HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-97-02671
J-97-249
4/2/97
RESOLUTION NO. J 7— 2 6 7
A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE MIAMI CITY
COMMISSION'S OPPOSITION TO THE CREATION OF A
STATE OF FLORIDA MIAMI RIVER AUTHORITY
CURRENTLY PROPOSED FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE
STATE LEGISLATURE; DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK
TO TRANSMIT A COPY OF THIS RESOLUTION TO THE
HEREIN DESIGNATED OFFICIALS.
i
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,
I
i
FLORIDA:
Section 1. The Miami City Commission hereby expresses
its opposition to the creation of a State of Florida Miami River
Authority currently proposed for consideration by the Florida
State Legislature.
Section 2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit
a copy of this Resolution to Governor Lawton Chiles, the
President of the Florida Senate, the Speaker of the Florida House
of Representatives, and to all members of the Dade County
Legislative Delegation.
Section 3. This Resolution shall become effective
immediately upon its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 2.nd day of _may ri 1 1997.
ATTEST:
E CAROLLO, MAYOR
ALTER , CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS:
,qq�
W1551:BS
CITY COMMISSION
MEETING OF
APR 0 2 1997
Resolution No.
97— 267
NOTE TO FILE: THIS LEGISLATION -- 97-267, WAS RETURNED TO CLERK'S OFFICE
WITH MAYOR'S SIGNATURE ON THURSDAY, 5/8/97. LETTERS WERE PREPARED AND
SIGNED AND MAILED ON MONDAY, 5/12/97. ACCORDING TO CLERK, LEGISLATIVE
SESSION ENDED 5/1/97. BUT BECAUSE WE DID NOT GET THE LEGISLATION BACK TILL
5/8/97, WE COULD NOT SEND THE LETTERS OUT TILL THEN.
THE FLORIDA SENATE
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1100
SENATOR TONI JENNINGS
President
Walter J. Foeman
City Clerk
City of Miami
P.O. Box 330708
Miami, FL 33233
Dear Mr. Foeman:
May 23, 1997
Thank you for your letter regarding the City of Miami's resolution opposing the creation of a
Miami River Authority.
As you are no doubt aware, the Florida Legislature enacted significant environmental and land
use legislation this session. However, Senate Bill 1226 which would have created the Miami
River Commission died in the Natural Resources Committee. The companion bill, House Bill
1897, was never heard in any committee in the House of Representatives.
Thank you for taking the time to send me the resolution and sharing the commission's
V
Tani Jennings
me
SUITE 409, THE CAPITOL 0 TALLAHASSEE. FLORIDA 32399.1100 0 TELEPHONE 19041 487-5229
Q-1,ttIj ,af tamt
WALTER I. FOEMAN
City Clerk
The Honorable John F. Cosgrove
Dade County Legislative Delegation
201 West Flagler Street
Miami, FL 33130
RE:
Dear Representative Cosgrove:
N Op
►"' ry3
S
uuii iiun �T
C0., FIL, Off`►
May 12, 1997
Resolution #97-267
EDWARD 1AARQUEZ
City Manager
The City of Miami Commission, at its meeting of April 2, 1997, passed and adopted Resolution
No. 97-267, and requested of the City Clerk to transmit said instrument to you.
Attached hereto, please find the above -cited Resolution, which is self-explanatory.
Respectfully submitted
Walte n
City Clerk
Enc.: Resolution #97-267
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK/ 3500 Pan American Drive/P.O. Box 330708/Miami, FL 33233/(305) 250-5360/FAX: (305) 858-1610
WALTER ). FOEMAN
City Clerk
C tt f �t i
V Op tf
n u
The Honorable Debbie Horan
Dade Counttyy Legislative Delegation
3132 Northside Drive - Suite 201
Key West, FL 33040
RE:
Dear Representative Horan:
May 12, 1997
Resolution #97-267
EDWARD MARQUEZ
City Manager
The City of Miami Commission, at its meeting of April 2, 1997, passed and adopted Resolution
No. 97-267, and requested of the City Clerk to transmit said instrument to you.
Attached hereto, please find the above -cited Resolution, which is self-explanatory.
Respectfully submitted,
Walter J. man
City Clerk
Enc.: Resolution #97-267
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK/ 3500 Pan American Drive/P.O. Box 330708/Miami, FL 33233/(305) 250-5360/FAX: (305) 858-1610
QLt #ij a 'ffltamt
WALTER 1• FOEMAN
City Clerk
May 12, 1997
The Honorable Larcenia Bullard
Dade County Legislative Delegation
10700 Caribbean Building #1 - Suite 302
Miami, FL 33169
RE: Resolution #97-267
Dear Representative Bullard:
EDWARD MARQUEZ
City Manager
The City of Miami Commission, at its meeting of April 2, 1997, passed and adopted Resolution
No. 97-267, and requested of the City Clerk to transmit said instrument to you.
Attached hereto, please find the above -cited Resolution, which is self-explanatory.
R spectfully submitte ,
.�
Walter . o n
City Clerk
Enc.: Resolution #97-267
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK/ 3500 Pan American Drive/P.O. Box 330708/Miami, FL 33233/(305) 250-5360/FAX: (305) 858.1610
WALTER 1. FOEMAN
City Clerk
Chit rf
\qY op 1!
M ! uuuQN
t
n n
The Honorable Carlos Lacasa
Dade County Legislative Delegation
3191 Coral Way - Suite 616
Miami, FL 33143
RE:
Dear Representative Lacasa:
May 12, 1997
Resolution #97-267
EDWARD MARQUEZ
City Manager
The City of Miami Commission, at its meeting of April 2, 1997, passed and adopted Resolution
No. 97-267, and requested of the City Clerk to transmit said instrument to you.
Attached hereto, please find the above -cited Resolution, which is self-explanatory.
RespVtfully submitted,
Walter . F an
City Cie
Enc.: Resolution #97-267
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK/ 3500 Pan American Drive/P.O. Box 330708/Miami, FL 33233/(305) 250-5360/FAX: (305) 858-1610
Cat#fir of iami
sQ.•
WALTER 1• FOEMAN EDWARD MARQUEZ
City Clerk 7 i���iil ��� �� J City Manager
May 12, 1997
The Honorable Annie Betancourt
Dade County Legislative Delegation
10691 North Kendall Drive - Suite 103
Miami, FL 33176
RE: Resolution #97-267
Dear Representative Betancourt:
The City of Miami Commission, at its meeting of April 2, 1997, passed and adopted Resolution
No. 97-267, and requested of the City Clerk to transmit said instrument to you.
Attached hereto, please find the above -cited Resolution, which is self-explanatory.
Respectfully sub :'fteda,
G
alter J. F
City Clerk
Enc.: Resolution #97-267
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK/ 3500 Pan American Drive/P.O. Box 330708/Miami, FL 33233/(305) 250-5360/FAX: (305) 858-1610
Chi#ij n# 'ffliaMt
WALTER 1. FOEMAN
City Clerk
The Honorable Alex Diaz De La Portilla
Dade County Legislative Delegation
1405 S.W. 107 Avenue - Suite 301-G
Miami, FL 33174
RE:
May 12, 1997
Resolution #97-267
EDWARD MARQUEZ
City Manager
Dear Representative Diaz De La Portilla:
The City of Miami Commission, at its meeting of April 2, 1997, passed and adopted Resolution
No. 97-267, and requested of the City Clerk to transmit said instrument to you.
Attached hereto, please find the above -cited Resolution, which is self-explanatory.
Resp tfully submitted,
alter J F
City Cierk
Enc.: Resolution #97-267
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK/ 3500 Pan American Drive/P.O. Box 330708/Miami, FL 33233/(305) 250-5360/FAX: (305) 858-1610
Cat #ij nf taMt
V Op t,
•WALTER J. FOEMAN
City Clerk
The Honorable Jorge Rodriguez-Chomat
Dade County Legislative Delegation
825 Sayshore Drive - Suite 1750
Miami, FL 33131
May 12, 1997
RE: Resolution #97-267
Dear Representative Rodriguez-Chomat
EDWARD MARQUEZ
City Manager
The City of Miami Commission, at its meeting of April 2, 1997, passed and adopted Resolution
No. 97-267, and requested of the City Clerk to transmit said instrument to you.
Attached hereto, please find the above -cited Resolution, which is self-explanatory.
