The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC 2000-02-17 Minutes0 W - OF MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 17, 2000 PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK/CITY HALL Walter J. Foeman/City Clerk ITEM NO. 0 INDEX • MINUTES OF COMMISSION MEETING February 17, 2000 SUBJECT 1. 1. COMMENTS re TOWING REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP); 2. COMMENTS re CENSUS RELATIONSHIP TO PLANNING DEPARTMENT -- PROVIDE PUBLIC NOTICE THROUGH CABLE TELEVISION CHANNEL NET -9 TO INFORM PUBLIC OF IMPORTANCE OF FILLING OUT CENSUS FORMS. 2. CONSENT AGENDA LEGISLATION 2/17/00 DISCUSSION 1-2 2/17/00 DISCUSSION 2 3. DISCUSS GRANT, WITH AN ESTIMATED VALUE 2/17/00 OF $3,500, FROM ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS DISCUSSION RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC., ("ESRI") LIVABLE 2-4 COMMUNITIES GRANT PROGRAM. (see section # 3.4) 3.1 ACCEPT BID OF MAGESCO, INC., FOR "JUAN 2/17/00 PABLO DUARTE SECURITY LIGHTING R-00-161 PROJECT, B-6330" [$25,884]; ALLOCATE FUNDS 4 AS APPROPRIATED BY ORDINANCE NOS. 11705 AND 11839, THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ('CIP") ORDINANCES. 3.2 ACCEPT BID OF MAGESCO, INC., FOR "JUAN 2/17/00 PABLO DUARTE . SECURITY LIGHTS R-00-162 (SHELTERS), B-6331" [$19,133]; ALLOCATE 5 FUNDS AS APPROPRIATED BY ORDINANCE NOS. 11705 AND 11839, THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ("CIP") ORDINANCES. 3.3 APPROVE PROVISION OF RECORDS 2/17/00 MANAGEMENT AND STORAGE FROM DATA R-00-163 STORAGE CENTER, FOR DEPARTMENT OF 5 POLICE, [$15,000]; ALLOCATE FUNDS FROM POLICE GENERAL OPERATING BUDGET. 3.4 AUTHORIZE MANAGER TO ACCEPT GRANT, 2/17/00 $3,500, FROM ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS R-00-164 RESEARCH. INSTITUTE, INC., ("ESRI") LIVABLE 6 COMMUNITIES GRANT PROGRAM, CONSISTING OF SOFTWARE, TRAINING AND MATERIALS TO ENHANCE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS. (see section # 2) 3.5 AUTHORIZE MANAGER TO ISSUE REQUEST FOR 2/17/00 PROPOSALS, TO PROVIDE FOOD AND BEVERAGE R-00-165 SERVICES IN THE CAFETERIA AREA AT 444 6 SOUTHWEST 2ND AVENUE, MIAMI RIVERSIDE CENTER. 3.6 AUTHORIZE ALLOCATION $6,475, FROM 25"' 2/17/00 YEAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK R-00-166 GRANT [CDBG] FUNDS, FOR REHABILITATION 7 OF BUSINESSES IN LITTLE HAVANA UNDER THE CITYWIDE ' COMMERCIAL FACADE PROGRAM; DESIGNATE LITTLE HAVANA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AS THE ORGANIZATION ADMINISTERING THE PROGRAM AND TO DISBURSE FUNDS TO THE PARTICIPANTS. 3.7 AUTHORIZE ALLOCATION $9,800, FROM 25TH 2/17/00 YEAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK R-00-167 GRANT [CDBG] FUNDS, FOR REHABILITATION 7 OF BUSINESSES IN LITTLE HAVANA UNDER CITYWIDE COMMERCIAL FACADE PROGRAM; DESIGNATE SMALL BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY CENTER, INC., AS ORGANIZATION ADMINISTERING PROGRAM AND TO DISBURSE FUNDS TO PARTICIPANTS. 3.8 AUTHORIZE ALLOCATION OF $18,482.31, FROM 2/17/00 25TH YEAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK R-00-168 GRANT [CDBG] FUNDS, FOR REHABILITATION 8 OF BUSINESSES IN THE LITTLE HAVANA UNDER CITYWIDE COMMERCIAL FACADE PROGRAM; DESIGNATE LITTLE HAVANA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AS ORGANIZATION ADMINISTERING PROGRAM AND DISBURSE FUNDS TO PARTICIPANTS. 3.9 AUTHORIZE ALLOCATION OF $12,600 FROM 2/17/00 25TH YEAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK R-00-169 GRANT [CDBG] FUNDS, FOR REHABILITATION 8 OF BUSINESSES IN FLAGAMI UNDER CITYWIDE COMMERCIAL FACADE PROGRAM; DESIGNATE SMALL BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY CENTER, INC., AS ORGANIZATION ADMINISTERING PROGRAM AND DISBURSE FUNDS TO PARTICIPANTS. 4. AUTHORIZE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS, 2/17/00 $1,615,000, TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING R-00-170 DEVELOPERS, FROM THE CITY'S FY 1999-2000 9-21 HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM, IN CONNECTION WITH DEVELOPMENT OF APPROXIMATELY 697 UNITS OF AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING IN THE CITY. 5. PRESENTATION, PROCLAMATION OF JUDGE 2/17/00 LAWSON THOMAS DAY TO MRS. THOMAS, PRSENTATION POSTHUMOUSLY PROCLAIMED BY 22. COMMISSIONER TEELE. 6. EMERGENCY ORDINANCE: ESTABLISH SPECIAL REVENUE FUND: "WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT DISLOCATED WORKERS .PROGRAM (PY 2000)"; APPROPRIATE FUNDS [$149,552], CONSISTING OF GRANT FROM SOUTH FLORIDA EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CONSORTIUM THROUGH THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA UNDER FUNDS GENERATED BY THE WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT OF 1998. 2/17/00 ORDINANCE NO 11893 22-24 7. EMERGENCY ORDINANCE: AMEND SECTIONS 2/17/00 VI OF ORDINANCE NO. 11705; REVISE ORDINANCE NO. PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS IN THE PARKS AND RECREATION AREA. 8. EMERGENCY ORDINANCE: AMEND 11557, WHICH ESTABLISHED INITIAL RESOURCES AND APPROPRIATIONS FOR SPECIAL REVENUE FUND: "STOP VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN," TO INCREASE SAID APPROPRIATIONS, [$120,388], CONSISTING OF A GRANT FROM THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS [$89,773] AND IN-KIND SERVICES MATCH [$30,615]; ALLOCATE $30,615 FROM POLICE DEPARTMENT GENERAL OPERATING BUDGET AS IN-KIND MATCHING FUNDS. 9. AUTHORIZE MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT - FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SENIOR COUNSELOR (S)/VICTIM ADVOCATE (S), [$54,999], FOR PROVISION OF COUNSELING AND INTERVENTION SUPPORT SERVICES FOR DEPARTMENT OF POLICE, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INTERVENTION ("DVI") . RAPID ENFORCEMENT AND CONTAINMENT TRACKING TEAM ("REACT") PROGRAM; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM "STOP VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN" GRANT. 11894 24-26 2/17/00 ORDINANCE NO. 11895 26-28 2/17/00 R-00-171 28-29 0 .0 10. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: ESTABLISH NEW SPECIAL REVENUE FUND: "SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS PROGRAM CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT FUND"; APPROPRIATE FUNDS [$235,000], CONSISTING. OF GRANT FROM MIAMI-DADE COUNTY THROUGH ITS OFFICE OF SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS. 11. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: AMEND CHAPTER 2/ARTICLE IV/DEPARTMENTS/DIVISION 9 OF THE CODE "COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT" TO REQUIRE ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD PRIOR TO THE EXPENDITURE OF ANY STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM ("SHIP") FUNDS. 12. ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED SILVER BLUFF HARBOUR. 13. AMEND 99-175 TO REFLECT THE MONTHLY COSTS FOR MAINTENANCE AND ELECTRICAL SERVICE FOR DECORATIVE STREET LIGHTS TO BE INSTALLED BY FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY AT BRICKELL BAY DRIVE, BETWEEN S.E. 14 STREET AND 15 ROAD, FOR THE POINT VIEW ASSOCIATION, INC., SHALL BE ASSUMED BY THE CITY OF MIAMI, [$2,986.32]. 14. RATIFY, APPROVE, CONFIRM MANAGER'S FINDING OF EMERGENCY, WAIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPETITIVE SEALED BIDS, APPROVE PURCHASE OF HARDWARE AND FASTENERS FOR STORAGE RACKS AND DOCKS AT MARINE STADIUM MARINA FROM FOLLANSBEE DOCK SYSTEMS, [$4,926.39], FOR DEPARTMENT . OF CONFERENCES, CONVENTIONS AND PUBLIC FACILITIES; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM MARINE STADIUM MARINA FY 99-00 OPERATING BUDGET. 2/17/00 FIRST READING ORDINANCE 29-30 2/17/00 FIRST READING ORDINANCE 31-32 2/17/00 R-00-172 33 2/17/00 R-00-173 34-36 2/17/00 R-00-174 36-37 15. LAUTHORIZE MANAGER TO EXECUTE 2/17/00 AGREEMENT WITH SFLFL, INC., FOR ORANGE R-00-175 BOWL STADIUM FOR HOME GAMES DURING 38-41 MARCH TO JUNE AS PARTICIPANTS IN A SPRING FOOTBALL LEAGUE, USER FEE TO BE CAPPED AT $7,500 PER EVENT. 2. COMMENTS REGARDING THE GOLD CUP 2000 SOCCER GAMES. (see section # 17) 16. COMMENTS re POLYETHYLENE DOCK FLOATS 2/17/00 AT THE MARINE STADIUM MARINA (see section DISCUSSION # 18) 41-44 17. DISCUSS GOLD CUP 2000 SOCCER EVENT AT 2/17/00 ORANGE BOWL. (see Section # 15) DISCUSSION 44-47 18. RATIFY, APPROVE, CONFIRM MANAGER'S 2/17/00 FINDING OF EMERGENCY, WAIVE R-00-176 REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPETITIVE SEALED 47-48 BIDS, APPROVE PURCHASE OF POLYETHYLENE DOCK FLOATS AT MARINE STADIUM MARINA FROM FOLLANSBEE DOCK SYSTEMS, [$7,825.08], FOR DEPARTMENT OF CONVENTIONS, CONFERENCES AND PUBLIC FACILITIES; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AS APPROPRIATED BY ORDINANCE NOS.* 11705 AND 11839, THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ORDINANCES. (see section # 16) 19. RATIFY, APPROVE, CONFIRM MANAGER'S 2/17/00 FINDING OF EMERGENCY, WAIVE R-00-177 REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPETITIVE SEALED 49-50 BIDS, APPROVE PURCHASE OF DRY STORAGE RACKS/TIMBERS FOR THE MARINE STADIUM MARINA FROM A & B HARDWARE AND LUMBER COMPANY. [$23,583.30], FOR DEPARTMENT OF CONFERENCES, CONVENTIONS AND PUBLIC FACILITIES; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AS APPROPRIATED BY ORDINANCE NOS. 11705 AND 11839, THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ORDINANCES. 20. AUTHORIZE MANAGER TO EXECUTE i2/17/00 AMENDMENT TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT . R-00-178 WITH SUNSHINE STATE GOVERNMENTAL 50-52 FINANCIAL COMMISSION TO PROVIDE FOR VOLUNTARY VALIDATION OF REVENUE BONDS AND COMMERCIAL NOTES PRIOR TO ISSUANCE. 21. 1. ACCEPT RECOMMENDATION OF MANAGER : 2/17/00 TO APPROVE FINDING OF EVALUATION R-00-179 COMMITTEE, PURSUANT TO . REQUEST FOR , 52-57 PROPOSALS, AUTHORIZE MANAGER TO' NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE AGREEMENT, WITH THE TOP RANKED FIRM, PENN CREDIT CORPORATION, FOR DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE. 2. ACCEPT RECOMMENDATION OF MANAGER TO APPROVE FINDING OF EVALUATION COMMITTEE, PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS, AUTHORIZE MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE AGREEMENT, WITH THE TOP RANKED FIRM, PENN CREDIT CORPORATION, FOR DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE. 22. REJECT PROCESS FOR SELECTION OF ' 2/17/00 FINANCIAL ADVISOR; AUTHORIZE MANAGER TO R-00-180 NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE AGREEMENT (S), 57-60 WITH THE FIRMS OF FIRST SOUTHWEST COMPANY, JOINT VENTURE OF DUNLAP AND ASSOCIATES, INC., / FIDELITY FINANCIAL, SERVICES, L.C., DAIN RAUSCHER, INC., , HANIFEN, IMHOFF, INC., AND P.G. CORBIN AND COMPANY, INC. 23. AMEND 99-427 TO CORRECT ERROR - FUNDS TO 2/17/00 HAITIAN AMERICAN FOUNDATION, INC., FROM R-00-181 $27,798 TO $10,952, AND CORRECT TOTAL 60-62 AMOUNT OF THE ALLOCATION TO SOCIAL SERVICES FROM $664,269 TO $647,423.33. 24. 1. RATIFY, APPROVE, CONFIRM MANAGER'S: 2/17/00 FINDING OF EMERGENCY, WAIVE R-00-182 REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPETITIVE SEALED' 63-65 BIDS, APPROVE PROCUREMENT OF SECURITY SERVICE AT FIRE STATION NO. 9 PARKING LOT, FROM GABRIEL SECURITY CORPORATION, INC., [$8,162]; ALLOCATE FUNDS. 2. COMMENTS re COST OF FILIMING KEEP MIAMI BEAUTIFUL. 25. PRESENTATION — SALUTE TO THE HONORABLE 2/17/00 MILAGROS ORTIZ BOSCH FROM THE DOMINICAN'l PRESENTATION REPUBLIC. 65 I 26. DISCUSSION re. SINGLE TIER SALARY 2/17/00 STRUCTURE FOR CITY EMPLOYEES. (see ! DISCUSSION sections # 39 and #51) 65-76 27. APPOINT MARTIN GARCIA AS A MEMBER OF THE: 2/17/00 CIVIL SERVICE BOARD. R-00-193 76-77 0 .0 28. BRIEF COMMENTS, WITHDRAWAL OF STREET 2/17/00 SWEEPING MATTER. DISCUSSION 77 29. BRIEF COMMENTS AND DEFERRAL OF FINANCIAL. 2/17/00 REPORT —BUDGET UPDATE. DISCUSSION 77 30. DISCUSS PROBLEMS WITH BAYFRONT PARK 2/17/00 MANAGEMENT TRUST — PAST EXECUTIVE DISCUSSION DIRECTOR. (see sections# 54 and #.57) i 77-79 31. DISCUSS PROPOSED BISCAYNE MILLENNIUM 2/17/00 MEDIA PROJECT (see section # 33) DISCUSSION 80-82 32. SINGING PRESENTATION BY CHARLES DREW 2/17/00 MIDDLE SCHOOL CHOIR. PRESENTATION 82-84 33. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: AMEND THE CODE! 2/17/00 TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY'S COMMUNITY � FIRST READING REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO CREATE AND, ORDINANCE ESTABLISH THE "BISCAYNE MILLENNIUM MEDIA 84-85 PROJECT" ALONG BISCAYNE BOULEVARD WITHIN THE AREA OF THE: SOUTH EAST/OVE RTOWN PARK WEST; COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, BOUNDED BY BISCAYNE BOULEVARD ON THE EAST, NORTHEAST 2ND AVENUE (EAST SIDE) ON THE WEST, NORTHEAST 5T" STREET ON THE, SOUTH, AND 1-395 ON THE NORTH; DIRECT, MANAGER AND ATTORNEY TO DRAFT AND' ADOPT STANDARDS AND CRITERIA TO IMPLEMENT ZONING 'DISTRICT; ESTABLISH, SUPPLEMENTAL DEVELOPMENT FEE — SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD. 34. DECLARE EXEMPTION FROM CODE SECTIONS 36-, 2/17/00 4(a) AND 36-5(a) PROHIBITIONS AND , R-00-184 RESTRICTIONS RELATED TO NOISE RESULTING 85-86 FROM FILMING "THE FUGITIVE" TELEVISION SERIES, SUBJECT TO WARNER BROS. TELEVISION PRODUCTION OBTAINING CONSENT FROM NEIGHBORS AT EACH LOCALITY. 35. DISCUSS re SECTION 8 HOUSING REHAB ALONG 2/17/00 N.W.' 62 TO 79 STREETS AND 58 TO 59 AVENUES — DISCUSSION COUNTY PUBLIC HOUSING — DRUG DENS — ; 86-87 CONSIDER DOWN ZONING — MULTIFAMILY DESIGNATION CAUSES PROBLEMS. 36. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF TO MEET 2/17/00 WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES OF REGIS HOUSE , DISCUSSION REGARDING THEIR REQUEST TO SUBORDINATE 88 THE EXISTING LIEN TO A NEW MORTGAGE, WHILE MAINTAINING THE ORIGINAL , AGREEMENT. 37. EXPRESSING SUPPORT OF THE INFORMATION 2/17/00 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT TASK FORCE: R-00-185 RECOMMENDING MIAMI AS THE SITE FOR THE 88-89 DEVELOPMENT OF A HIGH SPEED NETWORK, ACCESS POINT [NAP]. i38. DISCUSS HOMESTEAD AIR FORCE BASE. 2/17/00 RENOVATION DISCUSSION 89-92 39. DISCUSS, TABLE CONSIDERATION OF SINGLE TIER 2/17/00 SALARY STRUCTURE FOR CITY _EMPLOYEES. (see: DISCUSSION sections # 26 and #51) 92-93 40. MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT FOR BRICKELL 2/17/00 .GRAND PROJECT AT APPROXIMATELY SOUTH R-00-187 MIAMI AVENUE, S.W. 10 STREET AND 11 STREET — 93-98 [applicant BAP Development, Inc.] 41. MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE BRICKELL 2/17/00 MAIN STREET PROJECT LOCATION: R-00-188 APPROXIMATELY 900, 901, 920 SOUTH MIAMI 99-128 AVENUE, 900, 916-918 SE MIAMI AVENUE ROAD, 10, 20, 26, 36, 50, 60, 62-64 SW 9TH STREET, 1, 25, 29, 41, 43, 45, 47, 55, 57, 59, 75, 81 SW 10TH STREET AND 926-928 SE 1 ST AVENUE — APPLICANT: BRICKELL MAIN STREET, LTD. 42. MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT FOR MIAMI 2/17/00 STADIUM APARTMENTS PROJECT AT 2301 N.W. R-00-189 10TH AVENUE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 128-137 [applicant St. Martin Corporation] 43. DENY "APPEAL, DENY VARIANCE, AFFIRM ZONING 2/17/00 BOARD re SETBACK AT 31 N.W. 65TH AVENUE R-00-190 [applicant: Silvio and Daisy Arango] 137-148 44. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: AMEND 10544, 2/17/00 COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, S.W. ORDINANCE 12TH AND 13TH STREETS AND 2ND AVENUE, FROM NO. 11896 OFFICE AND HIGH DENSITY MULTIFAMILY 149-156 RESIDENTIAL TO RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL [applicant: Trion Ventures I, Inc.] 45. TO AMEND ORDINANCE 11000, FROM OFFICE AND 2/17/00 R-4 MULTIFAMILY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO ORDINANCE C-1 RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL TO CHANGE THE NO. 11897 ZONING ATLAS — LOCATION: APPROXIMATELY 130, 156-157 140, 150, 160, 170, 180 AND 190 SW 12TH STREET, 121, 131 AND 159 SW 13TH STREET AND 1227-1229 SW 2ND AVENUE — APPLICANT: TRION VENTURES I, INC., CONTRACT PURCHASER. 46. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: AMEND 10544, 2/17/00 COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, 201 ORDINANCE AND 203 S.W. 13TH STREET AND 1216 S.W. 2ND NO. 11898 AVENUE, FROM OFFICE AND HIGH DENSITY 158-159 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL [applicant: Kathleen Klein Brigham] 47. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: ZONING 2/17/00 CHANGE, AMEND 11000, 201 AND 203 S.W. 13 ORDINANCE STREET AND 1216 S.W. 2ND AVENUE, FROM O NO. 11899 OFFICE AND R-4 MULTIFAMILY HIGH DENSITY 159-160 RESIDENTIAL TO C-1 RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL [applicant: Kathleen Klein Brigham] 48. TABLE CONSIDERATION OF ZONING AMENDMENT 2/17/00 TO ADD SD -12 BUFFER OVERLAY DISTRICT AT DISCUSSION 2960, 2961 AND 2965 AVIATION AVENUE (see section 160-161 # 58) 49. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: AMEND ZONING 2/17/00 ORDINANCE 11000 TO ADD CHILD DAYCARE ORDINANCE CENTERS WITHIN SD -6 CENTRAL COMMERCIAL NO. 11900 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT [applicant: Planning and 161-163 Zoning Department] 50. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: AMEND ZONING 2/17/00 ORDINANCE 11000 TO REMOVE CLINICS, MEDICAL ORDINANCE OR DENTAL OFFICES AS CONDITIONAL PRINCIPAL NO. 11901 USES WITHIN SD -9 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 163-166 NORTH OVERLAY DISTRICT [applicant: Planning and Zoning Department] 51. AUTHORIZE MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A 2/17/00 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, MODIFY R-00-191 EXISTING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING '166-173 AGREEMENT WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, (AFSCME), LOCAL 1907 TO PROVIDE FOR SINGLE TIER SALARY STRUCTURE FOR CITY EMPLOYEES. (see sections # 26 and # 39) 52. JUVENILE JUSTICE WEEK AT COCONUT GROVE 2/17//00 EXHIBITION CENTER AND PEACOCK PARK; R-00-192 CITY TO CO-SPONSOR AND GRANT $600 173-175 WAIVER AND IN-KIND SERVICES. 53. WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES ON CUBAN 2/17/00 ISSUES, AT JOSE MARTI PARK WAIVE PERMIT R-00-193 FEE FOR PARK USE. 175-176 54. APPOINT GREGORY BUSH AND FRANK 2/17/00 BALZEBRE AS MEMBERS OF BAYFRONT PARK M-00-194 MANAGEMENT TRUST. (see sections # 30 and # 57) R-00-195 176-178 55. APPOINTING RUTH HAMILTON AS A MEMBER 2/17/00 OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD. R-00-196 178-179 56. APPOINT RAY FLORES AS MEMBER OF THE 2/17/00 INTERNATIONAL TRADE BOARD. R-00-197 179-180 57. COMMENTS re TINA HILLS, MEMBER OF THE 2/17/00' BAYFRONT PARK MANAGEMENT TRUST. [see FIRST READING sections # 30 and # 54] ORDINANCE 180-185 0 0. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA On the 17"' day of February 2000, 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 9:40 a.m. by Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort, with the following members of the Commission found to be present: Commissioner Wifredo Gort (District 1) Commissioner Tomas Regalado (District 4) Commissioner Johnny L. Winton (District 2) ABSENT Commissioner Joe Sanchez (District 3) Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. (District 5) ALSO PRESENT: Donald Warshaw, City Manager Alejandro Vilarello, City Attorney Walter J. Foeman, City Clerk Maria J. Argudin, Assistant City Clerk An invocation was delivered by Commissioner Regalado, followed by Commissioner Winton leading those present in a pledge of allegiance to the flag. Vice Chairman Gort: Good morning, everyone. First, we'll have the invocation by Commissioner Regalado, and the pledge of allegiance by Commissioner Winton. Commissioner Winton just made a remark, which I think is very important. You can tell we're not allocating any funds today. That's why it's so important, whenever we have CDBG (Community Development Block Grant), we have that by itself. Vice Chairman Gort: In the meantime, my understanding, is, both Sanchez and Teele are on their way here. While we wait for them to make any decision, is there any particular questions that we want to ask? I do have one. Whatever happened with the towing — the RFP (Request for Proposal) for the towing companies? 1 February 17, 2000 Mr. Donald Warshaw (City Manager): (inaudible) Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Number two is, it's going to be very important this year, the Census Bureau. Our Planning Department, and I think we should create the right kind of committee, and to make sure that our Planning Department works very closely with them, to make sure that we count everyone. And Channel 9 should have it at all times because a lot of people were not answering, thinking because of the immigrants, thinking that this information could be used by INS (Immigration and Naturalization Services) or somebody else, and it's important for them to know that all this information is very confidential, and this information will not be given out. To make sure we count everyone, because it's very important. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman, are we on the... Vice Chairman Gort: Yes. Commissioner Regalado:....on the Consent Agenda or are we just asking questions on other issues? Note for the Record: There were no vetoes by the Mayor. Vice Chairman Gort: No, I think we can — Teele should be in a minute, and anything happens, we can always go back. First thing — first of item of business, there's no veto by the Mayor. Consent Agenda. Are there any questions? Any one of you have any questions on the Consent Agenda? Commissioner Winton? Commissioner Winton: No questions. Vice Chairman Gort: Commissioner Sanchez? Commissioner Sanchez: Pertaining.to C... Vice Chairman Gort: CA, Consent Agenda. Commissioner Sanchez: I do have —just on four, which is no big deal, but pertaining to CA -4, which touches on community policing. Those funds — on the matching - the program design, if we could have an explanation on the program design, what support does this provide to the community, and also is there a mission statement on that? It's on CA -4. Just for clarification, I don't disagree with it, but just would like — and, also, if— what is the repealer provision on that one, on CA -4? I couldn't find it in the backup material. Major Joseph Longuiera: Commissioner, basically, on CA -4, they are just giving us software valued at thirty-five hundred dollars ($3500). And we're going to use that software for crime mapping, by NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) areas and stuff. We have another grant 2 February 17, 2000 where we're also buying the same kind of software, and we're going to create like an intranet of mapping between all the NETS on crime and crime analysis issues. Commissioner Sanchez: Well, I just felt that that was something that, you know, people out there on Channel 9 that are watching would be — very informed with because it provides information to the NET offices, which is pertaining to community policing, which is the future of law enforcement. But the clause provision that it has, what repealer provision does that have? Mr. Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Commissioner, if you're referring to the resolution, that's standard language in our resolutions, not particularly related to this project. I don't know if you're talking about another repealer provision, but if it's the one in the resolution, that's language that we use in our resolutions. Commissioner Sanchez: On every one of them? On every resolution you put that, even if there isn't one? Mr. Vilarello: Is the reference to the resolution? Commissioner Sanchez: Yes. Mr. Vilarello: Normally speaking, we don't have a repealer provision in our resolutions. Commissioner Sanchez: But you do put it on the resolution? Mr. Vilarello: This one shouldn't have had a repealer provision and a sever — that's ordinance language, and it's... Commissioner Sanchez: So, it's a valid question for me to ask? Mr. Vilarello: Absolutely. You're correct; it should not have been in the resolution. Commissioner Sanchez: OK. I don't have a problem. Vice Chairman Gort: Commissioner Regalado, do I have a motion? Commissioner Regalado: Move it. Vice Chairman Gort: By the way, hold it. Before I move, anyone in the public would like to address any of the issues on the Consent Agenda? Is there anyone in the public would like to address any of the issues on the Consent Agenda? OK. Motion? Commissioner Regalado: Move it. Vice Chairman Gort: Moved by Commissioner Regalado. Seconded by Commissioner Winton. Further discussion? Being none, all in favor state by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): "Aye." 3 February 17, 2000 • THEREUPON MOTION DULY MADE BY COMMISSIONER REGALADO AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WINTON, THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS WERE PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. NOTE FOR THE RECORD: CODE SECTION 2-33 0) STIPULATES THAT CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS THAT ARE REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA' PRIOR TO CITY COMMISSION CONSIDERATION SHALL AUTOMATICALLY BE SCHEDULED AS A REGULAR AGENDA ITEM AT THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION. RESOLUTION NO. 00-161 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ACCEPTING THE BID OF MAGESCO, INC., FOR THE PROJECT ENTITLED "JUAN PABLO DUARTE SECURITY LIGHTING PROJECT, B-6330" IN THE PROPOSED AMOUNT OF $25,884; ALLOCATING FUNDS THEREFOR FROM PROJECT NO. 331309, AS APPROPRIATED BY ORDINANCE NOS. 11705, AS AMENDED, AND 11839, THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ("CIP") ORDINANCES, IN THE AMOUNT 'OF $25,884 FOR CONTRACT COSTS AND $4,106 FOR ESTIMATED EXPENSES, FOR A TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST OF $29,990; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, WITH MAGESCO, INC. FOR THE PROJECT. 4 February 17, 2000 RESOLUTION NO. 00-162 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ACCEPTING THE BID OF MAGESCO, INC., FOR THE PROJECT ENTITLED "JUAN PABLO DUARTE SECURITY LIGHTS (SHELTERS), B-6331" IN THE PROPOSED AMOUNT OF $19,133; ALLOCATING FUNDS THEREFOR FROM PROJECT NO. 331309, AS APPROPRIATED BY ORDINANCE NOS. 11705, AS AMENDED, AND 11839, THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ("CIP") ORDINANCES, IN THE AMOUNT OF $19,133 THE CONTRACT COST AND $3,296 EXPENSES, TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF $22,429; CIP PROJECT NO. 331309; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, WITH SAID CORPORATION. RESOLUTION NO. 00-163 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION APPROVING THE PROVISION OF RECORDS MANAGEMENT AND STORAGE FROM DATA STORAGE CENTER, UTILIZING EXISTING CITY OF MIAMI CONTRACT AWARD BID NO. 96- 97-092, EFFECTIVE UNTIL OCTOBER 30, 2000, FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF POLICE, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $15,000; ALLOCATING FUNDS THEREFOR FROM THE POLICE GENERAL OPERATING BUDGET, ACCOUNT CODE NO. 001000.290201.6.610. 5 February 17, 2000 • RESOLUTION NO. 00-164 A RESOLUTION OF THE . MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT A GRANT, AT AN ESTIMATED VALUE OF $3,500, FROM ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. (" BSRI") LIVABLE COMMUNITIES GRANT PROGRAM, CONSISTING OF SOFTWARE, TRAINING AND MATERIALS TO ENHANCE THE DEPARTMENT OF POLICE GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENT (S), IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, FOR SAID PURPOSE. RESOLUTION NO. 00-165 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT (S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ISSUE A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, TO PROVIDE FOOD BAND BEVERAGE SERVICES IN THE CAFETERIA AREA AT 444 SOUTHWEST 2ND AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, COMMONLY KNOWN AS MIAMI RIVERSIDE CENTER. 6 February 17, 2000 RESOLUTION NO. 00-166 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,475, FROM 25TH YEAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS, PROJECT NO. 799602, FOR THE REHABILITATION OF SIX (6) BUSINESSES LOCATED IN THE LITTLE HAVANA AREA UNDER THE CITY-WIDE COMMERCIAL FACADE PROGRAM; DESIGNATING THE LITTLE HAVANA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ("LHDA") AS THE ORGANIZATION ADMINISTERING THE PROGRAM AND TO DISBURSE FUNDS TO THE PARTICIPANTS; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, WITH LHDA TO ADMINISTER SAID PROGRAM. RESOLUTION NO. 00-167 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,800, FROM THE 25TH YEAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS, PROJECT NO. 799602, FOR THE REHABILITATION OF SEVEN (7) BUSINESSES LOCATED IN THE LITTLE HAVANA AREA UNDER THE CITY-WIDE COMMERCIAL FAQADE PROGRAM; DESIGNATING THE SMALL BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY CENTER, INC. ("SBOC") AS THE ORGANIZATION ADMINISTERING THE PROGRAM AND TO DISBURSE FUNDS TO THE PARTICIPANTS; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, WITH SBOC TO ADMINISTER SAID PROGRAM. 7 February 17, 2000 • RESOLUTION NO. 00-168 • A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $18,482.31, FROM THE 25T" YEAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS, PROJECT NO. 799602, FOR THE REHABILITATION OF FIFTEEN (15) BUSINESSES LOCATED IN THE LITTLE HAVANA AREA UNDER THE CITY- WIDE COMMERCIAL FACADE PROGRAM; DESIGNATING THE LITTLE HAVANA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ("LHDA") AS THE ORGANIZATION ADMINISTERING THE PROGRAM AND TO DISBURSE FUNDS TO THE PARTICIPANTS; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, WITH LHDA TO ADMINISTER SAID PROGRAM. RESOLUTION NO. 00-169 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $12,600, FROM THE 25T" YEAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS, PROJECT NO. 799602, FOR THE REHABILITATION OF NINE (9) BUSINESSES LOCATED IN THE FLAGAMI AREA UNDER THE CITY-WIDE COMMERCIAL FACADE PROGRAM; DESIGNATING THE SMALL BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY CENTER, INC. ("SBOC") AS THE ORGANIZATION ADMINISTERING THE PROGRAM AND TO DISBURSE FUNDS TO THE PARTICIPANTS; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, WITH SBOC TO ADMINISTER SAID PROGRAM. 8 February 17, 2000 Vice Chairman Gort: Item 2. Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Vice Chair, if I may? I do have -- Commissioner Teele has a proclamation that's he's going to be presenting. Vice Chairman Gort: Right. We want to hold the proclamations until Commissioner Teele gets here. Also, I'd like to announce we have a visitor -- a Senator coming in from Dominican Republic and they'll be coming in about 10:00, 10:15, 11:00. At that time, I would like to give the key of the City to them. Item 2. Commissioner Regalado: I've got a question, Mr. Chairman. Vice Chairman Gort: Yes. Commissioner Regalado: This is the 25 percent that the Commission decided that was going to be used for rental, is that correct? Mr. Jeff Hepburn (Assistant Director, Housing): That's correct. Commissioner Regalado: OK. Vice Chairman Gort: One of the things that I requested, in talking to some of the developers is try -- and there is an existing program where, although it's for rental, they can use a percentage of the rentals for future down payments. Now, Fannie Mae is going to come out with some new programs, where bonds could be issued to create funds to -- that can be done by the developers; it could be done by the banks, where they can provide money for down payments. Because there is a lot of individuals that could buy a house and they could pay their mortgage payments, but they don't have enough funds to do the down payment but there -- there will be something to be done in that. OK. You want to go into it? Mr. Hepburn: OK. Item 2 is a resolution awarding HOME (Home Investment Partnership Program) Funds to four affordable housing providers. This is in response to an RFP (Request for Proposal) the City of Miami issued back on October '99. What we're recommending, in terms of the four developers, is Codec, Inc. one hundred and forty thousand dollars ($140,000) to help them finance a hundred -unit, elderly project planned in Little Havana; St. Martin Affordable Housing, Limited, a hundred and ninety-nine units. We're recommending two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) of HOME funding; Gate House and Jubilee, which is a joint venture, it also involves a hundred ninety-nine units and we're recommending financing, in terms of City's portion, four hundred -- five hundred and forty thousand dollars ($540,000); and, then, the Pinnacle Housing Group also plans to build a hundred and ninety-nine units in Little Havana. We're recommending six hundred and eighty-five thousand dollars ($685,000). Vice Chairman Gort: Questions? February 17, 2000 0 Commissioner Sanchez: So moved. Commissioner Regalado: Second. Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved. Commissioner Sanchez: If there are no questions, I'll move it. Vice Chairman Gort: Is there a second? Commissioner Regalado: Second. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Discussion? 0 Commissioner Winton: Yes. I have a comment and a question. There's one group, which is the Pinnacle Group, in these projects that require state funding, which is where a big chunk of the funding comes from to do this. And y'all have to help me here. I forget what the exact name of the program is from the state. But in order to qualify or to win the bid at the state level, the local contribution has to be, at least, a million dollars ($1,000,000). Now, that local contribution can come either from the County or from the City or a combination of both. Mr. Hepburn: That's correct. Commissioner Winton: Now, if you don't have that million dollar ($1,000,000) contribution from local government, then there is zero chance that you're going to win the bid for the State funds in Tallahassee. With the Pinnacle Group, I understand that our allocation of... Commissioner Sanchez: Six hundred and eighty-five thousand. Commissioner Winton: Six hundred and eighty-five thousand dollars ($685,000) is short by three hundred and forty-five thousand. They didn't get the project moving in time to get before the County, so there are no County contributions, only City. So, the six hundred and forty-five thousand dollars ($645,000) simply isn't enough money to allow this project to compete in Tallahassee. So, the question is here, what steps can we take to -- I think that we're allowed to actually commit part of two thousand one dollars ($2,001) at this particular juncture? So, it seems to me that, with this particular group, it makes no sense to give them enough money to fail. We either need to give zero or you need to give them enough money to really win. I don't know anybody's recommending zero here. So, what can we do to give this group a real chance to win in Tallahassee? Commissioner Sanchez: Johnny, if you would yield? I do believe there is a resolution or some type of established law set forth that provides a 25 percent... Mr. Hepburn: Commissioners, to answer the question. The HOME Program regulations does allow a jurisdiction to pre -commit their next year allocation, up to 25 percent, of what your existing HOME allocation is today. That equates out to about a million dollars ($1,000,000). Commissioner Sanchez: If I may? Johnny, you're absolutely right. How could we fund or give money to a project that we know that the money isn't enough and they're doomed to fail? And these are projects -- as a matter of fact, if I look at this Rayo Del Sol, which I've seen before, that's in my district and I've seen the project. So, I wouldn't want to be a part of a decision-making process where we give somebody funds and it's not enough funds and they're not going to be able to get the money 10 February 17, 2000 from the County and, then, that jeopardizes the State when they go up there for -- whatever that funding is called. So, if there needs to be a motion to move for the extra 25 percent, I'm willing to make that motion. Commissioner Winton: I'll second the motion. Commissioner Sanchez: So, there's a motion and a second, Mr. Vice Chair. Vice Chairman Gort: Further discussion? Mr. Donald Warshaw (City Manager): Is that an amendment to the... Vice Chairman Gort: What's the amendment? Commissioner Sanchez: It's that we give Pinnacle Housing Group... Mr. Warshaw: That you advance next year's... Commissioner Sanchez: Yes. Mr. Warshaw: OK. So, let me understand. So, the amendment would be that you're advancing to the tune of 25 percent, that portion of next year's commitment? Commissioner Sanchez: Yes. Commissioner Winton: Well, I don't know if it's 25 -- it's to the tune of three hundred and forty thousand dollars ($340,000), which falls under the 25 percent threshold. Because I think that you just said that the 25 percent threshold is over a million dollars ($1,000,000) and we're only asking for three hundred and forty. Mr. Hepburn: OK. Commissioner Sanchez: Well, whatever the amount needed so they don't fail. Mr. Hepburn: OK. Commissioner Sanchez: So, that... Mr. Hepburn: There's one correction to the resolution. I think it should say "four housing developers," as opposed to five. I think it says "five." Commissioner Winton: Mr. Chairman? Vice Chairman Gort: Yes. Commissioner Winton: One more point away from Pinnacle but back to the policy that Commissioner Sanchez was talking about. It seems to me that next year, when we get into the round of allocations, we really do need to look at these developers and figure out what the local match is, if they have to go to Tallahassee to win that bidding war up there. And we know that, in order to win the biding war, you have to have a million dollars ($1,000,000) from local, either a combination of County money and City money or all City money, whatever the case is. So, it seems to me, when we 11 February 17, 2000 set the process up next year, we need to understand where each of these developers are, in that regard, and either give them all the money that they need to win or don't fund any of it. Mr. Hepburn: OK. Commissioner Sanchez: Exactly. Mr. Hepburn: We'll make sure we do that. Commissioner Winton: Thank you. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Let's hold the vote on this. Commissioner Teele is here so -- Commissioner Teele, we just passed the Consent Agenda and we're on the first item, which is Item 2, the allocation of HOME funds. So, we're in the middle of discussion right now. There's a motion, a second and we're in discussion. Note for the Record: Item 20 was pulled for a future meeting. Vice Chairman Gort: By the way, my understanding is you want Item 20 to be pulled. Is there any other items? Mr. Warshaw: Just that one. Vice Chairman Gort: That's it? OK. Item 20 will be pulled. Mr. Warshaw: We'll bring it back at a future meeting. Vice Chairman Gort: Will you repeat the motion, so the Commission -- for the benefit of Commissioner Teele, with the amendment? Commissioner Sanchez: City Clerk. Mr. Walter Foeman (City Clerk): I'm sorry. What was it? Ms. Linda Chapman (Assistant City Attorney): Mr. Chairman, this is a public hearing, as well. Vice Chairman Gort: Right. Is anyone in the public would like to discuss Item 2? Anyone in the public would like to discuss Item 2? OK. Being none, do you want to repeat the motion? Hello. Anyone? Mr. Walter Foeman (City Clerk): I believe the motion was to move -- advance up to the tune of three hundred and forty thousand dollars ($340,000) of next year's allocation of HOME funds. Commissioner Sanchez: To Pinnacle. Mr. Foeman: To the Pinnacle Group. Commissioner Sanchez: And, also, a motion to approve Item Number 2. Mr. Foeman: So, this is a resolution, as modified, I guess. 12 February 17, 2000 • Vice Chairman Gort: It's a resolution as amended. Commissioner Sanchez: Call the question. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman? Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir Commissioner Teele: What is the motion again? Vice Chairman Gort: The motion is to approve -- Commissioner Winton, you're the maker of the motion. You want to explain it to him? Commissioner Winton: I think -- Commissioner Teele, the motion was simply to approve Item Number 2 and, then, there was an amendment. And the amendment was to -- if you look at the Pinnacle Group, the Pinnacle Group has a local funding commitment from the City of Miami for six hundred and sixty thousand dollars ($660,000) or some amount. The number is not exactly right. In order to win the bidding process in Tallahassee to get the State funds we need to develop these affordable housing projects, the State requires that the local developer have a minimum of a million dollar ($1,000,000) local commitment. That million dollars ($1,000,000) can come from the County; it can come from the City, or it can come from a combination. They don't care. Just so there's a million dollar ($1,000,000) match. And in our -- the CD (Community Development) process this go -round, Pinnacle got a commitment from the City for the six hundred and some thousand dollars. They had no commitment from the County. But the six hundred and some thousand dollars isn't enough to allow them to win the bid in Tallahassee. So, the recommendation was that we increase -- the rules apparently allow us to allocate up to 25 percent of next year's funds for these future projects like this, and the allocation amount -- that 25 percent represents a little over a million dollars ($1,000,000). So, the modified motion was to approve three hundred and forty thousand of the little over a million dollars ($1,000,000) of next year's funding, to give the Pinnacle Group the million dollars ($1,000,000) that they need in order to be competitive in Tallahassee to win the State's money. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, regarding these funds, there's two things that I need to try to understand. Number one. What is the leverage of each of these funds of local to -- of City dollars to all other dollars? Mr. Hepburn: In most cases, they totally exceed the City policy. As far as rental projects, five to one. I think the ones we've analyzed are somewhere in the area of 16 to 1. Vice Chairman Gort: Sixteen? Commissioner Teele: OK. So, that's what I'm trying to understand. In the case of Codec -- is there a representative of Codec here? See, it was my understanding that one of the things that we were going to be advised is what is the leverage of each of the units? That's one of the things that we've specifically requested, and that information is not -- it may be here but I can't decipher it. So, if you could just help me understand. Is there a Codec representative here? Mr. Jose Fabregas: Commissioners, my name is Jose Fabregas, as Executive Director of Codec, Inc. I have federal fundings... Vice Chairman Gort: Give me your address, Jose. 13 February 17, 2000 Mr. Fabregas: Excuse me? Vice Chairman Gort: Your address. Mr. Fabregas: Three hundred, Southwest 12th Avenue. Commissioners, I have a fund reservation in the amount of seven point one seven million dollars ($7,000,000) already and this is from the federal government. This is for low-income elderly, with a commitment of 40 years to the project for low- income elderlies, with the Section 8 subsidy. And what happened is that we discovered we need pilings for this project. It was not taken into consideration. So, seven million dollars ($7,000,000) against a hundred and forty thousand. Commissioner Teele: And the hundred and forty thousand is adequate. Now, you're not going to be competing for tax credits? Mr. Fabregas: No, sir. I already have my funding complete. Commissioner Teele: And with St. Martin Affordable, what is the leverage there? Is there a representative of St. Martin here? What about Gate House Development? Mr. Hepburn: On Gate House, the leveraging is 18 to 1. Commissioner Teele: Eighteen to one? Is this a tax credit deal? Mr. Hepburn: Yes, it is. On St. Martin, the leveraging... Commissioner Teele: Excuse me. Now, is that information in here? Am I just not able to understand... Mr. Hepburn: It's not part of your package, Commissioner. Commissioner Teele: OK. And on the Pinnacle, with the increase, assuming -- I think the increase that Commissioner Winton is recommending... Mr. Hepburn: It would equate out to 16 to 1. Commissioner Teele: And St. Martin? Is that a tax credit deal? Mr. Hepburn: That's also a tax credit. Commissioner Teele: No need to give me this computer. I can't figure -- somebody just gave me a computer. And on St. Martin? Ms. Chapman: St. Martin. Vice Chairman Gort: It's about 50 to 1, something like that. Commissioner Winton: Was that the first one? Vice Chairman Gort: Second one. The first one is 50 to 1. 14 February 17, 2000 Mr. Hepburn: Commissioner, we're making copies for you right now. Commissioner Teele: On St. Martin, the approximate ratio? Mr. Fabregas: I have to divide that out. I wasn't prepared for that. Vice Chairman Gort: What's the total cost of the project? Total cost of the project? Speak into the mike. Name and address, please. Ms. Ruby Swezy: My name is Ruby Swezy, 3 Grove Isle Drive. Vice Chairman Gort: What's the total cost of the project? Ms. Swezy: The total cost is approximately seventeen million. Vice Chairman Gort: Seventeen million. Commissioner Teele: And the two hundred and fifty thousand is this tax credit money? Ms. Swezy: Yes, it is. Commissioner Teele: Is this amount adequate for the competition in Tallahassee? Somebody else said they needed a million. Ms. Swezy: No, it isn't. Because you need, at least, a million to get the extra credits -- the extra points for it. Commissioner Teele: But you're certain -- you wouldn't be asking for an additional seven fifty, would you? Ms. Swezy: Well... Commissioner Teele: What's the threshold that you... Vice Chairman Gort: If you let her, she will. Commissioner Teele: Huh? Vice Chairman Gort: If you let her, she will. Commissioner Teele: What's the threshold that you need to be competitive in Tallahassee? Because, as I understand this, if you don't win the tax credit, the dollars are going to come back to the City? Ms. Swezy: Right, right. I have to have the tax credits to build the project. Commissioner Teele: So, do you have -- does the 250 represent an adequate amount? Ms. Swezy: No. No, it does not. I would need, at least, five hundred to meet the threshold. Commissioner Winton: Well, how much money did you get from the County? 15 February 17, 2000 Ms. Swezy: Five hundred. So, you need, at least, a million to get the... Commissioner Winton: Well, if you got five hundred from the County and two fifty from here, that's seven hundred and fifty. You don't need five hundred thousand. Commissioner Teele: She needs two fifty, she said. Commissioner Winton: Nor do you need a million. Ms. Swezy: No. I know. Commissioner Teele: I heard her say two fifty. Commissioner Winton: Oh, she did? Mr. Hepburn: Yeah. Commissioner Winton: OK. Ms. Swezy: Rather than the two fifty to five hundred. Not that the two fifty and five hundred. Mr. Frank Kreutzer: Mr. Teele -- Frank Kreutzer. I'm Chairman of your Housing Loan Board. Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me? Would you speak into the mike, please, sir? Commissioner Teele: Before you do, Mr. Kreutzer, let me just understand one thing. With tax credit deal, with the St. Martin and the Pinnacle deal, these funds are contingent on tax credits in both cases, is that right? Ms. Swezy: Yes, I think so. Commissioner Teele: Let me just ask the director. Mr. Hepburn: Commissioner, I didn't hear the question. Commissioner Teele: In both the St. Martin Affordable Housing, where you've recommended two hundred and fifty thousand and in the Pinnacle, where you've recommended six hundred and eighty-five thousand, plus an additional two hundred thousand that is now being recommended, in both cases, if the applicants, St. Martin and Pinnacle, don't get the tax credit deal, is it understood that those dollars come back to the City for redistribution? I mean, they don't get to hold on to them and... Mr. Hepburn: This resolution, basically, is a conditional commitment to these developers. They have until December 31 st, 2000 to secure the tax credits, along with the balance of the financing they need to build the project. So, in fact, they don't get the credits, in fact, the funds will go back into the pot, as far as the RFP. Commissioner Teele: Well, the question, then, if we're adding two hundred -- how much did you add for the... Mr. Hepburn: Three forty. 16 February 17, 2000 Mr. Warshaw: Three hundred and forty thousand. Commissioner Teele: If you're adding three hundred and forty thousand dollars ($340,000) to make that one million dollars ($1,000,000), which -- all of which is coming from the City, why wouldn't -- what's the justification in not providing the same half a million dollar ($500,000) -- additional two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000)? That's already matched by the County, .by five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000)? Mr. Hepburn: Yes. When the committee analyzed those projects, we took into consideration a half million dollar ($500,000) commitment they received from Dade County and we, also, tried to take in account impact fees that they would receive from those projects, both from the City and the County. Now, we're not sure -- those numbers are not fine tune numbers, in terms of the impact fee number. Until they go through that process and actually get the County and the City to sign off on it, we won't know exactly what those numbers are. Commissioner Teele: What's the drop dead date on the applications in Tallahassee? Mr. Hepburn: March 8th. Vice Chairman Gort: That's right around the corner. Would you like to make an amendment? Commissioner Teele: Well, again, Commissioner Gort, I don't -- I mean -- I don't want to -- this is your district. Vice Chairman Gort: Commissioner Teele, that was not requested of myself but if that's what it takes to be able to compete in Tallahassee, I think we should go ahead with the amendment. Especially, if they don't get the funds, the funds will come back to the City. And if they do, you're talking about a match of about 50 to 1. Commissioner Teele: Yeah. To me, that's what's so hard to understand. Vice Chairman Gort: Right. Commissioner Teele: What the recommendations and the -- in any event, I would move to amend the recommendation of the -- we have an amendment for three hundred and forty thousand and I would move an amendment, if it's acceptable to the Chairman, for an additional two hundred and fifty thousand to St. Martin for the purpose of being competitive on the tax credits. The thing that I think we need to see is the leverage, in writing, on all of these. And when you get time, I really would like a follow-up memo that outlines the leverage because I think the leveraging is what we want to try to encourage. And it seems to me that St. Martin, perhaps, has the highest leverage, initially, looking at this. Yet, it has the lowest amount of tax credit dollars being recommended and it must be more than that. But... Vice Chairman Gort: Well, I think it's important... Commissioner Teele: Commissioner Winton, I'm really concerned about the issue of neighborhood redevelopment, and I take note -- I'm pleased that the gentleman is not here today, at this moment. But if he were here -- you know, there's been several comments that Mr. Cruz has made about the City's failure to provide the redevelopment over there at the Bobby Maduro Stadium. So... Vice Chairman Gort: Well, Mr. Cruz will be here this afternoon. 17 February 17, 2000 Commissioner Teele: Well, let's go ahead and get this done before he gets here. But the point is this. I think we have a special obligation in some of these areas and I certainly don't mean to speak for the District Commissioner. But I'm cognizant of the fact that we do have a unique obligation in that area, in that I drive pass... Vice Chairman Gort: This is a completely different area from the ones we had in the past from 12th and 36th. This is in the middle of an industrial commercial area, which is so much needed housing. Now, we all would love to see home ownership but, unfortunately, not everybody can own. So, that's why we set up the target 75 percent for home ownership and 25 percent for affordable rental, which is important. That's the first step, for an affordable rental that can go into the home ownership. But one of the things, Teele, that I would talk to everyone that's come here and all the all developers, try to create the program, which exist right now, where you can give credit for rent payments and recognize that for down payment into another home later on, and that can create the home ownership. At this time, if you don't mind, I'd like to hear from Gwendolyn and then from Frank. Ms. Gwendolyn Warren (Director, Community Development): Commissioners, in order to give staff the maximum flexibility to support the applications, given that we're not really certain of what the impact fee waiver will yield -- we'll know within the next five days -- if the staff could be given a direction to provide the resources that would allow them to compete once -- above and beyond the impact fee, once we know the amount. It gives us the flexibility to ensure that they have the proper letter. Commissioner Winton: Sounds right to me. Ms. Warren: Based on the actual assessment of the impact fee. Vice Chairman Gort: Do I have an additional amendment? Commissioner Winton: Commissioner Teele, did you hear that? Commissioner Teele: No. Commissioner Winton: The recommendation, I think, was a good one. Apparently, the -- is it a waiver of impact fees... Ms. Warren: Yes. Commissioner Winton: ...that occurs here? So, the waiver of impact fees counts also, in terms of financial impact. So, what the staff has asked for is, rather than give them a specific number, they will know the impact waiver fee amount within five days -- and what they've asked for is the flexibility. They've asked for us to give them simple direction, which is, make sure that we give this group enough money to compete in Tallahassee. They will know the exact amount that's needed, once they figure out what the impact fee issue is, within five days. So, it may not be two hundred and fifty thousand. It may be a hundred and fifty thousand or it may be some other number. And I think that's what they're asking for. Ms. Warren: Understanding, we can't exceed the 25 percent of this year's allocations. Commissioner Winton: Right. 