HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-88-0218IV V
Revised
2/15/68
RLSOLUTiON NO. 9%— 1 1-1
A RESOLUTION AUTHURiiiNG THE Ci1'Y MANAGER TO
EXLCUTL A14 AGkLLKL1%r, IN TtiL Fuhh
SUBSTANTIALLY ATTACHED BERLTU, WITH BETTY
BLUNT, A14 lNi)lVIuUikL, .N ttli i-%NuUi1'i tvUT TO
EXCEED 411d,WOW TU PROVIDE ALCjUiSITION,
RELOLATIUN kl�U PROPERTY hMii-.(jLtLLNT SL.RViLLS
RELATED 'CO THE SUU'1'HEiAST OVLRTUWtq/ PaR1, WEST
CUMP1UNITY RLUL:VLLOPDJ LNT PROJLLT Ai4b UThLR
PROJECTS REQUIRING SAID SERViLLS; WITH
MOI11Lb ThLALIUR ALLOCATED iAS FULLUWS:
$2, bUU FROM 'i HL DEPARTMENT Or DEVLLOPMENT FY
i` b6 GL14ERAL FUNDS, g4,vUU FRvN t1uU6iNG BU141)
FUNDS AND $4,Uk)u FROM HUD SECTiuN iub LUA14
r'UNDS .
WHEREAS, the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) has monitored residential relocation files iu
connection with displacement from the Southeast Overtown/Park
West Redevelopment Project (Section luB Loan Guarantee); anti
WHEREAS, the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development has made findings which require the city of k1ami to
review, adjust and report all cases for compliance with HUD
regulations, and
WHEREAS, the City of Miami has purchased property in
connection with the Northwest 1st AvenLe Realignment Project
which requires business relocation and management services; and
WHE:REaS, future proposed acquisitions will require
relocation, acquisition and property management services.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE C0tiNiISS10N OF THE. CITY
OF Niit0ll, FLORiDA:
Section 1.
The City i•,anager is hereby
authorized
to execute
an agreement,
in the form substantially
attached,
with Betty
Blum, an individual, in an amount not to exceed 4110,000 to
provide relocation, acquisition, and property management services
related to the Southeast Overtown/Park West Community
Redevelopment Project and other projects requiring said services.
CITY COMMISSION
MEETING Car
MI"R 10 1.38
)r4 n . P N-21 b►
Section 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to utilize
funds for said Agreement, as fol lows s *2, UUO from General fend
allocated to the Department of Development F'Y 19tsd budget,
$4,000 from HUD Section IUB Loan funds and $4,000 from General
Obligation housing Frond funds.
PASSED AND ADUPTED this loth day of March , 196d.
XF►V R L. 5UAkE Mi�YUFt
ATTESTS
AY IRAI, CITY CLERK
FINANCIAL REVIEW A14D APPRUVALs
I)IIA61.1v
CARL CIA, DIRECTOR
FINANCI: EPARTMENT
BUDGETARY REVIEW & APPROVALS
FRANK MAY, ACTING DIRE UK
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGE DEPARTMENT
HOUSING CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
RE IEW AND APPROVAL-.
Y GER UK -,- DIRECTOR
ING CCINSERTATION & DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW AND APPROVALS
r
6—
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
-z -
fw
PUPARED AND APPROVED BYe
,G
A RT F . CL.ARK
CHIEF DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
APPROV4U �S TU FORM AM) CORRECTULMS:
0
1% &
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMLUT
This Agreement entered into this day of ,
1988, by and between the City of Miami, a municipal corporation of
the State of F'loriaa, hereinafter referred to as "CITY", and Betty
Blum, an individual, hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT."
I. TERM
The term of this Agreement shall be from March i, i988
through February 28, 1989.
II. SCOPE OF SERVICES
The CONSULTANT shall under the direct supervision of the
Department of Development, provide acquisition, relocation and
property management services for Phase I of the Southeast
Overtown/Park hest Project and other projects requiring said
services.
The CONSULTANT shall perform at minimum, the following activities:
a. Implement relocation assistance to businesses displaced
by the Northwest 1st Avenue Realignment Project.
b. Coordinate the completion of relocation assistance for
Phase I of the Southeast Overtown/Park West Community
Redevelopment Project.
C. Prepare a response to the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development relocation audit for Phase I of the
Southeast Overtown/Park West Community Redevelopment
Project.
d. Provide relocation, acquisition and property management
services and expertise as required by the Department of
Development .
III. COMPENSATION
A. The CITY shall pay CONSULTANT, as maximum compensation for
the services required, pursuant to Paragraph lI hereof,
$10,000.0U.
R6-210_
1b 6
B. Such compensation shall be paid on a $40 per Dour time -
charge basis.
C. CONSULTANT shall submit invoices and supporting
documentation (i.e. time records) to request payment for services
rendered on a monthly basis.
D. CITY shall endeavor to pay CONSULTA1T within fifteen (15)
working days from the time the invoice is approved for payment.
E. CITY shall have the right to review and audit the time
records and related records of CONSULTANT pertaining to any
payments by the CITY.
F. CITY will provide a suitable office together with telephone
and secretarial services.
IV. COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL, STATE A14D LOCAL LAWS
Both parties shall comply with all appiicable laws,
ordinances and codes of federal, state and local governments.
V. GENERAL CONDITIONS
A. All notices or other communications which shall or may
be given pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing and shall
be delivered by personal service, or by registered mail addressed
to the other party at the address indicated herein or as the same
may be changed from
time
to time.
