at this point, a critical point in time. Thank you, Mr. Manager. Mr. Hernandez: Thank you. 124 December 11, 2001 Chairman Teele: Four -C. Annette Lewis (Acting Director, CRA): A resolution adopting Roots in the City Program, as presented by Dr. Marvin Dunn, Director of the Psychology Department of FIU (Florida International University). Vice Chairman Winton: So moved. Chairman Teele: Is there a Second? Board Member Sanchez; Second. Board Member Regalado: Second. Chairman Teele: Is there objection? All those in favor say "aye." The Board Members (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: Opposed? The following resolution was introduced by Vice Chairman Winton, who moved for its adoption: SEOPW/CRA RESOLUTION NO. 01-135 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ("CRA") AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO FUND THE REQUEST OF DR, MARVIN DUNN, CHAIR FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY AT FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY (FIU), FOR THE UNIVERSITY'S "ROOTS IN THE CITY PROJECT FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $23,700. 125 December 11, 2001 (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Board Member Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Vice Chairman. Johnny Winton Board Member Angel Gonzalez Board Member Tomas Regalado Board Member Joe Sanchez NAYS: None ABSENT: None Chairman Teele: Just so the public is aware. Dr. Dunn brings out students from the university every Saturday. They work in urban landscaping and urban interface and urban gardens. They have now expanded that relationship to actual gardens where peppers and corn are being grown, And part of the idea is to get children, inner city children, involved in some of the vacant lots that we have in Overtown, in making those lots productive, not only as landscape, but gardens. And we'll be working in that cooperative agreement, which he came to us almost six months ago and asked us to support. Vice Chairman Winton: And the project is highly visible. I mean, that whole landscaped area of 1-395 -- on the south side of 395, right there on the curb of I-95 and 395, is his principal project there. And, I mean, that's magnificent. If all of our freeways, right -of ways looked like that, we'd be beautiful. So, it's a great job. Ms. Lewis: And to add, sir, they are currently hiring or have hired three persons who live in the Overtown area. And a part of his expanded program is to hire folks who have challenges in terms of gaining employment. Chairman Teele: I should also indicate that the people that Dr. Dunn brings out are also students that are very diverse, and really represent, I think, a great experiment in cultural diversity and pluralism. 126 December 11, 2001 Chairman Teele: Item number seven. Annette Lewis (Acting Executive Director): A resolution authorizing the Executive Director to meet with the City Manager to discuss the Overtown Shopping Center, as it relates to the plans for the NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) and its impending relocation. Chairman Teele: Motion instructing the Manager to meet -- Board Member Sanchez: Move. Board Member Regalado: Second. Chairman Teele: All those in favor, say "aye." The Board Members (Collectively) Aye. Chairman Teele: Oppose? The following resolution was introduced by Board Member Sanchez, who moved for its adoption: SEOPW/CRA RESOLUTION NO. 01-136 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ("CRA") AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO MEET THE CITY MANAGER TO DISCUSS THE OVERTOWN SHOPPING CENTER AS IT RELATES SOLELY TO THE OVERTOWN NET ACTIVITY AND PLANS BASED ON ITS IMPENDING TO RELOCATE SAME. 127 December 11, 2001 0 0 (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Board Member Regalado, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Vice Chairman Johnny Winton Board Member Angel Gonzalez Board Member Tomas Regalado Board Member Joe Sanchez NAYS: None ABSENT: None 128 December 11, 2001 3 AUTO ZE �INGCUTIVD CTO '�2 ST IT��; PPROPRATP $4,9 o�a0o, ThIA INGLUDE� GRANT F LL FO �L X4 5 TS D VE OPM NT OF MARCrA RE ACE P g QJ ( ® �NI�LETrp.EZNU ' PHS ° IBS A IAS SII ; A R QUm C&FF [T$ T F P ANS SSE° OF'lTA Chairman Teele: All right. Number eight. Vice Chairman Winton; Did we skip five and six on purpose? Chairman Tecle: No. I apologize. Item number five. Annette Lewis (Acting Executive Director): Resolution amending Omni Resolution 01-10, requesting that the City reimburse the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) for construction expenses incurred, and request additional funding related to Margaret Pace Park. This is a formal request for the entire four million that's projected for all phases of Margaret Pace Park. That includes IA, which is in the completion progress; 1B, which is about to begin, and two, as well as three, which includes a controversial pier. Chairman Teele: This is a bookkeeping item, more so than anything. This is not a request to the Manager for funds, per se. This is a request that codifies a resolution. The CRA can expect to receive funds on this probably in six to seven years, actual cash, just so that we're all clear, Vice Chairman Winton: Out of the increment district. Chairman Teele: No. The increment district is advancing the money. In other words, all of this Margaret Park Pace stuff that we're talking about, the CRA is funding the money -- fronting the money. In that it's a City park and in that the park -- the CRA has no interest in the park, at all, other than to facilitate the park for the development of the projects that we're going to hear more about today, both here and in the zoning agenda, what we're doing is simply putting the money forward. It will go on our books, therefore, as an advance, the portions of it. As an advance. The formality of that will be to book this resolution as basically a loan to the City. But the request for the funds, under this resolution, will not be expected to be paid out for at least five to six years, based upon the bond proceeds. This is a part of the bond that was passed, OK. But what I'm suggesting to you is, this should be one of the last items paid out. I think the bond pay- out is eight years? Vice Chairman Winton: Ten. Carlos A. Gimenez (City Manager): It's a ten-year program. Carlos Gimenez, City Manager. I would recommend that the City meet with the CRA to discuss the entire project, to make sure that there is four million dollars ($4,000,000) allocated from the bond program to Margaret Pace Park; to make sure that that money can be -- even though you front it, that that money can be 129 December 11, 2001 reimbursed back either to the City, as we pay out your costs for this project. So, I just want to get a little bit of coordination to make sure -- Chairman Teele: If you'd like to defer it, we don't have a problem doing that. Mr, Gimenez: I don't have a problem with your resolution. I just say, before the project continues, that we need to have meetings to make sure that the bond proceeds are able to pay for the work that's being done. Board Member Sanchez: Does the City have those funds available, four million dollars ($4,000,000)? Mr. Gimenez: Excuse me? At this point? Board Member Sanchez: Does the City, at this point? Chairman Toole: No. Mr. Gimenez: Well, no. Because this money is the -- from the bond proceeds. There's four million dollars ($4,000,000) allocated from the bond proceeds for this park. Just want to make sure that everything is done correctly, so that when we do sell the bonds for that debt, it's all eligible to be reimbursed back. Vice Chairman Winton: I think Commissioner Teele's suggesting that this piece be one of the furtherest (sic) pieces out, which is the point that -- Chairman Toole: I'm saying that. Now, the people from the Omni may have a different view, But I feel very strongly that this should be one of the last things that we pay out, because the park is going to be there. And unless there is a project that comes along in Omni that the City and we agree on, you know, the money should be used to pay the CRA, so we could go with another project. But there is no real reason, other than to get this on our books as a loan and book it as a loan, and a receivable, in effect, due to even -- we're not making the demand now, nor can we, nor should we. Mr. Gimenez: Right. My point is just to make sure that all of it's worked out, so that when the bond proceeds do go, they go ahead and are used to fund the project. Ms. Lewis: I agree. Alexjandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Mr. Chairman? Chairman Toole: Yes, sir. Mr. Vilarello: Once the City Commission is back in session and considers the issuance of bonds and reimbursement for monies advanced, the City Commission will have to issue an official declaration or official statement. 130 December 11, 2001 0 M Chairman Teele: Absolutely, Mr, Vilarello: And if you ultimately want to seek reimbursement from these funds which are advanced, that would be the appropriate time to make sure that this project would be included in that official declaration. Chairman Teele: But the only thing that I'm saying is that the CRA Board should right now say, we recognize that we're advancing money and we're doing it. Now, that has no meaning. I mean, we're not sitting here as City Commissioners. So, that has no meaning on the City budget or, for that matter, the City books, other than the fact -- the City, on the other hand, has got to acknowledge the debt, even before you can properly book it. Properly. Mr. Vilarello: At this point, you would have to have an agreement of both parties, the CRA and the City; both, the CRA. requesting payment of the loan and the City acknowledging that it owes it. Chairman Teele: And I think the Manager's point is well taken, that we need to do a lot more details into this. But he has no objections to the resolution, at this time. On the resolution, all those in favor say "aye." The Board Members (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Tecle: Opposed? 131 December 11, 2001 • • The following resolution was introduced by Vice Chairman Winton, who moved for its adoption: SEOPW/CRA RESOLUTION NO. 01-134 A RESOLUTION, WITH ATTACHEMNTS (S), OF THE OMNI COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (OMNI/CRA), ACTING AS THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN OF THE OMNI CRA UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE CITY OF MIAMI, SEOPW/CRA AND OMNI CRA, DATED AUGUST 10, 1995; AUTHORIZING THE ACTING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO REQUEST THE CITY, BY A RESOLUTION, TO APPROPRIATE, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $4,000,000 THAT INCLUDES ANY GRANT FUNDS, ALL OF THE FUNDING FOR ALL OF THE COSTS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE MARGARET PACE PARK PROJECT TO COMPLETE PHASE IA, IB AND PHASE II, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER RELATED AGREEMENTS THAT ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE OF THE OMNI REDEVELOPMENT PLAN; AND TO REQUEST THE CITY TO PAY THE INTERIM LOANS OF THE OMNI CRA AND/OR THE SEOPW/CRA AT THE REQUEST OF THE CRA, USED BY THE CRA FOR PAYING SOFT AND/OR HARD COSTS OF PHASE IA, IB AND PHASE II OF THE MARGARET PACE PARK PROJECT. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Board Member Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Vice Chairman Johnny Winton Board Member Angel Gonzalez Board Member Tomas Regalado Board Member Joe Sanchez NAYS: None ABSENT: None 132 December 11, 2001 L- 01, �TTgT� T " �pLl g 1MP TR} 1NDNi ..,� 3 DEVQ' ENT FRE�rIO��MAUTOE VEO' E41 RD2.,j vi'- - ` a4 Svt ak -5 ET�i e r DIRE �Aj.Axi �aRN TO � ISA BERI QW Bre RA�?l EQ t S PVS l7 111XA(�D 1� . PC E 1N IT Q TECESAi.SY` EN .W, 5, C< U T Chairman Teele: All right. Resolution six. Annette Lewis (Acting Executive Director): A resolution to amend the fee of Berkow & Radell on CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency), DRI (Development of Regional Impact) issues. The original resolution capped it at fifteen thousand, but based on the amount of work that has to be done by Berkow, an additional amount not to exceed six thousand. Therefore, making the entire disbursement to Berkow & Radell not to exceed twenty-one -- twenty-two thousand. Vice Chairman Winton: Whatever happened to the idea of pro bono? Sorry, Jeff. Board Member Sanchez: Not in this case. Vice Chairman Winton: So moved. Board Member Sanchez: Second. Chairman Teele: Moved and second. Is there objection? All those in favor say "aye." The Board Members (Collectively): Aye. 133 December 11, 2001 • 0 The following resolution was introduced by Vice Chairman Winton, who moved for its adoption: SEOPW/CRA RESOLUTION NO. 01-137 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SOUTHWEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST (SEOPW) COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ("CRA") AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO AMEND FEE AMOUNT FROM $15,000, AUTHORIZED BY MOTION 01-23, TO RETAIN SPECIAL COUNSEL JEFFREY BERKOW OF 13ERKOW & RADELL ASSOCIATES TO RESOLVE ISSUES RELATED TO THE SEOPW DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT (DRI); AND BRING THE CRA INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT OF THE REGIONAL IMPACT DEVELOPMENT ORDER, TO AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $22,000. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Board Member Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Arthur E. Toole, Jr. Vice Chairman Johnny Winton Board Member Angel Gonzalez Board Member Tomas Regalado Board Member Joe Sanchez NAYS: None ABSENT: None Chairman Toole: Let me tell you. What has happened is nothing short of Harry Potter. This is a very delicate situation and, candidly, I think we've probably created some law here in this problem. So, we appreciate your good legal work. Jeffrey Berkow: Thank you. Mr. Commissioner, we were -- Chairman Toole: Your name and address for the record. Mr. Berkow: Jeffery Berkow, 200 South Biscayne Boulevard. I think we were very successful in resurrecting increment one and getting an additional seven years -- no, eight years, and adding an additional six years to increment two. And I think we're about two thousand dollars ($2,000) under the cap right now, in terms of what we've billed. There's another four thousand over the cap. There's some cost, et cetera. So, the six thousand will work out. For the future, Mr. Chair and for the Board, I think it's incumbent upon the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) to now look at the provisions of the Code that deal with Southeast Overtown/Park West. Those provisions of the Code need to be amended to, number one, reflect the amendments in the 134 December 11, 2001 Development Order Amendment and, number two, you're going to need to start to look at the fees that you charge under the DRI, because those have not been adjusted for inflation since 1988. And we'd be happy to work with you and your staff to do that. Chairman Teele: Well, I think, given the fact that the CRA is a separate entity from the City, we would welcome your continued help in developing that and working with the City's Planning Department, I would assume. Is it Planning? Mr. Berkow: Yes, sir. Chairman Teele: -- in developing the appropriate updates. Vice Chairman Winton: Do we need a separate motion to make that happen, though? Chairman Teele: Yes. Properly. Vice Chairman Winton: So, Jeff, if you don't mind, would you restate kind of the motion? And I'm going to move it. Mr. Berkow: The motion would be to engage counsel to review the existing Code provisions, as they relate to Southeast Overtown/Park West; to incorporate the recent Development Order Amendments, and to propose any additional amendments that would be necessary. Vice Chairman Winton: And to review the fee structure that -- Mr. Berkow: Including the fee structure, yes, sir. Vice Chairman Winton: So moved. Chairman Tecle: Moved. Is there a second? Board Member Regalado: Second. Chairman Teele: Is there objection? All those in favor say "aye." The Board Members (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: All those opposed? 135 December 11, 2001 • i The following motion was introduced by Vice Chairman Winton, who moved for its adoption: SEOPW/CRA MOTION NO. 01-13 8 A MOTION DIRECTING THE CRA ATTORNEY TO ENGAGE BERKOW & RADELL ASSOCIATES TO REVIEW EXISTING ZONING CODE PROVISIONS AS RELATES TO SEOPW, INCORPORATE REGIONAL IMPACT DEVELOPMENT ORDER AMENDMENTS AND PROPOSE ANY ADDITIONAL NECESSARY AMENDMENTS INCLUDING REVIEW OF CURRENT FEE STRUCTURE. Upon being seconded by Board Member Regalado, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Board Member Angel Gonzalez Board Member Tomas Regalado Board Member Joe Sanchez Vice Chairman Johnny Winton Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. NAYS: None ABSENT: None Chairman Teele: Mr. Attorney? Mr. Attorney, what I would ask you to do is to meet with Mr. Berkow and bring forth an agreement that we can ratify for the dollar amount. But, obviously, you have a limit of authority of five or six -- four or five thousand dollars ($5,000) now that he can begin to work on that. Mr. Berkow: Thank you. Chairman Teele: Thank you, 136 December 11, 2001 Chairman Teele: All right. Did we do seven? Board Member Gonzalez: Yes, we did. Chairman Teele: Eight? Annette Lewis (Acting Executive Director): Resolution authorizing the Executive Director, pursuant to CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) Board Resolution 01-106, to select a miscellaneous CM (Construction Manager) at Risk for projects in the Southeast Overtown/Park West and Omni CRA's. Chairman Teele: Motion by Commissioner Winton. Second by Commissioner Regalado. All those in favor, say "aye." The Board Members (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: Those opposed? The following resolution was introduced by Vice Chairman Winton, who moved for its adoption: SEOPW/CRA RESOLUTION NO. 01-139 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SOUTHWEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST AND OMNI REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES ("CRA") AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO: (I) SELECT NO LESS THAN TWO (2) OR GREATER THAN THREE (3) RESPONDENTS TO THE CRA RFQ (ATTACHED) FOR A MISCELLANEOUS CONSTRUCTION MANAGER (CM) AT RISK FOR VARIOUS PROJECTS IN THE SEOPW AND OMNI CRAS; AND (II) RETURN RESULTING SELECTIONS TO THE CRA BOARD FOR RATIFICATION. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) 137 December 11, 2001 0 Upon being seconded by Board Member Regalado, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Vice Chairman Johnny Winton Board Member Angel Gonzalez Board Member Tomas Regalado Board Member Joe Sanchez NAYS: None ABSENT: None 138 December 11, 2001 } .77 ] vES AS�'RELATE S �O , =A Chairman Teele: On number 9A, is that moved by Commissioner Winton? Vice Chairman Winton: Yes, it is. Board Member Gonzdlez: Second. Chairman Teele: Second by Commissioner Gonzdlez. And this is to encourage the -- well, wait a minute. Vice Chairman Winton: This is on WASA (Water and Sewer Authority). Chairman Teele: We can't direct the City Attorney here. We can direct -- well, we can direct the -- I guess we can direct the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) Attorney. Annette Lewis (Acting Executive Director): Well, he is special counsel. Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): You can direct me. The City Attorney is general counsel to the CRA. Chairman Teele: I understand. But we direct the CRA Attorney. Mr. Vilarello: On item 9A? Chairman Teele: We'll direct general counsel. You're wearing a slightly different hat. I don't think the CRA Board should ever be an instructions -- Ms. Lewis: General counsel then? Chairman Teele: -- of giving any instructions to any City official in that capacity. Ms. Lewis: So, should I -- Chairman Teele: It's the same thing, but just say general counsel. Mr. Vilarello: Mr. Chairman, I'm sitting here as general counsel to the CRA at this moment. Chairman Teele: All right. I'm not going to split hairs with you. It's been moved and second. We're asking that the City Attorney encourage the City Commission to address the WASA issues, all those in the redevelopment area. Have we tried --and this is one of the things -- Mr. Hernandez, we ought to go over and try to have a meeting with WASA, and see if we can come up with a pilot agreement. And it's going to be even worse in the Omni. But we ought to go ahead and talk about putting the piping in. We really should try to be aggressive about this. 139 December 11, 2001 Vice Chairman Winton: You know, I think that the City Commission passed a resolution months and months and months ago to take all the steps necessary to deal with this problem we're having with WASA, which is absolutely blocking the redevelopment of emerging neighborhoods within the City through their grossly excessive fee structure. And I think that when the City Commission itself goes back into session, I'm going to reintroduce this subject so that we can begin to move on that particular issue. It's time to face the County down, one way or the other. Chairman Teele: Commissioner Winton, let me just say this. I think it's really incumbent upon you to meet with the Mayor and explain this issue to him. Otherwise, it could look like we're just creating a problem as he comes into office. And I really -- Vice Chairman Winton: Great point. I will do that. I will do that. Chairman Teele: I really think that you're a person that's in a position to meet with the Mayor on this. Is Mr. Richard Haylor here? Why don't you just take the podium. On this resolution, which is a resolution relating to the CRA trying to get Water and Sewer, and instructing the City Attorney to work with the City Commission to address water and sewer areas, is on the floor. All those in favor of that motion by Commissioner Winton, say "aye." The Board Members (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: All opposed? The following resolution was introduced by Vice Chairman Winton, who moved for its adoption: SEOPW/CRA RESOLUTION NO. 01-140 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ("CRA") (SUBJECT MATTER: AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND DIRECTING CRA COUNSEL TO ENCOURAGE THE CITY COMMISSION TO INITIATE ANY ACTIONS TO ADDRESS WASA ISSUES AS IT RELATES TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AREA). 140 December 11, 2001 0 (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Board Member Gonzalez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Arthur E. Teele. Vice Chairman Johnny Winton Board Member Angel Gonzalez Board Member Tomas Regalado Board Member Joe Sanchez NAYS: None ABSENT: None 141 December 11, 2001 0 • Pf 5,:Rj.T �V�iMFC .LQ TO F r E TA RISE COI�ECv,xa T C 1TL� T l RE1]1 VEL OPMENT DI R T 17 �;� AYSI ® T�FilVCO SACK A'IIET CRAB,pARD METXNGTH Chairman Teele: Now, Tasked number 20, which is a public appearance, to come forward. And would you just introduce yourself, Richard, and tell the public a little bit about who you are and why you're here? Richard Haylor: Certainly. My name is Richard -- Chairman Teele: Is Jason here? Jason Walker. Vice Chairman Winton: Jason Walker? Chairman Teele: Yeah. Vice Chairman Winton: He's somewhere. Do you want him? Chairman Teele: I just thought he might want to come out for the -- Mr. Haylor: Richard Haylor at W.H.E. Enterprises, located in 1756 North Bayshore Drive, Bay Park Plaza. And we've opened part of a new entertainment venue in Bay Park Plaza. Unfortunately, we've only owned part of that because of the extremely heavy Water and Sewer impact fees of some seventy-two thousand dollars ($72,000). Chairman Teele: Seventy-two thousand dollars ($72,000). Mr. Haylor: Yes, sir. Yes. I have the calculations. Chairman Teele: This is the building directly in front of Margaret Pace Park that Mr. Haylor just built. Mr. Haylor: Yes, sir. Chairman Teele: And I know that a lot of people are here on the 1800 Club Building. There's the same problem. Mr. Haylor: Yes, sir. We're just one block down from the old 1800. Vice Chairman Winton: And Soyka was the same problem. And everybody that tries to come into the re-emerging neighborhoods and get a -- you know, and this isn't even a new use. This was an approved use, where we're getting really taken to the cleaners. But new uses are even more taken to the cleaners. Sorry. 142 December 11, 2001 Mr. Haylor: No, No. Please. That's exactly right. We've only opened less than half of the actual area, although, we're actually paying rent on the full area. And to reduce the actual impact fees, we had to change the whole design, the concept and, literally, the furniture. Because the way the impact fees were calculated were on the difference between stalls and chairs and types of tables that you have. So, to reduce that massive impact, which really would have stopped the whole deal altogether, we had to build false walls, reduce the area, reduce the furniture, the occupancy, and also the people that I'm employing. I'm only employing half the staff I would be employing from the local area. And I'm trying to encourage and get into downtown. I think there's a lot of potential in downtown. And it's a shame that things are being held up in this way. Vice Chairman Winton: But the County wants to create jobs, mind you, in the entire County, including the City. But they've got this new profit center called Water and Sewer. So, they're really taking everybody to the cleaners, and they're preventing us from creating new jobs, because they're interested in a new damn profit center instead of charging the right mileage rate that they ought to be charging in the first place. Chainnan Teele; Commissioner Winton, we're going to go -- Board Member Sanchez: Tell us how you really feel, Johnny. Chairman Teale: We're going to -- for the first time, we're actually three years ahead of schedule on the Omni. So, this January, we will go -- we will meet the interlocal agreement. I would appreciate if you would move to instruct the Executive Director to meet with Mr. Haylor? Annette Lewis (Acting Executive Director): Haylor. Mr. Haylor: Haylor. Chairman TecIe: Taylor. Is it Taylor? Mr. Haylor: Haylor. Sorry. It's my accent. Chairman Teele: H-A-Y-L-O-R or T-A-Y? Mr. Haylor; H-A-Y-L-O-R. Chairman Teele: Mr. Halyor, and to recommend -- to come back before the Board in the next meeting for some support, based upon jobs that will be created in the Omni area. Vice Chairman Winton: So moved. Board Member Sanchez: Second. Board Member Gonzdlez: Second. 143 December 11, 2001 0 . Mr. Haylor: That would be wonderful. Chairman Teele: Moved and second. All those in favor say "aye." The Board Members (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: All those opposed? The following motion was introduced by Vice Chairman Winton, who moved for its adoption: OMNI/CRA MOTION NO. 01-35 A MOTION INSTRUCTING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO MEET WITH MR. RICHARD HAYLOR OF W.H.E. ENTERPRISES IN CONNECTION WITH POTENTIAL JOBS TO BE CREATED IN OMNI REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, MORE PARTICULARLY THE AREA OF 1756 NORTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, AND TO COME BACK AT THE NEXT CRA BOARD MEETING WITH A RECOMMENDATION. Upon being seconded by Board Member Sanchez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Vice Chairman Johnny Winton Board Member Angel Gonzdlez Board Member Joe Sanchez NAYS: None ABSENT: Board Member Tomas Regalado Chairman Teele: And I note the presence of someone else who's here to build the 1800 Club, and it's the same problem. So, if we can begin to try to get a handle on this, we'd solve a lot of people's problems. Mr. Haylor: Thank you very much, indeed. Chairman Teele: Thank you. All right. Thank you. 144 December 11, 2001 • 0 $ HQRIZF ' ECL�IVE IREC e" TQ $73,29 '1 - ASSi BNSSES THAT , WE C QF RA'S COM1y�ERA TALiz ATM T1,111PRO` Chairman Teele: The next item is item number -- Board Member Sanchez: Ten. Board Member Gonzalez: --ten. Chairman Teele: Ten. Annette Lewis (Acting Executive Director): Sir, before you move on to number ten, item number nine actually had two items. The first one was resolution approving the disbursement of Water and Sewer connection fees as it relates to Resolution 01-41. Chairman Teele: All right. And is that the one with the Two Guys Restaurant, Jackson Soul Food, and Just Right Barber Shop? Ms. Lewis: That is resolution 01-41 that provided a hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for WASA (Water and Sewer Authority) impact fees, sir. Chairman Teele: All right. Board Member Sanchez: Question. Chairman Teele: Commissioner Sanchez. Board Member Sanchez: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can you provide us with a broken down of all the assistance that we have given those businesses, and how much have they used as to what we've given them? Ms, Lewis: The complete package, including technical assistance? Board Member Sanchez: Yes, please. Ms. Lewis: Yes, sir. Chairman Teele: All right. I can answer one part of that, just for the record. The grant with Jackson Soul Food, Two Guys Restaurant, and Just Right Barber Shop requires -- is construction. The technical assistance, as the technical assistance with all of our agencies, such as the NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) or any of that, is billed as an internal administrative expense. So, what I want to make sure you do is that you go in and break out all of the internal administrative expenses, as well as any consulting expenses that have been used on the projects that he's asking for. 145 December 11, 2001 • Ms. Lewis: Yes, sir. Board Member Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, what I want to get cleared is, if we are providing, whether it's technical assistance, I want to make sure that if they have used it and they're using it. Because I think in the phases of assistance that we're providing, I don't want to be able to -- I want to do it in phases and make sure that it's being done. I don't want to be -- you know, I don't want to take a business and give them four funds for assistance and then find out that they're not being used. I want to make sure that, if you give them money for technical assistance, that they're using the technical assistance; construction, that they're using it, so we know exactly -- you know, I just don't want to take several businesses and just throw money at them and not make sure that they're using the money. Chairman Teele: And we are one hundred percent -- I'm one hundred percent in agreement, but let me just be clear so that there's no misunderstanding. In the case of Jackson Soul Food, Two Guys Restaurant, and Just Right Barber Shop, they have received zero dollars from the CRA (Community Redevelop Agency) to date. The expenditures to date have been consultants and staff that are advising us in doing the project. They have a grant agreement and under that grant agreement, even there, they will got zero dollars. Under the grant agreement, we will make payments pursuant to their costs. In other words, if they have a plumbing contractor, we will pay the plumbing contractor, and that will be based upon the City inspectors and the Development Director, as well as an owner's representative or, in this case, there won't be an owner's rep, but a CM (Contract Manager) at Risk that will make those. So, in no cases -- and this is just to protect everybody. We are not giving out money to businesses, with the exception of the people that got the -- that own the NAP (Network Area Point) -- Vice Chairman Winton: Right, Terremark. Chairman Teele: Terremark. We gave them cash of about three hundred and some thousand dollars. Ms. Lewis: Three seventy-five. Chairman Teele: But in no case will we provide any cash loans or funds to any business, unless it comes back through a process. I'm totally opposed to that. Mr. Lewis: And the grant agreement does reflect that. Board Member Sanchez: Ok. Chairman Teele: But, please, provide the Commissioner with whatever information he required. But we've not expended -- is that correct, we've not expended -- Mr. Lewis: That is correct, we have not drawn on any of the CRA grant dollars for construction. Board Member Sanchez: Have they drawn out? Have they -- 146 December 11, 2001 i Ms. Lewis: No. We have not paid any contractors -- Board Member Sanchez: No. So, it's not touched. Chairman Teele: The problem is this -- and we may as well just put it on the table. The plans that have been drawn, that we approved, are somewhat of a problem in permitting and in budget, and these were our plans. You know, we're trying to figure out how to -- well, that is what Mr. Hernandez is going figure out -- Ms. Lewis: David's specialty. Chairman Tecle: -- how to get us out of this box. Because the plans that we've represented to the public and to the owners and the budget don't match. And, you know, we don't want to mistreat a businessowner. On the other hand, Commissioner Gort -- former Commissioner Gort has raised a number of concerns and feels that we're dragging our feet, and I want to put that on the record. Because he said he's going to start corning to these meetings and insist that we get those three businesses done. So, the problem we have is that the plans that we have are in excess of our budget and have not been permitted, and there are a series of issues associated with that. So, no money has gone out the door to these -- to any of these three businesses. Ms. Lewis: That is correct. Vice Chairman Winton: Now, on nine itself -- I want to make sure I understand this. What we're doing here is authorizing a grant award to pay for the WASA impact fees on Jackson Soul Food Restaurant. Chairman Teele: No. What we're doing is -- that agreement was already done. The Director, for whatever reason, feels that she needs authority to release the money. There's a resolution that's what, six months old, eight months old? It was done in May, because Commissioner Sanchez had a lot to say about that agreement. Remember, it was in May. Ms. Lewis: Right. Well, there was the May, then there was -- it was modified in July. Chairman Teele: All right. Ms, Lewis: But it was -- Vice Chairman Winton: But the amount is seventy-three thousand dollars ($73,000). Chairman Teele: Seventy-three thousand dollars ($73,000). Not to exceed seventy -- Vice Chairman Winton: And that's to WASA? Chairman Teele: That goes to WASA. Vice Chairman Winton: And, so, the point I want to make here is -- you know, our typical CRA 147 December 11, 2001 0 0 meetings are not on NET 9. Is this one on NET 9? Chairman Teele: Unfortunate -- Board Member Sanchez: Yes. Chairman Teele: Yeah, this is on NET 9. Vice Chairman Winton: Well, this is the perfect information for the public to have, which goes back to the point that we talked about just a minute ago. Jackson Soul Food Restaurant is an existing, long-standing restaurant. Been there a long time. The expansion that they're doing is relatively minimal; yet, WASA wants seventy-three thousand dollars ($73,000) as their fee -- impact fee for this minor expansion in an African-American neighborhood that's trying to get some jobs going. I mean, that's just totally irrational. Chairman Teele: To put it on the record, Jackson Soul Food, as I recall, employs 12 people. If this expansion is done, they will extend their hours and they will be doubling their work force up to 25 people. That will make Jackson probably, along with Peoples Barbeque, the largest single employer in Overtown, an area where unemployment is 40 percent. It's impossible to ask a business to pay seventy thousand dollars ($70,000) in water and sewer costs. Now, in fairness -- Vice Chairman Winton: No, no. This is just the impact fee. Chairman Tecle: This is water and sewer fee. This is water and sewer fee. Now, let me -- Vice Chairman Winton: This is the fee. This ain't hard costs. Chairman Teele: This ain't hard costs. Vice Chairman Winton: This is the fee just to pay them their profit margin, if you will. Chairman Teele: For which the County Commission -- the County government takes off about 15 percent for the overall administration of Metro -Dade County government. Board Member Regalado: Sixty-seven million, Chairman Tecle: Sixty some million dollars a year as an indirect cost to run Metro government. But this is the point. There's two points on this. This fee was not in our budget. So, the resolution recognized this as a separate grant amount to Water and Sewer, on behalf of Jackson Soul Food and Two Guys and Just Right Barber Shop. And what this resolution simply does is authorizes the Executive Director to release the money. Vice Chairman Winton: Do we have a motion already? Chairman Teele: Yes. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say "aye." 148 December 11, 2001 0 • The Board Members (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: All opposed? All right. Board Member Regalado: No. Mr. Chairman? Chairman Teele: All right. We need a motion by Commissioner Winton and we need a second by Commissioner -- Board Member Regalado: Second. Chairman Teele: -- Regalado. Vice Chairman Winton: So moved. Chairman Teele: All those in favor say "aye." The Board Members (Collectively): "Aye." Chairman Teele: Those opposed? The following resolution was introduced by Vice Chairman Winton, who moved for its adoption: SEOPW/CRA RESOLUTION NO, 01-141 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ("CRA") AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO DISBURSE AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $73,290.15 PURSUANT TO SEOPW RESOLUTION NO. 01-41 IN THE PROVISION OF ASSISTANCE TO THREE BUSINESSES THAT WERE RECIPIENTS OF THE CRA'S COMMERCIAL REVITALIZATION SUPPLEMENTAL GRANT PROGRAM. 149 December 11, 2001 0 (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk) Upon being seconded by Board Member Regalado, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Vice Chairman Johnny Winton Board Member Angel Gonzdlez Board Member Tomas Regalado Board Member Joe Sanchez NAYS: None ABSENT: None 150 December 11, 2001 0 . AUTHOR,E EXECi TAT IVE sUZRECQ12 TQ 1V[EE T 11�ANAGR TOSS }� 'A}IN REAL PQ?ERTY LOCAD?4i H;fit C NCiN 9 E 1 1?ICU TiWITH CIT'' SUBJEC RW ,9RTY A` V 0 CRAB «R EL0(0-ATION" f T (?SES ' Chairman Teele: A resolution -- 10 is authorizing the Executive Director to meet with the City Manager regarding relocation issues and finding suitable properties. Annett Lewis (Acting Executive Director): What this resolution seeks to do -- as a part of the Redevelopment Act of 1969, we are allowed to have places for relocation for displaced persons, as well as possibly businesses. And the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) would like to explore what possibilities exist in the City. Vice Chairman Winton: So moved. Board Member Gonzdlez: Second. Board Member Sanchez: Second. Chairman Tcele: All in favor say "aye." The Board Members (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele. All opposed? The following resolution was introduced by Vice Chairman Winton, who moved for its adoption: SEOPW/CRA RESOLUTION NO. 01-142 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ("CRA") AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO MEET WITH THE CITY MANAGER IN AN EFFORT TO IDENTIFY CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY, LOCATED WITHIN THE CRA, EXPERIENCING FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES WITH THE CITY OF MIAMI WHERE SUBJECT PROPERTY MAY SERVE FOR CRA "RELOCATION" PURPOSES AS DEFINED BY PERTINENT REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE CRA. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) 151 December 11, 2001 • • Upon being seconded by Board Member Regalado, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Vice Chairman Johnny Winton Board Member Angel Gonzalez Board Member Tomas Regalado Board Member Joe Sanchez NAYS: None ABSENT: None 152 December 11, 2001 0 LIHQ E� EXEC IVE�b `ECTORI O .E SER0 � CII ; E A'tYiE �OIUISI'ION pFI'RQPERTX LOGTEIJ x'S `T W` pCQIT� D' T]TVITEISSP? R Chairman Teele: Number 11. Annette Lewis (Acting Executive Director): Resolution authorizing the Executive Director to enter into a purchase agreement for the acquisition of property located at 910 Northwest 2nd Court, owned by the Church of the Divine Mission. This resolution proposes to acquire this property as it relates to the 9ch Street Mall expansion. It lies within -- it's on the same block where we're planning to do the expansion. And at this time, Rabbi King, who has expired, his daughter, who is currently attempting to wrap up his estate would like to sell this property. The CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) has an appraisal for a hundred and forty-two thousand. And they have -- in your package, you will see two hundred and ninety-five thousand. But as of late Friday evening, they've come down to two hundred and fifty-two thousand. What I would recommend is that we take their offer for the two hundred and fifty-two thousand dollars ($252,000) and go ahead and provide for the items that Sister Muriel King has requested, which is the memorialization of Rabbi King and his mission as it impacted Overtown. She has also requested a marker be placed, and that can be done in a location that coincides with the extension of the mall, considering the fact of the location, as well as Rabbi King's image is on the west side of the building, and they would like to preserve that part of the building to be delivered to their -- where they have established their new mission. Board Member Sanchez. Has anybody done an appraisal on the property? Chairman Teele: Yeah. Commissioner Sanchez: And it's -- Ms. Lewis: A hundred and forty-two thousand. Board Member Sanchez: And how much are they asking for? Ms. Lewis: Two fifty-two. Chairman Teele: Two ninety-five, reduced to two fifty-two. Board Member Sanchez: And your recommendation is to buy the property at two fifty-two? Ms. Lewis: Yes, sir, because in -- we have done some research, and there have been cases where we've acquired properties in -- well, at around two times the appraised value. And what this will do for the redevelopment district, especially since we're considering it as a part of the expansion of the 91h Street Mall that will improve the values of surrounding areas, as well as allow us to continue with this project, which has already been authorized and has begun in the redevelopment district. 153 12/11/01 • 0 Vice Chairman Winton: Is this the last parcel to be purchased for the 9"' Street Mall expansion? Chairman Teele: It's the last improved -- it's the last improved parcel. Vice Chairman Winton: Well, I guess the question I'm trying to get at is, you know, you can always justify paying greater than some appraised value if you know you don't -- you know if you're at the end of the line. What you don't want to do is pay significantly over an appraised value if there is additional property to be bought, because you just raised the bar. So -- and I don't know how this fits. Chairman Teele: Commissioner, this is the last improved parcel. However, there is one additional parcel where the value is -- the purchase price is already three times what our appraisal is. So this does not affect that one that one much smaller structure there. That's the one that we authorized the City Attorney to seek eminent domain. This -- Vice Chairman Winton: We did authorize the City Attorney to -- Chairman Teele: Already, on that -- Vice Chairman Winton: On that parcel. Chairman Teele: -- on that parcel. Yeah. Vice Chairman Winton: OK. Chairman Teele: Now, the Attorney for this church is Tony Brigham, who would prefer that we do eminent domain. As you know, eminent domain would take some considerable time. And I really don't think it's in the best interest of the City or the CRA to entertain that. But to take the Executive Director's recommendation is what I strongly recommend. I do want, however, to bring to the Commission -- the CRA's attention the things that Ms. Lewis alluded to, but didn't make clear. Under this, we're going to spend some more money. We are going to make a video -- and they feel very strongly about this -- that will represent the life and work of Rabbi King. And for those of you who don't know, Rabbi King was one of the more colorful personalities that migrated to Miami, after having shut down President Jimmy Carter's church in Plains, Georgia. He was the gentleman who demanded to be seated in the church. He also had the distinction of running against me three times for public office, and was extremely colorful. His mission, which I think he called a divine mission -- and the Herald did a lot -- and we probably should have had the obit piece and all of that here -- was sort of a symbolic place where people went. After his death, it's fallen in deep state of disrepair, and, in fact, is the subject of feeding of homeless on street corners, in violation of City codes, among other things. This is clearly, at this point, a blight, a strong blight on the redevelopment efforts. And I think, given that this is a church, we're talking about acquiring, in effect, the property owned by a church that we really would be much better off not getting into eminent domain and all of that with this, and let's just try to work through the family's wishes, in addition to the little plaque that they would like to memorialize him. Would you move the item, Commissioner Regalado? 154 12/11/01 0 • Board Member Regalado: Yes, sir, I'll move it. Board Member Sanchez: Second. Chairman Teele: Moved and seconded. Vice Chairman Winton: Commissioner Teele, Chairman Tecle, I just inquired about eminent domain, and I think it's important to this discussion, in terms of the action we're going to take, which is to pay considerably above the appraised value. So I would like the City Attorney to put on record or to answer this question: What's the timing that it takes to eminent domain a property such as this? And what do you think the costs are associated with it, legal costs and others? Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Well, there's two associated legal costs with an eminent domain process. But the first place you need to start with is, you need -- the CRA needs to request that the City Commission take this property for a public purpose, because the CRA has been limited in its authority to exercise its eminent domain powers. The City is then limited in exercising its powers by some public purpose. So it has to be part of the public purpose, which means at some point in time, you can't use this for a private purpose or something less than a park, or some other kind of governmental use. So assuming that in the plans, this particular parcel, we're going to use it for some public purpose that would be a limit on the City's ability to go forward. Now, having said that, there's two eminent domain processes. One's a quick take, where essentially, you immediately -- you oppose the appraised dollars into the court registry. You immediately take -- you go to court and file a lawsuit, eminent domain action. You immediately acquire title. Then at some time over the next year, a jury will determine how much you're going to pay. There's no backing out of that scenario. Board Member Sanchez: And that could be scary. Mr. Vilarello: You'll pay what the jury awards, plus attorney's fees to the owner of the property, plus the City's Attorney's fees. Alternatively, you could take what's called a slow take, in which case, you'd go through approximately the same yearlong process. At the end of the jury award, you determine whether or not you want to acquire it for that price or not. In either case, you pay your attorney's fees and the attorney's fees for the property owner. Vice Chairman Winton: And attorney's fees today. Mr. Vilarello: Well, it's -- at this point, in trying to retain counsel on the other parcel, our fee quotes have been in excess of four hundred dollars ($400) an hour, and in all likelihood, 80 hours or more of our lawyers' time. There are three agencies that do a lot of government eminent domain. Chairman Teele: Alex, would it be fair to say that somewhere between thirty and fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) would be what our attorney -- and remember, we're responsible for both sides. Mr. Vilarello: That's a fair statement, yes. 155 12/11/01 Chairman Teele: So fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) is the number we've been looking at. So, I mean, you know, at that point, you're right there, anyway. Board Member Sanchez: Yeah. Vice Chairman Winton: So when you're looking at the differential between -- what are the numbers again? One -- Board Member Sanchez: Minimal. Board Member Gonzalez: One forty-two to two ninety-five. Chairman Teele: The minimum legal fees, if we're successful, will be a hundred thousand dollars ($100,000). Fifty thousand on our side. The other side is going to charge at least that amount. Probably much more. Ms. Lewis: To answer Commissioner Winton -- Vice Chairman Winton: So it's a hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) additional -- Ms. Lewis: Outright hundred and ten thousand. Vice Chairman Winton: -- that we're going to pay when we could get stuck with a whole lot more than that in either of these processes. So. Board Member Sanchez: So based -- Chairman Teele. So that's the motion, is to do it? Board Member Sanchez: Yes. Chairman Teele: And we do require four votes on this to pass. All those in favor, say "aye." The Board (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: All opposed? Is there anybody being recorded -- note five unanimous votes. 156 12/11/01 The following resolution was introduced by Board. Member RegaIado, who moved for its adoption: SEOPW/CRA RESOLUTION NO. 01-143 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO A PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 910 NORTHWEST 2ND AVENUE OWNED BY THE CHURCH OF DIVINE MISSION, INSTRUCTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE REQUIRED DOCUMENTS; 1) INDICATING THAT THE ACQUISITION PRICE WILL BE FOR THE AMOUNT OF $ ; 2) PROVIDING FOR CLOSING WITHIN 90 DAYS OF EXECUTION OF THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT; 3) PROVIDING FOR DATE CERTAIN AS TO THE TURNOVER AND PHYSICAL CONDITION OF SAID PROPERTY; 4) PROVIDING FOR THE MEMORIALIZATION OF THE RABBI KING, NAMELY A VIDEO AND BRONZE MARKER, HIS CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE OVERTOWN COMMUNITY AND 5) PROVIDING FOR THE PRESERVATION AND DELIVERY OF HIS IMAGE THAT CURRENTLY EXISTS ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Board Member Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Board Member Angel Gonzalez Board Member Tomas Regalado Board Member Joe Sanchez Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None ABSENT: Nona 157 12/11/01 • 0 vs�.r 'OT Chairman Teele: The next item, please. Annette Lewis (Acting Executive Director): This is the discussion item addressing the sale price of P5, which is 936 Northwest -- Chairman Teale: What is the Manager's recommendation? Ms. Lewis: The Asset Management appraisal, which is also the recommendation, is twenty-eight thousand dollars ($28,000) for this parking lot. Chairman Teele: Now, pursuant to State law again, if we're going to dispose of anything -- and Mr. Judy is the expert -- we have to give notice for 30 days and we have to do a whole lot of things. So we are going -- our plan was always to dispose of P5, and I'm recommending, notwithstanding the Manager's recommendation -- I mean, notwithstanding the Asset Management value, that a minimum value of at least fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) be established for the price. Twenty-eight thousand -- is the Manager's recommendation a part of this? Vice Chairman Winton: Commissioner Teele, I'm totally lost on this. Board Member Sanchez: It's number 12, sales price for 936 Northwest 3 d Avenue. It's P5. That is the parking lot next to Jackson Soul Food. Ms. Lewis: Right behind Jackson Soul Food. Board Member Sanchez: Right behind or right in front. Ms Lewis: That's the one that abuts Jackson Soul Food. Vice Chairman Winton: But I'm reading something about -- as a result, the actual amount due to Community Development is a hundred and thirty-one thousand dollars ($131,000). I don't understand it. Chairman Teele: Yeah, because -- Board Member Sanchez: Who are we selling it to? Chairman Teele: It's got to be a bid. Commissioner Winton, this is a -- again, Community Development dollars -- now, Ms. Lewis, correct me if I'm wrong. We used CD (Community Development) dollars in this. 158 December 11, 2001 0 Ms. Lewis: Yes, sir. Chairman Teele: This resolution, if we sell this, will have to come back that one hundred percent of the purchase price goes to Community Development as program income. Ms. Lewis: Yes, sir. Chairman Teele: OK. So that's the answer. Vice Chairman Winton: Are we trying to sell -- I just don't understand what we're really doing here. I'm trying to get that piece. I don't understand yet. Chairman Teele: Well, what we have is too much information here. It's a simple issue. We took a building that was a slum and blight. It had homeless on it. We bought it. We tore it down. We improved it. We turned it into a parking lot. Believe it or not, we spent a hundred and some thousand -- a hundred and thirty thousand, probably, which is just internal record keeping. But after you do all of that, that parcel is valued at twenty-eight thousand dollars ($28,000), OK? And that's what -- Vice Chairman Winton: Valued by whom at twenty-eight thousand? Chairman Teele: Well, by the Asset Management. That's why we asked for an outside opinion. Ms. Lewis: Ms, Billberry had gotten an official appraisal prepared, and that's what came back, Board Member Sanchez: Mr. Chairman? Vice Chairman Winton: OK. So, I understand. Chairman Teele. Commissioner San -- it's valued at twenty-eight thousand dollars ($28,000), but because all of the money that was used was Community Development, we're keeping the record, detailed records, and if the lot is sold, it will have to be -- all of the money, one hundred percent of the proceeds will have to be turned in to Community Development as program income. But the only issue before us today is "A," to establish a sales price. The Asset Management appraised and written recommendation is twenty-eight thousand, and I'm asking that it be at least-- established, at least for our purposes, for fifty thousand dollars ($50,000). If we don't get a bidder, we have to go back out with it again. Vice Chairman Winton: Are we required to sell this? Board Member Sanchez: Mr, Chairman? Chairman Teele: We're not required to sell it. But when we built it, we built it for the purpose of redeveloping it and putting it back out into the community, and trying to establish comparable values. Commissioner Sanchez. 159 December 11, 2001 0 i Board Member Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, this -- to me, it doesn't make economical sense or business sense. One, we bought the property for twenty-eight thousand dollars ($28,000). We put in a hundred and thirty thousand to create a parking lot, which this parking lot is so needed there. I mean, that was the -- the whole concept there was to create adequate parking This is one of the parking lots that provides adequate parking for all the businesses that come in there. Now we're going to sell it for fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) to whoever buys it. The only good thing about it I see, it will go back in the tax rolls. Chairman Teele: Right, Board Member Sanchez: But other than that, somebody could buy it and put a fence in it, and it's no longer a parking lot. So, it defeats all the purposes that were set out, since -- it doesn't make sense to me. It just doesn't make any sense. Chairman Teele: Well, let me try to explain to you. First of all, we paid seventy-two thousand dollars ($72,000) for it, not thirty thousand. It was a building. It was a vagrant building that was full of asbestos, that had been there for twenty year; that would be there for the next forty years. Commissioners, welcome to Redevelopment 101. And this is a problem with redevelopment. Redevelopment is -- the reason that we are a governmental entity doing this is that the private sector cannot do it. The only entity that can go in and buy buildings, tear them down, and put them back out on the -- to the public is a redevelopment authority. It is not going to ever make economic sense. If it makes economic sense, then you won't have a redevelopment authority. We are the only entity that can go in and do that. And redevelopment, by its very nature, means you're going to lose money. This is not about making money on the front end. It's about making money on the long end. The way we get our money back is one way: taxes. That's the in game for redevelopment. The property of PS is one of three in a general area. It was the smallest one. The Iarge parking lot, which is P3, which is -- this is a parking lot that houses how many cars, 12? Eight, twelve? Ms. Lewis: I'm sorry, sir? Chairman Teele: How many -- Board Member Sanchez: No. More than that. Vice Chairman Winton: How many cars -- Chairman Teele: No. This is only an eight to twelve parking space. Ms Lewis: That is correct. Chairman Teele: This is only a twelve -car parking space. P3 is the one that Commissioner Sanchez is making reference to, which is for the redevelopment of the whole area, which is for the parking for the area. P5 is the one that we acquired for the purpose of getting it back out onto the tax rolls, and trying to establish comparable values. And, so, that was a part of our strategy 160 December 11, 2001 0 9 when we first started out. There was P3, P4, and P5 all within the general area. Vice Chairman Winton: Is there a minimum time that this property has to remain in use as a parking lot or -- before we can sell the property? Chairman Toole: No. Alex Vilarello (City Attorney): The statute requires it to remain a parking lot for a period of time. It doesn't define how long, how short a period of time. I believe there is a recommendation that it be for at least a I0 -year period of time. So, that would be a condition of the sale. Vice Chairman Winton: And in terms of our action at valuing this at fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) today, that's all we're doing. We're not authorizing the sale of this property or even the marketing of this property by this action; is that correct? Chairman Toole: Well, it was my understanding that, pursuant to -- when we brought these properties up -- and Mr. Judy was the Acting -- he was the Executive Director when this was done. We purchased P5 for the purpose of removing the slum and blight that was there. It was a two-story asbestos vacant building that had been there for the better part of twenty years and it was homeless congregated. We said, when we bought it, that we would develop it and turn it back over to the public for the purpose of a parking lot. Now, at the time, both Mount Zion and Jackson Soul Food were asking us to give it to them. And my position is, we're not giving away any more land to anybody, churches or anybody. The key thing we can do is, we can provide a grant to somebody, but when you give away land, you destroy your values. And, so, what we're hoping is that either Mount Zion or Jackson will obviously acquire this property, and if they come to us and ask for support for that, then that's another story. But we want to get our property values up. Vice Chairman Winton: So -- but this action doesn't do anything, other than set value. And in order to sell it or even put it on the market, we've got to take another action at some point down the road? Chairman Toole: That was not my understanding. Board Member Sanchez: No. Chairman Toole: If you would not like to take an action, then why don't we defer the item, and have -- Vice Chairman Winton: Because what I'm thinking about here is that, if we want to put this property -- future reference, there's going to be -- because you have convinced me, as I've told you several times, that the kind of parking facilities --parking lots that you have built in the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency), as far as I'm concerned, really do add value because they're really class lots, and that gives the development community a sense that there's something positive going on. So, I've bought into that concept. There seems to me, however, if 161 December 11, 2001 0 • our mission is to clean slum and blight and we want to create sites for the private sector to come and buy from us, we have huge risk at spending a whole bunch of money to turn it into a parking lot, put it back on the market, because then we lose the parking that's valuable, and we've spent a lot of money to get it there. We could actually turn it into a park, literally. You know, green grass, nicely landscaping, the same kind of potential wall around it to create that same kind of thing, and spend a lot less money, if that's what our intent is. Chairman Teele; Our intent was to create a comparable value. We authorized the construction of five parking lots. P1, which is the only one that has not been built, is up near 14`h Street, right in front of St. John's Church, between 14th Street and 13th. That has not been built. P2 is behind the washhouse and over by where we were trying to build the fast-food franchise. And that parking lot was primarily designed to support the commercial activities in that vacant land over there, which we were calling the Job Creation Center. P3 is the large parking lot, which is servicing that entire area, which is behind -- which is directly in front of the building where we're providing the grant to build out the commercial area and, hopefully, create somewhere between fifty and a hundred jobs, the so-called Solomon Yuken Housing Facility there. P4 is the building -- is the parking lot right next to the Masonic Lodge, and that was primarily parking that Mr. Yuken had hoped to buy from us, at some point, as a way of addressing his tremendous parking for the housing. And P5 was a lot that Mount Zion and Jackson had both tried to get, and we said we would go in and we would clean it up, but we would not give it to either one, and we would let the highest price determine it. If we can get a good price for P5, then we're in a much better position to meet with Mr. Yuken on P4. And that lot -- and P4, obviously, would have a value of well over a hundred thousand dollars ($100,000), if we were to dispose of it. But we made no commitment to Mr. Yuken or anyone to sell P4, but really to try to create comparable values in terms of it. There is no comparable. I mean, you never had a parking lot in Overtown. I mean, you don't even have parking in Overtown. So, what we're trying to do is create comparable values. Why don't we defer this item and -- Board Member Sanchez: Move to defer the item, Mr. Chairman, Vice Chairman Winton: Well, it seems to me that we're in a position to take some sort of action. I'm just a little -- because what you're -- in addition to -- you're trying to get a value base set here, but -- is this action -- are you trying to also get, as a result of this action, to actually put the property on the market? Chairman Teele: Absolutely. We're trying to get three things: One, we're trying to return this property back onto the tax roils at the highest possible value that we can. Number two, we're trying to establish a comparable value that will begin then to move up all of the vacant land and comparable properties, should we do it. And number three, it is our hope that the church or Jackson's will come in and bid it. Hopefully, they'll bid against each other and-- otherwise, if we don't have two bidders, somebody's going to bid twenty-eight thousand, and that will be it. Vice Chairman Winton: And are we going to require that any of the bidders maintain that lot as a parking lot -- Chairman Teele: Absolutely, 162 December 11, 2001 Vice Chairman Winton: -- for some period of time? Chairman Teele: That's a condition -- that would be a condition of the bid. Vice Chairman Winton: And are we going to further require them to put the property on the tax roll? Chairman Teele: Well, once we sell it, it's on the tax rolls right away. Vice Chairman Winton: Because if a church buys it, they have an exemption. And, so, we don't want to allow that exemption. Chairman Teele: But that would -- well, yes, we need to further require that. Yes. Vice Chairman Winton: So -- you know, if we had those conditions placed on this, I don't think the logic is bad, because there are no comparables and, so, we could set the comparables. You do get it back into the marketplace. So, if we get taxes developing on this property, then you have additional revenue coming in that's going to make things begin -- feed the revenue stream here that can allow us to make some additional things happen. And over time, you're not going to sell these things at a loss, at all. Chairman Teele: Absolutely. So would you move it? Vice Chairman Winton: But getting it on our tax roll, I think, is very, very important. Commissioner Teele: All right. Board Member Sanchez: But what assurance do we have that we don't sell it to a church and then it doesn't go on the tax rolls? Vice Chairman Winton: Because we put it in the -- Chairman Teale: Because that will be a condition that he's putting onto it. Vice Chairman Winton: Yeah, it's a condition of sale. Chairman Teale: First of all, all we're doing is approving-- we're not selling it. We're advertising it. If somebody doesn't buy it for our minimum price, it ain't gonna be sold. Vice Chairman Winton: And we're still going to have to approve any sale. Chairman Teele: You've got to approve any sale. Vice Chairman Winton: Or any contract, so -- 163 December 11, 2001 Board Member Sanchez: I understand, Commissioner Teele. But, you know, if we accomplish what we want to accomplish here, which we work. very hard at, I'm saying that five or ten years from now, there's going to be need for parking lots. And then we're going to sit here eight years from now and go, "That was a bad deal. Why did we sell that parking when we're going to have to create more parking, with all the things that are going with the redevelopment in the area?" So, what I don't want to do -- and when I look at the numbers, we basically have put -- maybe you and I aren't in agreement on this issue, but the City -- the CRA has expended more than two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000), and now we're going to sell the property for -- we're asking fifty thousand dollars ($50,000), or maybe it's twenty-eight thousand dollars ($28,000), if two bidders show. So, it doesn't make sense to give up even if it's three parking lots, which it's not. I just don't see it as a business -- it doesn't make any business sense. Now, I could sae putting it in the tax rolls and, fifty years from now, you've made that money and some. I could understand that. Chairman Teele: That `s what we're saying. Board Member Sanchez: Well. But -- Chairman Teele: But just so that you know this, the only thing next to this parking lot is a church and Jackson Soul Food. So, there is no demand or need, other than for the church, which really wants it -- I mean, the pastor and the Board passed a resolution, which we turned down. And we turned down their resolution because the 3rd Avenue Business Corridor requirement says that we must first give priority to business activities, as opposed to open space or religious or whatever. And, so, what we're trying to do is build up the market. And I think, with Commissioner Winton's restrictions and a minimum price, if we don't get the minimum price, we're just going to be stuck with it. Board Member Sanchez: And the minimum price is fifty thousand? Chairman Teele: That's what I would recommend. Vice Chairman Winton: Right. Do we have a motion? Chairman Teele: No. Board Member Sanchez: No. Vice Chairman Winton: I'll make the motion. Chairman Teele: Moved. Will you second it, Commissioner Gonzdlez? Board Member Gonzalez: Yes, I'll second. Chairman Teele: All those in favor say "aye." Vice Chairman Winton: Aye. 164 December 11, 2001 Board Member Gonzalez: Aye. Chairman Teele: All opposed? Board Member Sanchez: One "no." Chairman Teele: One "no." The following motion was introduced by Vice Chairman Winton, who moved for its adoption: SEOPW/CRA MOTION NO. 01-144 A MOTION DIRECTING THE CRA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO ESTABLISH A SALE PRICE OF $50,000 FOR PARKING LOT PS LOCATED AT 936 N.W. 3RD AVENUE WITH 100% OF PURCHASE PRICE GOING TO THE CITY OF MIAMP S DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AS PROGRAM INCOME AND WITH CONDITIONS THAT BUYER IS TO MAINTAIN PROPERTY AS PARKING LOT AND PROPERTY IS TO BE PUT ON TAX ROLL. Upon being seconded by Board Member Gonzalez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Vice Chairman Johnny Winton Board Member Angel Gonzalez NAYS Board Member Joe Sanchez ABSENT: Board Member Tomas Regalado 165 December 11, 2001 Chairman Teele: All right. We've got the issue that everybody's here on, and Mr. Igwe, why don't you come forward and give us a good summary. Does everyone in the public that's here on Poinciana Village have access to the audit report here? All right. Madam Director, please. Victor Igwe (Director, Internal Audit): Victor Igwe, Internal Audit. Back ip July of this year, we were directed to perform the review of specific transactions that relate to Poinciana Village. There were five specific issues that were looked at. The first and foremost to us, the promises that were made by the landowners to entice them to invest in the partnership. Our review disclosed that there is — I mean, there's only one original landowner that invested in that partnership, and that original landowner is the Sawyer's Development, Inc. They made two investments. The first investment was made in 1986. They invested one hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($150,000). That investment gave them limited partnership status, and that investment also tails for the Sawyers to get specified percentages of return and also return on investment. On Exhibit 1 of the report, which is on page 18, it shows the original principal, which was invested on February 1, 1986. They invested a total of a hundred and fifty dollars ($150). The accrued interest -- Vice Chairman Winton: They invested what? Unidentified Speaker: A hundred and fifty thousand. Mr. Igwe: A hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($150,000). The accrued interest from '86 through our computation in July of this a year, a total of two hundred and forty-two thousand, five hundred dollars ($242,500). The total principal and accrued interest amounted to three hundred and eighty-two dollars and five hundred. Now, the total payments that they've received up-to-date is only sixty thousand dollars, eight hundred and fifty-eight dollars. Therefore the balance due, as of the date of this report, is three hundred and twenty-two thousand, three hundred and twenty-one dollars and twenty-three cents ($322,321.23). That investment was made in 1986. There was a subsequent investment that was made in 1990, Prior to the investments, the Sawyers had that principal in a certificate of deposit, which, on interest -- which was returned 11.65 to 13.8 percent. They invested that additional two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) into the partnership, not as a limited partner, but as a contribution. The accrued interest, up to July 31st of this year, was a hundred and ninety-eight thousand six hundred and fifty-seven dollars ($198,657). That gives us a total of principal and accrued interest of almost four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000). They get paid sixty-six thousand, nine hundred and forty-nine, and currently they are owed three hundred and nine thousand, nine hundred and sixty- one dollars and eighty-two cents ($309,961.82). Vice Chairman Winton: Well, what happened to the three hundred and twenty-two thousand from Exhibit 1? 