18 February 17, 2000 • Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Ms. Chapman: And are we talking about all groups? Mr. Warshaw: No, just the two groups. Ms. Chapman: Just the two groups. Ms. Warren: Just the two we're discussing. Mr. Warshaw: That would be Pinnacle and St. Martins. Ms. Chapman: OK. • Commissioner Teele: Commissioner Winton, that instruction sounds good but I think there are some hidden, unintended consequences that could be contained in that. I'm not -- first of all, in the delivery of federal dollars; we need a resolution that delivers certain amounts of money, specific. Secondly, I think you could do an up to, but the resolution needs to be specific. Vice Chairman Gort: Specific, right. Commissioner Teele: And that becomes -- the City Attorney is in a much better position, but that borderlines upon an unlawful delegation of.. Ms. Warren: At this point in time we're not awarding the funds. Commissioner Teele: ...of authority. I mean, given the way this program works, we can certainly adjust the tax credits. I'm sorry, the impact fees because that's the number that we can control. I would, assume. At this point, what I would like to do is to be in a position to give everybody that's going to Tallahassee as many arrows in their quiver. Because they're not competing against each other. They're competing statewide for tax credit dollars. And to the extent that someone has, you know, more money than the minimum, it gives them more points. Now, the point is this. Sending an application up there that doesn't meet the minimum threshold is a sure loser and that's my concern. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. We have the resolution. Frank, you want to address the Commission? Commissioner Teele: Does the maker of the motion accept the two amendments of the... Vice Chairman Gort: Yes. Commissioner Sanchez: Yes. Vice Chairman Gort: Second also. Commissioner Sanchez: You made the motion. I second it. Commissioner Winton: Yes. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Commissioner Teele: I wanted to hear from Mr. Kreutzer if... 19 February 17, 2000 Mr. Vilarello: Commissioner? Vice Chairman Gort: Frank, go ahead. Mr. Frank Kreutzer: Frank Kreutzer, 3041 Northwest 7th Street, Miami, Florida 33125. Commissioners, as Chairman of the Housing Loan Committee, the committee addressed those issues and we're very concerned. Every member of that committee has an absolute commitment to provide affordable housing as quickly as possible, which is one reason why we suggested, at staffs recommendation, when we understood it -- and it took a long time -- to take that full 25 percent and advance it and make that recommendation to you. I think the problem now is that we have used that complete three hundred and forty thousand dollars ($340,000) in our computation. So, I don't believe there's an accordion ability to produce additional monies. Maybe it is. If it is, I have no problem with -- I'm just -- it's a reminder. I thought and the committee thought that we had used every single, solitary dollar that was available to make sure that each one of these -- that these four -- there were five proposals that came. Four that we funded. And we had to play the numbers game to make sure they met the one million dollar ($1,000,000) threshold. That was our objective. I'm just -- and based on what we saw on the date of the submittals -- and those submittals are about eight to 10 inches thick -- that these numbers met those requirements, so that each one would receive the one million dollar ($1,000,000) commitment for success and not for failure, exactly as Mr. Teele pointed out. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, Frank. Mr. Kreutzer: I don't know if that expandable dollars is available. Vice Chairman Gort: Jeff, you want to answer that one? Ms. Warren: He's correct, in that we did take the maximum 25 percent that was set aside for the chodos for next year. We did not take the maximum of the 25 percent available for next year's allocation for rentals. We took a very conservative approach of just those monies that would have been for... Vice Chairman Gort: That they have for this year? Ms. Warren: Yes. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Further discussion? Mr. Vilarello: Mr. Chairman? Vice Chairman Gort: Yes. Mr. Vilarello: Can I address one issue that Commissioner Teele brought up? You might not have to specify the amount in the resolution for their purposes, but the resolution must have a maximum amount, an amount not to exceed. Otherwise, there may very well be an unlawful delegation. So, as long as the resolution... Vice Chairman Gort: Well, draft the resolution that an amount not to exceed the two fifty and the other three hundred. What was the other? 20 February 17, 2000 0 0* Commissioner Winton: Three forty. Vice Chairman Gort: Three forty. OK? All in favor state by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Vice Chairman Gort: No nays. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 00-170 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $2,205,000, IN THE AMOUNTS SPECIFIED HEREIN AND SUBJECT TO CERTAIN TERMS AND CONDITIONS, TO FOUR (4) AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPERS FROM THE CITY OF MIAMI'S FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000 HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM, IN CONNECTION WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF APPROXIMATELY 697 UNITS OF AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING IN THE CITY; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENT(S), 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 Winton, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you very much. Have a good one. Hope you get it. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman? Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir. Commissioner Sanchez: Good luck in Tallahassee. 21 February 17, 2000 Vice Chairman Gort: We have a presentation. Commissioner Teele: I know that Mrs. Thomas -- if you would join us, please. Mrs. Thomas has to leave. Note for the record: Presentation as listed above. Vice Chairman Gort: Item 3. Work Force Investment Act Dislocated Workers 2000. Commissioner Sanchez: That's a hundred and forty-nine thousand fifty-two dollars ($149,052)? Ms. Gwendolyn Warren (Director, Community Development): Yes, sir. Commissioner Sanchez: And that pertains to the work -- the Work Force Investment Program that is established already? Ms. Warren: Yes, sir. It's an award of additional funds to assist us in our Refugee Assistance and Relocation Program. Commissioner Sanchez: And that program exists today? Ms. Warren: Yes, sir, it does, sir. Commissioner Sanchez: How many people have they been able to employ? Ms. Warren: Under our department of Work Force Development, last fiscal year we placed almost 2000 City residents in unsubsidized employment, and this particular program -- excuse me. In the WIA (Workforce Investment Act) Program, it's a new piece of legislation that started in October, to place the old job training program, and it's for the relocation of dislocated workers, and we've been extremely successful in it. Again, it's a new program, and it's an increase in our allocation. Commissioner Sanchez: Well, our economic strength depends upon the skill force of our workers in our community, and I don't think anybody disputes that. And with the unemployment rate declining at such a small rate -- and it is 22 February 17, 2000 n declining -- the program provides, of course, people that need either upgrading their basic skill or computer programs, and that's what's intended in this program. So, I move. Ms. Warren: Again, it's been a very successful program, and it's to assist people with job placement and vocational skills training. Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved. Is there a second? There is a motion. Is there a second? Commissioner Winton: Second. Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved and second. Discussion? Read the ordinance. Call the roll. An Ordinance Entitled — AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, ESTABLISHING A SPECIAL REVENUE FUND ENTITLED " WORK FORCE INVESTMENT ACT DISLOCATED WORKERS PROGRAM (FY 2000) "; APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR ITS OPERATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $149,552, CONSISTING OF A GRANT FROM THE SOUTH FLORIDA EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CONSORTIUM (SFETC) THROUGH THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA UNDER FUNDS GENERATED BY THE WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT OF 1998, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY AGREEMENT, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, WITH THE SFETC FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE GRANT; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. 23 February 17, 2000 was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez and seconded by Commissioner Winton, for adoption as an emergency measure, and dispensing with the requirement of reading same on two separate days, was agreed to by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None ABSENT: None. Whereupon the Commission on motion of Commissioner Sanchez and seconded by Commissioner Winton, adopted said ordinance by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 11893 Vice Chairman Gort: Item 4 is an emergency ordinance of the Miami City Commission, amending Section 6 for Ordinance Number 11705, adopted September 28, 1998, as amended; revising the previously approved capital improvement projects in the parks and recreation area. Are there any questions? Mr. Albert Ruder (Director, Parks & Recreation): Albert Ruder, Parks Director. At the January 27 meeting, you approved, by resolution, the new -- the third year project from safe neighborhoods, and this is appropriating it so that we could get these moving. There are tremendous needs -- these are 9 different parks involved, and the details are in the ordinance. There is also a grant for the Department of Real Estate and Development from the U.S. Economic Development Administration for Improvements to the Watson Island Program. Vice Chairman Gort: Is there a motion? 24 February 17, 2000 Commissioner Winton: Move it. Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved. Is there a second? Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Vice Chairman Gort: It's an ordinance. Read the ordinance. Call the -- yes An Ordinance Entitled — AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING SECTIONS VI OF ORDINANCE NO. 11705, ADOPTED SEPTEMBER 28, 1998, AS AMENDED; REVISING PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS IN THE PARKS AND RECREATION AREA; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. Was introduced by Commissioner Winton and seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, for adoption as an emergency measure, and dispensing with the requirement of reading same on two separate days, was agreed to by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None ABSENT: None. 25 February 17, 2000 • Whereupon the Commission on motion of Commissioner Winton and seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, adopted said ordinance by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 11894 Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Item 5, proposed emergency ordinance, "Stop Violence Against Women" grant. Yes, sir. Mr. Albert Ruder (Director, Parks & Recreation): Commissioner, this is a State grant. It's the third time we're being funded by the State for this -- it's a domestic violence program. It funds two counselors that are caseworkers, and deal with domestic violence victims, and -- it's eighty-nine thousand seven hundred and seventy-three thousand dollars ($89,773) from the State. We have an in-kind match of thirty thousand six hundred and fifteen dollars ($30,615). Vice Chairman Gort: -Let me ask you a question. My understanding is, one of the things we're doing now, when it's domestic violence, in the past, when police officers would go and then they would leave. Now, my understanding is, after the police officer leaves, the social service or someone with expertise in this type of violence would stay at the house and try to console the individuals there? Mr. Ruder: Right. They advise them of the different alternatives they have, what to do. Vice Chairman Gort: Right. OK. Thank you. Is there any other questions? Do I have a motion? Commissioner Winton: Move it. Commissioner Sanchez: Second. 26 February 17, 2000 Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved and second. Read the ordinance. Roll call. An Ordinance Entitled — AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 11557, AS AMENDED, WHICH ESTABLISHED INITIAL RESOURCES AND APPROPRIATIONS FOR A SPECIAL REVENUE FUND ENTITLED: "STOP VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN", TO INCREASE SAID APPROPRIATIONS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $120,388, CONSISTING OF A GRANT FROM THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS IN THE. AMOUNT OF $89,773 AND IN-KIND SERVICES MATCH IN THE AMOUNT OF $30,615; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT SAID GRANT, AND TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENT(S), IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, FOR SAID PURPOSE; FURTHER ALLOCATING $30,615 FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT GENERAL OPERATING BUDGET AS IN-KIND MATCHING FUNDS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. was introduced by Commissioner Winton and seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, for adoption as an emergency measure, and dispensing with the requirement of reading same on two separate days, was agreed to by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None ABSENT: None. 27 February 17, 2000 Ci Whereupon the Commission on motion of Commissioner Winton and seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, adopted said ordinance by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 11895 Vice Chairman Gort: Item 6, the "Stop Violence Against Women" grant. Professional Service Agreement. Mr. Albert Ruder (Director, Parks & Recreation): Commissioner, this is the professional services agreement with the two advocates. It's funded as a grant. Commissioner Sanchez: To hire -- so moved. So moved. Commissioner Winton: Second. Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved and there is a second. Discussion? Being none, all in favor state by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): "Aye." 28 February 17, 2000 • 0 The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 00-171 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT (S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (S), IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, WITH TWO (2) DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SENIOR COUNSELOR (S) /VICTIM ADVOCATE (S), AT AN ANNUAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $54,999, FOR A PERIOD OF ONE (1) YEAR, WITH THE OPTION TO EXTEND FOR TWO ADDITIONAL ONE YEAR PERIODS, FOR THE PROVISION OF COUNSELING AND INTERVENTION SUPPORT SERVICES FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF POLICE, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INTERVENTION ("DVI") RAPID ENFORCEMENT AND CONTAINMENT TRACKING TEAM ("REACT") PROGRAM; ALLOCATING FUNDS THEREFOR FROM THE "STOP VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN" GRANT, PROJECT NO. 142019. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Winton, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Vice Chairman Gort: Ordinance for new special revenue fund, Safe Neighborhoods Parks Program Construction Management. Commissioner Sanchez: So moved. Commissioner Winton: Second. 29 February 17, 2000 0 Commissioner Regalado: Second. Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved, second. Discussion? Being none, all in favor state by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): "Aye." Mr. Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): It's an ordinance. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Read the ordinance. Roll call. An Ordinance Entitled — AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ESTABLISHING A NEW SPECIAL REVENUE FUND ENTITLEDBY "SAFE NEIGHBORHOODS PARKS PROGRAMS, CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT FUND"; APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR ITS OPERATION IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $235,000; CONSISTING OF A GRANT FROM MIAMI-DADE COUNTY THROUGH ITS OFFICE OF SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT SAID GRANT AWARD AND TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR SAID PURPOSE; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Winton, and was passed on first reading, by title only, by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. The ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. 30 February 17, 2000 0 • Vice Chairman Gort: Item 8, Silver Bluff Harbor, a resolution accepting the proposed record plat. Mr. Donald Warshaw (City Manager): 7A. Commissioner Sanchez: 7A. Mr. Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): 7A. Commissioner Sanchez: Excuse me. Mr. Walter Foeman (City Clerk): 7A. Commissioner Sanchez: Excuse me. You skipped 7A. Vice Chairman Gort: Oh. I don't have a 7A. Commissioner Sanchez: 7A is a first reading ordinance, amending charter -- Commissioner Regalado: Community Development. Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah, Community Development Department. Mr. Vilarello: It's providing for an advertisement and a notice requirement for "SHIP" (State Housing Initiatives Partnership) funds: Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah. Which is one of the -- Commissioner Regalado: So move it, Mr. Chairman. Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved.. Is there a second? Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Vice Chairman Gort: Read the ordinance. Roll call. 31 February 17, 2000 • An Ordinance Entitled — c: AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING CHAPTER 2/ARTICLE IV/DEPARTMENTS/DIVISION 9 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT" TO REQUIRE AN ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD PRIOR TO THE EXPENDITURE OF ANY STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM ("SHIP") FUNDS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. was introduced by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, and was passed on first reading, by title only, by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. The ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Vice Chair, if I may? Vice Chairman Gort: Yes. Commissioner Sanchez: Just address this item. This is one of the many ordinances that have been passed here to establish good government. This ordinance basically says that any spending on "SHIP" (State Housing Initiatives Partnership) money, this has to be a public hearing to have public input. For such an important matter, I think that this Commission should be commended for a lot of the ordinances and resolutions they have put out to establish the road to good government, and I think people need to know that when they are watching Channel 9. When they just read an ordinance and they just hear people vote on it. This is one of many good legislative decisions that have been made by the Commission. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. 32 February 17, 2000 • .7 Vice Chairman Gort: Item 8, Silver Bluff Harbour, a resolution accepting the proposed record plat. Do I have a motion? It's been recommended by the department. Commissioner Winton: Move it. Commissioner Regalado: Move it Vice Chairmlan Gort: It's been moved and second. Discussion? Being none, all in favor state by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): "Aye." The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Winton, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 00-172 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT (S), ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED SILVER BLUFF HARBOUR, A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF MIAMI, SUBJECT TO ALL OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE PLAT AND STREET COMMITTEE, AND ACCEPTING THE DEDICATIONS SHOWN ON SAID PLAT; AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE PLAT; AND PROVIDING FOR THE RECORDATION OF SAID PLAT IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Regalado, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. 33 February 17, 2000 • • Vice Chairman Gort: 8A, resolution -amending property, reflect funding necessary for maintenance and electric service. Commissioner Sanchez: What exactly does this do? Mr. John -Jackson (Acting Director, Public Works): Good morning, Commissioners. John Jackson, Acting Director, Public Works. This item is to make a correction to a previous resolution, number 99-175 that was passed by the Commission, March 23, 1999. It's for accepting decorative lights for Brickell Bay Drive by the Point View Association. That was already passed. This resolution before you today, just the maintenance -- the annual maintenance costs that needs to be tied to the public service Commission rates adjustment that may occur from year to year, and that's the purpose of this resolution. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Commissioner Winton: Move it. Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved. Is there a second? Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved and second. Discussion? Being none, all in favor state by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): "Aye." 34 February 17, 2000 The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Winton, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 00-173 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 99-175 TO REFLECT THAT THE MONTHLY COSTS FOR MAINTENANCE AND ELECTRICAL SERVICE FOR THE DECORATIVE STREET LIGHTS TO BE INSTALLED BY FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY AT BRICKELL BAY DRIVE, BETWEEN SOUTHEAST 14TH STREET AND SOUTHEAST 15TH ROAD, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FOR THE POINT VIEW ASSOCIATION, INC. SHALL BE ASSUMED BY THE CITY OF MIAMI, AT THE ANNUAL AMOUNT. OF $2,986.32, WHICH AMOUNT MAY BE ADJUSTED FROM TIME TO TIME; ALLOCATING FUNDS THEREFOR FROM THE UTILITY SERVICES LIGHTING ACCOUNT, ACCOUNT NUMBER 001000-310501-6-545, FOR SAID COSTS; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ANY NECESSARY DOCUMENT (S), IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, WITH POINT VIEW ASSOCIATION, INC. RELATING TO THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF THE LIGHTS. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. 35 February 17, 2000 • 0 Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Item 9. Resolution approving emergency purchase of storage racks and dock hardware and fasteners for Marine Stadium Marina. Mr. Donald Warshaw (City Manager): There was a public hazard on this, based upon the deterioration. That's the reason for the emergency. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Commissioner Sanchez: Where are we at in the RFP (Request for Proposal) of that site? Where are we at on that? I mean it's an eyesore. Marine Stadium is an eyesore. Mr. Warshaw: Right. That's where is Virginia Key Task Force, I believe, is working son that. They are right near the end, about to make some recommendations. Commissioner Sanchez: Some recommendations? Mr. Warshaw: Recommendations, and we'll bring it back. Vice Chairman Gort: But my question, that work force is working on the section where the beach is? Mr. Warshaw: Right. Vice Chairman Gort: Are they going to recommend for the whole area? Mr. Warshaw: That's correct. Well, -- Mr. Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): If I could address, Commissioner? Vice Chairman Gort: Yes. Mr. Vilarello: The Commission gave the direction to hold after on . any development of Virginia Key until you got a report back from them. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. All right. Okey doke. Do I have a motion? Commissioner Winton: So moved. 36 February 17, 2000 Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved. Is there a second? Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved and second. Discussion? Being none, all in favor. state by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): "Aye." The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Winton, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 00-174 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, BY A FOUR FIFTHS (4/5THS) AFFIRMATIVE VOTE, RATIFYING, APPROVING AND CONFIRMING THE CITY MANAGER'S FINDING OF AN EMERGENCY, WAIVING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPETITIVE SEALED BIDS AND APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF HARDWARE AND FASTENERS .FOR STORAGE RACKS AND DOCKS AT THE MARINE STADIUM MARINA FROM FOLLANSBEE DOCK SYSTEMS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,926.39, FOR . THE DEPARTMENT OF CONFERENCES, CONVENTIONS AND PUBLIC FACILITIES; ALLOCATING FUNDS THEREFOR FROM THE MARINE STADIUM MARINA FY 99-00 OPERATING BUDGET ACCOUNT NUMBER 402003. 350508.610. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. 37 February 17, 2000 • • Vice Chairman Gort: Resolution -- item 10, resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with SFLFL, Inc. for the use of the Orange Bowl. Commissioner Teele: So moved. Ms. Christina Abrams (Director, Public Facilities): This is the -- Commissioner Winton: Second. Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved and second. Discussion? Commissioner Sanchez: None. Vice Chairman Gort: Being none, all in favor state by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): "Aye." Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Good luck. 38 February 17., 2000 • C The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 00-175 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT (S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A USE AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY") AND SFLFL, INC. FOR THE USE OF THE ORANGE BOWL STADIUM FOR THE PURPOSE OF REPRESENTING HOME GAMES DURING THE MONTHS FROM MARCH TO JUNE AS PARTICIPANTS IN A SPRING FOOTBALL LEAGUE, FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS WITH THE OPTION TO RENEW FOR FOUR ONE YEAR PERIODS, AUTHORIZING THE USER FEE TO BE CAPPED AT $7,500 PER EVENT; FURTHER CONDITIONING SAID AUTHORIZATIONS UPON THE ORGANIZERS PAYING ALL NECESSARY COSTS OF CITY SERVICES AND APPLICABLE FEES ASSOCIATED WITH SAID EVENT, OBTAINING INSURANCE TO PROTECT THE CITY IN AN AMOUNT AS PRESCRIBED BY THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE, AND COMPLYING WITH ALL CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED BY THE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Winton, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Commissioner Regalado: Got a question. Got a question about -- Commissioner Sanchez: Best of luck to you. Commissioner Regalado: -- the soccer tournament. Are we going to be able to bring this back next year? No, no. No. This is different. I'm talking about the soccer -- the world soccer cup now. Ms. Abrams: The promoter is very pleased with the attendance. We have done better than any other City, so he -- 39 February 17, 2000 Commissioner Regalado: Forty thousand? Ms. Abrams: We have been averaging forty thousand, which is much higher than where we were ranked. We are originally the fifth rang, as far as attendance. We moved up to third, maybe even second by the end of the tournament, which puts us in a great position to host more events, such as this in the future, and the promoter has definitely showed willingness to do that. How about the future? Ms. Abrams: The Miami Fusion, we sent them a letter of invitation, and I plan to invite them Saturday 's final Gold Cup competition at the Orange Bowl. Commissioner Sanchez: Christina, just out of curiosity, during the Copa de Oro, which is the cup of gold, that's playing at the Orange Bowl, which team has brought in the most attendance? Ms. Abrams: It would be Saturdays 's, the kick-off event. Commissioner Sanchez: Right. But so far, I believe it's Haiti -- Ms. Abrams: Haiti and Jamaica have definitely had the highest attendance. Very pleased. If I can introduce the representatives from the spring football league. I'd like to introduce -- Commissioner Teele: Before you do, they've won -- let me just follow up with one question that Commissioner Regalado raised. Who were the two top ranked cities? Ms. Abrams: I believe it's Los Angeles and New York. New York, New Jersey area. Commissioner Teele: And in terms of attendance in those cities, what kind of attendance have they gotten? Ms. Abrams: I don't know the number off hand. I'm sorry. Commissioner Teele: But the promoter was very well satisfied with - Ms. Abrams: Very, very, very well satisfied. We were expecting an average of twenty thousand. We're averaging about thirty-seven thousand at this point. Vice Chairman Gort: Well, last night it was about fifty thousand, right, when you had -- it all depends on the team. If you get the right teams in here, you have to -- the population will go. Commissioner Regalado: And you also have to add the fact that a local radio station, which is a network out of Miami, is broadcasting all the games in Spanish, live, from the Orange Bowl to the rest of the United States. I would think that New York would be out of the question because of the cold weather in this, you know, time of the year. 40 February 17, 2000 Ms. Abrams: I was saying they are ranked -- Commissioner Regalado: I mean, Los Angeles, well, there is the possibility of earthquakes, so -- Ms. Abrams: The other competitions in California, I was saying as far as the national attendance. I'd like to introduce the representatives from the Spring Football League, if I may? Todd Sharinn is the Deputy Director of the Spring Football League, and also the General Council, and then Jim Jenson, former Miami Dolphin, is the general manager, and also the head coach. . Mr. Todd Sharinn: Good morning. I'd like to thank you all for giving me a moment to speak with you. I'd like to personally thank the Mayor, Vice Chair man Gort -- Vice Chairman Gort: Give your name and address? Mr. Sharinn: Todd Sharinn, 25 Reed Court, Bloomfield, Connecticut, just down that way. The City Commissioners, and City Manager Warshaw. I realize your time is pressed, and so I won't take a long time. I just wanted to say that the Spring Football League, and most particularly, the Miami Tropics, who Jim is here on behalf of, are very excited about playing in the next couple of years in your stadium, and hopefully developing a very long term and prosperous relationship with the City of Miami. Thank you. Vice Chairman Gort: Good luck to you all. Commissioner Regalado: And we thank you. Vice Chairman Gort: Item 11, resolution approving emergency purchase of dock floats at the Marine Stadium Marina. Commissioner Sanchez: Do we -- Vice Chairman Gort: We're on item 11. We passed the other one. Ms. Abrams: These items are related. Commissioner Sanchez: We didn't vote on 10. Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, we did. Commissioner Sanchez: We voted on 10? Mr. Walter Foeman (City Clerk): Yes. 41 February 17, 2000 Commissioner Sanchez: OK. We voted. All right. I haven't had any coffee this morning, that's why. Ms. Christina Abrams (Director, Public Facilities): Items 11 and item 12 are related. We are rebuilding the dry racks, and also the floating docks at Marine Stadium Marina. They have an estimated return on investment of about a year, and we needed to do it on an emergency basis because the condition of the racks have deteriorated to the point where we could no longer use them, and we wanted to get them back to a profitable state as soon as possible. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Question? Commissioner Teele: I would move the item. Vice Chairman Gort: Move. Is there a second? Commissioner Teeple: I want to point out to Commissioner Winton -- Vice Chairman Gort: Is there a second? Commissioner Winton: Second. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Go ahead, sir. Commissioner Teele: And I -- I point this out only for your noting. If you looked at the background documentation, this item went from Christina Abrams to the Manager on September 3. Now, the point is this. The budget office look verified the funds were available on August 6, and this thing goes back -- you know, when you consider the bids and all of that, this thing probably -- you can impute at least another 90 days on to that. And it just gets to the essence of how business -- I mean, one of the flaws of government, not the City of Miami. It's a flaw of government. And when you're involved in these proprietary functions, such as running a marina -- I mean, I wish we could give -- you know, unlike, say buying pool tables or something -- but I really wish that in some of these areas, Mr. Attorney, we could give to the management the authority in these proprietary areas. This is no way to run a business. If it's an emergency, it should have been brought in June or July, and, you know -- we get to be the ones that are "holding it up," not we personally but the process, and I just -- you know, this is a mundane issue. It's an emergency purchase. Has the purchase been done? Ms. Abrams: The racks are installed and operational. Commissioner Teele: So, this is actually a ratification, not a resolution? Mr. Donald Warshaw (City Manager): That's correct. They are both ratifications. Commissioner Teele: OK. This say -- when did it go in? How long did it take y'all to get it in? 42 February 17, 2000 Ms. Abrams: It took us about forty days, and we began in September. Commissioner Teele: Well, you know, I'm just one person, sand I don't think these are good ideas to do this this way, but as far as I'm concerned, you know, I'm going to always support the management's recommendation on operational issues, where we, quite frankly, maybe even shouldn't be involved in it. I mean, you know, we're involved in it -- and I don't want to get to the debate about privatizing versus non -privatizing, but there is no company in America, other than a government company that could operate like this, and it just puts the staff in a very unfair position. It puts everybody -- it puts us -- it makes us look bureaucrat particular. It puts everybody in an unfair position. So, I'm going to always support ratifying operational issues in these areas, like where we're interfacing with the public because no private operator or would take this long operator. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, Mr. Teele. And, you know, there is a point. If an emergency takes place in August -- we're not in session in August, but you certainly could have brought it in in September or November. I know it looks bad, (inaudible) let's bring it back in February. Commissioner Winton: And I think there is one more point, Commissioner Teele, in that regard. I had kind of a companion question, but it was a little bit different than yours. And that's just these emergency ordinances in the first place. You know, when we do in our own buildings, each year, we -- each year, when we get ready to budget, we take a hard look at all of our capital needs for our properties each year on an annual basis, and it goes into the budget and we get it budget approved, and we know roughly, in advance, what we think we're going to have to do. Now, that isn't to say there aren't emergency needs all the time, because there are. I mean, you cannot anticipate when something breaks down, but these kinds of things we can anticipate in advance and I would like to see a process where we do get those in a budget, and maybe a budget comes before us that we can get approved, and that gives them more flexibility, so that we don't have to look at these twelve hundred dollar ($1,200) items, and these seven thousand dollars ($7,000) items and spend all this time. Commissioner Teele: But, see, that's one of the issues that I tried to get you to focus on with us and the attorney can tell you. Whether we want to or they want to, is really not of the management or us. We're imposed on this by our Charter. Is that a fair statement, Mr. Attorney? Mr. Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: So, if it's over forty-five hundred dollars ($4,500), it must come here. Now, that -- Commissioner Winton: So, we have a new Charter Review Committee, right? Vice Chairman Gort: Right. And they should be -- 43 February 17, 2000 Commissioner Teele: And, quite frankly, that threshold may have been great thirty years ago, but today that threshold probably should be somewhere between ten to twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000). Mr. Warshaw: Correct. Vice Chairman Gort: That was one of the items that was discussed on -the previous committee, so you all have some information son that. OK. Do I have a motion? It's been moved and second. Do you want to speak, sir? Mr. Kenneth Newman: Gentlemen, my name is Kenneth Newman, 1030 Southwest 15` Avenue, Miami. I'm working for (inaudible) the international regional governing body for soccer at the -- for the Gold Cup, and I have been at the Orange Bowl every night, and .I've been working during the day. And before you look at having a Spring Football League, I would hope that, two years from now, you would already start working with Compucap (phonetic) so that the dates could be firmed up for the tournament next February of 2002, so that the proposed football team at the springtime does not interfere with the Gold Cup. And, also, some of the teams that are playing in the Gold Cup are not staying in the City of Miami because we do not have suitable practice facility, and for three years I have been advocating building 15 soccer fields in the dumpsite on Virginia Key. And if we can build 15 nice fields out there, we can have all the teams staying in the City of Miami, which will help our economy. Vice Chairman Gort: That has been mentioned to me before by some other individuals. Since the City of Miami changed quite a bit and soccer has become very important, my suggestion is to confirm the dates so we won't have any problems. Sit down with the Orange Bowl individuals. They have a good committee there. And with our Parks Department, see what we can do. I've heard of that before. Mr. Newman: I've talked with Mr. Ruder -- Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Well, keep us abreast -- Mr. Newman: And Ms. Abrams is well aware of that. I've had many -- we've talked with the Mayor about it, and I need your help now, Commissioners to -- Vice Chairman Gort: Well, you haven't talked to us, so you need to talk to us because wee are the ones that make the decisions in here. So, if we don't have the information, it's very difficult to do so. OK. Mr. Newman: OK. I'll be in. Commissioner Teele: I'm not sure what he's asking though. 44 February 17, 2000 Vice Chairman Gort: What he's asking is -- what he's saying is, that the soccer competition is going to take place; that the new football league will not compete with the soccer -- Ms. Abrams: It won't start until March. The football league the March or June. Mr. Newman: Until March? Vice Chairman Gort: They will not compete. And the second is, I've had a request from individuals involved in the soccer -- this is a soccer league for kids that is very important -- Fort Lauderdale is taking a lot of those -- because they have about 15 soccer fields that they have over there and it's very -- we could have the same thing in Miami, if we would do that. You could have many more competitions, where people come down here and will stay down here in Miami. Mr. Newman: I'm looking at the tourism standpoint. If we could have 15 -field soccer complex out on Virginia .Key, we could have numerous international youth tournaments; we could be bringing teams here from all over the world, not just adults' teams, but youth teams. Vice Chairman Gort: Well, there is a Committee right now. My suggestion is, talk to the committee. I don't know if they'll entertain that, but they have been working on it for a long time now. Mr. Newman: Well, 'I have a lot of friends in the soccer community, who would be very grateful for you guys to -- for that. Commissioner Teele: Does the Clerk have your name and address and all that? Mr. Walter Foeman (City Clerk): Yes. Commissioner Teele: And what's the name of the organization you're with? Mr. Newman: I work in several different soccer capacities. I am the government liaison person for the Miami -Dade Youth Soccer Association, but I am working with Compucap (phonetic) to -- on different things for the Gold Cup itself. And, Mr. Teele, I do have a great many friends in both the Jamaica and Haitian community, and they would be very grateful for this, also. Vice Chairman Gort: That was the biggest game. When they played on Saturday, they had over fifty thousand. Commissioner Teele: Half the government of Haiti was here. Well, I mean, the gentleman makes a lot of sense. It just seems to me that, you know, Mr. Chairman, we have to try to figure out how to get some of this thinking in these various committees -- I think you've directed him to the Virginia Key Steering Committee, that advisory -- Mr. Newman: I'm aware of that committee. 45 February 17, 2000 Commissioner Teele: Have you talked to them about this? Mr. Newman: Well, I've been to meetings, both when there was committee staff having that meeting, and, frankly, the people who are mostly involved with that are environmentalist who are scared to death of any soccer out there because they think we're going to ruin the environment there, but I have no interest in ruining environment. I have environmental feelings, too. I just want that dumpsite cleaned up. Commissioner Teele: Can I tell you something? I really -- I think that -- one of the things the environmental community is embracing more and more is open space, and, you know, soccer fields and cricket fields represent constructive use of open space. I don't think you should be -- well, I'll do some things to try to get your recommendation, but what you're saying -- someone mentioned this 8 or 10 years ago. What was if guy's name, Amancio Suarez, I think was pushing this 7, 8 years ago with the County, to build some soccer --? Commissioner Regalado: He used to own the soccer team, the professional soccer team. Commissioner Teele: Yeah. But he wanted to build for kids. Commissioner Regalado: Right. Commissioner Teele: To create, I guess, more of a -- Commissioner Regalado: But, Commissioner, I think that the best program will be the Parks Advisory Board because the members have -- are being elected now by district, and then will be appointed by the Commissioner, and will be a 13 person board, and this board -- because if you look in the afternoons, in Kennedy Park, you will see people playing soccer there without -- they just come up and set up camp and play. Next -- across the Omni, you will see people play -- Commissioner Teele: At Margaret Pace Park. Commissioner Regalado: In Margaret Pace Park you will see people playing soccer. As a matter of fact, there is a league, a Peruvian league, that plays there every Saturday and Sunday, and they bring everything, from food to -- everything. Commissioner Teele: To everything. Commissioner Regalado: And they don't have the facility. They just set up camp. So, we have the land. We just need to get organized in this issue, and I think the Parks Advisory Board will be the right form to do it. Commissioner Teele: Good recommendation. Mr. Newman: Commissioner, I have been in touch with staff on -- involved with this, and also the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) in Washington 46 February 17, 2000 is looking to help clean up areas and turn them into soccer fields, and I need the Commission to vote to -- for the Brownfields money to be put forward for this use. So, if you're aware of the Brownfields Program, which staff is already involved in, I would highly appreciate it if you would look into getting the Brownfields money to be spent on building a soccer complex. Commissioner Sanchez: Thank you. Mr. Newman: Thank you for your time. Commissioner Sanchez: With that discussion pertaining to item number 10? Are we on item 1 I now? Twelve? Ms. Christina Abrams (Director, Public Facilities): Twelve. Mr. Walter Foeman (City Clerk): We're on item 11. We have to take a vote. We have a movant and a seconder. Commissioner Sanchez: So, there was -- Mr. Foeman: There was no roll call on item 11. Commissioner Regalado: I'll move it. I'll move it. Mr. Foeman: It was previously moved, but there was no roll call. Commissioner Sanchez: OK. Roll call. Ms. Abrams: Thank you. 47 February 17, 2000 • The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 00-176 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, BY A FOUR FIFTHS (4/5THS) AFFIRMATIVE VOTE, RATIFYING, APPROVING AND CONFIRMING THE CITY MANAGER'S FINDING OF AN EMERGENCY, WAIVING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPETITIVE SEALED BIDS, AND APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF POLYETHYLENE DOCK FLOATS AT THE MARINE STADIUM MARINA FROM FOLLANSBEE DOCK SYSTEMS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,825.08, FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF CONVENTIONS, CONFERENCES AND PUBLIC FACILITIES; ALLOCATING FUNDS THEREFOR FROM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NUMBER 326008, INDEX 359301-830,840, AS APPROPRIATED BY ORDINANCE NO.S 11705, AS AMENDED, AND 11839, THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ORDINANCES. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Winton, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. 48 February 17, 2000 • C Commissioner Sanchez: Item 12, resolution approving and confirming the City Manager's finding of an emergency -- Mr. Donald Warshaw (City Manager): It's a companion item. Commissioner Sanchez: It's a companion item. Is there a motion? Commissioner Teele: So moved. Commissioner Regalado: Move it. Commissioner Sanchez: Moved by Commissioner Teele. Second by Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: Second. Commissioner Sanchez: Open for discussion. Commissioner Teele: Companion item. Commissioner Sanchez: Companion item on item number 11, number 12. Discussion. Vice Chairman Gort: None. Commissioner Sanchez: Hearing none, resolution. Vice Chairman Gort: All in favor state by saying aye. The Commission (Collectively): "Aye." Vice Chairman Gort: No nays. Thank you. 49 February 17, 2000 The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 00-177 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, BY A' FOUR FIFTHS (4/5THS) AFFIRMATIVE VOTE, RATIFYING, APPROVING AND CONFIRMING THE CITY MANAGER'S FINDING OF AN EMERGENCY, WAIVING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPETITIVE SEALED BIDS, AND APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF DRY STORAGE RACKS / TIMBERS FOR THE MARINE STADIUM MARINA FROM A & B HARDWARE AND LUMBER COMPANY, IN THE AMOUNT OF $23,583.30 FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF CONFERENCES, CONVENTIONS AND PUBLIC FACILITY; ALLOCATING FUND THEREFORE FROM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NUMBER 326008, INDEX NUMBER 359301 AS APPROPRIATED BY ORDINANCE NUMBERS 11705, AS AMENDED, AND 11839, THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ORDINANCES. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Regalado, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Vice Chairman Gort: Item 12. Resolution approving emergency purchase of dry storage rack dock -- Mr. Walter Foeman (City Clerk): .This is item 13. Commissioner Sanchez: Item 13. 50 February 17, 2000 Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me? Commissioner Sanchez: Item 13. Mr. Toeman: This is item 13. Vice Chairman Gort: Thirteen. Resolution authorizing the changes to interlocal agreement with the Sunshine State Governmental and Financing Commission. What is this? Who is going to address this? What are we doing on exchange? Ms. Bertha Henry (Assistant City Manager): Commissioners, there are two additional instruments that the sunshine state Commission would be using as part of their overall program, and they require our consent to having them have the ability to validate now revenue bonds and commercial paper, commercial notes. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Is there a motion? Commissioner Sanchez: Move it. Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved. Is there a second? Commissioner Winton: Second. Vice Chairman Gort: Discussion? Being none, all in favor state by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): "Aye." The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 00-178 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT (S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE SUNSHINE STATE GOVERNMENTAL FINANCIAL COMMISSION TO PROVIDE FOR VOLUNTARY VALIDATION OF REVENUE BONDS AND COMMERCIAL NOTES PRIOR TO ISSUANCE. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) 51 February 17, 2000 Upon being seconded by Commissioner Winton, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Vice Chairman Gort: Item 14, delinquent debt collection. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman? Vice Chairman Gort: Yes. Commissioner Regalado: On this item, this is not a local firm. I received a letter from a local firm, City of Miami firm, asking for the consideration to be included on this contract and from what I found out, there is no downside to having two firms on this collection issue. So, I just want to listen to the Manager to see what he has to say. Commissioner Sanchez: Before we do that, if -- Mr. Vice Chair, if I could have an opportunity to address this issue. Vice Chairman Gort: Go ahead. Commissioner Sanchez: How many companies bided for this? Mr. Donald Warshaw (City Manager): During the process. Ms. Judy Carter (Director, Purchasing): Go ahead. Yes. Commissioner Sanchez: During the process of the biding, how many companies bided for it? Ms. Carter: We received two responses. Commissioner Sanchez: Two responses. 