Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
CC 1984-06-28 Minutes
r CITY OF MIAMI . R 0 1�. I A W 0 , -1 L, 1 I Ulk Eat I OF MEETING HELD ON June 28, 1984 PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL RALPH G.. ONGIE CITY CLERK i INDEX MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA JUNE 28, 1984 ITEM SUBJECT LEGISLATION PAGE NO. NO. 1. PRESENTATIONS, PROCLAMATIONS AND SPECIAL ITEMS DISCUSSION 1 2 ACCEPT CHECK FROM MOBIL OIL COMPANY IN CONNEC- TION WITH JOB OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTHS PROGRAM ENTITLED; "THE GREEN TEAM". M-84-690 1-3 3 PRESENTATION TO RAY CORONA, FOR SAVING A HUMAN LIFE. DISCUSSION 3 4 GOING ON RECORD SUPPORTING THE IDEA OF BRINGING TO MIAMI THE "THINK TANK" OF THE ASPEN GROUP. M-84-691 3-4 5 DISCUSSION ITEM. COCUNTY GRANTS TO THE CITY OF MIAMI-CITY MANAGER TO INVESTIGATE AND REPORT BACK TO THE COMMISSION. DISCUSSION 5 6.A ALLOCATE $93,000 TO CAMACOL FOR THE "PERMANENT SECRETARIAT OF THE HEMISPHERIC CONGRESS OF LATIN CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE". R-84-692 5-7 6.B ALLOCATE $37,000 IN CONNECTION WITH THE HOLDING OF THE FIFTH HEMISPHERIC CONGRESS OF LATIN CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE, TO BE HELD IN SEPTEMBER, 1984. R-84-693 7-8 7. GRANT REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING-"HAITIAN AMERICAN YOUTH PROGRAM". M-84-694 8-10 8 PERSONAL APPEARANCE: ALFREDO MARRERO REQUESTS A CONTRIBUTION FROM THE CITY FOR AD WHICH WAS PLACED IN COMMERCIAL DIRECTORY. REFERRED TO MANAGER. DISCUSSION 10-11 9 GRANT REQUEST FOR FUNDS: "MIAMI CONFERENCE ON THE CARIBBEAN". M-84-695 11-12 10 PERSONAL APPEARANCE: MRS. THELMA GIBSON, TO DISCUSS LONG TERM, LOW INTEREST LOANS TO COM- PLETE ACQUISITION OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES AND REHAB OF THE TIKI BUILDINGS. DISCUSSION 12-17 11 EXTEND EMPLOYMENT OF JOSE GARCIA PEDROSA AS CITY ATTORNEY THROUGH JULY 31, 1984. M-84-696 17 12 APPROVE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE CRIME PREVENTION PROJECT AS OUTLINED BY ANNE MARIE ADKER ON THIS DATE. M-84-697 18-19 13 ALLOCATE $10,000 TO THE "MIAMI GOOMBAY FESTI- VAL". R-84-698 21 14 STATE INTENT OF THE CITY COMMISSION TO EARMARK A PORTION OF THE 3% BED TAX MONIES TO THE UPGRAD- ING OF THE COCONUT GROVE EXHIBITION CENTER. M-84-699 21-24 15 GRANT REQUEST MADE BY THE "BRIGADE 2506" FOR FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,000 FOR RESTORING A RECENTLY 'VANDALIZED MONUMENT. M-84-700 24-25 0 0 PAGE # 2 16 GRANT REQUEST FOR FUNDING MADE BY THE "NEIL COZIE FOOTBALL CAMP" AT GEORGE WASHINGTON, J. HIGH SCHOOL. ALLOCATE $2,000 M-84-701 25-27 17 APPROPRIATE $259000 IN AN ATTEMPT TO BRING THE "ANNUAL SISTER CITY INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION" TO MIAMI IN 1984. M-84-702 27-28 18 APPOINT VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS AS MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI WATERFRONT BOARD. M-84-703 28-29 19 ALLOCATE $10,000 AS A CONTRIBUTION TO THE CUBAN ASSOCIATION OF ACCOUNTANTS IN EXILE IN CONNEC- TION WITH THE HOLDING OF THEIR "XVI INTER AMERICAN CONFERENCE" TO BER HELD IN AUGUST 1985. R-84-704 29-30 20 ALLOCATE $69200 IN SUPPORT OF "PUERTO RICO DAY". R-84-705 31 21 INSTRUCT THE CITY MANAGER TO NOTIFY COOPERS A LYBRAND, PRESENT EXTERNAL AUDITORS OF THE CITY, THAT AT THE END OF THEIR PRESENTLY EXISTING CONTRACT, THE CITY OF MIAMI INTENDS TO REVISIT THE IDEA OF HAVING THEM SERVE IN SUCH CAPACITY. M-84-706 31-32 22 STIPULATE THAT THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING PRESENTLY SCHEDULED FOR JULY 309 1984 SHALL END AT EXACTLY 7;00 O'CLOCK P.M. M-84-707 32-35 23 BRIEF COMMENT BY MAYOR FERRE REGARDING PROPOSED STRONG MAYOR FORM OF GOVERNMENT. DISCUSSION 35 24 URGE GOVERNOR GRAHAM TO CONVENE A SPECIAL SES- SION OF THE LEGISLATURE TO REPEAL THE 1983 UNITARY TAX LAW. R--84-708 35-36 25 CLAIM SETTLEMENT: BISCAYNE RECREATION DEVELOP- MENT COMPANY ($80,000). R-84-709 36-39 26 APPROVE CONCEPT OF RESTAURANT ARCADES ALONG STREETS IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA, AND MORE SPECIFI- CALLY FLAGLER STREET, FURTHER REQUESTING OF THE STATE TO NO LONGER DESIGNATE FLAGLER STREET AS A STATE HIGHWAY. R-84-710 39-40 27 DISCUSSION AND TEMPQRARY DEFERRAL OF PROPOSED FIRST READING ORDINANCE TO CHANGE ZONING CLASSI- FICATION ART 6450-6470 W. FLAGLER STREET FROM RG-3/5 TO CR-2/7.(SEE LATER SAME MEETING.) DISCUSSION 40-42 = 28 PERSONAL APPEARANCE: ALFREDO MENDOZA REQUESTING FUNDING (REFERRED TO CITY MANAGER). DISCUSSION 42-43 29 INSTRUCT CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY TO MEET WITH MR. THEODORE GOULD REGARDING THE BIFURCATED - RAMP IN THE DUPONT PLAZA AREA. M-84-711 43-58 - 30 SELECT LUCIA ALLEN DOUGHERTY AS THE NEW CITY ATTORNEY EFFECTIVE AUGUST 1, 1984 (SEE LATER FORMALIZING RESOLUTION). SEE LATER 58-60 R-84-714 31 ACCEPT PLAT: HIGHLAND PARK DRIVE. SECTION 2. R-84-713 60-63 32 PRESENTATIONN TO JOSE FERNANDEZ AS OUTSTANDING OFFICE OF THE MONTH. DISCUSSION 64 - 33 FIRST READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE ZONING CLASSI- FICATION AT 3930-4024 N.W. 7TH STREET FROM RG- 12/4 TO CR-2/7. 