Respe ully su fitted,
Valter
. ma
City Clerk
Enc.: Resolution #97-267
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK/ 3500 Pan American Drive/P.O. Box 330708/Miami, FL 33233/(305) 250-5360/FAX: (305) 858-1610
(11,ttg nf tMriit
WALTER I. FOEMAN
City Clerk
The Honorable Luis C. Morse
Dade County Legislative Delegation
807 S.W. 25th Avenue - Suite 302
Miami, FL 33135
RE:
Dear Representative Morse:
May 12, 1997
Resolution #97-267
EDWARD MARQUEZ
City Manager
The City of Miami Commission, at its meeting of April 2, 1997, passed and adopted Resolution
No. 97-267, and requested of the City Cleric to transmit said instrument to you.
Attached hereto, please find the above -cited Resolution, which is self-explanatory.
Respectfully submitted,
Walter J. man
City Clerk
Enc.: Resolution #97-267
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK/ 3500 Pan American Drive/P.O. Box 330708/Miami, FL 33233/(305) 250-5360/FAX: (305) 858-1610
WALTER I, FOEMAN
City Clerk
The Honorable J. Alex Villalobos
Dade County Legislative Delegation
` 2350 Coral Way - Suite 202-A
Miami, FL 33145
RE:
Dear Representative Villalobos:
of M T-
Oun�i iiuu '
May 12, 1997
Resolution #97-267
EDWARD MARQUEZ
City 1ianager
The City of Miami Commission, at its meeting of April 2, 1997, passed and adopted Resolution
No. 97-267, and requested of the City Clerk to transmit said instrument to you.
Attached hereto, please find the above -cited Resolution, which is self-explanatory.
a
ly miffed,
oeman
City Clerk
Enc.: Resolution #97-267
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK/ 3500 Pan American Drive/P.O. Box 330708/Miami, FL 33233/(305) 250-5360/FAX: (305) 858-1610
I
1
'(1.1tt f ntt
WALTER 1• FOEMAN City Clerk EDWARD MAR UEZ
; i,,,,� ,,,, T Q
p City Manager
O��'O•• F Vv�`
May 12, 1997
The Honorable Carlos L. Valdes
Dade County Legislative Delegation
7175 S.W. 8th Street - Suite 201
Miami, FL 33144
RE: Resolution #97-267
Dear Representative Valdes:
The City of Miami Commission, at its meeting of April 2, 1997, passed and adopted Resolution
No. 97-267, and requested of the City Clerk to transmit said Instrument to you.
Attached hereto, please find the above -cited Resolution, which is self-explanatory.
Respectfully miffed
Walter an
City Clerk
Enc.: Resolution #97-267
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK/ 3500 Pan American Drive/P.O. Box 330708/Miami, FL 33233/(305) 250-5360/FAX: (305) 858-1610
CTt#jj .rf ianti
'0Y of b
K' �9
WALTER J. FOEMAN n EDWARD MARQUEZ
City Clerk r uuu uuu
F� City Manager
0' `
May 12, 1997
The Honorable Rodolfo Garcia, Jr.
Dade County Legislative Delegation
368 West 21 st Street
Hialeah, FL 33010
RE: Resolution #97-267
Dear Representative Garcia:
The City of Miami Commission, at its meeting of April 2, 1997, passed and adopted Resolution
No. 97-267, and requested of the City Clerk to transmit said instrument to you.
Attached hereto, please find the above -cited Resolution, which is self-explanatory.
Respectfully sub fitted
Walter J. oeman
City Clerk
Eno.: Resolution #97-267
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK/ 3500 Pan American Drive/P.O. Box 330708/Miami, FL 33233/(305) 250-5360/FAX: (305) 858-1610
fit# f , taMT-
WALTER 1• FOEMAN * 3 EDWARD MARQUEZ
CityClerk
o City Manager
C'O., V-
May 12, 1997
The Honorable James Bush, II I
Dade County Legislative Delegation
3550 Biscayne Boulevard - Suite 405
Miami, FL 33137-4139
RE: Resolution #97-267
Dear Representative Bush:
The City of Miami Commission, at its meeting of April 2, 1997, passed and adopted Resolution
No. 97-267, and requested of the City Clerk to transmit said instrument to you.
Attached hereto, please find the above -cited Resolution, which is self-explanatory.
Respectfully submitted,
Walter eman
City Clerk
Enc.: Resolution #97-267
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK/ 3500 Pan American Drive/P.O. Box 330708/Miami, FL 33233/(305) 250-5360/FAX: (305) 858-1610
Chi#g o f tamt
WALTER 1. FOEMAN
City Clerk
The Honorable Beryl Burke
Dade County Legislative Delegation
7900 N.E. 2nd Avenue - Suite 705
Miami, FL 33138
RE:
Dear Representative Burke:
V op !,
v��C,U.• F�,14`O
May 12, 1997
Resolution #97-267
EDWARD MARQUEZ
City Manager
The City of Miami Commission, at its meeting of April 2, 1997, passed and adopted Resolution
No. 97-267, and requested of the City Clerk to transmit said instrument to you.
Attached hereto, please find the above -cited Resolution, which is self-explanatory.
Re a,,fully submitted,
Walter J. an
City Clerk
Enc.: Resolution #97-267
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK/ 3500 Pan American Drive/P.O. Box 330708/Miami, FL 33233/(305) 250-5360/FAX: (305) 858-1610
014-tij of tami
WALTER I. FOEMAN
City Clerk
The Honorable Bruno A. Barreiro
Dade County Legislative Delegation
1454 S.W. 1 st Street - Suite 100
Miami, FL 33135
RE:
Dear Representative Barreiro:
May 12, 1997
Resolution #97-267
EDWARD MARQUEZ
City Manager
The City of Miami Commission, at its meeting of April 2, 1997, passed and adopted Resolution
No. 97-267, and requested of the City Clerk to transmit said instrument to you.
Attached hereto, please find the above -cited Resolution, which is self-explanatory.
Respectfully submitted,
Walter J. man
City Clerk
Eno.: Resolution #97-267
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK/ 3500 Pan American Drive/P.O. Box 330708/Miami, FL 33233/(305) 250-5360/FAX: (305) 858-1610
Cat# f 'ffl raM1
-V Op �!
WALTER 1. FOEMAN EDWARD MARQUEZ
City Clerk 11111; M111 ac City Manager
May 12, 1997
The Honorable Elaine Bloom
.Dade County Legislative Delegation
300 71 st Street - Suite 504
Miami Beach, FL 33141
RE: Resolution #97-267
Dear Representative Bloom:
The City of Miami Commission, at its meeting of April 2, 1997, passed and adopted Resolution
No. 97-267, and requested of the City Clerk to transmit said instrument to you.
Attached hereto, please find the above -cited Resolution, which is self-explanatory.
Respectfully submitted,
alter J. oeman
City Clerk
Enc.: Resolution #97-267
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK/ 3500 Pan American Drive/P.O. Box 330708/Miami, FL 33233/(305) 250-5360/FAX: (305) 858-1610
WALTER J. FOEMAN
City Clerk
The Honorable Sally Heyman
Dade County Legislative Delegation
17101 N.E. 19 Avenue - Suite 205
North Miami Beach, FL 33162
RE:
Dear Representative Heyman:
May 12, 1997
Resolution #97-267
EDWARD MARQUEZ
City Manager
The City of Miami Commission, at its meeting of April 2, 1997, passed and adopted Resolution
No. 97-267, and requested of the City Clerk to transmit said instrument to you.
Attached hereto, please find the above -cited Resolution, which is self-explanatory.
R spectfu11 s mitted,
Walter J. oeman
City Clerk
Enc.: Resolution #97-267
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK/ 3500 Pan American Drive/P.O. Box 330708/Miami, FL 33233/(305) 250-5360/FAX: (305) 858-1610
Ott oaf �t�x
��qY Op li
WALTER 1• FOEMAN EDWARD ,NtARQUEZ
City Clerk
y „ „ City Manager
Q
May 12, 1997
The Honorable Kendrick Meek
Dade County Legislative Delegation
111 N.W. 183rd Street - Suite 408
Miami, FL 33169
RE: Resolution #97-267
Dear Representative Meek:
The City of Miami Commission, at its meeting of April 2, 1997, passed and adopted Resolution
No. 97-267, and requested of the City Clerk to transmit said instrument to you.
