Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1988-12-30 MinutesA I0 N ES )AIN i OF MEETING HELD ON December so, i98s (SPECIAL) r. { i PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK y I HALL - N MATTY HIRAI C erk gip. .tX MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA On the 30th day of December 1088, the City Commission of Miami, Florida, met at its regular meeting place in the City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida in Special Session to consider the proposed Brickell Park Litigation Settlement. The meeting was called to order at 4:03 p.m. by Mayor Xavier Suarez with the following members of the Commission found to be presents ALSO PRESENT: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner Rosario Kennedy Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Vice Mayor Victor De Yurre Mayor Xavier L. Suarez Cesar Odio, City Manager Jorge L. Fernandez, City Attorney Matty Hirai, City Clerk Walter J. Foeman An invocation was delivered by Mayor Suarez. Commissioner Plummer then led those present in a pledge of allegiance to the flag. 1. SETTLEMENT OF LITIGATION WITH WILLIAM B. BRICKELL - Brickell park Mayor Suarez: Without getting into any undue procedural entanglements, let us say that this is Brickell Swap Three, not necessarily called - I see Commissioner Dawkins is in the hallway so I guess we've got a quorum and Commissioner Kennedy's nearby. It's not necessarily called by myself, not necessarily a result of what we did the other day by way of specifying that there would be a Commission session, I didn't think we had done that, frankly, I thought we had said that Commissioners would have a certain amount of time to quote, unquote, sign off on agreements that would be reduced to fine print. In any event, knowing that we would get a quorum today and that we had some things that were unresolved, we notified the Commissioners of the need to have at least one more clarifying meeting. I'm not sure that we have to take any action today but we certainly ought to get some clarification. Mr. City Attorney, you understood that what we were able to do during that 24 hour period after we received your document was to agree or disagree within the 24 hours and not build any new conditions and, I suppose, some could be clarified, some could be reduced to writing, some could be modified so that the City would be further guaranteed the... let's say the performance of the things agreed upon but that there would be no new terms and you were also concerned, if I'm correct, and certainly it makes sense to be concerned about a term that doesn't seem to have been part of the initial agreement that you proposed within 48 hours after our last meeting which has to do with the leasing of the park property, that's Brickell Park property, beginning in January 1, 1990, at a cost to be roughly similar to the City's expected portion of the taxes that would be paid as of Jan... we all agreed, would be paid as of January 1, 1990 and payable by the then owner of the property;, which I gather would be the Williams group and that would mean that the, City would get involved in a lease for that property, for that land, that would costsomewhere around $100,000 so that we could continue using it as a park. I told you that, for myself, I didn't think that that was a necessary term but I was not going to object if that was, indeed, agreed upon in the normal ' course of our process after the past Commission meeting and you told me that it wasn't clear that we could agree to that term and so here we are to clarify that and anything else that any other Commissioner wishes clarified. I think.. that we had all reached a consensus on the other points including the $65,000 h that was obtained through negotiations I know had with Commissioner Plummer and including the issue of the deed containing wording that would clarify the 1 December : 30, deed from the krekell's containing wording that would clarify that the gb foot detbaek charter provision would apply to this property as it does to thy other property in the City of Miami that's somehow not exempt and this would clarify that and they had agreed to that. So the only thing, unless I'm wrong, that's pending is do we have this new terra on the lease, does the Commission feel that it wants to act on that, can we act on it, and will that not destroy all of the negotiations up to now? And I'm referring to the lease. I, for myself, don't see the need for getting into a lease beginning In 1990 for that property. I can see them - I think you're going to be doing some borings, you're going to be doing some moving of trees, you're going to be doing a lot of things on that land and I'd much rather not get involved in leasing that property for my vote, but I don't know that... Mr. Plummer: Well, let me just indicate one thing to you. Personally, I <` think it's important to keep it open for the public use but that is tied to one other provision, Mr. Mayor, and that is the provision of the $65,000, it F was an offsetting factor. So if, in fact, the lease is not approved then the sixty-five thousand, as I understand it - I can't speak for Mr. Williams - is not approved. Mayor Suarez: So, if we give a waiver... Mr. Plummer: So, one is... Mayor Suarez: then for.the taxes in 1990, we would be out a net amount of $35,000. Instead of receiving sixty-five, we'd have to waive roughly a hundred thousand and we would get sixty-five. So,- instead of getting sixty- five that we all thought, we're actually paying thirty-five thousand for use of that property. Mr. De Yurre: Well, I don't think we have to wait. We don't have