Such notice
shall be deemed
' given on the day on
which
personally
served; or,
if by mail, on
the fifth day after
being
posted or
the date of
actual receipt,
whichever is earlier.
CITY OF MIAM1
Department of Development
3UO Biscayne Blvd. Way
Suite 400
Miami, Fla 33131
CONSULTANT
Betty Blum
19945 N.E. iO PL. Way
Miami, Fla. 33179
B. Title and paragraph headings are for convenient reference
and are not a part of this Agreement.
C. In the event of conflict between the terms of this
Agreement and any terms or conditions contained in any attached
documents, the terms in this Agreement shall rule.
D. No waiver or breach of any provision of this Agreement
shall constitute a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or
-2- 919--218-
6
any other provision hereof, and no waiver shall be effective
unless made in writing.
E. Should any provisions, paragraphs, sentences, words or
phrases contained in this Agreement be determined by a court of
competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or otherwise
unenforceable under the laws of the States of Florida or the City
of Miami, such provisions, paragraphs, sentences, words or phrases
shall be deemed modified to the extent necessary in order to
conform with such laws, or if not modifiable to conform with such
laws, then same shall be deemed severable, and in either event,
the remaining terms and provisions of this AgL'eement shall remain
unmodified and in full force and effect.
V1. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
All documents developed by CONSULTANT under this Agreement
shall be delivered to CITY by said CONSULTANT upon completion of
the services required pursuant to paragraph li hereof and shall
become the property of CITY, without restriction or limitation on
its use. CONSULTANT agrees that all documents maintained and
generated pursuant to this contractual relationship between CITY
and CONSULTANT shall be subject to all provisions of the Public
Records Law, Chapter 119, Florida Statues.
It is further understood by and between the parties that
any information, writings, maps, contract documents, reports or
any other matter whatsoever which is given by CITY to CONSULTANT
pursuant to this Agreement shall at all times remain the property
of CITY and shall not be used by CONSULTANT for any other purpose
whatsoever without the written consent of CITY.
VII. NONDELEGABILITY
That the obligations undertaken by CONSULTANT pursuant to
this Agreement shall not be delegated or assigned to any other
person or firm unless CITY shall first consent in writing to the
performance or assignment of such service or any part thereof by
another person or firm.
_,_ 96-219
The CONSULTANT agrees that there shall be no subcontracts in
connection with the Agreement without the prior written approval
of the CITY and that all such subcontractors or assignees shall be
governed by the terms and intent of this Agreement. Anyone hired
by the CONSULTANT (subcontractor or any other expense) is solely
the responsibility of the CONSULTANT. Nothing stated herein will
create an obligation on the part of the CITY to compensate the
subcontractor.
VIII. AUDIT RIGHTS
The CITY reserves the right to audit the records of
CONSULTANT at any time during the performance of this Agreement
and for a period of one year after final payment is made under
this Agreement.
IX. WARD OF AGREEMENT
The CONSULTANT warrants that it has not employed or retained
any person employed by the CITY to solicit or secure this
Agreement and that it has not offered to pay, paid, or agreed to
pay any person employed by the CITY any fee, commission
percentage, brokerage fee, or gift of any kind contingent upon or
resulting from the award of this Agreement.
X. CONSTRUCTION OF AGREEMENT
This Agreement shall be construed and enforced according to
the laws of the State of Florida.
XI. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS
This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties herein
their heirs, executors, legal representatives, successors, and
assigns.
XIII. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The CONSULTANT covenants that no person under its employ who
presently exercises any functions or responsibilities in
connection with this Agreement has any personal financial
interest, direct or indirect, in the work product of this
Agreement. The CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the
performance of this Agreement, no person having such conflicting
-4- 88-218_
interest shall be employed. Any such interests on the part of the
CONSULTANT or its employees must be disclosed in writing to the
CITY. The CONSULTANT, in the performance of this Agreement, shall
be subject to the more restrictive law and/or guidelines regarding
conflict of interest promulgated by federal, state or local
government.
The CONSULTANT is aware of the conflict of interest laws of
the City of Miami (City of Miami Code Chapter 2, Article V), Dade
County Florida (Dade County Section 2-11.1) and the State of
Florida, and agrees that it will fully comply in all respects with
the terms of said laws.
XIV. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
The CONSULTANT and its employees and agents shall be deemed
to be independent contractors, and not agents or employees of
CITY, and shall not attain any rights or benefits under the Civil
Service or Pension Ordinances of CITY, or any rights generally
afforded classified or unclassified employees; further he/she
shall not be deemed entitled to the Florida Workers' Compensation
benefits as an employee of CITY.
XV. TERMINATION OF CONTRACT
CITY retains the right to terminate this Agreement at any
time prior to the completion of the services required pursuant to
paragraph II hereof without penalty to CITY. In that event,
notice of termination of this Agreement shall be in writing to
CONSULTANT, who shall be paid for those services performed prior
to the date of its receipt of the notice of termination. In no
case, however, will CITY pay CONSULTANT an amount in excess of the
total sum provided by this Agreement.
The CONSULTANT reserves the right to terminate the Agreement
at any time prior to completion of the services required pursuant
to Paragraph II hereof without penalty to the CONSULTANT. Notice
of termination of this Agreement shall be in writing to the CITY
and the CITY will pay for services performed prior to receipt of
notice of termination.