Attached hereto, please find the above -cited Resolution, which is self-explanatory.
Re a tfully sub itted,
Walter J. an
City Clerk
Enc.: Resolution #97-267
0FFICE OF THE CITY CLERK/ 3500 Pan American Drive/P.0. Box 330708/Miami, FL 33233A305) 250-5360/FAX: (305) 858-1610
C�tt� a# i�tmt
WALTER I. FOEMAN
City Clerk
The Honorable Willie Logan
Dade County Legislative Delegation
490 Opa Locka Boulevard - Room 21
Opa Locka, FL 33054
RE:
Dear Representative Logan:
May 12, 1997
Resolution #97-267
EDWARD MARQUEZ
City Manager
The City of Miami Commission, at its meeting of April 2, 1997, passed and adopted Resolution
No. 97-267, and requested of the City Clerk to transmit said instrument to you.
Attached hereto, please find the above -cited Resolution, which is self-explanatory.
Resp tfull;sub, tted,
Walter . Fo
City Cl
Enc.: Resolution #97-267
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK/ 3500 Pan American Drive/P,O. Box 330708/Miami, FL 33233/(305) 250-5360/FAX: (305) 658-1610
(fl,it�r a tamt
WALTER ). FOENIAN
City Clerk
The Honorable Luis Rojas
Dade County Legislative Delegation
6011 West 16th Avenue
Hialeah, FL 33012
RE:
Dear Representative Rojas:
May 12, 1997
Resolution #97-267
EDWARD MARQUEZ
City Manager
The City of Miami Commission, at its meeting of April 2, 1997, passed and adopted Resolution
No. 97-267, and requested of the City Clerk to transmit said instrument to you.
Attached hereto, please find the above -cited Resolution, which is self-explanatory.
7Resp Ily submitted
alter J. �e2h
City Clerk
Enc.: Resolution #97-267
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK/ 3500 Pan American Drive/P.O. Box 330708/Miami, FL 33233/(305) 250-5360/FAX: (305) 858-1610
Cat#g of 4Htamt
Y oF.y
WALTER J. FOEMAN
City Clerk
May 12, 1997
The Honorable Steven A. Geller
Dade County Legislative Delegation
400 South Federal Highway -Suite 204
Hallandale, FL 3300,cj
RE: Resolution #97-267
Dear Representative Geller:
EDWARD MARQUEZ
City Manager
The City of Miami Commission, at its meeting of April 2, 1997, passed and adopted Resolution
No. 97-267, and requested of the City Clerk to transmit said instrument to you,
Attached hereto, please find the above -cited Resolution, which is self-explanatory.
Respectfully submitted,
Walter J. man
City Clerk
Enc.: Resolution #97-267
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK/ 3500 Pan American Drive/P.O. Box 330708/Miami, FL 33233/(305► 250-5360/FAX: (305) 858-1610
Cat#g of t�t�tt
WALTER ). FOEMAN
City Clerk
The Honorable Daryl L. Jones
Dade County Legislative Delegation
' 9300 South Dadeland Boulevard
Suite #401
Miami, FL 33156
RE:
Dear Senator Jones:
May 12, 1997
Resolution #97-267
EDWARD MARQUEZ
City Manager
The City of Miami Commission, at its meeting of April 2, 1997, passed and adopted Resolution
No. 97-267, and requested of the City Clerk to transmit said instrument to you.
Attached hereto, please find the above -cited Resolution, which is self-explanatory.
ully submitted
tCity Clerk
Enc.: Resolution #97-267
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK/ 3500 Pan American Drive/P.O. Box 330708/Miami, FL 33233A305) 250-5360/FAX: (305) 858-1610
(11,i#-a a iami
WALTER J. FOEMAN
City Clerk
The Honorable Roberto Casas
Dade County Legislative Delegation
4821 West 4th Avenue
Hialeah, FL 33012
RE:
Dear Senator Casas:
May 12, 1997
Resolution #97-267
EDWARD MARQUEZ
City Manager
The City of Miami Commission, at its meeting of April 2, 1997, passed and adopted Resolution
No. 97-267, and requested of the City Clerk to transmit said instrument to you.
Attached hereto, please find the above -cited Resolution, which is self-explanatory.
es ctfully suJart itted,
Walter . oeman
City Clerk
Enc.: Resolution #97-267
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK/ 3500 Pan American Drive/P.O. Box 330708/Miami, FL 33233/(305) 250-5360/FAX: (305) 858-1610
ttIj of 'ffliami
�OV Op
�c�7
WALTER i. FOEMAN EDWARD MARQUEZ
City Clerk City Manager
May 12, 1997
The Honorable Ronald A. Silver
Dade County Legislative Delegation
115 N.W. 167th Street - 2nd Floor
North Miami Beach, FL 33169
RE: Resolution #97-267
Dear Senator Silver:
Tho ®iri of Miami Cammleelant M Ito mesting of April 81 1997, passed and a dopield Rosolwtlen
No. 97-267, and requested of the City Clerk to transmit said instrument to you.
Attached hereto, please find the above -cited Resolution, which is self-explanatory.
Res ec I
lly
Walter J.
City Clerk
Enc.: Resolution #97-267
1
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK/ 3500 Pan American Drive/P.O. Box 330708/Miami, FL 33233/(305) 250-5360/FAX: (305) 858-1610
WALTER J. FOEMAN
City Clerk
The Honorable Mario Diaz-Balart
Dade County Legislative Delegation
8890 Coral Way - Suite 215
Miami, FL 33165
RE:
Dear Senator Diaz-Balart:
May 12, 1997
Resolution #97-267
EDWARD P1ARQUEZ
Citv Manager
The City of Miami Commission, at its meeting of April 2, 1997, passed and adopted Resolution
No. 97-267, and requested of the City Clerk to transmit said instrument to you.
Attached hereto, please find the above -cited Resolution, which is self-explanatory.
Respectfully su itted,
alter J
City Clerk
Enc.: Resolution #97-267
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK/ 3500 Pan American Drive/P.O. Box 330708/Miami, FL 33233/(305) 250-5360/FAX: (305) 858-1610
Cat#� of titriTt
WALTER 1• FOEMAN
City Clerk
The Honorable William H. Turner
Dade County Legislative Delegation
9999 N.E. 2nd Avenue - Suite 207
Miami Shores, FL 33138
[V4
Dear Senator Turner:
May 12, 1997
Resolution #97-267
EDWARD ,MARQUEZ
City Manager
The City of Miami Commission, >at lie meeting of April 211997, passed and adepiad RoGeNtien
No. 97-267, and requested of the City Clerk to transmit said instrument to you.
Attached hereto, please find the above -cited Resolution, which is self-explanatory.
Resp ctfuliy submitted
i
Walter oe n
City Clerk
Enc.: Resolution #97-267
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK/ 3500 Pan American Drive/P.O. Box 330708/Miami, FL 33233/(305) 250-5360/FAX: (305) 858-1610
Chi#g of t�x�tt
WALTER 1• FOEMAN
City Clerk
May 12, 1997
The Honorable Alberto Gutman
Dade County Legislative Delegation
1800 S.W. 27th Avenue - Suite 300
Miami, FL 33145
Resolution #97-267
Dear Senator Gutman:
EDWARD MARQUEZ
City Manager
The City of Miami Commission, at its meeting of April 2, 1997, passed and adopted Resolution
No. 97-267, and requested of the City Clerk to transmit said instrument to you.
Attached hereto, please find the above -cited Resolution, which is self-explanatory.
Res a tfully fitted,
alter J. man
City Clerk
Enc.: Resolution #97-267
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK/ 3500 Pan American Drive/P.O. Box 33070E/Miami, FL 33233/(305) 250-5360/FAX: (305) 858-1610
WALTER 1• FOEMAN
City Clerk
Cat#g V rf ta Mt
May 12, 1997
The Honorable Howard C. Forman
Dade County Legislative Delegation
4000 Hollywood Boulevard - Suite 340N
Hollywood, FL 33021-6744
RE: Resolution #97-267
Dear Senator Forman:
EDWARD MARQUEZ
City Manager
The City of Miami Commission, at its meeting of April 2, 1997, passed and adopted Resolution
No. 97-267, and requested of the City Clerk to transmit said instrument to you.