to do anything. Mayor Suarez: I hope we don't because... Mr. De Yurre: ,Let's start from that point. You know,,;,we're .trying -.to work: something here that's beneficial to;everybody,but I don't:,think:that.we.,haye' to do -anything and... ,. t" Mr.,.Plummer: Well,.I don't .disagree, that we have,: to. do anything but, you know, in the idea of this for that.... Mr. De Yurre: Working something out, you know.:. Mr. Plummer: you know, that's the kind of a thing, that I was concerned about from the DDA memo which said that the City was going to suffer a $65,600 f loss and I.said that I wouldn't stand still for it. And so then.I talked with Mr. Williams and I expressed that to him ,and he had OK, here's the situation. , that I will make and that is I'll pay the $65,000 but I'd like ,to_give you the park back in the year 1990 and you would waive the portion of the, taxes which I explained to him from the beginning, we don't have the right to waive taxes. What we could do is we could give him the, equivalent of a, lease for 3y the one year as to what the City's portion of those taxes were. And the park would still be staying opened. Y Mr. De Yurre: Well, what state of.being is that piece of property going..to be during 1990? You know, -I mean, are we going to be would the'trees:haye:been removed by then, how much of a, park is. going to:. beleft there during they course of that year? ,A Mr. Plummer: Well, without sounding like it's derogatory, the way the City.,`` moves, I don't think that we'll probably.: be<:'ready by that time. ;Basically, � it's going: togive us :the use of basically both properties upj.unt$1 thesyear::r and guaranteed, up. until, . you know, December 31st of ninety, e; Mrs. Kennedy: In other words, how long will the park be closed? x, Mfi fir, De Yurre: Well, not just - Zthe thing Mr. Plummer: Well, they park would :bes oio�ed for t�vo year, �y r� �,nri r attt%t..om+ 4 7� S b 0 Mr. De Yurrea Yes, I'm looking at what position are the Williams Croup, in the Williams Croup going to be in are they going to be conducting testa, are they going to be moving equipment there! -I mean, like, is that... Mr. Plummer: Not if we lease the property, they can't do a damn thing if we've got a lease on the property. Mr. De Yurre: OK, well i just want to make clear that they won't be able to do anything till after our lease is concluded. Mayor Suarez: Are we procedurally at liberty to negotiate this entire thing at this point? Mr. Jorge Fernandez: We're only talking about the lease which is a brand new Item that surfaced since yesterday at 2:00 o'clock when there was, otherwise, a final agreement. Mayor Suarez: Let me then clarify from the Commissioners before we get into that. Does everyone, otherwise, have no objections to the agreement reached up to that point, other than the issue of this lease for property beginning in 1990? Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I only have one other question, but go ahead first. Mrs. Kennedy: We're talking about clarification having the best interests of the citizens who elected me and all of us, I need to go back to an article published by the Miami News in January the 20th which states, Michael Bergnan, an accountant who headed the churches business affairs committee, said the churches prices between $175 and $200 per square foot, or a minimum of about $24,000,000. I called Mike today and with Edie Laquer and I was concerned the City's property is very similar and why should we be getting the raw end of the deal and although he said that he was not able at this point to talk about the price, it was not what this article has stated. Mr. De Yurre: Well, I think that - and I think it's important that we know what that property's worth but my understanding is through Al Armada, who's in charge of their property leasing department that about $125, $127 a square foot is a proper value for that land. So, my basis for looking at this figure has been based, pretty much, on the recommendation by that department as to what the square footage is and based on how much land we have there. Mr. Plummer: Well, the question, I guess, remains, why would they offer the, church $200 a square foot and us less? Mr. De Yurre: Well, did they offer... Mrs. Kennedy: Well, that was my question and that's why I called Mike Williams" and he assured me that the f igure was not accurate and that it was very comparable. At this point, I still wish I could know what the figure is but I understand that he is not allowed to disclose it. Mr. Plummer: Well, who did these appraisals that were just handed to'us? Mr. Peter Andolina: Because there were some questions about the appraised' value of River Point, I put this package together. The first appraisal that's indicated there was commissioned by the DDA in 1987. The second one was done in 1986 for a bank and I've just included these to give you an idea of comparable appraisals that had been done on the property. F k Mr. Plummer: That's on the Point property. r Mr. Andolina: On the River Point property. On the Brickell Park property, we. had two appraisals done. Two MAI appraisals, one "came in at $107 a 'square.;: foot, the higher one came in at $127 a square foot. As per the code,' had to go with the higher of the two as the fair market value, r _- Mr. Plummer: Well, I can see some difference. I mean, there is a substantial' building on the property of the church. I don't know that that would make it a difference between $125 and $200, but definitely, if both parcels are the same size and if they have a $2,000,000 facility on the property, there would be a difference in price regardless