166 December 11, 2001 Mr. Igwe: That's the original investment that was made as a limited partner in the partnership. It's separate and distinct from the second one. Chairman Teele: On page 5, on the last paragraph, you say, "Therefore, the Sawyers may have regrettably lost a total of six hundred and fifty-four thousand, twenty-nine dollars and fifty-five cents ($654,029.55)." Is that still a good number? Mr. Igwe: That's the correct number. Chairman Teele: Well, I never heard you say that number. Mr. Igwe: Well, the combination, when we add to the 322 from the 155 -- Chairman Teele: If it was your money, would you combine it? Mr. Igwe: I don't think I would feel good. Chairman Teele: OK. So, what we -- Vice Chairman Winton: Well, I don't understand yet, so -- Mr. Igwe; OK. There are two investments, sir. The first investment was, as a limited partner, which was a hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($150,000). Vice Chairman Winton: And you assumed a ten percent interest rate; you added all that up, and then get -- Mr. Igwe: Yeah. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) It was specifically specified in the partnership. Vice Chairman Winton: Oh, at a ten percent annual return to investors on a limited partnership interest. Mr. Igwe: Exactly. Vice Chairman Winton: So, that would have come to three hundred and twenty-two thousand After the sixty thousand they received. Mr. Igwe: Right. But when you add that to the 150, that gives us a total principal and a total interest of three hundred and eighty-two thousand. Vice Chairman Winton: But this other two hundred thousand was treated as equity. Mr. Igwe: An additional -- it was an additional contribution. It's not a contribution as a limited partner. 167 December 11, 2001 Vice Chairman Winton: Right. It's an equity contribution, you said. Mr. Igwe: Right, equity. Chairman Teele: No, no, no, no. No, no. Where are you getting the word "equity"? Because it was my understanding, when we had this discussion in '98, that it was a loan. Mr. Bloom, you need to correct the record because this thing played out -- and what we said we would do -- it's taken us three years, but to get to the bottom of this. William R. Bloom: William R. Bloom, 701 Brickell Avenue. Yes. It was my understanding that, initially, the Sawyers invested one hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($150,000) for a limited partnership interest, and then, in approximately 1998, they had made a loan to the partnership of two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000). Vice Chairman Winton: In 1990 or 1998? Chairman Teele: Nineteen ninety. Mr. Bloom: Excuse me. Nineteen ninety. Vice Chairman Winton: Of two hundred thousand, but there is -- and what happened to all the interest? There's an interest table here of a hundred and ninety-eight thousand six hundred and fifty-seven dollars ($198,657) that you assumed here. Who got that? Mr. Igwe: That interest was not paid because the partnership lost two point one million dollars ($2.1 million) from 1988 through year 2000. Vice Chairman Winton; Well, if it wasn't -- was this interest earned; is that what you said this was? Mr. Igwe: It accrues, but wasn't paid. Chairman Teele: It was accrued, but not paid out. Mr. Igwe: Accrued but not paid -- well, actually, they got paid a total -- Vice Chairman Winton: But how do you accrue it at 13 percent? I mean, where did that come from? Mr. Igwe: Well, the -- first of all, the second contribution of two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) did not have any written agreement. It was a verbal agreement between the partnership and the Sawyers. Vice Chairman Winton: That said that the interest rate would be what? 168 December 11, 2001 Mr. Igwe: That says that they would have paid 11.65 percent and 13.8 percent, if you look down where it has the asterisks. Vice Chairman Winton: Try that on me again. Mr. Igwe: OK. On page 19 -- Board Member Winton: I'm looking at it. Mr. Igwe: OK. They invested — if you look up on the schedule, on 3-8-90 they invested a hundred thousand dollars ($100,000). Vice Chairman Winton: I got it. Right. Mr. Igwe: OK. That hundred thousand dollars was withdrawn from a CD (Certificate of Deposit) that was earning interest of 11.5. Then, subsequent to that, they invested an additional ninety-five thousand dollars ($95,000) on that same date, from a second CD portfolio that was generating 13.8 percent. But, however, in 1992 the parties agreed that the interest rate should be at eight percent, a flat interest rate. Vice Chairman Winton: And accrued, not paid? Mr. Igwe: And accrued. So, when you state percentages and came up with the interest. Vice Chairman Winton: OK. I'm clear at this point. Mr. Igwe: So, like the Commissioner pointed out, the Sawyers may have lost in excess of six hundred thousand dollars ($600,000) in this investment venture. The other audit finding we have here, as it relates to the commitments of promises that were made to perspective buyers at a time the units were sold. The brochure that was used at a time they were marketing those units disclosed or indicated a lot of amenities that were provided. Among them includes — I'm on page 13. It indicated that it will provide private exterior decks, an enclosed modern swimming pool, landscape deck, meeting rooms, enclosed recreation areas and large landscaping. Vice Chairman Winton: Where are you? Mr. Igwe: On page 13. When we set up to do this audit, we were specifically directed to review specific transactions. This happens to be one of those. The audits disclose that these amenities that were promised up to the date of the audits must have been — had not been realized. The reason being, that there's an ongoing contractual issues between the CRA and the developer. And we are recommending that those contractual issues be resolved, and the resolution of those contractual issues will enhance the realization of these amenities. Mr. Bloom: To clarify the legal issues that we're speaking to, the amendment to the lease with respect to Poinciana Village set certain conditions that had to be met by the developer for the developer to have development rights with respect to the 91 units. Those conditions were not 169 December 11, 2001 • • met by the terms of the lease. The developer did not get the right to develop those 91 units and notice of that has been sent to the developer. Chairman Teele: All right. We need to get through this. Mr. Igwe: The last objective that we looked at was the reasonableness of the association fees that are currently paid by the owners, and we have a schedule, which is Exhibit 4, I believe -- Exhibit 3, I'm sorry, and it's on page 20. On that exhibit we did two analyses. We looked at the projected annual costs of maintaining the property at the current levels, which is the 64 units, and we also looked at the projected costs for the second phase, which will be the total -- the initial first phase and the second phase, and that will be 155 units. Our analyses indicated that what it will actually cost them to properly maintain the first phase of this project would be two hundred and sixty-five dollars and thirty cents ($265.30) for each unit. And we also did some analyses and projected some costs as it relates to the entire Phase I and II projects, and that would have resulted in a hundred and sixty-nine dollars and thirty-three cents ($169.33), but, however, currently, the owners are paying two hundred and eight dollars ($208) for association fee, so we're recommending that the Board decide to give them some form of relief as it relates to association fees. Vice Chairman Winton: And we do that how? Mr. Igwe: Excuse me, sir? Vice Chairman Winton: Don't you have a specific recommendation in here? Mr. Igwe: We are recommending that the Board raise the land lease fees. Vice Chairman Winton: About how much? Mr. Igwe: For ten dollars and twenty cents ($10.20) a month. Annette Lewis (Acting Executive Director): The total amount in our report. Vice Chairman Winton: It's not ten dollars ($10). What's the land lease fee? Ms. Lewis: Ten thousand, nine thirty-seven and fifty-two cents. Chairman Teele: Say that again, Ms. Lewis: As referenced in page 17, it's ten thousand, nine thirty-seven and fifty-two cents. Vice Chairman Winton: And is that an annual fee? Ms. Lewis: Yes, sir. Mr. Igwe: Yes, that's annualized. 170 December 11, 2001 0 Vice Chairman Winton: And, phase, which was promised to association fees will be reduced ($193.76)? 0 so, if we waive the land lease fee until such time as the other these tenants is in place, then the estimated — the monthly from a hundred and ninety-three dollars and seventy-six cents Chairman Teele: No, no. It's two -- Mr. Igwe: Well, let me clarify something. Chairman Teele: The fees are, right now... Mr, Igwe: The two hundred and eight dollars ($208) that are currently paying is not even sufficient to currently pay for all the costs associated with the 64 units, which is the first phase of the development project. So, if you waive the ten thousand dollars ($10,000), they still don't have enough -- you know, the amenities really — that would really be needed to pay for all of the associated costs would be two hundred and sixty-five dollars ($265). So, if you feel that you want to give them a relief, I will consider giving them relief based on the 155 units, which will be the hundred and sixty-nine dollars and thirty-three cents ($169.33). Chairman Teele: Let me -- Vice Chairman Winton: I didn't follow that at all. Chairman Teele: Let me — before we all get into this, let me just say this. This is a very complicated matter, but it's very bottom line to everybody that has a unit over there. I would state three things very quickly. Number one, we need to be careful about the precedent we set, that we don't wind up with a cost that, one, we're responsible for when we're not responsible. Number two, we need to also be careful that we don't distort the marketplace. In other words, whatever is reasonable and associated with the units that are there, we don't need to disturb that. And number three, I think we should provide some relief. However, I strongly take exception from the outstanding auditor's recommendation, which is a policy recommendation. I think providing a waiver of land rents is the last thing we should do. I would strongly support providing them with a grant to pay the land rent, but I don't think at -- for one hundred percent of it, but I don't think we ought to not get our money because I think it raises a whole series of legal issues, unintended, as to whether or not we've created some precedent that they don't have to pay it down the road. So, whatever it is --if it's ten thousand dollars ($10,000),1 would strongly recommend a grant to pay that so that that could be paid back to us, because I think it's important that the land rents be paid. Remember, it is the land rents that was the basis of our two million dollar ($2,000,000) settlement. That's what was owed to us, folks, so let's don't give up — or let's don't give up the economics of how this thing has been put together. My recommendation to the Board, subject to the discussion of the Commissioners, is that we should recognize some small amount of money now, whether it be ten to twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000), that we should provide immediately against a credit toward whatever the Executive Director comes back and recommends, in writing, having met with them. But I don't think we can negotiate in public 171 December 11, 2001 0 0 how this is going to be -- for example, the Executive Director -- you are a CPA (Certified Public Accountant), is that right, Ms. Lewis? Ms. Lewis: Yes, sir. Chairman Teele: So, the Executive Director in this case is uniquely, I think, trained to sit down and work through all of these issues, but what we don't want to do is not recognize what the internal auditor has said, is that, if we're going to do this, we need to ensure that this thing is sufficiently funded. In other words, whatever we do, we need to insist that there are reserves established so that we're not being — come back every six months saying, `By the way, we didn't add this." We need to sit down and go through this line by line by line. I strongly support that we ought to create a reserve — a credit right now of fifteen thousand, twenty thousand. I understand that the Florida Power & Light bill is owed immediately. I see that the security bill of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) is owed immediately. So, somewhere around twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) as a — authorizing an immediate payment against a credit — against an agreement that the Executive Director would come back in 30 days and present to us, I think would be a fair way to do it, but I'm really concerned about voting now to forgive rent, for example, because I think the one thing we ought to be prepared to do is give them a grant for the rent and let them pay us our rent back because I think, that way, we establish the precedent that this has value and that we're not waiving rent. Because once we start waiving rent — I can tell you, there's a whole bunch of other folks that owe us rent, that they're going to come in and ask for waivers, too, that haven't been paid. And we've been very laid back about collecting rents. But some churches owe us rent, some other folks owe us rent, and I'm just very concerned about the unintended consequences of waiving rent at this point. I would have no problem providing a grant for the rent on an annual, you know, case-by-case approach, but they have to pay it back to US. Board Member Sanchez: Mr. Chairman? Vice Chairman Winton: Yeah, this would be really a loan. Board Member Sanchez: I'm prepared -- yeah, it's -- Vice Chairman Winton: I mean, not a ---if we're going to have to pay it -- could be zero interest. Are you — you're suggesting that they're going to pay it back at some time? Chairman Teele: I would propose that it be a grant. Board Member Sanchez: A grant would guarantee of reimbursement when they complete the additional units. Chairman Teele: 1 would propose that it be a grant to them, but I think whatever we provide them —1'm talking about a grant, plus we've got to provide them with another grant. We've got to provide them with -- Board Member Regalado: But a grant is a grant. 172 December 11, 2001 0 • Chairman Teele: A grant is a grant. And they're not going to have the money to pay us back. I mean, you know, this isn't a commercial unit. These are all houses. These are residential and I don't think we ought to get into loans on this thing. We either ought to give them a grant or we ought to say, "Look, you know, we're not going to give you that money because we're not a bank." And I don't think we should get into — I'm adamantly opposed to loans by the CRA, by the way. I'm strongly in support of grants. If it's going to carry forth on a redevelopment purpose, then let's give them a grant and move on. So, Commissioner Winton, Commissioner Sanchez, Commissioner RegaIado. Board Member Regalado: You said it. It's too complicated, but for me, it's very easy to understand. It's been said that the most important investment a person makes is a home, so when a young couple gets married, they do the numbers and say, "Can we pay? Can we have this down payment? Can we pay the mortgage?" When these folks went to buy, they did their numbers according to what they were told that it was going to happen; that is, how many units and the amount of money that they would have to pay for maintenance and fees and all that. It turned out that it was bad business and the City got in the middle and — so happen now they're stuck with a lot of bills. And, you see, my problem is that — I recognize that we need to come up with something immediately, but we also need to do something that, for them, means that they will be committed to keep living there because it's the most important thing. If we say, "Well, you know, we're going to see what we can do in the future and we're going to try to untangle this mess," there is going to be some people that says, "You know, I'm giving up. I'm going to lease or sell my apartment, my unit," and at the end of the day, we're going to have an empty project. We need to say today here that we support these people and that we're ready and willing to go an extra mile so they can hold on until we resolve this problem. So, Mr. Chairman, I understand, a grant is a grant and I think that if we have to, we should ask the CRA, say, well, you know, we need to save that building, and we are going to go out with a checkbook and pay the electricity bill, whatever, maybe not individually but collectively, and save the building for the Board — for the residents there. So, I am prepared to support any grant that this Board will decide on, but also to make a commitment that, you know, in three or four months from now, when the bills will start piling up again, we're going to have some kind of solution for this problem. So, Mr. Chairman, I'm ready to vote. Board Member Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions. Chairman Teele: Commissioner Gonzalcz. Board Member Gonzalez: One of my questions is, what is the actual deficit that they're running into now? Mr. Igwe: You mean the total... Ms. Lewis: I think Mr. Randy Ross is here from the Homeowners' Association, who does the accounting. 173 December 11, 2001 s 0 Randy Ross: Yes. I'm Randy Ross, Treasurer of the Poinciana Village Homeowners' Association. You asked what the actual deficit is right now? Board Member Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Mr. Ross: Bear with me a second while I locate it. Our current total accounts payable -- those are invoices on hand -- invoices on hand is seventeen thousand, six hundred eighty-nine dollars and thirty-seven cents ($17,689.37). Of that, fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) or fifteen thousand, thirty dollars and seventeen cents ($15,030.17) are past due invoices. And roughly twelve thousand dollars ($12,000) is owed to our security company, which is kind of our biggest immediate problem. Board Member Gonzdlez: How old is this building? How old is this building? Mr. Ross: The first building was completed in 19 --1 believe 1988. Board Member Gonzalez: Do you have a reserve account for whenever you need to do the parking lot, to replace your roof, to do your — you have — you never did that? Mr. Ross: We do not, no. Board Member Gonzalez: The Condominium Association Board of Directors never opened a reserve account, as mandated by Florida Statute? Mr. Ross: No, sir, we haven't. We haven't had any money to do that, and that is mandated but it also can be waived with a vote of the general membership. Mr. Igwe: That was one of our recommendations, for them to have a reserve account. Board Member Gonzalez: I see that we have a problem now. We have a problem, that we need to preserve these families in that building. We need to help them one way or the other come up with the — paid up the bills, and be even with their expenses. But what really concerns me is what is going to happen in the future? I mean, what — how long is this going to take place? For how long is this going to, you know -- Chairman Teele: Commissioner Gonzdlez, you've just put your finger on the issue. The issue is not the problem — the issue for these fine gentlemen is the problem that they're presenting. The issue for us is, how long are we going to be in this, and what kind of precedent are we creating? The day you let the first dollar out the door, we've created a precedent. I want to correct one thing that Commissioner Regalado may have left the impression. We just put money into this. I mean, no good deed goes unpunished. The first project that I undertook, as Chairman was to complete the Phase III or the phase that was just completed. How many units was that? Mr. Ross: Twenty-four. 174 December 11, 2001 Chairman Teele: Twenty-four. So, 24 of the people that are there, at least, could not have relied upon what was being said in '88 and before. I mean, because this project is in real trouble and 24 of those units have been occupied for less than a year now —just about a year — what is it, a year and -- Mr. Ross: Almost two years. Chairman Teele: Almost two years, OK. So, you know, we do have that distinction, but we need to treat the whole property as one project. What is your request of us today? Dei Bryan; Mr. Chairman, thank you, sir. Del Bryan from the association also. We did share with you some additional information from the auditors and, basically, I think we are in agreement with the numbers. And, as Mr. Igwe said, it takes two sixty-five per month to run — for us to stay whole, as the Commission indicated they wanted to do. And if it's completed, with 169. So, the difference basically — the difference that's required on a monthly basis, including the waiver or if you want to add that back some other way, would be the lease payment and an additional eighty-one dollars and seventy-three cents ($81.73). That totals five thousand, two hundred and thirty seventy-two. If you're saying -- Chairman Teele: Per month, Mr. Bryan: Per month Chairman Teele: Wait, wait, wait. Let's be clear on the numbers. Mr. Bryan: Per month. Per month, sir. Yes. Chairman Teele: Five thousand how much? Mr. Bryan: Two hundred and thirty seventy-two per month. Chairman Teele: Does that include the rent payment? Mr. Bryan: Yes. Chairman Teele: To the CRA? Mr. Bryan: Yes, it would. Chairman Teele: So, five thousand dollars ($5,000) a month or roughly sixty thousand dollars ($60,000) a year is what your request would be for us? Board Member Sanchez: Yes. Mr. Bryan: Well, that would say that the development won't start for a year and we won't finish it. But whatever the period is that it takes for the development, that's what we would need. 175 December 11, 2001 Chairman Teele: Well, it's going to take at least 18 months to do a development, so — or at least, you know, two years. Mr. Bryan: I'll take your numbers, sir, 18 months. Board Member Gonzalez: So, we're talking ninety thousand dollars ($90,000). Board Member Winton: No, no, no, no. No, no, no. No, no, no, no. Chairman Teele: Ain't no permits been pulled, so -- Vice Chairman Winton: No. Here's — listen. The actual cost, according to these numbers, is two hundred and sixty-five a month. The projected annual cost, that there's 155 units is 169 per month. So, that has to be in somebody's estimates over there, that they had to anticipate that, at minimum, I'm going to be paying a hundred and seventy dollars ($170) a month, and so the differential between the 265 and the 169 for 64 units is six thousand dollars ($6000) per year. Now, I don't know how we jumped to sixty thousand. At sixty, what are we doing on — you have to have an anticipation that you're going to pay something for your maintenance fee; otherwise, you wouldn't have moved into a condominium. There's an anticipation that you're going to have a charge every single month. Mr. Bryan: that's correct, sir. Vice Chairman Winton: The anticipation couldn't have been that you're never going to have a maintenance fee. Mr. Bryan: May I just go over the numbers we have here? Vice Chairman Winton: Please. Mr. Bryan: I think Mr. Igwe might be able to shed some light into that too. The present costs, what it actually takes for us to pay the security, the light, the water, all the stuff that way for the common areas is two sixty-five thirty, as you just remarked. What it would take, bearing all 164 units — 155 units when it's completed, would be one sixty-nine. The difference between that, per unit, is ninety-five ninety-seven per month. All we did, basically, was to annualize the amounts that we would need. Chairman Teele: Let me ask you this because -- Mr. Bryan: I'm sorry --for the total on a monthly basis. Chairman Teele: -- Commissioner Winton is touching right upon the point that I think is going to get everybody the sticker shock here. Does your assumption — see, there're two things that I want to ask about your number. Number one, does your number — what does your number 176 December 11, 2001 assume the annual cost is going to be based upon those other units? How many other units we're talking about, 90 units, 91 units? Mr. Igwe: Ninety-one, right. Chairman TeeIe: What is your assumption of the additional costs associated with those 91 units? And this is why this is a lot harder than just taking a number and dividing because, remember, those are — that's a — what is it, a 20 -story building, as presented? Mr. Bryan: If I might refer, sir, to the -- Chairman Teele: What was it? Twelve? Twelve -story —12 stories is (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Mr. Ross: Twelve stories, Mr. Bryan: Twelve stories, yeah. Chairman Teele: What is your assumption of the additional dollars? Mr. Igwe: That would the difference between 314. Chairman Teele: No, no, no, no. Vice Chairman Winton: Yeah. And I made a mistake by the way. My statement was absolutely in error. I reran my number and their number is right. My number is wrong. Chairman Teele: It's close — their number is right. Vice Chairman Winton: Yes. Chairman Teele: But I'm trying to understand, do they have the whole number or they're giving us their number. Mr. Bryan: This is the auditor's number that we have adopted, sir. Chairman Teele: So, you've taken his number? Mr. Bryan: Yes. Chairman Teele: Victor, what do you assume will be the incremental increase cost? Mr. Igwe: That would be the difference between three hundred and fourteen thousand nine hundred and -- Chairman Teele: No, no, no. The additional costs to operate. 177 December 11, 2001 Mr. Igwe: The additional costs to operate the second phase? Chairman Teele: Yes. Mr. lgwe: That would be — just give me a second. Mr. Bryan: Mr. Chairman, while he's doing that, may I just interject, sir? Mr. Igwe: That would be about a hundred and eleven thousand dollars ($111,000). Board Member Sanchez: How much? Chairman Teele: A hundred and eleven a year? Mr. Igwe: A hundred and eleven thousand -- Board Member Sanchez: Eleven thousand. Mr. Igwe: -- a year, right. Chairman Teele: See — let me tell you something. You're not going to run a 12 -story building with a full-time cleric or security or anything for eleven thousand dollars ($11,000). Mr. Igwe: Excuse me, sir. Keep in mind that some of the costs are fixed. Some of them are variable. Chairman Teele: I understand. I understand. But you've got the structure there. You've got an 11 -story building that you're adding, and my question is, how much new costs are you adding for the security, for the maintenance, for the receptionist or whatever for that new building? Mr. Igwe: It would be a hundred and eleven thousand dollars ($111,000), approximately. Vice Chairman Winton: Right, hundred and eleven thousand. Chairman Teele: Commissioner -- did you want to make a point? Mr. Bryan: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, to say what were the additional costs would be to say that the 265 that we currently pay is reasonable, because the whole problem is, the 265 that it actually cost now is totally out of line. It's more than we should pay. So, the comparison needs to be what we would pay if everything was in order, which would be 169 per unit, per month. Chairman Tecle: Well, I think the point that I want to get back to, that this just underscores Commissioner Winton and Commissioner Gonzdlez just touched upon. If we don't get that other complex built, we're going to be dealing with this on an annual basis for the next three to four to five years, if we take it up the first time. Mr. Attorney. 