-5- ±�8-218-
6
It is hereby understood by and between CITY and CONSULTANT
that any payment made in accordance with this Section to
CONSULTANT shall be made only if said CONSULTANT is not in default
under the terms of this Agreement. if CONSULTANT is in default,
then LITY shall in no way be obligated and shall not pay to
CONSULTANT any sum whatsoever.
XVI. NONDISCRIMINATION
The CONSULTANT agrees that it shall not discriminate as to
race, sex, color, creed, national origin, or handicap in
connection with its performance under this Agreement.
Furthermore that no otherwise qualified individual shall,
solely by reason of }pis/her race, sex, color, creed, national
origin, or handicap, be excluded from the participation in, be
denied benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any
program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.
XV11. MINORITY PROCUREMENT COMPLIANCE
The CONSULTANT acknowledges that it has been furnished a
copy of Ordinance No. 10062, the Minority procurement Ordinance of
the City of Miami, and agrees to comply with all applicable
substantive and procedural provisions therein, including any
amendments thereto.
XVIII. CONTINGENCY CLAUSE
Funding for this Agreement is contingent on the availability
of funds and continued authorization for program activities and is
subject to amendment or termination due to lack of funds, or
authorization, reduction of funds, and/or change in regulations.
XIX. DEFAULT PROVISION
In the event that CONSULTANT shall fail to comply with each
and every term and condition of this Agreement or fails to perform
any of the terms and conditions contained herein, then CITY, at
its sole option, upon written notice to CONSULTANT may cancel and
terminate this Agreement, and all payments, advances, or other
compensation paid to CONSULTANT by CITY while CONSULTANT was in
-6- qw-. Its -
6
0
default of the provisions herein contained, shall be forthwith
returned to CITY.
XX. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This instrument and its attachments constitute the sole and
only Agreement of the parties hereto relating to said grant and
correctly sets forth the rights, duties, and obligations of each
to the other as of its date. Any prior agreements, promises,
negotiations, or representations not expressly set forth in this
Agreement are of no force or effect.
XXI. AMENDMENTS
No amendments to this Agreement shall be binding on either
party unless in writing and signed by both parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this
instrument to be executed by the respective officials th ereunto
duly authorized, this the day and year first above written.
ATTEST:
MATTI HIRAI
City Clerk
WITNESSESs
As to CONSULTANT
APPROVED AS TO INSURANCE
REQUIREMENTS:
Insurance Manager
CITY OF MIAMI, a Municipal
Corporation of the State
of Florida
By
CESAR H. ODIO
City Manager
CONSULTANT: Betty Blum
By
Betty Blum
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
CORRECTNESS:
LU
City Attorney
CITY OF MIAM1. FLORIDA
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO Honorable Mayor and Members DATE MAR _ 1 19eVVp `c I`
of the City Commission 1� O�
SUBJECT Authorization to execute
an Agreement with Betty Blum,
an Individual.
FROM � REFERENCES
Cesar H. Odio For City Commission Meeting
City Manager ENCLOSURESOf March 10, 1988
Resolution, Agreement
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the City Commission adopt the
attached resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an
agreement with Betty Blum, an individual, in an amount riot to
exceed $10,000.00 to provide acquisition, relocation and property
management services related to the Southeast Overtown/Park West
Community Redevelopment Project including the realignment of
Northwest 1st Avenue and other future relocation activities.
Funding for this Agreement is available from HUD Section 108
Loan Funds, General Funds allocated to the Department of
Development, and General Obligation Housing Bond Funds.
BACKGROUND
The Department of Development recommends that Ms. Betty Blum be
retained by the City of Miami through a professional services
contract to provide a range of relocation, acquisition and
property management services. This contract will allow for Ms.
Blum to assist the City in coordinating the relocation response
to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and
to manage current and future relocation activities. Ms. Blum, by
virtue of her long experience as a relocation administrator and
her involvement with numerous development projects, including the
Southeast Overtown/Park West Redevelopment Project is uniquely
qualified to undertake these assignments. At the present time no
one in either the City of Miami or Dade County has the expertise
to complete the required services. Ms. Blum was previously
employed by the City through a contractual agreement with Dade
County. Under that contract she coordinated all the relocation
for the Southeast Overtown/ Park West Project.
Ms. Blum's duties would include the following:
Review, adjust and report on all residential relocation cases
displaced from the Southeast Overtown/Park West Redevelopment
Project and to bring them in compliance with U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development regulations. (See attached letters
and reports from HUD)
803-21Q
^a
A 0
Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Commission
Page two
Coordinate the completion of relocation assistance for Phase I of
the Southeast Overtown/Park hest Community Development Project.
Provide business relocation assistance and property management
services for the Northwest lot Avenue Realignment Project.
Provide professional assistance in connection with proposed
projects that may require relocation, acquisition and property
management services.
Funding for this agreement is available frora the Department of
Development. FY 1988 General Funds, General Obligation Housing
Bonds Funds and HUD Section 108 Loan Funds.
Attachments: Proposed Resolution
Agreement
HUD letters and reports
a
88-21h
tom' U S. Department dousing and Urban DeveloprneM
i• A Jacksonville Office Region IV
325 Well Adams Skeet
t
S
JecksonvMle. Flonda 32202•4303
4.6CMA
JUL 0 6 ad?