1ST READING 64-79 34 FORMALIZING RESOLUTION: APPOINT LUCIA ALLEN - DOUGHERTY AS THE NEW CITY ATTORNEY EFFECTIVE AUGUST 1, 1984. R-84-714 79 0 0 PAGE # 3 35 ENCOURAGE OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF FOREIGN FLAG PASSENGER VESSELS WHICH CALL AT FLORIDA PORTS TO EMPLOY U.S. CITIZENS RESIDING IN THIS COUNTRY. R-84-715 80 36 CONFIRM ACTION OF THE CITY MANAGER WAIVING COMPETITIVE BIDS REQUIREMENTS FOR MODULAR WORK STATIONS IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. R-84-716 80-81 37 DISCUSSION AND TEMPORARY DEFERRAL OF ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE CITY MANAGER. DISCUSSION 90 38 CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING OF REQUEST FOR CHANGE OF ZONING CLASSIFICATION AT 6450-6490 WEST FLAGLER STREET PENDING A MEETING BETWEEN CITY MANAGER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND THE APPLICANT. M-84-717 90-96 39 DISCUSSION CONCERNING FORTHCOMING PROPOSED BOND ISSUE FOR PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES BONDS. DISCUSSION 96-98 40 ISSUE FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR SIXTH FLOOR ADDITION TO THE MIAMI HERALD BUILDING. R-84-718 98 41 AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT CASE NO 84-0550-CIV-SMA-KENNETH I. HARMS VS. CITY OF MIAMI. R-84-719 98-115 42 FIRST READING ORDINANCE. CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION AT APPROXIMATELY 725 N.Y. 35TH AVENUE FROM RS-2/2 TO RG-1/3. 1ST READING 115-120 43 FIRST READING ORDINANCE. CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION AT APPROXIMATELY 3251 SOUTH MIAMI AVENUE AND 50 S.Y. 32 RD. ("VIZCAYA") FROM RS- 2/2 TO GU. 1ST READING 121-122 44 DISCUSSION AND CONTINUANCE TO JULY 31ST OF PROPOSED FIRST READING ORDINANCE TO APPLY SECT. 16.10 HC-1 GENERAL USE HERITAGE CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT TO "VIZCAYA" DISCUSSION 122-123 45 FIRST READING ORDINANCE. APPLY SECT. 16.10 HC-1 GU HERITAGE CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT TO THE CUSHMAN SCHOOL, LOCATED AT 592 N.E. 60TH STREET. 1ST READING 124 46 VACATE AND CLOSE A PORTION OF N.Y. 11TH TERRACE IN CONNECTION WITH THE CULMER STATION, FIRST ADDITION- PLAT NO. 1212. R-84-720 125 47 DENY PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S APPEAL OF VARIANCE GRANTED BY THE ZONING BOARD TO SPANISH INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS LOCATED AT 2501 N.Y. 7TH STREET., 740-742 N.E. 25TH AVENUE AND 741-743 N.Y. 26TH AVENUE. R-84-721 127 48 ACCEPT PLAT: "C-SAIL". R-84-722 127-128 49 AUTHORIZE FINAL APPLICATION FOR MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE 1221 BRICKELL PROJECT. AMERISWISS ASSOCIATES. R-84-723 128-129 50 DISCUSSION AND TEMPORARY DEFERRAL OF FINAL APPLICATION BY THE ROUSE COMPANY FOR A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE BAYSIDE PROJECT. DISCUSSION 130 51 BRIEF COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONER J.L. PLUMMER REGARDING THE FISHING TEAM AWARDS BANQUET. DISCUSSION 131 52 AUTHORIZE FINAL APPLICATION FOR MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT BY THE ROUSE COMPANY IN CONNECTION WITH THE BAYSIDE PROJECT. R-84-724 131 53 AUTHORIZE FINAL APPLICATION FOR MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT IN CONNECTION WITH THE COMMODORE BAY, LOCATED AT 3471 MAIN HIGHWAY. R-84-725 131-134 PAGE # 4 =_ 54 ESTABLISH THE DATE OF JULY 12 1984 AS A SPECIAL MEETING AT THE MANUEL ARTIME COMMUNITI CENTER TO _= CONSIDER EXTENDING THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER FOR MIAMI CENTER -PHASE II. M-84-726 135 55 SECOND READING ORDINANCE. TEXT CHANGE TO ORDINANCE 9500. ADD NEW SUBSECTION 2003.9 ENTITLED "TEMPORARTY SPECIAL EVENT". ORD. 09857 135-136 y 56 SECOND READING ORDINANCE: TEST AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 9500; AMEND ART. 20=SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS, SEC. 2031 AND 2031.2 "DRIVE IN ESTABLISHMENTS; CAR WASHES,...", ETC. ORD. 9858 136-140 57 DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED FIRST READINGG ORDINANCE TO AMEND ORDINANCE 9500. ART. L5, SPI-2 AND SPI- T -"POLITICAL CAMPAIGN SIGNS". DISCUSSION 142-146 58 FIRST READING ORDINANCE: AMEND TEXT OF ORDINANCE 9500. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS, LIGHT PLANES, OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS. HOME OCCUPATIONS.ETC. 1ST READING 144-150 59 DEFERRAL OR PROPOSED FIRST READING ORDINANCE AMENDING 9500. AMEND SEC. 2026-"SIGN LIMITATIONS" -REFER THIS BACK TO PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD. M-84-727 151-153 60 BRIEF DISCUSSION AND TEMPORARY DEFERRAL OF A PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING A NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN (FOR THE SILVER BLUFF AREAS). DISCUSSION 153-155 61 APPROVE CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE RENTAL RATES AT THE MIAMI OUTBOARD CLUB FOR THE LEASE PERIODD TOM BEGIN MARCH 19 1982 AND TERMINATING FEBRUARY 289 1985• R-84-728 155 62 DISCUSSION REGARDING CODE COMPLIANCE AT 3940 DOUGLAS ROAD. DISCUSSION 156-157 = 63 AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL - SERVICES CONTRACT "URBAN STUDIES INSTITUTE, INC." - BARRY UNIVERSITY, FOR OVERALL CONSULTANT SERVICES. R-84-729 157-158 64 AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA MEMORIAL COLLEGE -HUMAN RELATIONS TRAINING, FOR THE - POLICE DEPARTMENT. R-84-730 158-159 65 AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH VALLE AXELBERD AND ASSOC. - TO PROVIDE CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR POLICE DEPARTMENT. R-84-731 159-160 66A DIRECT CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION TO ENSURE THAT ARCHITECTURAL RENDERING OF PROPOSED BUILDINGS TO BE BUILT ON - ANY PUBLIC PROPERTY SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE ,ITY FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF FINAL PERMITS. M-84-732 162-164 66B CLAIM SETTLEMENT: MARINE STADIUM ENTERPRISES, INC. $359821.00. M-84-733 165 67 AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT TO THE $1,300,000 REVOLVING LOAN FUND AND $120,000 ADMINISTRATIVE CONTRACT BETWEEN MIAMI CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT INC. AND THE CITY OF MIAMI- EXTEND CONTRACT PERFORMANCE PERIOD. R-84-734 165 68 DISCUSSION AND TEMPORARY DEFERRAL OF PROPOSED NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN FOR A PORTION OF THE SILVER BLUFF AREA. (SEE LABEL 70). DISCUSSION 166-173 PAGE # 5 69 CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF PROP03ED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 9500 SEC. 2026-"BILLBOARD SIGNS", ETC. DISCUSSION 173 70 CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING OF PROPOSED -_ NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN FOR A PORTION OF THE SILVER BLUFF AREA; VAC/CLOSURE OF ALLEY IN CONNECTION WITH PLAT NO. 1169=C "WHITE PLAZA _ SUB". R-84-735 174-178 `- 71 SECOND READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION AT 2226 S.W. 25TH AVENUE AND 2511-2575 S.W. 22ND TERRACE FROM RS-2/2 TO CR- 2/7 ORD. 9859 1?9-180 72 SECOND READING ORDINANCE. AMEND CITY CODE SEC. 54-17-PROVIDE FOR PROHIBITION OF VEHICULAR ACCESS TO A PARTICULAR STREET WHERE SUCH PROHIBITION IS FOUND TO BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. _ ORD. 9860 180-181 73 ACCEPT PROPOSALS OF KURFEST COMPANY AND SLACK, SLACK & ROE, INC., M.A.I. APPRAISERS -REVIEW OF LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND BAYSIDE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP FOR DESIGN CONSTRUCTION, LEASING AND MANAGEMENT OF THE BAYSIDE SPECIALTY CENTER. R=-84-736 181-182 74 AUTHORIZE EMPLOYMENT OF C.M.S. INTERNATIONAL TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANT SERVICES REGARDING ARBITRATION WITH MIAMI CENTER ASSOCIATES CONCERNING APPORTIONMENT OF OPERATING COSTS FOR WATER EXPENSE AT THE CONVENTION _ CENTER. M-84-737 181-184 75 AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT RENTAL REHABILITATION GRANT FROM H.U.D. TO INCREASE SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE STANDARD HOUSING FOR LOWER _ INCOME FAMILIES. R-84-738 184 76 AUTHORIZE AGREEMENT WITH METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY IMPLEMENTATION OF DADE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK. GRANT PROGRAM.9TH YEAR. R-84-739 185 77 DIRECT CITY MANAGER TO CHOOSE FROM A LIST OF INDIVIDUALS TO FORM A COMMITTEE TO EVALUATE THE CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE. M-84-740 186 78 INSTRUCT CITY MANAGER TO REVISIT ZONING IN THE INDUSTRIAL AREA OF ALLAPATTAH, PARTICULARLY, IN THE VICINITY OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS. M-84-741 187 79 REQUEST CITY MANAGER TO BRING BACK FOR DISCUSSION A REQUEST TO RENAME 15TH STREET AS . "ALVAH CHAPMAN STREET". DISCUSSION 187 81 SECOND READING ORDINANCE: CHARTER AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CORRECT GRAMMATICAL, SYNTACTICAL AND LINGUISTIC ERRORS IN THE CHARTER. ORD. 9861 188 82 AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENT WITH SPARBER, SHEVIN, CHAPO & HEILBRONNER, PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION, FOR SERVICES OF ARTHUR E. TEELE, JR. TO REPRESENT THE CITY BEFORE THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT. R-84-742 188-189 83 CONTINUED DISCUSSION REGARDING CABLE T.V.- COMMENT BY MAYOR MAURICE FERRE. DISCUSSION 189-190 84 DISCUSSION AND TEMPORARY DEFERRAL OF AUTHORIZATION TO ISSUE RFP'S FOR A U.D.P. FOR THE OVERTOWN/PARK WEST -PHASE I PROJECT. DISCUSSION 190-191 PAGE # 6 85 PROVIDE FOR SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON SEPTEMBER 4, 1984 FOR APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF MEASURE KONWN AS "CHARTER AMENDMENT NO. 1". R-84-743 191 86 APPROVE AND CONFIRM CITY MANAGER'S ACCEPTANCE OF A $40,240.98 GRANT FROM METRO FOR CHILD DAY CARE SERVICES. _- R-84-744 192 87 FIRST READING ORDINANCE: AMEND EXISTING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT APPROPRIATIONS ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE FOR LAND ACQUISITION FOR THE "CONVENTIONAL PUBLIC HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM". 