Attached hereto, please find the above -cited Resolution, which is self-explanatory.
Re pe tfully s itted,
Walter J. F man
City CI
Enc.: Resolution #97-267
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK/ 3500 Pan American Drive/P.O. Box 33070B/Miami, FL 33233/(305) 250-5360/FAX: (305) 858-1610
T111-tij of tamt
t4 b
WALTER J. FOEMAN
City Clerk
+ The Honorable Daniel Webster
Speaker of the
• Florida House of Representatives
420 The Capitol
Tallahassee, FL 32399
RE:
May 12, 1997
Resolution #97-267
EDWARD MARQUEZ
City Manager
Dear Speaker Webster:
The City of Miami Commission, at its meeting of April 2, 1997, passed and adopted Resolution
No. 97-267, and requested of the City Clerk to transmit said instrument to you.
Attached hereto, please find the above -cited Resolution, which is self-explanatory.
Resp ctfully itte ,
Walter eman
City Clerk
Enc.: Resolution #97-267
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK/ 3500 Pan American Drive/P.O. Box 330708/Miami, FL 33233/(305) 250-5360/FAX: (305) 858-1610
C tt
f ffl taMi
t OF t-
WALTER I, FOEMAN
City Clerk
,,,,,I ,,,, T
o'
May 12, 1997
EDWARD MARQUEZ
City Manager
The Honorable Toni Jennings
President, Florida Senate
409 The Capitol
Tallahassee, FL 32399
RE: Resolution #97-267
Dear President Jennings:
The City of Miami Commission, at its meeting of April 2, 1997, passed and adopted Resolution
No. 97-267, and requested of the City Clerk to .transmit said instrument to you.
Attached hereto, please find the above -cited Resolution, which is self-explanatory.
QEz7L___1/
City Clerk
Enc.: Resolution #97-267
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK/ 3500 Pan American Drive/P.O. Box 330708/Miami, FL 33233/(305) 250-5360/FAX: (305) 858-1610
�tt Ij IIf taxlit
WALTER J. FOEMAN
City Clerk
The Honorable Lawton Chiles
Governor, The State of Florida
Executive Office of the Governor
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001
RE:
Dear Governor Chiles:
May 12, 1997
Resolution #97-267
EDWARD MARQUEZ
City Manager
The City of Miami Commission, at its meeting of April 2, 1997, passed and adopted Resolution
No. 97-267, and requested of the City Clerk to transmit said Instrument to you.
Attached hereto, please find the above -cited Resolution, which is self-explanatory.
Resp ctfull mitt ,
Walter J. oe an
City Clerk
Enc.: Resolution #97-267
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK/ 3500 Pan American Drive/P.O. Box 330708/Miami, FL 33233/(305) 250-5360/FAX: (305) 858-1610
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
- 12.
_ INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM Y
TO : DATE : FILE
Office of the City Manager
SUBJECT March 25, 1997
Personal Appearance
4t2l97
FROM : REFERENCES:
5
Office of the Mayor ENCLOSURES:
Please schedule Fran Bohnsack, Ph.D. for a personal appearance during the April 2, 1997
City Commission Meeting. Dr. Bohnsack will be discussing potential state legislation to
create a Miami river Authority.
1
97- 29-7
MIAMI RIVER COORDINATING COMMITTED;
A private . public portnefship for the common good of The State of Flonrlu . Metropoldun•Dade County . The City of Mumu
December 11, 1996
Governor Lawton Chiles
State of Florida The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
Dear Governor Chiles:
Thank you for giving the Miami River Coordinating Committee
(MRCC) the opportunity to provide you with our report and
recommendations regarding the advantages and disadvantages of
establishing a Miami River Authority. As you know, our committee
and other local interests involved in the Miami River were not
given the opportunity to provide input in the formulation of the
1996 Miami River Authority Bill. The MRCC has taken the following
steps to receive input from the local community:
1. Requested comments and provided an outline for local
governments, marine industry, river homeowners
associations, downtown business interests and other
interested parties to complete (see appendix A).
2. Received oral comments from the public at a Miami River
Coordinating Committee meeting on September 18, 1996
(see appendix B).
3. Sponsored a Miami River Authority Workshop on November
7, 1996. Hired an independent facilitator to conduct
the workshop, tabulate questionnaires provided to
participants and write an exit report (see appendix C).
Throughout the process the MRCC was impressed with the
amount of concern and interest which was evident from the level
of participation in meetings and workshops and the amount of
comments received both orally and in written form. Although
everyone shared the same interest in improving conditions on the
river, no one was able to provide specific ways that an authority
would be able to operate effectively on the river, provide
enforcement at the same level as agencies are providing now and
be able to fund the operation. The plethora of generalities made
the task of analyzing the authority issue difficult. The MRCC
created an outline which: 1) reviewed each power and duty
proposed in the 1996 Miami River Authority bill 2) stated the
advantages and disadvantages of each power and duty 3) made
recommendations for each item (see appendix D).
25 S.E. 2nd Avenue, Sufle 621 - Miami, Florida 331.31 - Office: (305) 373-1915 - Fax (305) 3SS,%M
CHAIR - Janet Gavarrete VICE CHAIR - Joey Teitelbaum EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR - Betty C. I'll
MEMBERS - Governor Lawton Chiles - Armando Vidal - Cesar Odio -Jim Brown - Gwen Calloway - Lundy Clarke - Santiepo Ect*men dla - Arsenio Millian - Bgan Nald
97-- 267
Page 2.
Governor Lawton Chiles
December 11, 1996
Set forth below is a summary of the MRCC Report's
conclusions:
I. Composition and Selection of Miami River
Authority Hoard:
There was unanimous consensus that an authority, or any
other type of entity, must be governed by a board which is
composed of representatives from local government, marine
industry, river homeowners associations and downtown
business interests. Without the assurances that the profile
of an authority is representative of local interests, the
creation of any new entity is universally not supported.
II. Authority of Eminent Domain:
The City of Miami and Metro -Dade County already have the
power to use eminent domain when necessary to accomplish a
valid public purpose. An authority would be set up to
address more narrow goals and would take away the
responsibility of eminent domain power over the river from
local elected officials and bestow it on an appointed
authority board. Since all of the river businesses are
privately owned they are threatened by the idea of the power
of eminent domain in the hands of non -elected officials.
Eminent domain is best kept as a responsibility of local
government.
III. Regulatory Authority to Prevent Environmental
Degradation:
The MRCC found no advantages for the transfer of
environmental regulatory authority to a state entity. The
Miami River is part of a complex system and cannot be
managed in isolation. A new entity would require broad
expertise and would duplicate existing local and state
agencies. The MRCC recommended that the State Department of
Environmental Protection maximize delegation to local
environmental agencies in order to facilitate and streamline
permitting and enforcement.
IV. Regulatory Authority to Enhance Public Health and
Safety:
The neighborhood groups were concerned about more police
protection. The City of Miami's Miami River Master Plan
analyzed the costs of additional police patrols for the
river (see Appendix D). An authority would have to depend on
federal agencies for cooperation. If an authority had its
25 S.E. 2nd Avenue - Suite 821 • Miami, Florida 33131 -Office: (305) 373-1915 . Fax: (305) 358-5933
MIAMI RIVER COORDINATING COMMITTEE
97- 267
i
Page 3.
Governor Lawton Chiles
December 11, 1996
own police force it would still depend on local police for
support and backup. The cost of this protection would
require either additional taxation or user fees which could
eliminate the competitive advantage of marine businesses.
Code enforcement officers would be costly to train and
retain. The MRCC recommends that the joint enforcement
efforts that have been initiated by the Miami River Quality
Action Team are the best way to provide code enforcement on
the river. Additional police protection would best be
provided by existing city and county police departments. A
special taxing district could be established locally without
the need for a river authority if the majority of the
property owners agree.
! V. Regulatory Authority to Maintain the Viability of the
Miami River as a Major Port Facility and Enhance
Navigation:
A port authority for the Miami River is problematic because
all the marine terminals are privately owned and the
authority would not own any facilities. Federal agencies
such as the US Coast Guard have primary responsibility over
the port and navigation issues. A state authority could be
advantageous to the dredging project if it could access
funds not available to local government.