Mr. Frank Ca steneda, Director 13i
Department of Community Development
City of Miami CO M00—
Post Office Box 330708
Miami, FL 33133
Dear Mr. Castaneda:
SUBJECT: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program
Grant No. B-86-MC-12-0013 and
Rental Rehabilitation Program
City of Mimi, Florida
Compliance Monitoring - Relocation/Acquisition
On May 28 - 29, 1987, Mr. Gannon Coffey, Supervisory Relocation
Specialist, and Mr. Ed Jennings, Realty Specialist, both from our Atlanta
Regional Office, conducted the subject monitoring. The results of their
review are contained in the enclosed report.
Please provide us with the City's reply to the two correctable
findings identified in the report, in accordance with the corrective
actions specified, within 30 days of the date of this letter.
Should there be any questions concerning these matters, please contact
Mr: -Larry Gordon, Community Planning and Development Representative, at
(904) 791-1202.
Sincerely,
�. ca
Cleveland B. Talmadge
Director
Community Planning and
Development Division, 4.6C
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Gannon Coffey
3•
a
^ 0
RELOCATION/ACQUISITION MONITORING REPORT
MIAMI, FLORIDA
Project Number 8-86-MC-12-0013
and
Rental Rehabilitation Program
Date of Review: May 28-22, 1987
Reviewers: Gannon Coffey, Supervisory Relocation Specialist
Ed Jennings, Realty Specialist
Atlanta CPD Office
404/331-4096
Persons Contacted:
Mr. Frank Castaneda, Director
Department of Community Development, City of Miami
Mr. Terry Griffin, Community Development Coordinator
Mr. Mathew Schwartz, Assistant Director, Department of Development
Mr. Jeff -Hepburn, Assistant Director, Housing Conservation and
Development
As. Betty Blum, Relocation Coordinator, Department of Development
Ms. Diane E. Kraska, Principal Housing Specialist/Rehabilitation
Mr. Nick Chickillo, Relocation Officer, Dade County DHUD
Mr. Joe Armbruster, Acquisition Officer, Dade County DHUD
The purpose of the monitoring visit was to determine the City's compliance
with the Uniform Act and implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 42 applicable
to acquisition and to persons displaced as a result of acquisition of
properties as a part of the City's Community Development Block Grant Program.
The Dade County Department of Housing and Urban Development (Dade County DHUD)
provided relocation and acquisition services for some of the Miami
activities. This included tenant assistance.activities related to the City's
Rental Rehabilitation program. Section 108 loan activity was involved in
Southeast Overtown/Park Nest Redevelopment (Block 44).
A. Relocation Review
1. MSG/Section 108
This review included a sampling of two (2) out of fifteen (15)
residential displacement from the Highland Park area and three (3) out
of one hundred eighty (180) residential displacements from Block 44 of
the Southeast Overtown/Park West Redevelopment area (no review of
nonresidential displacements attempted this visit). A follow-up
*monitoring visit to obtain additional sampling in the Block 44
displacements will be made.
y
A8-216t
^ A
^ 0
E
It was noted that a "Standard Form" dated 2-77 issued by GSA (entitled
Supplemental Rental Assistance Payment for Replacement Housing) was used.
Since there had been over 500 displacements from nearby blocks due to
Metrorail acquisitions about two years earlier, it was considered that there
may have been a preference on the part of the City to follow the Federal UMTA
policies for computing rental assistance which apparently did not require a
base rent adjustment. However, the 1979 HUD regulations at Section 42.453(b)
were applicable.
It was indicated during the review that the primary reason for not
following the HUD regulations was because of the difficulty in verifying
income for many single persons. However, we found among the cases sampled
that about 50 percent had reliable sources of income and, in most cases, it
was verified. It was also noted that about half of the cases had incomes
which were such that 25 percent of the monthly gross income exceeded their
previous gross monthly housing cost. This would mean that the rental
assistance payments for those cases would not need to be increased. Since the
workload of nontransients is estimated at 65-90 cases, adjustments may be
needed in only about 45 cases.
In connection with the follow-up monitoring review, the following
additional findings were made (Findings 1 and-2 were shown in the previous
report).
Finding No. 3. Evidence of receipt of Replacement Housing Payment was not
in file.
See Section 42.225(h) relocation recordkeeping.
In the following cases there was no evidence of payment:
6 Felix Joseph (Parcel 44-C) Benito Brocks or Brooks (Parcel 44-01—
Luis Tomacen Merissier Petithomme (Parcel 44-C)
Allen Cristobal (Parcel 44-A) V Prudent Elmeus (Parcel 44-QL__
Bob Sanders (Parcel 44-D)�
Corrective Action Needed:
Please provide 'photocopies of cancelled checks or receipts. In connection
with those cases where adjusted payments are needed, provide evidence of
receipt of both payments.
Wn
A8—Z1bi
w
Finding No. 4. Monthly housing cost at acquired dwelling and at replacement
vL3
dwelling was not clearly shorn.
Section 42.453 of the regulations indicates these costs are needed to
determine if rental assistance payment is correct. In the case of Cleveland
Allen, Jr. (Parcel 44-0, 50 N.W., 8th Street), the rent receipt for the
dwelling from which he was displaced shows $40, but a site occupant record
form shows $46. Rent at the replacement dwelling was shown as $195 per month,
Plus utility cost for a space heater. The standard form for computing rental
assistance was not used. The original payment was based upon $173 per month
(acquired dwelling) and $195 per month (replacement dwelling).