178 December 11, 2001 Mr. Bloom: Commissioner, just to add to your statement, again, I want to reiterate, the 91 units was to be constructed pursuant to the original RFP (Request for Proposal) for Poinciana Village. The CRA had taken the position that the rights with respect to those 91 units has terminated, and, so, there would be no 91 units as originally envisioned. The CRA would be -- in the future, go out with a new RFP to select another developer to develop those units, so you should take that into consideration in your deliberations on how to help these individuals, with respect to their problems with the assessments. But it's not realistic to factor into your planning that there will be 91 additional units constructed pursuant to the old deal when the old deal is no longer on the table. Chairman Teele: Commissioner Winton, you're the developer here. We have really got to expedite that next phase if this project — otherwise, we're just going to be — this is going to become a cash -- Board Member Winton: Well, we can't expedite that until we get the lawsuit resolved, right? Chairman Teele: Is that phase under a lawsuit? I thought Commissioner -- Mr. Bloom: Commissioners, no, there is no lawsuit at all involving Poinciana Village. Chairman Teele: Are we free to go out right now with an RFP on that? Mr. Bloom: That's true. Yes, we are, sir. Vice Chairman Winton: There's the -- Mr. Bloom: The issue is -- why I say that, legally, based upon the lease documents, Poinciana Village Limited, who is the tenant under the lease, has no rights to Phase II of the project. We've told them that their rights have terminated. They have communicated back to us that they believe they do have rights with respect to that phase. Chairman Teele: Well — see now we're getting ready to -- Vice Chairman Winton: That's a different story. Chairman Teele: Commissioners, I think this is, as Commissioner Winton said, is a very complex matter. I think we've got a precedent. I would recommend that we provide a fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) one-time grant immediately to Poinciana, to pay current bills -- you know, in the spirit of December 23rd, 0, and 5'h -- to pay current bills, subject to the Executive Director's approval, and that the Executive Director should report back to us within 60 days on a plan, a financial plan relating to this project, that would be an annual financial plan and not a permanent financial plan. Vice Chairman Winton: And I can tell you from where I sit, I see nothing but -- even though this is within the CRA district, where you can rationalize periodically different rules, but I see nothing but headaches coming for us if we do anything other than what you just said at the 179 December 11, 2001 i 0 beginning of the statement, and that is, in the spirit of trying to provide some support to this complex, we would make a one-time grant of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000), but to get into the business of bailing out people's condominium fees is — I can't think of a worse kind of precedent to set, and where that ultimately takes us with any other future developments within the CRA district or any future CRA districts. Chairman Teele: Is there a second to that motion? Vice Chairman Winton: Second. Chairman Teele: No, no. That's your motion. Vice Chairman Winton: Oh, OK. Board Member Gonzalez: I'll second that motion. Vice Chairman Winton: Second to my motion. Board Member Gonzalez: I'll second the motion. Chairman Teele: OK. The motion is that the CRA, in the spirit of December 23rd, 24th, 25tn is considering — when is Kwanzaa, by the way, 26th, 27th, 28th? Twenty-sixth. All right. Twenty- third through the 28th or whatever. Kwanzaa is actually, what, eight days, seven days? In any event, in the holiday spirit, a one-time grant, without a precedent, for the purpose of assisting, subject to the approval of the Executive Director of the appropriateness of the expenditures that will be made pursuant to that grant. Board Member Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman, let's remember that this is going to be a solution on a short-term. We need to find out a solution for a long-term because this is going to come back to us next month or within two months. Chairman Teele: Right. Well, let's do this part first. Vice Chairman Winton; And I'm trying to send a signal that, you know — it might come back, but it's going to — I'm going to be hard pressed to say yes again. You know, I don't — I just don't see that as our rote. Chairman Teele: Mr. Attorney. Mr. Bloom: Commissioners, in light of the legal situation with respect to Phase 11, I would recommend that the Board pass a resolution authorizing special counsel to file declaratory action with respect to Phase II so the title can be clear. Chairman Teele: Right after this motion. Right after this motion. Now, this is to the Homeowners' Association and this is without -- Board Member Sanchez: In the spirit of giving. 180 December 11, 2001 0 Chairman Teele: In the spirit of the holiday, and this is not a precedent, OK? In other words, this is a one-time kind of issue. And all the other issues are left unresolved at this point in time. Is that -- Mr. Bryan: What you're saying, so that will buy us time, while all the issues are worked out. Chairman Tecle: Right. Is that satisfactory to you, Mr. Bloom, and -- Mr. Bloom: Yes, Chairman Teele: All right. Madam Director? Now, the one thing I want to make sure — and I don't want to get the NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) people on us — I want to make sure that your authority to release the funds is conditioned on the appropriateness of the expenditures and compliance with the NET requirements that are there. In other words, we've got a bunch of code issues there and that trailer has got to go. You cannot have a construction trailer where there is no permit been pulled, and we're not going to provide a subsidy to maintain something that is blight. So, I want to be very clear about that. Ms. Lewis: No. The tractor and -- Chairman Teele: The tractor has been removed. Ms. Lewis: Right. But the trailer is still there. Chairman Teele: OK. Is that acceptable to you as a condition on the motion? Vice Chairman Winton: Absolutely. Board Member Sanchez: Call the question. Chairman Teele: All those in favor say "aye." The Board Member s (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: All opposed? 181 December 11, 2001 0 The following motion was introduced by Vice Chairman Winton, who moved for its adoption: SEOPW/CRA MOTION NO. 01-145 A MOTION DIRECTING THE CRA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO PROVIDE FIFTEEN THOUSAND ($15,000) ONE-TIME GRANT, WITHOUT A PRECEDENT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSISTING THE POINCIANA VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION WITH PAYMENT OF CURRENT BILLS, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR; FURTHER DIRECTING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO REPORT IN 60 DAYS ON AN ANNUAL FINANCIAL PLAN FOR THIS PROJECT, SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ENHANCEMENT TEAM'S (NET) REQUIREMENTS AS IT RELATES TO CITY CODE VIOLATIONS. Upon being seconded by Board Member Gonzdlez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Board Member Angel Gonzdlez Board Member Tomas Regalado Board Member Joe Sanchez Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Chairman Arthur E. Tecle, Jr, NAYS: None ABSENT: None Chairman Teele: Congratulations and Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukah and Happy Kwanzaa. Mr. Bryan: Thank you very much for the initial steps, sir. Thank you. Chairman Teele: Initial steps. 182 December 11, 2001 0 0 Chairman Teele: We've got to complete this. Now, could we defer Item 14? Moved to defer by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Commissioner Sanchez. All in favor say "aye." The Board Members (Collectively): Aye. The following motion was introduced by Board Member RegaIado, who moved its adoption: SEOPW/CRA MOTION 01-146 A MOTION TO DEFER CONSIDERATION OF AGENDA ITEM 14 (DISPOSITION OF FOOD FRANCHISE "PUDGIES CHICKEN" OF STEPHANA CLARKE & COMPANY). Upon being seconded by Board Member Gonzdlez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Vice Chairman Winton Board Member Angel Gonzalez Board Member Tomas Regalado Board Member Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. 183 December 11, 2001 Chairman Teele: A motion to authorize the Executive Director to enter into a Street Lighting Agreement. Board Member Sanchez: Moved. Chairman Teele: Moved by Commissioner Sanchez. Board Member Gonzdlez: Second. Chairman Teele: Seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez. All those in favor say "aye." The Board Members (Collectively): Aye, The following resolution was introduced by Board Member Sanchez, who moved for its adoption: SEOPW/CRA RESOLUTION NO. 01-147 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (THE "CRA") (SUBJECT MATTER: AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE IN THE SEOPW). (Here follows body of the resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk,) Upon being seconded by Board Member Gonzalez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Board Member Angel Gonzalez Board Member Tomas Regalado Board Member Joe Sanchez Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. NAYS: None ABSENT: None 184 December 11, 2001 • Chairman Teele: Motion, on number 17, authorizing the Executive Director to disburse funds for the properties to Miami -Dade, pursuant to the resolution -- Board Member Sanchez: You skipped 16. Chairman Teele: I know. Board Member ,Sanchez: You want to defer that one or -- Chairman Teele: We're going to have to just make sure we know what we're doing on 16, just for a minute. Motion by Commissioner Regelado. Is there a second? Board Member Sanchez: Second. Chairman Teele: Second by Commissioner Sanchez. All those in favor say "aye." The Board Members (Collectively): Aye. The following resolution was introduced by Board Member Regalado, who moved for its adoption: SEOPWJCRA RESOLUTION NO, 01-148 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ("CRA") AUTHORIZING THE CRA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO DISBURSE FUNDS REQUIRED TO ACQUIRE PROPERTIES ON THE LIST OF LANDS AVAILABLE FOR TAXES AS IDENTIFIED IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY'S RESOLUTION NO. R-981-01 (ATTACHMENT A) PASSED ON SEPTEMBER 13TH' 2001 AND PERFORM THE NECESSARY TASKS TO ENSURE THE PROPER CONVEYANCE OF SAID PROPERTIES TO THE CRA. 185 December 11, 2001 Upon being seconded by Board Member Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Arthur E. Teale, Jr. Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Board Member Angel Gonzdlez Board Member Tomas Regalado Board Member Joe Sanchez NAYS: None ABSENT: None 186 December 11, 2001 0 Chairman Teele: Now, this is a resolution on the loan amount from Fannie Mae, not the grant amount to the developer. Annette Lewis (Acting Executive Director): That is correct, sir. Chairman Teele: OK. Vice Chairman Winton: Which item are you on? Chairman Teele: We're on Item 19. Board Member Gonzalez: Nineteen. Chairman Teele: I'm sorry. I apologize. Note for the record: Item 19 was tabled. 187 December 11, 2001 0 i Chairman Teele: Item 18 is the Amistad. We have the captain of the Amistad here. We took it up. Sir, you want to just put your name on the record, please. Name and address for the record. Captain William Pinkney: It's Captain William Pinkney, and it's New Haven, Connecticut, Chairman Teele: It's a pleasure to have you here, Captain. Vice Chairman Winton: Welcome. Chairman Teele: And Commissioner Winton, who's been working -- staff's been working with you all, as well. The City Commission just approved a commitment of providing upwards of a hundred thousand dollars ($100,000), for this, through our various agencies. One of the agencies is this. And I would request, Commissioner Sanchez, if you would move, authorizing the Executive Director to expend and provide in-kind up to fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000), for the Amistad. Board Member Sanchez: So moved. Vice Chairman Winton: Second. Chairman Teele: Moved by Commissioner Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Winton. And that is the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) is resolving to expend and provide in-kind services up to fifthteen thousand dollars ($15,000) towards the City's commitment of a hundred thousand dollars ($100,000). Is there unreadiness? All those in favor say "aye." The Board Members (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: All those opposed? The following motion was introduced by Board Member Sanchez, who moved for its adoption: A MOTION AUTHORIZING THE CRA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO EXPEND AN AMOUNT UP TO FIFTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($15,000) IN IN-KIND SERVICES FOR THE AMISTAD AMERICA PROJECT IN FURTHERANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI'S FINANCIAL COMMITMENT OF ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($100,000). 188 December 11, 2001 0 Upon being seconded by Vice Chairman Winton, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Board Member Angel Gonzalez Board Member Tomas Regalado Board Member Joe Sanchez NAYS: None ABSENT: None 189 December 11, 2001 0 . $AMENDL(AN 1QUNT FANNIE M)AEsIOANGM$120,pOQ 7Q57,100,:. 'AB>.ISC�tO ACCOLI TS ASS R BY' TR�VI § QE �` N& �NTRLTG�NNANGE ;D1PA1T,A' FII�LII TOS I1tE LA ,EI CLQSTNGQUSTSOICE FANNIE SPVIl)DW 41 Chairman Teele: On Item 19. This is the Fannie Mae loan, and this is -- Fannie Mae has worked with us. And this is not the amount that we're going to making the grant for. The amount of the loan is from the amount that Fannie Mae is advancing us for five years, and it is in the amount of one point five million. Moved by Commissioner Regelado. Is there a second? This authorizes the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) to borrow one point five million dollars (1,500,000) from Fannie Mae on very favorable terms and conditions. Vice Chairman Winton: And this is the Solomon Yuken Project? Chairman Teele: This is towards the Solomon Yuken Project. Nine hundred thousand of these funds have been committed to the Solomon Yuken Project. Vice Chairman Winton: So moved. Board Member Sanchez: Second. Annett Lewis (Acting Executive Director): Sir, that was increased to one million, one seventy. The two seventy, which there's a documentation in your package, that was as a result of doubling the commercial space from seventy-five hundred to fifteen thousand square feet, as well as the facade. Chairman Teele: Well, I'm going to tell you this. I'm going to ask for a public sunshine law meeting and a workshop, because we all need to know what we're doing on this project. Because, you know, somehow these big projects, the NAP (Network Area Point), this million - dollar project, all go through. But then the People's Barbeque, Jackson Soul Food, and Two Guys Barber Shop, or whatever, everybody puts those under a microscope. We need to know what we're doing here on this project, as well, Madam Director. So, I'm going to ask for -- Vice Chairman Winton: And, by the way, I asked that question when I met with the Director. Chairman Teele: -- a sunshine law meeting on this. Who is going to be the owner's rep. on this project? Ms. Lewis: H. J. Ross has been selected. Chairman Teele: OK. H. J. Ross. A motion is moved by Commissioner Regelado, seconded by Commissioner Winton, on the loan proceeds. All those in favor say "aye." The Board Members (Collectively): Aye. 190 December 11, 2001 Chairman Teele: All those opposed, say "no." The following resolution was introduced by Board Member Regalado, who moved for its adoption: SEOPW/CRA RESOLUTION NO. 01-149 A RESOLUTION OF THE BAORD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ("CRA") (SUBJECT MATTER: AMENDING THE LOAN AMOUNT OF THE FANNIE MAE LOAN FROM $1,200,000 TO $1,575,000, ESTABLISHING AN ESCROW ACCOUNT AS REQUIRED BY THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT AND INSTRUCTING THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT, CRA'S FIDUCIARY, TO WIRE RELATED CLOSING COSTS ONCE FANNIE MAE HAS PROVIDED WIRING INSTRUCTIONS). Upon being seconded by Vice Chairman Winton, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Board Member Angel Gonzalez Board Member Tomas Regalado Board Member Joe Sanchez NAYS: None ABSENT: None 191 December 11, 2001 E 49 EXE L=IiT�V R'AN] _ S FU 17AT I'' $ANS` ERIC ANY rTI12 °' OR�SI�1C ISS SCS' A W R S WI�; LT IN CNNE: IQ�IRO AOR II� NNFION W SA . , ,V1LK P . .. Chairman Teele: A resolution authorizing the Executive Director to cooperate with the staff -- on Item 22 -- with the Bank of America or any lending, having discussions on Sawyer's Walk. This is upon the advice of counsel; is that correct, Mr. Bloom? William Bloom (Special Counsel, CRA): That's correct. Chairman Teele; All right. And we're not changing our position on anything. We're simply saying we're not inhibiting anything; is that right? Mr. Bloom: That's correct. Chairman Teele: All right. Is there a motion? Board Member Gonzalez: Move. Chairman Teele: Moved by Commissioner Gonzalez Vice Chairman Winton: Second. Chairman Teele: Second? Vice Chairman Winton: Second. Board Member Sanchez: Second. Chairman Tecle: Second by Commissioner Winton. All those in favor say "aye." The Board Members (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: All those opposed? 192 December 11, 2001 i The following resolution was introduced by Board Member Gonzdlez, who moved for its adoption: SEOPW/CRA RESOLUTION NO. 01150 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ("CRA") DIRECTING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND THE STAFF OF THE CRA TO COOPERATE WITH BANK OF AMERICA AND ANY OTHER LENDER OR INVESTOR HAVING DISCUSSIONS WITH SAWYER'S WALK, LTD. (THE "DEVELOPER") IN CONNECTION WITH PROVIDING FINANCING OR CAPITAL IN CONNECTION WITH THE SAWYER'S WALK PROJECT (THE "PROJECT") AND DIRECTING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND THE CRA'S ATTORNEYS TO PROVIDE ANY AND ALL INFORMATION THAT MAY BE REASONABLY REQUESTED BY BANK OF AMERICA OR ANY OTHER LENDER OR INVESTOR IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROJECT, NOTWITHSTANDING THE LITIGATION (THE "PENDING LITIGATION") BETWEEN THE CRA, THE CITY OF MIAMI AND THE DEVELOPER IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROJECT STYLED CITY OF MIAMI, ETC., ET AL. V SAWYER'S WALK, LTD., ETC., ET AL., CASE NO. 00-28860 (CA 09), 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT. Upon being seconded by Vice Chairman Winton, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Board Member Angel Gonzalez Board Member Tomas Regalado Board Member Joe Sanchez NAYS: None ABSENT: None 193 December 11, 2001 i 0 Chairman Teele: What is the status of -- what's the Arena Towers? William Bloom (Special Counsel, CRA): The Arena Towers is the apartment complex across from the Miami Arena, where there is an issue with respect to unpaid real estate taxes that have not been paid since 1993 on that project. Pursuant to the terms of the lease, it's the obligation of the tenant to pay those taxes. We've met with the tenant. We've made demand on the tenant. The tenant is now investigating the situation. And their intention is to pay those taxes. However, they are making some noises that they feel that the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) may have prejudiced their position by not making an earlier demand on them to pay the taxes. Board Member Sanchez: What does the lease agreement say? Who's responsible? Mr. Bloom: The lease agreement said that the landlord, at that time, which was the City of Miami, and the tenant, were to protest the taxes. The City of Miami protested the taxes in 1993 and lost, The City of Miami protested the taxes in 1994 and lost. Since 1993, as a result of those two lawsuits, the property has been on the tax rolls, and the developer has not paid the taxes. Vice Chairman Winton: Since nineteen ninety -- Mr. Bloom: Since 1993. Now, the current owner of the property acquired title in a foreclosure action in 1996, approximately the same time that the judgments putting the property on the tax rolls were entered. It's something that, even though the CRA did not put them on notice of, they should have, during their due diligence, discovered the taxes that were unpaid, and been responsible for it. Vice Chairman Winton: Absolutely. I mean, everybody and their grandmother owns real estate and knows you should pay real estate taxes. So, you know, it seems to me that the motion ought to be to take whatever steps we have to take to either bring them current or foreclose or whatever remedy we have to solve the problem and not dance around here. This is baloney. Commissioner Gonzalez: That's right. Vice Chairman Winton: Pay. They owe the taxes. Pay or we're going after you. So, I don't know what our remedies are in the -- Chairman Teele: Why do we have to go after them? Why can't the County go after them? Mr. Bloom: Well, the County's remedy would be to have the property sold, and a tax deed issued. Vice Chairman Winton: No, no. We'd rather sell it. Trust me. 194 December 11, 2001 0 Mr. Bloom: I think it's appropriate at this point. We had previously issued a demand letter to pay them. Now we're giving them a follow-up letter. We're giving them ten days to pay, or else we're going to pursue our rights and remedies under the lease. Chairman Teele: Motion authorizing the Executive Director and the Attorney to take whatever actions deemed appropriate to force the payment of the taxes or to secure the CRA's position. Vice Chairman Winton: So moved. Board Member Sanchez: Second. Chairman Teele: Moved and seconded. Is there objection? All those in favor say "aye." The Board Members (Collectively): Aye. The following motion was introduced by Vice Chairman Winton, who moved for its adoption: SEOPW/CRA MOTION NO. 01-151 A MOTION AUTHORIZING THE CRA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND ATTORNEY TO TAKE APPROPRIATE LEGAL STEPS (INCLUDING FORECLOSURE) IN CONNECTION WITH RECOUPING MONIES OWED BY PROPERTY OWNER OF ARENA TOWERS FOR DELINQUENT TAXES. Upon being seconded by Board Member Sanchez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Board Member Angel GonzAlez Board Member Tomas Regalado Board Member Joe Sanchez NAYS: None ABSENT: None 195 December 11, 2001 0 • 51 ;AUT ZE E UT,: T)' CTO Q. ER�3LQC� 56 T SC Lr C J E AS RNAT IT IN P] N P � REL ?CA ?N.:. '' , , R. Chairman Tecle: At long last, we've got one other, the victory issue. Item 34. Board Member Sanchez: Twenty-four. Annette Lewis (Acting Executive Director): Twenty-four, sir. Chairman Teele: Twenty-four. A resolution authorizing the Executive Director --what are we doing, Madam Director? We indicated that we do want to bring this matter to closure now, the Camillus House. Ms. Lewis: Yes, sir. Chairman Teele: Are there representatives of the Camillus House here? Vice Chairman Winton: There were. Chairman Teele: All right. Just for the record, Madam Director. Ms. Lewis: On November 15`h, the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency), along with the City Attorney and Special Counsel, were authorized to proceed with updating the agreement -- the existing agreement with Camillus House. However, in additional discussions, it was discovered that an alternate site was never discussed. So, this just allows us to offer these lots -- or these blocks, I'm sorry, or one of these blocks to meet their relocation needs. Chairman Teele: Any one of the three lots? Ms. Lewis: Yes, sir. Chairman Teele: I would like to take off the lot that's adjacent to Poinciana Village. Vice Chairman Winton: Agreed. In fact, we ought to pick the lot. I mean -- Chairman Teele: Say again. Vice Chairman Winton: We ought to look at which of those lots -- maybe we give the authorization. But you ought to look at just the geography and, from a planning standpoint, and pick one. Chairman Teele: It's very clear that the lot facing 6th street, that is, the southernmost lot, is far more preferable. It's closer to the existing Camillus House, and it does not flow through the heart of Overtown, et cetera. Vice Chairman Winton: And it's near the Post Office and those kinds of things. So, you're 196 December 11, 2001 right. Chairman Teele: It's near the Post Office, et cetera. Richard Judy: That's the lot, which -- that currently the Trailways buses are parking on. Chairman Teele: Exactly. Vice Chairman Winton: Well, so what. Unidentified Speaker. It's 55. Vice Chairman Winton: Oh, OK. Chairman Teele: Yeah, the southern -- Which number is that? Vice Chairman Winton: What number is that lot? Chairman Teele: Mr. Judy, what number is the southernmost lot? Ms. Lewis: Richard? Mr. Judy: Yes, sir? Chairman Teele: What's the southern most lot? What number? Mr. Judy: Fifty-six. Chairman Teele: You're sure? Mr. Judy: Yeah. Towards the station. Chairman Teele: The one that the buses are on now? Mr. Judy: That would be it. Chairman Teele: Fifty-six. Mr. Judy: Fifty-five is the one that's all grass. And above it is 46 and 45. Vice Chairman Winton: OK. So -- Chairman Teele: Well, we've got 36, 46 and 56. In any event, the lot that faces 6th Street, the southernmost lot of the two. Now, in addition to this, have we gone out with appraisers for various parcels of land that we're seeking, Ms. Lewis? 197 December 11, 2001 E Ms. Lewis: Yes, sir. 0 Chairman Teele: And we don't have any conclusion on those at this time, right? Ms. Lewis: We requested two appraisals to date. We have one in our possession, and we're awaiting the other. Chairman Teele: All right. The purpose, sir, is that the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) had a special board meeting in November, instructing the Executive Director to treat the Camillus House relocation as the highest priority of the Agency, and this is just corning back as another option. We're looking at several other locations, as well, within the CRA, and we have a legal opinion regarding the ability of the CRA to purchase outside of the district or even to use eminent domain in some cases. By the way, Mr. Attorney, you and Attorney Judy should confer on some issues at some point. William Bloom (Special Counsel, CRA): No, All I do is (inaudible) -- I know it's a Charter. All the statues belong to the people of the United States, and I just have to read it and somebody else can say no. Chairman Teele: All right. Mr. Attorney. Mr. Judy: Just to clarify one issue with respect to the lots in question. They are subject to an existing lawsuit -- Chairman Teele: We're aware of that. Mr. Judy: -- brought by the County against the City for reversion of title, and they're also involved in a lawsuit brought by the CRA against Sawyer's Walk Limited. Board Member Sanchez: Jesus Christ. Ms. Lewis: And the resolution does take that into -- it says, "subject to" in the resolution. Vice Chairman Winton: So, you need a motion? Chairman Teele: A motion, yes. Vice Chairman Winton: On lot 56, did we decide? Chairman Teele: Fifty-six, or the lot that's occupied by the buses. Vice Chairman Winton: Yeah. Whichever it is. Board Member Sanchez: Second. Dale Bryan. Mr. Chairman? 198 December 11, 2001 E Chairman Teele: Yes. i Mr. Bryan: Again, Dale Bryan, Poinciana Village. Are these lots part of the lots that were supposed to be part of the entire completed project for the Poinciana area there? Chairman Teele: No. Poinciana is only one block. That's one project. There is one component of Poinciana that has not been completed. There's another partnership in all of that. Mr. Bryan: OK. But that's part of the entire complete geographic area that we -- Chairman Teele: It's geographically near -- it's geographically within two blocks of Poinciana, yes. Mr. Bryan: All right. But, you know, as we understood it, that was all housing or housing/commercial. And what you're saying here now, we have the possibility of Camillus House being -- Chairman Teele: Yes, sir. Mr. Bryan: -- located there? Chairman Teele: Yes, sir. Mr. Bryan: This is news to us, sir. Vice Chairman Winton: Well, wherever it goes, it's going to be news to someone, I can assure you. Board Member Sanchez: Yeah. Chairman Teele: All right. On the motion, all those in favor -- we're not voting on anything but to -- sir, let me -- because, you know, this is this Marlins thing all over again. Government has to study certain things. We're not voting to do anything, but saying we're going to look at various locations. And what we've said, repeatedly, is that we're going to look at all of the locations that we can to provide a suitable place for the Camillus House. This is being added to the list of locations. All right? Mr. Bryan: OK. Thank you, sir. Board Member Sanchez: Call the question. Chairman Teele: All those in favor say "aye." The Board Members (Collectively): Aye. 199 December 11, 2001 0 Chairman Teele: All those opposed? The following resolution was introduced by Vice Chairman Winton, who moved for its adoption: SEOPW/CRA RESOLUTION NO. 01-152 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ("CRA") (SUBJECT MATTER: AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO OFFER BLOCK 56 TO CAMILLUS HOUSE AS AN ALTERNATE SITE IN ITS PLAN FOR RELOCATION). Upon being seconded by Board Member Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Board Member Angel Gonzalez Board Member Tomas Regalado Board Member Joe Sanchez NAYS: None ABSENT: None Chairman Teele: Are we doing a better job on updating the agreement? Have you all had conversations with us, and are we moving forward, sir? Peter England: I personally, have not, Mr. Chairman. But I believe that your representative and our -- your legal representative and ours have been in regular contact. Chairman Teele: Very good. Well, it's our intent to try to resolve this issue within the next 60 to 90 days, at least, preliminarily, to make a decision. Mr. England: Thank you. That would make us very happy. Appreciate it, Mr. Chairman. 200 December 11, 2001 0 . Chairman Teele: All right. We have one other item. What is the Victory issue -- the Victory for Youth? Annette Lewis (Executive Director): The Victory for Youth -- Chairman Teele: What's your recommendation? Ms. Lewis: I had originally ten thousand dollars ($10,000), sir. Board Member Sanchez: Sixteen. Ms. Lewis: The Victory for Youth -- and there is a representative -- two represent -- three. Chairman Teele: All right. Ms. Lewis: It is -- this is their second year of having this event, and -- Chairman Teele: Is it in the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) area? Ms, Lewis: No. The ten thousand was agreed to in terms of transportation for children located within the Overtown area to the event, which is -- was at the Tamiami. Board Member Sanchez: So move. Chairman Teale: All right. Moved by Commissioner Sanchez. Seconded by Commissioner Regalado. And it's subject to the expenditures, all being approved by the Executive Director for the appropriateness of them, consistent with the law. All right. All those in favor say "aye." The Board Members (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: All opposed? 201 December 11, 2001 0 . The following motion was introduced by Board Member Sanchez, who moved its adoption: SEOPW/CRA MOTION 01-153 A MOTION AUTHORIZING THE CRA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO EXPEND AN AMOUNT OF TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10,000) FOR TRANSPORTATION COSTS FOR CHILDREN WHO RESIDE WITHIN THE CRA AREA TO ATTEND THE "VICTORY FOR YOUTH VICTORY DAY" EVENTS, SUBJECT TO EXPENDITURES TO BEING APPROVED BY CRA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. Upon being seconded by Board Member Gonzalez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Board Member Angel Gonzalez Board Member Tomas Regalado Board Member Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Chairman Teele: Did you want to say something? Roland Gonzalez: Yes. I would just like to commend the CRA Board. I actually had a plaque. A lot of people don't know about Victory for Youth. And one of the reasons why I'm here is, the County actually -- and Mr. Teele and some of the Commissioners have been notified when I've been to your offices. We had over eleven thousand kids this year with Victory. I don't know the proper way of how our children of this community reach our different entities to request the funding, and what the issues are. We're working, as a new entity -- for this particular issue, we're working with Dade County School System. But I can surely tell you, we had three thousand kids that have issues in Victory for Youth on Victory Day. Some of those are families, and everything that is being passed to you right now is, actually, all the letters from the Department of Juvenile Justice, Children and Families, and all Dade County School systems. These are the kids that have the problems, and that's basically what we're doing now. Chairman Teele: All right. Next year, if we're going to be -- let's start early. We don't -- we can get buses cheaper probably than you can, in that we're -- Mr. Gonzalez: Well, I want to state for the record that this fund was not only for buses. Basically, these funds are actually to serve these kids with their needs and their problems. I have -- like I said, I want to state it for the record -- Chairman Teele: All right. 202 December 11, 2001 • 0 Mr. Gonzalez: -- that these are kids that are -- mothers that have tumors in their heads or they don't have any needs, and my job, as Victory for Youth -- and I want to state it as a record -- is that we provide these kids the services that this community and our tax dollars provide. Chairman Teele: And the resolution understands that, and requires that you and the Executive Director make sure that all of the CRA dollars are within the scope of what the CRA can spend its money for. Mr. Gonzalez: Thank you. Chairman Winton: And it seems to me that, particularly, because a goodly number of these dollars -- well, frankly, I guess I don't understand. It seems to me that one of the things that we ought to have is some sort of a report card at the end of the day that identifies the number -- because it is within the CRA boundaries, we ought to know how many children are served in whatever mechanism you're talking about in this service, which I don't get yet, because I thought it was all busing. But we ought to have some sort of report card at the end of the day about how many kids within the CRA district have been served. Mr. Gonzalez: Sixty-five percent are coming of Overtown, and the rest of the whole community, just for your records. And it's all in black and white. Chairman Winton: Sixty-five percent of your eleven thousand came from Overtown? Mr. Gonzalez: No. I said sixty-five percent of the kids that have needs are coming from the Overtown. Board Member Winton: Well, what's -- sixty-five percent of what, then? You said -- what was the -- Mr. Gonzalez: I said their needs. Their needs, meaning that each kids that -- each of these Commissioners have been told -- they have their own writing and their own needs that they have. Whether they can graduate from fifth grade -- Board Member Winton: How many kids is that? Mr. Gonzalez: Sixty-five percent of three thousand, sir. Board Member Winton: Oh, sixty-five percent of three thousand. Mr. Gonzalez: That's correct. Chairman Teele: All right. Mr. Gonzalez: That wrote to victory. Those are the issues that I have to handle now. 203 December 11, 2001 Chairman Teele: Let me just tell you one thing, because I don't want to get this record too far afoul, and we've got a lot of other people waiting. Mr. Gonzalez: Right, Chairman Teele: You need to sit down with the Executive Director and work -- the CRA is not about Overtown, OK. The CRA is about one eighth of Overtown and, candidly, it stops at 14th Street. Most of the folk that live in Overtown live north of 14th Street. So, we need to be careful that we're using the redevelopment dollars for redevelopment, for the people that live in the area. But, you know, we're not going to split hairs. You've been approved and you're going to have to work that out with them, and we're happy to be of service to you. But I don't want anyone assuming that Overtown is the CRA, because we're not. We're a very, very small part of Overtown and, unfortunately, the part where very few people live. It stops at 95. Mr. Gonzalez: Thank you. Chairman Teele: Two quick things. The City Attorney -- the Attorney has asked that we pass a resolution authorizing the filing of the — William Bloom (Special Counsel, CRA): Declaratory judgment. Chairman Teele: -- declaratory judgment on — Mr. Bloom: Poinciana Village Limited Partnership, Chairman Teele: On Poinciana Village Partnership relating to the uncompleted phase; is that correct? Mr. Bloom: That's correct. Board Member Sanchez: So moved. Chairman Teele: Moved by -- Board Member Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Teele: Moved by Commissioner Sanchez. Seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez. Is there any need for clarification, Mr. Attorney? We've got this. We need to make sure we get the resolution done. All those in favor say "aye." The Board Members (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Teele: All opposed? 