The MRCC recommends that Dade County or a consortium of
local agencies sponsor the dredging project. The dredging
would be achieved in a more timely fashion by existing
agencies than by a newly formed port authority.
VI. Regulatory Authority Necessary to Ensure that
Comprehensive Development Plans for the Miami River
Area include Provisions for the Development of the
River's Intrinsic Tourist Attraction Assets:
The MRCC recommends that local governments continue to
implement their comprehensive development plans which
address the river's intrinsic tourist attractions. These
plans have been created by local governments to ensure
balance among competing interests. Authority board members
would not be elected officials and not accountable to the
local community. These plans do not necessitate creation of
a river authority for implementation.
25 S.E. 2nd Avenue - Suite 621 - Miami, Florida 33131 -Ofce: (305) 373-1915 - Fax: (305) 358-5933
MIAMI RIVER COORDINATING COMMITTEE
9 7 - 267
Page 4.
Governor Lawton Chiles
December 11, 1996
VII. Centralize State and Local Jurisdictions in a
Single Authority:
Consolidation of state and local jurisdictions would be more
costly than to continue to rely on existing agencies.
Federal agencies would not delegate jurisdiction and the
authority would have to depend on their cooperation.
Transfer of existing enforcement funds to an authority is
not feasible since agencies do not have separate budgets for
river enforcement. The Miami River enforcement is subsidized
by agencies' total budgets.
VIII. Create a Port Authority to Oversee and Regulate
the Miami River:
A Port Authority could impose additional fees on the marine
industry which would jeopardize the river's competitive
advantage. The port authority would not own any marine
facilities. The port authority would have to rely on
cooperation from federal agencies and would not be able to
assume jurisdiction over navigation. The MRCC recommends the
Miami River Quality Action Team continue to coordinate
enforcement efforts on the river in order to maintain the
commercial viability of the Port of Miami River.
In conclusion, the MRCC does not support the creation of a
Miami River Authority as proposed in terms of its powers, duties
and composition. Our study found that river -related issues would
not be advanced through the creation of such an authority. There
is no justifiable reason to create a state entity to address
local issues when these issues are being addressed by local
government agencies; such an entity would merely add another
layer of bureaucracy. Furthermore, a state authority, by imposing
its supervisory responsibility over agencies and local
governments without providing the necessary local control, would
instill resentment in the local community without appropriate
accountability. The state authority would not be able to gain
jurisdiction over important navigation and environmental
responsibilities of federal agencies and the authority would have
to rely on their cooperation, just as local agencies do now.
The amount of interest in the Miami River Authority issue
has led the MRCC to begin thinking of alternative entities which
may be better suited to serve the River. The MRCC would like to
undertake a study, which would be ready for the 1998 Legislative
Session, of what type of board or entity, if any, would be
appropriate for the River. The concept, if developed, would go
through a thorough public process much like the careful and
deliberate manner in which the MRCC was created. The success,
longevity and sustained efforts of the MRCC is due in a large
25 S.E. 2nd Avenue • Suite 621 - Miami, Florida 33131 -Office: (305) 373-1915 - Fax: (305) 358-5933
MIAMI RIVER COORDINATING COMMITTEE
97- 267
Page 5.
Governor Lawton Chiles
December 11, 1996
part to the care with which it was formed. Through careful
deliberation and an open process by which the public can
participate, it is conceivable that we would be able to offer a
specific recommendation regarding the possibility of creating a
new entity which would best serve the River. This public process
would begin with the identification of River related issues and
then address what type of entity could advance these issues.
In the meantime, the MRCC believes that significant
improvements are being realized through the cooperative efforts
of the Miami River Quality Action Team (QAT). This group, under
the leadership of the US Coast Guard, meets monthly and addresses
chronic river problems and creates acceptable solutions in a
forum comprised of government agencies, business owners and
interested parties. The US Coast Guard will enforce Operation
Safety Net effective July 1, 1997. This program will eliminate
sub -standard vessels from the Miami River. These vessels have a
history of trading in stolen merchandise, carrying crews of
illegal aliens who disappear into the community and producing
solid waste problems from abandoned cargo along the river
shoreline. Operation Safety Net was specifically designed for
our region to deal with these problems. Once the sub -standard
vessels are removed, larger vessels with proper safety and
environmental equipment would replace them and improve maritime
business on the river.
The Miami River is a unique resource. Everyone who uses the
River has a stake in its future. Enforcement personnel is
limited. Through cooperative ventures, like the QAT, the
community can police and improve conditions on the River through
a process of education and constructive dialogue between the
regulators and the regulated. The proposed MRCC study could also
determine a new type of entity which would enable all interests
on the River to work together more effectively.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the proposed MRCC
study. If you have any questions, or need additional information,
please call me at (305) 373-1915.
Sincerely,
Janet avar
Chair
cc: Federal Delegation
Dade Delegation
Board of County Commissioners
City of Miami Commission
Interested Parties
25 S.E. 2nd Avenue - Suite 621 - Miami, Florida 33131 - Office: (305) 373-1915 - Fax: (305) 358-5933
MIAM1 RIVER COORDINATING COMMITTEE
97- 267
Miami River Authority
Report to Governor Lawton Chiles
from the
Miami River Coordinating Committee
December 11, 1996
The Miami River Coordinating Committee has reviewed oral and
written comments from local governments, agencies and river
related organizations and sponsored a workshop which provided a
forum for oral and written statements from the local community.
After a thorough analysis of the information gathered, the Miami
River Coordinating Committee has determined the following
advantages and disadvantaged for each power and duty as proposed
in the 1996 Miami River Authority Bill.
I. Powers and Duties of Miami River Authority:
MRCC
RECOMMENDATION: The Miami River Coordinating Committee does
not support the creation of a Miami River Authority as
proposed, in terms of its powers, duties and composition.
II. Composition and Selection of Miami River Authority Board:
ADVANTAGES: No advantages
DISADVANTAGES: Authority not operated by locally
accountable board.
No profile of Authority board members
that is representative of local interests or
even requires them to be residents of Dade
County.
Appointment process removes river from local
control and gives it to the state.
An authority will need to work cooperatively
with the Port of Miami. This can only be
achieved through direct involvement of the
Dade County Commission through its
appointments.
MRCC
RECOMMENDATION:Any new entity that would have jurisdiction
over the river must be operated by a balanced board which
1
0(1
`-)or:
9 7 - 2 6'7 Cir:J Clerk
should include representatives from the marine industry,
local governments, river homeowner associations and downtown
business interests. The appointments made by the Governor
should not exceed the combined number of local government
appointees. Without the assurances that the profile of the
Authority is representative of local interests, the creation
of any new entity is not supported regardless of its power.
III. Authority of Eminent Domain:
ADVANTAGES: Use of the power of eminent domain to acquire
land from an unwilling seller to accomplish a
public purpose such as park land/riverwalk,
or staging area needed for the dredging
project.
DISADVANTAGES: Dade County already has the power to use
eminent domain for a wide range of public
purposes. The City of Miami also has the
power to use eminent domain for a more
limited set of public purposes. A river
authority would only duplicate and circumvent
the power of local government. It would take
away this responsibility from elected
officials and bestow it upon an appointed
authority which, by definition, is set up to
achieve a more narrowly defined set of goals
and objectives.
A substantial source of funding and
professional expertise would be needed by an
authority to exercise eminent domain.
MRCC
RECOMMNDATION: A river authority is not necessary. Local
government can exercise the power of eminent domain when
necessary to accomplish a valid public purpose, as defined
by the local comprehensive development plans.
IV. Regulatory Authority Necessary to Prevent Environmental
Degradation:
ADVANTAGES: No Advantages.
DISADVANTAGES: Environmental problems on the Miami River are
complex and interconnected to the Biscayne
Bay system, a regional drainage basin and
countywide water and sewer system. The Miami
River cannot be managed in isolation. Dade
County does not support the delegation of its
2
9'7- 267
V.
environmental regulation to an authority. A
new entity would require broad expertise
which already exists in local and state
agencies. Duplication would be costly and
inefficient.
MRCC
RECOMMENDATION: The State Department of Environmental
Protection should maximize delegation of environmental
regulation authority to Dade County Department of
Environmental Resources Management in order to facilitate
and streamline permitting and enforcement.
Regulatory Authority to Enhance Public Health and Safety:
ADVANTAGES: Provide funding for additional law
enforcement activities on the river,
particularly in the areas of police and code
enforcement.