of whether it's going to be torn down or r what it's going to be but that would make a difference in the price. Are you =lti z R 4$ Y t � � � t 3 December 30 1 finished? Mr. Mayor, I have one other question that I don't know if it's been investigated or looked into or not. I personally don't know the Williams group, OK, I don't know What their background is other than the fact that I met Mr. Mike Williams and he's from Atlanta, Georgia, 1 don't know anything about that groups I was told here the other day that it's two people. I Susan the question that I'm concerned about is, do they have the kind of financing available that this situation is going to take and if they don't and the financing does not go through, what reverter clauses or protection to the City is built in? I mean, are they people who build multi -million dollar projects? Does anybody have any background on them? Do you, Mr. Odio? I mean, I don't know if they, you know... Mr. Andolina: The information I've received from the Williams Group is that they are working in conjunction with a number of other people that are in the development business, mainly in the Atlanta area. Mr. Plummer: But what background do you know about their company, the company who's going to pay these monies? Mrs. Kennedy: What else have they developed? Mr. Plummer: That's a good question. Mr. Andolina: I might want to defer that to the Williams Group attorney. Mr. Plummer: Who is res... somebody's supposed to be... are you representing Mr. Williams? William Walker, Esq.: My name is William Walker, I'm a member -of the firm of White and Case and I represent the Williams Group. Mr. Plummer, two responses to your question. First of all, the financing is in place for this project to my best knowledge and I* am representing them. The financing has been committed for this project, for the first phase of the project. The financing to acquire - I'm talking about not only the financing to acquire the land but also for the first phase of construction of the project. Mr. Williams has had experience in the Atlanta area in acquiring properties of this type and in the design and development and construction and marketing and leasing and sale of commercial properties of this type.,. His partner, Mr. Beebe, has substantial experience in construction of major office and other commercial projects. Some of that experience, incidentally, in Miami. Mr. Plummer: Do you know how ,long have they been in business, as the Williams Groups? Mr. Walker: As the Williams Group?,::Several years,.'I honestly, can't I-won!t.' .represent_a'-date, I really: don't know.. ,Mr. Plummer: I mean, is that. several,.- five, ten.'.... Mr. Walker:. I can tell.you,for what it's.worth.that my ;law firm which.is we practice here and in Washington, New: York, and Los. Angeles, and: elsewhere,,'in` Europe and the Orient - investigated the Williams Group as we would with any. new client and are well satisfied that -they are: reputable, responsible .and high quality developers very suitable for.:. a: project of this p j type. That's simply a value judgment on'our part. T Mr. Plummer: And do you... r`f' Mrs. Kennedy: .How -did, I'm sorry: Mr. Plummer: Do,.you.have,eny idea as to their assets? Mr., Walker;: Their,, assets? ; , No, I don't. ;I can toll you=; that'; preseatly;,3nvolved, in Atlanta ,i_ -various.. stages; of,: four major,i,projects;';twp, pf �Je, which I think I'm very comfortable in saying are considerably larger than this one. s Mr. Plummer: And then, Mr. City Attorney.:. . S Mr. Fernandez; ".Yes Y { 0 Mr. f'lumb rt ... in reverter clause if for whatever reason this does not go through. Mr. Fernandets you. on page five of the settlement agreement with the Frickells, paragraph 14, I feel confident and I assure you that there is the provisions that we have built into this agreement in case that there is an unwind, in case that for whatever reason the deal doesn't go through, the City would be in the same position as it is... Mr. De Yurre: I don't think he's talking about unwinding, I think he's talking about conclusion of this deal and then, for some reason, if they don't get the financing and nothing... Mr. Plummers Exactly. Mr. Fernandez: That's it. Mr. De Yurre: ... gets done on that land. There's nothing provided, as far as I'm concerned, for saying after they bought the land... Mr. Fernandez: Oh no.... Mr. De Yurre: ... and two years down the road, they can't build anything. Mr. Fernandez: That's it, we don't... no - no, no. Mayor Suarez: There's no guarantee that they will develop, right. Mr. Fernandez: There is no way because we have no privity with the Williams'. The Williams have not made us, the City, any assurances. Mayor Suarez: Well, we're not involved - let's clarify, we're not involved in their development at this point. If we're assured that they will comply with the purchased aspects of this deal, that's it. Mrs. Kennedy: Right. Mr: Plummer: It's that that money is there. Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Mr. Plummer: OK. Mayor Suarez: Now, let me clarify one last point.': I was informed yesterday and I guess it didn't work out to be the case, that we were going to get an extra $65,000 which was going to be paid over a certain amount of time and it was going to compensate us for the loss of the taxes equivalent to the year, part of the year, 1989, because they would not become taxable after the closing even though we would lose the taxability on the other property that we acquired, the River Point property. And $65,000 was negotiated to compensate for that. I am now told that that hinges on our being willing to pay for the taxes for the year 1990 and in conjunction with that to use the park. If I were to say no to that second portion of that, and this Commission were to say no to the second portion of that, but we will take the $65,000 as part of this deal so that we can vote on it and be done with it today, finally, would your client agree to that? Mr. Walker: Mr. Mayor, no, but I would like to make the point that those two issues were not resolved separately. Like so many other things in this transaction, they were all part of the same bundle of sticks and if you take ti out any given element of the transaction, that has an effect on other qE` elements. I think I'm safe in saying that, at least from Mr. Williams point { of view, that the agreement with respect to the $65,000 was part of the same general understanding as the agreement with respect to the lease in the 1990 1./A taxes. When you... Mayor Suarez: All right, well, let me put that question to you this way. Suppose we forget the whole thing on the taxes and we don't agree to 'leasing % the property in 1990, God knows for what reason we would do that, and we don't expect you to pay $65,000 in taxes because all these properties are going do g go up in value as of the transaction anyhow, and we're going to. be . getting . a lot more money in taxes as of January-1, 1990 on the property we're selling to c << $ Decembe'r 30, 1988 a t� 7 > you, It +effect, after the end of these transactions$ are we OK on that? If this Comission want* to go back to the state of nature, let's say$ on the Issue of taxes? Mr. Walkers You mean the agreement as it was presented day before yesterday? Mayor Suarers Right, well, but there is a modification as to making sure that we put into the deed... Mr. Walkers As to the covenant, yes. Mayor Suarers ... the 50 foot charter amendment. Hr. Walkers Let me - I meant to say this when I f irst got up - I want to apologize for Mike Williams. He spoke to me and, I guess, to several of you from the gate at the Atlanta airport where he was attempting to get onto a plane which he was unable to do. He could not get on standby and it's the reason he's not here. Mr. Plummer: He, like ourselves, at lls00 o'clock this morning were of the thought that there was not going to be a meeting. Mr. Walker: Yes, sir, that's correct. Mayor Suarez: Right. Mr. Plummer: So he expressed that to me a half hour ago. Mr. Walker: When I came to this meeting, when I last spoke to Mike which was several hours ago, I came here with the belief that after numerous discussions I know with a number of you last evening, as well as myself, late into the evening, in fact, early this morning that the agreement that we had reached albeit among only various members of this overall group, contemplated that we would pay the City $65,000 in three installments with interest on the second two installments at the same rate accumulating on the trust fund monies and that we would enter into a lease for the park property. I would suggest, it seems to me logical, that that lease commence as of the closing date rather than to skip seven months and then put the City back into possession of the property, but that's... Mayor Suarez: But, at least I am sure you all thought that - at least we thought, at least I thought - that the lease would be for no payment from the City, a nominal pay. I mean, a dollar a year. lease for the use of park property that to the extent that we want to use that property, to the extent that it looks like a park. Why we would pay for the use of something that at any time you may want to start building on it, we have trees being removed from and that is essentially your's if you want to keep it looking like a park, so much the better, I suppose, but we... you expected to get paid for that? Mr. Walker: The various elements of this transaction, and there are a number. of elements which make up the total economic deal, which has been formulated now over a period almost ten months. A number of concessions have been made by Mr. Williams and a number of concessions by the Brickell family and by the City to get us where we are today. Mayor Suarez: Well, but these last two seem to begin happening as of 24 hours ago. r: Mr. Walker: No, actually I think that... Mayor Suarez: Because we didn't get into the issue of payment of taxes except: as to when, in fact, you are legally bound to pay taxes and what we might loser from that, can we go back to that situation and, if so, if we go back to that and this Commission sees fit to act that waytoday, will Y, your client abide by f" all the terms? Mr. Walker: In .all honesty, I would have to call my client. I came--' here s today with the belief and'the understanding that we - although I know;4t was only with various members of the Commission - had reached an'understanding; at ; least tentatively, subject to this meeting, that included the -agreement as it was reviewed day before yesterday and several new elements including tho'', t ' sr �y { 9 covenant, the lease, and the $65,000 payment. Admittedly, the $65,000 payment and the lease question arose in the same series of discussions. It may well be that held be willing to go forward without either but I'm frankly not prepared to say that at this moment. Mr. Plummer: Let me put on the record, the reason that I wanted that $65,000 and hope that it would be earmarked, as you read in the documents which were supplied to us, that the Williams Group would donate the trees from the Brickell Park but they would not pay for the relocation. It was my feeling that we could use that $65,000 and that that would cover the cost of relocating the trees