204 December 11, 2001 E 0 The following resolution was introduced by Board Member Sanchez, who moved its adoption: SEOPW/CRA RESOLUTION 01-151 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ("CRA") (SUBJECT MATTER: ON BEHALF OF THE CRA, AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ON POINCIANA VILLAGE PARTNERSHIP RELATING TO THE UNCOMPLETED PHASE). (Here follows body of the resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Board Member Gonzalez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Board Member Angel Gonzalez Board Member Tomas Regalado Board Member Joe Sanchez NAYS: None ABSENT: None 205 December 11, 2001 • Chairman Teele: Motion to adjourn. Before we do, is Mr. Sanchez here? Is it Sanchez, George Sanchez? Board Member Sanchez: No, he's not here. Chairman Teele: Just so that everybody is aware, the -- Board Member Sanchez: But that's during Commission meeting. Chairman Teele: Huh? Board Member Sanchez: It's during the Commission meeting. Chairman Tecle: It's during the Commission meeting? No. This party is going to -- this reception is going to be -- it starts at 10 o'clock, is that right? Ten thirty. Annette Lewis (Acting Executive Director): That is correct, on the 13th. Chairman Teele: On the 13th, 10:30 p.m. And this is going to be the place to be, the Ice Palace, At 10:30 it starts. Board Member Sanchez: It's all right. I'll be there. Chairman Teele: It's one of those kinds of parties. Board Member Sanchez: I'll be there. Chairman Teele: And the City staff, we need to get the word out. But this is a part of the art basel, and it's the improvements or the art statement underneath 95 -- underneath 395. Motion to adjourn -- Board Member Sanchez: So moved. Chairman Teele: -- by Commissioner Sanchez. It's seconded. All in favor say "aye." The Board Members (Collectively): Aye. 206 December 11, 2001 • E The following motion was introduced by Board Member Sanchez, who moved for its adoption: SEOPW/CRA MOTION 01-155 A MOTION TO ADJOURN TODAY'S COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) MEETING. Upon being seconded by Board Member Regalado, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Board Member Angel Gonzdlez Board Member Tomas Regalado Board Member Joe Sanchez NAYS: None .ABSENT: None Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman of the Commission, I apologize for taking so long. Board Member Regalado: No problem. 207 December 11, 2001 0 u There being no further business to come before the Community Redevelopment Agency for the Southeast Overtown/Park West and Omni District, the meeting was adjourned at 5:23 p.m. ARTHUR E. TEELE, JR. Chairman ATTEST; WALTER J. FOEMAN, City Clerk SYLVIA SCHEIDER, Assistant City Clerk THEREUPON, THE CITY COMMISSION, IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARKWEST COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, ADJOURNED CONSIDERATION OF THE HEREINABOVE ISSUES, IN ORDER TO RESUME CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING AND ZONING AGENDA ITEMS. 208 December 11, 2001 E Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, I think we have to -- Chairman Regalado: Yes, sir. • Commissioner Sanchez: We have one item that we need to address, and that's the Raceworks. Chairman Regalado: Yeah, yeah, First, 1 just wanted to find out how many people we have here on different issues, and maybe we can accommodate in terms of numbers. We're going to jump through PZ (Planning and Zoning) items. So you are here for? Yes, you. Unidentified Speaker: Item 5, Chairman Regalado: Item 5. How many people are here for Item 5. Unidentified Speaker: Mr. Chairman, some of them are still outside parking. Chairman Regalado: Wow. Unidentified Speaker: There are probably like five more. Chairman Regalado: Wow. OK. And you? Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning and Zoning): We're ready to go. PZ -1. Chairman Regalado: PZ -1. So, Commissioner, we're going to do -- try to do some PZ, and then come back to the Raceworks, because I'm sure that some people will have questions and -- so, PZ -1. PZ -1 is a Major Use Special Permit for the 1800 Club Project. Lourdes. Ms. Slazyk: Thank you. For the record, Lourdes Slazyk, Planning and Zoning Department. PZ - I is a Major Use Special Permit for the 1800 Club Project at 1800 -- Chairman Regalado: Excuse me. Lourdes, just for -- to be ready, 1 need to swear in everybody who is going to be talking on this issue. So, Sylvia can you? Sylvia Scheider (Assistant City Clerk): Could you raise your right hand, please? Do you solemnly -- 209 December 11, 2001 Chairman Regalado: bold on. Maybe the PZ -- all the PZ items that need to be sworn in, so we can -- of the public. Hello? If you want to speak, just raise your hand and -- Ms. Scheider: If you're going to speak on the record, you need to stand and be sworn. Chairman Regalado: OK. We're ready. Ms. Scheider: No. All PZ. Chairman Regalado: All PZ. I'm talking all PZ. AT THIS POINT, THE ASSISTANT CITY CLERK ADMINISTERED OATH REQUIRED UNDER CITY CODE SECTION 62-1 TO THOSE PERSONS GIVING TESTIMONY ON ZONING ISSUES. Chairman Regalado: OK, PZ -1. Lourdes, go ahead. Ms. Slazyk: OK. This is a Major Use Special Permit for the 1800 Club Project. It will consist of 450 residential units, with some non-residential space; 36,818 square feet of retail and other non- residential space, and 670 parking spaces. The Department has recommended approval with conditions and it was recommended, for approval, by the Planning Advisory Board by a vote of six to zero. The conditions are pretty much the standard conditions in a Major Use Special Permit, including the applicant continuing to work with the Planning and Zoning Department on the final design for the 18th Street facade at the ground level, in order to diminish the appearance of the blank wall along the street. That was the only portion of the project where, because of FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) regulations, it was lifted up and we want to keep working with thein on a nice landscape treatment for the 18th Street facade. Otherwise, we recommend approval. Chairman Regalado: OK. I was hoping that Commissioner Winton will be here, and I guess they went to get him, and this is his district. So, Vicky, go ahead. Vicky Garcia -Toledo: For the record Vicky Garcia -Toledo, with offices at 2500 First Union Financial Center. And I'm here today representing the property owner, the Ader Family, as well as the owners of the contract to purchase the property BCOM, represented by its principals, Michael Baumann and Aslan Palachi. The project that you have before you is at the intersection -- at the corner of North Bayshore Drive and 18th Street, and is the site of memories for a lot of Miamians who lived through the 70s and the 80s and went to the parties at the 1800 Club. It is approximately 1.4 acres net. The property is zoned SD -6, and the land use category permits and allows the project as it's being envisioned and presented to you. The interesting fact about this property is that this is in the downtown master plan for high density. That high density is 500 units per acre, which means this site would comfortably accommodate, by law, and be allowed to be developed with 700 units. Actually, this request is only for 450 units, 250 units less than what could be built here. We are also only using 75 percent of the density for FAR (Floor Area Ratio) permitted on the site. It is a true mixed use with residential units, office, retail and a very exciting recreational deck design that you will hear more about from the architect. It overlooks 210 December 11, 2001 • Biscayne Bay. It's directly across the street from Margaret Pace Park. As I said before, this project is consistent with the comprehensive neighborhood plan and the zoning classification. It is also consistent with the requirements of Chapter 17, your Major Use Special Permit, as well as special permits in general under Chapter 13. The record is supported by substantial competent evidence as presented by the City of Miami in their analysis, as well as their development order and by the MUSP (Major Use Special Permit) book, which is supported by reports from all the professionals that are required to speak as to the consistency of this project with your land use and zoning categories. This project is free of any variances or special exception, and has recommended approval from the Large Scale Development Committee, the Urban Design Review Board and the Planning Advisory Board. At this time, I would like to introduce Rai Fernandez from Bermello & Aj amil, who will introduce the physical characteristics and architectural design of the project for you. Rai Fernandez: Thank you very much. Commissioners, what I'd like to do is take you through the different areas of this project, how one would arrive at the project, whether a visitor, or someone living there or someone working there, and then the relationships to the adjoining properties. And I would like to first start by quickly referencing, obviously, Margaret Pace Park and how the building fronts that park and really the main entrance, the main pedestrian area is responding directly to the park. As we look at the overall site, the park being in this general area, if you arrive by vehicular area, you would be coming into a drive area right at this point, where you can then make the decision to either drop off your car or drive into the parking lot itself. The parking structure is completely buffered. It will not be seen by any of the streets anywhere. As you can see, we have landscaped the whole perimeter of the site again, at the pedestrian level to buffer, as well as begin to respond to the park area itself. We have an entry series of steps, which really becomes almost like a very active area in that -- and by the way, if I could just quickly mention, this is in a flood zone, and we had to elevate the building approximately eight feet or so. But we've done that by creating a series of terraces, which will soften this kind of very massive series of steps. That will do two things: It will allow far activities, such as a restaurant that happened on that main level to then introduce other activities in the different terraces. We hope that this will have -- you know, there's going to be areas where you can sit out and overlook. As you look at -- for instance, in this series of facades, or in here you would have different terraces that will be overlooking the park area. There will be outdoor, as well as indoor, activities as part of that restaurant. The main Iobby of the building occurs at that level, and then again you have parking that is completely buffered from the actual street area. Moving up the building, we have a series of floors that are now dedicated to offices. Two levels that are completely dedicated to offices, and again they become complete buffering of the parking and anyone working there can have direct access from their parking area into those office levels. As we continue up the building, we now begin to -- as we continue up the building, we're now -- starting on level 4, what we now introduce is a kind of a series of town homes that anyone living in those particular units can, again, park at that level and have direct access into their individual units. And you'll notice that, at the corner, we've introduced a three-bedroom living unit that will have complete balconies all the way around. And the purpose of this element is not only to address, obviously, the termination of the street, but also to maximize the views over the parking area and the bay. Again, continuing up, we now come to -- on the 9th level, the main pool deck that sits on top of the parking area. And there, what we've done is, we've again introduced two level units that are really kind of cabana homes, if you will, that will be having direct access, 211 December 11, 2001 0 i obviously privately buffered, but will have direct access onto the pool area. What's nice about this particular area is we have the gym, and then an open area, which will give you complete views all the way through to the bay. If you look at the model, you'll begin to see there's a double height space that will allow someone on that pool deck to move up to that edge and get a complete view out. So we've tried to, wherever possible, really reference and continue to reinforce the fact that the water is a major component in designing this project. We then continue up the building again, looking at the units that now sit -- this is the two-story units that would again have free view, both to the deck, as well as to the street. And now we're into the portion of the building that kind of continues to have continuous floor levels. This particular one is from the I lth through the 35th. One of the buildings will be a single loaded, where units will only be to one side of the corridor. The other part of the building will be double loaded. So, again, some of the units will be giving the water view; other units will be having the deck view and part of the City view. And then this portion of the building, then we'll continue on up to approximately 401h floor, where you will have a single loaded component. And you'll notice that, again, that very strong three-bedroom units with the balconies all around occurs at the corner of the building from top to bottom. I would like to quickly address some of the landscaping issues. Maybe we can have Elizabeth Newland, Director of Landscaping, just quickly touch on some of the landscaping components, and how we're treating particularly the ground level area. Elizabeth Newland: This particular diagram here is the materials we've selected for the project. But I think it's important to look here because that kind of gives you a relationship of how the new building will relate to the proposed amenities for Margaret Pace Park. This is the central plaza for the park that aligns with 18'h Street. And also we've related how the street, trees and palms are being used with the park, as well as with the project. As Rai mentioned, the restaurant level will have views into the park. So, on the building side of the street we've kept palm trees, so we can keep a clear view into the park space. And we've connected up, from a pedestrian standpoint, with a larger plaza space on the corner, at the intersection of North Bayshore Drive and 18t" Street, again to provide pedestrian connections across Bayshore Drive into this larger plaza space for the park. From a planting standpoint -- this gives you a little more detail of the large specimen palm trees at the front of the project. As Rai mentioned, we're stepping down with terracing and planting, as well as the center of drop-off for the project, the more cylindrical shape. We're reinforcing that with planting at the ground level. As was mentioned, this facade along 18th Street, we're proposing a palm tree, low growing medium palms at that fagade, as well as vines up the fagade of the building and ground covering along the; street. Again, we're repeating a theme that's already established on Northeast 18" Street for formal palm trees, and we're completing that and kind of bringing around the corner. This is the large entry plaza and again the driveway into the building. On this north side of the project, we're including shade trees to provide buffering between this and adjacent projects. Vice Chairman Winton: Can you show me -- I don't understand the restaurant, yet. Mr. Fernandez: OK. Vice Chairman Winton: Particularly, when I look at the model there. 212 December 11, 2001 0 i Mr. Fernandez: Basically, what happens, as you terrace up, you'll be able to park underneath, and then the restaurant level will occur at that main terracing area. Vice Chairman Winton: Both indoor and outdoor? Mr. Fernandez: Correct. As -- you would come up. At that point, you can make a decision to go into the building or go into what would be the restaurant, or any shops that may be at that level. Vice Chairman Winton: OK. Thank you. And that's how many feet, getting up those steps? Mr. Fernandez: Approximately eight feet or so. But we've done it in a way where you go up a series of levels and you're in a -- kind of a platform area; then you go up again, platform area. And the idea being that, to soften that kind of harsh, you know, pyramid area that would typically occur. But you'll see, you come up to a terrace level and you would come up again. Vice Chairman Winton: Thank you. Lourdes Slazyk: Yeah, that was a FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) requirement that they had to do that. Oh, the conditions, I had already put in the record. The only part of -- it's the standard conditions in a major use regarding the construction parking plan and all the covenants, but the only other one was the one that we wanted to keep working with them on the 18th Street facade. That is where there's, because of the FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) requirements, the blank walls and we want to work with them on the softening and the landscape, and they did mention some of that in the presentation. So the only condition is that we keep working with them and they bring, you know, the final plan to us for a final review and approval for the landscape in order to diminish the harsh edge on 18th Chairman Regalado: Commissioner -- Vice Chairman Winton, do we want to just keep listening to the proponent? Or is there anybody in the public that wish to be heard? Anybody in opposition? Anybody in favor? Ms. Garcia -Toledo: In favor. Vice Chairman Winton: So, there's no opposition here? Chairman Regalado: There is no opposition here. So, can -- Commissioner Winton. Vice Chairman Winton: I would like -- Chairman Regalado: Do you wish to close the public hearing, Mr. City Attorney? Mrs. Garcia -Toledo: If I just may. We have all of our consultants here, in case you have any questions. But their reports are in the MUSP and part of the record. Vice Chairman Winton: Close. No opposition, so -- 213 December 11, 2001 E 0 Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): If you desire, you can close the; public hearing and go into discussion among the Board members. Chairman Regalado: Then, we close the public hearing and proceed with Commissioner -- Vice Chairman Winton. Vice Chairman Winton: I would like to move staff's recommendation for approval of this project, subject to the conditions that were read into the record. Also, I would like to request, during construction phase, a decorative construction fence. You know, something that makes the neighborhood look good. So, you work with staff and that's it. Commissioner ,Sanchez: Second. Commissioner Teele: Second the motion. Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Chairman Regalado: There is a motion and a second. All in favor say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Regalado: It passes. The following resolution was introduced by Vice Chairman Winton, who moved for its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 01-1272 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENTS, APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 13 AND 17 OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, FOR THE 1800 CLUB PROJECT, TO BE LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1800 NORTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO BE COMPRISED OF A RESIDENTIAL TOWER WITH NOT MORE THAN 450 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, ACCESSORY RECREATIONAL SPACE, 36,818 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL AND OFFICE USES AND 670 PARKING SPACES; DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE HEREIN RESOLUTION; MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATING CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; PROVIDING FOR BINDING EFFECT; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 214 December 11, 2001 i • Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Tomas Regalado Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. NAYS: None ABSENT: None Commissioner Sanchez: Wonderful presentation. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: And If I may. Chairman Regalado: Thank you very much. Thank you. You did a great job. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: I would like to take just one second to thank your staff. They worked very hard with us on the design of this project, and it was appreciated. Chairman Regalado: Thank you. Vice Chairman Winton: And I think we ought to reiterate that. You know, we said it at the last P&Z meeting, where a major, major project went through in ten minutes. This is another major, major project that went through in ten minutes. And the reason that it went through in ten minutes here is because the developer was out talking to the community and the developer was working hand-in-hand with staff before it even got here, so that they knew clearly what the City is trying to create for our new City of Miami. And the developer, Mr. Baumann, I think, did an outstanding job of encouraging all of his consultants to work directly with the City, very closely with the City and the neighborhoods, and that's the reason we ended up with a good project here and a ten-minute process. Thank you. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Thank you. Commissioner Teele: Happy holidays to you. Chairman Regalado: OK, on PZ -2. Vice Chairman Winton: Much easier than the last one on (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Chairman Regalado: Do we have anybody on PZ -2 here? Anybody on PZ -2? We don't. So, we have -- ladies -- 215 December 11, 2001 LI 0 Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, before you do, I'd just like to acknowledge the family of the late Mr. Ader. I know that he's smiling down looking at his fine family, and we appreciate the contributions that the Ader family and Mr. Ader made in assembling; that block back in the `50s. Thank you. Chairman Regalado: Thank you. And welcome. 216 December 11, 2001 i 0 5: CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED ,SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE TO AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE :J 1.000 TO `.MODIFY PARKING RATES TO .BE CHARGED BY PRIVATE GARAGES WITHIN SU47 SOUTH BAYSHORE; 'DRIVE OVERLAY DISTRICT TO COMIVIISSION MEETING 'CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 24, .2002IN ORDER, TO ALLOW CONCERNED PARTIES. TO NEGOTIATE AN AGREEMENT: Chairman Rcgalado: So what we're going to do, we're going to jump to PZ -5, because we have several people here that would like to be heard. PZ -5, it's a second reading ordinance to amend Ordinance 11000. The applicant is the City of Miami. And the purpose is to modify the parking rates to be charged by private garage. Lourdes. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning and Zoning): Thank you. What this ordinance is trying to do is to -- in SD -17 there is a provision that FAR (Floor Area Ratio) bonuses could be obtained for providing publicly accessible parking, excess parking in a project. Because the Grove has such a shortage of parking, this was something that was put into the ordinance as an incentive to build public parking in the Grove to help that shortage. That ordinance right now ties the fees that can be charged from the garage to the metered rates, as charged by DOSP (Department of Off -Street Parking) in the Grove. This amendment seeks to change that to match DOSP's garage rates, except for public facilities, from the hours of lam to Spm. In which case, they would charge the same as the metered rates as set by code. The purpose of that is so that the public facilities, like the parks and the library and anything within 375 feet of the garage, could still get the benefits of a public metered rate; yet, the garage could make, you know, the economics, the numbers work to support the garage by exceeding that to match the garage rate for other hours, the late night hours, when there is more of a demand. This has been recommended for approval by the Coconut Grove Parking Advisory Committee, and this is second reading before you. I also have to put into the record -- I corrected this at the last -- at first reading on the record -- Page 3 and page 4 of the ordinance, at the top paragraph where it's underlined, it should not say "metered rate of a dollar- twenty -live ($1.25)." It should say, "Metered rate as specified by code." The zoning ordinance doesn't set the rate. The Code does. And I want to make that correction again for the record, so that the final legislation has that in there. You know, otherwise, you know, we -- the Department recommends approval, We believe that the intent of the ordinance, that the public metered rate be what's available for the public facilities within the area, is still being adhered to in this ordinance and we recommend approval. Commissioner Sanchez: So moved. Chairman Regalado: OK. This is a public hearing, so anybody who wants to get in line, I guess, to speak. Lucia. Lucia Dougherty: Good evening Mr. Chairman, members of the Board„ My name is Lucia Dougherty, with offices at 1221 Bricicell Avenue. First of all, let me congratulate you, Commissioner Teele and Commissioner Sanchez, for your re-election, and Commissioner Angel Gonzalez for your election. 217 Dccernber 11, 2001 0 . Commissioner Gonzalez: Thank you. Ms. Dougherty: For those of us who stand on this side of the podium, we realize that this is, to some extent, a thankless job and you should be commended for holding yourself up to serve the public as you do, and we thank you. Commissioner Sanchez: Or this torture. Ms. Dougherty: Especially in times like this, when there's going to be arguments like we had before you. Anyway, I'm here with Ricardo Dunin, who's the owner of the Mutiny. He is the developer of this project, which is a seventy million dollar ($70,000,000) project. The garage alone cost three point five million dollars ($3,500,000). At the time that this facility was built, we did get, in fact, a bonus. And it was the City who said, "Listen, we need intercept parking garages in the Grove. We need them one, at this location. We should have one where the DOSP garage is. We should have one down at the other end, near the post office facility." And, so, it was actually with the encouragement of the City that we -- the ordinance was amended to reflect the exact same provision that has already taken place for the GDC garage, which is 'now called "The Teremark. So in other words, Teremarlk and the Mutiny Garage or the Mutiny Project were the two projects that got bonuses, bonus FARs (Floor Area Ratio) in return for building a public garage. We, in fact, built 187 public parking spaces. The thing about it is the ordinance that was provided for the GDC garage -- and, by the way, they never complied with the ordinance. That building has never charged Off -Street parking meter rates. They don't today. They never have. That provision of the Code got put into this one. It did so without us ever thinking about it at the tune that it went into effect. But what we realize today is that this garage cannot be supported. We can't pay for the services. We can't pay for the security. We can't pay for the other things that maintain a viable garage. And, remember, we did this without support or subsidies; whereas, you have the Off -Street Parking Authority garage built with an Off -Street Packing subsidy. They don't pay ad -valorem taxes. We have to pay ad -valorem taxes on our garage. All we're asking for is a fair and equitable amount of money to charge. We do not mind -- we're not asking for market rate. We're asking to be able to charge, in our garage, the same amount of money that the Off -Street Parking Garage charges in their garage, with one caveat. In our provision of the ordinance, not the GDC portion, we also agree that the property owner shall make the necessary arrangements, acceptable to the City, to ensure that all public facilities located within 375 feet of the property shall be afforded an hourly rate, not to exceed the public metered rate of a dollar and twenty-five ($1.25) -- that's what it is now -- but whatever's in the Code. Commissioner TeeIe: Not to what? Ms. Dougherty: Not to exceed what's ever in the Code. Right now it's a dollar twenty-five ($1.25) in the Code. Vice Chairman Winton: Isn't it a dollar ($1)? It's a dollar ($1) now, because we changed it. Ms. Dougherty: It's not in the Code as a dollar ($]). That's what he's charging in Coconut Grove. It's not in the Code as a dollar ($1). 218 December 11, 2001 0 i Art Noriega: The Code still allows a maximum -- I'm sorry. Art Noriega, Executive Director, Department of Off -Street Parking. The Code still allows for a dollar twenty-five ($1.25). We have reduced the rates to a dollar ($1). But the Code specifically lists that you can charge up to. Vice Chairman Winton: Thank you. Ms. Dougherty: And this is important because why should a public garage -- a garage that is privately owned be subject to, you know, what you all decide you want to do for the public elsewhere? I mean, we still have to pay the same amount of people for the services, and the machines, and the paper and all that kind of stuff. So, we are still willing to have this metered rate for the public facilities. And we -- those public facilities include the park across the street, the NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) Office and the public library, We have been contacted by the Women's Club, who, by the way, is a good neighbor of ours. In fact, when we built this project, we donated to them a hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) as part of our development. So, we have been a part of and we wish their success. But, anyway, they have been approached to us and they said, "Well, this language does not include us." We said, we're happy to include them. We'll put "And Women's Club" in the ordinance. They said, "Well, we'd also like you to charge a dollar ($1)," but then they agreed to a dollar twenty-five ($1.25). But we want you to do it in increments of every 15 minutes. And our operator says, "I can't buy machines. I have existing machines that have a dollar twenty-five ($1.25). I'm not going to buy a machine that does 25 -minute increments. I can't afford to build a garage or operate a garage for thirty cents ($0.30), when somebody comes and drives in." So, that's not something that's going to be acceptable to us. And there was a third thing that they asked for, which we agreed to. They would like signage on the outside of the garage that says that we will provide public -- so that people know that there is this public metered rate for public facilities, which we're happy to put on as part of this ordinance amendment. Commissioner Teele: Let me ask you this. Mr. Chairman, Chairman Regalado; Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: Do you'll get an ad valorem deduction for this space? I mean, is this -- Ms. Dougherty: Of course not. We have to pay ad -valorem taxes for this space, full ad -valorem taxes. Vice Chairman Winton: The bonus they got was extra building to build the building. Extra building allowance, that's the bonus they got. Commissioner Teele: So, what they got was FAR (Floor Area Ratio), is more height? Ms. Dougherty: We got more building -- correct. Vice Chairman Winton: More height. More rentable space. 