Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem #35 - Discussion Item41TY tuft MIAMI. PLOR10A INTER-OPPICE MEMORANDUM The Honorable Mayor and DATE: June 4, 1985 RILE: 1dembers of the pity Commission SUBJECT. Request For Presentation By Murray Dubbin On The City of Miami/FIU Bio- medical Research and Drew Sergio Perei a aE E�ENeEs: Innovation Center City Manager 'ss ENCLOSURES: June 13 Commission Meeting The Department of Economic Development has requested that Mr. Murray Dubbin brief the City Commission on his successful lobbying efforts with the Florida legislature in obtaining $500,000 to establish the City of Miami/FIU Biomedical Research and Innovation Center. Attached is a letter from Mr. Dubbin to the Director of the Department of Economic Development providing a report on his efforts during the past legislative session. CG/ju Attachment 1''56 USS 1 O i� LAW b0*1Ct t aei fiftiCKtLL Avtku€ i, MtA9t, :Pt 6fttttx 00131 1066 1`91Vt**A+E OLAfd Ms. Charlotte Gallogly Director, Department of Economic Development ' City of Miami 174 East Flagler Street Seventh Floor Miami, FL 33131 n 11 Re: City of Miami - Florida Research and Innovation Our File No. 24504 Dear Charlotte: May 29t 1905 +tLEb646#4 156S) :PI=36b8 International university Center (Project) This letter will update activities in the above matter from the report of May 17, 1985. May 20 and 21st, in Tallahassee. Conferred with various members of the Dade House and Senate delegation as well as House and Senate Appropriations leadership. The $500,000 planning appro- priation is in the possession of the Conference Committee under the PECO category. Attended Conference Subcomittee B meeting addressing higher education issues, however, the PECO issue was not taken up and it now appears that the PECO question will be handled by a separate subcommittee of the Conference Committee. At this stage it appears that the PECO issue has become somewhat complicated. The Senate included PECO appropriations in the General Appropriations Bill. By doing so, the line items become subject to the governor's selective veto. The House, on the other hand, passed a general appropriations bill and a separate PECO bill as part of a substantive piece of legislation which, some believe, will immunize it from the selective veto process. In any event, the I-Iouse and the Senate have not, as yet, agreed upon the form whereby they will address Public Education Capital Outlay. It subsequently appears that the PECO issue will be handled by a special subcommittee of the Conference Committee which is not scheduled to meet until later on this week. Re- turned to Miami Tuesday Evening (May 21st). May 24th and May 25th, in Tallahassee. Conferred with Fausto Gomez, lobbyist for FIU. Brought each other current as to the respective university appropriations activities. Determined that L9 the conference subcommittee on PECO and other issues was scheduled to meet Saturday morning. Attended conference commit tee meeting and conferred with various members of the bade House and Senate delegation. Conferred with Senate and House appropriations chairmen at length. one of the problems that we had to overcome was the fact that the appropriations request was extremely late in coming (halfway through the Session). one of the results was that there had been little legislative study and very little knowledge and understanding of the nature of the project. Thus, there is substantial concern as to what commitment the State would assume in the future by appropriating the "planning monies". The Legislature is wary about committing the State to assume future obligations under these circumstances. It was suggested to me that a $500,000 appropriation be made as a "grant" toward the development of the project and not as "planning money". The connotation would be that the State by the grant of the money, does not assume responsibility for future appropriations. I pointed out that it may be the desire of the University and City to seek a loan from the legislature, similar to the Shands Patient Care Center, and certainly it would be necessary to use the power of the State to issue revenue bonds for capital con- struction under the R & D Authority Law or any other State power which may be authorized by law. It was understood that statuto- rily authorized financing methods were not to be adversely affected or impaired. There was discussion as to whether the Grant would come from PECO or general revenue but as a matter of fact it does not matter so long as the money is available. I advised them that I would have to obtain approval from my client to the proposal, but that under the circumstances, I would Fv, recommend such approval. I subsequently communicated with Charlotte and Mr. Pereira, City yF Manager and explained the proposal. I also recommended that the grant should be accepted with the understanding between the City and FIU that they would have to sit down and work out a method satisfactory to the City of providing the State matching funds, which might include revenue bonds or a future loan from the State similar to the Shands Hospital transaction. Mr. Pereira's prime expressed concern was that no additional revenues be expected from the City or that the City become obligated for additional expenses in establishing the project. I told him that in my opinion, such could be assured. I received approval from the City as well as representatives of FIU and conveyed such approval to the Appropriations Conference Committee. 'AN DU13131r; �* J5aRXN,4X 02,dp M� M Mo. charlotte Gallogly May 29, 1985 Page 3 At this stage in the Legislature# (May 29th) # the APPMPfiatiOn Bill has not passed. We are assured that the Grant is in the final work product but out of general revenue, not PECO. T have not at this time reviewed the proviso language. Respectfully submitted, MUR��Yli.. DUBBIN MHD3:nd/she