Corrective Action Needed:
Based upon Mr. A11en's income, it will be necessary to recompute the
rental assistance payment to adjust for ability -to -pay. In your response,
please show the basis for allowance for heat at the replacement dwelling.
)pad Finding No. S. Documentation in some files indicates that the comparable
replacement dwelling used to establish the upper
limit of the replacement housing payment was selected after
the displacee moved.
Section 42,457(a) of the September 1979 regulations concerns the matter of
establishing the "upper limit.'
Section 42.211(b) concerns relocation assistance advisory services and the
matter of providing referrals or listings of comparable replacement housing
(prior to the move).
It was indicated during the review that the task of contacting and
assisting between 80-100 persons to relocate• from several hotel -type
facilities required the City to have relocation advisors in the lobbies and to
post information on bulletin boards and tables. The information provided
included addresses of comparable replacement dwellings and the offer of
transportation to inspect them.
Corrective Action Needed:
Where it can be shown, as in the case of Felix Joseph, who acknowledged
during a monitoring interview that he was referred to comparable housing prior
to his move, the records should be corrected.
Please advise us of cases where records cannot be corrected to show a
referral to comparable housing prior to displacement and indicate what other
corrective action is being taken instead.
WO
A 4
Please note the corrective action needed in the following two cases:
a. Rob Sanders (Parcel 44-0). Document referral to a comparable dwelling
prior to move.
b. Cristobal Allen - Shows address and type of comparable replacement
dwelling costing $295 which was used to establish the "upper limit."
The date the dwelling was identified and referred to the displacee is
needed. If a referral to a comparable replacement dwelling costing
$295 did not occur prior to displacement, the rental assistance payment
will need to'be corrected and evidence of adjusted payment provided.
Noncorrectable Finding:
There was no evidence of delivery of Notices of Displacement in the files
reviewed. '
Section 42.205 of the regulations requires notices to be delivered within
30 days of date of initiation of negotiations.
The reason for not delivering notices was that the City had agreements
with owners of the property which limited the City's ability to provide
services to residents until after the property was acquired. The owners could
also collect rents for 90 days after date of acquisition. The City, in
effect, negotiated away a right of a displaced person to be informed. Notices
should have been delivered, at least to the permanent residents (estimated to
be about 85 - 90 persorts). Language could have -been included in such notices
to encourage nontransient tenants to remain and continue to pay rent to their
landlord. Those persons who may have desired to move before acquisition would
need to have been assisted to do so but the owner would still have had the
right to re -rent the dwelling. It is recognized that the City could have
additional relocation cost to provide comparable replacement dwellings and
moving costs to those (nontransients) who move in and are in occupancy on date
of acquisition.
In summary, the City should have delivered Notices of Displacement even if
they were late in delivery. The wording could have been modified to fit the
circumstances.
The City needs to, take steps to assure such a regulatory requirement is
complied with in the'future. Section 42.203() of the "Common Rule," which is
the new rule applicable to initiation of negotiations after May 1, 1986, does
not specify a time period for delivery of a "notice of eligibility."
Relocation costs can be greater, however, if notices containing the
information in the guideforms are not delivered before displaced persons
select replacement dwellings.
This concludes our additional findings and corrective action needed.
Please do not hesitate to call Gannon Coffey if there are any questions or
you need technical assistance.
The courtesies extended to Mr. Coffey by the City and Dade County DHUD
staff during the monitoring visit are appreciated. ,
7
88-21LO
0-, A
^ 0
1
ti`►wa`"
SEP 9 1987
Mr. Frank Castaneda, Director
Department of Community Development
City of Miami
Post Office Box 33070E
Miami, FL 33133
Dear Mr. Castaneds:
U S. Depo►tn+ent of Horsing and "an 04VOISP110ttl
Jacksonvote Office Region tv
325 West Adorns Street
Jacksonville. Florida 32202-4303
4.6CMA
CEIVED
• • UP 14 7"'7
SUBJECT: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program
Grant No. B-86-12-0013 (Section 108 loan Guarantee)
City of Miami, Florida
Compliance Monitoring - Relocation
Wry
On August 3 and 49 1987, Mr. Gannon Coffey, Supervisory Relocation
Specialist in our Atlanta Regional Office, conducted the subject
monitoring. Mr. Coffey's visit was a follow-up to his previous review
made on May 28 and 29, 1987. The results of the August review are
contained in the enclosed report. Our July 6, 1987, letter transmitted
to you the results of the May review.
Within 30 days from the date of this letter, please provide us with
the City's reply -to both the two previous findings and the three
findings identified in the enclosed report. The City's reply should be
in.accordance with corrective actions specified.
Should there be any questions concerning these matters, please
contact Mr. Larry Gordon, Community Planning and Development
Representative, at (904) 791-1202.