219 December 11, 2001 0 0 Commissioner Teele: Square footage. Ms. Dougherty: More square footage. Vice Chairman Winton: And that's not an insignificant bonus. Ms. Dougherty: No. It is significant. And that's what allowed us to build a public parking garage when nobody else would, without a subsidy. There wasn't anybody coming to build a public parking garage in Coconut Grove. And, frankly, we have to compete with the Mayfair and Coco Walk and this garage, which, frankly, during the week are empty. So, we're coming around a situation now where we still have to support the garage. We still have to pay for the maintenance, the cleaning, the service, the security, et cetera, and we need to make this a viable garage. We agree -- Vice Chairman Winton: So, what are you getting to, then? What is the bottom line? Ms. Dougherty: We agree with the ordinance that the City would like. We cannot agree with something that reduces that down to 15 -minute increments. That's all -- Vice Chairman Winton: Are we asking for 15 -minute increments? Ms. Dougherty: No. The -- Vice Chairman Winton: Or just the Women's Club is? Ms. Dougherty: The Women's Club at this point. Vice Chairman Winton: OK, Ms. Dougherty: And that concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Vice Chairman Winton: So, wait a minute. Just so I understand. What you're saying is that you're agreeing to everything that's in this ordinance? Ms. Dougherty: That's correct. And in addition to that -- Vice Chairman Winton: You're agreeing to everything that the Women's Club has asked for, except the 15 -minute increment; is that what you're saying? Ms. Dougherty: That's what I'm saying. Vice Chairman Winton: OK. I'm clear. Thank you. Chainnan Regalado: Go ahead 220 December 11, 2001 Tucker Gibbs: My name is Tucker Gibbs and I represent the Coconut Grove Women's Club. And I wanted to clarify some things. Yes, we've been in discussions, but one of the big issues about this ordinance to the Women's Club and the patrons of the library and other people who are affected by this ordinance is the fact we never got notice of this ordinance. I know it passed unanimously on first reading. It was at the Planning Advisory Board, and the rest of it. But in terms of being given notice to the Women's Club, who is next door, and to the library, which is next door, we didn't get notice. And as Lourdes and Dena are saying, they are not required to give us notice, and we recognize that. However, when something is impacting the library-- and the Coconut Grove Womens' Club issue is the library. It is not the Women's Club. When we were talking to Lucia, she said, "Would you give up your interest in parking spaces at the public rate?" Which is something that, right now, we're entitled to. "Would you give it up for the 15 - minute increments for the library?" We said "Yes," because for the Women's Club, the issue of publicly metered parking rates, at 15 -minute increments, is critical. Why is it critical? The Coconut Grove Public Library is a small library. It is the oldest library in Dade County. This library is used by people who live in Coconut Grove, mainly, and there is no parking. Why is there no parking? Well, one, the Mutiny is being built for the past several years and the parking spaces that were in front of the Mutiny, or the American Legion post that used to be there, are gone. They're not there anymore. There are approximately five spaces right now, which are going to reduced for a -- because of a County road improvement project on McFarlane Road, down to two, So parking, now, which used to have approximately -- what, 12 parking spaces? -- is now going to be down to two parking spaces, metered parking spaces. There was a meeting the other day at the City of Miami NET Office regarding parking and the improvement to McFarlane Road. The library and the Women's Club asked representatives of the Mutiny, "What about the parking in your public -- in your parking garage? It's supposed to be for the public." "That will be metered parking rate parking for everybody," correct? Is that what he said? So that was the impression that we got. I saw this ordinance. The ordinance didn't say that. The ordinance said that, unlike -- well, let's go back a little bit. When the Mutiny got its approvals, the ordinance read that they would provide parking to the public at metered parking rates. That means whether I went to Johnny Rockets, The Coconut Grove Playhouse, St. Stevens Church, the park or anywhere, it was at parking meter rates. This ordinance says something different. It says, if you're going to the library, the park, a public facility, it's at parking meter rates. But if you're going to a restaurant, you're going to the church, you're going to the Women's Club, it's going to be at the rate of the public parking garage provided by DOSP -- but Oak Avenue, which is two dollars ($2) an hour, instead of the one dollar ($1) an our. And the question is, Mr. Dunin and the Mutiny, when they built their building, when they applied for their building permits, when they got their Major Use Special Permit, they got it based on the old ordinance. They were allowed to build this parking garage, which has 187 parking spaces. And for those 187 parking spaces, they were given 350 feet for every parking space, 350 square feet, in additional floor/area ratio. That is 65,450 additional square feet on that building. And I want you all to imagine 65,000 square feet. I'm not a developer, but I'm working on my little office building. Let's say it's a hundred dollars ($100) a square foot that that's worth. That's over six point five million dollars (6,500,000) in additional rentable, leaseable area that they now have -- or salable area that they now have up there. That's what they got in exchange for providing public parking to the public and, as they agreed in their Major Use Special Permit, at parking meter rates. Why are they coming back? The implication is that this sprung from the brow of the City Planning Department, that the Planning Department thought this is an important issue 221 December 11, 2001 and it needs to be addressed, and presented it to the Planning Advisory Board, and presented it to the Off -Street Parking Committee in Coconut Grove, but that isn't the case. I don't think it did come — Lourdes, did it come from your Department or was it suggested by Mr. Dunin? Ms. Slazyk: I can't answer who it was suggested by. But it was the Coconut Gove Parking Advisory Committee who made a recommendation and brought it to the Planning Department. But it -- it initiated there at the parking -- Mr. Gibbs: I'd like to ask Art Noriega, did it come from them? Chairman Regalado: Excuse me. Excuse me. Mr. Gibbs: I'd like the opportunity just to ask the question. Chairman Regalado: Yeah. Mr. Gibbs: Because I want to clarify the fact that this is not an issue that came from the Department. It came from a developer who already got a bonus from the existing ordinance, and now wants to increase that bonus. And the issue -- you want to talk about fundamental fairness to the public? The public wants to be able to park, put their quarter in the meter, and be able to go to the library, or go to a restaurant in Coconut Grove. Now what they get -- and this is what Mr. Dunin got. This is what the Mutiny got, and they got their bonus for it. Now they want to come back and change the rules again. And they want to say, "Wait a minute. We can't make enough money. I mean, the six million dollars {$6,000,000} is not enough. We need to make more money on the parking, so we need to increase it." What is the public good? What is the public purpose of the ordinance? And what's the burning issue of the ordinance? Because their operator, Mr. Silver -- Vice Chairman Winton: Well, it ain't rent control, I could tell you that, Tucker. Mr. Gibbs: Well, no, I understand that. Vice Chairman Winton: So -- Mr. Gibbs: But the public purpose is, supposedly, to serve the public, who uses the library -- Vice Chairman Winton: And that's to provide parking, that's the public purpose. Mr. Gibbs: And to provide parking at rates. Vice Chairman Winton: And it is not rent control. Mr. Gibbs: No. But to provide parking at -- they made the deal, Commissioner Winton. 222 December 1 l , 2001 0 0 Vice Chairman Winton: Oh, I'm going to ask that question. I want to see the document, because I think that's a pivotal issue. If the document says that the rate's based on parking meter rates, then this -- we can stop wasting all of our time. If it says -- Mr. Gibbs: Well, this is the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) of the ordinance, and that's the original -- the ordinance that was in effect then said "parking meter rates." Vice Chairman Winton: So, do we have a copy of that document? I mean, because I'm getting a headache just thinking about this. I don't -- Ms. Dougherty: I can -- Mr. Gibbs: Believe me, so are we, and we've been sitting here for three hours listening. Ms. Dougherty: I can tell you how it started. Commissioner Teele: Well, guess what, I've been here a little more than three hours today. I mean, but I'll tell you this, this is a bad deal for government. And, you know, Commissioner Winton's got his point of view. I have my point of view. Government has no business being in this. You know, this is a bad matter getting worse and worse and worse.. And the truth of the matter is that -- I mean, I don't know anything about the developer, with all due respect to you, sir, your good name and reputation, I'm sure. But this is a horrible kind of situation for us to be involved in. Can't you rent this thing over to Off Strect Parking? I mean, you know, the idea -- are we still arguing about 15 minutes versus 25 minutes? Ms. Dougherty: Let me -- Commissioner Teele: Does this come down to that? Or is this something else? I mean -- (INAUDIBLE COMMENTS) Commissioner Teele: No, no, no, no, no. Does this come down to 15 minutes versus 25 minutes? because we've gone all around Robinhood's barn. But I still want to know, is the issue 15 minutes versus 25 minutes? Ms. Dougherty: The issue is that -- Chairman Regalado: I think that -- Ms. Dougherty: Let me just say this -- Chairman Regalado: Excuse me, Lucia. Ms. Dougherty: Yes, sir, Mr. Commissioner, Chairman Regalado: I think, Commissioner, it's about buying new equipment. That's -- 223 December 11, 2001 Mr. Gibbs: It's about honoring your agreement, is what it's about. Ms. Dougherty: Let me just say one thing. Right now -- and this maybe would answer Commissioner Winton's -- Commissioner Teele: Could you answer my question, please? Ms. Dougherty: Yes. It's about 15 minutes. Commissioner Teele: This whole issue gets down to whether or not we're going to charge -- we, the City, are going to impose on a private developer -- Forget the FAR and all that. That's done. It's done. Are we going to require a private developer to charge 15 minutes versus 25 minutes? Ms. Dougherty: Versus an hour. Yes. Chairman Regalado: Excuse me. Ms. Dougherty: Let me -- the ordinance -- let me just make something clear. The ordinance currently -- Commissioner Teele: This is incredible Ms. Dougherty: -- does not require us to do that. Vice Chairman Winton: To do what? Ms. Dougherty: To charge on a fifteen -minute increment. It requires us to charge Off -Street Parking meter rates, which is a dollar twenty-five ($1.25) an hour. Mr. Gibbs: The pari{ is getting screwed. Ms. Dougherty: It does not require us to do fifteen -minute increments, under the current ordinance. Mr. Gibbs: That's not the issue. Vice Chairman Winton: And I can tell you, with all due respect, 1 am absolutely not going to require the developer to change out his equipment so he can do fifteen -minute increments. Mr. Gibbs: OK. No. And I'm not asking you do that, Commissioner. And, Commissioner Teele, to answer your question, the reason is that people made agreements -- wait a minute. People make -- Commissioner Teele: That wasn't my question. 224 December 11, 2001 Mr. Gibbs: Is it about 15 minutes? Commissioner Teele: My question is, is this about fifteen -minute increments -- Mr. Gibbs: No, it's not. Ms. Dougherty: Yes, Commissioner Teele: -- versus 25 -minute increments? Mr. Gibbs: No. It's about -- and I will tell you what it's about. It's about when people make an agreement and get something from the City -- wait a minute. It's important. When people make an agreement with the City of Miami, and that agreement -- Ms. Dougherty: There was no agreement. Mr. Gibbs: -- they got benefits from that agreement and now they're coming back and saying, "You know what? We want more." Vice Chairman Winton: Then make it clear. I've heard that line, Tucker. Make it clear what the point is here. What is it you want? I still don't get it. Mr. Gibbs: We want to go back to the original -- we don't want this amendment. Vice Chairman Winton: What is it? Mr. Gibbs: What we want is, we want public parking there, like the original ordinance said, at parking meter rates. That's it. We want you to vote against this ordinance. Ms. Slazyk: It would be one twenty-five an hour, and -- (INAUDIBLE COMMENTS) Vice Chairman Winton: What do you all charge now an hour? Ms. Dougherty: The same as the garage. Well, first of all, we just started opening. (INAUDIBLE COMMENTS) Vice Chairman Winton: Well, that says flat rate all day. I mean, that's a lot less than a dollar ($1) an hour. Unidentified Speaker: Not if you're going to the library. Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): Excuse me. Miss -- 225 December 11, 2001 0 0 Chairman Regalado: OK, OK. So, Lourdes -- Commissioners, what is it with -- Ms. Slazyk: Well, what the Code said at the time that they were approved, that they got their bonus, it said that they would — "Parking fees charged shall not be in excess of prevailing rates for public metered parking in the vicinity, as established by the Miami Department of Off -Street Parking." Vice Chainnan Winton: OK. Now, read that again. Ms. Slazyk: I'rn trying to read through the strikes and underlines. Parking fees charged shall not be in excess of prevailing rates for public metered parking in the vicinity, as established by the Miami Department of Off -Street Parking." It doesn't make them break it down into 15 -minute, half-hour, or hour. OK. Vice Chairman Winton: Well, and one thing -- Ms. Slazyk: The proposed amendment is: "Parking fees charged shall be the same as the prevailing rates charged by the Department of Off -Street Parking at the closest DOSP parking garage; provided, however, the property owner shall make the necessary arrangements, acceptable to the City, to ensure that all public facilities located within 375 feet of the property shall be afforded an hourly rate not greater than the public metered rate, as specified by Code, for the hours from lam to 9pm." Vice Chainnan Winton: You know, the concentration factor is huge, blah, blah, blah. You know, here's a key point that I just picked up out of the picture. The point they're making is that you're not charging those prevailing rates, because you've got a flat rate of five dollars ($5), whether it's two minutes or all day. Ms. Slazyk: Correct. Vice Chairman Winton: That's a big difference between everything else we're talking about. So, I think the complaint here is that when you go in the garage, it says "flat rate: five bucks ($5)." Well, that's a problem. Ms. Dougherty: But that's what is cured. Vice Chairman Winton: You know, that doesn't come anywhere close to meeting any of these standards. Ms. Dougherty: But that's what's cured by this ordinance. Chairman Regalado: But -- Ms. Dougherty: That's what we're changing. We -- first of all, that was riot something that the owner or that operator should have done. But the truth is, what we're asking them to do, whatever the Off -Street Parking charges in its garage, which, during the day, is a flat rate, that's 226 December 11, 2001 0 what we want to charge. But if you go to one of these civic facilities, we will charge a dollar twenty-five ($1.25) per hour, on an hourly basis, not a flat rate. That is what we are proposing. Chairman Regalado: And how do you know -- Ms. Dougherty: That's what the ordinance says. Chairman Regalado: How do you know who's going to -- Ms. Dougherty: Because we're going to validate their tickets. The -- Chairman Regalado: The library -- Ms. Dougherty: The library will validate, the NET Office will validate, the park -- Vice Chairman Winton: But, Lucia, that is not what this original agreement says. So the original agreement, under which y'all slid this thing, says, "for public metered parking." Ms. Dougherty: I agree. That's why we're asking it to be changed Vice Chairman Winton: Not Off -Street Parking's closest garage. Ms. Dougherty: I agree. That's why we're asking for it to be changed. Vice Chairman Winton: I thought you said you wanted it to be Off -Street Parking's closest garage. Isn't that what you just said? Ms. Daugherty: Yes. This is the way -- Vice Chairman Winton: Well, that isn't what the original agreement said. Ms. Dougherty: That's correct. We want it changed. Vice Chairman Winton: The original agreement? Ms. Dougherty: It's not an agreement. The original -- Vice Chairman Winton: Well, the original ordinance, right. Ms. Dougherty: -- ordinance that applied to the GDC building -- Vice Chairman Winton: And you. Ms. Dougherty: -- which has never been applicable -- Vice Chairman Winton: And you. 227 December 11, 2001 0 0 Ms. Dougherty: -- the same one get put in this one. Vice Chairman Winton: Well, maybe we need to -- Ms. Dougherty: We're trying to have them changed from a dollar twenty-five ($1.25) an hour, which is the same as you charge on the streets, we want to have that changed to whatever the garage rate is, generally speaking. Because we, after all, have to compete with that garage, except if you go to the library, the NET Office, or the Women's Club or the park, we will give you the same rates you had entitled to under this ordinance, the original agreement. Vice Chairinan Winton: Commissioners -- Commissioner Teele: See, Johnny, what they're doing -- what's wrong here is, you're taking a garage and trying to -- initially, and imposing a metered rate. The cost of operating a metered facility is totally different from operating a garage facility. So the language speaks about a metered rate, OK? And, again, it's why the City shouldn't really be in this business. Because how many garages were up and operating in the area when this language was written? Ms. Dougherty: None. Commissioner Teele: See what I'm saying? Vice Chairman Winton: Well -- but I'll tell you that -- and the point that I agree with Tucker on is that they did get a bonus for agreeing to these reduced parking charges. That bonus was 65,000 additional square feet. That's 65,000 additional square feet that's brand new. It's worth a hundred and fifty bucks ($150), at minimum, per square foot. That's almost ten million bucks ($10,000,000). Ricardo Dunin: Could 1, maybe, try to clarify something? Vice Chairman Winton: So, you know, this waste of time that we're going through here in this battle over twenty-five cents ($0.25) seems to me to be pretty nuts. Mr. Gibbs: It's not over twenty-five cents ($0.25). Vice Chairman Winton: I mean, if the original agreement was metered parking, public metered parking, then just -- that's what it was. Mr. Gibbs: And that's what it should be. Vice Chairman Winton: And that's what it ought to be, end of story. Commissioner Teele: How many spaces -- Chairman Regalado: OK. 228 December 11, 2001 Vice Chairman Winton: And we have to follow -- everybody ought to follow the rules that were agreed to from the very beginning. If this would have said "garage," I'd be standing here defending garage, but it doesn't say garage. It says "public metered -- for public metered parking." Commissioner Teele: What year was that done? Vice Chairman Winton: I have no idea. Mr. Gibbs: Actually, it was done -- you know, it was when the Mutiny -- I think it was when the Mutiny was being proposed. Chairman Regalado: `Ninety-five Vice Chairman Winton: And it was in -- but it was in effect when they got the bonus just recently to build this new building. Chairman Regalado: OK. Ricardo Dunin: I'd like to -- Chairman Regalado: Yes, go ahead. Mr. Dunin: For the record, Ricardo Dunin, with offices at 1001 Brickell Bay Drive. I would just like to clarify something. I understand it's confusing. And I think you need to understand why - - what's trying to be achieved here. To run a garage at a dollar twenty-five ($1.25) and do -- a real garage with security -- Vice Chairman Winton: Excuse me. You agreed to that from the very beginning. Mr. Gibbs: Thank you. Vice Chairman Winton: Yes, that's what was in the ordinance and that's why you got the bonus. So, you agreed to that from the very beginning. For public purpose, you agreed to charge whatever the metered rate was. That's what the ordinance said. And, Lucia, you're real good at pointing out what the document said from the beginning. You stood up there and yelled at me over what a document said at the beginning. "Here's your document. "That's what it says at the beginning." Mr. Dunin: I'm just trying to clarify what's -- OK. We've been working for six months. Vice Chainnan Winton: And you got ten million dollars ($10,000,000) of additional value. Lord knows how much additional revenue you get out of it. Mr. Dunin: OK, 229 December 11, 2001 Commissioner Teele: Lucia never yells. Vice Chairman Winton: Yes, she does. Mr. Dunin: OK. Again, we've been working with the City and the Coconut Grove Advisory Parking Board, and I'm trying to explain to you what the objective is. So, if I don't say it, you'll never understand what the issue is. We -- it may be possible to operate a garage at meter rates. The garage will be dirty, the garage would be unsecure, it won't be properly maintained. The objective here is to keep offering the meter rates to the public facilities in the neighborhood and, at the same time, having the income to maintain a Class -A garage versus a garage that you wouldn't want to park into. Vice Chairman Winton: Excuse me. I don't know how long this has gone on. It's already 6:15. We've got additional items. I will tell you, your math -- you're the developer. You've got 65,000 square feet of additional space. I don't ]snow how much of that is rentable. But I'm going to assume 60,000 square feet of that is rentable and you're going to get, at minimum, twenty bucks ($20) a square foot on rent. So, that's a million two. The million two, you take fifty thousand dollars ($50,000), a hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) out of your million two a year annual income bonus you got and you pay for your garage to be operated in a Class -A manner, just like you got not only the annual rental income, but a value of ten million dollars ($10,000,000), at minimum, in addition to that. So, I don't -- I'm tired of this discussion. I'm done. You know, the document -- this is what the agreement was. I think we ought to follow whatever this agreement was. And my motion is to -- 1 don't ]snow if I'm accepting staff's recommendations or not. Ms. Slazyk: We recommend denial. Vice Chainnan Winton: OK. So I'm recommending denial of staff's recommendation on this issue. And further, I thunk we need to go back to Teremark Building, if they have the same bonus and the same issues, and we need to make them follow the same rules that they're going to have to follow. And if there's anybody else in Coconut Grove that has the same issues, we ought to make them follow what the agreement was. And if the agreement was something else, I'd be defending it. If the agreement allowed them to charge ten bucks ($10) an hour, I'd defend that. But this is what the agreement was, and that's why we gave the bonuses. Chairman Rega.lado: OK. Mr. City Attorney, there is a motion. Has not been seconded. Raymond McElroy: Tomas, I'd like to -- Chairman Regalado: Yes, yes. One second, Ray. Commissioner 'I'eele: Second. Chairman Regalado: It's been seconded. We have not closed the public hearing, so we have to just let -- go ahead, sir. 230 December 11, 2001 • 0 Raymond McElroy: Yes. My name is Raymond McElroy. I live at 2355 Southwest 27`x' Lane, in Coconut Grove. And I'm also a member of the Planning Advisory Board. I don't know if this came in front of us when I was at the meeting, but I'm here as a private citizen and my family that's involved in this project. I have other concerns right now. I understand -- I'm real happy that you agree on the document that was prepared earlier, but I have some; other concerns for the future, when these projects come up. The library deals with children, and children that are coming in and out of cars, and sometimes -- I ]snow from my wife, in particular. She carpools to the library on certain functions, and she might bring six kids, seven kids with her. And when they get out of the car, it's tough when you have little three and four year olds to shuttle them in the library in a busy parking garage. And I have sone concern that the library, being so close to the parking garage, and if there's not certain designated spaces in the future, that you appoint certain designated spaces in an issue of this sort, you know, so the children are protected going in and out of the library. That's my real concern on this issue. You know, I'm glad to see the parking, it's dollars and cents, and I'm happy for the Women's Club and everybody else, but I really -- if you -- even to get the developer to give a few closer prime spaces, maybe you can make an agreement to modify it a little bit. But I think the prime spaces are very important for the children, to shuttle in and out. Because for years, they've been pulling up in the front and they go right in the door and now they don't have that opportunity. Thank you. Chairman Regalado: Anybody else? Ron Nelson: Ron Nelson, 2535 Inagua. Pardon me if I'm repetitive, but I missed part of this trying to get here. A couple of things that 1 heard before I could come here was, one, that they donated a hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) to the Women's Club. I think that was more of a payment for FAR (Floor Area Ratio). I think they bought FAR from the Women's Club. So, I don't know if you want to call it donation. Did they? Unidentified Speaker: They did not do that. Mr. Nelson: Then I'm wrong. I stand corrected. Second, I think the intent of what they wanted to do has to be looked at, as well. Because I've been at several City meetings in the NET Office, where the NET has been relying on using these parking spaces for functions that they're going to do at NET, because they think they're going to have public parking at this building across the street from them. They wanted to take away public parking spaces to come visit the NET, because there will be spaces for the public to park in at this garage across the street, as per this agreement. I've also been to the NET Office and they're going to close that dirt road into the park, that the parents use for the hockey, which should be closed, because they will now have parking in this garage across the street for when their kids play hockey there. So, the City also understood the intent of this agreement, that this parking was going to be used by the public for the park and the library, and I think we're forgetting about the intent and what's being promised to the citizens by the City in their own NET Office when this garage opens. So, I hope that you do make them stick to the agreement. And thank you very much. Chairman Regalado: Thank you. Lucia, anything else? 231 December 11, 2001 Ms. Dougherty: Well, all I can say to you is that that is something that we intended to do. Anybody who entered the park, who goes to the library, who goes to the Women's Club, all have metered rates in the garage. It is only the other times that we want to be able to charge the same rate as a public parking garage. If you want us to continue thinking about this, we are happy to entertain a continuance to even consider what Mr. McElroy suggested, about designating some areas for the children in the Iibrary. But I can tell you that unless we work: some kind of solution out, this is not going to be a win-win for the City and the community. Chairman Regalado: Vice Chairman Winton, it's your district. Do you want to continue this? Do you wish to go ahead and -- Vice Chairman Winton: Well, I think that he made a great idea about the kids tied to the library. And, frankly, this has gone on for a while. It doesn't bother me if we give another month for them to work with the folks in the community. I'm prepared to -- you know, I made a motion. I think everybody knows where I'm going. So, if the next round of negotiations don't end up with something that's close to where 1 want to be, then, you know, everybody knows what my vote's going to be. So -- but if we could end up with something better, that works for everybody, I'm in favor. So, I don't mind, at all. Commissioner Sanchez: So, we would have to retract your vote. Chairman Regalado: Do you have a motion to -- Commissioner Tecle: Motion to defer. Chairman Regalado: -- to defer? Commissioner Sanchez: Motion to defer. Vice Chairman Winton: So, I will retract my original motion. Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): Continue it? Vice Chairman Winton: (INAUDIBLE) second on that? Do I have to be retracted also? Chairman Regalado: January -- Mr. City Attorney, January -- Ms. Dougherty: Second reading. Mr. Maxwell: January -- that's right, January 24"' it is. Commissioner Sanchez: January 24th. Vice Chairman Winton: January 24"'. Wonderfid, Chairman Regalado: January 24th. 232 December 11, 2001 0 Mr, Maxwell: There was a motion on the floor -- Vice Chairman Winton: That I retracted it. Commissioner Sanchez: And I -- Mr. Maxwell: OK. And you retracted as second, as well. 0 Commissioner Sanchez: No. He made the motion. I seconded it. He retracted his motion. Mr. Maxwell: OK. Mr. Gibbs: May I ask a clarifying question? Just a clarifying question. Given the fact that the old ordinance is still in effect, that public metered rates are what's to be charged in that parking garage, will you all please clarify what should be charged in that parking garage, until you do vote on this ordinance? Vice Chairman Winton: Well, I -- Mr. Maxwell: Whatever the Code is. Chairman Regalado: No, we can't. No. Tucker -- I mean -- Mr. Gibbs: The old ordinance is in effect. That should be the fee that's charged, and that's all we're saying. We want to make sure that that fee is -- Vice Chairman Winton: I'm not willing to do anything, other than make sure that they take their sign down that says 15.00 minimum fee," which you know is absolutely wrong. Mr. Gibbs: Well, then, we'll just call Code Enforcement. That's all. Let's call Code Enforcement. Vice Chairman Winton: So, if I wanted to get into the whole issue of what the charge is right now, Tucker, I wouldn't even -- I wouldn't deal with this. Mr. Gibbs: I understand. I understand. Chairman Regalado: What the Commissioner is trying to do is maybe use the idea that Ray had of parking for children or people going to the library. I mean, it's several issues here. You know, we cannot start debating, if we want -- a deferral is a deferral. You know that, Tucker. Mr. Gibbs: Right. You know, I was asking, while it's being deferred, what is the rate going to be? That's my question. That's the question I guess I'll deal with -- 233 December 11, 2001 Vice Chairman Winton: And we'll be watching to see what the rate is after this is over, so -- OK. Move to defer. Ms. Dougherty: Well, I want to clarify something, too. Commissioner Teele: Second the motion. Ms. Dougherty: The rate is a hundred -- a dollar twenty-five ($1.25) per hour, not based on increments. Chairman Regalado: Excuse me. Ms. Dougherty: OK. Vice Chairman Winton: I'm moving that to -- I'm moving to continue this. Chairman Regalado: Commissioner has -- we closed the public hearing, so -- Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chainnan. Chairman Regalado: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: If you may. Look, I want to say that I'm in support of the deferral, because I really do think that the community ought to try to work together. This is going nowhere fast, if the Women's Club and the developer don't sit down and have some honest and warm, over coffee or tea, and have a really nice discussion with each other. I mean -- you know, I think it's fine for the lawyer to argue about the FAR, but I think the point that Commissioner Winton makes is real. He understands real estate better, probably, than all of us here, maybe with the exception of Commissioner Gonzalez. I don't know his -- but we certainly give some deference, considerable deference, when he goes to the calculator and figures out that there's a -- you know, that ]rind of dollars being generated by the FAR, that's very hard to overcome. Notwithstanding all of that, I think this is a very bad position for the City to be in. We're one step away :Prom setting -- starting to regulate rates now of parking facilities. Like Lucia Dougherty, I'm not sure that the reading of the original ordinance requires increments. It says "hourly rate." Vice Chairman Winton: And I don't disagree with that, at all. Commissioner Teele: OK. So -- Vice Chairman Winton: Don't disagree with that, at all. Commissioner Teele: So, I think, before everybody starts reading a lot into this, there's really room to negotiate here. It says "hourly rate." And -- Ms. Dougherty: Metered. Metered rate. 234 December 11, 2001 • Commissioner Toole: -- metered rate. And, so, what I'm only suggesting is that there should be some win -wins here as we come out of this. The question, though, that I would ask of the staff, you know, having built a few parking lots, it seems to me that one of the things we really ought to do is try to figure out a better long-term solution for this parking for the Iibrary. And I just don't know if there's any space or any better solution that can be constructed. But this just does not seem to be a good -- because I can tell you what's going to happen. :Eventually, whether it's this developer or the next developer, if the thing is not profitable, it's going to look like a parking facility in some undesirable parts of the urban core of America, if it can't be maintained with some degree of community support. So, I would encourage everyone to sit down and get -- put the issue behind us and try to work this out. And there should be some way to come up with a better solution. Vice Chairman Winton: So, my motion is to -- Chairman Regalado: Motion to defer to -- Commissioner Toole: To defer. Vice Chairman Winton: -- continue this, continue, continue. Commissioner Toole: The 24th of January. Vice Chairman Winton: So moved. Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Mr. Maxwell: It's a -- Chairman Regalado: There a second? Commissioner Toole: Call the question. Chairman Regalado: All in favor say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. 