1ST READING 192 88A SECOND READING ORDINANCE: (A) AMEND CODE CHAPTER 22 ENTITLED:"GARBAGE AND TRASH" - RE: LOCATION OF DUMPSTERS. (B) INSTRUCT CITY MANAGER TO REVISIT THE ISSUE OF ABSENTEE GARBAGE FEES. ORD.9862 M-84-745 _ 193-19 89 BRIEF DISCUSSION ITEM: REGARDING CITY RESIDENTS EMPLOYING THE SERVICES OF PRIVATE HAULING = COMPANIES. DISCUSSION 198 90 AUTHORIZE R.F.P.'S FOR A.U.D.P. FOR THE OVERTOWN/PARK WEST PHASE I PROJECT FOR RESIDENCES AND COMMERCIAL FACILITIES. M-84-746 198-204 91 DISCUSSION ITEM: PROPOSED PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR REVIEW OF U.D.P. PROPOSAL TO BE SUBMITTED IN CONNECTION WI THE OVERTOWN/PARK WEST -PHASE I PROJECT. DISCUSSION 205 92 SELECT ACCOUNTING FIRM OF TOUCHE, ROSS TO - ANALYZE U.D.P. PROPOSAL TO BE SUBMITTED IN CONNECTION WITH OVERTOWN/.PARK WEST -PHASE I PROJECT. M-84-747 205-206 92.1 SELECTION OF REVIEW COMMITTEE FOR RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING EXPERIENCE AND - QUALIFICATIONS OF R.F.P. PROPOSALS TO BE RECEIVED IN CONNECTION WITH THE OVERTOWN/PARK WEST PHASE I PROJECT. DISCUSSION 206-210 93 RESOLUTION SETTING FORTH COMPENSATION BENEFITS AND EMOLUMENTS TO BE RECEIVED BY HOWARD V. GARY, CITY MANAGER. R-84-748 210 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA On the 28th day of June, 1984, the City Commission of Miami, Florida, met at its regular meeting place in the City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida in regular session. The meeting was called to order at 9:10 O'Clock A.M. by Mayor Maurice A. Ferre with the following members of the Commission found to be present: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre ALSO PRESENT: Howard V. Gary, City Manager Jose R. Garcia -Pedrosa, City Attorney Ralph G. Ongie, City Clerk (absent) Matty Hirai, Assistant City Clerk An invocation was delivered by Mrs. Thelma Anderson Gibson who then led those present in a pledge of allegiance to the flag. ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. PRESENTATIONS, PROCLAMATIONS AND SPECIAL ITEMS. - Proclamation: ----------------- Ethel Beckham Day, up her - PRESENTED retirement as a Dade County School Board member. Commendation: Police Officer Leonora Johnson, PRESENTED selected Outstanding Officer of the Year by Citizen's Crime Watch of Dade County. Plaque: Battalion Chief Daniel He der, PRESENTED Miami Fire Department. Commendation: Mr. Amado "A1" Acosta, for his PRESENTED initiative and Fedication to community service. _ ------------------------------------------------------------ 2. ACCEPT CHECK FROM MOBIL OIL COMPANY IN CONNECTION WITH JOB OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTHS PROGRAM ENTITLED: "THE GREEN TEAM". ------------------------------------------------------------ Mayor Ferre: At this time the Mobil Oil Company is here to make a presentation to us and I will now recognize the representative of the Mobil Oil Company. The City of Miami gl i June 28, 1984 has been awarded... well, I will let him say it. You tell US. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We appreciate being with you and the City Council. We have been here before and spent a lot of time. We are usually working on some business problems with you or permitting issues and so forth, but today it's a pleasure to participate with the City of Miami in making a grant that we hope will be beneficial to all the people of Miami and beneficial specifically to the young disadvantaged youths that they may have employment. We know you have got a good program going in the City and we have been pleased to add Miami to a series of cities that we have made these kind of donation and so on behalf of Mobil Oil we would like to present you with a check for fifty thousand dollars to be used to fund the green team and we have a shirt... there is one left Will. In case you want to get out there and work on the green team, why... Mayor Ferre: I might now. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We have shirts for all the Commissioners so you can work out in the park with all the kids and the object, of course, is to... Mr. Gary: Can we put them out to work tomorrow? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes ... (COMMENT INAUDIBLE). Mayor Ferre: I was going to say this very nice but where is the check. I want to thank you very much and the Mobil Foundation on behalf of the City. Believe me this will be very useful and very helpful and we are very pleased and very happy to accept this. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor, can we pass the emergency accepting this money? Mayor Ferre: All right, J. L. Plummer moves, Miller Dawkins seconds the acceptance of this money. Is there further discussion on the resolution that accepts this money? Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Manager, on your memo here I distinctly asked you to take out clear lots. It's not taken out here sir. Mr. Gary: Well, that's the same memo we had before and I apologize that that was not taken out, but this these green teams, Commissioner, will be people who will learn a skill in terms of trimming trees, providing landscape. It is not people that are going to be going around with sticks just picking up trash. This is not going to be one those make work programs. Mr. Dawkins: running around Mr. Manager. That is in the record that they will not be with a stick picking up paper. Thank you, gl 2 June 28, 1984 The following motion was introduced Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 84-590 A MOTION ACCEPTING A CHECK FROM MOBIL OIL, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,000 AS A GRANT FOR A PROGRAM TO BE ADMINISTERED THROUGH THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT AND TO BE CALLED "THE GREEN TEAM" FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING JOB OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTHS. by Upon being seconded by Commissioner Dawkins, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote — AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice —Mayor Demetrio J. Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo 3. PRESENTATION TO RAY CORONA, FOR SAVING A HUMAN LIFE. Commendation: Mr. Ray Corona, for his unselfish PRESENTED ------------------------------------------------------------ courage in saving a life. 4. GOING ON RECORD SUPPORTING THE IDEA OF BRINGING TO MIAMI THE "THINK TANK" OF THE ASPEN GROUP. Mayor Ferre: All right, Mr. Plummer on pocket items. The Chair recognizes you. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, the only pocket item that I was requested to bring up was by Marshall Steingold. I had not had the time to meet with him, but Mr. Mayor, this is more your item than mine and it's in relation to being able to bring the think tank as you recalled of the Aspen group to Miami. I think that this Commission needs to go on record to do everything that we can to try and bring this group to South Florida and in particular into Coconut Grove. They have furnished everyone a copy of this letter as a pocket item. It's from the Coconut Grove markets. I would be willing to move this morning that this city back the bringing of this group to Miami, but I would go over the four requests that they have in their application. Mayor Ferre: What group are you talking about? Mr. Plummer: The Aspen... Ok. I question their use of the 3rd cent of sales tax which is what they are requesting... excuse me, three percent of the bed tax that could be used for anything other than the exhibition center Downtown. I think that was pretty clear that they are wanting seven million dollars here. I think what we want to do and if gl 3 June 28, 1984 nothing more we want to back this thing in principle and do everything humanly possible to bring that kind of organization to this community and I would Mr. Mayor, be willing to offer that we in principle back and do everything within our power to bring this group to our local community as soon as possible. Mayor Ferre: Is there a second? it Mr. Perez: Second. Mayor Ferre: All right, further discussion? Go ahead. Mr. Perez: I second Mr. Mayor, without any doubt I think that that's the kind of effort and the kind of project that we have to encourage to attract to this community and I am very proud to second this motion. Mayor Ferre: All right, under discussion I would like to... I see Woody Wiser is here and Mr. Marguilles and Mr. Treister and other activists in the Coconut Grove area. I would like to point out that I do think that there is a moral obligation on the part of the City to so use the additional bed tax so that it creates the maximum good for the maximum number of people. Now, we don't know where we are headed because we don't know how many bidders are going to be... so we have to be flexible about this. Now, we don't know how many bidders there are going to be for the coliseum and the exhibition hall, but certainly in principle I subscribe to the idea that some of these monies should improve the other facilities. See, Miami really basically has only two facilities now. One is the Knight Center and the other one is Coconut Grove. So, I think in principle we serve the well being of the community by improving the usage of this exhibition hall which had now a hundred seventeen thousand square feet. Now, the second aspect is related, but not really related and that is trying to bring the Aspen Institute to Miami. I have never been to the Aspen Institute in Aspen, but I have been to the "Y" Plantation in Washington D.C. where the Aspen Institute does function and of course, anybody who reads Time Magazine or Newsweek or the Miami Herald or News or any newspaper knows what the Aspen Institute is because it's continually making headlines or bringing people together. I cannot think of a more important place for the Aspen Institute to try to function than in Miami and I can't think of a better place for that to occur than in Coconut Grove and I can't think of a better place in Coconut Grove than in that center that we presently have. So, I am philosophically as I told all of the members of the various Coconut Grove organizations that I think that this is a just cause and one that I would like to add my name to. Further statements. Are you ready to vote. All right, call the roll. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 84-691 A MOTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION GOING ON RECORD AND FULLY BACKING THE CONCEPT OF BRINGING TO THE CITY OF MIAMI, AND MORE PARTICULARLY TO COCONUT GROVE, THE THINK TANK" OF THE ASPEN GROUP, AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Perez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote- gl 4 June 28, 1984 AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice --Mayor Demetrio J. Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo S. DISCUSSION ITEM: COUNTY GRANTS TO THE CITY OF MIAMI - CITY MANAGER TO INVESTIGATE AND REPORT BACK TO THE COMMISSION. Mayor Ferre: All right, Mr. Plummer anything else? Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, the only other thing I wanted to bring up, I am assuming that most people read the article in this morning's paper and I would like to have on for discussion. One of the Metro Commissioners is proposing that the County completely eliminate any grants or funding and I think that we know the impact that that would have on our city as well as other cities. We have seen it in the past couple of years and I would like the Manager to put on the next agenda for discussion how that would affect this City and what we should do to prepare our selves. If it obvious that in fact in the future that a ordinance were to be placed into affect that people coming here are going to greatly number more than what we have seen in the past and like the County we have also our problems and our obligations and I think we better address that issue right up front and immediately. So, I just want that on the next agenda for discussion. Mr. Mayor, I have no further pocket issues. 6.A ALLOCATE $93,000 TO C.A.M.A.C.O.L. FOR THE "PERMANENT SECRETARIAT OF THE HEMISPHERIC CONGRESS OF LATIN CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE." Mayor Ferre: All right, Commissioner Perez, pocket items. Mr. Perez: Mr. Mayor, first I have a resolution to formalize what was a motion of intent of this Commission in favor of the CAMACOL of the Latin American Chamber of Commerce in reference to the second Hemispheric Congress allocating the amount of ninety-three thousand dollars for that convention next September and that's what I want to move. Mayor Ferre: This is a resolution allocating the amount of not to exceed ninety-three thousand dollars from the special programs and accounts contingency fund in support of program Latin Charaber of Commerce of the United States funding of the Permanent Secretariat of the Hemispheric Congress of Latin American Chamber of Commerce and industry said location being conditioned upon substantial compliance with the City of Miami's Administrative Policy dated January 24, 1984 and said location being further in condition upon the substantial resolutions of the outstanding audit finding cited by the City of Miami in the May 29th audit report of gl 5 June 28, 1984 the 1982-83 Permanent Secretariat Program; further authorizing the Manager to execute an agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney with said organization. Now, Mr. Vice -Mayor, as I understand it this we have voted on before. Is that right Mr. Manager, the Commission has voted on? This formalizes it. This is the formalizing of the previous action we have taken. Is there a second? Mr. Dawkins: Second. Mayor Ferre: Further discussion on this motion? All right call the roll. ON ROLL CALL: Mayor Ferre: I want to make a statement into the record as I vote. We have had three of these Hemispheric Congresses here. The last one had representatives of twenty-three nations. We sometimes don't understand the importance of Chambers of Commerce in Latin America. In a place like Colombia or Venezuela and other Latin Countries they follow the European model. In the European model of a chamber you don't join because you want to join, you have got to join. In other words if you have a business license you pay a fee depending on the business you do to the Chamber of Commerce. Therefore, for example in the Venezuelan Chamber of Commerce their annual budget is over twenty million dollars. So, they in effect end up being an agency as if it were a government representing the private sector of the business community. They are a very very large organizations. Now, they do a tremendous amount of good. There are in... they really are a part of the system of how these countries are run and for us to have gotten them to join in a hemispheric congress where we get people from Jamaica and from Colombia and Trinidad and Argentina