DISADVANTAGES: The additional police personnel needed to
provide 24-hour presence on the river would
require a significant amount of funding (see
attachment).
The river authority would be dependent on the
local police departments for support and
backup.
Federal law would preclude the river
authority police from enforcing important
laws that are the exclusive responsibility of
the US Coast Guard, US Customs and US Border
Patrol.
Code enforcement officers employed by a river
authority would need to have expertise in a
wide range of disciplines currently regulated
by numerous different agencies, (i.e. zoning,
plumbing, electrical, structural engineering,
sanitation, environmental...) It would be
difficult to find and costly to retain such
highly trained employees. Otherwise, the
river authority would be dependent on
cooperation and assistance from other
agencies, as is the case today with the Miami
River Quality Action Team.
Business and residents are fearful of
additional taxation or user fees imposed to
generate revenue for more enforcement. Marine
3
97-- 267
businesses believe additional taxes would
eliminate their competitive advantage and
they may have to relocate or close.
MRCC
RECOMMENDATION: The Miami River Quality Action Team is
clearly the most cost effective way to provide code
enforcement on the river, with federal, state and local
agencies sharing expertise and cost. Significant strides
have been made in the past year under the leadership of
Captain Miller, and the frequency of violations are expected
to decrease after July 1, 1997 due to Operation Safety Net.
Additional police presence on the river would be desirable,
however, the appropriate means of providing it requires
careful study. Most likely, the existing city and county
police departments need to be the primary providers, because
an exclusive river authority police force could not function
effectively on its own. The only advantage a river authority
would offer is to provide a source of funding from the state
or through imposition of user fees. A special taxing
district could be established locally without the need for a
river authority if a majority of the affected property
owners agree.
VI. Regulatory Authority Necessary to Maintain the Viability of
the Miami River as a Major Port Facility and Enhance
Navigation:
ADVANTAGES: A Port Authority could act as the local
sponsor for the Miami River Dredging Project
or become the entity to advocate it. An
authority may be eligible for funding from
Florida Seaport Transportation and Economic
Development Trust Fund or other funding
sources. However, it is unclear how much
funding would be available from the Florida
Seaport Transportation and Economic
Development Trust Fund for the dredging
project and whether that would justify the
expense of establishing an authority.
DISADVANTAGES: A port authority would not own any facilities
on the river so the "Port" would not be able
to provide any of the services traditionally
associated with a port, since they are all
privately owned.
If the authority had jurisdiction over the 8
Miami River bridges, it would inherit the
costs of staffing, bridge repairs and
replacement without having funding mechanisms
4
97- 267
for capital and operating expenditures. The
Department of Transportation and Metro -Dade
Transit, by delegating jurisdiction over its
bridges to an authority, would have to
transfer adequate revenue for the upkeep and
replacement of the bridges.
An authority authorized by either the state
or county would not supersede the
jurisdiction of federal agencies. The Miami
River is a United States navigable waterway
under the jurisdiction of the US Coast Guard.
Any legislation regarding state regulation
over the river should not address regulatory
authority necessary to enhance navigation
since this is strictly a federal
responsibility.
Access to the Florida Seaport Transportation
and Economic Development Trust Fund could
lead to direct competition with the Port of
Miami for local seaport projects.
A port authority would have the same problems
as current proponents of the dredging project
and would have to solve the sediment disposal
issue and obtain permits from federal and
state agencies. The port authority, acting as
local sponsor, would not have the same level
of financial backing as a local government
would have to fund the project.
Currently Dade County is the acting sponsor
of the Miami River Dredging project and would
pay for local cost share of the project. Much
of the sediment that has accumulated in the
river has come through storm sewers which
drain into the river. The drainage basin
extends both north and south of the river and
encompasses a large area of non -shoreline
property. The dredging project has been
stalled while agencies have tried to
determine an appropriate disposal plan for
the over 1,000,000 cubic yards of
contaminated sediment. The greatest barrier
in the past has been the cost of the project
and the fact that the disposal costs
(approximately ($80,000,000) were to be paid
by the local sponsor. Recently President
Clinton signed the 1996 Water Resource
Development Act which changes the cost share
formula so that the federal government will
5
97- 267
pay for 90% and the local sponsor will be
responsible for 10% of disposal costs. Many
people believe that all of Dade County should
share in the cost of river clean-up because
it is a resource that has been polluted
through storm water and sanitary sewer
contamination and not just from shoreline
activities. If the authority were to sponsor
the project it would have to obtain the local
cost share revenue.
MRCC
RECOMMENDATION: An authority could be an advantageous entity
to access funds for the dredging project if it could
guarantee adequate funding from the Florida Seaport
Transportation and Economic Development Trust Fund or other
sources not otherwise available to Dade County. An authority
could keep the pressure on agencies to implement the
dredging and/or it could act as the sponsor of the project.
However, because of the new cost share formula Dade County
or a consortium of local governments and/or agencies could
remain the sponsor and fund the local share in a more timely
fashion than could be accomplished by a newly formed port
authority.
VII. Regulatory Authority Necessary to Ensure that Comprehensive
Development Plans for the Miami River Area include
Provisions for the Development of the River's Intrinsic
Tourist Attraction Assets:
ADVANTAGES: An authority with control over landuse,
zoning and building permits could facilitate
the development of the Miami River area.
Public funds could be spent on private
development projects.
DISADVANTAGES: Any comprehensive or special district
development plan must be created by local
government to ensure balance among competing
interests. Authority board members would not
be elected officials and therefore not
accountable to the local community. The
working river concept could be eliminated in
favor of a tourist attraction such as San
Antonio's river.
NRCC
RECOMMENDATION: There are comprehensive development plans
and Miami River Master Flans in place that address the
River's intrinsic tourist attraction assets both in Dade
C
97- 267
i
County and the City of Miami which have been adopted by
local governments. A river authority is not necessary to
ensure that these plans are implemented.
VIII. Jurisdictional Interrelationships of Federal, State,
Regional and Local Agencies: SEE SECTION IX
IX. Centralize State and Local Jurisdictions in Single Authority:
ADVANTAGES: A single state agency for the river.
An authority may be able to receive funds for
programs such as derelict vessel removal.
DISADVANTAGES: Federal agencies, such as US Coast Guard, US
Customs, US Border Patrol and US
Environmental Protection Agency, are unlikely
or would not be allowed to relinquish
jurisdiction to another entity.
State agencies, such as the Florida Marine
Patrol, could delegate jurisdiction to a
river authority. However, the state agency
would have to provide additional funding to
the river authority to enable them to provide
a necessary level of enforcement.
State and county departments, such as the
Department of Transportation and the Metro -
Dade Transit Department, could delegate their
jurisdiction over bridges and river related
transportation projects to an authority.
However, transfer of adequate funding from
these departments to an authority would be
critical in order to maintain and replace
bridges and complete transportation projects.
It would not be feasible to transfer local
and state agencies' Miami River enforcement
funds to an authority because agencies do not
have dedicated funds for Miami River
enforcement. All enforcement revenue comes
out of an agency's total budget. For example,
the City of Miami Marine Patrol enforcement
boats are used to patrol the entire coastline
of the City of Miami not just the Miami
River.
Dade County opposes any statutes or
regulations that preempt its environmental
permitting and has never delegated
environmental authority to any other entity.
7
97- 267
l �
In fact, the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection has delegated some
environmental regulatory authority to the
Dade County Department of Environmental
Resources Management.
Local governments would be relinquishing some
jurisdiction to a state entity. The trend in
government is to decentralize.
An authority may add another layer of
bureaucracy and/or duplicate efforts. The
authority would need to develop the
supervisory and administrative expertise in
each area of responsibility as well as
staffing to provide the service itself.
If regulations were consolidated
and state and local agencies were preempted
from regulating the Miami River, then new
regulations under the jurisdiction of an
authority would have to be as strict as the
strictest laws that existed prior to the
creation of an authority in order to maintain
the level of protection.
HRCC
RECOMMENDATION: It is unclear how benefits would outweigh
the considerable costs to consolidate state and local
jurisdictions into a single authority. It would be more
costly for an authority to duplicate staff expertise
required to do each function than to continue to rely on
existing agencies. Precise funding mechanisms would have to
be established which would ensure revenue for an authority
in perpetuity. Federal agencies would not delegate
jurisdiction and the authority would have to depend on their
cooperation.