over into the Brickell Point property. That was the reason that I did it. Mayor Suarez: And to get the $65,000, you proposed to pay him a $100,000. Mr. Plummer: And also the use of the property. Mayor Suarez: That we may not want. Well, I think I've spoken my mind as clear as I possibly can. Let me add one thing, I'm glad that Dan Paul is sitting next to Ronnie Ramos that we maybe can finally understand that as it's been explained to me, the charter amendment really only provides a 50 foot setback and various mechanics for waiving that and getting concessions. It doesn't provide for a bay walk. I keep calling it a bay walk and I saw that in today's paper, it refers to a bay walk being guaranteed. It's only a 50 foot setback variance, I mean, charter provision. Anyhow, Commissioners, how do you feel about this so we can get this over with? Mr. Dawkins: I would like to state that any other deal that comes up here like this, it does not have my vote. You see, I get tired of everytime you look up, we've got to do something in a vacuum or something happens. This ain't no way to run an airline. OK? But yet and still, we sit here and the Manager brings us this bullshit and we sign it. Over and over again, you sit here and you tell the Manager, don't bring me nothing else where it's not worked out and cut and dried and yet you sit up here and you pass stuff. I mean it's ridiculous, see, and I have to say this because I've sat here through Ted Gould. Ted Gould made all kind of promises, you signed all kind of agreements with Ted Gould. He has not fulfilled one of them nor do we have access to the property. Now you can't even build down there because he will not release the property and here we're going to go up and give some property away for $11,000,000 with no guarantee that the individuals will build on it and if they hold it for five years, that they can't sell it for 50 million. There's nothing you can do about it, there's nothing at all because all they have to do is show good faith'that they are attempting to raise the financing with which to do the building and they're complying with what they promised us. But yet we sit right up here and Claughton Island property, another down the drain. They were going to build 200 units of low rent housing. They came up here and because they had a smooth talking lawyer, this Commission let them off the hook for 3.6 lousy million dollars. And that's why I have a problem with these kind of deals. Mr. Plummer: Remember, we got a second bite of the apple. Mayor Suarez: I'm going to make a motion that we get back to the same situation that we were essentially 24 hours ago without any consideration for taxes other than what the law provides which presumably is that after November, I mean, January 1, 1990, you will be paying taxes as any other taxpayer in the City of Miami and with the understanding, the only understanding other than what was presented by the City Attorney, roughly 24 hours ago, the only other thing is simply the clarification that you agree that the instrument that reflects the charter amendment applying to this property, be in a deed. And that, in effect, takes us back to 24 hours ago. As.I understood the deal, without the $65,000 and without any commitment to a lease for this park and that is my motion. Mrs. Kennedy: Second. Mayor Suarez: And let me say that I would expect that this would be an offer that would have to be accepted by your client by reasonable time as prescribed by the City Attorney. I don't want to say 24 hours, but that's really what I'm thinking about that this should really be wrapped up within one working Y day. And the City Attorney should take that back to you and get your answer. 7 December. 30, ti i4 -777 If 7177777 Mrs, kehnedyt And, of course, with the provision of the SO foot bay walk. Mr. Plummart Weii, for clarification, may I ask, when you say the; bay valk, how, are you talking about Merely a setback of 50 feet? Mayor guaret.t The application of the charter amendment. ,, Mr. Plummart Or are you talking about... Mayor 5uarett The SO foot... Mr. Piummert ... a improved bay walk? I'm asking for clarification, Fifty foot setback they've got to do, that's the charter. but I think Mr. Paul was trying to get is the developer to, in fact, put in the improvetment$ for a bay walk. I mean... Mayor Suarezt Yes, we'd never be able to get that at this late stage and the wording that was worked out and that was agreeable to all sides stated, in consideration of the conveyance evidenced by this deed, grantee acknowledges u` and agrees that the property conveyed hereby is subject to and exempt from the provisions of section 3, am, of the, Charter of the City of Miami, Florida, etcetera.' Mrs. Kennedy: City Charter provision, in:other words. Mr. Walker: Mr: Mayor, that covenant. also quotes sections of'.the zoning code,' and>the City code-which.coven the bay.walk as well as the setback. Mr....Fernandez: 'Exactly. n` Dan'Paul,:Esq.: Can,1 be, heard,, Mr: Mayor:? i jzr Mayor; Suarez: :Wait, do€we have, anything further from Commissioners? �A i Mr t,=Plummer Wait,,; well`, let me .ask this 'question `-A setback; is not covenant=for. public use,: is "that correct? r *� Mayor.: Suarez There-, are'county, provisions; I believe, that apply to[that; but `4,4F tR that-`isn!t� ono. r ,Mr.,.Plummer.. Well,.. -let me ask. for on the `record. Just .because they set; back;, does not :mean" that the public has access. Now Mr. " Cod na, when he -came in here".for. zoning and, his .problems :before this' Commission, he notonly!f �k 4�w setback, he ldedicatedit to the public and he paid for the improvements'3 Mayon .Suarez: ;And ,we reduced rthe. 50- foot .setback and the charter provision ` 3 allows usFto get other concessions, you re right n 5r Mr Plummer... Well OK but I'm: askin now Fernandez: No it does not: re wire ublic access Mr. , q P. Mr. Plummer 4t-,does not require public access It does not `require them to ' put up any kind of improvements for the public use Mr. 