Sincerely,
Zleveland B. Talmadge
Director
' Community Planning and
Development Division, 4.6C
Enclosure
FIS
AB-211R
M
RELOCATION MONITORING REPORT
MIAMI, FLORIDA
Section 108 Loan Guarantee
Project Number 8-86-iC-12-0013
(Southeast Overtowns/Park West Redevelopment Area)
Date of Review: August 3-4, 1981
Reviewer: Gannon Coffey, Supervisory Relocation Specialist
Atlanta CPD Office
404/331-4096
Persons Contacted: a
Mr. Terry, Griffin, Community Development Coordinator
Department of Community Development
City of Miami
Mr. Mathew Schwartz, Assistant Director
Department of Development
City of Miami
Mr. Thedford Johnson, Field Supervisor
Dade County DNUD
Ms. Betty Blum, former Relocation Coordinator
Department of Development
City of Miami
Mr. Nick Chickillo, Relocation Officer
Dade County DNUD (by phone)
Manager, 1127 N.E. 1st Avenue (comparable)
Mr. Felix Joseph (displacee)
The purpose of the visit was to follow up on the previous review
(May 28-29, 1987) which had included only a limited sampling of displacements
from Block 44 of the Southeast Overtown/Park West Redevelopment Area. We
indicated in Finding No. 1 of the relocation review that corrections needed to
be made in computing rental assistance payments for tenants displaced from
this area.
This review included a sampling of records for an additional 8-residential
and 1-nonresidential (out of 4-5 nonresidential) cases. An interviews with one
displacee and an inspection of his replacement dwelling was conducted. An
attempt was made to interview 5 other displacees and inspect their dwellings
but they were not at home.
The review confirmed the need for corrective action by recomputing the
rental assistance payments to take into consideration ability -to -pay as a
factor to base monthly housing cost as required by the regulations applicable
to displacements resulting from initiation of negotiation occurring prior to
May 1, 1986. '
9
A ON a
11
The files reviewed %ere:
Precynds Aguilar (tenant, Highland Part)
Jeronimo Bermudez (tenant, Highland Part)
Nelio Exalus (tenant, Southeast Overtown/Park West)
Rochnel Marcelin (tenant, Southeast Overtown/Park West)
Julio Velez (tenant, Southeast Overtown/Park West)
Based upon the sample taken of the Highland Park displacement, it was
indicated that the agency computed the rental assistance based upon the
"Common Rule" method of rent -to -rent but the initiation of negotiations
occurred on 1/23/86 in the two cases revie%:,ed. This is shown below as a
correctable finding. There was another finding and a noncorrectable finding,
also shown below. .
Finding No. 1. Computation of Rental Assistance Payment Incorrect.
Discussion:
In cases where initiation of negotiations occurs prior to May 1, 1986, the
rental assistance payment is to be computed in accordance with Section
42.453(b) of the regulations in Handbook 1376.1 which refers to base
monthly housing cost.
Corrective Action Needed:
In the cases of Jeronima Bermudez and Julio Velez, the recomputation would
provide additional rental assistance, unless they accept Section 8 or
other subsidized housing where the monthly housing cost would not be as
great.
In addition, report on corrections made in connection with other tenants
who were displaced in Highland Park and Southeast Overtown/Part West as a
result of initiation of negotiations occurring prior to May 1, 1986, but
whose rental assistance was computed without using the base monthly
housing cost requirad by the regulations.
Finding No. 2. Rent charged by City for temporary occupancy of acquired
properties exceeded the fair rental value at Section 42.215 of the regulations.
Discussion: Since initiation of negotiations occurred prior to May 1,
1986, t e rule in the 1979 regulations (Handbook 1376.1) applies.
In the case reviewed (Jeronima Bermudez), the rent notice sent to her by
the City showed $172 per month, with water only provided by the City. The
cost for fuel would have added more to her total monthly housing cost.
Her ability -to -pa
,y was estimated at =170 per month.
IRS-2119
001N a
3
Corrective Action Needed:
If Ms.-dermudet overpaid rent to the City, she is entitled to a rent
refund. In addition, please check all others displaced from this area for
possible rent overpa.-Awnt and report basis for computing refunds made in
each case. Other property where rents were set by the City should also be
reviewed for any needed correction (e.g., Southeast Overtown/Park Nest).
Noncorrectable Finding:
Late Delivery of Notices of Displacement
In the cases sampled for both Highland Park and Southeast Overtown/Part
Nest, the notices were delivered between four and ten months after date of
initiation of negotiations. Under the regulations applicable to these
cases, the notices were to be delivered within 30 days of the date of
initiation of negotiations for the property which they occupied
(Section 42.205).
Although the finding is considered noncorrectable in regard to the cases
monitored, there may have been a number of persons who resided in the
apartments or hotel rooms who were residents at the date of initiation of
negotiations who moved before the relocation staff interviewed the
residents and before the date of acquisition. The City should, therefore,
obtain information to determine the names of occupants at time of date of
initiation of negotiations and compare this list with the list of persons
shown on its workload.
Persons who in occupancy on the date of initiation of negotiations but who
move subsequent to that date, are considered displaced by acquisition (the
effective date of the notice of displacement being the date of initiation
of negotiations). (See Section 42.205.)
It was noted during the review that two of the three persons sampled who
occupied the Davis Hotel were shown as having resided there for four
years, indicating long-term residency.
A follow-up monitoring visit will be made soon to obtain an increased
sampling of displacekients from Block 44 of the Southeast Overtown/Park
West project. Mdves prior to acquisition will be one of the matters which -
will be reviewed during that visit.
2. Rental Rehabilitation Program
The review included an examination of the City's tenant assistance
policy and a review of one project (979 S.W. 4th Street), where it was
.indicated there were four units out of eight units occupied prior to
rehabilitation. All four tenants were eligible for Section 8
assistance and remained in the apartments.
It is part of the City's policy that no lower income tenants will be
permanently displaced due to proposed rehabilitation in any projects.