X. Streamline and Coordinate Regulation of Activities in and
Around the Miami River: SEE SECTION XI
XI. Create a Port Authority to Oversee and Regulate the Miami
River:
ADVANTAGES: A port authority could provide advantages by
coordinating interaction between the
regulated community and the appropriate
government agencies.
In theory, a port authority could establish a
checkpoint where vessels would stop before
8
97- 267
entering the River. This would facilitate
coordination of inspections.
A port authority could act as agent or
applicant for operating permits. An authority
would ensure that all operators covered by
permits were subject to and complied with the
same requirements. This would accomplish
streamlining since facilities would report to
one entity. Businesses operating under a
permit or vessels entering the Port could be
required to post performance bonds as a
compliance incentive.
A port authority could hire a harbormaster to
monitor vessel transit problems.
A port authority could act as a central
clearinghouse to coordinate
interrelationships of agencies.
DISADVANTAGES: A port authority would exercise powers with
no accountability.
A port authority would exist without having
any port or facilities which are owned and
operated by the authority; consequently, a
Miami River Port Authority could not offer
traditional services.
A port authority would have to establish a
funding source which would likely be either a
special taxing district or user fees. These
fees or taxes would have an impact on either
residents or business or possibly both.
The maritime industry believes additional
fees or taxes would weaken their competitive
edge and may force them to relocate or close.
Therefore, a port authority may undermine the
goal of protecting the working river.
The Miami River businesses do not employ
union labor. A port authority as an entity of
government may attract union organization.
The Port of Miami employs all union labor
which makes the cost of doing business higher
than at a non -union labor port. Non -union
labor contributes to the River's competitive
advantage.
In practice, the U.S. Coast Guard has already
P7
97- 267
established a checkpoint at a Miami River
Bridge. The Coast Guard provides
bridgetenders with lists of vessels which
have provided 24-hour arrival notice. Any
vessel arriving that is not on the list is
reported and boarded by the Coast Guard and
other agencies.
The U.S. Coast Guard Miami River Quality
Action Team (QAT) was formed to resolve the
River's chronic problems. The QAT is
comprised of federal, state and local
regulatory agencies as well as facility
operators, vessel agents and other concerned
parties which developed goals to improve the
safety, environment, and commercial viability
of the river. This is an on -going initiative
which has experienced unqualified success in
its first year.
Limitation of space either at the Port of
Miami or along the developed shoreline of the
Miami River has precluded the establishment
of a checkpoint.
A 24-hour harbormaster would be costly to
administer and require highly trained
personnel.
A harbormaster would depend on the
cooperation of agencies to assist with
enforcement.
The Miami River Quality Action Team has
already created a clearinghouse for
enforcement agencies without any cost.
KRCC
RECOIdM UDATION: The QAT should be given the opportunity to
continue before establishing another entity which would be
a duplicative and costly effort.
10
97- 267
a..
err �• `-�...�.�,.:
1b,I :
PLEASE NOTEt THE COSTS BELOW ARE 1992 ESTIMATES AND NEED TO
BE INCREASED TO RE1•LECT 1996 COSTS.
Available Optba
In response to the stated problem, the following options am
provided for consideration in the selection of a program for
providing additional police coverage in the area of the
Miami River.
Option ttl - HIRING ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL
SHORE PATROL ONLY (I UNIT)
Coverage:
- Seven days a week, from 9 PM to 7 AM
1 - Single bank patrol (ask side at a time)
Logistics:
- 1 Two -person shore patrol unit a 2 officers
- 2 Officers X 2.1 (relief factor) - 4.2 a 5 officers
Cost:
Personnel - $42,660 per officer (yearly salary + twinges)
X 5 a S213.300.00
Total antral cost: $213.300.00
Option 62 - USING OFF -DUTY OFFICERS
SHORE PATROL ONLY (I UNIT)
Coverage:
- Seven days a week, from 9 PM to 7 AM
• Single bank patrol
Logistics:
- Two -puma sbore patrol unit • 2 officers
- I Patrol car
9.2 Appeadix B
Cat:
Personnel - 10 Hors per day X 2 officers a 20 boor X
$16.00 per bow (off -duty rate) a $320.00 per
day
- Annual cat far personnel - $116.800.00
Vehicles - i Patrol car at $15.00 per day (surcharge)
a $15.00 per day
Aaaual surcharge for vehicle a $5.475.00
Opliew f4 - USING OFF -DUTY OFFICERS
SHORE PATROL ONLY (2 UNITS)
Coverage:
- Seven days a Meek, from 9 PM to 7 AM
- Simultaneous shove patrol (mom and south river banks)
Logistics:
- 2 Two -paws above patrol units a 4 officers
- 2 patrol can
Total Annual Cost: Personnel $116.600.00 Cast:
Vehicles S 474 00 Personnel - 10 Hours per day X 4 oftieen o 40 hours X
Tau! $122.275.00 $16.00 per hour (off -duty rate) a $640.00
daily
- Annual cost for personnel a $233,600.00
Opllen th - HIRING ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL
SHORE PATROL ONLY (2 UNITS)
Coverage:
- Seven days a week, from 9 PM to 7 AM
- Simultaneous above patrol (north and south river banks)
Loglatks:
2 Two-persoa units a 4 officers
- 4 officers X 2.1 (relief factor) a 8.4 a 9 officers
Cost:
Personnel - $42,660.00 per officer (annual salary +fringes)
X 9 • $393,940.00 per year
Total antral coot : $383.940.00
Vehicles - 2 Patrol can at $15.00 pet day (surcharge)
a $30.00 daily
- Annual surcharges for vehicles. $10,950.00
ToW Annual Cost: Personnel $233.600.00
Vehicles 950.00.
Total $244,550.00
Option #5 - HIRING ADDITIONAL PERSON-
NEWBOAT PLUS SHORE PATROL (2 UNITS)
Coverage:
- Seven days a week, from 9 PM to 7 AM
- Single bank patrol (one side at a time)
- Watetborue patrol of waterway
Loglatka:
- i Two-persoo shore patrol unit a 2 officers
- I Two -person Marine Patrol Unit • 2 officers
- 4 officers X 2.1 (relief factor) a 8.4 a 9 officers
trodectlea by CbW Arnold Gibbs
t the Miami Police Department's designated repre-
atative on the Miami River Coordinating Committee, I
.ve become increasingly aware of the committee's con-
. over the issues of crime and the environmental condi-
ia in and mound the Miami River. During a recent meet-
g, I was questioned as to the possibility of using City
angers to patrol the river; the purposes of which would be
serve as a deterrent to criminal activity, to establish a
rest link with the Police Department (police radio) for
porting suspicious activity and in -progress crimes, and to
force environmental regulations. In response to this
oposal, a feasibility study was conducted and it was deter-
ined that the inherent risks associated with the use of un.
:aed personnel (representing low enforcement) on the
.isms River make the proposal infeasible. During a sub-
quent meeting. I was asked about the use of sworn police
trsonnel for patrol of the river and a new analysis was
inducted relative to that request.
■mmary of Key Issues
he Miami River is a viable maritime commercial district
herein numerous businesses such as import/export, com-
tercial fisheries, restaurants, boat repair and storage
bcilities, and marine supply are located. Increasingly over
to years, the number of crimes and environmental abuses
ova contributed to the slow deterioration and decline of
ommerce in the Miami River district.
be Miami Police Department does not have sufficient man-
ower or resources to effectively monitor the river on a
oatinual ongoing basis. Although there are other
overnmental agencies who should provide enforcement
ervices on the river, their involvement is either negligible
r nonexistent. Occasionally, the Police Department has
`'a m led its resources for an attack on the problem.
iowever, this kind of activity has an adverse impact on our
bility to provide efficient response to calls for police ser-
ice in the area from which the manpower is drawn. Addi-
APPENDIX B: POLICE PATROL OPTION
tionally, such operations serve only as stopgap measures
and have so long tetra effect on the problem.
Advantages and Disadvantages
For the purpose of this study, six key factors were con-
siderod as necessary to the effectiveness of the program; of.
ficiency, visibility, cat, implementation time, the ability to
enforce environmental laws, and the ability to enforce
navigation laws. The following is a description of the six
factors and the desired state for each. The chart provided
at the end of this section shows the advantages and dissd-
vaataga of each of the eight options by ranking on these
factors.