'Fernandez: Not necessarily, 'that's 'a matter that :nay come `in front of you.:- F 7� Mr. 'Plummer: Donut.: have:=my .vote I tmean,k,I thoughtR that!,s•what. we: were ,trying.. to�• get. accomplished' here.� ouikpow, it iglike they're going ,to giyef` us ; the,I tress,. but ,-we we, don't; have ;the money rto mov:what:;, h . 1, done.•.'.you-.. know,: the...50setback period: It`. accomplishes-here.rf,"' '2r q�,x' Mr.. Dawkins: ..: Does .:the Mayor's ,- . rmotion,,saying f goIngback ircdoet; =that exclude the ,two: quote,: unquote, f%.:negot=iated�agCee�nentst�.taLi�rthe<<City Attorney, uncomfortable,,with" that"excludes: them? r Zi #ti Mr-,Jernaader i 1f s 1' t` rii g ► r kcix F�i r iL� as q ks> r4 4 a Mr. , Dawkins: T!#ank you• N Y k, S§� ; ' S! Yrr r " 4 y1 ptt a sY''��k °:, a r .7 llS "'� t' 4q� � �` £ ��`�• Y �� � ? k 7 ��s fa L �,' Tt � �`S��.��I�� Mayor suarest Let me Day on the Oodina deal, precisely because the charter amendment provides that it's either a 56 foot setback or if they want lean than 5b feet; which 1 know that they want less than 5b feet then they have to com6 and then we get all the concessions including public access, if we don't already have it from the county ordinance... Mr. Fernandez: Exactly. Mayor Suarez: ... including maintenance of a bay walk and believe met we will take theta to the wall at that point and we ought to give them fair warming of that. But other... Mr. Plummer: Or a zoning change. Mayor Suarez: And, of course, if they come for a zoning change, that may be an opportunity too. But it is particularly built into the setback amendment that we can negotiate at that point. Mr. Walker: Mr. Mayor... Mayor Suarez: Zoning you have to be more careful because you have contract zoning problems. Mr. Walker: Section 1556 point three, point six point three of the code which Is also cited in the covenant, states that all water... this is a section of the SPI 5 zoning classifications, states that all waterfront lots shall provide a continuous pedestrian walkway... Mayor Suarez: OK. Mr. Walker: ... along the edge of the waterway which shall be open to the general public .during normal business hours ,and designed in accord.with the. City,of Miami guides and standards. Mayor Suarez: And that's built into... Mr. Walker: Yes, sir, it is. Mayor Suarez: OK. General business hours, when; we get to that 'point, we- might negotiate a little bit to go beyond general business hours into nighttime or whatever. Mr. De Yurre: Under discussion, I just want to make the final comment and I!m ready to vote on this, that whatever has not been .agreed to here` today, if they accept what we're proposing, we can;. always _negotiate ,it next month,,,next year if we ever decide that for any reason that we want to lease the park, we` can do that next year if we so desire, or if we don't. I, personally, don't want to right at this point in time but .that option is always open to negotiate whatever we want with them down the road. I think that by letting it stand as is, that let the law take care of the taxes, whoever has to pay what, under the law as it stands now, let it be that way. . AndI think that we're going to get a good deal for this community and I feel that it is the way to go right now. Mr. Plummer: After you close the barn door, forget it. ,} Mayor Suarez: Dan. Commission, Mr. Paul: Mr. Mayor, members of the. I urge you to go.a little bit more slowly here from point of view of protecting the public interest I.came down here with my interests solely of being interested in saving the trees and: providing the bay walk which the, deal you're now talking ar.bout'does.neithe rr and obviously, it will be the end of the trees because you don't even have the k right to go in and root prune those trees. They've got to be root pruned six t }l to nine months and sit there before they.can be moved and you haven't got the. 4 money for it but in the course : of looking into that feature of: it, ,I, wanted.. to; ° =Y�G see how strong... Mayor Suarez: I think we do have that, right;:but maybe not the money, :we'll,;` see. We're going to get one point..,1 s s� jd 001 ri Mr. Paula Well, you don't have that right: I don't see anything that says about going in with your equipment and root pruning the trees and digging those big ditches. Mayor Suareat I thought they had agreed to that end and, of course, the money is from the one point eight million dollars, but go ahead. Mr. Paul: Yes, but the 1.8 million isn't there because you already heard the Commissioners say two days ago of that money that certain parts of it had to be committed to other parks which are in dire and desperate need. Mayor Suarez: This may be the park. We don't know that at this point, ban. Mr. Paul: Well, you don't know it at this point but I decided to look back and see what the City's... Mrs. Kennedy: Well, excuse me, Dan, that was five hundred thousand. Mr. Paul: Pardon? Mrs. Kennedy: Five hundred thousand which will leave us then with a million three. Mayor Suarez: Yes, we got five hundred thousand additional from the first time that we met and... Mr. Paul: Right. Let me finish from point of view of what this City's negotiating position is. You know, nothing's going to happen, this deals not going to go away. You have