52 February 17, 2000 0 Ms. Carter: Yes. Commissioner Sanchez: And those two responses, through the biding process, you selected the one that you thought -- Ms. Carter: We went through the evaluation process. And what I'd like to share with this Commission that, as part of our normal process, we include criteria that allows for points to be assigned if you are within the City of Miami. That is a common criteria that we include in all of our processes. So, to that extent, we have considered, contemplated, and included in our scoring for purposes of those vendors who met that requirement. Commissioner Sanchez: And the company that was selected was an out-of-state Ms. Bertha Henry (Assistant City Manager): Yes. What -- I apologize, but we were able to get a letter from the chair of the Evaluation Committee, Ms. Candis Trusty, who is also chair of the Finance Committee, who participated in the evaluation and the document that I just distributed to you. The second page provides her feedback, but the long and the short of it is, Commissioners, that the company, Financial Recovery, Inc. had a higher cost for providing its services than the company that was recommended, Penn State. They were -- unfortunately, she couldn't be here. It was her intention to be here. So, the letter is in lieu of her presence today. Commissioner Sanchez: Is that company going to open up a local office in Miami? Ms. Henry: I'm not aware. I'll have to find that out for you. I could find that out shortly. Commissioner Sanchez: This is just an idea that I would like to put forth. If two companies applied for this type of service -- and it's in reference to collecting -- an idea that I would like to put out is, if only two companies put out, why not hire both companies, divide the debts into both companies for one year; have them go out there and compete against each other to see who could raise the most money and, then, in the following year, award the company that collects more money. I mean, what's wrong with a little bit of competition? Ms. Henry: The other thing that the Chair points out -- and you can assist me with this -- is that the way the RFP (Request for Proposal) was written, it did not contemplate awarding the contract to multiple companies. So, you would, in essence, have to -- Judy, as I recall, reject the process. Mr. Warshaw: Let me just intervene. You have the authority, as the Commission, to do that. The issue has to do with the fees. So, if the second company was to come down and meet the fee structure that was acceptable to the Evaluation Committee, if that was your wish, we could negotiate -- Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman? 53 February 17, 2000 Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir Commissioner Teele: I don't have any problem with the line of discussion, but I think we ought to stay focused on what it is we did and what we, the Commission, asked the staff to do. Number one, this thing -- this debt collection thing has been bouncing around since 1996. When .I first got here in -= two years ago, there was this big debt collection thing, and one of. the problems that we need to face up to is the fact that we have collectibles or receivables in excess of a hundred million dollars ($100,000,000), if you add up all of the -- those boards and all of that -- those numbers are way inflated. There are debts that have lost -- been lost. Nobody seems to know where they are. We have the HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development) findings that's a part of the Community Development process. One of the strongest findings that they made against the City was that we weren't diligent in our debt collection. Now, we authorized -- and this is why I think we take ourselves so seriously sometimes. We authorized this big bid to go out. We really probably should have had an RFQ (Request for Qualification) and been through with the Request for Qualifications. We only had two responders. That's number one. The second thing is, ,we impaneled a committee. That committee is largely -- it's one of the more balanced committees that I have seen, and I hope that the management will continue to have committees that include people like an officer from First Union, a trust officer, the assistant comptroller of Dade County, as well as Candis Trusty, an attorney at law in bankruptcy, bankruptcy lawyer. So, I mean, three of the 'five people were outside of City government, and that's not to say that City government is wrong or bad, but I'm just saying, it doesn't do us well to appoint committees and -- as Mr. Kreutzer was being frustrated today -- and not to listen to them. Should we rubber stamp the committee? Absolutely not. Because the committee is only looking at what they are looking at. You know, we have to look at a global issue. So; 1 mean, I'm for a process. I have no objections to adding in the second firm, at all, having said that. But I believe that what we should do is, we should approve the committee -- the management -- the committee recommendation and then we should have a separate motion that adds them in as a second collection firm; subject to the Manager working out an agreement and coming back to them with it. But you can't have a competition within a competition within contract law. In other words, you can't have a one-year trial period and then award a contract. And the attorney perhaps should explain that. I mean we can select them both. We don't have to ensure that they are level. I don't think they should be level. And to be very candid with you, one of the problems with local firms collecting money is the kind of relationship that -- it's much better to have some guy or some woman that's totally not involved in the local politics -- in the business activities collecting here because everybody is going to try to cut a deal with somebody. So, I think the process works. I have no objection to adding the second firm, but I do think, given the point spread that the subsequent letter is pointing out, which is 68 points for 44 -- I mean, even if you had had a local preference of five points or three points or two points, 10 points, it still could not have made a big difference. I mean, it still needs another 10 points. So, I don't have an object - - the reason that I'm comfortable doing this is because there is more work for one firm to do in my opinion. If this were an area that I know we, you know, 54 February 17, 2000 barely have enough work to get involved in. But the big problem was when we went out before with this, we didn't even have the debt quantify instruction. I think there is a lot of work was being done in that area to try to identify and quantify what the debt was. So, I would ask Commissioner Regalado to allow us to approve the Manager's recommendation and then have a separate motion to add the second firm on, subject to the Manager reaching an agreement with that firm, but not to make reference to the work has to be level because I think, if one firm scores higher, then they clearly ought to get more work than the other person. Commissioner Regalado: Of course. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Mr. Attorney. Mr. Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Mr. Chairman, if it's the will of the Commission to have -- to consider both -- contract with both parties, I'd ask the matter be deferred until later in the meeting so I have an opportunity to review the RFP (Request for Proposal) and make sure that there is that opportunity within the terms of the RFP. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. What's the wish of this board? Ms. Carter: Sir, may I say something? Vice Chairman Gort: Yes. Ms. Carter: -- before you deliberate? I'd like to just put on the record -- and once again, I personally have a concern about the fee difference. For the Penn Credit Corporation it's 15 percent of that which is collected and for the other firm, it's 35 percent. So, I just really hope that, .as you deliberate, that you consider that because that is a huge difference. Vice Chairman Gort: Well, I think what they are saying is, you have to sit down with them. They will have to come down to that 15 percent. Commissioner Sanchez: Exactly. They would have to come down to the same Vice Chairman Gort: There is no way we're going to do it at 35. Yes. No, no. Commissioner Sanchez: Absolutely. And that is one of the suggestions made, that the City Manager sit down and if they want to come down, they can. If they don't, then they are out. Commissioner Teele: Yeah. But I think the way to do this. would be -- respectfully, is to approve the Manager's. recommendation and,.to further request the Manager to negotiate a sole source contract with the other provider, if the attorney and the management would agree to that. But then the cards are up to the Manager to negotiate it. But I don't think we should be in a position to try to negotiate a contract -- 55 February 17, 2000 Vice Chairman Gort: Commissioner Teele, my understanding is, the attorney is suggesting that we bring back -- this back later on. They would like to check legally what could be done. OK? Commissioner Teele: No objection. Mr. Vilarello: Mr. Chairman? The direction --'if Commissioner Teele's direction is to approve the Manager's recommendation, you can proceed with that and the direction shouldn't,be a sole source, but competitive negotiations for the Manager to negotiate with this other company. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Then you can make that motion. Commissioner Regalado: Go ahead and vote. Commissioner Teele: I would so move that the Manager's recommendation and the committee's recommendation be approved; and further that the Manager be authorized to enter into competitive negotiations with the second firm and to bring that recommendation within 60 days to the Commission. Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Vice Chairman. Gort: There is a motion. Is there a second? Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved and second. Being none, all in, favor state by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): "Aye." Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Any further discussion? 56 February 17, 2000 The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 00-179 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER TO APPROVE THE FINDING OF THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE, PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. 98-99-012, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT FOR DEBT COLLECTION SERVICES, WITH THE TOP RANKED FIRM, PENN CREDIT CORPORATION, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, FOR TWO (2) YEARS WITH THE OPTION TO EXTEND FOR THREE (3) ADDITIONAL ONE-YEAR PERIODS, FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE SECOND RANKED FIRM, FINANCIAL RECOVERY INC., � AND TO PRESENT THE NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT TO THE CITY COMMISSION FOR ITS REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION WITHIN SIXTY (60) DAYS. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Vice Chairman Gort: Item 15, financial advisor recommendation. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman? Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: I would move the Manager's recommendation. 57 February 17, 2000 Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved. I have a question. Commissioner Winton: Second. Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved and second. Before I go any further into this, Mr. Attorney, I'm in -- if you realize, I'm in the same business. I deal with a lot of these companies that are here. Would I have a conflict of interest if I vote on this matter? Mr. Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Do you have a business relationship with any of these companies? Vice Chairman Gort: In the business that I'm in, I could have it at any moment, at any time. Mr. Vilarello: If you've had, Commissioner, I would suggest that you step out and go ahead and file a disclosure form. Commissioner Teele: It's been moved and seconded. Further discussion? Mr. Attorney, would you add in the .whereas, where is City is author ,ized'to enter into it, and that agencies of the City or other agents -- I'm particularly -- we went through this with the Off Street Parking in one situation, the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency), MSEA (Miami Sports & Exhibition Authority), the Bayfront Trust, and the DDA (Downtown Development Authority), specifically, not to the exclusion of any other. In other words, that the City is authorized to enter into that on behalf of the City and any of those agencies. We had this. problem before, and what it means is that any of those agencies can buy off of a contract. That's all it means. Mr. Vilarello: Yes. I'll add that to the resolution. Commissioner Teele Further discussion? Commissioner Sanchez: None. Commissioner Teele: I think it's also important that the conflict of interest issue, which, it's my understanding, came up in some of the discussions, that the conflict of interest issue, be always before us -- I know that there is a lot of talk about water and sewer, and the relationship between the City and the County. At some point, it's going to be the financial advisor who's going to have to look through those bond indentures to determine whether or not the bond indentures between the City and the County -- or the County's bond indentures in any way have changed their original agreement. And just remember that the County is the proverbial eight hundred pound gorilla. It's very important to find some firms that don't have a business relationship with the County in looking at this, as well as off street parking on many of the issues that have come up before us. Mr. Donald Warshaw (City Manager): I understand that fully. Commissioner Teele: Further discussion? 58 February 17, 2000 • Commissioner Sanchez: None. 0 Commissioner Teele: Is there objection? All those in favor say aye. The Commission (Collectively)` "Aye." Commissioner Teele: Those oppose have the same right. 59 February 17, 20.00 The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 00-180 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION REJECTING THE PROCESS FOR THE SELECTION OF A FINANCIAL ADVISOR; FURTHER, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT (S), IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, WITH TI4E FIRMS OF FIRST SOUTHWEST COMPANY, JOINT VENTURE OF DUNLAP AND ASSOCIATES, INC. /FIDELITY FINANCIAL SERVICES, L.C. DAIN RAUSCHER, INC. HANIFEN, IMHOFF, INC. AND P.G. CORBIN AND COMPANY, INC. 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 Winton, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote:- AYES: ote: AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Commissioner Teele: Someone get Commissioner Gort. Vice Chairman Gort: Sixteen amend Resolution Number 99-427. Commissioner Teele: I moved item 16, I suppose. Commissioner Regalado: Second. Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved and second. Discussion? Commissioner Teele: Is item 16 strictly a scrivener's error? 6.0 February 17, 2000 Unidentified Speaker: Yes, sir. It has no impact in funding, at all. Just a scrivener's error. Mr. Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): It actually involves an amendment of an amount of dollars, so perhaps we should put that into the record, that it's amending the amount from six hundred and sixty-four thousand two hundred and sixty-nine dollars ($664,269) to six hundred and forty-seven thousand four hundred and twenty-four dollars and ninety-three cents ($647,424.93). Vice Chairman Gort: OK. All in favor state by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): "Aye." The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 00-181 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT (S), AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. .99-427 TO CORRECT AN ERROR MADE IN THE AMOUNT OF AN ALLOCATION OF FUNDS TO THE HAITIAN AMERICAN FOUNDATION, INC. FROM $27,798 TO $10,952 AND TO REFLECT THE CORRECT TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE ALLOCATION TO SOCIAL SERVICES FROM $664,269.00 TO $64,423.33. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Regalado, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner. Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Vice Chairman Gort: You want to speak on this item? Ms. Mary Hill: Yes, I do. I would like to say something, even on this -- Vice Chairman Gort: On the differences of the -- on the adjustment on the amount? Ms. Hill: OK. First of all, the amount is -- Vice Chairman Gort: Name and address, please. 61 February 17, 2000 Ms. Hill: My name is Mary Hill, and I also want you to know again, I the -- I live at 146 Northwest 67`x' Street, in Miami, Florida, and I also want you to know, again, that I am also the founder, CEO (Chief Executive Officer) and director and creator of title 20 grants and revenue sharing funds, the concept which is coming into the State of Florida. I want you to know this, and I want you to -- the total amount is not only 'important because here we have social services too. attached to this amount, and Social Services is in totally -- is contradiction -- is contradictory to what need to be done here, and the months, where it's supposed to be going. These moneys are not supposed to be diverted again under Community Development. I have made this very clear here. What we have here is interference and interference is totally is illegal for anyone to touch these funds, and also to divert these funds. We want these funds, which is earmarked, which was founded by me from the White House and brought into the State of Florida. These funds are earmarked for regional office, and to implement the titles of the act. I see on every one of these resolutions and things like this, I see that the attorney is supposed to make a final, you know, judgment on the credentials here, document, but I'm seeing that there is 'a lot of turkeys, not only this issue, but every since I sat here this morning, I see that you have a lot of turkeys now is being farmed right here in the City of Miami, the County, and `back to the State. I also see a lot of things that's happening here that going to community affairs, which I founded, too, under Dr. Backs and Governor Kurt. I want all this corrected. And we're supposed to make a referral -- Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, ma'am. Thank you very much. Your two minutes are up. Ms. Hill: I want to repeal -- to reply today. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, ma'am. Your minutes are up. Ms. Hill: I want to reply today. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Hill: Because this is what we're supposed to have today. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you very much. [At this time Commissioner Sanchez left the Commission chambers at 11:04). 62 February 17, 2000 Vice Chairman Gort: Item 16, ratify and approve and confirm emergency procurement of security service, fire -rescue. 'Commissioner Teele: So moved, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Regalado: Second. Vice. Chairman Gort: It's been moved. Is there a second? Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Vice Chairman Gort: Who's this Gabriel Security? Mr. Donald Warshaw (City Manager): I asked the same question. It's not Tom Gabriel. Unidentified Speaker: It's not Tom Gabriel, no. . Vice Chairman Gort: It's not Tom 's -- is he doing this on the side now or what? Mr. Warshaw: No. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. All in favor state by saying aye. The Commission (Collectively): "Aye." The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 00-182 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, BY A FOUR FIFTHS (4/5THS) AFFIRMATIVE VOTE, RATIFYING, APPROVING, AND CONFIRMING THE CITY MANAGER'S FINDING OF AN EMERGENCY, WAIVING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPETITIVE SEALED BIDS, AND APPROVING THE PROCUREMENT OF SECURITY SERVICE AT FIRE STATION NUMBER 9 PARKING LOT, FROM GABRIEL SECURITY CORPORATION, INC. IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $ 8,162; ALLOCATING FUNDS THEREFOR FROM ACCOUNT NUMBER 001000. 280601.6.270. 63 February 17, 2000 (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Commissioner Regalado: Just one question. Did we penalize the company that didn't brought on time the fence? I mean, was it the company's fault that we're paying for this because they didn't have the fence on time? Mr. Carlos Gimenez (Chief of Fire): No, we did not penalize the original company. I mean, we can look and see what we can get in terms of damages from them. Commissioner Regalado: I mean -- because -- you know, if they would have been on time, we would not have been paying eight thousand dollars ($8,000). Mr. Gimenez: I agree. That's a good idea. We'll pursue it. Commissioner Regalado: OK. Commissioner Sanchez: Just out of curiosity, Mr. City Manager, in every contract that we give out pertaining to services, is there a clause in there for penalties if they don't provide adequate service, lack of performance? Mr. Warshaw: Lack of performance. Vice Chairman Gort: We requested that the last time. Mr. Vilarello: Ms. Carter can probably answer that, specifically. But there are either bid bonds or performance bonds in most contracts. I think there are threshold levels oh which ones she does put those in this. Commissioner Sanchez: That language should always be in those'contracts. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman, now that we're talking about contracts and penalize. Just a question. I had the memo that the Manager sent about the keep Miami Beautiful Committee, and this was a proposal to film a 30 second spot, public service from -- to educate the people on cleaning the City, and I was surprised because it's a -- the proposal says that the video, which would show case Alex Fernandez, the Marlin 's player, would cost the City between 64 February 17, 2000 twenty-five and fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) to produce. And my question is, are you hiring Steven Spielberg or something? Mr. Raul Martinez (Chief of Police): No, Commissioner. Recall Martinez, assistant City Manager, During the meeting, the committee meeting, the people from Community Relations made that estimate as far as the costs. We're seeking, as you read the minutes, FIU (Florida International University), UM (University of Miami), and other entities that will do it for us at no cost -- and there is a report due at the next meeting, which I think is February 25 -- we'll hopefully do it at no cost at all. Commissioner Regalado; OK. I just thought -- Vice Chairman Gort:' Thank you. Vice Chairman Gort: Commissioners, we have a distinguished visitor from the Dominican Republic in here and I like to make a presentation. We also have Mr. Conte Aguero here, who's got the key from the County. Please come on in. On behalf of Mayor Pinelas. Commissioner Teele: I thought he was joking, Mr. Chairman. I know we're getting ready -- when we come -- when we finish this, can I understand really what this "make- it -shine campaign" is? He just passed me this thing. I don't -- I like to understand this. Note for the record: Presentation as listed above. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Thank you very much for taking',up your time, but I think it's very important -- excuse me. Can we get back in the meeting? Hello? Hello? Hello? Yes. 'I want to thank all of you for giving us that time, but I think it's very important that we maintain this relationship. Item 18, the amendment to AFSCME (American Federal, State, County, and Municipal Employees), Labor Agreement. Commissioner Sanchez: Which item number, 18? Vice Chairman Gort: Eighteen. Sue. Ms. Sue Weller (Officer, Labor Relations).: Sue Weller, Labor Relations Officer. What you have before you is a resolution amending the labor agreement between the City and AFSCME Local 1907. The resolution. provides -- the amendments to the contract provides for the elimination of the current tier two wage system. What you. have is, back in 1984 a second tier wage system was implemented, which has, over the years, severely eroded the City's 65 February 17, 2000 ability to retain and hire employees, and has made I very difficult to recruit employees. We sat down with the union and negotiated an amendment, which would eliminate this second tier. What it does, it places five steps in front of tier one, moves everybody up into tier one, and most of the employees -- approximately six hundred and sixty employees will receive a five percent increase once they move up. Over a period -of five years, those pre -steps will disappear. The total annualized cost is one point four million, which includes about a hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($150,000) of grant -funded positions. Vice Chairman Gort: I'm sorry. Repeat that again. A hundred and fifty-- could we keep it quiet out there, please? Ms. Weiler.: That one point four million includes about a hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($150,000) from grant -funded positions. Vice Chairman Gort: From grant funded positions? Ms. Weller: Yes. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Are there any questions? Do we have a mowing? One of the things I'd also like to have is, there are a lot of part-time employees that we have within .the City of Miami, and I'd like, as soon as -- whenever there is an opening, that those people will get the first right of refusal. Because we have people that been there for 10, 15 years, and that's not fair. Do I have a motion? Commissioner Sanchez: This is approved by the administration? Vice Chairman Gort: It's recommended by the administration. Commissioner Sanchez: It's an agreement with the union and the administration. So moved. Ms. Weller: Yes, sir. . Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Donald Warshaw (City Manager): Yes. Commissioner Regalado: One question. Vice Chairman Gort: is there a second? Commissioner Winton: .Second. Vice Chairman Gort: Second. Discussion. Yes, sir. Commissioner Regalado: One question. It cuts one point four million dollars ($1,400,000), right, from the general budget? Mr. Warshaw: Yes, sir. 66 February 17, 2000 0 Commissioner Regalado: Do we have the money available for next year? Mr. Warshaw: Well, first of all, this year wouldn't go into effect until it goes through the oversight process, an we're going to have to build it into next year's budget as part of our salary structure. Commissioner Regalado: And how do we build it in? Mr. Warshaw: I'm not sure I understand the question. Commissioner Regalado: Do we need to increase taxes in order to pay for this? Mr. Warshaw: No. This year's budget, you know, we came in with a substantial surplus. This is an item that goes back many years, was recommended by the blue ribbon initiatives to eventually eliminate, you know, this tier because of the number of people we were losing. So, it is a cost to the City. No question about it. Commissioner Regalado: Did the Blue Ribbon Committee recommend it from where we're going to get the money to this? Mr. Warshaw: No. No, they did not. Commissioner Regalado: So, they did recommend to spend it, but not to get any -- do we have any new revenues projected that we could offset that one point four million? Mr. Warshaw: No. What we have is revenues projected for next year, as well as revenues we collected last year, that gives the comfort that we can build this into future years budgets. Commissioner Regalado: With no raising taxes or fees? Mr: Warshaw: That's correct. That's correct. Commissioner Regalado: I'm -- you know, I'm troubled with this because I don't know -- you know, come September we're told we have a deficit and we approve this, one million more, we don't have any new revenues. So, you guys do whatever you want but -- unless we -- I have guarantees that's we're going to have new revenues in order to offset this -- you know, I think they deserve it, but it's very difficult for me to approve this because, come September in, the budget process is going to be there. Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Vice Chair, I just have one question. Vice Chairman Gort: Yes. Go ahead. Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. City Manager, is the recurring revenue projected for the following years to come, is that projected in the Five -Year Plan? 67 February 17, 2000 Mr. Warshaw: Yes. Commissioner Sanchez: OK. I don't have any -- Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman? Vice Chairman Gort: Any other questions? Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: I think two-tier systems,, in the long-term, are not very positive. It creates certain imbalances in the long-term. In the short-term, however, many industries employ a two-tier systema The .problem, I think, with the two-tier system is that it never was structured to be phased out. I think somebody left that to a future Commission, and that's sort of where we are now. We're that future Commission that's looking at this. The concern that I have is, so rather than planning a phase out on this, we're just eliminating it for all practical purposes, as relates to new hires? Will new hires come in under -- Mr. Charlie Cox (President, AFSCME): A pre -step. Ms. Weller: Right. Commissioner Teele: A pre -step? Mr. Cox: Yes, sir. Ms. Weller: No. Commissioner Teele: But nota second step? Mr. Cox: What do you mean, not a step -- eventually, the new hires will also get there, but they come in at a pre -step. Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me, sir. Did you state your name and -- thank you. Mr. Cox: Oh, I'm sorry. Charlie Cox, 4011 West Flagler Street. Commissioner Teele: Let me ask the director. Will we maintain a two-tier system? See, what I would have liked to have seen is a phase out of two-tier systems after an employee has been with the City for three years, five years, seven years, some period. But to continue that process, I don't think, you know, that we should necessarily say that everybody who comes in, on the day they come in, are entitled to the same things that someone has been here seven years, in terms of -- Ms. Weller: No', that is not -- Mr. Warshaw: And you're correct. And I like Ms. Weller to explain that to you. It is a phase -- 68 February 17, 2000 Ms. Weller: Yes, sir. The phase in is that we place five steps in prior to or front of step one of tier one. We have the employees that are currently in tier two, from step one to step five, go into those pre -steps. We will eliminate tier two, but you'll still have those five steps. Now, any employ see that's hired one this occurs, they cannot come in above, at pre -step, as long as there is a current employee in a pre -step, but eventually, over five years, everyone will, at that point, then be coming in at least step one, and those pre -steps will disappear. So, it is a phase in over five years. Commissioner Teele: Let me ask you this. Is there a comparable process for fire and police new hires? Ms. Weller: There has never been a tier two wage plan for Police or Fire. Commissioner Teele: So, Mr. Cox is right when he keeps saying that the AFSCME workers were treated differently from the Police and the Fire? Mr. Warshaw: That's correct. Commissioner Teele: And that's why I told you, Mr. Cox, that I would probably support this because I think what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, in the context that I wasn't here when this was done, but if I had been here, I would have fought for .something that was equitable for all employees and not single out AFSCME employees. And I apologize to you and any other workers that were treated in a way that, you know, we basically are making a distinction. Again, Mr. Cox -- and this is not directed at you -- I'm very interested in knowing the number of City employees, by union, that live in the City versus those that don't. I mean, you know, there is something very arrogant about all of this. Everybody sitting up here has to live in the City. The Manager has to live in the City. The Mayor has to live in the City. But I really do think that we need to know what percentage, because at the end of the day, the point that Mr. -- Commissioner Regalado is making is a valid point, and that is, we're getting further and further away from really fixing the structural problem with the City of Miami, and the structural problem is that we spend disproportionately -- we've asked for the statistics. We haven't received them, but we spend disproportionately the entire City budget for personnel, fringe benefits and wages, and therefore, the parks, the streets, the various sidewalks, the infrastructure, we need to try to figure out how we get that balanced. And we've looked at this any number of times in a budget context. And what we're voting today, Mr. Cox -- and I'm going to vote for this -- takes us further away from reducing the percentage, and one of the things that I would hope that we will get around to doing is making a policy, that is, the policy of the City is that personnel should be "X" percent of the budget. Whatever that number is, whether -- we ought to look at Fort Lauderdale, we ought to look at St. Petersburg, we ought to look at Tampa, we ought to look through the legal cities, and all of that. But we ought to know exactly -- because what we're saying now, we're getting ready to add more personnel costs to the budget, and Commissioner Regalado is right. This is a reoccurring -- we are reoccurring costs, and we need -- we've got taxes too high. We need to figure out how to lower the taxes. This takes us further away from lowering taxes when we vote for this today. And Commissioner Regalado is one hundred 69 February 17, 2000 percent right. I'm going to do it. Because I think there is an over riding issue here is that we can't have two classes of employees, particularly among the unions, I think. So, I'm on board but I -- you know, I think it takes us further away from where I want to go and that is lower taxes and greater opportunities for the citizens of this City. Vice Chairman Gort: Commissioner Winton. Commissioner Teele: There are no savings in the long run. Commissioner Winton: I have a question on the economics here. This million dollars is -- this annualized million dollars ($1,000,.000) cost, if we're phasing the two-tier system out over five years, is this million dollars ($1,000,000) annualized cost, in the second year or is it the cost by the fifth year? Because it seems to me, if you're phasing it out, the cost is going to increase over each of those successive years. So, I'm trying to understand how the million dollars ($1,000,000), which period of time that represents, or is it an average of the five years? Ms. Angela Bellamy (Director, Human Resources): The million point four was an annualized figure for this fiscal year, the first year of implementation. Now, it would not be a full year because we've already gone through some of the year, and when we implement it, it would not be a total year. Commissioner Winton: But it's an annualized number, so it would represent 12 months worth of costs in the first year? Ms. Bellamy: Yes. Commissioner Winton: Well, what's the cost in the fifth year? Ms. Bellamy: The total cost was five point nine million dollars ($5,900,000) dollars over a five-year period. So, that includes -- Commissioner Winton: So, six million dollars .($6,000,000) -- you've got six million dollars ($6,000,000) costs over five years? Ms. Bellamy: Yes. Commissioner Winton: So, you've got a million two roughly, on average, is what this cost is going to be? Mr. Warshaw: If 'I may tell you a little quick history as to how -- why this came this year. Try to fill some of the key positions, particularly, the Building Department. You find in Dade County and other local municipalities are making offers to our people, and we're losing- them left and right, and, of course, they are bringing them in on what, I guess would be the equivalent of a tier one salary that we can't compete with based upon people who have been here for years, maxed out on tier two. So, I started making some individual decisions, like offer this person a job, an offer this person an increase, and, of course, that didn't vote well. And I understand, with the union -- because we 70 February 17, 2000 0 were making exceptions to the policy, but the fact of the matter is -- what Commissioner Teele said is right -- it's created for years now, a second-class group of employees who have come to me. They've worked side by side. They do the identical job. You know, one is making "X" and one is making "Y", and how can you say to them, "you're entitled to more than the other one"? And, by the way, there was a proposal that this be implemented with the Police Department way back when and, of course, that would have been catastrophic, you know, when you've got cops with guns and badges that's sitting in the same police car together. One is making twenty-five thousand, the other starts at thirty-two thousand. It just doesn't work that -- Commissioner Winton: And by the way -- and I didn't finish making my point. You clarified the numbers for me, and I thought that was important, to understand what the real costs are here. I'm opposed to a two-tier system also. I think it simply doesn't work. It doesn't work in private industry very well and doesn't work in government very well. So, I think is system lousy. We just need to know what the cost is going to be to correct the deficiency. But echoing a comment that Commissioner Teele made, and I can tell you from the business community standpoint, we all made a lot of noise about this among our own people. I mean, not to you directly, but when the Blue Ribbon Task Force was formed, it looked at only the revenue side of government. It did zero effort to focus on the expense side of government. And I think it's something that we really need to give some direction to staff on. Commissioner Teele, I think we do need to create a process whereby we take a hard look -- we have the unions at the table and the administration at the table -- and figure out if there aren't ways, literally, to reengineer some of our departments, and that's all of them. I think we need to -- not just fire, but police an all of our departments. Business goes through this kind of process all the time. I don't think City government 's done it in thirty years, so it's probably long over due, and some way or another we need to give some direction to staff to get some money -- and it's going to cost money. We've got to put real dollars on the table to do the kind of team analysis with unions and administration, to figure out if this isn't a better way to manage our City. Vice Chairman Gort: Commissioner Winton, for your information, this is something that has been brought by us constantly, from the beginning, and we requested that the reductions be done in the expenditure part of it, and the unions have worked with us to reduce that, and they've been very helpful to reduce, but we agree with you. And Commissioner Sanchez voted against the budget a couple of times, requesting the same thing. So, that's something we put -- the administration had received the message. Now, I have two questions. My understanding is, if this is passed, any new hires will automatically -- will be two-tier? Commissioner Sanchez: No more two -tiers. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. But my understanding is' -- and I agree with Commissioner Teele on this -- and there is time where you're going to need part -times, and that person -- but that part-time should have a limit, like the same thing we have a limit with the temporary permits for parking, they should not be more than a year, an I think some departments might identify that might 71 February 17, 2000 need some part timers. I don't think those should be coming in the same -= are we going to eliminate the part-time completely? Ms. Bellamy: No, no.. We're not Angela Bellamy, Director of the Department of Human Resources. We're not eliminating any part timers or temporaries. This only deals with full-time employees. Vice Chairman Gort: Full-time employees. OK. Mr. Cox. Commissioner Sanchez: No, no. Wait, wait. Before we turn it over. You know, I moved this motion, but' after listening to some of the concerns, and very good concerns brought out by the Commission -- one of them is saying that, you know, we're not looking for the money next year in recurring revenue. We're going to get involved and commit ourselves to something that we won't -- or may not have the resource to come back into supplement our expenses, and some of the other concerns brought by the Commissioners up here. Basically, you know, it worries me to do to push this forward. So, what I would -- and the City Manager made a statement that, you know, people were brought in and they were put in positions to try to bring people in, not to loose them, I could relate to that with the Florida Highway Patrol. They were basically losing troopers because we can't compete with other pay salaries around, other departments. Commissioner Sanchez: Or they'll become politicians. I know. Commissioner Sanchez: Huh? Vice Chairman Gort: Or they become politicians. Commissioner Sanchez: Or they become politicians. But, see, that's one of the concerns that, once again, this Commission has to deal with something that's there, and to make this decision today, which will be us committing ourselves to an "X" amount of numbers, not knowing that we're going to be able to bring in that amount of money. One Commissioner brought the concern out. You know, what are we going to do next year? You know, are we going to raise something again? Because, let me tell you -- and I've said this many times up here. We cannot continue to tax our people, the people that live in this community. Right now, as it is -- I'm 'not going to get into it, because I've made this argument many times before, but don't expect this Commissioner, next year, to come up with any additional fees for nothing. For nothing. I will not raise a penny. Vice Chairman Gort: Mr. Cox. Mr. Cox: I'd like to ' put a couple of things on the record. 'We're the only employees that have a tier two. No other employees do have a tier two, I was not here when it was created either. But if you're going to do an analysis and y'all like to use numbers, I would ask you to use some other numbers also. We have the oldest work force in the City of Miami. We lose people every single day. When you lose somebody with 20, 25 years of service, they are going out at the highest rate of pay that you could go, and your bringing somebody in at 72 February 17, 2000 step one, pre -step, let me guarantee you, you're reaching a savings every time, and you may even be able to get more qualified people. So, don't do an analysis with the numbers that they've just put on the table in front of you. Please do an analysis of when Charlie Cox leaves at the highest step that he can go at and you're going to bring somebody in at 60 percent less, then those are the analysis that you need to look at for our salary schedule. Vice Chairman Gort: Charlie, that's a great point, and this is one of the things I'm going to request. I think today we need more information on the impact that this is going to do in the budget. My. understanding is, the administration has stated that this has been budgeted in the Five -Year Program. Well, I am sure that is not taking into consideration -- this is what I'd like to see, and I think this is what the Commission requested before -- the comparison of the percentage of some other major cities with the same comparison to the City of Miami, how much is it spending on capital improvement? How much is it spending in labor force? Number two, how many people are retiring ona higher pay every year, and compare what you're going to be hiring? Because there is a savings in there. When you apply that savings, that five million dollars ($5,000,000) might come down to a lot more and it will not be that cost. We want an actual cost of what this decision will do. Is there any other -- Commissioner Sanchez: One more. Is this in this Five -Year Plan? Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Warshaw: No. That's what I was just about to correct. Commissioner Sanchez: This is the not in the Five -Year Plan? Mr. Warshaw: No. My response to earlier question about what's in the Five - Year Plan was Commissioner Sanchez' question about our projected revenues in the Five -Year Plan out? And, yes, they are. This is not -- this can't be in the Five -Year Plan because the Commissioners never acted on it yet. Vice Chairman Gort: Okey doke. Commissioner Teele. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman Vice Chairman Gort: Commissioner Teele. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, I've said pretty much -- this is a very awkward position to be in. We. didn't -- none of us were here when this system was set up. But it's up to us to rectify it, and deferring this, matter, which is something I always support any colleague deferring something if they need more information, as a rule. I've -- I think that's almost required as a courtesy, unless someone, of course, is using it for a dilatory or unfair practice. But this matter has been around and been around. This is not a pleasant thing to. do. That is, to basically increase the budget, as Commissioner Regalado and Commissioner Sanchez are both stating. That we're' increasing the budget by a million and a half dollars a year from now on in doing this. But, at the same time, I think the inequity that we are a part of and that we have created -- not 73 February 17, 2000 we,. personally, but we the government -- have created has to be rectified. I'm just as clear that the issue of those part times that are working, you know, one half an hour short of being full-time for the last 10 years, those matters need to be rectified, as well. That, to me, is almost unconscionable, as well. I'm prepared to vote on this today, unless there is a motion to defer for the purpose of more information. I think, you know, we have the obligation to correct this thing, but I just want to say this. I will not be supporting more taxes ad - valorem taxes. I will not be increasing to the roll back rate, wherever -- whatever amount we're collecting now is the amount that I'm going to be looking to collect next year or less. I will support fees if they are appropriate and if they are user -oriented fees. But at some point, the management and the unions are going to have to' very clearly hear that we're going to have so work smarter and more efficiently, and I would really, really, really urge the Manager to look at the capital reserves, some of the strategic reserves. You know, we're sitting on -- what are the strategic reserves that we have? And one of the things that the Blue Ribbon Committee said is, to use those funds to create a more efficient government. Does anyone know how many strategic -- Mr. Warshaw: About fifteen million left in the strategic reserves. Commissioner Teele: Fifteen? Mr. Warshaw: And then there is a total of approximately forty-three million that includes designated reserves. Commissioner Teele: I thought the strategic reserves was twenty Mr.. Warshaw: ,Well, we had more but a lot of that money was .used for technology. Ms. Bertha Henry (Assistant City Manager): I think what -- excuse,me. This is Bertha Henry, Assistant City Manager. In addition to the strategic investment reserves, there is blue ribbon that will bring you into the twenty million. Commissioner Teele: Well, that's what I'm talking about, the blue ribbon -- what is the Blue Ribbons Reserves and the strategic -- because the Blue Ribbon Reserves are to create for a more -- which gets to the point that Commissioner Winton is talking about, and we've got this money this. I mean, it's not a question that we don't have money. Does anybody know what the Blue Ribbon Reserves -- Ms. Henry: Five million. Commissioner Teele: So,, it's five million there, plus. -- Ms. Henry: For the Blue Ribbon, and about fifteen point eight for strategic investments. Mr. Warshaw: But that can't be used for salaries on a recurring basis. 74 February 17, 2000 Commissioner Teele: No, it can't be used. That's the point. And we just need to figure out -- because Mr. Cox makes a good point. When somebody with 25 years retires, there is a tremendous savings, and it's not fair to bring them in at a step even below the savings. And, so, Mr. Cox, I assume that -- is this retroactive to October 1 or is this -- Mr. Cox: No, sir. Commissioner Teele: This is purely perspective? Mr. Cox: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: Did you want to withdraw your motion and want somebody else to make it or? Vice Chairman Gort: Commissioner Teele, I think the suggestion is -- and I agree with Mr. Cox -- we should get the right numbers. The numbers that are being projected to us right now, I don't think are the right numbers. I think you have to take into consideration what is the savings going to be when some of the people at a higher pay are retiring and bring in someone to do the same an you're not going to pay them the same. Ms. Henry: Well, Commissioner -- once again, this is Bertha Henry, Assistant City Manager. The attrition, the difference between when employee -- the rate they go out and the rate that new employees come in has already been factored into the Five -Year Plan to the tune of four point two million dollars ($4,200,000) at the request and support of the administration for the remainder of the Five -Year Plan. And the reason for that was to make sure that we didn't increase the rates higher than they needed to be because there is always this attrition. So, a significant portion of that attrition that was just discussed by Mr. Cox had already been contemplated, pulled out of the plan. So, -- Commissioner Winton: So, what we're looking at here is simply, we know that the cost to implement the plan -- for get about any savings here -- that our maximum up side here is a million two, that's our exposure here, a million two a year, on average? Commissioner Sanchez: Per year. Commissioner Winton: Per year. So, that's the up side. And, frankly, I'm with Commissioner Teele. I'm prepared to -- you know, it isn't -- we don't want to -- and I think everybody out there knows for sure, I'm really anti taxes and fees, and I don't want to see new costs, but this system doesn't work. It's not good for business. So, I'm prepared to vote today. Vice Chairman Gort: Commissioner Regalado had to leave because he has that program at -- he has to be at the TV station. What I'd like to do is maybe bring it back this afternoon, if they can give us some of the numbers. Next meeting is March 9. I think we all agreement. We want to do it, but we want to make sure that that's within our budget, and you come back and you tell us how you're going to pay for it. I think it's important for us to know that. And, Charlie, we're all for it. I think it's needed. And we -- 75 February 17, 2000 Commissioner Teele: I don't think we all are for it. I'm for it but I think you better say you're for it because -- Vice Chairman Gort: Well, I'm for it. Commissioner Teele: Because one colleague over here has already said he's against it. Vice Chairman Gort: Well, I'm for it. I think it's something that (inaudible) needs to do. I think you should bring it back this afternoon; tell us how you're going to pay for it. Because as we've been told here, we're not going to raise taxes. We're not going to increase. One of the things we work -- we committed to the residents of the City of Miami that the moment that we can longer their taxes or their fees, we would do so. OK. Bring it back later on. OK, Charlie. Commissioner Sanchez: Bring it back this afternoon. Move this before Gort says bring it back this afternoon. Vice Chairman Gort: We'll come back later. Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved and second. Discussion? Being none, all in favor state by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): "Aye." The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 00-183 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION APPOINTING AN INDIVIDUAL AS A MEMBER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD FOR A TERM AS DESIGNATED HEREIN. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) 76 February'17, 2000 Upon being seconded by Commissioner Winton, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Tomas Regalado G®�MIVIENIS, WIT RAWyMiLo ® STREE S EEP G MATER 1117 Vice Chairman Gort: District one I don't have anything. Commissioner Teele: What about the -- Mr. Warshaw 's item on additional street sweeping, number -- Mr. Donald Warshaw (City Manager): That item was pulled earlier. I'm sorry, Commissioner. And just for the record, the reason it's pulled is that I know. you had requested that -- the Director, Clarance Patterson is putting together some very extensive charts and graphic to show -- we won't be ready probably until the next meeting. 29 BRIE CQMMENTS SND OfR AL'QFFINANCIAL REPORT; BUDGET DSA TE Vice Chairman Gort: And item 21 is discussion of the financial update, the budget outlook, the monthly outlook that I have. The latest one is November. Commissioner Teele: I think we should have the full Commission here on this one Commissioner Sanchez: I agree. OK. Note for the Record: Item 21 was tabled for consideration of a full Commission. Vice Chairman Gort: District 1, I don't have anything. District 2 Commissioner Winton. Pocket items later. Commissioner three. Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Vice Chair, I don't have an item, but I would like to brief my colleagues on the future management of Bayfront Park, if I would be allowed to by you and my colleagues? Just to touch basis on what actions have been taken through the last couple of days with the situation faced at Bayfront Park. I want to brief the Commission on several steps to assure better management of the park, which we've taken aboard -- the trust has taken. One is, we've turned over the finance and procurement process over to the City on a temporary basis, to ensure integrity and basically to send out a clear message that we're doing whatever it takes to put integrity back into the park. Also, we have appointed an interim director, which is Christina 77 February 17, 2000 Abrams, through this Commission's approval, to over see the park until we hire a permanent director. We are in the process now of creating a language for the hiring of the director. We've also taken additional certain steps to assure that the park is quickly back on its feet, and I think that one thing that's in question is here is the management. I don't think the services provided at the park and all the events it's. done, I think that we -- the park has done an excellent job in providing services for our committee. The other is implementation of guidelines, not only in the internal control, which it lacked, but also getting the bylaws approved, which were never approved, and those are steps taking forth. But there was an editorial in the paper this morning, The Herald; that spoke of the situation that we're faced with'the board on the director that's on leave now with. pay, on the record. He has asked to resign and he asks for severance pay, and his time occurred on sick and holiday. And I want to just elaborate a little bit on the article because, you know, many, many times this Commission is blamed for a lot of things that I constantly say that we're doing everything we can to improve local government. I think we've done very well with implementation of many resolutions and new laws, legislative laws to assure better government than we've had in the'past year. And I just -- there is an investigation there, and the only thing that I can say is "let the chips fall where they may" on that investigation. But the board voted 6 to 2 against my will and the will of Commissioner Tomas Regalado 's appointee, Mr. Steve Kneapler, not to grant this individual a severance pay, and the editorial for some reason, I don't know, failed to mention that. So, it basically -- the board here -- not the board, the Commission here will. have to make the final vote, whether to grant this individual the severance package or not, but I just want to put everything on the table and ask my colleagues that, being that I inherited that, and I've been there for two months -- I've taken time off from my work to concentrate, not only with the .administration -- the great support that I've gotten from the administration, Christina Abrams and some of the staff members there because we -- I believe that director has --'it's my information -- some people were dismissed from there. But we are in the process of rebuilding, and I ask my colleague toss allow me the opportunity to -- you know, being that I was appointed by this Commission to be the Chairman of that trust, to allow me the opportunity to get in there and do what I have to do for the integrity of the park and myself and this Commission. So, thank you. Commissioner Winton: Thank you. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Yes. Any questions? Commissioner Winton: Mr. Chairman, Bayfront Park happens to be a regional asset, but it also happen to be in my district, and I've received a lot of phone calls from my constituents on the shenanigans that have been going on there, and I guess there are a number of things that I want to say. One is that, typically -- and Commissioner Teele made the same comment earlier -- if we have boards that are working on things, we need to really do good job of listening to what they have to say or we shouldn't have these boards, and that's typically how I feel as well. But in this particular instance, Commissioner Sanchez, I have to tell you that, when I read the article -- and I have not talked to you. I'm not allowed to talk to you. When I read the article about the performance of that board and the battle that you had to under go, my constituents and myself included were very proud of the fight that you put up, and we were disgusted, disgusted by the performance of that volunteer board. That board has not performed its fiduciary duty apparently for many years, and then it sits up there, with all the arrogance under the sun, and ignores the fact that there are serious financial problems inside that organization, and votes against it's Chairman, who's fighting to clean that organization up. And, from my standpoint, I would frankly like to call for the resignation of all' of those board members. I think they failed in their fiduciary responsibility, an if you're going to have an opportunity to clean up the Bayfront Park Trust, you have to have a board that is willing to listen to the leadership an will take the appropriate steps to 78 February 17, 2000 clean up. And if they are voting against the kinds of initiative that's you're trying to get going now, then that's not going to be the board that's going to be ableto carry forward the appropriate initiatives. So, I hope that they all resign, effective immediately. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman? Vice Chairman Gort: Yes. Commissioner Teele. Commissioner Teele: The matter of the -- according to the editorial that Commissioner Sanchez has cited is the matter of the action of the Bayfront Trust will have to be confirmed or acted upon by the City Commission. Is that -- Commissioner Sanchez: The Oversight Board. Commissioner Teele: -- correct, as well as the Oversight Board? Mr. Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Yes, sir. The.resignation was conditional. It does have financial terms, which will have to be brought before this City Commission and the Financial Oversight Board. Commissioner Teele: Well, I, too, want to join Commissioner Winton in saluting and stating my full support for Commissioner Sanchez, as Chairman of a board, the Bayfront Trust Board. I think, clearly, that the Chairman of this Trust should have been given full deference in that, at the end of the day, is going to be the City Commission whose going to get criticized. Because, after all, those are our appointees. And I think those members that did not heed the advice of the chair needs to be replaced immediately. I will replace the person who is serving there as a hold over -- I think the record will reflect, when read, that when the appointment for the Bayfront Trust came around, the then Commissioner, who chaired the Trust, offered a name for me, which I accepted, and that perhaps was irresponsible, but I've always tried to defer to the Chairman of various committees, because it doesn't make sense to have a chair if everybody going to be a co-chair. So, I acknowledge that and I was totally frustrated to find that that person was prominent in the opposition to you. So, he will be replaced before the end of this Commission, meeting today. But I think all of us need to take a close look at our members and the motion that, whoever our appointment will be, will be to reconsider that action at the Bayfront Trust. I think that action should be taken at the Trust, if possible, and I would apologize to Commissioner Sanchez, to you, that you have been subjected to such, I think, unfortunate. treatment. I think, you know, the Manager ,is clearly working in a positive way in this area to attempt to rationalize this. There is no need to talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water. The Bayfront Trust is a unique asset in the City of Miami, and Tina Hill, and the original thought process that went into that, which was heavily private contributions and foundations support initially. We may have gotten a little bit away from that with the commercialization, but I think we need to state on the record that we do support the Chairman, Chairman Sanchez, in this regard, and I fully will take a corrective action today, and I apologize, Commissioner Sanchez, that you've been put through this. And, quite candidly, I . think that the Herald editorial could have acknowledged the fact that you're providing the type of leadership that we're all proud of, and be encouraged. Vice Chairman Gort: Commissioner Sanchez, I'm not going to be repetitious, but you also have my support, and I'll make sure I talk to my representative there. I think you should bring it back at the Trust. And I want to thank you for the fine job that you're doing there. I think you're doing a great job, just like you've been doing on all the other ones. Gentlemen, we have one more, district 5. An ordinance... 79 February 17, 200.0 Commissioner Teele: The ordinance is an ordinance for,first reading. It is my intent to defer this ordinance to the Planning Department. What's the Planning Board -- the Advisory Board, the Urban Design Board -- Mr. Walter Foeman (City Clerk): Urban Development Review Board? Commissioner Teele: For the maximum input. Essentially, there is a change that work -- Biscayne has changed to Miami and what this does, in effect, is this permits a permissive use within 6 blocks, not 15 blocks, in what is now a slum and blighted area. I would particularly note that the Metro Mover -Station there on 2 n Avenue is locked up and has been locked up because of derelicts, et cetera. The idea here is to create a Times Square concept. It's an idea that would be permissive. It could not be proliferated pro live rated. It is being used similar to the Urban Development Corporation in New. York, which is a sponsor of the Times Square. And it is envisioned, once it is implemented, that it would generate revenues under a developer/permit concept for the redevelopment area, and those funds could only be used for the development of the redevelopment of the area. And I would so,move. Vice Chairman Gort: There is a motion. Is there a second? Commissioner Winton: Second. Vice Chairman Gort: This is first reading. Discussion? Call the question. I'm sorry. Read the ordinance. Mr. Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney):.I'm sorry. Is this a referral to the planning -- to the UDRB (Urban Development Review Board)? Commissioner Teele: It is a motion for first reading, with a public hearing not to come back within 60 days, after a review by the URB (Urban Review Board), the City Planning Department, and any other appropriate citizens committees that we may have. Mr. Vilarello: Commissioner Teele,. this ordinance was the prior draft and does not reflect the changes from your last discussion with Mr. Maxwell, Which one -- the one on the agenda is the previous draft. Commissioner Teele: The only change on this is the word "Miami" to establish the -- instead of Biscayne -- the Miami Millennium Media Project. And the word Biscayne is stricken and using Miami. Vice Chairman Gort: Roll call. 80 February 17, 2000 An Ordinance Entitled — AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING THE CODE OF CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, PROVIDE PROVISIONS, TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY'S COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO CREATE AN ESTABLISH THE "MIAMI MILLENNIUM MEDIA PROJECT" ALONG BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, WITHIN THE AREA OF THE SOUTHEAST/OVERTOWN I PARK WEST COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, BOUNDED BY BISCAYNE BOULEVARD ON THE EAST, NORTHEAST 2ND AVENUE EAST SIDE; ON THE WEST, NORTHEAST 5TH STREET ON THE SOUTH, I-395 ON THE NORTH; DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER.AND .THE CITY ATTORNEY TO!INITIATE DRAFTING AN ADOPTION OF RECORDS AND STANDARDS AND CRITERIA AND INCORPORATED SAME, AND IN IMPLEMENTING ZONING DISTRICT, ESTABLISHMENT A SUPPLEMENTAL DEVELOPMENT' FEE; PROVIDING FOR. A REPEALER PROVISION, SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND EFFECTIVE DATE, AND PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CITY CODE. I was introduced by Commissioner Teele, seconded by Commissioner Winton, and was passed on first reading, by title only, by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort Commissioner, Arthur E. Teele, Jr. CommissioneI r Johnny L. Winton ' NAYS: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez The ordinance was read by title into the public; record by the City Attorney Commissioner Teele: One moment. Where is the last -- this isn't the last draft. Where is the last draft? Could we call the roll later on on this, when we come back? Vice Chairman Gort: We'll bring it back this afternoon. We'll come back at 3:00. Commissioner Teele: OK. Commissioner Sanchez: We have a couple items also. Commissioner Teele: Three o'clock? Commissioner Sanchez: I'm working on a resolution, which I may just hold off on. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. 81 February 17, 2000 Commissioner Teele: What's that? Vice Chairman Gort: See you all at three. THEREUPON, THE CITY COMMISSION WENT INTO RECESS AT 12:06 P.M. AND RECONVENED AT 3:10 P.M., WITH ALL MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION FOUND TO BE PRESENT, EXCEPT COMMISSIONER SANCHEZ AND COMMISSIONER REGALADO. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, while we're waiting for a quorum, with your permission, I'd like to ask that the Charles Drew Middle School Concert Choir, that's under the direction of Dr. Leroy Roberson come forward. Dr. Roberson, where are you, please? Dr. Leroy Roberson is the Director of the Charles Drew Middle School Choir. Mr. Chairman, the choir is undertaking a trip to Europe and, of course, Dr. Roberson is a scholar, who received much of his musical education in Europe. And, Dr. Roberson, why don't we bring everybody on up front where they are going to be, since time is of the essence. But I did want to just get the Clerk to give you the. mike there, and to introduce the faculty or the staff advisors and parents that are with you. I know that the trip includes a trip to Munich and Vienna, and knowing what the world events are in Austria, I'm just wondering how this is going to playa But I'm sure the Austrian government will be pleased to receive our. Charles Drew -- I also would like for the public to know that this is Black History Month, and we're very honored to have a middle school that's, quite frankly, in the heart of inner city, that is doing so well. Mr. Chairman, it's a real treat to have children that really have tried to find a life of accomplishment in comparison to what we read so frequently in the media. I think any school in this City would be privileged to have a choir that is seeking to go. to Europe. I should also add that the total cost of the trip is over seventy -- seven zero thousand dollars, and that doesn't include any Commissioners going. So, any'efforts to help the Charles Drew Middle Concert Choir go to Europe would be very, very much appreciated. And I would ask, Mr. Manager, if it's an appropriate activity for the Law Enforcement Trust Fund or any other activity that we see what we can do. In that regard, I just want everyone to understand that Charles Drew is located between 17th Avenue -- is it 12th Avenue? Seventeenth and ',18th? And that's on -- what street? Sixty-fifth -- six zero street, right off of 62nd. And I think we all know -- we've had mothers that have come here for the last year, complaining about some of the conditions, and it's really a pleasure, Mr. Chairman, to have some positive inspiration in our community for a change. So, Dr. Roberson -- let me just also introduce the advisors, the parents. Come right on down because you all have labored in the vineyards, behind the scenes. If we -could just get a full introduction, please. Ms. Inez Wilcox: I'm Inez Wilcox. I'm a grandmother parent of the Parent Club, and I work with the group every week, and I've been working since October to try to. help them go on this trip. So,, I'll introduce you to the president of Parent Club. 82 February 17, 2000 Mr. Andrew Wilcox: Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Andrew Wilcox. That's my mother. I'm the President of the Parent Booster Club, so I'm right there in the trenches, as far as the fundraising goes. We do have an enormous amount of money to raise in a short period of time, so we need all of the help that we can get. We just had a shot in the arm in terms of some finances, but and that helped us out of a huge hole that we're in, but we still a little bit'away . from our goal, so we need all of the help that we can get. We want to give these kids an opportunity to get out of the, environment that they're in, as Commissioner Teele said, with a lot of -- you know, because Liberty -- Charles Drew is right there in Liberty City, where there is -- by the projects, where there is a lot of crime and violence and street, gambling, and a whole bunch of other things going on. We want to give them a chance, for a couple of days, get out of this type of an environment and see what life would be all about. So, we hope that we can receive some help in that regard. Thank you. Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman, the final things are, I want to thank you and the Commission for your indulgence. We had arranged for them to come in in the morning at 9:00, 9:30 and,, then, we realized that this week is FCAT (Florida Comprehensive Achievement Test), week, and, so, we did not want anybody to be stressed out yesterday, and today ready for your FCATs, and so we're sure that you all did very well, .and we're going to be behind you. Dr. Roberson, thank you so much. Vice Chairman Gort: Let me ask a question she raising any money or --? Commissioner Teele: Oh, Ms. Elsie supporting it. Vice Chairman Gort: Right. OK. What's Mrs. Hubbard doing? Is She's always behind the scenes Ms. Elsie Hubbard: I'm always behind --she is... Vice Chairman Gort: Just want to make sure you're doing your job. That's all. Are they going to perform for us? Commissioner 'Teele: Yes, they're going to perform for us, Mr. Chairman. Go right ahead. Note for the Record: At this point, the Charles Drew Middle School Choir performed for the Commission. 83 1 February 17, 2000 Vice Chairman Gort: Couple of items I'd like, to take up before we go into PZ. We should take up the pocket item, and there was the one item from Cox, and I need the rest of the board to be here. Somebody call Commissioner Regalado and Commissioner... Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, a non -controversial item, is the ordinance. We had read it into the record. There is one change from the ordinance. Maybe we could read it again. Do you have it? Vice Chairman Gort: Go right ahead. NOTE for the RECORD: A -t this point Commissioner Teele read the ordinance into public record. Vice Chairman Gort: Moved by Commissioner Teele.. Seconded by Commissioner Winton. Read the ordinance. Commissioner Teele: I just did. Mr. Walter Foeman (City Clerk): It was just read. Vice Chairman Gort: Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. It was just read. Roll call Mr. Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Mr. Chairman, I'll provide a clean copy of that for the record. Commissioner Teele: And, Mr. Attorney, we did change the street to 7th, which is the redevelopment boundary. And, Commissioner Winton, all of this in your district. I mean, we have these overlaps -- by the way, 75% of the redevelopment authority, Omni and Park West, Overtown, is in your district, although we keep talking about the little part that's not. This is going to be somewhat controversial as we go down the road. But what I wanted to just make sure that we're aware of is that the Planning. Department is requested to involve all of the advisory boards and agencies, the Urban Design -- the Urban -- what is it? 84 February 17, 2000 Ms. Ana Gelabert (Director, Planning and Zoning): The Urban Development and Review Board. Commissioner Teele: The Urban Development Review Board, et cetera. And that we want to have enough hearings in the public so that it's not being slipped through. The area, contrary to what's been written, is only six blocks, not fifteen blocks, and it's only like two blocks deep, and it really is an area right now that is nothing but parking lots and derelicts. In fact, the Park West Metro Mover Station there in 2nd Avenue, as you know, is permanently closed because of vagrants, et cetera. So, that's the context of all of this. And we think it will generate dollars for the redevelopment area. Commissioner Winton: Well -- Vice Chairman Gort: Mr. Manager, can we get somebody to please -- that meeting that is taking place outside, if they take it out. Commissioner Winton: I think that the key point you made, Commissioner Teele, is that there will be a significant number of public hearings. We do want public input on all of this, and it's a public input that going to lead to the ultimate -- to the ultimate plan being adopted, that I think will work for the community. So, I'm thrilled that we're going the public hearing route. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Do we have pocket items? Commissioner Winton. Commissioner Winton: Yes, we do. Commissioner Winton: Yes, we do. This one has to do with a filming, a television series, which is a -- filming "The Fugitive" television series, which is coming back, and it's a resolution. Note for the Record: At this point Commissioner Winton read the resolution into the public record. Commissioner Winton: And I move the resolution. Vice Chairman Gort: Moved by Commissioner Winton. Is there a second? Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Vice Chairman Gort: Discussion? Being none, all in favor state by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): "Aye." 85 February 17, 2000 The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Winton, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 00-184 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION DECLARING AN EXEMPTION FROM THE PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS CONTAINED IN SECTIONS 36-4(A) AND 36-5(A) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, AS THEY RELATE TO THE LEVEL OF HOURS OF NOISE RESULTING FROM FILMING THE "THE FUGITIVE" TELEVISION SERIES, FROM MARCH 6 THROUGH MARCH 18, 2000, AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN THE CITY OF MIAMI, SUBJECT JO WARNER BROS. TELEVISION PRODUCTION OBTAINING CONSENT FROM THE NEIGHBORS AT EACH FILMING LOCALITY. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None, ABSENT: Commissioner Tomas Regalado Vice Chairman Gort: Anything else? Commissioner Winton: That's all I can see. Vice Chairman Gort: Commissioner Sanchez? Commissioner Sanchez: None. Vice Chairman Gort: Commissioner Teele? Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire of the Manager very briefly, and this relates to Community Development. It, quite frankly, relates to the area that we just finished hearing from, 61" Street. Mr. Manager, we spend a lot of time working through -- is Ms. Warren here, by the way, and Mr. Lindsay? We spend a lot of time working through the Section 8 mod rehab units that have been going on literally for the last 30 years in the area. As you know, 61 86 February 17', 2000 0 1 9 Street, 601h Street, 59"', and 58`h are areas where, 20 or 30 years ago, is massive redevelopment of section 8 units were built. It's interesting, Mr. Chairman, to note that the Miami Herald did a study about a year and a half ago and they found that a disproportionate of all the homicides, County -wide, were within that 15'h Avenue to 17th Avenue, 58th Street, right up to about 79 Street area. You remember those circular -- where all of these homicides are occurring? 62nd Street, going north to 791h Street is County owned. There is nothing we can do about that. That's County public housing. But what is happened over the year is that the mod rehab developments wound up being staging areas and drug distribution den s for this tremendous resource over there of humans in public housing. I've asked the Planning Department and the management to look at down zoning the area to the south of 62"d right back -- all the way to 36th, which right now is residential R-1 and R-2, the entire area, but somewhere along the line, about 20 years ago, somebody got smart and made that multifamily. Now, this is the point. I'm being inundated'with lobbyists and lawyers and people beginning to call saying, we don't -- we'd like to negotiate a deal to purchase those mod rehabs home, those Section 8 homes. I mean it's been very painful for two years to get out of this. The last thing we need, Mr. Manager, is to start patching this up again under the guise of "providing housing." And I just want to be very, very clear that we're operating on two fronts. Number one, we're looking at how we can down zone that area to be consistent with the rest of that area. From 62"d Street to 36th Street is residential. Some of the most hard-working God-fearing people in this entire City live in that area. That's the Hadley Park area. That area never should have gotten out of control like that. The area right next to the mother of the black community, Mrs. Range -- Momma Range, had these horrible multifamily right next door, and you know the young man that was running that funeral home was shot dead right on one of those corners there some years ago. I'm trying to lay a predicate, Mr. Manager, and to Commissioner Winton, who has not gone through all of this with us, that we don't need to patch up those homes. I wouldn't care if the archbishop of my Presbyterian church came in with a proposal. We don't need that in that area. If we're going to get possession of that land, we need to restrict that to single families and duplexes, at the most, and to create a buffer. Sixty-second Street should be the buffer. Everything that goes on the north side of 62"d we can't control because that's County owned. But coming back into this hard working area called Hadley Park, south of 62"d, where we are now the owners of a lot of the land -- and all that I'm saying is, let's get a plan. And. I would appreciate, if you all would present a plan and you work with the community and us -- not the community based organizations, but the Neighborhood Homeowner Associations on how we can reclaim this area. There are some very powerful seats, community based organizations, many of them are my friends, several ministers, who are my friends, have all said "Well, just let us have a couple of the buildings and we'll fix them up." That's the wrong policy direction. We need to reclaim that area. And I would just hope that we don't get put in that position. Vice Chairman Gort: That area, if,you go through it, they've got some beautiful homes. It's a beautiful residential area. OK. Pocket items. 87 February 17, 2000 • Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Pocket item. Is Commissioner,Regalado there? I have one pocket item, then I have a couple of pocket items from the Mayor's office. You have in front of you the Regis House is a non profit, that has been doing a lot of work in the community for quite a few years, and they need to refinance the present location 'to expand and improve the existing building: My understanding is, they would have to get back to staff. We have the second mortgage, and they need to work on that. So, what do we need -- Mr. Donald Warshaw (City Manager): Just a direction from staff. Vice Chairman Gort: The direction for staff to get together with the Regis House and work out something (inaudible). OK. Do you need a resolution, Mr. Attorney? Mr. Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): No, just a direction from the Commission. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Right now, the second mortgage will continue to be a second mortgage. Thank you. Vice Chairman Gort: The Mayor has two -- you have two pocket items from the Mayor. One of them is a resolution of the City Commission of the City of Miami, Florida; expressing support for the Information Technology Development Task Force recommending Miami as a site for the document of high-speed Network Access Point, NAP. Do I have a motion? Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, I would please to move it -- Commissioner Winton: Second. Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved and second. Discussion? Commissioner Teele: Again, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the resolution be modified to seek the coordination with the DDA (Downtown Development Authority) and the redevelopment authority in the -- Vice Chairman Gort: In the efforts to secure the -- Commissioner Teele: In the efforts to -- hereby -- yeah, in the effort to secure, and further recommend that the Beacon Council coordinate, you know, with them. And, again, we need coordination and we need as many players as we can, but we need coordination. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Is there further discussion? With the attached amendment, all in favor state by saying "aye." 88 February 17, 2000 The Commission (Collectively): "Aye." The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 00-185 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION SUPPORTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE FLORIDA STATE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT TASK FORCE DESIGNATING MIAMI AS THE SITE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A HIGH SPEED NETWORK ACCESS POINT TO SERVE AS THE GATEWAY FOR UNITED STATES - LATIN AMERICAN E-COMMERCE AND OTHER INTERNET RELATED SERVICES; AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO TRANSMIT A COPY OF THE HEREIN RESOLUTION TO THE OFFICIALS DESIGNATED HEREIN. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Winton, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Tomas Regalado 3,$ DSC 1SSIUI�i 1EST p AIS FORCE BASER NOVA3TI�N „. Vice Chairman Gort: A resolution of the City Miami Commission of the.City of Miami, Florida expressing support for redevelopment of Homestead Air Force Base as Homestead Regional Airport in accordance with the supplemental environmental impact statement for disposal of portion of the former Homestead Air Force Base, as prepared by the department of air force in December '99, providing for distribution of resolution provided for effective date. Do I have a motion? Commissioner Sanchez: I don't have a copy. Let me see it. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, before you get a motion, you need to know this is extremely controversial, that the two Commissioners in the County that represent this area are in opposition. At least one of them I know, Katie Sorenson, is clearly leading the opposition. This has the strong opposition of the environmental community, and I think it sort of falls within the purview of the Winton concept of "what do we have to do with this Goya Food? " you know, I don't want to be -- I voted against this as a County Commissioner. I was very, very out spoken against it. I'm much less against it today .than I was then because they've gone through the environmental impact. They have complied with that, and the federal EIS, I think you know that 89 February 17, 2000 the newspapers are editorially opposed to. this. They are in favor of a Collier Land Swap. I am adamantly opposed to the Collier Land Swap. I'd rather see this than the Collier Land Swap because I don't think anybody has studied the Collier Land Swap. That if you give people land in fee simple; as the Colliers are proposing, you could have the Homestead Air Force Base there by another name without all. of the oversight, and I don't think -- I think, you know, that the Collier Land Swap is as big of a fiction as the Trojan horse was coming into Troy. So, you know, I think this needs some study. I mean, I would welcome an opportunity to involve the Mayor's input on this or whatever, but I do know that the environmental community is rabid against this, and I think much of that criticism is misplaced at this., point. I think the Collier Land Swap deal. is a much worst deal than this Homestead Air Force Base, but I'm not sure that we -- I'm not sure I want to vote on this as a City Commissioner, because I really don't think I need the city of Homestead passing resolutions telling us where to put a job creation center or an incubator or a NAP (Network Access Point) or anything like that. You know, one courtesy invites the other. So, I'm a strong principal that this is much more than a simple statement of support for that. It's a policy position that we're opening the door to interfering with what is really not our business. Vice Chairman Gort: Commissioner Teele, this is a resolution that came in front of the League of Cities by the request of the mayor of the Homestead. Their argument is, this has been used as an airport, military airport in the past. They have complied with all the studies and research. What they are doing, either implement it or don't. It doesn't mean it has to be for airport specific. So, what's the wish of this committee -- of this Commission? Commissioner Winton: Mr. Chairman, I guess I have to echo what Commissioner Teele had said. When I first read this, I couldn't understand, still don't understand, even based on what you just said, why the City of Miami is the stepping into this, and this it does follow along the same lines as the Goya Foods thing. This is not -- this is not a City of Miami issue, and it never will be a City of Miami issue. And the law of unintended consequences always applies in these kinds of things, so .as a sitting Commissioner, I'm -- it makes me very nervous just for that reason, but secondly, frankly, I don't know enough about the facts. I only know what I've read in the newspaper, and before I was a Commissioner, I was opposed'to the process that got the group that controls this whole thing into the Homestead Air Force Base. I thought that was an awful process, and I was oppose today that back .then. And now that I'm being called on, I think, to essentially sign off on a process that I was oppose today again with, so -- and it's even outside our jurisdiction, so I don't know. I frankly think I can't -- you just don't have enough information to make any kind of decision,. Certainly not enough information to vote yes. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Yes, sir. Commissioner Sanchez: I'm prepared to vote. There is a motion and a second. Vice Chairman Gort: There is no -- is there a motion? Commissioner Sanchez: Let me just state something for the record on -- pertaining to this. I mean, if you look at the growth, not only of the City of Miami, but Dade County itself and Homestead, that it's really suffering from the base leaving and just being an empty area there. Homestead -- I believe that Homestead is supporting this, and I've received word that the mayor of Homestead is pushing for this because it's going to bring an economical growth to that community. If you look at the airport here and what they are talking about, an just gathering bits and pieces from paper and the newspapers, the media, what they are talking about is the - transportation of warehouse or the export/import concept, moving it down there, and creating -- I just look at it from the growing point of view of population and jobs that are going to be created, 90 February 17, 2000 and the out come it's going to have on the community. If you look at it from an economical point of view and the environment, two different views, apple and oranges. But this is just a resolution of support. Although, I do agree that, you know, why support something that's going to be outside the City, in other cities and municipalities and County's supporting? That's going to affect us? You know, if it's the will of the Commission to not take action on it, it's fine, but we do get a first and a second. I'm willing to move the resolution. Vice Chairman Gort: You moved it. I'll second it. Commissioner Winton: So, we have a move and a second -- we have a motion and a second. Discussion? Commissioner Teele: I think, in fairness, we should have five Commissioners here. I mean, I don't have a problem with the motion and second. I just think we ought to temporarily pass it until we get the fifth Commissioner. Commissioner Winton: Well, as the -- is there any precedent for -- Commissioner Teele made a suggestion and that was that we have all five Commissioners present. Now, Commissioner Teele, I'm not sure that I feel as strongly about- that. I like to get on with business so we can -- does the Chairman make this decision? Commissioner Teele: The Chairman always makes the decision to go forward or not go forward. Commissioner Winton: Well, since I'm sitting here as the Chairman, let's move this forward and get a vote. Any other discussion? Vice Chairman Gort: Call the roll. Commissioner Winton: Call the roll. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION -FAILED Upon being seconded by Vice Chairman Gort, the resolution failed by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton. ABSENT: Commissioner Tomas Regalado 91 February 17, 2000 Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Cox item. The AFSCME (American Federal, State, County, and Municipal Employees) item. That's `the.one that we left -- Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, 111 be pleased -- Commissioner Sanchez: We should wait for Tomas to get hereon this one. Commissioner Teele: I'll be pleased to move it. I'll be pleased to move the item. Vice Chairman Gort: There is a motion to approve. Is there a second? Commissioner Winton: Second. Vice Chairman Gort: Second. Discussion? Under discussion, I think -- Mr. Manager, have you heard from all of us, for the last three to four years, we have been stating that we do not want to increase taxes or increase anymore (inaudible). What we want to do is, the Economic Development of the area, to make sure that maybe we could lower some ' of those taxes, and maybe lower some of the tasks that we have placed, so -- in that consideration, I know you recommend and staff recommend for this to be approved, so, hopefully, you have your magic wand and you find the -- within the budget for next year that this will take place, because these Commissioners, as stated before, all of us, there is no way we're going to increase revenues. We're going to for the reduction of -- the cost of doing business. Yes, sir. . Commissioner Sanchez: In all fairness, you have one Commissioner who is missing, who opposes this. I think that we owe it to have a full Commission to make -- to vote on this issue. He opposed. He's not here. The least we could do is wait for him to be here so he could cast his vote, which is a no. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman? Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: The other matter, which went forward, I take it in humorous jest, the way it proceeded. But I do think that, as a matter of policy and collegial courtesies, I've never served in a collegial body that doesn't allow for members to cast a vote, if it's timely and you're not going to lose the window. I mean, as a matter of courtesy, I .personally believe that we should always defer to each other in terms of deferral to get information, and on matters of great importance, which I don't think the Homestead Air Force Base is a matter of great importance, or matters of great importance for a full complemental Commission, if appropriate. I do think this matter is of great importance in this regard. We're adding dollars to the budget forever more, and in that regard, in all seriousness, I have to support what Commissioner Sanchez is saying. Vice Chairman Gort: Well, let's (inaudible) and then we can bring it back later on. We have people here from PZ that's waiting. Let's go. Commissioner Sanchez: Move to defer. 92 February 17, 2000 n Commissioner Teele: Second. Vice Chairman-Gort: It's been moved to defer and second. Discussion? Commissioner Teele: Defer until later today. Vice Chairman Gort: Delay today. All in favor state by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): "Aye." The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 00-186 A MOTION TO TABLE CONSIDERATION OF AGENDA ITEM 18 (PROPOSED COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WITH AFSCME LOCAL 1907 PROVIDING A SINGLE TIER SALARY STRUCTURE OF CITY EMPLOYEES) UNTIL LATER ON THIS SAME DATE. (Note: This item was later passed as resolution 00- 191.). Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES:' Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Tomas Regalado Note for the Record: At this point, the City Commission temporarily tables consideration of regular portion of the agenda in order to consider items from the Planning and Zoning portion of the agenda. Vice Chairman Gort: We'll now close the regular hearings to the regular meeting and come to the PZ meeting.. Are we ready? PZ -1. By the way, you looked very good last night. You did a great job. Maybe you'll be discovered. You can start new a TV series. Ms. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ -1 is a major use special permit for the Brickell Grand Project to be located at approximately 93 February 17, 2000 1010 South Miami Avenue. This project is proposed to be a mixed use development project, which will consist of 427 residential units, twenty-six thousand six hundred sixty-nine square feet of retail and other non-residential uses, and five hundred and thirty-six parking spaces. The project was recommended for approval by the Urban Development Review Board and the department is recommending approval, with conditions. The conditions are pretty touch standard conditions that we place on Major Special Use Permit, with one change, and that is regarding a final revised landscape plan with all the specifications for review and approval by the Planning Department prior to the issuance -of a building permit. Other wise, the project is -- it's going to propose to finally start to put in place our Brickell Promenade, guides and standards, which called for a ground floor retail activity in the Brickell Promenade district, and you're going to see later on the agenda the other side of the street being done as well. So we recommend approval. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Adrienne Pardo: Hello. My name is Adrian Pardo, with law offices at 12 21 Brickell Avenue. I'm here today on behalf of BAP Development, Inc., which is a contract purchaser for the subject property. Principals of BAP Development Inc. With me here today are Mr. Willy Bermello, and Mr. Henry Pino. Also with me today from Bermello -- Vice Chairman Gort: I'm sorry. Let me interrupt you a minute. All of those that are going to testify of any items in front of us today, please, you need to stand up an be sworn in. Anyone that's going to testify, they need to testify and be sworn in. Walter? AT THIS POINT, THE CITY CLERK ADMINISTERED REQUIRED OATH UNDER ORDINANCE NO. 10511 TO THOSE PERSONS GIVING TESTIMONY ON ZONING ISSUES. Ms. Pardo: Also with me here today from Bermello (inaudible) Vivian Bonet (phonetic), Elizabeth Newland, who will address the landscape issues. Mr. Darryl Sharpton, with Sharpton and Brunson, and Mr. Jack Auston, who performed the traffic report. The property is located at 1010 South Miami Avenue. It comprises of approximately two acres, and it's located directly next to the Fire House Restaurant on South Miami Avenue. It's in --,the property is zoned SD -7, Central Brickell, Rapid District, Commercial Residential District. We're very excited about this program -- this project. We think it's going to be a wonderful addition to this area, and it's going to provide affordable housing - - affordable urban housing for this particular neighborhood. As Ms. Slazyk had mentioned, the Planning Department has recommended approval, with conditions, and we accept all those conditions. We have also brought this development -- has gone before the Urban Development Review Board, is Zoning Board, as well as the Planning Board, and all three boards have unanimously approved the subject development. It will entail a 427 unit residential building, which will have 86 studio apartments, 154 one -bedroom apartments, and 187 two-bedroom apartments, along with retail on the ground floor. We have filed a Major Use Special Permit, which all of you should have received the book, which includes all the plans and list all the items that we are 94 February 17, 2000 requesting, which includes class one and two permits, special exceptions, an upper level variance, as. well as a certificate of appropriate (inaudible) for a ground disturbing activity and the waiver of the noise ordinance only during the concrete pouring. If you'd like, at this time, I will have Mr. Bermello present the project, but you just want -- Commissioner Teele: Is there opposition? Commissioner Sanchez: Is there opposition? Ms. Pardo: Not that we're aware of Vice Chairman Gort: Is there anyone in opposition to this item? I.think Commissioner Winton has some questions. Is anyone in opposition? OK. Show there is no one in opposition. Commissioner Winton. Commissioner Winton: In terms of this kind of project in that area, this is exactly the kind of thing that I think we're all looking for in that west Brickell market place. A couple comments -- one 'is a question. One is a comment. What contact have you all had with Brickell Area Association in terms of this whole project? Ms. Pardo: Actually, I spoke the other day with Mr. Tory Jacobs, who is the president of the Brickell Homeowner Association. And I told him about the project, and I asked if he had any questions or if he would like us to make a presentation to his particular board, which -- Commissioner Winton: Well, I think you need to make sure you make contact with Brickell Area Association because Brickell Homeowner's Association is further -- there territory is a little further in the Brickell residential corridor, as opposed to -- the Brickell Area Association has' had a tremendous amount of input into that whole Brickell Village area, and that's a real -- it's very important to that whole community there. So, I think contact with them is very important. And then one comment I would like to make. I think that the mixed-use plan here is a very good plan. Just a personal opinion. That's all it is and that's all the weight it carries. I hope that, as we continue development - - and we don't want to s'et up aesthetic design standards like Coral. Gables has, so that everything looks the same. We don't want that in the City of Miami. We don't want .it in that-Brickell area. But I hope that these projects have a little more pizzazz than this one seems to have. It looks pretty fundamentally it looks Like a project that has 84 efficiency apartment units in it. Ms. Pardo: Actually, if you'd like, we can show you some of the renderings that might give you a better view of it. Commissioner Winton: That might help. I'm not going holding anything up that's a personal opinion and we don't have any -- we have no aesthetic criteria that we can apply anyhow, so I'm just giving you my personal opinion as a Commissioner. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Do you have a motion, sir? It's your district. 95 February 17, 2000 Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, I would move it but are those people in the swimming pool fully clad? Commissioner Regalado: .Excuse me. That is art. Ms. Pardo: They all are. Vice Chairman Gort: There isa motion. Ms. Pardo: Yes; they are. Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved and second. Any further discussion? Being none... Commissioner Sanchez: I.have one more. The land itself, are there people living in the houses that are there? Ms. Pardo: I believe so. Commissioner Sanchez: How much houses are there -- this, project. is going to take over how many houses, 15 houses? Ms. Pardo: Fifteen houses. Commissioner Sanchez: Is there some type of assistance to relocate these people when they move or where they move? Vice Chairman Gort: This is private setting. Commissioner Teele,: Private setting. Commissioner Sanchez: OK. Vice Chairman Gort: This is private setting. Commissioner Sanchez: That's private setting? Vice Chairman Gort: Yeah. Commissioner Sanchez: OK. Commissioner Winton: No government housing. Vice Chairman Gort: No government housing. Commissioner Teele: No government money at all in it? Commissioner Sanchez: None whatsoever? Ms. Pardo: I. promise. No government money. 96 February.17, 2000 • • Vice Chairman Gort: No. That's what it says. This is all private. Ms. Pardo: It's all private development. Vice Chairman Gort: All in favor state by saying -- Commissioner Sanchez: No further questions. Commissioner Teele: May I just ask, where is the nearest Metrorail stay -- Metro Mover or Metrorail Station, how far? Ms. Pardo: Actually, it's only one block to the west. Commissioner Teele: And .on the parking, are you all -- how is that working? Do you all get credit because you're close to' the Metrorail or do you provide the full parking? Ms. Pardo: Well, in the particular district, the SD -7 -- currently, the zoning ordinance has minimums and maximums, and we are a hundred spaces above the minimum requirement. Commissioner Teele: So, you don't think most of the people use -- living there will be using Metro Mover or Metro -- Ms. Pardo: Oh, we do believe that some of the people there will be using the Metro Mover, as well as perhaps walking to Brickell Avenue because it's not that far. Particularly, like now, during lunch time hour, a lot of the individuals who work on Brickell, Avenue always walk to those restaurants, which is very close. Commissioner Teele: It is a very handsome project. It really is. Ms. Pardo: We think it's beautiful. Thank you. We think it's beautiful. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. All in favor state by saying "aye." The Commission, (Collectively): "Aye." 97 February 17, 2000 The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 00-187 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENTS, APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS AS SPECIFIED BY STAFF, A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 13 AND 17 OF ZONING ORDINANCE . NO. 11000, FOR THE BRICKELL GRAND PROJECT, TO BE LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1010 SOUTH MIAMI AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA;. TO ALLOW A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF 427 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, WITH ASSESSORY RECREATIONAL SPACE, 26,669 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL AND OTHER NONRESIDENTIAL USE AND 536 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. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Ms. Pardo: Thank you very much. Vice Chairman Gort: Bermello, it was:a great presentation. 98 February.17, 2000 Vice Chairman Gort: Item 2. Ms. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): Item number 2 is another Major Use Special Permit for the property immediately across the street from this project. This is going to be the Brickell Main Street Project. The Brickell Main Street Project is also a Mixed Use Development, consisting of two hundred and eighty-eight hotel rooms, with accessory recreational uses. This one is going to have substantially more retail, 197,380 square feet of retail and 1,040 parking spaces. This project is requesting to be approved as a multi -phase project because they were going to be building the retail first and the hotel component will be coming later. This project was also recommended for approval by the Urban Development Review Board. The project, like the other one, has a variance component for the upper level setbacks, as well as the street side setback on 9th Street. What this project did was, by moving the setbacks a little bit closer on 9th Street, they were able to open up 10th Street, so that the Brickell Promenade could actually fulfill more of its road by widening the sidewalks on the Brickell Promenade side. They also have ground floor retail and restaurant on the Brickell Promenade frontage and this project has another component of it that is across the street on Miami Avenue and kind of wraps around the existing Perricone's restaurant. The Planning Department is recommending approval of the project, finding that the variance request do comply with the hardship criteria. Our conditions on this one do include a denial of two components of the project. First of all, because the project span South Miami Avenue, the applicant is proposing an upper level bridge across South Miami Avenue to connect the project. The department feels that pedestrian bridges tend to discourage the kind of ground floor pedestrian activity that we think is critical in the Brickell Village district. The other component of this project that we are recommending denial of is one of the drop-offs, vehicular drop-off areas on Brickell Promenade. The project, as designed, has three vehicular drop-off areas. Two on 10th Street and one on 9th Street. The two on 10th Street, one of them is to serve the hotel component of the project and the other one is to serve the retail component, and they have one on 9th Street to serve the retail component. The department believes that because of the pedestrian nature of the Brickell Promenade, which is 10th Street, that two vehicular drop-off areas is probably excessive and could probably also detract from the pedestrian activity we think is, you know, what -- that we want to see on Brickell Promenade. You know, other than that, they -- you know, we would recommend that both those components be eliminated and, then, the project be approved. Commissioner Winton: You're recommending two drop-offs? Ms. Slazyk: Two drop-offs out of the three. We think that three is excessive; that, you know, they could design one on 10th Street to serve both functions, you know, if it were to be designed in a way, you know, that they could have their valet service and their drop-off area for the project, with just one on 10th Street. Otherwise, the project is, again, very well-designed, recommended for approval by the Design Review Board, recommended for approval by the Planning Advisory Board and by the Zoning Board. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Yes, ma'am. 99 February 17, 2000 Ms. Vicky Garcia -Toledo: Good afternoon. For the record, Vicky Garcia -Toledo with offices at 2500 First Union Financial Center. I am joined today by two partners of our firm, Mr. John Sumberg and Mr. Carter McDowell. We are here on behalf of Brickell .Main Street, Ltd., which is a partnership, which includes, as the managing partner, Constructa US. They're being represented by the principals, George Giebel and Philippe Labarre. The designs that you see before you are from the architectural firm of Beame Architectural Partnership and they're being represented here today by Larry Beame and by Katie Salow. The landscaping component is represented by Echoplan through Richard Hallock. We have our traffic engineer, Mr. T. Imada, from Carr Smith Corradino; Darryl Sharpton from Sharpton, Brunson and Company. The design that you see before you is an application for a Major Use Special Permit. It is located on South Miami Avenue, between 9th and 10 Street. It's on both sides, east and west of South Miami Avenue. It's across the street from the city -owned Fire House 4 and it wraps around the Perricone's restaurant, which I'm sure you're all familiar with. Amongst the lengthy request of special permits, which are captured underneath the umbrella of the Major Use Special Permit, we did ask, as staff told you, for two variances. One of those variances was for setbacks about 40 feet from the ground. The other one was in an effort to meet the City of Miami Brickell Promenade Guides and Standards, which should be made a reference -- incorporated into the record by reference. These design -- Urban Design standards were adopted by the City a number of years ago. And I guess because there was no activity in this area of Brickell, the Zoning Code was not changed consistent with those standards and, thus, in order to be able to carry out the intent of those guides and standards of creating 10th Street as a friendly, pedestrian promenade that connects Brickell Avenue, the Metro Mover and the Metro -Rail, these special standards were created. Working with staff, we realize that we -- a larger setback was needed on 10th Street and, so, the entire building was moved further towards 9th Street, thus, allowing the extra space for the colonnades that the standards required. The two special exceptions that were part of the presentation to your Zoning Board were for the bar in the hotel, which is a component. It's the tower that you're seeing before you. And the valet parking. You heard staff say that they're only supporting two of the three -drop-off valet parkings. The developer feels very strongly about this issue. And, in fact, the approval -- the unanimous approval of both the Zoning Board and the Planning Advisory Board came with approval of the three drop-offs that we're requesting. Because the nature of the type of restaurants, national chain, white table cloth restaurants that we're looking to bring into this development, they require valet parking. The third valet parking on that street would be the hotel valet entrance, which has a very different nature. Because there you would have people with luggage and other items as they register in the hotel. So, we would really like to keep the uses very separately, and we would hope that you would support and be consistent with the recommendation of .PAB (Planning Advisory Board) and Zoning to allow us to have the three drop-offs. Commissioner Winton: Well, you're not suggesting that the hotel guests are going to be dropped off in the street? You're going to have your own on-site drop-off for hotel guests, aren't you? Ms. Garcia -Toledo: We're asking for valet service at the front of the hotel. Commissioner Winton: Only. So, all hotel patrons are going to be dropped off in the street, in the public street, not on your property? Ms. Garcia -Toledo: We also have a built two-line into the parking garage for drop-off into the hotel, but that will be more for individuals that are not using the valet services. Commissioner Winton: How is that going to work in the first place? I mean, that's an awful lot of -- what if you get 15 hotel guests -- and this absolutely happens -- that all show up at the same time and they all get there by car and they're all parked out in the middle of the street? How does that work? 100 February 17, 2000 Ms. Slazyk: Well, what will happen is, it'll queue up on 10th Street. They'll queue up right down the street. I think that there are areas long enough .to probably accommodate two within their zone but, beyond that, it would probably queue up -- back down 10th Street. Vice Chairman Gort: Listen -- excuse me. Let me -- can we get someone to interrupt the meetings that are taking place outside of here? Mr. Manager, can we get somebody to stop the meetings outside, please? Go ahead. Commissioner Winton: Well, I'm still struggling with that. I just simply don't see how that makes any sense for the neighborhood. Traffic is always an issue; cars are always an issue. When you get into neighborhoods, if you allow vehicular traffic, that's. doing business with a business' on a property, to queue up in public rights-of-way, you end up with a, mess. How does this work? I'm not sure how any of our departments approved this, yet. That part of it, not the project. I think the project looks great, by the way. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Commissioner, on that bottom site plan, you can see the entrance into the parking garage. Inside that entrance, there is like a drop-off area, a cut out, where the cars that are going to register can utilize, while they're bringing down their luggage and that kind of activity. That doesn't mean that there will be somebody dropped off by a taxi from Miami Airport, who will not be going into the garage, who will be dropped off on the street. So, we need both -- we need the ability to do both things. Commissioner Winton: And I understand now. Because what I thought you were saying is that all of the vehicular traffic was going to stop right in the middle of the street and they get their bags out and they walk to the deal. I understand. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Let me proceed, then. The pedestrian bridge is another issue that staff has concerns with. That pedestrian bridge crosses South Miami Avenue. We will have retail on the second level of this center. And for those patrons that are already on the second level, we would not want to inconvenience them by having to come down on one side cross the street at ground level, and to go up to the next second story. So, we don't feel that the fear that the staff has will actually materialize. Those who are on the ground floor are not going to go across the street by getting on the bridge. They're going to cross at ground level. Those on the second floor will use the bridge. We feel that it's a very important part of the project, from a retail service point. But we also feel that that bridge; with the design it will have -- and you will hear more about it from the architect -- will also kind of create a cohesive center or heart for the Brickell neighborhood. We are also including in this project what we're calling a Community Center. That is a fifteen hundred square foot building that will have a steeple -like element to create, once again, this neighborhood attraction and feeling. This project that is before you has received full approval, except for those two issues by your professional staff. We had approximately three preliminary meetings with staff before submitting anything to the City, to make sure that we were sensitive to the issues, not only of the neighborhood but also of the Brickell Promenade Guidelines and Standards. It; then, went to the Large Scale Developmental Committee, which is made up of 30 some odd members of different governments, state, county, and city, as well as the local utilities. With their input and approval, we implemented a plan that was submitted to the UDRB (Urban Design and Review Board). The Urban Design Review Board gave us their unanimous approval and so did the Zoning Board and the Planning Advisory Board. We do have objectors on this matter. We have... 101 February 17, 2000 0 . 0 Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Let's hear from the objectors and, then... Ms. Garcia -Toledo: We've been working with them since. January. We have not come to a resolution. If you wish, I'd be happy to introduce the architect to show you the project or, as you wish. Commissioner Sanchez: Any opposition? Vice Chairman Gort: There .is opposition. Let's hear from the opposition,. Geta few minutes for rebuttal afterwards. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Thank you. Vice Chairman Gort: Unless any one of you want to ask questions of the architect? Commissioner Sanchez: No. Vice Chairman Gort: No. Mr. Santiago Echemendia: Santiago Echemendia, 201 South Biscayne Boulevard, on behalf of Brickell Village Land Company, the adjoining property owner immediately to the west of this property. If Mr. Beame is going to testify later on, I would like to have the opportunity to cross-examine him, incidentally, and ask him some questions. We're not opposed to the project. We're opposed to the insensitive treatment of our site. They're, basically, putting a parking deck, that is 104 feet, immediately on our property line. And, so, we've looked at doing some modifications -- not only the parking deck but also of the tower. We've looked at doing some modifications on the orientation of the tower, and what I'd like to do is have Robert Chisholm, who's our architect, walk you through how this process has evolved from the various schemes that we proposed and what we're proposing from you today, what we would like to get from you in terms of conditions to this approval, to the extent you're so inclined. Thank you. Vice Chairman Gort: Anyone else? Mr. Chisholm, what are you going to do? Commissioner Teele: What did he say? He's not opposed to it? Vice Chairman Gort: But he wants to -- some condition to approve part of his land. In other words, they want the project to benefit the other property owner. Mr. Echemendia: Yeah, we're not opposed to the development, but we feel that, the treatment of our site is very insensitive. They're basically backing up onto our site, right on our property line, with 104 foot parking deck and, then, the hotel structure. And it has been expressed by a Planning board member, at least one Planning -- actually, the Zoning board members asked the applicants to meet with us. Though they voted in favor, they did express some concern regarding the insensitive treatment of our site, as well as the Planning Board. So, that's the issue. Vice Chairman Gort: Well, let's keep it short. What are you asking of them, to change the plans? Mr. Echemendia: We need to go through our presentation, respectfully,, Commissioner, because this is probably going to end up on appeal, if you decide to approve it. Commissioner Teele: But have you all met? My question, Mr. Chairman... 102 February 17, 2000 Vice Chairman Gort: They've met. They're not going to get into any agreement? Go ahead. Go ahead, sir. They're going to go to court. Mr. Echemendia: We have met on various occasions. We had some alternative schemes the applicant was not yielding, in any respect. Our meetings were, basically, futile. Mr. Chisholm, who's a very well-regarded architect in the area, developed some alternative schemes. They looked at them. They, basically, gave us no response in terms of a willingness to make any modifications to this site. So, again, the meetings were futile. We've met about three times. But let us walk you through our presentation because we do have to make the record. The first Code section that I would like to direct your attention to is the Major Use Special Code Section 1301, and it talks about limiting potentially adverse effects on adjoining properties. Mr. Chisholm will testify that it is his professional opinion that the project, as proposed, does not reduce potentially adverse effects; that, indeed, it is deleterious to our property. Robert, why don't you go ahead and start. Mr. Robert Chisholm: Commissioners, my name is Robert Chisholm. I'm president of R. E. Chisholm Architects, Inc., 7254 Southwest 48th Street, Miami, Florida. We were commissioned by Brickell Village Land Company about three or four weeks ago to take a look at the situation. First of all, let me express that we feel that the project from my colleague, Beame Architects, is an excellent project and we feel it would be very, very advantageous to the City. However, in view of the light that we are planning an SD -7 District here, which has certain requirements, one of them being minimizing the parking availability in that area because of the proximity of Rapid Transit and People Movers, and it's part of City ordinances. As these projects come on line, and as we planned them, accordingly, you have to take into consideration the impact on the proposed and adjacent projects. In our case, we have a property, which is directly to the west of the proposed project by Constructa. And even though I have expressed, in the past, publicly, that I felt that the west exposure of this project was not properly defined, there is a very high fire wall of 104 feet -- I'm sorry? Oh, OK -- directly on the west, which was -- had not been shown in drawings in the past, and I publicly made that comment. We were asked by our -- the Briokell Village Land Company to take a look at what possibilities there were to -- in a discourse with Constructa -- to see how we could achieve a mutually, beneficial solution to this project. Because to the extreme west we have a proposed Phase 11 hotel and all the parking that is required to go with it. It's on the lower drawing on the extreme left. The way we see it, that hotel, it's a convenient and very nice backdrop through their whole emphasis on their access -- on the cast/west access of this project and very nicely executed. However, at this point in time, it does not take into consideration any additional development to the west. We did some sketches, where there is -- there are possible, physical solutions to this thing and met with our colleagues from Constructa and their architects. These were largely ignored. However, at the same time, we presented here in the Planning Advisory Board and the Brickell Commons Project -- representatives from Brickell Commons expressed an interest that that hotel not be moved too close to their project either because they were objecting to the same things that we were objecting to. So, in essence, theywere in agreement with us. One of the things that we have looked at, aside from the ordinances, is the use of parking. In this district, what you have, you don't have minimums. You have maximum permitted parking spaces. And if you analyze adjacent projects in similar use, such as Brickell Commons, who -- I'm going on my memory because I can't see that. But I think Brickell Commons is using something like 98 plus percentage. I'm sorry. Seventy-four percent of their maximum allowable parking. I'm getting old. Brickell Commons is using 73 percent, of the maximum allowed parking. Brickell Grand is using 64 percent of the maximum allowed parking. While Brickell Main Street is using 98.7. We feel that that is -- in view of the light of the ordinances that are being -- are in place and in order, that is in total conflict with what the City's trying to achieve. 103 February 17, 2000 • Commissioner Teele: Wait. Hold it. Hold it. Hold it. I don't -- say that again. Mr. Echemendia: Commissioner, it's a very simple proposition. Commissioner Teele: No, no, no, no. Vice Chairman Gort (Comments off the mike). Commissioner Teele: Well, I don't want to interrupt your presentation, but I'm not sure that -- one of the things that we all are looking at is what's the right mix of parking in the street areas and all of that, but I don't think there's a strict standard that we've enunciated. Vice Chairman Gort: One of the biggest problems we have is not having enough parking anywhere we go. Commissioner Teele: Not enough parking? Vice Chairman Gort:-,Finally, we have somebody bringing enough parking. Are we going to object to that? That's a good argument. Mr. Echemendia: Commissioner, the provision that we're citing to, it's - you have somewhat of a -- there's a bit of a discrepancy in terms of the dearth of -- what the perceived dearth of parking and what the SD -7 says. The SD -7 says, because of the proximity to the Metrorail and the People Mover --and let me just quote the language. "Inconsideration of the concentration of residential office and ground level commercial uses in the district and the availability of rapid transit and to protect against the dominance of the automobile in the district, it is intended that off-street parking requirements be minimal and designed to minimize the visual impact." We are saying that these folks are seeking more than the various projects that you've approved in.the area. We've gone through the numbers. We have a proposal that we would like for you to impose, as a condition, in terms of reducing the maximum height of their parking deck, which is really our concern. And we think it comports, in deed, with the SD -7 provision, insofar as it's intended to reduce the number of cars that go into that area and foster greater use of the People Mover and the Metro -Rail Station. It is in your Code. Commissioner Teele: Let me ask this. In reducing or putting a limit on the maximum height, would that also reduce the number of allowable parking spaces? Mr. Echemendia: It does reduce the number of parking spaces. It, basically -- what we're requesting is reducing two levels of parking spaces. Another thing that's very interesting is... Commissioner Teele: No But just hear. me. Because I want to -- I think, you know, we're -- Commissioner Winton, I guess, has more insight about this than most of us because he's been talking now, every since he's been elected, about a need for a tunnel with the development. I mean, now we're -- as we start approving all this stuff, we're all saying where are all these so-so -- I mean, we all are concerned. But the question is, you need to be very clear -- when you say reduce the height, are you really saying reduce the height or are you saying reduce the height and the number of parking spaces? Vice Chairman Gort: Number of parking spaces. Mr. Echemendia: Yeah. Again, what we're concerned about the height, but the attended effect of that is that it does, indeed, reduce the number of the parking spaces. And we were proposing, as a 104 February 17, 2000 reasonable compromise, rather than the 98 percent that they're proposing, 79.4 percent, which is still more than the two projects that you've approved, including the one that you just approved before this. Vice Chairman Gort: We've got the point. What's the other issue? Mr. Echemendia: It's not a matter of what's the other issue. I really need to go and make a record because, like I said, this is... Vice Chairman Gort: I understand, you're taking it to court and you need to put that on the record. Mr. Echemendia: If approved, it's going to go to court. Note for the Record: At this time, Mr. Echemendia directly examined Mr. Chisholm for the purpose of establishing a record for appellate purposes. Mr. Echemendia: Robert, have you walked them through the numbers? Or any other comments? OK. Could you -- is it your professional opinion that this application violates the spirit and intent of 1301 regarding potentially adverse effects on the adjoining property? Mr. Chisholm: I have to say yes at this point in time, with the intent of proposed projects adjacent to this Constructa proposal. Vice Chairman Gort: That's your professional opinion. Mr. Echemendia: Is it your professional opinion that this project and the 104 foot parking structure, immediately abutting our property line, is inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the SD -7 provision that discusses minimal parking requirements and design to minimize the visual impact? Mr. Chisholm: I think it's in conflict with minimizing the number of parking requirements. Mr. Echemendia: And, folks, we're really -- again, we're not opposed to the project. I mean, a number of people have expressed concern regarding the insensitivity of the towers right up on -- basically, the parking deck 104 feet and, then, the towers jotting back a little bit, as well as the parking deck.. immediately on the property. These folks have been, not only insensitive in the treatment of our property, but really inconsiderate in terms of any responsiveness toward addressing our concerns. And, so, we really are utterly frustrated by their inability or unwillingness to work with us in a sort of compromised modem. I also have to state, for the record, that there's no hardship for the variances. They're not deprived of all reasonable, beneficial use of the property. I would like to incorporate, by reference, the records of the Zoning Board and the Planning Board. I'm -- actually; I have the transcript of the Planning Board hearing that I'd like to submit into the record. I would like to quote the attorney for -- interestingly, the attorney for the applicant, saying how they're really -- and I quote from page 31 of the Planning Advisory Board transcript, Mrs. Garcia -Toledo. "And, also, the key situation here -- and I think it's something that was alluded to your previous application -- this site is located between Metrorail and the Metro Mover and the whole idea is that people will be encouraged to come to this site, especially, employees, by the use of public transportation. We're also going to have and that's what we keep talking about. when we talk about creation of a Community Center and neighborhood atmosphere. The whole concept, when the City was created, the limitations on parking were to encourage people to use the Metro -Rail and to encourage people to walk." That's the attorney for the applicant. On the location of the towers, I... 105 February 17, 2000 Vice Chairman Gort: Are you going to read the whole script? Mr. Echemendia: No, I'm not going to read the whole script, but I do need to make the record, respectfully, Commissioner. This is a quasi-judicial proceeding... Vice Chairman Gort: OK. You've got to -- let's go: Let's speed it up. We. have other people here waiting for. And you've taken a lot more time than the proponer here. So, go ahead. Mr. Echemendia: This is a very serious -- if you want to cut me off, I'll state my objection, for the record, as a matter of deprivation and procedural due process. Vice Chairman Gort: Go right ahead, sir. Mr. Echemendia: Willy Bermello, before the Planning Advisory Board, when we were attempting, as one of our schemes, to relocate the towers to make them closer to I Oth Street states: "but I do want to leave it on the record that the sketch that is presented as an option would be harmful to our project." Commissioner Teele: Well, now, whom is Mr. Bermello representing? Mr. Echemendia: Bermello Represents The Grand, which is immediately next to our property. And is the project that you just ,finished approving. So, if it's harmful to their project, it clearly harmful to our project. And here's a very prominent architect of the same opinion as we area Commissioner Teele: Now, you're boosting his reputation even. Mr. Echemendia: And an option -- but I do want to leave it on the record that the sketch that is presented is an option; would be harmful to our project because, basically, would take the entire hotel that, right now, they have if facing on the north/south access and would put it parallel to our front and not our back, right in front of us. That is, essentially, exactly what they are doing, relative to our property. Mr. McElroy of the Planning Advisory Board: "No one is saying this is a correct design but sensitivity is what we're saying, sensitivity to the property -adjacent to your property. Sensitivity. You are building all of your tower to the end of your property. Ninety percent of your project is on one end of the property. To me, your property is not being sensitive to your neighbor." Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me. That was a quote from one of the Planning Board members? Mr. Echemendia: That is correct. Vice Chairman Gort: How about the other members, did they make any quotes? Mr. Echemendia: If you would like to quote them, Mr. Commissioner, you're welcomed to. I'm not, certainly, going to quote them. Ms. Slazyk: It was approved unanimously. Mr. Echemendia: Again; I would cite 2-1301, regarding "protecting adjoining properties in the neighborhood from avoidable, potentially, adverse effects. This is not unlike the Atlantis case, Commissioner Winton, where you were very sensitive to -- not the Atlantis, the project on the right. In this instance, there is no setback. They're right on our property line, with a 104 feet backing into our site. There is no sensitivity to the adjoining property. And, again, we do want this project to go 106 February 17, 2000 forward. We're not here as obstructionists. Our property owner has a valid claim, that they are being treated inconsiderately. I think I've pretty much made the record that I needed to make. Let me just say, the conditions that we would like to -- that we would ask be imposed.. We would ask that the maximum height be 67 feet from the ground floor to the roof deck. That would give them 79 percent of the parking spaces, and that is for the retail. For the hotel, the maximum would be 85 feet maximum from the ground floor elevation to the top of the roof deck. That is more parking than you approved for the Commons, which is an entertainment facility that, typically, has greater parking needs, and much more than The Grand, which you just finished approving. We would ask that. It's not an unreasonable compromise. They're going to have sufficient parking. They're requesting more parking than any of the other projects that you've approved in the area. It concerns us, as well, that the second phase, which is the hotel, at this point, it is conceivable, based on an ordinance that was passed or recommended for adoption by the Planning Advisory Board yesterday, which reduces the maximums -- actually, does away with the maximums -- that they can, in effect, have the entire parking deck, a portion of which was supposed to be, is ascribable to the hotel and never build a hotel. In effect, having more parking than -- much more than the maximum would be for the retail today. I sense -- it's very clear, the sense that I get from the Commission and that -- you know, there's been some discussion regarding providing more parking in the area. Unfortunately, that is inconsistent with the SD -7 provision, as it reads today and, therefore, we believe that your approval would be a departure from the essential -- the requirements of the law and not supported by competent, substantial evidence. I think that is about it. We are available to answer any questions. And to the extent that there is any additional testimony elicited from any of the architects or experts, I would like to reserve the right to cross-examine them or ask them some questions. Thank you. Thanks for your patience. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, I would like to establish one thing. You know, on the SD -7, that you continue to cite, one of the things that we wrestle with in all of these projects is, what is the right mix of parking? I don't know if you've witnessed some of the discussions, even as it relates to subsidize or below moderate housing, I mean, where we've got procedures that allow for waivers of parking or exemptions for minimal parking, which we're. currently reviewing. This is not an absolute. I mean one of the reasons to have ranges is to provide flexibility. I have not heard you say, on the parking issue, that they are exceeding the maximum. So, I just need to understand, is it your argument that they're exceeding the maximum allowable parking, as provided for in the SD -7? Mr. Echemendia: No, they are not exceeding the maximum, but the SD -7 provide... Commissioner Teele: But let me just stop you at that point. Mr. Echemendia: I'm sorry. Commissioner Teele: So, if they're not exceeding the maximum, I'm concerned about your statement or your views that any vote would lack competent evidence that has been presented. Mr. Echemendia: Commissioner? Commissioner Teele: Because if we were going above the parking that's the maximum, then I could see that statement. It seems to me that your strongest argument is in the area of the good neighbor issues, that we like to talk about, where you quoted one board member saying that 90 percent of the project is -- the project built on 10 percent. And, I mean, what I'm trying to do is suggest to you all that you all ought to sit down and try to figure out a way, other than the parking issue. I mean, isn't the real issue the utilization of the land space in the proximity to your project? Isn't this really about aesthetics and...? 107 February 17, 2000 Mr. Echemendia: Exactly, Commissioner. It is not -- it has nothing to do with the number of spaces, really. It has -- because if they... Commissioner Teele: But, Jesus, you've talked about it for 20 minutes. Mr. Echemendia: No, because it's a Code provision that talks about minimizing parking, the minimized visual impact. The issue is the deck, at 104 feet, immediately abutting our property line, and the visual impact that that has, as well as the hotel component. If they can have -- we don't care how many parking spaces they have, as long as they don't lump it right on our property line, facing their back against us in a very insensitive way. And it adversely... Commissioner .Teele: And what's your best argument to me? Assuming I want to vote with you, what would be your best argument to me, based upon the Code that gives me the authority to limit their use of their land? Mr. Echemendia: The SD... Commissioner Teele: Because I voted with people in your position on three cases and been overruled by the court. One was the White Diamond. You remember the green and white diamond on Miami Beach? Mr. Echemendia: Yes. Commissioner Teele: It created a shadow on -- what was that hotel, that famous hotel over there? The Eden Roc, I believe. Mr. Echemendia: Eden Roc. Commissioner Teele:, And I felt very strongly that they were being horrible neighbors, but the court didn't agree with me. So, tell me, in the City Code, what Code provision could I use to support your position? . Mr. Echemendia: Thirteen zero one of the MUSP (Major Use Special Permit) provision talks about minimizing potentially adverse effects. We are certainly going to be adversely affected by having a 104 -foot parking deck backing into, in effect, our property and turning its back on our property, as well as the SD -7 provision that says "minimizing off-street parking requirements and design to minimize the visual impact." So, though, under Eden Roc, you're right, you don't have a right to views, here you, actually, have a Code provision -- and we're not talking so much views. We're talking about having a blank parking deck backing up right onto our property, and some consideration. We're not saying -- again; we want this project to go forward. It benefits everybody in the area. But to the extent that you could -- it is conceivable to either modify the configuration of the hotel tour, to minimize the potentially adverse effects on our property or, otherwise, lop off one or two floors of parking: For God sakes, give us some consideration. That is all we're asking for. Commissioner Teele: Thank you. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, sir. Ms. Garcia -Toledo, you've got a few minutes for rebuttal. Yes, sir. 108 February 17, 2000 Mr. Willy Bermello: Willy Bermello, 2601 South Bayshore Drive, Miami, Florida. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I'm representing BAP (Bermello Ajamil & Partners) Development. We own the property immediately across the application. We're not talking about protecting of our development rights. We're about to embark on a fifty million dollar ($50,000,000) project that will bring 427 rental apartments. And one of the things I do plan to do, Commissioner Winton, is to work a little bit on the exterior aesthetics and get back to you on your comments. We do aim to please and make it a major impact to this area. But I need to make a couple of very quick points on some of the things that have been said that were totally not correct. First, Attorney Echemendia quoted from a transcript but he only quoted the part that, I guess, was most convenient. He did not really tell you what my comment was about. The comment I made, with respect to the objection of what had been shown at that public hearing, I was objecting to his architect's sketch for a change or a different scenario. I was objecting to what they were proposing because, basically... Commissioner Teele: (inaudible)? Mr. Bermello: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: Come on. Mr. Bermello: I was objecting to what they were proposing as an alternative to... Commissioner Teele: "They" being who? "They" being the proposer or "they" being the objector? Mr. Bermello: The objector. The objector. Commissioner Teele: That's not right. Mr. Bermello: OK. Mr. Echemendia: No, but -- no, the point... Commissioner Teele: That's not right. Mr. Echemendia: Well, let me... Mr. Bermello: Let me -- let me... Mr. Echemendia: Let me clarify the record. Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me. Mr. Bermello: Let me finish. Vice Chairman Gort: Nobody interrupted you. Go ahead, sir. Mr. Bermello: Let me finish. I want the record to be clear, that, in representation of Brickell Grand, which was also represented here by a different name. When Mr. Chisholm spoke, he kept referring to Brickell Commons. Brickell Commons has not made any comments, whatsoever, with respect to this application. And I know it for a fact because on that project, I'm the architect, not the developer, but I'm the architect. So, the only comments concerning this application, in support, has been from Brickell Grand. Another point. This project backs up rear -to -rear property line. Keep that in mind. 109 February 17, 2000 This is not like they're backing into their front doorstep. There are so many things, I think, anybody can do. I'm sure there are other ways that they might have designed it. I think everything taken into account; they've done a pretty good job. And I would ask that you take into consideration that this project has been approved, this application, by three city boards. One of those concerns itself with the issues that are being discussed here in this hearing. Site planning issues, driveways, entrances, shadows, architectural treatments and that board, unanimously, approved this application. Thank you very much. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, sir. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Echemendia: Just to clarify the record. Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me? Mr. Echemendia: Just to clarify the record. Vice Chairman Gort: I'll let you get a chance to clarify later. Mr. Echemendia: Just to clarify the record, Commissioner Vice Chairman Gort: Let her finish and, then, we'll cross-examine later. Mr. Echemendia: Please? .. Vice Chairman Gort: Go right ahead, sir. Mr. Echemendia: I thought I was very clear. Willy's, objection was to our proposed relocation because it would adversely affect his property; therefore, validating our point that if it's relocated to adversely affect him, having it right in front of ours, also, adversely affects us. I thought that was pretty clear. Thanks. Vice Chairman Gort: Clear. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: I would like to go through some of the points very quickly. When they speak about a wall .104 feet tall, they're'-- this is an urban setting. There are no required setbacks between buildings. In fact, that wall has to be a solid, fire rated wall because it's required by the South Florida Building Code. So, even if we wanted to make it pretty and put windows and plantings and ornamental treatments, we could not do it. Number two. I would like to ask your staff to tell you what is happening as a result of the parking condition in SD -7, that this Commission has asked staff to amend these districts that have minimum requirements only. I have heard a lot of things in the years that I've been practicing in this area. Never before has a project been criticized for having too much parking. But out of that sensitivity that they claim we did not have,l would like to tell you that, in spite of the fact that this is one of the areas in the City of Miami with the highest, underground water table, my client, at a significant cost, has put one level of underground parking, which will have to be fully flood -proof, immense cost, so that 300 of those spaces could go underground. I don't know how many other developers, in order to have sensitivity to the area, would have taken on that additional cost. I also would like to say that you heard from Mr. Chisholm, who is a very respected architect in this community and, as a result, one of you has appointed him on the Urban Design Review Board. Mr. Chisholm, before being hired to represent the objectors, reviewed this project and was part of that unanimous approval for this project, as you're seeing it. Regardless of what was quoted from the PAB (Planning Advisory Board), there was, again, 110 February 17, 2000 unanimous approval by the PAB. You also need to understand that we are only building 20 percent of the allowable density on this project. Many times the complaints are that there's too much massing. Well, this.is a situation where we're only building out 20 percent of what could be built. I would like to ask my partner, Carter McDowell, to make a very quick statement and I think we'll be finished. Mr. Carter McDowell: Following up on Mr. Bermello's statements about what he was objecting to, I'd like to show you the sketches... Vice Chairman Gort: Name and address. Mr. McDowell: Forgive me. My name is Carter McDowell. My office is at 2500 First Union Financial Center. I'm Ms. Garcia -Toledo's partner. This is the sketches that were submitted by the opponents to the Planning Advisory Board, and they decided not to show them to you because what they didn't, I don't think, want to show you was that they're proposing a tower on their site that is bigger than our tower, and their parking.garage is taller than our parking garage and has a zero setback. And this is what's in the record from the Planning Board meeting. So, while they're objecting that we're being insensitive, their own plans call for a parking garage that is larger and that immediately abuts our garage. I would add that the zero setback requirement in this district is intended; that, in fact, those garages abut, so that there is a continuous frontage along the street front to create the pedestrian -friendly atmosphere that everybody wants to see in.this Brickell Promenade. Finally, I would like your staff to just reiterate for you, your Planning Advisory Board has approved on first reading or -- to come back to you for first reading, a recommendation to take the minimum parking -- the maximum parking requirement, as it exist today, and make it a minimum parking requirement. So, that we not only will not have more parking than what we're allowed to have. We will be just on the edge of meeting what the parking requirements are likely to be in another 90 days. And, yet, the applicant has said, we should reduce the number of -- or the opponent has suggested, we should reduce the number of parking spaces. Finally -- and we apologize for doing this but, as you've heard, they're intending to, potentially, take this to court. They've represented that they own all of the property to the west of us. This is a sketch showing the property ownership. We own everything that is -- we have under contract, I apologize, what is in yellow. They own the area that is outlined in blue. They do not own or have under contract, as far as we've been able to determine, the area that is hashed in black. And as recently as yesterday, one of the owners in that area offered to sell their property to us, so we assume that they don't have a contract to purchase that property. We would ask for your approval. We believe, as all of your boards, including your Urban Design Review Board, has recommended that you approve this property. I would note that your -- all of your boards have recommended the three drop-offs because it works better. The three valet drop-offs along -- two on the 10th -- or three on 10th Street and there is actually one on 9th Street. Every board that has looked at it -- and we can go through that discussion for you. We have our traffic engineers here -- have understood and recommended that that be approved. We would also ask that you approve the bridge. We're not trying, in any way, shape or form, to lessen the pedestrian amenities at the street. We're spending as much money on improvements to that right-of-way and to the road crossing, as we are on the bridge, almost. We think that pedestrian crossing on Miami Avenue is desperately important, also. What we're trying to do is simply to facilitate the ability to have second level retail and, in all candor, in order to lease that space on the second level, that bridge is a critical element for us to make this project work. We also do think that it will create a sense of place as the project crosses Miami Avenue. We're here to answer any questions. We, obviously, recognize that the record has already been made in the boards below. We adopt all of that, as we believe that there may be a challenge on this matter. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Does that conclude your presentation...? ill February 17, 2000 Ms. McDowell: Yeah, this concludes our presentation. Thank you. Mr. Chisholm: I just need to clear the record, Commissioner, because -- Robert Chisholm, again, of 7254 Southwest 48"' Street. I'd like to make it very clear that I'm a member of the Urban Development Review Board. and I have been off and on since, perhaps, the early 90's. I was chairman at one time. At the meeting of December the 8th, I was present and I voted for this project to proceed forward, but I did make it very clear that I was not in agreement with the wall to the west, and that is on the records. By the way, I also asked to see the west elevation of the project and it was not presented to us. They said it was not available at the time. Now, when Brickell Village Land Company called to retain our company to represent them, they did not know this. I casually mentioned it. That I said, I'm aware of the project and I'm aware of the situation. As a matter of fact, I did state it, publicly, as I said earlier in my presentation to you, that I had said, publicly, that I was concerned about the west elevation. I want that very clear because my position has -- stands the same way it has since this project was presented to the UDRB (Urban Development Review Board). Commissioner Winton: Mr. Chairman? Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, sir. Yes. Commissioner Winton: Is it not a conflict of interest for a member of a sitting board to sit on behalf of the City on one of these projects and, then, come before this Commission representing one of the people that's involved? That's not a conflict? Vice Chairman Gort: I don't know. You'll have to ask the attorney. Commissioner Winton: Mr. City Attorney. Mr. Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): The prohibition is only in appearing before the board that they sit om They can appear before the City Commission. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Thank you. Mr. Echemendia: By the way, in none of .my presentations ' have I come out saying that I'm a member of the DDRB, et cetera, et cetera. Only when this matter is brought, that I have to defend myself, do I have to make it clear. Commissioner Winton: Well, it certainly... Mr. Echemendia: I didn't hide it, either, because... Vice Chairman.Gort: Excuse me? Mr. Echemendia: ... when we went to the P&B (Planning Board), we said that Mr. Chisholm is a member of the DDRB... Vice Chairman Gort: No. Mr. Echemendia: ...but that was it. 112 February 17, 2000 Commissioner Winton: The City Attorney says it is not a conflict, but I can tell you, as a member of the public out there, it sure gives the appearance of a conflict and I think that people ought to pay closer attention to that. Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir Mr. Beame: Just to clarify the record on the ownership. We own 92 percent of the property and the remainder accepting, I believe, one parcel is under contract. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Thank you. We'll now close the public hearing. Comments by board members -- Commissioners. Commissioner Winton: I would like to get back to the issue on the three -drop-off points. Because my inclination has been to support the staffs recommendation in total here, which would eliminate the second. level bridge and one of the drop-off points. Could you come back and show me where the three -drop-off points are that you're talking about? And what's right there? Vice Chairman Gort: Wait a minute. You need a mike. Commissioner Winton: Name and address, right. Mr. Larry Beame: Larry Beame, 116 Alhambra Circle, Coral Gables. Commissioner Sanchez: Go ahead, Larry. Mr. Beame: How are you doing? There's one drop-off here on 9th Street. Commissioner Winton: And what's there? Mr. Beame: What do you mean, what's there? Commissioner Winton: What's the use there, the building use? Your project. Mr. Beame: It's retail, retail restaurant. Commissioner Winton: OK. Mr. Beame: Here. This is a -- there's a wide sidewalk adjacent to it. There's parallel parking along the street. There's one drop-off space here. Commissioner Winton: That's 10th? Mr. Beame: This is at 10th Street. Yeah. Let me orient you real fast, to make sure you understand: This is South Miami Avenue here. This is 10th Street. The Metro -Rail Station is right here. People Mover Station is right here. This is the Brickell Promenade, Southwest IOth Street. Perricone's is here. Fire Station 4 is here. So, there's one drop-off here adjacent to this retail. This is the expanded sidewalk that Vicky talked about, nearly 30 feet wide for pedestrian movement. Plenty of space for them to walk, without any interference. And there's another drop-off right here, which would be adjacent to the hotel. 113 February 17, 2000 Commissioner Winton: So, then, why -- I'm curious, then. Why do you think you need the -- you have a retail drop-off on 9th. Why do you need the second retail drop-off on 10th? Mr. Beame: For several reasons. One, it's very important to these tenants. I mean, we think, by having a drop-off, more than anything, it's going to get people off the street. There is going to be an inclination for people to pull up and stop and drop people off. That's just the way it is. As they -- as the cars, then, access and go into the garages, for one thing. Second of all... Vice Chairman Gort: Can you yield a minute? Let me ask you a question. My understanding, did I understand correctly, that sidewalk is going to be how wide? Ms. Slazyk: Thirty feet. Mr. Beame: Nearly 30 feet on the south side of the property. It's very wide. Vice Chairman Gort: Thirty feet. In other words... Mr. Beame: Now, we've also added parallel parking along this side of the street. This is what we were talking about earlier. We've moved the project north, the whole thing, so that we really expand the sidewalk. Vice Chairman Gort: No. I understand. But can that drop-off take place within the 30 feet, so you would not interrupt traffic? The biggest problem you have on 10th Street,' if you look at it right now, when you go home Wednesday night, Friday night and you can't find parking. The traffic gets -- it gets really, really bad. So, I don't know if you looked at it and contemplated that, within those 30 feet, the drop-off could be within those 30 feet. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Commissioner, right now there is no parking on the street. Vice Chairman Gort: I understand. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: So, we're going to create some parking. And in the empty areas of the parking, we'll have three drop-offs. The three drop-offs have this purpose. This will be a large, white table cloth restaurant, who will require their own valet parking. The second parking has been designed in conjunction with the main entrance into the public space and public plaza area for those people who are -- you know, you're dropping off your mother or your father for shopping in the place, and they'll be able to go into the 10th Street entrance. By the way, the Brickell Promenade Guidelines require that we have one of our main entrances into the public plazas on 10th Street because it is the pedestrian. Then, the third and final drop-off is the drop-off for the hotel, which is of completely different use. So, we're really talking about general entrance drop-off. We're talking about restaurant entrance or restaurant diners -type drop-off and, then, the hotel drop-off. That's the three different types of drop-offs we're talking about. Mr. Beame:' And these drop-offs are not in the street. These drop-offs... Vice Chairman Gort: Well, that's what we've been asking. Mr. Beame: No, they're not in the street. Because -- since we're adding this lane of parking, they're in the same row as the parallel parking. So, that we still leave the same traffic lanes open. So, once you put... 114 February 17, 2000 Vice Chairman Gort: That was the question... Commissioner Winton: I've been asking that... Vice Chairman Gort: That was the question that was asked before. Commissioner Winton: Yeah. Vice Chairman Gort: That's what... Mr. Beame: OK. Yeah. Once you pull off to the drop-off, you leave the traffic open. Vice Chairman Gort: But.that's what we've been asking... Commissioner Winton: Well, I... Vice Chairman Gort: ...and you have not answered before. That was the question. Are you going to block traffic or the traffic -- you're going to have the traffic flow? Mr. Beame: No. The whole idea is not to block traffic. That's why we're adding the drop-off and why we feel it's important. Commissioner Winton: So, could I hear from Planning Department as to why, then, that may be -- why that's not a good idea? Because I, finally, did get it and thank you, Commissioner Gort. I'm telling you, I thought traffic was going to be blocked and I have asked that question numerous times. What's wrong with the idea, then?_ Ms. Slazyk: Well, the concern was that, even if it's in a lane of parking, it's really only long enough to accommodate a couple of cars and if they've got parking behind it, as it turns out, it will block the street and it will block their own first lane of parking. But there might be a way that we could work with them to pull the first -- it's the first one that's our biggest concern because if it backs up, it's going to back up onto South Miami Avenue. Maybe we could work with them to find a way to pull that one into the project just a little bit more to prevent the back up into South Miami Avenue, and maybe we could amend the condition to work on that with them. Commissioner Winton: OK. Mr. McDowell: Commissioner, we would accept the condition to work with the Department on the final design of that drop-off, if we can maybe depress the pavers and pull it a little bit further off so that it's a combination. We can allow pedestrians to cross it on.a paver. But work out a final design with the department. Commissioner Winton: Great. Mr. McDowell: We'd be happy to do that. Commissioner Winton: Last comment. I want the pedestrian bridge at the second story level. And I can tell you that, philosophically, I'm just like the Planning Department. I'm very much opposed to these pedestrian bridges that are not at street level in the City of Miami. And I've seen -- and we've seen, in a lot of areas of the country where that really is detrimental to street level traffic. So, I guess, 115 February 17, 2000 I need to hear, just as quickly as I can, why you think this is so important to the project? I understand the idea. You know... Vice Chairman Gort: The street is not that wide. Commissioner Winton: Yeah, it is not a wide street. It's not a long distance. I'm not sure that you can't, get your people from one side of that street to the next and not, frankly, add to the ambiance of the total project.. Mr. Beame: Let me just show you what the bridge is intended to look like. It's a very light and airy structure. We're not talking about an air conditioner or. a very heavy structure sitting over the road. It's -- as you can see, it's very lacy and light and transparent. And where it sits in plan, just comes across the road. We have a small amount of second -level retail on the east side of South Miami Avenue here and in here. And, really, the bridge will help facilitate people to get across to that retail and help make it more viable. We, also, believe, very strongly, that it's going to help slow down the traffic, not necessarily because it interferes with it in any physical way but because, emotionally and graphically, it's going to signal that something is happening there. And I think it's going to make, actually, this safer. You know, as we have crosswalks that cross the street. We really want to encourage -- and I'm certain that this development will encourage pedestrian traffic. In fact, it was designed to do so. If you look at it, there's an open public plaza here with fountains. Same thing across the street. So, we almost create.kind of a union of the two sides of the street in an open space. Also, think the bridge is going to help kind of mark this as a center of the area. Commissioner Winton: OK.. One last comment, and that's related to the parking garage. The parking garage is going to -- this project is going to get built in phases, as I understand it, and the hotel phase is the last phase or... Ms. Garcia -Toledo: It's the second phase. Commissioner Winton: Second phase. It's a phase after the garage, is that correct? Ms. Garcia -Toledo: What we have identified -- you're correct. What we have identified is that we are going to build out Phase I, which is retail, and all of the parking required to support that retail use. Commissioner Winton: OK. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Then, when we do Phase II, which is the hotel, we'll do the parking for Phase II. Commissioner Winton: Well, just so you understand my point on this, and I want the point to be very clear. We all know that, in the development world, Phase II, 50 percent of the time never gets built. Phase I is what we're interested in. And what the last thing we want in that West Brickell . market is a whole bunch of parking garage built that looks like parking garage. So, if we have another shot at this, from a Commission, standpoint, I won't be voting in the approval of anything that leaves a big, imposing parking garage, as the legacy of this development. So, you need to work hard on the design of that parking garage to make sure that it becomes, virtually, invisible in that community because I am concerned about Phase II. Because Phase II, as I said earlier, most of the time, doesn't get built. And, so, we've got to build Phase I as though it's the last partof this project. Ms. Garcia -Toledo:,, And that's the way we have separated the phases Vice Chairman Gort: OK. 116 February 17, 2000 Commissioner Winton: I'm ready for... Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. You're ready for -- go ahead, sir. Commissioner Winton: Yes. I would like to move that we accept this proposal, with the exception that the staff has called for, which is not approving the pedestrian bridge, but that we will accept the three -drop-off points. And the third one, we have agreement from the developer and the staff that you're going to work together to make that third drop-off point successful. So, I would move that we accept this proposal, as I just stated. Vice Chairman Gort: There's a motion. Is there a second? Is there a second? Commissioner Sanchez: I would second it for discussion. I, on the other hand, don't see the point of three -drop points but do support the pedestrian bridge. And the reason why. I think, if you take it away from the project, it takes the character out of the project itself. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: And if I may, it also hurts... Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: May I? Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me. You need to be asked a question by the Commissioner. Let him finish, then, he'll ask you a question. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: I'm sorry. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Commissioner Sanchez: I think it takes something away just by looking at it. It takes something away from the project. You know, the pedestrian traffic, where I can see the argument of taking traffic away from the sidewalks and stuff, I just -- I just think it takes something away from the project, Johnny. I mean, I'm willing to -- and I second it for discussion. I'm willing to accept, but there's got to be some type of maybe agreement that we could come up with on this issue. Commissioner Winton: I'm sorry. Somebody was whispering in my ear, so I didn't hear. What's your... Commissioner Sanchez: My concern is the three -drop points. I would like to see just two -drop points on either side. One on -- this side. That would be the south side. Then, the one by the hotel. But the pedestrian walkway that goes around the loop, which is on the -- when you connect both -- when you're looking at it from that picture right there. Yeah, right there. If you look at it and go to that -- the walkway. If you take that walkway away from it, you, basically, take away a character of the plan. That's just -- and it's a beautiful plan. Commissioner Winton: But it isn't the character that's the issue. It's the precedent that's the issue. And if we start allowing all of these projects to build second level, interconnects tied to these projects, we're going to get debt. And while the character looks good, the practical site of this thing, I don't agree with their assumptions, at all. Because the fact of the matter is, that they've got disconnected retail buildings on the other side of the street. So, they're going to have to walk down 117 February 17, 2000 and walk up anyhow. They're not -- at least -- unless there's something different about those drawings, you've got green space between the middle building and the northern most building on that other side. So, they don't have the total connectivity there, where people can just, seamlessly, walk through the deal. But, more importantly, the fact is that, if we begin to allow developments to be . designed in a fashion that, literally, discourages people from going down on the street, we're going to defeat the whole purpose that we've been working for a long time to get to and, .that is, pedestrian traffic in our urban areas. That's been the failure of urban areas across America, historically, and that's what we're trying to get away from, while we're trying to make sure that we don't create a system that allows that to happen further. Commissioner Sanchez: Johnny, you have more experience than me on that. So, I've second the motion and we'll -- that was just my discussion. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman? Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Any further discussion? Commissioner Teele. Mr. Echemendia: May I just clarify that one point? Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me. Mr. Echemendia: There is a second level connection. Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me. The public hearing is closed. Excuse me. The public hearing is closed. Mr. Echemendia: For the record, Alex, I would object to. Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me. Mr. Echemendia: We need to clarify the record on one issue that Robert would just like to clarify. Vice Chairman Gort: Can we tell this gentleman that he's out of order? He can be recognized later. Mr. Vilarello: The public hearing is closed. Vice Chairman Gort: Mr. Attorney, who's conducting the meeting here? Mr. Vilarello: You, sir Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Somebody wants to ask a question of Garcia -Toledo? Commissioner Teele: Oh, I would love to ask the question for both of you all. What did you want to... Mr. Echemendia: I'm sorry. Commissioner Teele; there was a representation regarding a design scheme of ours that was bigger than theirs. I would like for Mr. Chisholm just to clarify that for the record, how that evolved. It's just to clarify the record because they're going to use that against us. 118 February 17, 2000 • . 0 Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chisholm, would you clarify that? And I'm sorry that your -- that this issue came up. Because I thought you made it clear that you were retained after you had voted on this matter. OK. Mr. Chisholm: Robert Chisholm, 7254 Southwest 48th Street. There was some sketches shown earlier during the presentation by Carter McDowell of opposing counsel. The very first day that I was retained by Brickell Village Land Company, we went over, as a team, to meet at the offices of Vicky Leyva and the architects were there, so was their client, et cetera. Their architects had a scheme drawn out that was, essentially, the same thing that you saw here: They proposed that tall story office tower on our site and on our behalf, in an effort to show us what could be developed on that property. Commissioner Teele: So, that's not you all plan? That was someone else's plan? Mr. Chisholm: Well, based on what they've showed, I did some sketches to see how it could look. But the proposal for that kind of intensity development, actually, came from their team. I'd just like to make that clear. We, actually, have -- Commissioner; we all should have many other sketches, which we have studied the site, which are of much lesser intensity. Commissioner Teele: I think you've made it clear. Mr. Chisholm: That's the ones I'm referenced to. Commissioner Teele: OK. Mr. McDowell: May I ask... Commissioner Teele: Could we allow... Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Commissioner Teele: ...Mr. Chairman, the... Mr. McDowell: May I ask him a question? Commissioner Teele: Yes. May we -- could you just clarity the record? Don't ask him a question. Just clarify the record. Mr. McDowell: Mr. Chisholm, did you draw this drawing? Mr. Chisholm: Yes. They come from my office. Yes. Mr. McDowell: Did you submit it for the record at the Planning -- at the last hearing? Mr. Chisholm: Yes. Commissioner Teele: OK. Mr. Chairman, since I opened this, may I just -- was there anything you needed to clarify? Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Very quickly. I just wanted to talk about the fact that, when we build these projects -- and I'm a city resident -- we want to make sure that these are strong, economic projects. The second level of retail use usually doesn't get as much attention and activity as ground level, and 119 February 17, 2000 that is the reason why it's so important, once we've captured that audience at the second level on one side, that they don't have to go down one set of stairs, cross the street, and up another set of stairs to be able to reach those stores. Commissioner Teele: Well, I guess, my three questions are this. Number one. You heard the motion and the second. Do you --, which is to approve, with conditions, with the deletion of the bridge. How do you feel -- I realize this is a very touchy issue. Now, be careful that you don't upset the Commissioner that made the motion. But do you support the elimination of the bridge or do you favor the continuation of the bridge? Or stated another way: Do you believe the bridge to be an integral part of the project? Ms. Garcia -Toledo: We believe -- and I think I can speak clearly on behalf of the developer, as well as the architect -- that, number one, the bridge is an integral part of the design. Number two that it's essential for the economic well-being and our ability to go out and lease that second story level with national retailers. We feel that's very important. That's the only reason why we have asked staff -- because staff has been very clear, from day one. And we said, there are issues here that go beyond just the pedestrian pathway, which is, that we want this project to be fully successful and to really integrate with our community. And that's why we need the bridge. Commissioner Teele: And may I inquire of the staff? When Commissioner Winton made the motion, he referenced the staffs objection to the bridge and you all continued to object to the pedestrian bridge. Is that a fair statement? Ms. Anna Gelabert: Yes. The Planning staff objects to the pedestrian bridge. We don't encourage the bridge. Nowhere, really, in the City of Miami but, especially, in the Brickell area, we feel that the bridge would be detrimental to the pedestrian activity that we're trying to encourage in the area. Commissioner Regalado: To what activity? Commissioner Teele: To the pedestrian activity. Ms. Gelabert: And we feel -- and this is, you know, kind of a policy on the Planning Department with pedestrian bridges. We hear the concerns of businesses going, wanting to be having access and not having to go down to the ground level and, then, cross the street. We feel that the pedestrian activity, at ground level, is so important that we don't encourage the pedestrian bridges on this project or any project. What we would like to see is that same activity that it would be taken out of the sidewalk onto a second level be at ground level. Commissioner Teele: And the second -- the third and final question. Again, drawing on Commissioner Winton's statement about the first phase, usually, being what's built and, then, the second phase is another issue. Did you all analyze this project in phases and is there anything in the ordinance or the Code that allows you all to look at the various phases? Because I really do think that he makes a very good point. I mean, is there sufficient parking in the first phase to support the retail in the first phase and is there sufficient -- you know, did you all analyze it that way and... Ms. Gelabert: Yes, we did. And, in addition, on the meetings we had with the applicant and we also raised the issue that Commissioner Winton raised, which was, until the phase of the hotel is raised and we're left with the garage, we asked that they would give us a facade in the -- between the construction of the first phase until the moment they were ready to construct the hotel to -- they agreed that they would do that. 120 February 17, 2000 Ms. Garcia -Toledo: That is correct. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, let me explain my vote, which is going to be a no vote on the project. I would vote yes for the project if the pedestrian amenity were retained. I have grave concerns about substituting my views or the Commissions' views in a project that appears to have such an economic -- a unique economic characteristic and quality that I fear that this pedestrian bridge is so germane to the overall design that, in taking it out, it may have some -- I mean, these people hired professionals. They hired professionals; they hired economists, I suppose; they hired leasing people. I'm really troubled and I have great deference on these development matters to the Commissioner's district. But I'm really troubled that we -- you know, that one of the tragedies of the City of Miami, I think, in the past has been, you know, take ten million dollars ($10,000,000) out of that building and move that over there; do this over there and, you know, pretty soon, it's a thin line on this. And this is a unique project. I don't think there's any question about it. It's uniqueness; its design is unique. I'm troubled by the fact that I think they're not being great neighbors. I don't think they're being good neighbors. I think they could work to minimize the -- but, again, the comments of Mr. Bermello, who appears to be more disinterested in this process than anyone else has talked, said this is sort of butt to butt or back to back. However you want to frame it. So, I guess, that's not rather artfully stated. But, you know, they're backing up to each other. So, you know, why complain about the other guy's back or the other person's back? In any event, I'm concerned about the motion in the context of what is being stated by the applicant. And I would support this project, consistent with this unique design, but I really don't know that this unique design is not going to create a problem that we, in fact, imposed by governmental fiat on it. So, I mean, I'd rather take the developer or the offerer -- I mean, the proposal as it -- at face value. It's clearly esthetically unique and it's clearly a unique design. And I don't know because -- I mean, I'm not interested in voting -- I'd like to support the district Commissioner, who has both development concern -- development expertise and, quite candidly, concern for the general area. But the whole idea of the pedestrians walking on the ground floor versus the second floor, to me, is a little bit of a leap of putting government sort of in a property owner's -- what I consider to be pretty much a property owner's rights, within the context of the project. Now, if this were, you know, walking out on the street or something like that, I'd have a different view. But this is a contained development and whether the people walk across -- I mean, it's quite common in malls or casinos or Indian Reservations. They channel the pedestrians. I mean, that's a part of what developers do. And the way they want to channel people is, I think, a part of their plan. So, I'm really troubled by that. But, at the same time, I would have to vote no because I don't want to wind up having something that we participated in that creates a hardship, you know, trying to impose a design that I'm not sure we have the right expertise to go into this and analyze it from a leasing point of view, etcetera. So, I'm really troubled and I kind of wish you were up or down on the plan and -- but it is what it is. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman? Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Commissioner Winton asked me to -- Commissioner Winton. Commissioner Winton: I have one more question for you all. On the east side of Miami Avenue. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Correct. Commissioner Winton: South Miami Avenue? Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Yes. Vice Chairman Gort: Yes. 121 February 17, 2000 Ms. Garcia -Toledo: South Miami Avenue. Commissioner Winton: There are -- could y'all come around here so you could show me what you've got? On the east side of Miami Avenue, what's the southern most building right there? Mr. McDowell: I think one of the thing's... Commissioner Winton: Not that one. That's... Mr. McDowell: ...that may be a little confusing. Commissioner Winton: ...too far east. Right across the street. Mr. McDowell: This is only the ground level plan. What this doesn't show -- and we have a drawing that does show it -- is this the second level? Commissioner Winton: The second level. Mr. McDowell: I think it is. On the second level of the entire project, there are -- there's an exterior walkway that connects in a loop all the way around -- well, at the ground level, there's just the -- or at the Miami Avenue is on the bridge. But there is -- you do not have to go to gray between these elements. There is a continuous, covered, second level walkway to encourage people and to encourage, candidly, tenants to occupy that second level space. I'm sure, Mr. Winton, as a businessman, you certainly know that leasing to second level -- retail spaces on the second level is tougher. We have to do everything we can to make those tenants comfortable; that the patrons will come to them. So, we've tried to create as many amenities as possible. Here's a depiction of it, where there's a walkway on the side. It loops all the way around here. Here's another person standing on that walkway. So, there is that second level. It certainly never intended to take somebody from the street up across the bridge and back down to the street. That's clearly not what it's intended to do. We have -- if you look at the plans, look at what we're doing on the ground -- this is the ground plan. We're doing everything we can for the ground plan. Commissioner Winton: I understand. And I need to ask -- if you don't mind, let me ask staff another question. Because -- and, Commissioner Teele, you made this point also and it is a valid point, and that's the long-term, economic viability of the project. And there is no question about the fact that second floor retail is much, much more difficult to lease than ground floor retail. Now, they've chosen to design this project that way and, so, part of the problem is their problem. We didn't choose to design it this way. And from a public policy standpoint, we're trying to get pedestrian traffic on our streets, not staying at second level and buildings in adjoining streets. So -- but that said, they've designed a project that does, in fact, do that. Creates an opportunity to keep everybody off the street, frankly. But it is that walkway, probably does play a crucial role in driving towards the long-term success of the project from retail standpoint. So, staff, what are the longer-term implications here? And this goes back to the law of unintended consequences. If we're to accept the idea that this -- and I don't give a hoot about the fact that it's an integral design feature here because, frankly, Commissioner Teele, they can design anything else and create the same kind of feature that will be eye catchy and do all kinds of things. So, they can design that. But the question here is, from a real practical standpoint, do we create new problems for ourselves, long-term, if we allow one developer to set the precedent here in having a second level walkway connecting the properties? 122 February 17, 2000 Ms. Gelabert: What we feel is that, if one project comes in with a pedestrian bridge and a second, then the other projects, we're establishing a precedent and we're going to end up with many projects. On this particular one, if it was within their own property, if the project was contained on one, then, obviously, we, in the Planning Department, would not have a problem with that because that's inside. Our concern was there's actually crossing South Miami Avenue and, then, we're concerned that any other projects that may be coming to the area and everyone pursues the same activity, then, what we have done is pretty much raised that. You know, and we believe that we're trying to encourage that retail activity, especially in this area, where we feel already exist. Commissioner Regalado: Question, Mr. Chairman. Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir. Commissioner Regalado: I'm a little confused about the philosophy of having or wanting people walk in the sidewalks, and I don't -- I cannot understand what is the purpose of the government? Is it to accommodate people to go to where they want to go or to set standards in where you have to walk through here or you can't cross through here? Because we have the crossway from Omni parking to the complex, right? Commissioner Teele: The Marriott. Commissioner Regalado: The Marriott Complex. We have -- also, in Bayside, we have several... Ms. Slazyk: But not over streets. Those aren't... Commissioner Regalado: Over the street? Ms. Gelabert: On Bayside... Commissioner Teele: At Bayside we're building one right now to connect all that stuff that was supposed to be soccer fields. Ms. Gelabert: If I may? On certain areas -- for example, the one from Bayside to the Arena is, obviously, a traffic issue. On the areas where we don't have a traffic issue -- and this one, where we find that Brickell Village is the perfect example and is an urban design concept when we would like to have the people on the streets, that would be for safety. We feel that that would bring activity to more people that start working in the area, more businesses that would come, and it kind of -- it's like a domino effect, and that's what we feel. It's been areas where traffic is an issue. Obviously, it's something that we would encourage. On this particularly case, we feel so strongly because we feel that the Brickell area has already the quality of the neighborhood, to make it a truly pedestrian neighborhood. That's why we're... Commissioner Regalado: You know why Paseo and Miracle Center have failed twice? Because it's very difficult to go to the second level and to the third level, and the parking is wrong. If they would have built a parking and built a crossway over Coral Way, people would have gone to Paseo. Like in Dadeland... Commissioner Winton: I wouldn't bet on that. Commissioner Regalado: No. But I mean -- I'm just saying that it makes it difficult for me, if I want to go to the second floor. I mean, I have to get out, get down, go walk -- use the stairs. I don't 123 February 17, 2000 understand why we are trying to make it difficult for people to go where they want to go. If they choose to go to the second floor store, well, maybe, they just want to go there. I don't see the fact that to go to the second floor, they have to walk on the sidewalk and maybe they will buy some ice cream on the first floor. If I'm -- if my mind is set, I don't understand that philosophy. But, then, you know, that would be for other discussion. I just feel that, if they want that and if the Commission chooses to approve it, I would approve it because I don't think -- I don't see the problem with that. But I don't understand the philosophy of having... Ms. Slazyk: What we're trying to discourage is -- OK. If someone arrives at a project, they arrive by car; they go under the garage; they come out of the garage and, then, they cross over the second level. They've never hit the ground floor; they've never created the kind of activity, pattern and eyes on the street that creates a safe pedestrian environment, which is exactly that -- when you talked about, that goes from the Omni to, you know -- yeah. People arrive in a garage; they cross up above; you never see anybody walking on the street. They don't have to. They can cross up above. Vice Chairman Gort: Let me ask... Commissioner Regalado: But let me ask you. Lourdes let me... Ms. Slazyk: If people started coming down on the street, it might be safe. Commissioner Regalado: So, let me ask you. Vice Chairman Gort: Let me -- I can answer. I think... Commissioner Regalado: But what's going to happen with the stores on the second floor, if the people don't want to go up? Ms. Slazyk: If there's a strong enough connection at the ground level, which there is, it's a great connection at the ground level, people are going to go back and forth across the two sides of the street here and shop within each complex as a complex. You don't have to just be able to cross at a second level to be able to access it. They've got escalators; they've got all sorts of means to get from one to the other. Vice Chairman Gort: But, you know, let me ask... Commissioner Regalado: But you're not in marketing. Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me. Commissioner Regalado: You're not in marketing. You're in Planning. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Let me -- excuse me a minute. Ms. Slazyk: Well, we're planning for the neighborhood. Vice Chairman Gort: Hello, hello. Commissioner Regalado: Marketing is what determines who buys where and who goes where. Commissioner Winton: But this is a planning issue, not a marketing issue. 124 February 17, 2000 Commissioner Regalado: That is up to marketing. Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me. Commissioner Regalado, to answer some of your questions. Every district -- every zone is different. Brickell Place and this Brickell Village was the concept that was created by the DDA (Downtown Development Authority) and working with the Homeowner's Association, Business Association in the area, and that's why all this came up. Brickell needed to create residential. Brickell needed to create walk and have pedestrians attractive within Miami Avenue, and that was the plan, the way it was done originally. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman, I'm not questioning the decision on this particular area. What I'm questioning is the philosophy of -- throughout the city no walkways because we need people to walk on the ground. I mean, like you said, each district is different. Commissioner Winton: Well, Commissioner, if you read the expert journals out there, you will not pick up a single journal that describes a vibrant, urban area and says "it's a vibrant, urban area because everybody is upstairs." The whole country has moved in a direction to get people out of the buildings and onto the streets in urban areas, and that's what creates the vibrancy and a whole new marketplace that's lead to successful, urban redevelopment in our downtown corridors around the country. It's just... Vice Chairman Gort: Gentlemen? Commissioner Winton: It's the direction. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Commissioner? Vice Chairman Gort: I think we've had enough discussion on this item. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Commissioner, I might have some information that will be helpful. Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me. The public hearing was closed, and there's a procedure that we have to follow in here. If anyone wants to ask you a question, I'll find out. Commissioner Winton: Are we allowed, then, to... Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, go ahead. Commissioner Winton: She might have some... Ms. Garcia -Toledo: I think that there's something -- two very issues that are very important. Number one. Coco Walk is probably your best example. What Lourdes was speaking about, you come out in the second level of Coco Walk; you go into the second level of the shopping area, but that's never diminished the pedestrian activity at the ground level on Coco Walk. In fact, some of us who live in Coconut Grove would like to have perhaps more activity Commissioner Teele: You know... Commissioner Winton: Wait a minute. I don't go out on the second level. I come out on the ground floor level every time I park at Coco Walk. 125 February 17, 2000 Commissioner Teele: I've only been to Coco Walk three or four times. I've always wound up on the second level. Commissioner Winton: Well, I bet I've been there a hundred. Commissioner Teele: And when you all started -- when he started talking about some place that I never heard of on Coral Way -- what's the name of the place? Commissioner Regalado: Miracle Center, the one that is empty now. Commissioner Teele: Yeah. But yQu called the name of a building. Commissioner Regalado: Paseos. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Paseos. Commissioner Teele: Paseos. What's that? Vice Chairman Gort: Paseos. Commissioner Regalado: It's another name. Every time that they fail, they have another name Commissioner Teele: Oh, OK. But isn't -- this reminds me a lot of Coco Walk. I think the thing that Commissioner Winton -- the difference is, is that you're using a public street. Commissioner Winton: Right. Commissioner Teele: And -- I mean, that gives us sort of the nexus, I guess, to say, hey, you know, it's fine what you do on your development but using our street is our business. And I guess, in listening to all of this, I'm hearing, more clearly, what Commissioner Winton is saying, is that -- if this were -- if that public street weren't there, I think Commissioner Winton and I would have said this. He may have agreed with me on that. But what he's saying is that public street gives us -- and you don't have a right to economically plan our streets and make your streets a part of our economic -- and I guess that's very, very, convincing, particularly, when the history of this is rooted, as Commissioner Gort is saying, in a DDA or a development agency's vision, that what we want to do is get people on the ground floor. It just seems to me that we should be commending you for trying to get retail on the second floor because we all know that it's much harder -- two or three times harder to get it on the second floor than it is on the first floor, and I'm not sure that that isn't a policy -objective that we shouldn't have built into our Code, as well, is to sort of, you know, intensify retail, as opposed to, you know, encouraging the spreading it out, I mean, in some ways. But, again, I really want to support the Commissioner who represents the area because he's talking to the people and understand it. But the fact that you're using a public right-of-way, I guess, is the point that I've missed in some of this discussion. And you're just going to use our street, huh? Vice Chairman Gort: Gentlemen, we have 10 other items. We have to make a decision. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: The second part that I wanted to... Vice Chairman Gort: There's a -- excuse me. Commissioner Winton: She was going to -- she didn't finish that point. 126 February 17, 2000 Commissioner Teele: I cut her off. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: The second part that I wanted to address was that this was presented to both the Brickell Association and the Brickell Homeowner's Association, and they saw it, the same presentation you have, and they were very supportive of the project as designed, with the bridge. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. There's a motion and a second. No further discussion. Call the question. Commissioner Regalado: What is the motion, without the... Vice Chairman Gort: To approve without the bridge. Commissioner Regalado: Without the bridge? Vice Chairman Gort: Correct. Commissioner Winton: That's correct. Commissioner Regalado: That is the motion, to approve the project without the bridge? Mr. Walter Foeman (City Clerk): Without the bridge. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Winton, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 00-188 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, OR THE BRICKELL MAIN STREET PROJECT, TO BE LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 900 SOUTH MIAMI AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO BE COMPRISED OF NOT MORE THAN 288 HOTEL ROOMS, WITH ACCESSORY RECREATIONAL SPACE, 197,380 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL AND OTHER NONRESIDENTIAL USE AND 1,040 PARKING SPACES; DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE HEREIN RESOLUTION; MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATING CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; PROVIDING FOR EFFECT; CONTAING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FO AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) 127 February 17, 2000 Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny. L. Winton NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Vice Chairman Gort: Item 3. PZ -3 Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman? Vice Chairman Gort: Yes. Commissioner Teele: May I ask a question of the staff? How does somebody get to just use the city street like that? I mean... Ms. Slazyk: No. They have to go through a process. This is a County road. After you approve the concept, they would have to go through the County to get permission to, actually, build over the street. And there's a criteria on the height and lighting and all that. Ms. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ -3 is another major use special permit for the Miami Stadium Apartments project, 2301 Northwest 10`" Avenue, in order to allow residential development with 336 residential units, assessory recreation natural uses and 480 parking spaces. This is on the property that the City recently sold, which was the Bobby Maduro Stadium. The department -- this also was recommended for approval from the large-scale development committee and the Urban Development Review Board. At those board meetings, the applicant was requested to make some modifications regarding their open space and the recreation space to really create a sense of community in the project. The applicant made those changes, came back to the board, and was approved with the changes. The project was also reviewed by the City of Miami's Preservation Officer and the project could have an adverse affect on properties -- on a property that may be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, which is the actual Bobby Maduro Stadium. Due to the fact that the project, at this point, was proposing to use federal funds for the project, compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, could be required. So we would ask for approval of the project, with the conditions -- our standard conditions for a Major Use Special Permit, and with the additional condition that, if applicable, the applicant shall comply with the section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and the approval of the plans will not be for plans on file, but will allow for a modification that may result from the Section 106 process. It still hasn't been determined if it's applicable in this case. We believe it is, and if it is, we need them to go through that process and make whatever changes may be necessary. 128 February 17, 2000 Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Yes, sir. Mr. Ron Book: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, for the record, Ron Book of Ronald L. Book, PA, 2999 Northeast 199 Street in Aventura, representing the St. Martin Affordable Housing, and St. Martin Corporation. Also known as Miami Stadium Apartments. Thank you members of the Commission for giving me the opportunity to be before you today. It's truly a privilege to be here on behalf of this project. Let me just take a minute or two to walk you through a little bit of the history and how we got here. First of all, I don't need to remind any of you about the fiscal crisis that hit the City in 1998. As a result of that, the City developed a plan to sell off many of its surplus properties, one of which was the property that is before you today. At that time, the St. Martin Corporation and Ruby Swezy came riding in to try to do something with some of the properties that the City had. They weren't bottom fishing. They weren't skimming. They were trying to pay a reasonably responsible price for the property. Ruby Swezy had a commitment to the City that she lives in, the City that she loves, and others also had an interest in this property. Mrs. Swezy and her company bid approximately a half a million dollar ($500,000) above the next lowest bidder for this property. At the time that the property was purchased by Ms. Swezy, she was attempted to demonstrate her confidence in the City, in the leadership of the City, in the management and the future of the City, and was willing to accept the deed restriction that the City mandated go with the property, which was requirement that affordable housing be built in this particular property, and in this particular part of the City. Ms. Swezy immediately began to develop plans. She met with many people throughout the community, and I won't tell you that she met with everybody in the community. There was an article in the newspaper just the first of this week where a gentleman complained that we had not met with him, and spent time with him in developing the plan, but I could represent to you that Ms. Swezy has attempted to be responsive and responsible by developing a plan for the development of this property, consistent with what the neighborhood sought. The City chose to put the deed restriction for affordable house on property, and that is in accordance be what is before you today. When the City recorded the deed restriction, they simultaneously changed the zoning of the property to residential from the G-1 classification. We didn't determine it. The City determined that. The plan that's before you does not just call for mere affordable housing. The plan before you also includes many amenities for the people that will be living in this development. There will be a clubhouse that's approximately 2000 square feet. There will be a pool. There will be a volleyball, tennis and basketball area. There are four children's play areas. Tot lots, if you will. There is a picnic area. There are play areas. There is a game room. This is an exercise room. And, in addition to that, the developer has also made the determination that, as a part of the clubhouse, they want to dedicate an area that will become a permanent museum to memorialize Bobby Maduro Stadium, and all of the history that goes along with Bobby Maduro Stadium. As you know, as staff has told you, this project has been thoroughly viewed -- reviewed by staff, by the Urban Development Review Board, by the Large Scale Development Committee, an your Zoning Board, and all have approved with certain conditions. We are prepared to live with the conditions that are before you today, and as approved by the Zoning 129 February 17, 2000 Board. We are committed to making a fine development out of this property. The building will sit on just over 11 acres, and all of the units will be three stories, even though the code provides for five -- allow answer nasal how wants allow answer of five stories. The proposed 336 units are fairly large units. There will be 66 unit that's are one -bedroom one bath, that are approximately 620 square feet, which comprises approximately 20 percent of the development. There will be 168 two-bedroom units that are 814 square feet, which comprise approximately 50 percent of the development. And then there will be 102 three bedroom, two bath unit that's are 1050 square feet that comprise 30 percent of the development for the total of 336 units. The development exceeds all code requirements on the landscape. All of the upper units will have balconies. It is a family style development. It is obviously, as each of you are aware, close not only to the mass transit operations of our County, but this development will, we believe, as we have been told, significantly impact in a positive way, recruitment efforts by Jackson memorial in the area of nurses and techs, et cetera. The property is perfect for this type of development. It is centered within the Empowerment ' Zone, the Federal Enterprise Zone, the State Enterprise Zone, the qualified census track. It conforms with the City of Miami's Consolidated Plan, and finally, it's located within the Allapattah Community Development target area. Ladies and gentlemen, this project -- Commissioner Teele: Excuse me. What did you just say? Mr. Book: Well, there is a City Attorney over there, Ms. -- Mr. Teele I apologize. Commissioner Teele: Oh, OK. Oh, all right. Mr. Book: Member of the Commission and ladies and gentlemen, of the staff, I'm trying to be sensitive Commissioner. This is a qualify project for the area. It's the correct project. It's the proper project. It is consistent with what you determine ought to be built on this property. We encourage that you approve the project, with the conditions asset out by your various boards and your staff. I'll be glad to answer any questions. And Ms. Swezy is also here. Vice Chairman Gort: OK, sir. Those in opposition? Mr. Mariano Cruz: Well, before I do anything, let me (inaudible). OK. Mariano Cruz, 1227 Northwest 26`x' street, two blocks there from the stadium site. (Strong weapons today). Even there is a stadium close to where I work, two blocks down there, huh, right this on 151 Street, named after you. I read some (inaudible) article too in the New Times, too, so I know you, you know me. OK. Now, going to the point. Those (inaudible) papers are being prepared by the Department of Community Development, the Department of Planning, the Department Of Real Estate, and Economic Development, not by Mariano Cruz. I don't know how much it cost to produce. this book. Maybe two hundred thousand, three hundred thousand. Who cares? Tax payers' money. You go there, at the beginning say, Allapattah Homeownership offered the City a great opportunity to facilitate the development for approximately 500 new affordable homeownership units in the first two years of the Consolidated Plan. (Inaudible) exist two-point acre civic center and a twelve point six acre Bobby 130 February 17, 2000 Maduro Stadium site, to (inaudible), which would allow for the construction of over five housing units in the Allapattah neighborhood. Talking about homeownership. Homeownership, that you can go pay (inaudible) ownership. Another one here (inaudible) need for homeownership. He supported this endorsement by suggesting that home ownership significantly makes a difference in this community because it gives residents a sense of community and a (inaudible) of neighborhood pride. This is your book, City of Miami, fire plan, the one that you sent to Andrew Cuomo (phonetic), maybe? No. He likes to know those things, too, whatever is happening here. And you come here -- community (inaudible) strategies, provide (inaudible) housing to aid in the preservation of elimination of (inaudible) how you allow the County to have 21 units both up there in our neighborhood. That's black there. And you come -- and you can go and go and go here, over and over here. All this around here. The key for affordability is not the price of the home, but the fixed monthly payment for the mortgage. It's that you can pay for the mortgage. It's not that a hundred thousand dollar ($100,000) house here, and you got there the plan for the City employees to come back and buy City and buy property. How many City employees had come back to the City and buy property and spent some of the tax money -- recycle the money in the City of Miami? No. The same thing for the Civic Center for Jackson. (Inaudible) the people don't understand anything in Allapattah. They just come and go there. The Mayor (inaudible) resident return to the City. Well, all this is. No, no cut those two minutes because I wait two hours there. All those people take. And it cost me money to be here. Those people are being paid. He's being paid to be here. But me, it cost me two hours overtime (inaudible) work today to be here. Eighty dollars ($80) it cost me to be here today. Well, I'm going to come here and do it because I am lobbying for the people of the neighborhood because show me something different than this, and .is this what you tell us to do or what -- I don't -- to me, it doesn't bother me. I can move tomorrow from there. I could retire tomorrow from the City. I get my deferred payment and leave or maybe come back and work for the City as a retainee or (inaudible) since I don't work for the Police Department or the Fire Department, I would be (inaudible) I don't know if I'd be able to get a job in the City, but, you know, I could do all those things. But I could go and move to (inaudible) I own a house there. I have my money. But what about the other people living in the neighborhood? Do you know what people are we bringing there? You live there. You live in after Aventura. She lives in Miami Lakes, (inaudible) Miami. You know, I have a bad thing sometimes with people that come and use that futile or (inaudible) attitude, telling us what is good for us for the neighborhood. Oh, Allapattah (inaudible) but you know what happened at the stadium, you know, when (inaudible) tried to revitalize there, when Rafael Hernandez was here, when ABDA (Allapattah Business Development Authority) tried to build there. ABDA had been stop from building up over here. You come here and they got - - ABDA here on page 77. Allapattah (inaudible) which (inaudible) not in Allapattah. (inaudible) itself or the rear, and they put it as big in Allapattah, deferring our community as something that was done by the City. No. That was done mostly in a study of the City, in spite of the Department of Community Development because Ralph (inaudible) which housing should have been finished by March of 1999, 21 units, is boarded up there now because the political (inaudible) vendetta stop it, and they could have finished the second phase, too, almost been finished, 32 units, affordable housing that people -- my 131 February 17, 2000 • . i daughter lives -- she bought a house there. She couldn't pay. All my children bought -- I help them buy a quick claim deed, the property (inaudible), but I help them buy property. How many people have a daddy like me, that's able to do that for affordable housing? The City had to keep affordable housing, other wise, that nice Winn Dixie there market place is not going to have customers. Now, you build houses there and the people from the housing can go (inaudible) affordable, home ownership. I don't know, but maybe -- won't be long. Four years from now. I told Ms. Swezy that. Prove me wrong. They will take (inaudible) Calle Ocho, and she proof me that I was wrong, but look at what happened to the County? Look at what happened -- any way, many of the developers, they come, they make the money, they leave, and they don't even sponsor the park or they don't even take care of childcare program. Nothing. Enterprise Zone, I am a member of the board of the Enterprise Zone because I live in Enterprise Zone, not because I saw -- you know, you have to count on me, too. And guys remember that's our money, federal money. It's not the City money or anything. It's our money. I pay money -- federal taxes. Federal employee, I know what I pay in -- whatever you're going to decide, like I say, I can move tomorrow. It doesn't bother me. You know I walk the neighborhood. I walk the whole neighborhood, Allapattah. I'm not scared of anybody. Even if you put Mr. Book there. If President Clinton comes there, I tell him, too. He doesn't bother. He put -- (inaudible) just like me. Just like me. Thank you. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, sir. Anyone else? Mr. Book: If I could respond just briefly to one or two points. Vice Chairman Gort: Anyone else? You get a few minutes for rebuttal. Anyone else? OK, sir. Mr. Book: If I could just respond to one or two points. Mr. Cruz has obviously done his homework, and I think he made some valid points. However, I just want to set the record straight on a couple of things. Number one, for the record, Ms. Swezy lives, owns -- owns property and lives within the boundaries of the City of Miami, an has for several years, first of all. Does not live in Miami Lakes. Second of all, on the issue of homeownership, I want to make each of you aware, we have a provision that provides that five percent of the rent money, after 33 months, goes toward homeownership. It is put aside in an escrow account and anybody who chooses to move on, after 33 months into homeownership, has that money that they will be able to draw down and use toward purchasing a home. So, in an effort to be sensitive to the goal of homeownership, which we would agree with you, is a goal of most people. That is carried out by putting if five percent in escrow. I think that -- you know, the one thing that Mr. Cruz clearly pointed out an added to what we've said is, is that affordable housing is a goal of this City. It is part of the City's Consolidated Plan. And this is consistent with that, and that's why the City, when they conveyed this property to my clients, had the affordable housing designation put in as a deed restriction and that's why you changed the underline zoning on the property as well. Members of the Commission, we appreciate your attention and we would appreciate your support in approving the item as is. 132 February 17, 2000 Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Thank you. We now close the public hearing. Are there comments among board members? Commissioners, any comments? Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, did you want to make comments on this project or? I think Mr. Cruz should be given a lot of credit and he makes a very good point, and that is, is that clearly is Allapattah homeownership zone that we've approved, and the evidence supports a real need for homeownership. The problem, of course; that we have in a project like this is, when we approve this project for a sale, we do not limit it to homeownership. In other words, we could have imposed that as a condition, and if we had done that, we probably would have gotten a lot less for the property, because any time you restrict property, the value -- a property owner has a right to use the property for the highest and best use. I am really concerned -- you know, and I think there is a broader area here, Mr. Chairman, and I heard you express it so many times, and that is, we've got to do something. I mean, how many times did you say, over the last two years, we've got to do something with that area. I mean, it's blight on the community as it is. I would have hoped that Mr. Cruz would have taken this opportunity to press Mr. Book and his client for a plan on when that building is going .to be totally torn down, and when we're going to do those things that I read about in the paper. This may not be the right forum to do it, but at the risk of seeing if we can at least get some public statement on the record -- because, Mr. Chairman, you've raised this question any number of times. Mr. Book, do you have any timetable on -- Mr. Book: Yes, Commissioner. Mr. Chairman, if it's OK with you, I like to respond to Commissioner Teele? Mr. Teele, the -- we talked this immediately following the Zoning Board hearing, after we met with your Code Enforcement, NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) office people. We've already bid the demolition. I believe that we can have the stadium torn down within 60 days. It is our goal to do it in an expeditious fashion. It is a blight. It is a hazard. We think it's an important message to send to the neighborhood, that something positive is happening, an the most positive thing that we can do is to get that condemned building down quickly, an if you want to condition this upon it being done within that period of time, we don't have a problem. Commissioner Teele: If we legally can, or if the Chairman wants to entertain -- I mean, I'll do, in this case, what the law and the Chairman would like to have done. Ms. Slazyk: I'm not sure if they have to at least again the section 106 process before they do that. Commissioner Teele: Oh, you're saying that the 106 -- Ms. Slazyk: May affect that. I don't know if it would be -- Commissioner Teele: Well, how did we get into this box, ma'am? Ms. Slazyk: Apparently, federal funds are going to be used for a project and a building on that property is eligible for the National Register. They have to go through a Section 106 process. 133 February 17, 2000 Commissioner Teele: You know -- but you know what's not fair? But you know what's really not fair? If the City of Miami owned the facility -- sand, see, this is what really just galls me about government. If the City of Miami owned this facility, had this facility -- if a 106 applies, it should apply to us before it applies to anybody else, and just because now they are going to use federal funds, which -- what it means is, the federal government is more concerned about the historic preservation than we are. If we were the owner of the property -- and we were -- it seems to me that any rule that we have should apply first to us, and then to property owners. And it's not your fault, ma'am. Ms. Slazyk: If we had redeveloped it ourselves, it would have applied, but we didn't. We sold it. Commissioner Teele: So, we sold it, and we transferred -- and we transferred the property. I mean, you know, that's not really the way -- but, in any event, the 10 -- are you suggesting that the 106 could, in fact, inhibit the demolition of the facility itself? Ms. Slazyk: I'm not saying that. It has to go through the process to determine what has to be done. A whole number of things could come out of the process; and I'm not going to even venture to guess. Commissioner Teele: So; in effect, Mr. Book is correct in saying that they can't demolish it until the 106 is -- Vice Chairman Gort: I think Mr. Book is saying something different. Mr. Book: No. Commissioner, I think I can help out and get to the bottom line. If we don't use federal funds to tear it down, and we haven't received federal funds to build the project, we can tear it down. We are committed and I am prepared to represent to you -- Commissioner Teele: Now, hold it; Mr. Book. You weren't here this morning. So, don't step on yourself, now. Mr. Book: I will try not to, Commissioner. I will allow you to lead me to avoid the stepping. Commissioner Teele: Don't get over -- I know -- Ronny, I know you real well. I know you can over sell this thing. We just had to swallow real hard and put federal funds up this morning. So... Mr. Book: OK. Well, I'd like to avoid you doing that. We want to do what's right for the City, and I'm trying to be responsive to your request, Commissioner. And we believe that we could use our private funds to take it down and we're prepared to make that commitment to you, if you want that commitment. Commissioner Teele: Well, I'm not going to ask you for that commitment because I don't want to step on to the 106 process. I do want to express the 134 February 17, 2000 • concern that Commissioner Gort has expressed, and that is somebody ought to do something because the area is a blight. But I think the plan that you're presenting is much improved. I wish this were home ownership and I don't make any bones about agreeing with Mr. Cruz on that. But it's your property or your client's property to do with -- to dispose of and it's a good project. So, I'm going to be supporting it, but I do think maybe -- if this were the Maduro Cruz historic room, it might go a little bit better in the neighborhood. So, maybe Mr. Cruz will sit down with Ms. Swezy in all serious -- Mr. Cruz, have you met with Mrs. Swezy? Mr. Cruz: No, I didn't. Commissioner Teele: Well, my office or Commissioner Gort's -- Vice Chairman Gort: Mr. Cruz talks on the phone all the time, but he doesn't have a recording on his phone, so the people won't leave message for him. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Cruz, I would make my office or Commissioner tort's -- the Chairman's office would be available. I really think it would be helpful for this community if you and Ms. Swezy would take a few minutes and get to know each other. Mr. Cruz: (Unintelligible). Vice Chairman Gort: Commissioner Teele, let me tell you how I feel about this. This is a land that has been there. I've talked to the merchants within the area and 10`x' Avenue, and the industry. This is an industrial. area right in there, and all been saying we need homeownership. We all agree on that. But unfortunate, the people that I've talk to, ABDA and so on, homeownership is not there unless they get a lot of subsidizes from us (inaudible) in talking to this project, I think they have come up with the right idea, which is something new that is coming out into the market, which is give credit, and we mentioned that this morning. It gives credit to the individuals for their rent payment in escrow accounts so they can utilize their funds to buy later on. At the same time, this is a private owned -- it will be private owned by a corporation, and they have to maintain their standard. They will have to maintain the quality because if they don't, they won't be able to pay the rent, and they won't be able to pay their mortgage. This lot, this 11 acres -- my understanding, 12 acres, they could have built a lot more than what they have put in there, and I'm telling you right now. And I think the most important thing in here is the administration. And I tell you because we in the DDA (Downtown Development Authority), in conjunction with some CDC (Community Development Corporation), we built the Brickell Place in Brickell, affordable housing, and you should go by and look at it. What makes a difference is the management of the project, and that's what's important. I don't have any problem with it, and I think Mr. Cruz should get together with them and take advantage of this, and maximize on what we can get in there. Commissioner Teele: You want to move it Mr. Chairman? You want us to? Commissioner Winton: I'll move -- move what am I moving here? 135 February 17, 2000 Commissioner Teele: I'll second the item. Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved and second. Is there any further discussion? Being none, all in favor state by saying "aye." Commissioner Regalado: Wait, wait, wait. Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Just a -- there is a piece of the property that there are no plans for it? Mr. Book: That's correct. Commissioner Regalado: What -- why is that? I don't understand that. Mr. Book: Because they had -- they've chosen not to develop that portion at this time, and prior to any time that they can develop that additional acreage, Commissioner, they'll have to come back for site plan approval before you. Commissioner Regalado: So, it's a property within the property? You can do any other development in -- Mr. Book: They've not made a decision, Commissioner, on what to do with the additional acreage. Commissioner Regalado: And what can they do? Ms. Slazyk: Well, it's zoned R-3. They'd be able to do medium density, residential. Commissioner Regalado: I'm sorry. Commercial and residential? Ms. Slazyk: No. It's zoned R-3, medium density, multifamily residential. Commissioner Regalado: Only that? Ms. Slazyk: That's -- Commissioner Winton: That's why it came back for a zoning change? Ms. Slazyk: Correct. Commissioner Winton: Commercial. Vice Chairman Gort: Any further discussion? OK. All in favor state by saying aye. The Commission (Collectively): "Aye." Vice Chairman Gort: Any nays? No nays. Thank you. Mr. Book: Thank you very much. 136 February 17, 2000 • r1 L..J The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Winton, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 00-189 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENTS, APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS AS SPECIFIED BY STAFF, A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 13 AND 17 OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, FOR THE MIAMI STADIUM APARTMENTS PROJECT, TO BE LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2301 NORTHWEST 10TH AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, AND TO BE COMPRISED OF NOT MORE THAN 336 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, WITH ASSESSORY RECREATIONAL SPACE, AND 480 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. (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: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Vice Chairman Gort: PZ -4. Ms. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ -4 is an appeal of a variance that was denied by the Zoning Board, recommended for .denial by the Planning Department. It is for a rear yard setback of 6 feet, where 20 feet is required. This property -- this addition was done without the benefit of a building permit. It is an oversized lot. It has 7688 square feet, where 5000, is what is the standard lot in the City. So, there is no hardship. And the additions as constructed are excessive and out of proportion with the existing residents, and could accommodate more than the permitted one dwelling unit. The department therefore finds that there is no hardship and recommend denial, denial of the variance and denial of the appeal. 137 February 17, 2000 0 Commissioner Regalado: How many structures you said there were? Mr. Ben Fernandez: Just one. Ms. Slazyk: It's a single family -- it's zoned R-1 and this is an addition that was done to the rear, where it was built six feet from the property line, where 20 is what's required by code. Commissioner Regalado: But it's one structure? It's only one structure? Mr. Frank Rollason (Director, Building & Zoning): Frank Roflason, Director of the Building Department. That's correct, at this point it's one structure. However, the design that is there -- and one can only speculate -- as you look at it, there are exiting doors from different areas that exit to the outside, which would allow, in the future, to where something could be divided into four units -- the plumbing, as such, has been installed with a bathrooms that is the typical of them backing up to the back behind the bathroom and putting in a kitchen, and we find that this exists within four separate areas of the facility. The room does communicate now. So, it is as a one structure, but these are exterior doors that exit to the outside into four different distinct areas that could be subdivided. Also, I would like to point out, as was stated, the building, originally around 1300 square feet, at 2000 square feet of addition added to it, all done without building permits, and at the present, they are paying taxes on about 1300 square feet, and they've got about 3000 square feet sitting there. Vice Chairman Gort: You mean, the County hasn't picked that up? Mr. Rollason: Well, we're sitting without permits; so therefore, there is nothing for us to pick it up on. Commissioner Teele: Procedural -- and, Mr. Chairman -- Mr. Rollason, what's the cure? I mean, we're here to entertain an appeal of a Zoning Board that has denied it, 7 to 1, and if we deny it, then what happens? Mr. Rollason: They have to demolish. Commissioner Teele: Well, what about this fine? You remember we talked today about these moneys? Mr. Rollason: Right. That fine is running for the illegal construction. Commissioner Teele: There is a fine of thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000). Mr. Rollason: That's correct. I guess Teresita could speak to that, but -- Commissioner Teele: Can -- do we have the authority to grant the -- I mean, to deny the appeal but abate -- or mitigate the fine to some extent? Ms. Teresita Fernandez (Chief, Hearing Boards): I don't think so, but I think the Assistant City Attorney -- 138 February 17, 2000 Commissioner Teele: Who mitigates the fines? Ms. Miriam Maer (Assistant City Attorney): That's within the jurisdictions of the Code Enforcement Board with regard to the fine. The issue today is that the Zoning Board had not granted the request to variance, an the property owner exercised his rights to appeal that denial here, to ask you to consider whether or not he should be given a variance. Commissioner Teele: So, the sole focus ofour appeal -- of our hearing is whether to grant the appeal -- Ms. Maer: That's correct. Commissioner Teele: -- which would allow them to retain the structure that was built illegally, without a permit? Ms. Maer: You would be granting him a variance based on -- you know, he has to meet the elements of hardship. So, after he makes his case, if you feel that, in fact, he has established a hardship case that meets the requirements for a variance, then you would be in a position where you could grant him a variance, but it's only -- the only issue here today is an appeal from the Zoning Board 's denial, not anything related to the Code Enforcement case that's in front of the Code Enforcement Board. Mr. Rollason: And I think to follow -- Commissioner Regalado: Question, please. Suppose that we do whatever the Commission decides to do. If we tell them demolish, will they still have to pay? Ms. Maer: Well, they, in fact, have already incurred the fine. I believe it was a daily fine running from the time that they were found to be in violation, so -- Commissioner Regalado: Well, everybody has incurred a fine here. I mean, you know -- don't we have like forty million dollars ($40,000,000) outstanding in Code Enforcement or more maybe? But, I mean -- what I'm saying is, if -- Commissioner Teele: No. Commissioner Regalado: No, no. But what I'm saying is, if they are told to demolish, will there still be a fine? Ms. Maer: The fine is imposed on the property already. Commissioner Regalado: I know that. Ms. Maer: Yes. Commissioner Regalado: But what I'm saying is that, if they demolish, would - - that fine would be eliminated because they have complied with what all the boards and the City Commission said? 139 February 17, 2000 Ms. Maer: No. That -- although they would then be in compliance, as of the date of demolition, the fine has accrued as of the date they were found to be in violation. It's a separate issue that's within the jurisdiction of the Code Enforcement Board. Commissioner Winton: But the Code Enforcement Board could mitigate the fine? Ms. Maer: Yes, sir, absolutely. That's right. Mr. Rollason: Right. Once the property comes into compliance. Commissioner Winton: Once the property comes into compliance. And can this Commission make a recommendation to the Code Enforcement Board relative to the fine? Ms. Maer: The Commission can always express its desire or its opinion, but, in fact, the Commission may not, within the statute, order the Code Enforcement Board one way or the other. Commissioner Winton: Right. But we can express an opinion? Vice Chairman Gort: Gentlemen. Ms. Maer: You're always free to express an opinion. Vice Chairman Gort: Let me give you a suggestion. Let me hear from the appellant, and then we'll continue. Yes, sir. Mr. Fernandez: Thank you very much, Commissioners. My name is Ben Fernandez. I'm an attorney with the law offices of Bercow and Radell 200 South Biscayne Boulevard. First of all, I'd like to clarify that Mr. Arango is willing to pay a fine for the after the fact permit. That's not a question. And he also -- another thing that's very important here is to know that this is a neighborhood of many grand fathered uses. This is an older neighborhood. There are many homes, we believe, that are compatible with this home. This home meets all of requirements of the R-1 district. Every single setback complies. The FAR (Floor Area Ratio), Florida area ratio complies, lot coverage complies. The only thing that doesn't comply is the rear setback. I'd like to pass around an existing survey of the property so that you can get an idea of the mass of the buildings, and why it is that the rear set back needs to be varied. Essentially what happened here is Mr. Arango moved -- relocated the green space to this home to the center, sort of like an atrium area, so that the landscaping provided more than exceeds the code requirements. You have 32 percent lot coverage, where 40 percent is required. There are other homes that are bigger than this home, in this area. I'm going to pass around some pictures. The first pictures that you will see are pictures of Mr. Arango home. The following home pictures are other homes in the area, which we believe are larger, as well as the existing survey of the property. The Zoning Board vote on this matter was a vote of 5 to 3. We think that they almost understood the 140 February 17, 2000 hardship involved in this case, but just didn't quite get it. In addition, staff noted that setback variance of six feet, where 20 feet are required, seemed extravagant. I'd like to also enter into the record a resolution of the Zoning Board 64-97, fairly recent, where a six-foot variance was granted by the board in a residential district. What happens -- when you look at the survey of this home, what happens is, the front setback of this house is 37 feet from the property line. The required setback in this district is only 20 feet. That means that the property is setback more than 17 feet than is required by the code, which leads to an inherent problem with the property. To quote your code in the definition of a hardship "special conditions and circumstances exist, which are peculiar to the land structure or billing involved, which are not applicable to other lands." Secondly, this is not the fault of the owner of the property. The owner -- Ms. Fernandez: Mr. Chairman, may I clarify this record? Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me. You'll get a chance. You write it down. When you finish, you get a chance. Don't interrupt him. Ms. Fernandez: I'm sorry. When he finishes, I want to -- thank you. .Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Arango purchased this property with that home, with the existing front setback. In order to meet the needs of his family, he did expand the home to the rear. He couldn't expand it toward the front. The home already had a 37 -foot setback from the property line, where only 20 feet are required. That is the inherent circumstance relevant to the building involved under your code. Secondly, we feel that, because there are other homes in this area -- and I'd like to pass around another picture with highlighted homes that show you how this home is comparable in size to other homes in the area. Because it's comparable in terms of size, the only thing that is different about this home is that it's moved essentially on its lot further east than other homes in this area, so the rear setback is required. But this is essentially a five -bedroom home. Mr. Arango has four children and a,`�wife and an aunt. Seven adults all together. We believe that the grant of this variance would be in harmony with this area due to the fact that you can see many of the other homes -- and I know you all haven't had a chance to look at it, but I think the pictures really speak, you know, more than a thousand words in this case. I think, essentially, what happens is that the setback variance is after the fact, and so it seems egregious. Mr. Arango has moved diligently ever since he was cited in September. He's filed his application. He's gone before the Zoning Board. He almost got the variance from the Zoning Board, a vote of 5 to 3. Obviously, there were some minds on that board that felt that there was a case to be made here. If you look at the house -- if you look at the house from the front, it looks very compatible with the residential area. Commissioner Sanchez: Just for clarification. Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Commissioner Sanchez: You said it was 5 to 3. I thought it was 7 to 1. 141 February 17, 2000 • Mr. Fernandez: I'm reading from your -- Ms. Fernandez: May I? Mr. Fernandez: I'm reading from your agenda. That's what I have today. And it says "Zoning Board voted 5 to 3", unless that's a mistake. I'd be willing to accept that. Seven to one. Well, there was one person on that board that understood the argument. Commissioner Teele: What's your name? Mr. Fernandez: Ben Fernandez, Commissioner. I'd be willing to entertain any questions, but essentially the argument here is that this home isn't any larger than many homes in this area. The construction is a tasteful construct -- it's a tasteful design. It's not a gaudy or tacky home when you look at it. Mr. Arango has neighborhood support. There are no objectors here today. No one has come out to object to this application. At the Zoning Board, he had all of the neighbors that abut him, particularly the one in the rear that would be most affected by this setback variance, in support of the application. And, today, we have one neighbor that could make it -- some couldn't wait all day. We have Mr. Enrique Aloma, who's in the audience. Commissioner Regalado: I have a question because -- I'm a little troubled for something that was said. We are deciding here the number of feet that are within the law or without the law parameters, the setback. But we were told by Frank -- and I don't know. I think by you -- that what you think is going to happen is that they are going to do four illegal units. Mr. Maer: It's designed to function that way. Commissioner Regalado: OK. So we're judging a future violation here? Ms. Maer: No, no. What's before you -- Commissioner Regalado: A mental -- we're judging here a mental violation? Ms. Maer: No. What's before you today -- Mr. Fernandez: Commissioner Regalado, I completely agree with that characterization. Commissioner Regalado: No. Excuse me. Ms. Maer: What's before you today is a setback variance request. It has nothing to do with how many doors are on the outside. That's what -- you know, they were cited for that. They built an addition to this house, without the benefit of building permits, an even though they had an extra 17 feet -- Commissioner Regalado: I know that. Ms. Maer: They built it in the back, in the required setback. 142 February 17, 2000 • Commissioner Regalado: OK. I know that. Mr. Fernandez: (inaudible). Commissioner Regalado: Excuse me. Mr. Fernandez: I'm sorry. Commissioner Regalado: I know that, but what troubles me is that we are being told that they could do this or do that. How do we know that? Mr. Rollason: No, we don't. We do not know that. Commissioner Regalado: You do not know? Mr. Rollason: We do not know that. What I was presenting to you was a picture of what is presented to us as we view the property. There are bathrooms in each of these areas. The bathrooms have been installed in such a way that there is a blank wall on the backside of where the bathroom is. There are exterior doors to each one of these. And there is a small opening between units or between rooms that allow access from the interior of the property. And I said this strictly speculative on our part. I want to present to you the entire picture of what it looked like. It's -- what we know is is that it was built without permits and we know that there is a setback problem. The issue that is in front of you now is a setback problem. If you approve the setbacks -- if you approve the appellant, then what we're looking at then is to try to legalize what has been built there by going through the permitting process and legalizing the actual structure of what's been done, which, I'm assuming, can be done if it's been built according to code. We haven't gotten into that portion. Mr. Fernandez: Thank you. May I respond to some of those comments? First of all -- Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me. Are you finished, Commissioner Regalado? Commissioner Regalado: Yes, for now. Vice Chairman Gort: Go right ahead, sir. Mr. Fernandez: Thank you. First of all, I'd like to agree with Commissioner Regalado, that this -- that the characterization by the Planning Department implies that there have been misdeeds in terms of illegal units on this property, and that's simply not the case. The fact that there are doors that lead to the outside, that's something that can be remedied. The applicant at the Zoning Board agreed to remove any doors to the outside, in addition to the front door, and maybe one back door, if that's what's necessary. Secondly, this property could not be expanded toward the front. No one enlarges their living room. In this case, the property has an existing condition. It's setback more than 20 feet, 37 feet, so the expansion went towards the rear of the home. And there are no illegal units on this property. 143 February 17, 2000 Commissioner Sanchez: Let me just address you for a minute. Your client, whom you're here to represent today, has a six feet setback on a house, which requires a 20. That's for starters. Then he built -- whether he built or didn't build it, I'm not going to dispute that. But what department tells us that he did it without a permit, which is a violation. Now, the argument here could be that he bought the property like that or didn't buy the property. I'm not going to get into that. But it is illegal. There are certain things that your client could do and they are -- I mean, breaking down and going to the 20 feet, destroying, which is what's intended here, that he could fix the problem. There are programs here through the City, the amnesty, which he has to correct, the problems that are there. And if he's got -- is he doing something to fix this problem as we speak today? Mr. Fernandez: He's removing the doors in question. He's -- Commissioner Sanchez: No, no, no, no. For get doors and windows. Is he coming back to the 20 feet variance? Mr. Fernandez: He has agreed at the Zoning Board to remove a portion of the roof structure that exceeds -- that goes into the six feet. It's not all building that goes into the six feet. Staff can confirm that the portion of the property that is affected in that six-foot area is the roof overhang. It has a very large roof overhang. Commissioner Sanchez: This City is willing to work with your client to correct the problem, OK? But these are rules and regulations that protect, not only your client's home, but also neighborhoods. So, we don't have illegal units and we don't destroy neighborhoods. If your client is willing to correct these problems and bring it to the 20 feet setback, get permits through the City and correct the problem, I'm willing to support you. But if you're going to tell me that you're going to knock down a couple of doors and windows, let me tell you, I will make the move right now to deny this. Mr. Fernandez: Well, let me tell you. If we agreed tto go to the 20 feet, we wouldn't need to be here. The whole purpose -- this application -- because -- we're here because of a setback variance that's necessary. If you go to 20 feet, you can just pull a permit from the City. There is no need for a variance. The applicant is willing to work with you, in terms of the site plan. We will reduce the roof overhang so that it doesn't encroach as much into the setback area, an we 'will make any other changes that staff deems appropriate in terms -- to ensure that this would not be used for illegal units. Commissioner Sanchez: Well, as it is right now, I -- you know, if you don't bring it back to the 20 feet, just like everybody else -- I mean, that's why this are rules. Mr. Fernandez: But it's not everyone else, Commissioner. In this neighborhood, there are many older homes -- that's why I passed around pictures of the aerial photographs that are grand fathered. That means that they were built before this new code that you're enforcing today was adopted. Those 144 February 17, 2000 homes may not comply with the setback requirements. It's all over the City, Commissioner. If you go to -- Commissioner Sanchez: But they were -- I understand. But they were built under the rule rules and regulations and there wasn't any violations done with it. These homes are grand fathered in. Whether your client afterwards -- not being grand fathered in -- did that illegal, that's -- you know, that's irrelevant here. Mr. Fernandez: Correct. But are you -- but the fact that he did it illegal -- this isn't a hearing to punish him. There is a separate hearing for that, in which he has to pay thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000) for his misdeeds. The issue that you face today is whether or not this application is compatible with the area, and whether or not the variance is appropriate due to the fact that there is a hardship that is a part of this application .that you should consider, and the hardship is the fact that the setback from the front of the property line is almost 40 feet. It's not 20 feet, as required by the code. So, the only way to go when you're building is to the back, and he didn't go to the sides. He didn't encroach to the sides on either neighbor. He went to the back. He did it without a permit. That's true. Commissioner Winton: Mr. Chairman? Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir. Commissioner Winton: The argument that you make that he had no choice but to go to the back is very similar to an argument we hear in the commercial arena all the time or in the multifamily residential arena all the time, where somebody comes and buys a lot an they. pay twice as much as the property is worth and come back to us an say they need to double up the density because "I can't make it work otherwise." Well, they had a choice. The original choice was not to pay that much money for the lot. Your client's choice was to not buy that house, and there are a lot of other houses he could have bought other than that particular house that was configured -- the way it was configured on that lot. And the problem with the City of Miami -- as the fourth poorest city in America -- the primary reason we're the fourth poorest city in America is because we've allowed, over the course of the last 20 years, this kind of bologna to go on all over our City, and it has destroyed neighborhood after neighborhood after neighborhood, and it's time for this City -- and I think -- well, I won't speak for my colleagues. I can assure you, from where I'm coming from, this kind of stuff has to stop. Commissioner Teele: You can't (inaudible) but one on this Commission. Commissioner Winton: That's right. So, I think that the message has to be loud and clear, pay attention to what you're buying, pay attention to what your needs are, and you have zero right to go in an impose your will on somebody else's neighborhood, period. You follow the rules and you follow the regulations, and we're all happy. That hasn't been done. 145 February 17, 2000 Vice Chairman Gort: Commissioner, I wish to cut the debate. Let him finish with his presentation. Are you finished with your presentation? Mr. Fernandez: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Gort: Anyone else to speak on this matter? Commissioner Teele: Two questions, Mr. Chair. Vice Chairman Gort: Anyone else from the public? Now we'll close the public hearings and it's our board. Commissioner Teele: Two questions. Mr. Rollason, have we taken a picture -- I mean, have we engaged in the aerial photography and do we have a good picture of all these neighborhoods that's current and up-to-date and something that's -- Mr. Rollason: From the standpoint of looking at what was there years ago and what's there today? Commissioner Teele: What's there today or -- you know, what's the most resent picture we've taken or photograph of the thing? Mr. Rollason: The last ones I know that we took were after Andrew. Did we take another set since then? Ms. Maer: Yes. Mr. Rollason: The complete City? Ms. Maer: The ready ones are only a year old. These I think are done yearly. I believe that these are done annually. And we did have some taken after Andrew, which we used for -- to figure out how much, you know -- Commissioner Teele: We do that annually. What department does that, Public Works or -- Ms. Maer: No. We get them from the ready maps, and they come with the aerial photographs, and I believe its either annually or every other year. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, the time is late. Let me just say this. Mr. Fernandez is probably one of the best lawyers I've heard. I mean, to keep such a straight face and to advocate so clearly, I mean, I must tell you, I found myself rooting for you. And the fact that you didn't smile or laugh and you could keep a straight face with this is remarkable. I mean, we have an applicant here who's violated the law and you've made, I mean, some very cogent arguments on his behalf, and I , certainly hope that you all will work together on the appeal to reduce the fines. But I think the real issue is that we can't send a signal that it's all right -- I mean -- and I commend you for not coming in and telling an obvious lie, and that is to say " well, we didn't know who did it, " and -- you know, you left that silent, and I'm not going to make 146 February 17, 2000 that the issue. So, we bought it like this. But I really do think that we've got to support the NET process and the Building Department and Planning Department process. And I just wish, as. Commissioner Sanchez was saying, that there was some way your client could mitigate this without having to tear the whole building down. I mean, if there is -- I don't know. Have you met with the Planning and Building Department on this item? Is there any middle ground here that can be reached, Ms. Slazyk? Ms. Slazyk: Well, it doesn't comply with hardship. What they can do is, they have the sod area -- Commissioner Teele: He had a unique argument. The hardship is that the house was constructed initially 37 feet with a -- that was a nice argument. Ms. Slazyk: Yeah. But this is a whole another area of the house. Because it's a big U shape, they could have built that addition right up against the back of the house, but -- Commissioner Teele: There is no middle ground? Ms. Slazyk: Again, at some point, there was a conscious choice to leave a sodden area atrium in the middle and build the addition on the other side of it in the setbacks and -- Mr. Fernandez: Because he's not a sophisticated architect. Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me, sir. Sir. The question is not being asked of you. Mr. Fernandez: Oh, I'm just responding. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Commissioner Teele: I'm only asking the staff -- Mr. Fernandez: I'm not arguing. I'm just trying to settle. Vice Chairman Gort: The public hearing has been closed. You have to be recognized by one of us, OK? Mr. Fernandez: Thank you. Ms. Slazyk: But it's a self-imposed hardship, is what I'm trying to say. You know, they feel that this is -- as though this was the best design. This was the way they wanted it. But it was self-imposed and it was done without a building permit, and had they come in before they built it, somebody would have told him it was in a setback area, and they could have redesigned it to meet the law. Commissioner Teele: Is this Commissioner Regalado's district? Vice Chairman Gort: Yes. 147 February 17, 2000 Commissioner Sanchez: Yes. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, I move the director's recommendation to deny the repeal. Ms. Slazyk: The appeal. Commissioner Winton: Second. Vice Chairman Gort: It's been Moved and second. Any further discussion? Being none, all in favor state by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): "Aye." Vice Chairman Gort: No nays. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 00-190 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION DENYING THE APPEAL AND AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING BOARD, THEREBY DENYING A VARIANCE FROM ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, TO ALLOW A REAR YARD SETBACK OF 6' (20' REQUIRED) FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 31 NORTHWEST 65TH AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Winton, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Tomas Regalado 148 February 17, 2000 Vice Chairman Gort: PZ -5. Ms. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ -5 is a second reading, change of zoning. This is that -- if you remember, from the last meeting, on 2nd Avenue -- 2nd Avenue and Coral Way, the commercial know that we were trying to encourage at this intersection to serve the Brickell and West Brickell Residential Districts. You all voted for it on first reading on January 27h, and this is second reading before you, today. Commissioner Winton: Moved. Second reading. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Commissioner Teele: Second. Commissioner Sanchez: Discussion. My concern here, Lucia, is the people that are going to be affected, then they have to move. And I know that we have a lady who came with her husband and her son. There was a couple of people here. I can see the numbers have gone down since the last meeting and they've gone because the meeting has taken so long. But my concern -- and I've made it very clear — is, the property owner has every right to do what he wants with his property, and the people that live there, when they have -- the person sells the house, they have to move on. My thing is the hardship for these people that are there. They're going to have to find a new place to live. And my thing is, being that it's in my district, I want some type of list -- if you could provide me with a list to see if we could assist, in any way, to help them find either other apartments in the area or -- what I could do. Because I feel sorry for them having to move. I know that they have to move, when the time comes, if this is passed. But the concern that I have is, if you could be so kind and provide me with a list of people so we could help them out, as much as we can. I mean, legally, your client has all the right to do what you're going to do there but my concern is, these people that are going to be forced to move, whether it's a month or two months or three months period of time and I want to make sure that, as a Commissioner for that district, and they live in my district, I want to help them as much as possible. Ms. Lucia Dougherty: I think that's an excellent idea. And we will provide you with a list of the folks. But let me tell you what we've done as well. We've met with our neighbors and with our residents, like you asked us to do. And you will see, the folks that we've met with, have their concerns leaving. They're not here today. Because we've -- what we've committed to do is to work with them, to try to find them places -- to keep them advised, as our timetable. Because, in truth, as you know, we're not going to close for 30 days. Take three months to pull a building permit or to do working drawings and, three months after that, to pull a building permit. So, we've committed to them to keep them advised to our timetable, so that they would have as much time as possible to move out. And we will provide you with a list of those folks and, likewise, we have provided them a list of places to move to, that are comparable. So, we agree with you. We feel sympathetic and we urge your support for this project. Commissioner Sanchez: Thank you. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Anyone else? 149 February 17, 2000 Mr. David Forestier: There is community objection. My name is David Forestier. I'm an attorney. I am here representing Mr. Oscar Quinonez, who was in the Commission chambers a few moments ago. He's the gentleman with the son with the Down Syndrome, and his wife, Martha Quinonez. I'm an attorney, in private practice, solo practitioner, in North Miami. I was here at the last Commission hearings but wasn't able to speak, due to some personal business that came up at the last minute. But Mr. Quinonez did, in fact, address you, in Spanish, through the use of an interpreter. And I believe, at that time, a petition may have been handed out. I'll hand those out again. These are petitions that were circulated by the community. There are 332 signatures from your district, Commissioner Sanchez, indicating their objection to the lost of their quiet neighborhood and residential street. In part, we are here to put a face and a heart and a personality with the changes that you are implementing or allowing to be implemented by rezoning this area from residential to restricted commercial. You will be displacing over 170 families, 330 some odd people, who, for the most part, are living in World War II barracks -style housing, paying rent for a one bedroom/one bath in the amount of approximately three hundred and twenty-five to three hundred and seventy-five dollars (3$75) a month. My client is a taxicab driver. His wife works as a domestic. They've lived there 12 years. If anyone bothered to talk to the vast majority of the people living in this neighborhood, many have been there 15, 20, 25 years. Where, in the City of Miami, will they find housing that Greenberg Traurig can substitute at three hundred and twenty-five dollars ($325) for a one bedroom? And in all honesty, these are clean units, fairly well-maintained and, in the most part, maintained by the people who occupy them because they buy their own air conditioning; their own appliances, their own stoves. Asking them to move is just not about packing up and finding another neighborhood. It's about finding something they can afford to pay. A place where they can raise their families. The Quinones family, they have access to a park right across the street; an elementary school right across the street. Where are they to go if we continue to only look to the interest of Brickell and the people who have the waterfront views, as we move the expansion further westward? Are we going to continue to displace our neighborhoods and the people who form the core of this city? Your blue collar workers, senior citizens, people on fixed incomes, where are they to go and find rent at three hundred and twenty-five, three hundred and seventy-five dollars ($375), for a one bedroom/one bath apartment? And that is what this development contemplates, displacing people, changing the complexion and the character of a neighborhood, removing a buffer zone that creates a barrier between Coral Way and the commercial establishment, and allows this quiet, residential street, a cul-de-sac street, built with senior citizens, blue collar working folks, single moms, kids to now have to front the rear of a commercial development, dumpsters, pallets, trucks moving in and out of a cul-de-sac street, the risks to children, to people living there. If you were to look at the photographs, this is a very quiet, clean street that you're going to allow to change, unnecessarily so, without giving due considerations to people who already live there, and don't have the luxury of, perhaps, sitting here from 1 o'clock to 2 o'clock today to voice their opinions. Some of them were here earlier. Many of them were here at the last time, but they get warned down. They get warned out, and the changes get put into place and no one thinks about what's going to happen to them in the future. They voted for you. They're looking to you to make sure that this development doesn't go into place. There are other vacant pieces of property they can look to, without displacing families, without displacing like the people -- like the Quinonez, whom I represent, and some of the other residents in that neighborhood. They call to you to make the right decision here. And as you, Commissioner Winton, so appropriately stated the last time, it's lousy planning, lousy zoning, that wrecks neighborhoods. And, in this instance, we're looking at a plan that takes no consideration and changes the complexion and the character of a neighborhood that's been this way for over 25 years or longer. Most respectfully, we ask that you not approve this change. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, sir. You have a few minutes for rebuttal. Ms. Dougherty: Thank you. I believe he said there are 120 families. There are, actually, only 60 apartments in the entire project. And if I just could remind you of why you voted in favor of this rezoning last time. This is the site. It is zoned office in the front, which means you could develop it as an office right now. The highest, most intense residential development behind. So, if this thing doesn't get developed as a lower 150 February 17, 2000 density, retailed commercial servicing the area, you're going to have a much higher, more intense development here in the future. It's one block off of Brickell. It is directly across the street from the Publix. It is directly across the street from the Walgreen's. Here is the little gasoline service station that has just gotten a C-2 -- I mean, Class 2 Permit to reinstate the gasoline service station from what was now a body shop. So, we think that this is actually a better use for servicing the area. And, then, you could actually develop on the existing zoning. So, that's why you, at your last meeting, recommended this approval. And, so, we'd urge your support once again. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Anyone else? Sir, the procedure to be followed -- I'll let him speak, but the procedure to be followed: You make your presentation; you bring up everyone that's against and let them speak and then, they get a few minutes for rebuttal. Now, we'll have to give them more time to rebuttal. Yes, sir. Note for the Record: Teresita Fernandez served as interpreter for Oscar Quinonez. Mr. Oscar Quinonez (as translated by Teresita Fernandez): OK. Mr. Chairman, do you want me to translate? My name is Oscar Quinonez and I live at 130 Southwest 12th Street. She's referring to the area of Brickell, to the residential area. From Brickell to 2nd Avenue, which is what they want to buy, they want to change the zoning. There are five blocks in the zone of Coral Way and 2nd, which is 13th. Publix has nothing to do with this zoning and Walgreen's and architect's office and a medical office. The hotels that she's referring to are on 8th Street and we are on 12th Street. There is only motels and a service station. On Coral Way and 2nd, it's only a mechanical repair shop. It's not a gas station. These are the five things that are there. She said that the mechanical shop and Publix and those belong to Coral Way. The important things there are the park, the school where my children have been, that school has been visited by the Vice President. It's a very good school. This school is going to be eliminated. This is a residential zone where more than 170 families live. If there are so many buildings that are abandoned in downtown, why don't they do a commercial shopping center in downtown? Why do they have to come to this area? Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, sir. You get a few minutes rebuttal, if you want? No. OK. Public hearing is closed. Look, everyone that's going to speak, please, raise your -- have you been sworn in? Have you ever been sworn in? Anybody else that's going to speak? Because we have certain procedures we have to follow, OK? You have to be sworn in. AT THIS POINT, THE CITY CLERK ADMINISTERED REQUEST OATH UNDER ORDINANCE NO. 10511 OF THOSE PERSONS GIVING TESTIMONY ON ZONING ISSUES. Mr. Juan Carlos Valdes: Yes. My address is 4771 Northwest 4th Street, Miami, Florida 33126. Registered voter for many years. I formally used to work at 444 Brickell. All right. I worked there for 10 years. We used to play basketball in that park everyday after work and enjoy those surroundings there. It's a very nice, peaceful neighborhood just going that -- after work. I hate to see what's going to happen to that neighborhood. The children that live there; children that are raised there. Some aren't as well off as some others. That's just life. That's the way things are. Unfortunately, eventually, probably, this will happen. But, the difference between it continuing to be a residential area and turning into a commercial area is a big difference. And if you notice, she's talking about -- this work? She's talking about all the residences here that -- it's already commercial. Look at them. If you would like, I'll bring them right up to you. Everything there is residential. Up and down that street -- when the gentleman, the taxicab driver, was just speaking to you -- I made a lot of friends there when I used to play basketball, OK? All the people in the neighborhood, you get to know them because it's a very peaceful, serene area, and you just get to know people after awhile because they tend to trust you. And you look up and down the neighborhood; all it is is town houses, apartment 151 February 17, 2000 buildings, residential. Someone brought up a doctor's office. It's small, little home converted into a doctor's office. Kind of like probably some of you used to see a doctor. Not like going to a hospital or going to see a private physician in an office building. You would go see a doctor in his home or he'd come see you at your home. That's what that doctor's office is. The other thing she's speaking about, it's a small, little office building, an architect's building, that blends into the background. The Publix, actually, serves the community. It serves people. Serves people that rent there, live there. Serves people that rent there and live there. Who are they going to serve, a commercial warehouse? Is that the purpose of putting in a Publix? Should we put a Publix over in -- over by the docks? I don't think so. Wouldn't make any money, would it? It would just fail in a short time. We've got to think about the children, what's their future. The children that live in that neighborhood, they're going to be facing dumpsters. Because, most probably, in a commercial area,.they're not going to put their ugly side to Coral Way; are they? They're going to put it back to 13th Street or 12th Street, I'm sorry. And who's going to have to face it, the people that remain there as residents. It's going to be a very sad development for them. What's going to happen? Most of them will end up moving out. Who's going to buy up that land? More developers? Tear more apartments down? I see people here coming to two meetings that I've been here, coming to build low income housing. Here we have low-income housing. What's the future of it? Tearing it down? Putting up what, buildings, office buildings? We'll have more than enough office buildings downtown that are half -empty. So, what's the future? I mean, is this what we want to develop our city as? For people to come from Ft. Lauderdale, to come here and work and go back home? What's going to end up -- we constantly complain that we don't have any tax income in the City of Miami. It's all becoming business and all the people are leaving. Is that what you want? I mean, who do you know is this developer? Do you know -- even know what they want to do with the land? Exactly as anybody -- presented a plan or architectural drawings? They just tell you, "we want to rezone it," and they could put anything from a 50 -story skyscraper in there to just a strip mall. What's the future of the -- I haven't even touched on what Mr. Sanchez said. The people who are going to lose all their homes. Up and down that street, just the area that wants to be destroyed, is approximately -- about 60 residences. Sixty families are going to lose their homes. All the people that surround it -- there's a building right up against the Metro -rail. It, in itself, has 60 families living in it. Right across the street, there are another -- about 45, 50 families and they're all going to have to stay there and live with that. Not to count down the street from it, across from 2nd Avenue. And the future of the park, once there's nobody living there, what's the purpose of having a park if it's all -commercial land? It's going to end up being what? Another place to throw junk? It will lose its purpose. The park will get torn down, losing more green space. I heard somebody here being accused of not having enough green space on their land. Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, sir. You're being repetitious. Thank you. OK, Winton, it's your district. Commissioner Winton: This has already been for -- this is second reading. And for the benefit of the families out there, I am sympathetic to the issue that you bring forward. However, this land, if you all have looked at the current zoning, all the land that fronts Coral Way is already zoned commercial and all of the land that is behind Coral Way, which fronts -- what is that, Southwest 12? Ms. Slazyk: Yes. Commissioner Winton: That land is zoned high density residential. So, we could build -- any developer could come in there, without any questions from the city -- don't have to get a thing from the City -- and build a high-rise development. So, the cards --the deck has already been stacked, long before any of us already got here. From a Planning standpoint, this land has been earmarked for -- I have no idea how long -- for high- density development, so that the development that's there, in the long scheme of things, has no chance of staying. So, what the Planning Department is saying, is not that they don't want the rest of that neighborhood to be residential, because the rest of the neighborhood will remain residential, they're simply talking about changing a zoning code to create a more unified commercial node there that doesn't change the end result, at 152 February 17, 2000 all. The end result is high density development can come there and the City can't stop that. That's what can happen, period. So, the idea here is to, at this four -corner area, with Publix being one of the corners, with... Ms. Slazyk: Walgreen's. Commissioner Winton: ...Walgreen's being one of the four corners and these two other four corners, both of which are on the agenda today, those becoming more retail oriented nodes, as opposed to just high-rise office or as opposed to just high-rise residential. So, I think, frankly, that the idea is a good idea. And any developer that comes back with a plan to develop a site has to develop the site in a fashion that does not impede upon the residential character backed behind it. So, that the worry and concern about the dumpsters and the truck traffic and all of that jazz has to be contemplated very, very carefully, and we all get a shot at looking at that. And I look at those kinds of things very, very carefully. So, I, too, would be very concerned if I thought the whole residential neighborhood was going to be changed, but it isn't. This is simply a -- frankly, it's a minor change to create a more retail oriented node right there, as opposed to allowing additional high-rise office or high-rise multifamily, residential being built there. So, I'm in favor and I would move -- I think I already did move this, didn't I? Did I move this earlier? Ms. Slazyk: I'm not... Commissioner Winton: Well, if I didn't... Mr. Walter Foeman (City Clerk): Yes, you did. Ms. Slazyk: I don't remember. Commissioner Winton: ...I move... Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, you did. Commissioner Winton: Did I? I don't know if we got a second, but I moved it. Mr. Foeman: Yes, you did. Commissioner Teele. Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved. Is there a second? There's a motion. Is there a second? Mr. Foeman: It was a second previously by Commissioner Teele. Vice Chairman Gort: But this is a new motion, though. This is a motion. Is there a second? Commissioner Teele: Not all you guys at once. You know, the objector makes a -- second for the purpose of discussion. The objectors make, you know, a very compelling argument. The problem is that the arguments are so personal and you want to be with the people that are speaking, the residents but, at the same time, the property owners -- there are certain rules of law that property owners should have the right to use their property and, you know, this is not a governmental program and it just, again, underscores the need for affordable housing. It really underscores the need for affordable housing, which is one of the reasons I support that Gate House project, which I really didn't like the project but we need affordable housing. We've got to maintain a balance. Well, I've second it for the purpose of some of the discussion that needs to take place. I'm very troubled by the impact on these fine individuals, these fine citizens who live there. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Any further discussion? Call the question 153 February 17, 2000 Mr. Walter Foeman (City Clerk): Commissioner Winton? Commissioner Winton: Yes Mr. Foeman: Commissioner Regalado? Commissioner Regalado: No. Ms. Miriam Maer (Assistant City Attorney): Excuse me. I need to read the ordinance. Mr. Foeman: Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Ms. Maer: Ready? Vice Chairman Gort: Roll call. [COMMENTS MADE DURING ROLL CALL] Commissioner Teele: What's the vote? Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, no. Commissioner Winton: One, one. Commissioner Teele: How did Commissioner Sanchez vote? Mr. Foeman: He hasn't voted yet. He's next in line. Commissioner Sanchez: I haven't voted, yet. Got to be in it. Commissioner Teele: Well, this is a very serious matter. I mean, this is a sad matter because -- I mean, the right vote is yes for me but, I mean, it's the wrong vote for the people that live there. And, you know, are the people that spoke today property owners? Vice Chairman Gort: It's all rented. Ms. Dougherty: No. Commissioner Teele: Did counsel represent that the people who signed this were property owners or people who live there? Mr. Forestier: Counsel represented that the people who signed that petition lived in the area. This is mostly apartment/rental, not single-family homes. Commissioner Teele: I vote yes. Mr. Foeman: Commissioner Sanchez? Commissioner Sanchez: No. Mr. Foeman: Vice Chairman Gort? 154 February 17, 2000 Vice Chairman Gort: Let me explain my vote because I think it's very important. The argument that the neighbors have presented is very important but, at the same time, you need to understand, this is private sector. Right now, that property, the way it is zoned, whoever bought that property is going to build it to its maximum and they can do a lot more than what's in front of us today and for those reasons, I'll vote yes. 155 February 17, 2000 An Ordinance Entitled - AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BY CHANGING TH4 LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY (1) 130, 140, 150, 160, 170, 180 AND 190 SW 12TH STREET; (2) 121, 131 AND 159 SW 13TH STREET AND, (3) 1227-1229 SW 2ND AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM OFFICE AND HIGH DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL; MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Passed on its first reading, by title, at the meeting of January 27, 2000, was taken up for its second and final reading, by title, and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Winton, seconded by Commissioner Teele, the ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title, and was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton NAYS: Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez ABSENT: None. THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 11896 The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and to the public. Vice Chairman Gort: PZ -6. Ms. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ -6 is a companion zoning change to the one you just voted on. Vice Chairman Gort: Is there a motion? Commissioner Winton: Move it. 156 February 17, 2000 Commissioner Teele: Second. Vice Chairman Gort: Moved and second. Discussion? Is that an ordinance. Ms. Maer (Assistant City Attorney): Yes, it is. Vice Chairman Gort: Read the ordinance. Roll call. An Ordinance Entitled - AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING PAGE NO. 37 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 AND O -OFFICE TO C-1 RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY (1) 130-190 SOUTHWEST 12TH STREET, (2) 121, 131 AND 159 SOUTHWEST 13TH STREET, AND (3) 1227-1229 SOUTHWEST 2ND AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Passed on its first reading, by title, at the meeting of January 27, 2000, was taken up for its second and final reading, by title, and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Winton, seconded by Commissioner Teele, the ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title, and was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 11897 The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and to the public. Ms. Dougherty: Thank you very much. The ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Ms. Dougherty: Thank you very much. 157 February 17, 2000 Vice Chairman Gort: PZ -7. Ms. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ -7 and 8 are companion items. Again, for land use and zoning change. This is the property right across the street from the one you just voted on. This will complete the four corners of the node that the Planning Department recommends for this intersection. Commissioner Winton: Move it. Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved and second. Is there any discussion? Being none, all in -- is this a... Ms. Miriam Maer: An ordinance. It's an ordinance. Vice Chairman Gort: An ordinance. Read the ordinance. An Ordinance Entitled — 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 (1) 201, AND 203, SOUTHWEST 13TH STREET AND (2) 1216, SOUTHWEST 2ND AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM OFFICE AN HIGH DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL; MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 158 February 17, 2000 F -j was passed on its first reading, by title, at the meeting of January 27, 2000, 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: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L, Winton NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 11898. The ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Ms. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ -8 is the companion. Commissioner Teele: So moved. Commissioner Winton: Second. Commissioner Teele: Second. Commissioner Winton: I was talking. I'm sorry. Where are we? . What was the Ms. Slazyk: PZ -8 is the companion item. Commissioner Winton: OK. I'll second Commissioner Teele's -- Ms. Slazyk: It's funny. Everyone walked away at the same time. Commissioner Teele: Roll call. Mr. Walter Foeman (City Clerk): It's an ordinance. Ms. Miriam Maer: Read the ordinance? 159 February 17, 2000 An Ordinance Entitled — AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING PAGE NO. 37 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 AND O - OFFICE TO C-1 RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY (1) 201 AND 203 SOUTHWEST 13TH STREET, AND (2) 1216 SOUTHWEST 2ND AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. was passed on its first reading, by title, at the meeting of January 27, 2000, was taken up for its second and final reading, by title, and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Teele, seconded by Commissioner Winton, the ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title, and was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Sanchez SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 11899. The ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Vice Chairman Gort: PZ -9. Ms. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ -9 is a request to add the SD -12 buffer overlay district to single family residentially zoned property. The properties are 2960, 61 and -- Ms. Vicky Garcia -Toledo: Excuse me. Mr. Chairman, my co -- well, opposing counsel on this, but we do have an agreement, is Mr. Tucker Gibbs. He is on his .way. Is there any possibility that, as a courtesy to him, we could -- Vice Chairman Gort: Look, let's go to PZ -10. But, I mean, we have to get out of here. I love Tucker, but I'm not going to wait that long. 160 February 17, 2000 J Ms. Toledo: Thank you. I understand. He's on his way. Note for the Record: Item PZ -9 was table for later in the meeting. Ms. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ 10 is second reading. Amendment to SD -6 in order to add child daycare centers as permissible uses by Class II, in locations other than the ground floor frontage of pedestrians' streets and urban plazas. This Commission approved it on first reading on January 27, and this is second reading. Commissioner Winton: Move it. Vice Chairman Gort: Is there a motion? It's been moved. Is there a second? Commissioner Teele: Is this a resolution or an ordinance? Vice Chairman Gort: It's a resolution. Ms. Slazyk: No, it's an ordinance. Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved and second. Commissioner Teele: It's an ordinance. Ms. Slazyk: It's a Zoning ordinance, text amendment. Commissioner Winton: Second reading. Ms. Miriam Maer: PZ -10. Vice Chairman Gort: Resolution. OK. Ordinance. Go ahead. Ms. Slazyk: you're ready? Commissioner Regalado: Well, well -- excuse me. This is to allow childcare -- Ms. Slazyk: Child daycare centers in SD -6, in locations other than the ground floor frontage of pedestrians' streets and urban plazas. Commissioner Regalado: Which means? Ms. Slazyk: Which means that with the SD -6 as the whole area around the Omni and the Performing Arts Center, daycare centers can be off of the boulevard and off of the primary pedestrians pathways. There is a lot of high 161 February 17, 2000 0 density residential coming into the area, and it's deemed as an appropriate use, but not right on the boulevard. So they'd be able to do it by Class II. Commissioner Regalado: This does not apply to the rest of the City, at all? Ms. Slazyk: The rest of the City already -- most of the rest of the City already allows child daycare centers. It was not a use included in this district until now. Commissioner Regalado: But they do need a special permit? Ms. Slazyk: Yes, they do, and most of the City. Commissioner Regalado: So, still, if we vote for this, they do need special permit? Ms. Slazyk: They would need a Class II, yes. Commissioner Regalado: OK. Vice Chairman Gort: Read the ordinance. Call the roll. An Ordinance Entitled — AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 6, SECTION 606, SD -6 CENTRAL COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, IN ORDER TO AMEND SECTION 606.4.2 TO ADD CHILD DAY CARE CENTERS AS PERMISSIBLE USES WITHIN THE SD -6 DISTRICT BY CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT ONLY, AND ONLY IN LOCATIONS OTHER THAN THE GROUND FLOOR FRONTAGE OF PEDESTRIANS STREETS AND URBAN PLAZAS; 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 January 27, 2000 was taken up for its second and final reading, by title, and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Winton, seconded by Commissioner Teele, the ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title, and was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Sanchez SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 11900. 162 February 17, 2000 The ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Vice Chairman Gort: PZ -11. Ms. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ -11 is second reading ordinance, in order to remove clinics, medical or dental offices as conditional principal uses within SD -9. This was approved on first reading on January 27, and this is second reading. Commissioner Winton: Move it. Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved. Is there a second? Commissioner Teele: Second. Vice Chairman Gort: Any discussion? Being none, read the ordinance. An Ordinance Entitled — AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 6, SECTION 609, SD -9 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD NORTH OVERLAY DISTRICT, IN ORDER TO AMEND SECTIONS 609.4 AND 609.5 TO ELIMINATE CLINICS, MEDICAL, OR DENTAL OFFICES AS CONDITIONAL PRINCIPAL USES WITHIN THE SD -9 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD NORTH OVERLAY DISTRICT; 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 January 27, 2000, was taken up for its second and final reading, by title, and adoption. On motion of. Commissioner Winton, seconded by Commissioner Teele, the ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title, and was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 11901. 163 February 17, 2000 The ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Commissioner Teele: Let me just ask this. Why are we doing this? Ms. Slazyk: When the SD -9 district was first written, clinics were eliminated from the district. Because the definition of clinics also included doctors' offices, medical offices, and dental offices, we tried to put it back in a couple of years ago to allow the medical and dental offices to come in. We put square foot limitations so we wouldn't get big regional health clinics, but the clinics are still coming in any way, and it was deemed when SD -9 was written that that was not an appropriate use for Biscayne Boulevard, that the cross streets, the commercial cross streets coming into the boulevard were more appropriate locations for those uses to serve the area, but not on the boulevard. So, this is going back to our original take on SD -9, in that this really is not appropriate for Biscayne Boulevard. What we're trying to encourage is -- Commissioner Regalado: Why is it? Ms. Slazyk: Because of the regional nature of what it serves. Biscayne Boulevard -- what we're trying to do is create a retail and service corridor to serve the neighborhoods, the Upper East Side. When clinics an offices like this tend to draw more of a regional -- it's more of a regional draw, and that's not what the intent of the SD -9 district and the Biscayne Boulevard north and the Upper East Side Master Plan -- I mean, none of that called out for this to be a regional center for those services. Commissioner Regalado: And what else we don't want there? Vice Chairman -Gort: I think it's important to understand that most of this came out of public hearings that were held in different neighborhoods, and it was their input that created a lot of this. Am I correct, Lourdes? Ms. Slazyk: Yes. There are a couple other uses that are also excluded -- Commissioner Regalado: That's what I asked, what else? Ms. Slazyk: -- which came out of these meetings with the neighborhood. They came up with -- yeah, coin laundry, pool halls, and CBRF (Community Based Residential Facility). Then there are certain other ones that were set up to be only allowed with special permits so we could look at how they were designed an oriented to make sure that they didn't detract from the image we wanted on the boulevard. Biscayne Boulevard is the front door. It's one of the gateways into the City, and the image of the boulevard is very important to the Upper East Side, to the Planning Department, an we held these meetings with the neighborhood and we came up with the appropriate uses for this, you know, front door image to the City. Commissioner Regalado: What is more historic, Biscayne Boulevard or Flagler? 164 February 17, 2000 Ms. Slazyk: I would say they are the same. Commissioner Regalado: I'm sorry? Ms. Slazyk: Probably the same. Commissioner Regalado: The same? Are we going to apply the same criteria for Flagler? Ms. Slazyk: Well, a piece of Flagler Street already has a special district overlay. The -- you know, the other components would have to be studied. Commissioner Regalado: I'm just asking, because it seems to me -- Commissioner Winton: Do you want it? Commissioner Regalado: No. Commissioner Winton: So, this is for the SD, C-6 overlay districts only. Commissioner Regalado: No. But -- I mean that's not the point. That's not the point. It's that we keep approving regulations and regulations, and remember what happened with the Latin Quarter, that no development has gone this because of the book that they have to follow. Ms. Ana Gelabert (Director, Planning & Zoning): I think, if I may -- on the SD -9, it might be a little bit different. The SD -9 came as a result of community input. They actually were the one that's came to the Planning Department to make this request. And it came, as a result of there was a project to revitalize Biscayne Boulevard. All the portion from 36`h to 87th. At the time when we were looking at it, the SD -9 was missing portions of it, and then, together with the community, they came and said because the opportunity 'of looking at this one more time and the redevelopment, we would like to encourage on Biscayne boulevard these uses that were previously allowed were taken out of the SD -9, but it was something truly initiated by the community. If it was something on Flagler, where a different scenario or something, we would also work with the community. But this one is, in no way, something where we're just picking and choosing the Planning Department in a vacuum. This came as a result of community input and their request. And after that, it is my understanding that, on the last few months, with the new development that has come, I believe they are telling us that there are forty businesses that have come to the boulevard. So, it is something toward revitalization of Biscayne Boulevard. Vice Chairman Gort: Any other questions? Discussion? Roll call. 165 February 17, 2000 • r: Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman? Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir. Commissioner Teele: I realize that the distinguished gentleman has arrived, but we have a few other matters, and since we waited for him -- Vice Chairman Gort: He should wait for us. Commissioner Teele: I'd like to bring up the AFSCME (American Federal, State, County, and Municipal Employees) matter that Commissioner Sanchez had insisted that Commissioner Regalado be present when we vote on it, and also I'd like to make an appointment to the Bayfront Trust, I assume. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. This item is item 19. Note for the Record: At this point, the City Commission temporarily tables consideration of the Planning and Zoning portion of the agenda in order to consider items from the regular portion of the agenda. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. This item is item 19. While you were away, Commissioner Regalado, one of the things that we told the administration is, none of us are going to vote for increasing taxes. None of us here is going to vote for increasing tiers. So, if he recommends -- he's had to find a way to reduce cost of doing business in the City of Miami, because this is no increase that's going to come from us. Commissioner Regalado: This includes the fire fee, too? Are we talking also about the fire fee? Vice Chairman Gort: No, no. Commissioner Regalado: Only strictly about property taxes? That's what -- Vice Chairman Gort: We say -- we made a commitment that we were going to try to reduce the fire fee and all that. I understand. . Commissioner Regalado: I'm trying to understand here. Vice Chairman Gort: He knows and he's aware that we're not going to increase any of the things that have been approved in the Five -Year Plan, so he's going to have to find a way to pay for this. Commissioner Regalado: No. Excuse me. I mean, you can do whatever you want, but we always said that we could change the Five -Year Plan. What I'm asking is, if the administration could assure us that there will be no increase in property taxes, fire fee or garbage. 166 February 17, 2000 Mr. Donald Warshaw (City Manager): No. The increase for the fire fee and the Solid Waste fee is already a part of the Five -Year Plan for this year. So, this has absolutely nothing to do with that. Now -- Commissioner Regalado: No. I mean for next year. Mr. Warshaw: Well, what's already built into the plan is there. This -- approval of this item would not result in any further increases, other than what is already built into the plan. This is a philosophical decision. We know we have surpluses in the budget as a result of things we've been able to do. Most of those surpluses go into a variety of reserves. I mean, this was the timing to be able to do this, and get rid of something that's, you know, I think is not in the best interest, long term, of the City. It's been talked about through task forces, through the Oversight Board. But, again, it really -- it has nothing to do with what's already built into the Five -Year Plan. In terms of projected increases in fees, Solid Waste and fire fee. But I will tell you that it won't cost any additional fees. We won't have to raise taxes, raise fees to pay for this. I'm comfortable that we have the ability within the confines of the budget to support the elimination of tier two. Commissioner Regalado: Yeah. But my question is, next year, do we need to raise one penny as compared to this year in every aspect of the City? Commissioner Sanchez: Would the City have to come up with anymore -additional funds as what is projected for next year? Would they have to come up with anymore -additional funds to supplement this -- Mr. Warshaw: The answer to your question is no. Commissioner Sanchez: I think that's the question he wants answered. Commissioner Regalado: No, that's not the question I'm asking. I'm asking a different question. Mr. Warshaw: Right. Those are two different questions. Commissioner Regalado's question has to do with increases that are already built in, committed to by the Commission, which include a small increase in the fire fee and the Solid Waste fee. Those things are completely independent and separate from this. The moneys -- the funding that will come from this will come from surpluses in the budget, that already have included in it fire fee, garbage fee, future increases, what have you. None of that is impacted here. Commissioner Regalado: So, Mr. Manager, what you're saying is that, if we use that money, we won't have to raise the fire fee and the garbage next year, as approved, in the five year fee? Mr. Warshaw: No, I'm not saying that. Commissioner Regalado: You're not saying that? Mr. Warshaw: No, sir. Commissioner Regalado: So, we cannot use that money to -- not to raise fees or taxes, which -- but we can use it to pay the raise and the salaries? Mr. Warshaw: Not completely. I'm not sure I follow that. 167 February 17, 2000 Commissioner Regalado: You're saying that we already have funding, not to raise taxes, and use that money that was a surplus to pay for the one million and four hundred thousand dollars ($1,400,000). So, what I'm saying is, can we use that money, one million four hundred thousand dollars ($1,400,000), not to implement what was approved on the Five -Year Plan, which is a minimal amount of fire fee, a minimum amount of garbage fee? Mr. Warshaw: Is answer is, arguably -- I guess you could do that. But let me conversely tell you that the Five -Year Plan, as it exist right now, contemplates a series of fees increases that the Commission has already acted upon. Now, the ability to be able to approve this tier two item is based upon the fact that the Five -Year Plan, with all of its contemplations, is going to be in effect. If it was not going to go into effect, for example, if, at some point, you were going to take out one of those fees or not approve them, it would be difficult for this go forward, yes. Now, all that being said, it's possible -- because we're talking about projections -- if our ad -valorem taxes where to increase, if property values would increase, if our revenues were to be in excess -- because we're a very conservative base revenue projections based upon past history -- it's conceivable that a year or two from now we could be in a better position and you might be able to look at reductions in some of those fees, but that's something that's very hard to project. We've had very good luck -- not good luck. We've had very good results, based on our projections, that we've been able to exceed them, and I think you would prefer that we be conservative rather than bold, and those conservative estimates have been exceeded, and I'm hopeful that if that happens, then, you know, we'll be able to deal with those kinds of reductions. But, really, one -- the two are unrelated. This is strictly based upon the Five -Year Plan, as it exist, with all the fee contemplations, and the fact that I see, staff sees that there is enough surplus to be able to absorb this tier two, which long term, you know, will bring the tier two and the tier one people into one category. Commissioner Regalado: Oh, I understand. I understand. But I still believe that that money -- because every time that we voted on the Five -Year Plan -- and we did several times -- we were told, and we always asked, of course, that this plan can be changed. So, I'm not saying anything, which cannot be done. What I'm saying is, instead of implementing the raises on the Five -Year Plan, we use that money not to raise fees and taxes next year. That's all I'm saying. Mr. Warshaw: And there is an argument being made that that could be done. I won't dispute that. Commissioner Regalado: All right. I just want to be on the record saying that my duty is to the taxpayers and the residents, and I understand that that is something that has to be fixed, but you cannot fix that first and not fix the continuing raises on fees and taxes for the residents of Miami. Vice Chairman Gort: Any further discussion? Commissioner Teele: Do we have a motion and a second? Vice Chairman Gort: No. You need a motion and a second. Or you want to go by the motion and second before? Commissioner Teele: Oh, we had a motion and second before? Vice Chairman Gort: Yes. Commissioner Sanchez: It was a motion and second before. 168 February 17, 2000 0 • Mr. Walter Foeman (City Clerk): Before it was moved by Sanchez, seconded by Winton. Commissioner Sanchez: Not me. I didn't make the motion, nor second it. Mr. Foeman: On the morning session, that's what I have in my notes. Vice Chairman Gort: We need a motion. Commissioner Winton: I'll move it. Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved. Is there a second? Commissioner Teele: Not everybody at once, guys. I mean -- I second the motion. Vice Chairman Gort: Discussion? Any further discussion? Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman? Vice Chairman Gort: Yes. Commissioner Teele: I'm very uncomfortable with some of the discussion. Taxes and fees. Taxes are not raised when you hit the roll back rate. OK. Let's be very clear about this. And the increase in evaluation and property, in no way affects whether or not you're raising or lowering taxes. In other words, I'm going to be voting to collect the same amount of non my next year, as we collected this year. And right now -- and just so that everybody's clear, if the millage rate is -- what is our millage rate, nine point -- Commissioner Sanchez: Five. Commissioner Teele: -- five? If the millage rate is nine point five percent this year, as far as I'm concerned, it should be nine point one, nine point three somewhere in there, next year, assuming evaluation and profits go up. In other words, under Florida Law, you raise taxes if you have the same millage, and the property values go up. So, I keep hearing the Manager talking about, you know, increasing property values and we'll have more money. That's not the way the law of Florida works, and that's not the way a tax increase works, unless we vote for it. The Florida law and the Florida procedures require that you read into the record, as the first act of business, at 5:01, what the roll back rate is, OK. And the roll back rate is the rate to collect the same amount of tax dollars in the coming year as you did in the previous year, an that's the rate that I'm going to be voting for, OK. So, I'm not raising taxes next year. I am not raising taxes next year and that has nothing to do with the millage rate. The more increase in property value, the lower our millage rate. An I'm hoping our millage rate is going to be 9 point one to 9 point three Mills, and, hopefully, if we get a little bit of work on the fire issues and all of that, I'm looking to see this millage rate get down to seven and a half percent. So that's sort of where I am. And all of this stuff about fees is another issue, but on taxes, I have said -- and I'm going to continue to say -- that the taxes are too high in the City of Miami, and it's time now to fish or cut bait, and I think the discussion on this is very germane and very appropriate because if we don't say that we're not going to support higher taxes, somebody is going to assume that we do. Nine point five is not what I'm voting on. I'm voting to collect the same amount of dollars, the roll back rate, as required by State Law, which gets read, as the first order of business, beginning at 5: 0 1 or whatever time -- 169 February 17, 2000 after 5:01, that you have a public hearing -- and that must be, according to state law, the first order of business. Now, I think there has been a terrible tragedy -- not tragedy, but a terrible injustice that has been visited upon the hard working citizens, an we do all of this talk about how great people are and how hard they work. Now is the time to begin, I think, to step up to the bar on this issue, if we really believe that. And I'm not -- everybody's free to vote their conscience. I'm not putting anybody down who doesn't vote that way, but it is not fair to have a two-tier system indefinitely. I supported a two-tier system as long as they come together. This, I understand, is bringing it together. It's going to cost point five million dollars ( $1, 5 0 0, 0 0 0) a year. Is that a fair statement? Commissioner Sanchez: One point what? Commissioner Teele: One point four, one point five million dollars ($1,500,000) for the first year. It's a reoccurring number. But you know, every time we give a two percent, three percent merit raise, nobody says a word. And a two percent, three percent merit raise cost just as much money. So, I don't think we ought to be too -- I mean, if we're going to start looking at this, then we need to look at this consistently, and which really shouldn't single out the non -uniformed employees of the City to visit all of the financial hard ship on them. The question that I have, Mr. Manager, madam director, is this, now, what I don't want -- because, you know, Charlie has his way of looking really sad and sort of, you know, everybody wants to help him but, then, you know, he can become a gorilla, a bear right in the next minute, you know. Is he going to be back here in about six months talking about a new union contract and a new wage rate and a new this and a new that? I mean, when are we up for negotiations? Commissioner Sanchez: Two thousand -- Ms. Sue Weller (Officer, Labor Relations): Two thousand and one. Mr. Warshaw: Next year at this time. Mr. Cox: Two thousand and one. Mr. Warshaw: Next year at this time. Mr. Cox: And could I put something on the record because -- Commissioner Teele: Please. Mr. Cox: Because there are only 640 employees that are affected by this. You have 500 and some other employees that are getting zero, and when I ratified this, if my membership can understand that it's wrong to work side by side with somebody and pay them less, the ratification was 69 for and 38 against. So, Charlie Cox, you can loathe and say I'm going to turn into a gorilla or whatever, but Charlie Cox isn't getting a penny. And five hundred and some other employees are not getting a penny. Commissioner Teele: And I respect that. And I don't mean, at all, to call you an inappropriate name. Mr. Cox: Oh, I don't care. I don't care. I've been called a hell of a lot worse. 170 February 17, 2000 Commissioner Teele: I meant that with a lot of love and respect for the fact that you are an advocate for your members. So, I'm going to support it. I do think that the question that's my colleagues are raising about the fiscal impact are germane and they are appropriate, and I don't think there is a wrong vote on this issue. Ms. Bertha Henry (Assistant City Manager): Commissioners? Vice Chairman Gort: Yes Ms. Henry: This is Bertha Henry, Assistant City Manager. I'd like to put on the record an issue that was raised by Commissioner Teele with respect to the Five -Year Plan. The Five -Year Plan, as adopted, contemplates that the millage stays at nine point five mills, and that the revenue that is associated with the natural growth or the growth and assess evaluation is there to help -- to cover the natural increases in our expenses over the year. So, right now, the plan does not contemplate that the millage roll go back to the roll back rate, and I did not want to leave this discussion with that assumption. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Commissioner Teele: I really appreciate you clarifying the record on that, and I think that's a very germane point. Because I think one of the things that trouble me about all of this discussion is that it's not on the Manager and the management to vote a budget. It's on us. And we -- you know, unfairly -- and, I mean, I think Don is being a real gentleman about this thing, but we keep unfairly, like blaming the management, and I realize that our resources to analyze budget and put together alternative budgets leaves a lot to be desired and that's something we clearly are going to have to develop. But the fact of the matter is, the budget is our budget to approve, and we're not approving anything now that we can't correct -- Mr. Warshaw: That's correct. Commissioner Teele: -- in the budget process. And I keep staying there is a lot of fat in this budget. I mean, you look at the fire, the first thing they did is they said we don't need 10 percent of the general funds that we've been allocate, so they took 10 percent right out of the top of their budget, a million -- what was that? So, I mean, you know, their -- if everybody did that, I -- you know, I've never seen that in budget, but if everybody's budget has got that, you know -- the spread sheet that I had took a 10 percent off the top -- this is surplus in dollars that we had. That's how the number starts to get worked. So -- Vice Chairman Gort: That's thirty million right there. Commissioner Teele: Yeah, that's thirty million right there. And, I mean, you know, that's just the numbers you all gave me. Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Vice Chair. Vice Chairman Gort: Yes. Commissioner Sanchez: One thing that concerns me is that, you know, like always, you know, we have to correct the wrong in the past, and the two tier system, whoever implemented it in place at that time may have been the right thing to do or may have been the wrong thing to do, but years past, I think that -- I don't know who was here when that was done, but I guarantee you that 171 February 17, 2000 maybe -- I don't none of us was here when the two tier system came about. But when — `84? Well, that goes to show you. But when people implement that and you start bringing in people and you start paying them whatever salaries to try to keep them an stuff, it gets to a point where it gets out of hand, and we have to pay for it. So, today, you're asking this Commission -- I speak for myself -- to correct a problem that we didn't have anything to do with it? But I'll tell you, when we save five million dollars ($5,000,000) -- and that's more than five million dollars ($5,000,000) in five years, OK -- when we save five million dollars ($5,000,000), when we're counting our pennies -- I mean, counting our pennies to have a plan in place that's approved by the Oversight Board, that is accepted by the tax payers in Miami, an we say we're going to do this to create five million dollars ($5,000,000) that we're going to have to come up with -- I mean, we're going to have to come up with because that is the will of this Commission, that later on, next year, we don't either have to increase revenues or come up with some type of fee to supplement that expense. I just think that right now doing that is not the appropriate time, but I've said that many times on other issues that had to come up with raising money or stuff. That's just a concern that I have. There was a question that was brought up by one of the Commissioners. Can we do it through a certain period of time where it's not -- Mr. Warshaw: It's a phase in over that period of time. Commissioner Sanchez: Well, call the question. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Roll call. 172 February 17, 2000 0 The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Winton, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 00-191 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT (S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, MODIFYING THE EXISTING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI AND THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, (AFSCME), LOCAL 1907 IN EFFECT FOR THE PERIOD OF OCTOBER 1, 1998 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2001, PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION NO. 98-564, ADOPTED JUNE 9, 1998, BY THE CITY COMMISSION; SAID MODIFICATION TO PROVIDE FOR A SINGLE TIER SALARY STRUCTURE FOR CITY EMPLOYEES. (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: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton NAYS: Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez ABSENT: None. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, one final thing. Juvenile justice week, which is the State's district 11, Juvenile Justice Executive Committee, has agreed to hold the Juvenile Justice district 11, which includes Monroe County and all of Dade County, in the City of Miami. I've been working with the management and I think we've agreed on a venue to be the coconut hall -- Coconut Grove Exhibition Hall and Peacock Park, and there are going to be children here, the Governor, supposedly, the Cabinet. I think it's a great opportunity, again, to do some positive things for our youth. The Juvenile Justice Week is March the 19th through the 25th, and we're requesting that the management work with the State Justice -- Juvenile Justice Committee, Mr. Anthony Burke -- Brooks, who is the Assistant Principal at Coral Gables high, is here representing the executive counsel. But, again, these are the children that need a lot of support, particularly, disproportionately, in the City of Miami. And we're asking that the management work with them in providing fee waivers and co-sponsor the event. And I would move that the City of Miami be a co-sponsor of the Juvenile Justice Week, which would be for the entire district 11, and would bring all the State people here and, hopefully, it can present our City in a more favorable image. I would so move. 173 February 17, 2000 Commissioner Regalado: I'll second it. Vice Chairman Gort: There's a motion. Is there a second? Discussion? Commissioner Teele: In co -sponsoring, the Park, then, can waive six hundred dollar ($600) fees and the Fire Department, Police Department can issue certain permit waivers, et cetera. That's what all of this is about. And the management has been very cooperative and it's a very positive opportunity. I think the Police Chief is going to take under advisement any support that they can give because, again, these are the kids that we really want to try to get help to. Commissioner Winton: Call the question. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. All in favor state by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Vice Chairman Gort: No nays. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 00-192 STILL PENDING (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Regalado, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Commissioner Regalado: One thing about this. Vice Chairman Gort: Commissioner -- yes. Commissioner Regalado: I think that this should be advertised in NET 9 as part of our calendar. If the City sponsors events like this, it should be incorporated in the daily calendar. And I hope that it would get on the air before March 19th. 174 February 17, 2000 Commissioner Teele: You know, Ms. Thomas made a very good point, Mr. Chief -- Mr. Manager. Ms. Thomas made a very good point. You know, sometimes I think we oversell the City, individually, but I really do think that we do undersell some of the good things we've done. You know, she talked about the fact that the City of Miami was the first city in the entire South to have an African American. I thought that was a very good point that she made. And I think these kinds of things are another way of saying that the City of Miami is back, and we really ought to take pride. And I would urge the Police Department... Mr. Donald Warshaw (City Manager): I agree. Commissioner Teele: ...and the management to work closely with the Juvenile Justice Counsel and make the City's presence felt throughout this process. Vice Chairman Gort: Commissioner Regalado, you had something? Commissioner Regalado: Yes. Mr. Chairman, there is an event on Jose Marti Park on next Saturday. The World Council of Churches is having a prayer meeting for freedom throughout the world and especially on the issue of Cuba. They will use the park two hours. There won't be more than one thousand persons at any moment. So, I'm asking the administration to waive the fees for the permit for that park and help with the police in organizing the parking in the area. Commissioner Teele: Second the motion. Commissioner Regalado: That would be on Saturday at 4 p.m., Jose Marti Park. Commissioner Teele: Second the motion. Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved and there's a seconded. Discussion? Administration. Mr. Donald Warshaw (City Manager): The Police Department will be able to cover this on duty. It's not a major... Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Thank you. All in favor state by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Regalado, who moved its adoption: STILL PENDING RESOLUTION NO. 00-193 175 February 17, 2000 (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: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, we have a series of -- Vice Chairman Gort: Do I have a motion to adjourn? Commissioner Teele: -- appointments that I really -- we have the other matter, but we have is the Bayfront Trust. I think some of us sort of committed -- Vice Chairman Gort: Yes. Commissioner Teele: -- that we're going to try to provide support to the Chairman Sanchez. I would like to recommend -- nominate Mr. Gregory Bush, who is someone that I think -- you know, we need that perspective. I'm hoping that he'll serve just briefly, just to get to know the organization and will move on to another committee. You know, we're organizing this Parks Advisory Committee, as well. But his address is 6261 Coral Lake Drive, Miami. And I assume that requires a residency waiver as well. Does it? Mr. Walter Foeman (City Clerk): Yes, it would. Commissioner Teele: And that would be also attached. And I think the Chairman -- I've not had an opportunity to brief it -- to discuss it with him, but I heard him say excellent choice, and I think we recognize we need more perspectives. Vice Chairman Gort: There is a motion. Is there a second? Commissioner Winton: Second. Commissioner Regalado: Second. Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved and second. Further discussion? 176 February 17, 2000 • Commissioner Teele: He would be replacing Mr. Dino -- Mr. Foeman: Galardi. Commissioner Teele: -- Galardi, yes. Vice Chairman Gort: All in favor state by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): "Aye." 0 The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 00-194 A MOTION APPOINTING GREGORY BUSH AS A MEMBER OF THE BAYFRONT PARK MANAGEMENT TRUST; FURTHER WAIVING THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT (BY A FOUR-FIFTHS VOTE) FOR SAID APPOINTMENT. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Winton, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Vice Chairman Gort: Mr. Winton -- Commissioner Winton. Commissioner Winton: Mr. Chairman, I have a similar appointment for the Bayfront Park Trust and a couple of others. I would like to appoint Mr. Frank Balzebre. He is a City resident, Coconut Grove, as my representative of Bayfront Park Trust, who will replace Frank Vanderpost. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. There is a -- Commissioner Regalado: Second. Vice Chairman Gort: Moved and second. Commissioner Teele: Second. Vice Chairman Gort: All in favor state by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): "Aye." 177 February 17, 2000 The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Winton, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 00-195 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION APPOINTING CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AS MEMBERS OF THE BAYFRONT PARK MANAGEMENT TRUST FOR TERMS AS DESIGNATED HEREIN; FURTHER WAIVING THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT FOR ONE OF THE APPOINTED MEMBERS. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Regalado, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Vice Chairman Gort: Next. Commissioner Winton: I would like to make two more. I would like to appoint to the Code Enforcement Board, which is shorthanded, Ruth Hamilton, who lives in the Upper East Side, also City of Miami resident, and I have -- I don't think I have anyone on that board. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. There is a motion to nominate -- Commissioner Winton: Ruth Hamilton. Vice Chairman Gort: -- Ruth Hamilton. Is there a second? Commissioner Regalado: Second. Commissioner Teele: Second. Commissioner Regalado: I'll second. Commissioner Teele: Second 178 February 17, 2000 Vice Chairman Gort: Moved and second. Discussion? Being none, all in favor state by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): "Aye." The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Winton, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 00-196 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION APPOINTING AN INDIVIDUAL AS A REGULAR MEMBER OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD FOR A TERM AS DESIGNATED HEREIN. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Regalado, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Commissioner Winton: And to the International Trade Board, I would like to nominate Ray Flores, who also lives in the City of Miami. Vice Chairman Gort: There is a motion. Is there a second? Commissioner Regalado: Second. Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved and second. Discussion? Being none, all in favor state by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): "Aye." 179 February 17, 2000 The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Winton, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 00-197 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION APPOINTING AN INDIVIDUAL AS A MEMBER OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRADE BOARD FOR A TERM AS DESIGNATED HEREIN. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Regalado, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman? Vice Chairman Gort: Yes. Commissioner Teele: I would like to inquire of Commissioner Sanchez. Now, who else is on that board that's available for -- I mean -- I know Tina Hills is an at large member. Has she been coming to meetings? Vice Chairman Gort: Her husband had passed away. Commissioner Teele: I realize that, but I know she's been nominated -- Mr. Donald Warshaw (City Manager): The Clerk's Office keeps some records on the absences. Mr. Walter Foeman (City Clerk): Yes, we do. According to our records, she's exceeded the number of -- Commissioner Teele: I understand that, but is Tina Hills someone who has been coming -- I realize she had -- obviously had tragic death in her family with her -- 180 February 17, 2000 Commissioner Sanchez: Commissioner Teele, I have been there for two months, and she has never been to one of our meetings. I believe her husband just passed away. She is one of the at large appointees for that board. Appointees. Commissioner Teele: Well, see, one of the problems, of course, that you have is that, if you have a vacant person, then you have no support. Commissioner Sanchez: Exactly. Commissioner Teele: And one of the things that I'm committed to is the leaving here today with the Chairman in firm control ofthat board. I would be prepared to move any person that you would like to nominate to replace Mrs. Hills, with the understanding that if Mrs. Hills desires to serve, I'll be pleased to appoint her in my appointment, you know, within the next 60 days. Commissioner Sanchez: One of the rules that we're implementing is, we have to adopt the by-laws, which we will, and one of the things is going to be no more than three unexcused absences or you're out. Apparently, that rule was never -- it was implemented but never enforced in the Bayfront Park. Commissioner Teele: But right now Mrs. Hills is showing on the -- and I don't -- I think if anyone has a right to serve on there and be a lifetime member -- and maybe we ought to consider changing the by laws to providing her -- Mrs. Hills was one of the people who established the Bayfront Trust. She provided foundation support and personal gifts, personal donations in hundred of thousands of dollars, and it was her vision, and I certainly don't want to do anything that diminishes or cast a cloud over her ability or willingness to serve, particularly in light of the fact that we don't know -- Commissioner Sanchez: May I ask that you afford me the opportunity to talk to her, then I would report back to you? Commissioner Teele: I would urge you not to talk to her, as a Sunshine Law kind of issue, but to act ask the Manager or someone -- the Clerk -- to inquire on that issue. But, again, I think you need to have control in the next meeting because I don't really want to vote on the kinds of things that the board is sending up here, but I'll do whatever you'd like to do, Commissioner Sanchez. Commissioner Sanchez: City Manager. Commissioner Teele: The City Attorney is trying to -- Mr. Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): With regard to Ms. Hills, she has not been at the meeting for the last several months. However, before that, she was a very active member of the board. Was always involved in all of the meetings and is a very important member to that board. For the two years that I've been here, she's been a very active member, and I believe with her husband 's illness, it's taken her away from the board. But Commissioner Sanchez is correct: In the two months that he's been at the board, she's not been (unintelligible).. 181 February 17, 2000 0 Commissioner Winton: Are there other at large -- is it at large -- are there other at large members -- Mr. Foeman: Yes. Commissioner Teele: I think there are two at large. Mr. Foeman: Linda Eads is another at large on that board. Linda Eads. Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah. She's there every meeting. Commissioner Winton: And when is her term up? Mr. Foeman: Her term is up May of 2000. Commissioner Teele: What? Mr. Foeman: May of this year. Commissioner Teele: Well, you know, everybody is defending everybody, but, you know, it was only two votes the last time I heard read, unless the Herald is wrong. The Chairman and Mr. -- Commissioner Regalado's appointments. So, I mean -- you know -- I mean, it's fine to say we're with you, Mr. Chairman, you know, you go out and do the best you can, but -- Commissioner Winton: But if you don't have the votes, you're dead. Commissioner Teele: If you don't have the votes -- Mr. Foeman: Also, Ruth Greenfield is the other at large appointee. Commissioner Winton: And when is her term up? Mr. Foeman: May of 2000 -- May of this year. Commissioner Winton: And do we have any rights to change that, by the way? Commissioner Teele: No. Did she -- has she been coming to meetings? Commissioner Sanchez: Yes, she attends the meetings. Mr. Foeman: Yes. According to our records, yes. Commissioner Sanchez: I just can speak for the two months that I've been there -- the two meetings I've been to. Every month they have a meeting, she's been there. She's one of the board members that's been this, present. Commissioner Teele: Who is Commissioner -- could you just read off, who the Commissioner appointees are? 182 February 17, 2000 Mr. Foeman: Sure. Commissioner Regalado's appointment is Steve Kneapler. Commissioner Sanchez' appointment is Paul Singerman. Commissioner Gort's appointment is Ralph Duarte, and you just made an appointment and Commissioner Winton. Commissioner Teele: Who's Commissioner Gort's appointment? Mr. Foeman: Ralph Duarte. Commissioner Teele: So, how is all these -- all these 6/2 votes? 5/2 votes. Mr. Foeman: Well, you have the three at large, in addition to the Commission appointments. Commissioner Winton: One of them hasn't been there, and the other two are voting against the Chairman, including the Chairman's own appointment. Commissioner Teele: Well, we do want to be careful that we don't have a chilling affect on people's rights to vote their conscience, but -- I mean, I just want to give the Chairman the support that we say we want to give him. Commissioner Sanchez: Are we adjourned? Commissioner Teele: We have one other item, Mr. Chairman. Vice Chairman Gort: No. Let's adjourn. We can do it next time. Commissioner Sanchez: Move to adjourn. Vice Chairman Gort: Or let's move for approval. Ms. Toledo: Don't do that to us. OK. We do have an agreement for informational purpose; I would just put the covenant into the record. Vice Chairman Gort: PZ -9, let's go. Ms. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): We recommend approval. It's an SD -12 overlay. Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Commissioner Sanchez: So moved. Ms. Toledo: For the record, Vicky Garcia -Toledo. There is -- we worked with the neighbors. We came to an agreement. It's been condensed in a covenant between the neighbors and the property owner, which will be made final thirty days after your second reading. Vice Chairman Gort: Okey doke. There is a motion. Commissioner Teele: So move, Mr. Chairman. 183 February 17, 2000 0 Vice Chairman Gort: Is there a second? Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Commissioner Regalado: One question. Vice Chairman Gort: Discussion. • Commissioner Regalado: This is the same thing that we did in Northwest 6"' Street? Commissioner Winton: Similar. Commissioner Regalado: Northwest 6"' Street and 27`x' Avenue. Commissioner Winton: Very similar. Commissioner Regalado: Very similar? Ms. Slazyk: Yes. Commissioner Winton: Very similar. Ms. Slazyk: Yes. This is an SD -12. They will need a special exception in order to actually use it. They have to do their 20 -foot setback. They have to put the wall up, et cetera, et cetera. Commissioner Winton: And it's interesting this is a request for additional parking for an existing building that's already there. And one wonders why it didn't have the parking that it needed to begin with, so that we didn't have to begin to encroach into neighborhoods with parking, into single-family residential neighborhoods. And this is very, very problematic for me. I don't like doing it. I think it's bad for neighborhoods. Ms. Slazyk: But the parking spill over can be worse. Commissioner Winton: Yes. Ms. Toledo: But let me add that the parking will be approximately 59 feet directly next to the office building. All the other property will be replated to two residential lots that will face Inagua. So, we will complete the residential use on Inagua. Commissioner Winton: Right. Which, by the way, I did not add that they had done -- was the only thing that made me lean in the direction of staying OK. Ms. Slazyk: Yes. Vice Chairman Gort: Any further discussion? Being none, all in favor state by saying "aye." 184 February 17, 2000 The Commission (Collectively): "Aye." Ms. Miriam Maer (Assistant City Attorney): I have to read the ordinance. Vice Chairman Gort: Tucker, thanks a lot. It's an ordinance. Read it. Ms. Maer: I have to read the ordinance. Vice Chairman Gort: Roll call. An Ordinance Entitled — AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING PAGE NO. 45 OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401 SCHEDULE OR DISTRICT REGULATIONS, R -1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, IN ORDER TO ADD SD -12 BUFFER OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2960, 2961 AND 2965 AVIATION AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. was introduced by Commissioner Teele, seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, and was passed on first reading, by title only, by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. The ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Vice Chairman Gort: Good night, y'all. Thank you very much. 185 February 17, 2000 THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 7:31 P.M. Walter Foeman CITY CLERK Maria J. Argudin ASSISTANT CITY CLERK JOE CAROLLO MAYOR (SEAL) 186 February 17, 2000