In the City's four projects completed to date, there were no, "over
income" tenants displaced. The staff is aware of the applicability of
Section 104 M to rehabilitation programs.
88-21Q
OON 0
3
Corrective Action Needed:
If Ms. -Bermudez overpaid rent to the City, she is entitled to a rent
refund. In addition, please check all others displaced from this area for
possible rent overpa;iment and report basis for computing refunds made in
each case. Other property where rents were set by the City should also be
reviewed for any needed correction (e.g., Southeast Overtown/Park West).
Noncorrectable Finding:
Late Delivery of Notices of Displacement
In the cases sampled for both Highland Park and Southeast Overtown/Part
West, the notices were delivered between four and ten months after date of
initiation of negotiations. Under the regulations applicable to these
cases, the notices were to be delivered within 30 days of the date of
Initiation of negotiations for the property which they occupied
(Section 42.205).
Although the finding is considered noncorrectable in regard to the cases
monitored, there may have been a number of persons who resided in the
apartments or hotel rooms who were residents at the date of initiation of
negotiations who moved before the relocation staff interviewed the
residents and before the date of acquisition. The City should, therefore,
obtain information to determine the names of occupants at time of date of
initiation of negotiations and compare this list with the list of persons
shown on its workload.
Persons who in occupancy on the date of initiation of negotiations but who
move subsequent to that date, are considered displaced by acquisition (the
effective date of the notice of displacement being the date of initiation
of negotiations). (See Section 42.205.)
It was noted during the review that two of the three persons sampled who
occupied the Davis Hutel were shown as having resided there for four
years, indicating long-term residency.
A follow-up monitoring visit will be made soon to obtain an increased
sampling of displaceawnts from Block 44 of the Southeast Overtown/Park
West project. Mdves prior to acquisition will be one of the matters which -
will be reviewed during that visit.
2. Rental Rehabilitation Program
The review included an examination of the City's tenant assistance
policy and a review of one project (979 S.W. 4th Street), where it was
.indicated there were four units out of eight units occupied prior to
rehabilitation. All four tenants were eligible for Section 8
assistance and remained in the apartments.
It is part of the City's policy that no lower income
permanently displaced due to proposed rehabilitation
In the City's four projects completed to date, there
income" tenants displaced. The staff is aware of th
tenants will be
in any projects.
were no 'over
e
A9-210
4
8. Acquisition Review'
Ed Jennings, Realty Specialist, reviewed four (4) out of six (6) parcels
acquired under the threat of eminent domain by Dade County for the Cit of
Miami's Department of Community Development. He also reviewed four
out of eight (8) parcels acquired by the City of Miami's Department of
Community Development as part of Section 108 Loan activity. Mr. Jennings
also met with Jeffrey Hepburn, Assistant Director of Housing Conservation
and Development Agency, and three (3) members of his staff to give
technical assistance in the acquisition of parcels to be acquired.
The files for the following parcels were reviewed:
1. Parcels acquired by Dade County for the City of Miami:
11-13-06 5-61-04
9-02-04 11-13-04
2. Parcels acquired by the City of Miami in their Section 108 Program:
44-0 44-C
44-G 44-A
The review indicated that the acquisition process was carried out
generally in compliance with the Uniform Act of 1970 and the implementing
regulations as set forth in HUD Handbook 1376.1 effective September 26,
1979.
There was, however, one finding which is shown below:
Finding: The four (4)'parcels acquired by Dade County for the City of Miami,
an two (2) of the parcels acquired by the City of Miami did not have a
written review in the files explaining the review appraiser's basis for his
recommendation of fair market value as required by Section 42.109(b) of the
HUD Handbook 1376.1. '
This is a noncorrectable finding relative to the parcels reviewed.
However, beginning with the date this letter is received by the City of
Miami, parcels not yet acquired by the threat of eminent domain must have
a qualified professional appraiser (whether staff or independent fee
appraiser) review the ap?raisal(s) and prepare a written report explaining
the basis for his recommendation of fair market value.
Additional Comments:.
Current regulations, HUD Handbook 1377, effective May 1, 1986,
requires that all appraisals must be reviewed (Section 42.104).
88—ZibN
�a
A
S
The Agency has the responsibility of reviewing the experience,
education, training, and other qualifications of appraisers. including
review appraisers, and utilizing only those determinel to be
qualified. Appraiser qualifications must be consistent with the level
of difficulty of the appraisal assignment. (Section 42.103(e)).
The review appraiser has the responsibility of obtaining an acceptable
appraisal or appraisals. He must determine the adequacy of the
appraiser's supporting data and documentation, the soundness of the
appraiser's reasoning and whether the appraisal conforms with
recognized appraisal practices. In particular, the review appraiser
shall determine the correctness of the appraiser's opinion of the fair
market value of each parcel. He must try to obtain necessary
corrections or revisions prior to acceptance of the appraisals)
(Section 42.104). If he cannot recommend an appraisal as an adequate
basis for the establishment of just compensation, the Agency should
obtain an additional appraisal or the review appraiser can develop his
own appraisal to support his recommendation of value. However, this
alight be a conflict of interest if the appraisal is made by a staff
review appraiser. This would -deprive the owner of the benefit of
having a disinterested party determining the value of his property.
The review appraiser should never average two (2) or more appraised
values to arrive at his recommendation of fair market value, and he
should never automatically recommend the higher or lower appraised
value. His recommendation should be a matter of judgment based on his
experience and education, and not a mathematical or mechanical process.
l3
R8--21l�
4
••�►.*..• . ` fit_• .