saved and bailed out a totally commercially unusable piece of property. That piece of property at River Point, from point of view of commercial use, it's been on the market since 1955, it's now in bankruptcy because nobody, but nobody, has wanted to use it because of the limited access situation that that piece of property provides. And you don't even have an MAI appraisal on the River Point piece of property on which you're basing your deal. That, I think, is an absolute must before the City proceeds. The last time this piece of property changed hands, it changed hands for 2 million, a hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars. That was the cost to the present owners or predecessors of this piece of property. Mrs. Kennedy: In what year, Dan? Mr. Paul: That's in 1973 and obviously, it's increased since that time. Nobody has checked the appraisal of the non MAI appraiser which you have. There's a big discrepancy as to what the usable square footage is. I got one of the most experienced MAI appraisers in town today to take a look and spend the morning going over that and instead of 95,000 square feet there's 89,733 usable square feet for that piece of property. This appraiser tells me that in his opinion, the maximum amount of usable square feet that could be justified is somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 to $110 a square foot and in taking the top figure, that comes out to $9,870,630. Now I think that the warning flags are flying and if you're going to protect the public interest, I think you ought to call a halt, you ought to get yourself an MAI appraisal and do this deal properly. I'm not opposed to the land swap provided the City gets a fair deal. You haven't held any public hearing on it, nobody in the public has any idea what's going on here from what little has appeared in the paper and the speed with which this particular deal has been done. And I strongly urge you not to move forward today without being sure the value of what you're trading is worth what you're getting and to be sure that the value of what you're selling is accurately reflected by the $13,000,000 appraisal. Look at the appraisal on the church pp property which is right next door and : let's just see what - see what their option to buy the church property is. If It's at the same square footage price that you're offering to sell this property because... Mayor Suarez: Let me ask you a questionabout that. Peter, under the. agreement, what is the price for square footage for the River Point property work out to be? Mr. Plummer: One oh seven to one twenty-seven. #: Mrs. Kennedy: A hundred and twenty-seven. y� 10 ' December 30 19$�= "d , Mr. Andolina: One twenty-five a square foot. Mayor Suarek: OK, the range that we were given before you arrived, Dan, was that for the one we're selling, the range is from $101 to $121 a square foot. We're getting the higher end of that range because we have to under our charter. We're paying $127 for the River Point property, in effect, actually an intermediary is paying that for us. Mr. Andolina: One twenty-five. Mayor Suarez: One twenty=five rather. So, it's within that range and one could argue that it's high, of course, and you and I have talked about the fact that access is worse for that although one could also argue that the existing park surrounded by two buildings isn't worth a heck of a lot and access isn't too good for that either. And the other one at least has the benefit of being surrounded on two corners by water. So it's... Mr. Paul: Why not get an ap... why not get a... Mayor Suarez: ... we're within the range of reasonability on this. Mr. Paul: When you're talking figures as large as 89,733 square feet to 96,000 square feet, you're talking about millions of dollars. You're not talking about peanuts and it, even on a conservative appraisal, it would appear that the City is putting the River Point property in this deal and at least 2 million dollars more than its present fair market value and maybe a lot more. It says a lot that this property's been sitting on the market since 1955 without any offers for it. Nobody has been willing to pay anything like this and it's now in the hands of bankruptcy trustees if I'm reading these documents correctly. The property's not going to go away, there's nobody out there trying to buy it and what you're doing is your bailing out a totally non commercially usable piece of property by taking a very valuable City piece with access to Brickell without having all the facts that you ought to have. You clearly ought to have an MAI appraisal on the River Point property before you proceed and you clearly ought to get the necessary commitments to save those trees on this piece of property. This big rush like this, this is how we always make the mistakes. Mr. Andolina: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to refer you and the Commissioners to the memo that I handed out prior to the meeting which does have a letter from an MAI appraisal that was conducted in 1986 and in that letter, the value placed on the River Point 'property albeit that they 'do_ have a discrepancy in the square footage, is $12,200,000: Mayor Suarez: I think we're within. range. Are we.clear.that we do have the right to go in and prepare the trees for transplantation? Mr. Walker: I delivered a letter, Mr. Mayor, to the'City Attorney, I believe night before last confirming that. Yes, it is so. Mayor Suarez: OK, because the Vice Mayor wanted me to Y get that on, the record. , I think it's a very good point of clarification: Mr. Walker: There was a letter.to that effect and we have no problem in