235 December 11, 2001 1] The following motion was introduced by Vice Chainnan Winton, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 01-1273 A MOTION TO CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF AGENDA ITEM PZ -5 (PROPOSED SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE TO AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE 11000 TO MODIFY THE PARKING RATES TO BE CHARGED BY PRIVATE GARAGES WITHIN SD -17 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE OVERLAY DISTRICT) TO THE COMMISSION MEETING CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 24, 2002 IN ORDER TO ALLOW CONCERNED PARTIES TO NEGOTIATE AN AGREEMENT. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Tomas Regalado Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Chairman Regalado: It's deferred. Vice Chairman Winton: Good luck, everyone. Chairman Regalado: PZ -- Mr. Maxwell: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Dougherty: Mr. Chairman, could I ask -- Commissioner Winton, would you be willing to serve as some sort of liaison to try to come to a solution? Chairman Regalado: It's a zoning matter. Vice Chainnan Winton: I don't think I can. Can I? Mr. Gibbs: No, it isn't. It' legislative. Chairman Regalado: It's a zoning matter. He can. Mr. Gibbs: It's legislative. 236 December 11, 2001 i Ms. Dougherty: Even if it's publicized? Mr. Gibbs: No. Ms. Dougherty: I mean, we could publish it on notice. Mr. Gibbs: And it's legislative. It's not quasi-judicial. Ms. Dougherty: That's correct. 0 Mr. Maxwell: He's right. But he says "liaison." The question is whether or not the Commission wants to select a member to do that. This is a legislative matter. It's not quasi-judicial, so you are (INAUDIBLE). Vice Chairman Winton: And let me put you all on notice. If I am selected to do that -- Chairman Regalado: Oh, you already are. Commissioner Teele: Oh, you are. By a claim. Vice Chairman Winton: No, no. But I will -- at the end of the process, if the parties don't agree, 1 will make a decision. Mr. Gibbs: Be careful. Don't say that publicly. Don't say that publicly. Ms. Dougherty: Obviously, that's the main thing here. Chairman Regalado: Well, we have to -- Commissioner Sanchez: Maybe up here. Chairman Regalado: Oh, you will make a decision here anyway. It's your district. Vice Chairman Winton: Right, up here. That's what I meant. I will -- Chairman Regalado: So -- I mean -- Mr. Maxwell: If the Commissioner -- subject to the possibility that the Commissioner may -- that he doesn't do anything that triggers the sunshine law, Vice Chairman Winton: Right, Mr. Maxwell: So, he can't be delegated in a specific decision-making authority of any kind, or the sunshine law will be triggered. He's simply fact gathering for purposes of this Commission. 237 December 11, 2001 Vice Chairman Winton: But for y'all .._ just so y'all know, I'm not available until after the Rose Bowl Game. Mr. Gibbs: All right. Yeah. Commissioner Teele: He's trying -- real clear. Vice Chairman Winton: Because I'll be in LA (Los Angeles) for a week, Sunday to Sunday. Chairman Regalado: Is that -- I mean -- I don't know what you want to do. Ms. Dougherty: You're going to be back here, though -- Chairman Regalado: I mean, it's coming back on the -- Ms. Dougherty: I mean, the next Commission meeting is on the I Oth? Commissioner Sanchez: No. You're scheduled to be here January the 24th. Ms. Dougherty: The 24`1'9 Vice Chairman Winton: Yeah. And I won't be back until the 9th or 8th, or whatever that is. Mr. Gibbs: That's OK. Commissioner Teele: He's serious, man. Mr. Gibbs: That's OK. Chairman Regalado: You're sure? Ms. Dougherty: When are you leaving? Vice Chairman Winton: I'm leaving Sunday, the 1 st, and get back Sunday, the 8th or 9th, or whatever that is. Sunday to Sunday. Chairman Regalado: All right. You can meet with him on the 25th, December 25th. Ms. Dougherty: There you go. Thanks very much. Mr. Gibbs: Thank you. 238 December 11, 2001 0 Commissioner Sanchez: What's our next item? Chairman Regalado: OK. PZ -2. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): Back to PZ -2. Chairman Regalado: It's a special exception requiring City Commission approval. Is anybody here for this item? Anybody for PZ -2? Nobody? Ms. Slazyk: They were noticed. I don't know if you want to -- Commissioner Teele: Moved to defer. Ms. Slazyk: To January? Commissioner GonzdIez: Second. Commissioner Teele: To January 24th. Ms. Slazyk: The applicant's not here. Chairman Regalado: It's -- Vice Chairman Winton: What are we doing? We're deferring PZ -2? Ms. Slazyk: The applicant isn't here. You can still hear it, if you want to hear the -- Commissioner Sanchez: Yes. Chairman Regalado: The applicants are here. Ms. Slazyk: I don't see them. Commissioner Sanchez: It's approval with conditions and recommendations subject to -- Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): They're not here, but you can hear the item anyway. Vice Chairman Winton: Plus, I had a bunch -- Commissioner Sanchez: But they're not here? 239 December 11, 2001 • Vice Chairman Winton: Plus, I had a whole bunch of questions. Commissioner Sanchez: You could hear the item. Mr. Maxwell: We could still hear the item. Chairman Regalado: I'm sorry? Mr. Maxwell: You could still hear the item, if you desire. Chairman Regalado: Yeah. It is in my district, so I just want to make sure that everybody has been noticed. I don't know. Teresita Fernandez: Teresita Fernandez for the Department of Planning; and Zoning, Hearing Boards Division. Everybody has been noticed. Notice requirements have been met. Chairman Regalado: OK. What I'm seeing here is that this -- this is on Le Jeune Road, but it's one block off Le Jeune. However, there is an address that is not correct here, 410 Northwest 2nd Street. This is not a correct address for that. I don't know if -- Mr. City Attorney, there is -- Vice Chairman Winton: Yeah, you got that right. That can't be -- Commissioner Gonzalez: It should have been 41 something, Mr. Maxwell: I would ask that the item be renoticed, sir. Commissioner Gonzalez: It's a mistake. Chairman Regalado: OK. So, you're coming back on -- Vice Chairman Winton: Yeah. That's downtown. Chairman Regalado: You're coming back -- Mr. Maxwell: January 24th. Chairman Regalado: January 24. Ms. Slazyk: This does go to Northwest 2nd Street, but if you want us to continue it so we can check -- Vice Chairman Winton: But it's not 410 Northwest 2nd Street. It's goring to have to be 4100 something. Chairman Regalado: It's -- 410 Northwest 2nd Street will be downtown Miami. 240 December 11, 2001 0 Ms. Slazyk: Oh, I see. Commissioner Gonzhlez: It should have been 41 something. Vice Chairman Winton: Yeah. 0 Commissioner Teele: The record on the Zoning Board, by the way, said that the item passed, and it calls the names of the voters, yes, yes, somebody away. The vote nine to no. Then the certification says the motion carried seven to two. Chairman Regalado: Yeah. We have a problem here. Commissioner Teele: And that's sort of -- Vice Chairman Winton: A problem. Did y'all notice this other inconsistency? Ms. Slazyk: No. She's going to check it. Looks like it may be just a typo on the fax sheet and it may have been noticed right. It looks like a digit was missing. Commissioner Sanchez: All right. Let's -- Ms. Slazyk: If you want to continue it and we'll check that and -- Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah, we'll -- come on. Chairman Regalado: OK. Commissioner Sanchez: Continue to the 24th. Next item. Ms. Slazyk: January 24th. Chairman Regalado: Motion to defer and a second. Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Chairman Regalado: All in favor say "aye." Vice Chairman Winton: Is it continued? Mr. Maxwell: It's a continuance, Commissioner. Vice Chairman Winton: Hold on. Hold on. Commissioner Sanchez: To continue. 241 December 11, 2001 Mr. Maxwell: It's a continuance. The reason we asked you to use the expression "continuance" Chairman Regalado: OK. There is a continuance. Mr. Maxwell: -- is for legal reasons, So, this item is being continued, and you have to get a specific date. Commissioner Sanchez: Move to continue the item to January the 24th. Mr. Maxwell: All right. Thank you. Vice Chairman Winton: So moved. Second. Chairman Regalado: And probably notice the residents. OK. All in favor say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 01-1274 A MOTION TO DEFER CONSIDERATION OF AGENDA ITEM PZ -2 (PROPOSED SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW SURFACE PARKING IN THE R-2 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AT APPROXIMATELY 35-125 N.W. 42 AVENUE, 42-140 N.W. 41 AVENUE AND 410 N.W. 2 STREET) TO THE COMMISSION MEETING CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 24, 2002. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Tomas Regalado Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None, 242 December 11, 2001 Chairman Regalado: PZ -3. Vice Chairman Winton: So moved. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): It's a second reading, land use -- PZ -3 and 4 are companion items for land use and zoning change. These are second reading. Department recommends approval. Commissioner Sanchez: Any opposition? Chairman Regalado: This is a public hearing. Any opposition? Anybody who wants -- Ms. Slazyk: The applicant's here. Chairman Regalado: -- to speak on this issue? Nobody. There is -- been moved by -- Vice Chairman Winton: So moved. Chairman Regalado: -- Commissioner Winton. Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Chairman Regalado: Second by Commissioner Sanchez. It's a second reading ordinance. Mr. City Attorney, read the ordinance. Roll call. 243 December 11, 2001 0 An Ordinance Entitled -- 0 AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 341 NORTHEAST 20TH TERRACE AND 340 NORTHEAST 21ST STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "HIGH DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL" TO "RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL"; MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. was passed on its first reading, by title, at the meeting of November 15, 2001, was taken up for its second and final reading, by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Winton, seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title, and was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Tomas Regalado Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzdlez Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 12165. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the Deputy City Attorney. 244 December 11, 2001 Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ -4 is the companion. Chairman Regalado: OK. Any motions? Commissioner Teele: So moved, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Sanchez: Can I have -- Chairman Regalado: It's been moved and second. Commissioner Sanchez: Public hearing. Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): Did you open the public hearings, Mr. Chairman? Vice Chairman Winton: Yeah, public hearing. Chairman Regalado: Public hearing. Oh, we've got to -- Commissioner Sanchez: Open and close it. Mr. Maxwell: Open and close it. Chairman Regalado: Public hearing will be closed now. Commissioner Sanchez: So moved, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Regalado: This is a companion. It's been moved by -- Vice Chairman Winton: Second. Chairman Regalado: -- Commissioner Sanchez. Seconded by Vice Chairman Winton. Read the ordinance, please. Roll call. 245 December 11, 2001 0 0 An Ordinance Entitled -- AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT (S), AMENDING PAGE NO.21 OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO.11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM R-4 "MULTIFAMILY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL" WITH SD -20 BUFFER OVERLAY DISTRICT TO C-1 "RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL" WITH SD -20 BUFFER OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 341 NORTHEAST 20 TERRACE AND 340 NORTHEAST 21ST STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN ATTACHED ":EXHIBIT A"; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. was passed on its first reading, by title, at the meeting of November 15, 2001, was taken up for its second and final reading, by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Sanchez, seconded by Vice Chairman Winton, the ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title, and was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Tomas Regalado Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner roe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 12166. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the Deputy City Attorney. 246 December 11, 2001 Chairman Regalado: Item PZ -5 has already been deferred. Item PZ -6. This is -- wow. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): Yes. PZ -- Chairman Regalado: Billboards. Ms. Slazyk: PZ -6 is a proposal to amend the zoning ordinance in order to eliminate offsite advertising signs within the City of Miami, clarifying that all existing offsite advertising signs shall become nonconformities upon the effective date of this ordinance. I need to make two quick clarifications in the record. On page 2 of the ordinance, entitled 926.17 should read: "Restriction on offsite outdoor advertising signs." Without the word "offsite," it would include all outdoor signs. Also, in the body, the paragraph right below it, "No additional offsite advertising signs -- sign sites or locations shall be permitted, approved. or erected within the boundaries of the City of Miami." And in the next sentence, "All outdoor advertising signs in existence with Iegal conforming status, as of the effective date of this ordinance." Those are two clarifications. Chairman Regalado: OK. Commissioner Teele: You've got to change the title, too, now. Ms. Slazyk: And for the date -- right now the date is left blank, looking; for a policy direction from this Commission, as to when this should be effective. Chairman Regalado: OK. This is a public hearing. Commissioners, members of the public, we -- I just want to know how many hours you guys want to debate this? Commissioner Teele: This is first reading. Chairman Regalado: This is first reading. Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): No, this is second reading. Oh, no, I'm sorry. Chairman Regalado: No, it's first reading. Mr. Maxwell: It was deferred the last time. You're right. Chairman Regalado: Yes, first reading. Public hearing. Anybody from -•• OK. 247 December 11, 2001 i George Knox: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of t:he Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Sanchez: City Commission. Vice Chairman Winton: Don't be getting us mixed up with those guys. Mr. Knox: Oh, I forgot. What day is it and who am I? My name is George F. Knox. I'm an attorney with offices at 150 Southeast 2nd Avenue, and I represent Carter Outdoor Advertising Company. I'm here to request that the {,ommission not consider this item at this time, even on first reading, for several reasons. I think, first and foremost, is that there was an indication by the staff, and your back-up material indicates that there would be what your staff and the proposed ordinance calls a clarification of the nonconforming or noncompliant status of existing outdoor advertising signs, and we really believe that this is a prerequisite to your consideration of the ordinance that's before you at this time. Because to take steps to adopt an ordinance that will prospectively prohibit the erection of outdoor advertising signs, without clarifying the status of existing signs that you appear to be inclined to permit, would diminish the options that you may have in connection with the good faith efforts that have been made by the City and the industry to clarify and identify precisely the status of those signs. That's reason number one. The memorandums and the back-up material that you've been provided indicates that the policy objective has to do with the fact that you are inclined to conclude that outdoor advertising signs create what you call "visual clutter." I might suggest that to precipitously adopt an ordinance based upon a characterization of outdoor advertising as "visual clutter" could give rise to some claim of a denial of equal protection, if you prohibit those activities on that basis, especially in light of the proliferation of banners that adorn the light poles on the gateways, and highways and byways of the City of Miami, banners that are strung from prominent buildings, like "The Miami Herald" building, with or without permission. And we do note, with some interest, that the City is considering the installation of 900 illuminated bus bench billboards with 1800 faces. We simply suggest that to prohibit outdoor advertising, as you describe it, while permitting, supporting and participating in partnerships with others who provide outdoor advertising that could be characterized as visual clutter, could give rise to a claim of a denial of equal protection to those who would be victimized by the adoption of the ordinance. The third and most important reason, as far as Carter Outdoor is concerned, has to do with the fact that Carter is a small local business, which controls 10 percent of the billboards in the; City of Miami. The action that you contemplate could give rise to a claim that the City, perhaps unwittingly, has engaged in a collaboration which perpetuates a virtual monopoly by the 90 percent business entities who control outdoor advertising in the City of Miami, because a prohibition without findings and without opportunities for growth and development of a small business, while simultaneously, vigorously seeking to enforce your code of ordinances for nonconformity against this same small business, could have the result of driving them out of business, perhaps to the delight of their competitors. And, so, we suggest that it may be appropriate, unless there's some compelling public purpose and public need to adopt this ordinance on first reading at this time, that it may be appropriate to allow the process of the development of the; regulation of existing signs to continue for some reasonable time, so that you would be in a position to make enlightened decisions about the extent to which you would prohibit outdoor advertising in the 248 December 11, 2001 0 i future. Thank you so much. And, of course, I'm prepared to answer any questions that you may have. Vice Chairman Winton: Mr. City Attorney, and if we pass this ordinance, which prohibited the construction of new billboards, and we came to some settlement regarding; all the nonconforming billboards that are in our City, and came to the conclusion, post settlement, that we wanted to create a zone or a corridor or anything else that may allow for the erection of new signs, could we not come back and change the ordinance? Mr. Maxwell: Amendment of an ordinance -- zoning ordinance is a legislative process. You can amend it at any time. And, also, I would like to comment on just what you said about settlements. The negotiations that we're involved in now with the outdoor sign industry, it would be a settlement in terms of the litigation that's going on. Their input into the legislative process for amendment of the ordinance that would either prohibit signs or change the number of signs and so forth, it's just that. It's input that would be considered by this Commission during the legislative process. It would not -- this Commission would not enter into any kind of agreement with the industry that would preclude you from going through the whole legislative process. That would be considered contract zoning, and is illegal. So, you would not be doing that. Luis Rojas: Mr. Chairman, my name -- Chairman Regalado: Luis. Mr. Rojas: Yes, sir. My name is Luis Rojas and I represent Clear Channel Advertising. And let me tell you that Clear Channel is -- Commissioner Tecle: Can't hear you. Mr. Rojas: Clear Channel is certainly supportive of the concept that you have too many billboards in the City of Miami. As part of our settlement with the City, that's been going on now for a while, we propose to voluntarily bring down hundreds of signs as mitigation. However, this ordinance, I think, has some problems, as written. And let me just first stop and explain real quickly the difference between noncompliance and nonconforming. When something is not complying, it's really not legal. If I have a billboard in a residential zoning area, that is noncomplying because your Code does not allow any in residential. If I have one in residential that's been there for 50 years and 50 years ago the Code was silent and I could have it in residential, then it's nonconforming. Nonconforming basically means that it doesn't conform today with your Code; however, it did conform at the time it was built. Noncompliant means that it's just not legal at this time. And if you read this as written -- and I know there was some clarifications made, because I believe the; original intent of Commissioner Teele was, "I want an ordinance that stops all new billboards going up." We have no problem with that. But now language has been added that says that "all outdoor advertising in existence of the effective date of this ordinance shall become nonconforming." And the way that is written means that everything that is illegal today there is a sign in residential, all of a sudden you made that nonconforming. If there's a sign that's supposed to be 30 feet and it's 150 feet, all of a sudden that is nonconforming. And then, if you go down to Section 2, it tells you that all ordinances or 249 December 11, 2001 parts of ordinances that are inconsistent or conflict are repealed. So, basically, you're going to repeal all the laws that make all of these illegal signs illegal, and you're going to call them nonconforming. Now, even with the changes that were made -- and I understand. And we did meet with your staff, and we pointed these things out before we came to you -- that there are some changes. Certainly, the title has not been amended. I think that this needs some work. In fact, I would take all of this part out and just say that you're not going to have any more signs in the City of Miami. So, I bring that to your attention because this is really something that came up at the last minute, this new language. We don't think it's drafted as clearly as it could be. And we believe that it's going to create problems for you in the future. Commissioner Teele: Move to defer the item until May 10th. Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Chairman Regalado: I'm sorry. May 10th or January 10th? Commissioner Teele: January 10th. Chairman Regalado: January 10th. Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Commissioner Teele: January 10th. Chairman Regalado: There is a motion to defer -- to continue Commissioner Teele: To continue. Commissioner Sanchez: To continue. Chairman Regalado: -- to continue this item for January 10th. Now, let me say -- Commissioner Teele: For the purpose of addressing the language, because I have the same concern. There's an unintended consequence here of taking something that could very well be noncompliant. Chairman Regalado: Commissioner, my only issue here is that this is a :PZ, item. Is it OK, Mr. City Attorney, if we do this PZ item only on the January 10th -- Mr. Maxwell: That's a -- Chairman Regalado: Do we need to have a time certain or advertises or just -- Mr. Maxwell: First of all, moving it from -- to the 10th is the prerogative of this Commission. Setting it for the time -- if you don't say anything, it would be after 3:00, as any other zoning item would be. 250 December 11, 2001 0 • Chairman Regalado: OK. That's all I wanted to know. Mr. Maxwell: If you want it for a certain time, you can -- Chairman Regalado: No, no, no, no. After 3:00, whenever it's coming. So, it's been continued to January 10th. There is a motion. There is a second. All in favor say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Regalado: It's been continued January 10th, the billboards. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 01-1275 A MOTION TO CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF AGENDA ITEM PZ -6 (PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE 11000 TO PROHIBIT ANY ADDITIONAL OUTDOOR ADVERTISING SIGNS WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF MIAMI AND 'TO CLARIFY NONCONFORMING STATUS OF EXISTING OUTDOOR ADVERTISING SIGNS/BILLBOARDS) AFTER 3 P.M. DURING THE COMMISSION MEETING CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 10, 2002. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Tomas Regalado Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Sanchez 251 December 11, 2001 • 0 Chairman Regalado: PZ -7. PZ -7 is to amend Ordinance 11000. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): Yes. PZ -- Chairman Regalado: Lourdes. Ms. Slazyk: Thank you. PZ -7 is a proposed text amendment in order to add a definition in regulations for business center use. What we've been seeing in a lot of the projects coming before the City is that people want to be able to work out of their homes -- the increase in technology and that sort of thing. Several of the major projects have come before you, Brickell on the River and 1800 Club tonight, have an office component within their residential building so that the residents -- they rent an office space rather than an office complex, like a major office building, so you can live and work in the same building. What this does is it affords the same opportunity to residential projects in residential zoning districts R-3 and 4 of over a hundred units. So, if it's a large enough residential project, 100 units or more, that they would be able to come in and do the same thing that we're seeing in the mixed use projects. They'll be able to have the live/work type of arrangement within their own building. This would cut down on things like commuting and stuff like that. It would afford people the opportunity to do this. The other restrictions we put on it is that it would be limited to the same restrictions as home occupations in R-1 and 2. Only certain occupations can do this. You can't have doctors and dentists and things that bring a lot of people. And same restrictions as home occupation for an employee. You can only have one. This was recommended for approval by the Planning Advisory Board. They thought it was a great idea for these high-density residential projects. Vice Chairman Winton: Well, when are we going to get to the issue of this whole live/work issue relative to other neighborhoods, where it's going to be so important, and it's low-density? Ms. Slazyk: Yeah. There are some Building Code and Fire Code issues that we need to work through. Because when you have live and work within the same space, in the C-2 type commercial districts, there's things like fumes, there's things like fire ratings, there's other Building and Fire Code issues that we're still trying to get our hands around to finish that ordinance. Vice Chairman Winton: But couldn't we call New York or somewhere and just get -- you know, they're doing it. Ms. Slazyk: Yeah. 1 don't know if -- Vice Chairman Winton: I mean, it's already alive and well. 252 December 11, 2001 Ms. Slazyk: Yeah. I think our Fire Codes are a little bit different, and that's what we're -- we haven't been able to figure out a way -- we're working on it. We do have language from other cities, but we need to make it work here. Vice Chairman Winton: Where is it stuck? Ms, Slazyk: I'm not sure, Live/work ordinance. Vice Chairman Winton: Live/work ordinance, it's stuck in the Fire Department? Is that what you just said? Ms. Slazyk: No, no, no. I know there are fire issues. Because the one project that came through that wanted to do it, there were Fire Code -- yeah, we're working on it. Vice Chairman Winton: So, like I suggested, I mean -- yeah, New York's got -- I think our own Fire Department said maybe the finest Fire Department in the world, so -- and they already know how to do this, so, you know -- Ms. Slazyk: Yeah. Let me explain -- most of our commercial districts are — our C-1 and C-2 districts already allow live/work on the same premises. The difference; between that and the live/work ordinance is going to be within same spaces, and that's a little bit different. Vice Chairman Winton: Right. Ms. Slazyk: Because in a C-2 building, you know, an old warehouse or an old, you know, storage place, if somebody wanted to come in and do residential for part of the building and commercial for the other part, that's already allowed. Vice Chairman Winton: Where do you allow that? Ms. Slazyk: That's allowed -- Vice Chairman Winton: Oh, I didn't know. I thought we didn't. Ms. Slazyk: OK. It's conversions of spaces where you can live and work in the same space. That's a little bit different, because now you've got commercial and residential in the same room. Vice Chairman Winton: OK. Ms. Slazyk: And that's, I think, where the -- where some of -- Vice Chairman Winton: Where the rubber -- and that's -- Ms. Slazyk: And then other incentives for people to want to do that. And the old warehouse districts have to be looked at. 253 December 11, 2001 Vice Chairman Winton: Right. Thank you. Chairman Regalado: OK. Commissioner Teele: Is there a motion? Vice Chairman Winton: We need a public hearing, I think. Don't we? Chairman Regalado: We -- Mr. Maxwell: Yeah. Ms. Slazyk: I don't think anyone's here for this. Chairman Regalado: Anybody from the public that wants to address the Board? No one. So, we close the public hearing. Vice Chairman Winton: Move staff's recommendation on PZ -7. Commissioner Teele: Second the motion. Chairman Regalado: There is motion and a second. And read the ordinance, please. Roll call. An Ordinance Entitled — AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING ORDINANCE 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 9, SECTION 906, CONVENIENCE ESTABLISHMENTS AS ACCESSORY TO RESIDENTIAL OR OFFICE USES, AND ARTICLE 25, SECTION 2502, IN ORDER TO INTRODUCE PROVISIONS AND DEFINITION FOR "BUSINESS CENTER" AS AN ACCESSORY USE, SUBJECT TO A CLASS I SPECIAL PERMIT; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Was introduced by Vice Chairman Winton, seconded by Commissioner Teele, and was passed on first reading, by title only, by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Tomas Regalado Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzdlez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. NAYS: None. ABSENT; Commissioner Joe Sanchez 254 December 11, 2001 0 The ordinance was read by title into the public record by the Deputy City Attorney, 255 December 11, 2001 • 0 . APPR(]VE CITY'S (] SPO , OR, HIP WPI H E GI✓E � Y��O]D ' �T>U�% iG, FpR �S SECS N_' �QS''S�UTH�PTC.. ,, , : . SCk�TiL] F1JTTAA; MTMI�1RNA ; Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Regalado: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: Are there any other PZ items? Because I want to apologize to these fine people that have been waiting here all day. Chairman Regalado: No, we don't have PZ items, so we can go ahead -- we just want -- we just have one item on the regular agenda, and some pocket items. So, go ahead, sir. Commissioner Teele: Could I move a pocket item? Chairman Regalado: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: It's a resolution of the City Commission approving the City's co- sponsorship with Eagle Care Production for the Second Annual Gospel Youth Explosion, Saturday, November 15, at the Miami Arena, by providing for the rental of the Arena six thousand dollar ($6,000) payment to the Miami Arena. I would so move. And I really apologize. Chairman Regalado: There is a motion. Is there a second? Vice Chairman Winton: Second. Discussion now. What did you say we're doing? Commissioner Teele: We're providing co-sponsorship and underwriting for this Gospel Explosion here in the holiday season. They've had it before. It was very successful. Would you like -- Vice Chairman Winton: And the City's going to be co-sponsor? Commissioner Teele: City's going to be a co-sponsor. And the payment is going to go to the Miami Arena. Mareeta McIntyre: Mareeta McIntyre, 285 Northwest 199th. Chairman Regalado: Your name, please. Ms. McIntyre: Mareeta McIntyre, founder of Eagle Care Productions. Chairman Regalado: Ma'am, go ahead. 256 December 11, 2001 0 Melinda Johnson: Good afternoon. Melinda Johnson. Commissioner Teele: And, again, this is one of these things where we're paying ourselves again. I mean, you know, I realize that the Bayfront Trust, the Arena, and the other facilities are all on their own budget, but just understand, this is a payment to the Arena. Chairman Regalado: Which really needs to have activities there, so -- Commissioner Teele: Call the question. Chairman Regalado: Call the --just-- we have a motion and we have a second. All in favor say «aye The Commission (Collectively): Aye. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 01-1276 A MOTION APPROVING THE CITY OF MIAMI'S CO-SPONSORSHIP WITH EAGLE CARE PRODUCTION INC. FOR ITS SECOND ANNUAL GOSPEL YOUTH EXPLOSION SCHEDULED FOR SATURDAY, DECEMBER 15, 2001 AT THE MIAMI ARENA BY ALLOCATING AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $6,000.00 FOR THE RENTAL OF THE MIAMI ARENA. Upon being seconded by Vice Chairman Winton, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Tomas Regalado Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Sanchez 257 December 11, 2001 Chairman Regalado: OK. Commissioner Teele: And my last pocket item is a resolution of the City Commission authorizing the City Manager and the City Attorney and the Department of Community Development to work with Acorn, Incorporated and others, to investigate the practice of predatory lending within the City of Miami; and further to commence a process for drafting an Anti -Predatory Lending Ordinance to be brought back to the Commission. for the first meeting in the -- Commission in January of 2002. Vice Chairman Winton: Second, Second. Commissioner Teelc: So moved. Chairman Regalado: OK. There is a motion and a second. All in favor say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Regalado: It passes. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 01-1277 A MOTION DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY AND INSTRUCTING THE CITY MANAGER TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO WORK WITH ACORN, INC. TO INVESTIGATE THE PRACTICE OF PREDATORY LENDING WITHIN THE CITY OF MIAMI; FURTHER DIRECTING THE MANAGER TO WORK IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY TO COMMENCE THE PROCESS FOR DRAFTING AN ANTI -PREDATORY LENDING ORDINANCE TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR FIRST READING AT THE COMMISSION MEETING CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 10, 2002. 258 December 11, 2001 0 Upon being seconded by Vice Chairman Winton, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Tomas RegaIado Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel GonzAlez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Sanchez 259 December 11, 2001 63, ICA BY.' G SSIo LITI QClrrT C BVI ry�,G � �? s Chairman Regalado: I have -- anybody has a pocket item? Vice Chairman Winton: I have one. Just a comment. And it really is about CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency), but we're still in Sunshine. I got jumped out there when I went to the restroom because we didn't go -- we didn't do Item 21. Commissioner Teele: Is that Lyric Village? Vice Chairman Winton: Yeah. And we didn't defer it, either. So everybody stayed here for it. I would hope that, when we have our next CRA board meeting, that we just get this on the agenda and -- Commissioner Teele: Commissioner, the lawyer is here. And let me just say this. That's the subject of a lawsuit, and there's a lot of misinformation. And what I had asked that they do is have a meeting with their board and let our lawyer attend that meeting. They've scheduled that meeting for Saturday, at 10:00, at the St. John's CDC (Community Development Corporation). But they've gone way out and started bringing in joint venture partners, and our lawyers are telling us we can't do it, for whatever reasons. And it predates, you know, all of us being involved in it. But it's a very, very delicate issue. Vice Chairman Winton: And, frankly -- and no question about it, and it's complex. But you have already instructed them. Our lawyer's going to meet with them this Saturday, and then something else is going to come forward. Commissioner Teele: After the meeting, they called me out. Vice Chairman Winton: Great. OK, Commissioner Teele: I went out there. And we -- I indicated to them that Mr. Bloom had raised some very real concerns about getting into that. They're proposing, in effect, a substitution, which cannot be done. Vice Chairman Winton: I wouldn't think so either. Commissioner Teele: We can't, you know, legally. Vice Chairman Winton: I don't think so. Commissioner Teele: And rather than trying to have a discussion on that -- just remember one other person is saying that reason why they should not -- why they should prevail in a different lawsuit is because we were meeting with other people, trying to substitute them, et cetera. So, we have to be careful that we don't entertain substitution. Otherwise it gives the -- 260 December 11, 2001 0 . Vice Chairman Winton: Right. Commissioner Toole: -- situation that we're not sincere about going forward. Vice Chairman Winton: Well, you took care of it, though. So I'm done. Commissioner Teele: Yes, sir. Chairman Regalado: OK. Commissioner Toole: But I will say this. On the Sawyer thing -- and you talk about predatory practices and questionable issues. We want through that and that's over. But I would hope that, at some point, the City, which let the bid and all of this stuff was done by the City, and the CRA would come up with something to provide some -- you know, we all mobilize around this lady who had a horrible situation with predatory practices, and I'm not, at all, comparing the Sawyers situation to that. But at the same time, you know, we -- the City was very much involved in getting the Sawyers their land, et cetera, and that's a pretty big number. And I would hope that between the City and the CRA, we could figure out some way to, at least, minimize the impact. Chairman Regalado: OK. 261 December 11, 2001 Chairman Regalado: I have two pocket items. One is a motion directing the City Manager to allocate twelve hundred dollars ($1200) from my unexpended fiscal year 2001/2002 budget, to be paid to Miami -Dade County for the installation and costs of street signs along Southwest 19th Avenue, from Southwest 8th to 12th Streets, which were codesignated as Bobby Fuller Way. And this is pursuant to Resolution Number 01-697. It was passed by this Commission on July 10, 2001. The reason for this is that the only thing that we need is the signs from Miami -Dade County, and we cannot get a waiver from them, because of -- we just can't. Vice Chairman Winton: So, we have a motion on the floor. Need a second. Commissioner Teele: I would second the motion, with this, though. Chairman Regalado: I'm sorry. Vice Chairman, could you -- so I can make the motion. So, I'm making this motion. Commissioner Teele. I would second the motion. But let me just say this. I would ask, respectfully, that we pay this from this year's reserve, and I'll tell you why. There's no question there is five or six -- whatever the number is. But at some point we've got to cut off last year's -- and usually that period is 30 days after the end. Mr. Manager, you can direct us. When do you all want to see any more adjustments to last year's budget? Vice Chairman Winton: Yeah, he -- 2001/2002, he said. So, I think that's this year's budget, right? Commissioner Teele: No, he said last year's budget. Mr. Carlos Gimenez (City Manager): He's talking about -- Commissioner Teele: He said his last year's office budget. Chairman Regalado: No, no. I said this year. Commissioner Teele: Oh, this year. OK. Vice Chairman Winton: Yeah, he said 2001/2002. Chairman Regalado: Yeah. And the reason I'm doing this is because I think, on Thursday, we have to do something about the budget. And I have forty-six thousand dollars ($46,000) from my budget, last year's budget, that was not used. 262 December 11, 2001 Commissioner Teele: That's gone. Chairman Regalado: No, it's not. No way. That is there. And I have four issues that I will be explaining here, how to use that money, exactly how to use it, and I already talk to Linda about. So, this is why I am saying that it's from this year's budget, that we need to pay that. Commissioner Teele: Second the motion. Vice Chairman Winton: OK. We have a motion and a second. Further discussion? Commissioner Teele: Call the question. Vice Chairman Winton: Being none, all in favor "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Vice Chairman Winton. Like sign opposed. Motion carries. The following motion was introduced by Chairman Regalado, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 01-1278 A MOTION DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO ALLOCATE $1,200 FROM CHAIRMAN REGALADO'S UNEXPENDED BUDGET FUNDS FROM FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002, TO COVER THOSE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH SIGNS FOR THE CODESIGNATION OF "BOBBY FULLER WAY" ALONG SOUTHWEST 19 AVENUE FROM 8 THROUGH 12 STREETS. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Teele, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Tomas Regalado Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Sanchez 263 December 11, 2001 0 SMINOfAT P' G A D ;;PKAT OR 12 V LES g VRING CQ Q T OVE DM RDE �TMiz RMODEL�NGSHO Chairman Regalado: Mr. Vice Chair, I have a resolution of the Miami City Commission regarding the visitors' parking for light vehicles at the Seminole Boat Ramp parking area. And this is for only the Coconut Grove Home Design and Remodeling Show. The reason for this resolution is, this Commission prohibits parking in the park. So, there's no way that there's going to be parking anymore in the park. What this does -- we did this for the Art Festival. They will be able to park light vehicles -- prohibiting tractor -trailers or delivery vehicles during the show. This show will have this year 125 Miami -- City of Miami companies participating. And I think that in the spirit of helping this promoter, who does not have a parking now in the park -- this is why I am doing for the Home Show what we did for the Art Festival last year, and probably this coming year. So, that would be a motion. Vice Chairman Winton: So, we have a motion, and need a second. Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Vice Chairman Winton: We have a motion and a second. Discussion. I don't know this for sure, Commissioner Regalado, but it seems to me that within the public out there, there's some opposition to this, but I don't know and I don't remember, And I'm nervous about -- and I'm the one that's going to get yelled at. Chairman Regalado: No, I understand. And the reason I brought it as a pocket item -- Vice Chairman Winton: So, you're not. Chairman Regalado: And the reason I brought it as a pocket item is because we did this exactly for the Art Festival, and as I recall, we did not have public opposition because, at that time, we said, well, it's for the Art Festival. Vice Chairman Winton: Well, there's something floating around in my head here that doesn't feel good, I can tell you that. Commissioner Teele: Mr, Chairman. Vice Chairman Winton: I mean, there's something back there. I don't recall it. I don't know that I'm even absolutely correct. Chairman Regalado: I'll tell you -- I'll tell you -- Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman I would -- I didn't second it because I intended to vote "no." Now, I'll be more than happy to vote "yes" for the purpose of ensuring the passage and preserving your right as the district Commissioner, but I don't want to get -- I mean, you know -- 264 December 11, 2001 • just because it was done before doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do. But if we've done it before, we've got the precedence. So, I'm happy to -- I mean, I'm -- I'll be pleased to vote "yes" since the maker -- Chairman Regalado: Do you want to -- Johnny, do you want me to bring this back -- oh, well, here's Frank. Vice Chairman Winton: No. I think -- Chairman Regalado: Do you want me to bring this back on Thursday or just later on? Vice Chairman Winton: When is the Home Show? Chairman Regalado: It's in January, I think. Frank Rollason (Director, Building & Zoning): The weekend before the Art Festival. Commissioner Teele: Just do it, man. Vice Chairman Winton: I don't -- Commissioner Teele: Just do it. Chairman Regalado: The weekend before the Art Festival. So, it would be -- Mr. Rollason: So that's President's Day. That second week in February -- Chairman Regalado: February, second. Mr. Rollason: -- is the Art Festival. Chairman Regalado: The first weekend of February. Vice Chairman Winton: February. So, what if we put it on the agenda for the first meeting in January and notice it? Mr. Rollason: But I mean, the -- the motion is just for -- Chairman Regalado: Well -- but the thing is -- Commissioner Teele: But the Promoter's got to have a -- Chairman Regalado: The Promoter needs to know, because he is — he is the reason I'm saying this. 265 December 11, 2001 0 • Vice Chairman Winton: Well, I can tell you, I know that there are ways and I know the public has talked about that, getting him to use the parking garage that we just talked about at Teremark for some of his parking here. I know that's been a discussion -- but I don't know if it's the same issue, and that's the thing that's bothering me here. Chairman Regalado: Well, what I heard is that he's trying -- Vice Chairman Winton: And I could be totally wrong. Chairman Regalado: No. What he's trying to do -- and I'm -- as a marketing idea, I recommended to these people is to talk to Art Noriega; have trolleys going back and forth from the Coconut Grove Convention Center and the parking garage. I think on Mary Street, and -- that way we'll be doing two things: One thing, resolving one of the parking issues, because he lost the park definitely, and there's no way he can park on that. But the other one is to bring people to the Grove, Coco Walk, you know, Mayfair. Because this show generates a hundred thousand people in a weekend, twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000) in buys in this kind of - - and he pays the City for -- to use the surface parking around the Center. My idea is to ask this Commission to reduce the payments so he can rent those trolleys to go back and forth and back and forth, all the Grove, and move thousands of people Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Vice Chairman Winton: What does your motion say again? Chairman Regalado: My motion says to permit him to use the visitors' parking for light vehicles at the Seminole Boat Ramp parking area, and prohibiting tractor -trailers or delivery vehicles during the Coconut Grove Home Design and Remodeling Show. That is basically it. Cars. It means cars, not, you know, trucks and all of these things. Vice Chairman Winton: Well, I tell you what, just -- I guess what I would suggest is that we take a vote on it. I'll vote "yes," with the proviso, however, that if I start getting a bunch of phone calls, I'm going to bring this back, all right? Chairman Regalado: We'll bring it back. That's fine. So, he can -- you know, he can have -- Vice Chairman Winton: Yeah. Chairman Regalado: So, that's fine. That's fine. Vice Chairman Winton: OK. So we have a motion and a second. Commissioner Teele, I don't know if you heard. Commissioner Teele: Yes, I heard. Vice Chairman Winton: I said that I was going willing -- Commissioner Teele: Yes, I heard. You'll bring it back if it's a problem. 266 December 11, 2001 • 0 Vice Chairman Winton: Right. So, motion and a second. Further discussion? Being none, all in favor "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Vice Chairman Winton: Like sign opposed. Motion carries. The following resolution was introduced by Chairman Regalado, who moved its adoption; RESOLUTION NO, 01-1279 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION PERMITTING, ON AN ANNUAL BASIS, VISITORS' PARKING FOR LIGHT VEHICLES AT THE SEMINOLE BOAT RAMP PARKING AREA AND PROHIBITING TRACTOR -TRAILERS OR DELIVERY VEHICLES DURING THE COCONUT GROVE HOME DESIGN AND REMODELING SHOW. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Tomas Regalado Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Sanchez 267 December 11, 2001 • Vice Chairman Winton: Anything else? 0 Commissioner Teele: Did we do that irrevocable -- that revocable lease on legal -- Raceworks? Chairman Regalado: No. That's what we need to do now. Frank Rollason (Assistant City Manager): No, we didn't. Vice Chairman Winton: No. We've got to do that. Chairman Regalado: If anybody else has any pocket items? Then, if we don't, we do the Revocable License Agreement. Commissioner Sanchez said that he had read the amendment, and he's OK with it, before he left. 268 December 11, 2001 0 0 Chairman Regalado: I also have an item here that we might discuss on Thursday, if you all want to. If not, we can do it now. It's a letter to Carlos Gimenez from Mayor Manny Diaz. "Dear Mr. Gimenez, upon consideration it is my very distinct honor and pleasure to formally inform you, Carlos A. Gimenez, of my decision to retain you as the City Manager. As a consequence of this decision, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) to the power and authority vested in me by Section 4(g)(c) of the City Charter, in general, and the provisions that are therein relating to (UNINTELLIGIBLE) in particular, I hereby appoint you as the City Manager and Chief Administrative Officer of the City of Miami, Florida, effective immediately." And then he says that he loves you and all that. And it's signed by Manuel "Manny" Diaz, Mayor. So, it's anything -- you don't want a raise or anything, do you? Carlos Gimenez (City Manager): No. But there does need to be a confirmation hearing within 14 days. Chairman Regalado: Well, I think that we need to do this. We need to have some time on Thursday for the members of the Commission really to, you know -- hey, to trash him a little. I mean, you know. No. Seriously. I think that the members of the Commission, especially Commissioner Gonzalez and Commissioner Teele, and everybody, needs to have some time to have some questions to the Manager, and I think before voting. So, we cannot do it now. It's very late. But at what time you all want to do it on Thursday? Commissioner Teele: First thing in the morning. Chairman Regalado: First thing in the morning. Commissioner Teele: But let's just say this: Clearly, I think that Commissioner Gonzalez is entitled to have an opportunity to meet privately, and express any concerns or any policy statements, publicly, as I do the whole Commission should. But, obviously, in the case of someone who is being reappointed, for those of us that have been here, it really should be more of a love feast than a confirmation hearing. And I want to just say on the record, the only question that I'm going to be asking about -- other than maybe some budget issues -- are the objectivity of the Manager as it relates to the Fire Department, and can we ensure that the Fire Department will get a clear signal -- either of a recusal or total objectivity. And I really think that's important for the other professionals in the City. I mean, I've seen -- when we had a Fire Manager here before and the police -- you know, the EOC (Emergency Operation Center) depends on who's the Chief and all of that, and where the emergency meetings are held. And I really do think we ought to do that. But I'll be more than pleased to say here on the record that I think that there is no choice here, that Carlos Gimenez has done an outstanding job, and I'm really looking forward to a warm confirmation hearing, on my part, with the sole exception perhaps of just a question related to more objectivity, based upon, you know, 30 years of work. And if you don't have passion for the Fire Department, something's wrong with you. But at the same time, we've got to try to figure out how that balances out. But I'm delighted that you're going to be the Manager and that you're staying on, and I look forward to it. But I do think, in 269 December 11, 2001 fairness to the process, if it's possible, that there ought to be as much private time for Commissioner Gonzalez and, clearly, he should have the opportunity to ask the first and last questions, if there are going to be any, in any confirmation process. Mr. Gimenez; Thank you, sir. Chairman Regalado: OK. We'll do this -- Commissioner Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Regalado: Yes, sir. Commissioner Gonzalez: I have already had the opportunity to meet with Mr. Gimenez a couple of times and, hopefully, we should be able to spend some more time tomorrow and discuss, you know, a few issues that I have some concerns on. But other than that, I also agree with you. You know, he has dedicated most of his life to this City, and I think that he's doing a great job. Chairman Regalado: OK. Commissioner Gonzalez: So, thank you. Chairman Regalado: So we agreed on Thursday, after the Commissioners' items, if there are any, immediately we go into the confirmation hearings, even before the Consent Agenda. So, that is set for Thursday. And we do it Thursday because there is no more meeting. The 14 -day window is closed after Thursday. 270 December 11, 2001 0 • Vice Chairman Winton: Mr. Chairman, I think there was some confusion at a meeting or two ago -- I forget which one the meeting was -- over whether or not I was going to want to continue on as the Vice Chairman of MSEA (Miami Sports & Exhibition Authority), Chairman Regalado: Oh, OK. Vice Chairman Winton: And I really was hoping that I'm -- obviously, I failed because nobody understood it. It was my intent back then to resign as the Vice Chair of MSEA back then for whomever. So, if we need to appoint a new Vice Chairman of MSEA, then that needs to happen. But I'm -- as far as I'm concerned, I'm done. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, I think the CIerk should be requested to meet with Commissioner Gonzalez and go over all of the board appointments that the Commission has. And there was -- there is one or two issues. I think the real question is the International Trade, which had a trigger, I think, on your appointment, and several other things. But I think Commissioner Gonzalez should have an opportunity to sort of look at this and just sort of see how we are. And there's several things, you know, that are available. I know that the Joint Labor -- the Labor -- what is that? I think Commissioner Sanchez, but I know that that's one of the -- Vice Chairman Winton: Florida Training and Employment Consortium. Commissioner Teele: -- that may have some particular background, based upon your expertise and interest, and just any number of things. So, we certainly like to -- Chairman Regalado: I -- we discussed that, and I intended to appoint myself to MSEA, since I don't chair any committees. So, I will do that. But to do that, we need to have you appoint one of my two appointees, if that is possible, Johnny. If not, then I would rather not go there, because I don't want to kick any of my two appointees. I really don't. I'm nice. Vice Chairman Winton: I think you have to. Chairman Regalado: I know. Vice Chairman Winton: Because the rule -- the motion was -- Commissioner Teele: Yeah. But what he's -- Chairman Regalado: What I'm saying is -- Commissioner Teele: What he's appealing -- 271 December 11, 2001 0 • Chairman Regalado: -- if I have to kick any of the two appointees, I won't go there. That's what I'm saying. Vice Chairman Winton: Yeah, I -- Commissioner Teele: But rather than appealing just to Commissioner Winton, why don't you appeal to Commissioner Winton and to Commissioner Gonzalez, because he's not made any appointments to MSEA yet. Chairman Regalado: Well, that's true. But, you know, we don't want to -- Vice Chairman Winton: But I think we have to change -- we have to change either a resolution or an ordinance, because we changed the way this worked not long ago, and it was under your -- Commissioner Teele: We've already changed it. Vice Chairman Winton: -- direction, Commissioner Teele. Chairman Regalado: We already changed it. Vice Chairman Winton: And that was that you had the right to appoint -- Commissioner Teele: Self -nominate. Vice Chairman Winton: -- two members, or you could appoint -- Chairman Regalado: Self -nominate you and appoint another person. Vice Chairman Winton: Right. But we didn't say you could have two appointees and be Chair. Commissioner Teele: Well, he -- Chairman Regalado: That's what I'm saying. Vice Chairman Winton: Right. Chairman Regalado: That's what -- I said that I -- if I have to kick one of the two appointees of mine, I would not go there. That's what I'm saying. That's -- Vice Chairman Winton: We have to change the rule then. I mean, we've got -- I mean, we just can't -- Commissioner Teele: No, no. What he's -- Chairman Regalado: No, no, no. I mean, look, what I'm saying is very clear. 272 December 11, 2001 • 0 Vice Chairman Winton: Oh, I see. If I nominate one of your people -- oh, OK, OK, OK, OK, Chairman Regalado: Then I can go. If not, I can't go. Vice Chairman Winton: OK. So, I'll figure that out between now and next meeting. Chairman Regalado: And the reason is because the next MSEA meeting is the 18th. So, I need to be there, if that is the case. Commissioner Teele: Well, we have a meeting Thursday, so y'all can sweat it -- Chairman Regalado: Yeah, sure. 273 December 11, 2001 Commissioner Teele: I misspoke on the record, Mr. Chairman. The matter that is before us is Amendment Number 1. to the "Revocable" License Agreement, and not "irrevocable" anything. Chairman Regalado: Well -- Commissioner Teele: So, I just wanted to clarify that on the record. Chairman Regalado: And this is about Raceworks. And, Frank, please. Frank Rollason (Director, Building & Zoning): Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman and the Commission, this we've been sort of massaging all day today and we think we have it completed. The intent of this is what the direction was of the Commission, to -- and the agreement of Raceworks was to -- for them to do the work and for them to pay for the work of the modifications that had to do be done to the street and roadways, rather than going through the City. So, that's what this does. This passes that responsibility on to Raceworks, to actually contract to do the work through our Public Works Department. We'll monitor it and issue the permits, but they will do it privately. Vice Chairman Winton: As opposed to? Mr, Rollason: As opposed to us doing it and then them reimbursing us. Vice Chairman Winton: Terrible. Mr. Rollason: OK. But there was some issues with insurance, and today we resolved those. And, so, what you have in front of you, which I gave you, that has "Item 2" up in the corner, has some changes in it as to what was distributed. So, therefore, we need to, for the record -- Commissioner Teele: Is there any reason, Frank, this can't wait until Thursday? Mr. Rollason: Yes, sir. They're -- with this, they can start working. It'll only take a few moments for the Risk Manager to tell you what the differences were, the insurance, to get those on the record, and then we can vote. But this is -- Vice Chairman Winton: Just Thursday's going to be long. 274 December 11, 2001 0 0 Mr. Rollason: No work can be done -- for instance, we have palm trees that need to be moved from the Performing Arts Center into the park, and we can't let the contractors in until this insurance is squared away. Chairman Regalado: Excuse me. Ambassador, you are here representing -- Simon Ferro: Raceworks. Chairman Regalado: Oh, OK. Mr. Ferro: The Licensee. Mr. Rollason: And I'm just hopeful that he won't have to speak. So, if Mario -- Chairman Regalado: For a moment -- Mr. Rollason: I'm hopeful. Chairman Regalado: -- I thought about, hey, this guy -- we've got the big guns against us. Mr. Ferro: Commissioner, and, by the way, we agree with the terms. Mr. Rollason; No. I think we're in good shape. If we can just get this on the record, then we can get on. Mario Soldevilla: Mario Soldevilla from Risk Management. Basically, what -- in terms of the insurance, what we define was the Racework events that were -- that are going to take place, what the use period will be, and the improvements that they're going to make. The insurance is still -- in terms of the limits, still remain the same. It's twenty million during the Racework events. And they will provide that on a timely basis, once it's started. The use period will be — we'll determine the insurance for that period of time, which is within 75 days of the whole event period, and then just during the construction phase, the -- what insurance needs to be in place, while they're doing the construction. Those are the changes. Chairman Regalado: That's all. Mr. Ferro: Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Simon Ferro, Greenberg Traurig, 1221 Brickell. We agree with all the terms that are contained in this first amendment. We have spent most of the day dealing with some of the insurance issues. I would like to commend Erika Wright from the City Attorney's Office for just doing great job at redrafting some of the terms of 275 December 11, 2001 the agreement today. We agree with them 100 percent and we would urge your approval of them. Chairman Regalado: OK. So -- Vice Chairman Winton: Move to accept staffs recommendation on Amendment 1, the Revocable License Agreement. Chairman Regalado: There is a motion by Vice Chair Winton. A second? Commissioner Gonzalez: I'll second it, but I have a comment. Chairman Regalado: OK. Seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez. Go ahead, sir. Commissioner Gonzalez: At the time that this was discussed, I was not a Commissioner, and I didn't have the opportunity to vote on it or to express my sentiment in reference to this event. It was passed. It was adopted by my colleagues and by the ex -Commissioner of District 1, but I only have one concern. I was in the park on Sunday and let me tell you, that park is beautiful. And my only concern and my only worry is that I want to make sure, Mr. Manager, that this park comes back to what this park is now, and that we have a time certain, you know, that the race finish and the residents of the City of Miami and downtown Miami has its park in the same, you know, state that we have it now. That's my only concern. Mr. Gimenez: Yes, sir. We could -- provisions in that they will return the park to its original condition. I'm not aware of the time frame, but maybe -- Vice Chairman Winton: But there is a time frame? Mr. Rollason: There is, And the Bayfront Park Trust has been meeting with Raceworks, independently of this group, to handle those items in the park, and they have been satisfied that all the requirements have been made. In fact, there are some tree movements that have to take place, and additional royal palms that have to be put in to allow them to put the stands in that they want, and that's one of the rushes for this, is for them to start that work, I think, maybe tomorrow. They've got people that are there to start work. But those provisions are in the agreement, to return the park, even those things that they have to pull up sod. The sod has to be put back. And then, come next year, they've got to move the sod, and put the sod back again. I mean, that's -- it goes back to how it is. Vice Chairman Winton: OK. 276 December 11, 2001 Chairman Regalado: Commissioner Sanchez. Note for the Record: Commissioner Sanchez entered Commission chambers at 7:22 p.m. Chairman Regalado: Oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner Gonzdlez: Another concern was during the discussion that I have -- I don't know if I had discussion with you, Mr. Manager -- in reference to the barricades that have to be brought for this event. Where are these barricades are going to be stocked once the race is over? And where are they going to be saved until the next race? Have we identified a site yet? Mr. Rollason: We are dealing with -- a couple of sites are being looked at, and one of them is on Virginia Key. And, recently, there's been some discussion about even building a structure over there, and those discussions are going on with Asset Management right now. But there are several sites being looked at for storage, of not only the barricades, but the bridges, the pedestrian bridges that have to go over. And the last meeting we had, there was some discussion about not even storing the bridges here, but leasing the bridges on a race -by -race basis, bringing them in and them leaving the City altogether. But that's another element that is being worked on and is covered in the agreement also. Commissioner Gonzdlez: OK. Thank you. That's it. Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, if I may. As the Chairman of the Bayfront Park, we have had numerous meetings, The Trust has approved all the conditions set forth. The park is guaranteed -- Raceworks has guaranteed that the park will be returned to its normal conditions. They have addressed the removal of trees, which they have agreed to plant more trees. So, you know, it's got the support of the Trust, and I certainly think it's a great idea. All the concerns that have been brought forth from the Commissioners here have been addressed, and they have been good concerns. Because one of the number one concerns that we had was, listen, all the modifications that are being made, will it mess up the park? They even brought in consultants that are looking at the tire marks that we'll have around the fountain, and they have this liquid, which was demonstrated to us, that removes those track marks. So, it is guaranteed in the agreement that the park will be back to normal right after the races are over with. Mr. Rollason: And those are all covered in the license agreement. This is just an amendment to that. But for that license agreement, those items are in there. Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, could you call the question? 277 December 11, 2001 r 0 Chairman Regalado: Yes, sir. Just as, for the record, Commissioner Gonzdlez expressed some concerns about Bayfront Park and it was explained by the Manager and by Frank that you, as the Chairman of the Trust and the members have been dealing with this issue of having the park back to the same -- as it was or will be before the races. So, there is a motion and there is a second. All in favor say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Regalado: It passes five zero. The following resolution was introduced by Vice Chairman Winton, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 01-1280 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE REVOCABLE LICENSE AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI, BAYFRONT PARK MANAGEMENT TRUST AND RACEWORKS, LLC ("LICENSEE") TO PROVIDE FOR THE LICENSEE TO MAKE ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE INITIAL RACE/MOTORSPORTS EVENT AND TO ALLOW THE LICENSEE, AT ITS OWN COST, TO INITIATE AND COMPLETE THESE INITIAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE RACECOURSE. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gonzdlez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Tomas Regalado Vice Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. 278 December 11, 2001 Mr. Ferro: Thank you very much. Commissioner Sanchez: Gentlemen, we'll see you at the races. Chairman Regalado: OK. So, Commissioner Sanchez, for your information, we have a letter of the Mayor reappointing Carlos Gimenez as City Manager. We will have a confirmation hearing on Thursday at 9 some. Well, a motion to go? This meeting is adjourned. 279 December 11, 2001 9 THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 7:25 P.M. ATTEST: Walter J. Foeman CITY CLERK Sylvia S. Scheider ASSISTANT CITY CLERK MANUEL DIA% MAYOR 280 December 11, 2001