I. Efficiency -This factor ismeasured based upon the
ability of the program option to reduce crime and to en-
force violations. In order to maximize the achievement of
these two major objectives, the following criteria should be
met:
a. The ability to monitor the affected area in a manner
which creates a perception of omnipresence.
b. The ability to maximize objective achievement at
the lowest acceptable cost.
c. The ability to reduce wasted time and effort in the
performance of duties.
2. Visibility - Although high visibility is viewed as an ef-
fective deterrent factor, it is also an important factor in
reducing the fear of crime. For these reasons, visibility
(police presence) is one of the most important factors to be
considered. Obviously, the degree of visibility provided is
directly rotated to the number of uniformed officers and
marked police equipment.
3. Cost - The desired state for the cost factor is simply
stated as maximum benefits at minimum expense. For the
purpose of this report, the costs of the eight different op -
Lions were divided Into three separate groups: those op-
tions with costs ranging from $100,000 to $225.000 were
grouped within the "low' cost range, those with costs rang-
ing from $226.000 to $425.000 were grouped within the
'moderate" cost range; and those costing between $426,00%
and $625.000 were considered 'high' cost.
4. Implementation Time - With respect to this factor.
the eight options were grouped within the categories of
short, moderate, and extended for the time associated with
implementation. Those options which recommend the use
of 'off -duty' police officers for shore patrol only were con
sidered as requiring the shortest time period for implemen-
tation, because the necessary personnel and equipment am
already available and no additional training is required.
Those which recommend the rase of 'off -duty" personnel
for shore patrol plus waterborne river patrol am considers
as requiring a moderate time frame for implementation, as
those officers desiring to conduct waterborne patrol would
require additional training. All of the other options, which
would necessitate the hiring of additional police officers,
are extended time implementation options, as the recruit-
ment and selection process can take from 3 to 6 months,
and the training process (academy and field training) will
last for an additional 9 months.
S. Environmental Enforcemest - The enforcement of
environmental laws and regulations would be a cumber-
some and difficult task for officers engaged in land based
shore patrol. Additionally, any attempt to perform such
duties would detract significantly from the time and effec-
tiveness of shore patrol duties. For this reason, those op-
tions which recommend shoe patrol only are not con-
sidered as capable of providing environmental enforcemer
6. Navigational Enforcement - Any enforcement of
navigational laws would logically necessitate the use of a
boat. Obviously, those options which recommend shore
patrol only would not offer the capability of navigational
law enforcement.
Miami River Master Plat
PLEASE NOTE: THE COSTS BELOW ARE 1992 ESTIMATES AND NEED TO
BE INCREASED TO REFLECT 1996 COSTS.
- I Marine Patrol boat
Coat:
Personnel - $42.660.00 Per officer (annual salary plus
fringes) X 9 - $393.940.00 per year
Boat - S15.00 Per hoar (boat surcharge) X 10 hours
- $150.00 a day
- Annual boat surcharge - $54,750.000
Total Annual Cost: Personnel $383.940.00
Boat 54_750.00•
Total $438.690.00
S� ;.e recommendation (page 14)
Option" - USING OFF -DUTY OFFICES
]BOAT ♦ SHORE PATROL (2 UNITS)
Coverage:
- Seven days a week, from 9 PM to 7 AM
- Single bank coverage
- Waterborne patrol of waterway
Logistics:
- I Two person shore patrol unit
. 1 Two person Marine Patrol unit
- 1 Marine Patrol boat
- I Patrol car
Cost:
Personnel - 10 Hours per day X 4 officers - 40 boon X
$16.00 per boar (off -duty rate)
- $640.00daily
- Annual cost for penooael
$233.600.00
Vehicles - Patrol car at S13.00 per day (surcharge)
- $15.00 daily
- Annual surcharge for vehicle - $5.475.00
Boat - $15.00 Per boar (boat surcharge) X 10 hours
- $150.00 daily
- Annual boat surcharge - $S4,750.000
Total Amount Cost: Personnel $233.600.00
Vehicle 5.475.00
Bat 54_TSOM
Total $293.825.00•
See recommendation (page 14)
Option 8 7 - HIRING ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL
BOAT PLUS SHORE PATROL (3 UNITS)
Coverage:
Seven days a week, from 9 PM to 7 AM
Simultaneous shore patrol (north and south banks)
Waterborne patrol of waterway
Loglstke
- 2 Two-persou shore patrol units - 4 officers
- I Two -person Marine Patrol Unit - 2 officers
- 6 officers X 2.1 (relief factor) - 12.6 - 13 officers
- I Marine Patrol boat
Cost:
Personnel - $42.660.00 per officer (annual salary + fringes
X 13 - $554.590.00 annuallyBat
- $15.00 per bout (boat surcharge) X 10 hours
- $150.00 daily
- Annual boat surcharge - $54,750.000
Total Annual Cost: Personnel $554.590.00
Boat 54-750.00•
Total S".330.00
Option 08 - USING OFF -DUTY OFFICERS
BOAT PLUS SHORE PATROL (3 UNITS)
Coverage:
- Seven days a week, from 9 PM to 7 AM
- Simultaneous shore patrol (north and south river banks)
- Waterborne patrol of waterway
Logistics:
- 2 Two -person shore patrol units - 4 officers
- I Two -person Marine Patrol Unit - 2 officers
- I Marine Patrol Boat. 2 Patrol can
Cost:
Personnel - 10 hours per day X 6 officers - 60 hours X
$16.00 per hour (off -duty rate) - S960.00
daily
- Annual cost for personnel - $350.400.00
Vehicles - 2 Patrol can at $15.00 per day (surcharge)
- $30.00 daily
Annual surcharge for vehicles - $10.950.00
Boat - $15.00 Per hour (boat surcharge) X 10 boun
- $150.00 daily
Annual bat surcharge - $54.750.000
Total Annual Cost: Personnel $350.400.00
Vehicles 10,950.00
Boat 54_750_oo•
Total $416.100.000
See recommendation (page 14)
Miami liver Master Plan B.3
PLEASE NOTEt THE COSTS BELOW ARE 1992 ESTIMATES AND NEED TO
BE INCREASED TO REFLECT 1996 COSTS.
Reeorutueudatlon
The one option which yields the overall most favorable
state for each factor is option eight, which offers high ef-
ficiency, high visibility. moderate cost, moderate implemen-
tation time. and affords the officers the capability to en-
force both environmental and navigational laws.
It is therefore recotomended that option eight be pursued as
a means of enhancing the police anti -crime initiative oar
and around the Miami River.
• Concerning the surcharge for the use of Miami Police
boats, the fee is applied toward fuel and maintenance of the
')engines. However, should the committee members provide
'J vessel for waterbprne patrol of the river, there would be a
significant reduction in the cost for those options which re-
quire the use of a boat. Perhaps a plan could be devised
for the provision of fuel and maintenance by those busi-
nesses with the capability of so doing. Alternatively, funds
from the special tax can be appropriated to cover the cost
for fuel and maintenance.
The committee's annual expense for fuel would be ap-
proximately $9.000.00. When compared to the annual cost
of $54.750.00 for M.P.D. boat surcharges, the savings to
the committee would be about $45,750.00 annually.
Whether the committee donates a vessel or purchases one
for use by M.P.D. personnel, the maintenance could be per-
formed by volunteers who operate businesses for boat
repair and maintenance, thus eliminating any expenses for
maintenance.
9.4 Appendix
ADVANI'AOES/DISADVANTAGES CHART
EMPLEMENTATION ENVIRON. NAVIG. ANNUAL
OPTION EFFICIENCY VISIBILITY COST Tllm ENFOR. ENFOR. COST
•1 LOW LOW LOW EXTENDED NO NO $213,300
I2 LOW LOW LOW SHORT NO NO $122,276
I3 MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE EXTENDED NO NO $383,940
#4 MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE SHORT NO NO $244,650
#5 L )w MODERATE HIGH EXTENDED YES YES $438,690
rob LOW MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE YES YES $293,825
#7 HIGH HIGH HIGH EXTENDED YES _! Yks $609,330
#8 HIGH HIGH MODERATE MODERATE YES YES. 1116,100
:...oar. ... t • .. .
1