November 1987
Mr. Frank Castangda
Director
Department of Community Development
1145 N.N. llth Street
Miami, FL 33136
Dear Mr. Castaneda: ,..I..
U.S. D"Siln►ent of "outing and ikMm beveiap item
Allanla Regional ollice, Reginn 1V
Richard B Russell Federal Building
IS Spring Street, S W.
Allante, Oeewgia 30303.3366
SUBJECT: Compliance Monitoring - Relocation
Community Development Block Grant Program .
Project No. 8-86-MC-12-0013, Section 108 Loan Guarantee
City of Miami, Florida .' •
Enclosed is our review of information provided with your letter dated
October 13, 1987, to Mr. Cleveland B. Talmadge which was in response to
previous letters sent to you as a result of monitoring which was conducted in
May and August 1987.
We are responding directly to you from this office in accordance with
current procedures.
Please note the findings remain open due to the follow-up actions still
needed in connection with the Southeast Overtown/Park West Redevelopment Area.
We understand some files have been misplaced due to changes in staff
assignments and office space but progress should be made in reviewing other
cases.
Mr. Gannon Coffey, Supervisory Relocation Specialist, is planning to visit
Miami on November 30 and possibly December 1, 1987, to review corrective
actions taken. At that time, he will be able to provide you with a
preliminary determination as to whether the corrective actions being taken are
satisfactory and perhaps provide technical assistance, if needed.
In the meantime, please let us know if you have any questions. Monthly
reports of progress in resolving the findings may now be sent directly to this
office until all findings are cleared.
Sincerely,
rles N. Straub
rector
ffice of Community
Planning and Development
Enclosure
/y
88-21A
REVIEW OF RESPONSE
COMPLIANCE MONITORING - RELOCATION
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
PROJECT NUMBER 8-86-MC-12-0013
SECTION 108 LOAN GUARANTEE
The following comments and reconew ndat ions are made in resnrnise to
City of Miami's letter dated October 13, 1987, which was in response to
findings made as a result of monitoring visits made on May 28-29, 1987,
August 3-4, 1987.
Finding No. 1 - Computation of Rental Assistance Payment Incorrect
the
And
A. Jeronima Bermudez: The information provided concerning Ms. Bermudez's
income is sufficient to show the original computation of the payment was
correct. •
B. Julio Velez: This case remains open and will be included as part of the
special caseload for the Southeast Overtown/Park West Redevelopment Area.
C. In regard to other tenants displaced in the Highland Park Area, the
response indicates the files were reviewed and computations found to be in
accordance with base monthly housing cost requirements at
Section 42.453(b).. This is satisfactory.
Concerning tenants displaced in the Southeast Overtown/Part West
Redevelopment Area, it was indicated that additional time will be needed.
Some of the files have been misplaced. Please provide us with monthly
progress reports until all follow-up actions are completed.
Finding No. 2 - Rent Charged by City for T
Properties Exceeded the Fair Rental Value
Acquired
The response is satisfactory relative to the Highland Park area. It was
explained that the forms used to establish rents were not placed in the case
file folders. The rent charged to Ms. Bermudez was found to be correct due to
her income. However, as indicated in your response, the Overtown/Park West
area cases still need to be reviewed. Please provide monthly progress reports
until follow-up actions are completed.
Finding No. 3 - Evidence of Receipt of Replacement Housing Payment Was Not in
File
The response included evidence of original rental assistance payment for all
seven cases.
The response did not address the matter of evidence of adjusted payments. We
assume this is because no cases had been reviewed for adjustment prior to your
response. The response is satisfactory relative to the original payments
made. Information concerning adjusted payments in these particular cases
should be provided when you review the larger number of cases in connection
with Finding No. 1. The finding remain3 open.
Re-z1N
AW
2
Flndin� Ilo. si • Monthly Movsing Cost at Acavired and Replacement Dwell i
The response indicates the Dade County relocation staff is in the process of
recomputing Mr, Allen's Rental Assistance Payment. Please include resillts in
your next monthly report. Finding remains open.
Finding No. 5 - Documentation in Some Files indicates Comparable Replacement
The response indicates listings of referrals were given to the tenants and
should have been placed in each file folder and that it is the intention of
the City to make adjusted payments where this cannot be docimmented. Wo
recommend making adjusted payments in these cases in conjoinction with reviews
being made in connection with Finding No. 1. the two findings could affect
the some persons in a number of cases.
This findingalso remains
open pending completion of corrective actions.
Please report progress being made on the finding and others as indicated above
on a monthly basis..
kv
A"1e
Am
2
- nonthlY Mawsi%_C_ost at Acouired and Replacement Owell i
the response indicates the Dade County relocation staff is in the process of
recomputing Mr, Allen's Rental Assistance Payw.nt. Please inr.lude resioits in
your next monthly report. Finding remains open.
Findina No. 5 - Documentation in Some Files indicates Comparable Replacement
The response indicates listings of referrals were given to the tenants and
should have been placed in each file folder and that it is the intention of
the City to make adjusted payments where this cannot be documented. NOO,
recommend making adjusted payments in these cases in con,iomction with reviews
being made in connection with Finding No. 1. The two findings could affect
the same persons in a number of cases.
This findl also remains
ng open pending completion of corrective actions.
Please report progress being made on the finding and others as indicated above
on a monthly basis,.
T.
16