your resolution incorporating that. It is our intention. Mayor Suarez: OK, thank you. And than you, Dan, for regardless of how this vote comes out, for all the insights and support that we've gotten and I know t1 you're still concerned that we're rushing into things and I know you're 4t concerned that in the past we've tried to make certain deals and developers haven't abided by them and we haven't kept the proper oversight but I have a feeling with you being a couple of floors down from me' and with this Commission being that much more responsive, that, we're going to be keeping a;; very close oversight and that, in fact, it will be a beautiful bay walk there and all the other things that we want to aspire for. f? Mr. Paul: You can't have oversight when you've given it away for $2,000,g00 less than you should have. - Mayor Suarez: They're going to be coming back for a lot of things and we'll r �� be able to...k' Y M Y� r ' 11: December.$0,'9�� t s uit U611, 16U wbn't get your 2 niiliibfi dbiiarb, hbwevef4 Mt+ Pa mayor Suarez' Mr, lernandez' OK• Mr. Mayor666 Mayor Suarezt Y686 clear I would like the attorney have given us Mr. Fernandez' just to make the record very given us the right to enter t�i111ams Group to further acknowledge the fact that they for thehave donated the trees to us, g the right, that they ne the trees and then remove them into their property to pru. I thought that's what we were clarifying - Mayor Suarez' Yes,ink is significance ; sue that Mr. Fernand az: But, there is one more nowledgmentl onhthe recordand that is that we have discussed ad removingant aofathe trees will not be filled because ae that the holes left after understand that... you understand Mayor Suarez: It's not our responsibility to fill the holes, that. that all of those items were again. Mr. Mayor► ear to be expiring Mr. Walkers Yes, I would say B art of which appear agree to that. part of a separate set of negotiations p here but I would expect that Mr. Williams would nevertheless we're bringing them back to lifnd the Commissi nerhas Mayor . Suarez* with the Well, w 'all of that a OK•,the motion then is made "incorporating seconded it Who's chairing? Mr. Plummer: Vice Mayor. OK, no further discussion? Call the roll, P lease. Mr De:yurre: The foow lling resolution was introduced by Mayor Suarez, who moved" its r; adoption'. RESOLUTION NO. 8871223 °r- ENT A RE SOLUTION, WITH AZIN TTACHMENT, AUT ICOURTSEOFTLS�U H OF LITIGATION IN�THE U.S. DISTRICTET AL. AND T� WILLIAM B. BRICKELL, FLORIDA BETWEENCITY 'S INTEREST IN CITY OF MIAMI, CONCERNING THE v E WITH BR ICKELL PARK AND BURIAL GROUND► AS SET FORTHCIN THE THE PROPOSED TERMS AN CONDITIONS„An SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WHICH APPEYRS MEMO�UM DATED ; TO THE ATTACHED CITY ATTORN DECEMBER 29, 1988 AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FURTHER CONDITIONS EXPRESSLY APPROVED BY HE CITY COMMISSION UPON APPROVAL OF AT ITS SPECIAL MEETING THIS DATE AND t AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY AN NSTRUMENTS THE COURT; MANAGER TO EXECUTE ALL DOCUMENTS AND ENT; FURTHER ; NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE HEREIN SETTLEM fizz PROVISIONS OF RESOLUTION N0.88- DECLARING THAT THE ! 1988 ARE SUPERSEDED BY THIS 1z (' 1222, ADOPTED DECEMBER 27, RESOLUTION. of resolution, omitted here and on $ (Here follows body Clerk._} `l s, file in the Office of the City 1 the resolution etas pasaad Commissio8er Keaaedy, r , Upon being seconded , byr votes mind adopted by the following. t art tint �a < (X` t ! f ? ! ! rc tr_• 01 Vfrb,�P.y t . j r t.. �lis ;hqrt tft r��X,x - A,'j yea.+ r v 7"` �yw� a4 ♦ �r ZT S..n r JFy ._ ' - ors. H��r 'iS>t �P�y, "•'�"" r`"4n'""�{. �Y "�,xlt 'R 1` kr`�y"�'`�' Dec4t�k4O� ,r 12 t7. }s.. y; r � r. � P d�i aJ? �>�i t.f r[ u. Ri�b�v� i,k ✓u s y,{ r :. ���• h� r t - _ -- �7rp x...•,�J_. .. r „ f.An�( Via... _.:.tuerL:�iit4..r�16�' ri, ; ,y AT191 C fsslbaef fit�asari� fttnnedy 06Emiasi6net yilier J. ifAVULMSs ftioe !Mayor Victor be Vurre = Mayor Xavier L. Suarea - NOXg: None. Commissioner J.L. 1►55ffiNT: Commispiummer Srr. - } Cot*=S MADE DURING ROLL CALL: Mr. Plummer! I feel the City can gat more. I think that we could keep a park open. I rust don't think that we have to rush into this matter. I e w property's going to enhance in value, two years from now the City could make a such better deal. I have to vote no. I just think the City is entitled to R; more. t1- COMMENTS MADE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL: Mr. Plummer: So be it. - Mayor Suarez: What are we talking about in terms of timing, do we know? Mr. Fernandez: In terms of... , . that they have to give f final, Mayor Suarez: What is your recommendation..... approval to this? { Mr. Fernandez: The City, has a_ legal' holiday -,,on Mondaq, so .Tuesdaq morning: would be the first time.., I.<would say that by '5:00 o'clock on Tuesdaq afternoon. �I !Mayor Suarez: No'nore meetings, I guarantee you. = r. Dawkins! And then if it's not done at'' S:00 o'clock,. Tuesday,Yit Mr.'s -off ........ !Mayor Suarez: Tes, we're :incorporating a .24 hour working ,period. s " its1 n x� tikSjSd�r s Mr. Fernandez: I understand Mir. Plummer: Wish everybody a HaPPYT New . Year. `'R'' !Mayor Suarez: Have a Happy New Year.r4 rr 1ilSRE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE � `. CI'1't' h�f CMElISSION, M METING WAS ADJOURNED AT 4:41 P.M. x 0": s r eo w v' M. Xavier L. Suarez M•!OR °r Natty lgirai O� s CITT CLERIC �1 `+ r// � .1 rt5 �w•� r Walter J. Foessaa •SSIST•NT CITT CLERK` r e I�.,pp��./- n pp QQ 11�LtaR�, �'�F. 9i� ��' teat J �•ibr ° + tE� �{p {{,� d } � .. 4 r ' � r+J {I .��r