and other parts of the Caribbean and Latin America is major achievement. I cannot tell you how important it is. We in Miami have not given it the importance that it deserves and that includes the press. I would hope that as we go on deeper into this that we will spend the time effort and money to really make it significant. I commend the Latin Chamber of Commerce for their initiative and I vote "yes" with this matter. All right,... Yes, sir, Captain Alexander? Capt. Alexander: I would just like to clarify that I don't hear that's it's all so approved the budget for the convention and the Secretariat Permanent. Mayor Ferre: I think it's included. Isn't it Mr. Manager. Capt. Alexander: It's included? Ok. Thank you. Mayor Ferre: All right, Peter, you see how easy it is? Mr. Gary: There is two separate items. gl 6 June 28, 1984 The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner PerA7., who movAd its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 84-692 A RESOLUTION ALLOCATING AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $93,000 FROM THE SPECIAL PROGRAMS AND ACCOUNTS CONTINGENT FUND, IN SUPPORT OF THE PROGRAM OF THE LATIN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES (CAMACOL) FOR FUNDING OF THE PERMANENT SECRETARIAT OF THE HEMISPHERIC CONGRESS OF LATIN CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY; SAID ALLOCATION BEING CONDITIONED UPON SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF MIAMI ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY NO. APM- 1/84, DATED JANUARY 24, 1984; SAID ALLOCATION BEING FURTHER CONDITIONED _ UPON THE SUBSTANTIAL RESOLUTION OF THE OUTSTANDING AUDIT FINDINGS CITED BY THE CITY OF MIAMI IN A MAY 29, 1984 AUDIT REPORT OF THE 1982-83 PERMANENT SECRETRIAT PROGRAM; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, WITH SAID ORGANIZATION. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Dawkins, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio J. Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo 6.B ALLOCATE $37,000 IN CONNECTION WITH THE HOLDING OF THE FIFTH HEMISPHERIC CONGRESS OF LATIN CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE, TO BE HELD IN SEPTEMBER, 1984. Mayor Ferre: There is a separate motion which is the difference between that and a hundred thirty thousand. In words that thirty-seven thousand for this year's congress. Is that correct? Mr. Plummer: That was read in the ordinance. Mayor Ferre: No, see we only approved one. We now need to approve the second. All right, Commissioner Perez moves. Is there a second? Mr. Carollo: Second. Mayer Ferre: It's been seconded. Further discussion? This is on this year's... the previous ninety-three thousand was gl 7 June 28, 1984 for the Permanent Secretariat. Then we have to vote thirty -- seventy thousand for this year's annual Conference of the Hemispheric Chambers of Commerce. Is that correct? Further discussion, call the roll. ON ROLL CALL: Mayor Ferre: In voting "yes" Mr. Sabines and Captain Alexander, I would like to commend to you that you really make an effort this year to bring into this meeting the United States Chamber of Commerce, the Florida Chamber of Commerce and the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce. They have not been present or active in the past and this is much too important... I'm talking about at a presidential level. I would hope that you get the top people of our National Chambers to be... to recognize the importance of this gathering and to be present. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Perez, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 84-693 A RESOLUTION ALLOCATING AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $37,000 FROM THE SPECIAL PROGRAMS AND ACCOUNTS CONTINGENT FUND, IN SUPPORT OF THE PROGRAM OF THE LATIN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES (CAMACOL) FOR PREPARATION, COORDINATION AND SUPERVISION OF THE FIFTH HEMISPHERIC CONGRESS OF LATIN CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY TO BE HELD SEPTEMBER 508, 1984 IN MIAMI, FLORIDA; SAID ALLOCATION BEING CONDITIONED UPON SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF MIAMI ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY NO. APM-1-84, DATED JANUARY 24, 1984; SAID ALLOCATION BEING FURTHER CONDITIONED UPON THE SUBSTANTIAL RESOLUTION OF THE OUTSTANDING AUDIT FINDINGS IDENTIFIED BY THE CITY IN AN AUDIT OF THE FOURTH HEMISPHERIC CONGRESS PROGRAM; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, WITH SAID ORGANIZATION. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Carollo, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Joe Carolln Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: None. gl 8 June 28, 1984 7. GRANT REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING - "HAITIAN AMERICAN YOUTH PROGRAM". Mayor Ferre: Next. Mr. Perez: Mr. Mayor, I would like that you recognize Mr. Jack Despinosa of the Haitian American Youth Program. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Jack Despinosa, the Chair recognizes you. Mr. Jack Despinosa: Good morning, Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, City Manager. My name is Jack Despinosa representing the Haitian American Youth. On June 14th there was a motion made to give us ten thousand dollars for a youth program. This money was quite impossible to occupy one hundred kids for this Summer and I will appreciate if some how we can bring an addition out of that money. Mr. Perez: What is your definite request? You were in my office yesterday afternoon, but what are you requesting definite? Ten thousand dollars more for your program? Mr. Despinosa: Yes, Commissioner. Mr. Perez: Could I know what is the Manager's recommendation? Mayor Ferre: Mr. Manager. Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor, at the last meeting this is a youth development program that was presented to you by Mr. Despinosa and you agreed to give ten thousand dollars for this program. We have evaluated it and we find that to give them ten thousand dollars you might as well not give them anything and that we would recommend that in view of the intent of the Commission that we increase this amount from ten to twenty thousand to come from CD. So, we are talking about a total of twenty thousand dollars. Mayor Ferre: All right, there is a motion on the floor, is there a second? Mr. Plummer: Second. Under discussion. Mayor Ferre: Ok. Go ahead. Mr. Plummer: Now, Mr. Gary, I have no problem voting for that. I think it's money well spent, but I do think that we are going to have to treat all applications in the same fairness. Now, Annie Adker is here and she is going to be wanting to have some money for a teen program and I think what we are going to have to do is we are going to have to have fairness prevail across the board. So, I just want to say in voting "yes" that I'm going to expect that same across the board from the administration that we are showing here. Mr. Gary: Well, we will be consistent in doing that. I would like to say Commissioner Plummer, this program was funded before and this program is unique in that it addresses or it targets a group that has been neglected in this area and that's basically Haitians and because of the unique needs of that community, particularly as it relates to youth development as opposed to what currently exist in Overtown, Liberty City, and Little Havana, we think that this should be done. Mr. Plummer: I don't disagree. gl 9 June 28, 1984 Mayor Ferre: Further discussion? All right, are we ready to vote? Call the roll.. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Perez, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 84-694 A MOTION GRANTING REQUEST MADE BY REPRESENTATIVES OF THE "HAITIAN AMERICAN YOUTH PROGRAM" FOR A SUMMER YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM, AND ALLOCATING THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF $109000 FOR THE CONDUCT OF SAID PROGRAM. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ------------------------------------------------------------ _ 8. PERSONAL APPEARANCE: ALFREDO MARRERO REQUESTS A CONTRIBUTION FROM THE CITY FOR AD WHICH WAS PLACED IN COMMERCIAL DIRECTORY. REFERRED TO MANAGER. Mr. Perez: Ok, I would like to call Mr. Alfredo Marrero. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Marrero. Mr. Perez: Mr. Marrero has visited my office in the last three months six or more times and I think that have visit _ the other members of this Commission in reference to an act that he mentioned that he place in... but I would like that he explain... he clarify it. Mayor Ferre: Do you have a copy of the ad Mr. Marrero? Do you have a copy of it? (AT THIS POINT THE MAYOR SPEAKS IN SPANISH). Would you pass it so the Commission can see it? All right, Mr. Marrero. Mr. Marrero, are you going to say anything or... Mr. Perez: Do you want to explain anything about... Mr. Alfredo Marrero: (SPEAKS IN SPANISH). Mayor Ferre: (AT THIS POINT THE MAYOR SPEAKS IN SPANISH). Can we get a translator here? Mr. Manny Alvarez: (TRANSLATES FOR ALFREDO MARRERO). Mr. Mayor and Mr. Commissioners, we are honored to be here this morning with you. Two hundred fifty thousand guides will be distributed. So, we are now billing you to see if it's possible for the majority of you to approve this. Thank you. Mr. Plummer: Did I hear an amount? gl 10 June 28, 1984 ILI Mayor Ferre: Mr. Manager, can we get a comment from the --_ administration? Mayor Ferre: (AT THIS POINT THE MAYOR SPEAKS IN SPANISH). Go ahead, Mr. Manager. Yes, sir. Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor, I think this matter was brought up before the Commission... Mayor Ferre: While the Manager is looking at it and discussing it with staff I would like to ask Mr. Marrero and I'm going to do it in Spanish so that he understands. I will do it both in English and in Spanish. I notice there is a sign there from the City of Hialeah with Raul Martinez and all. Did they pay you for that ad? (AT THIS POINT THE MAYOR SPEAKS IN SPANISH). Mr. Marrero: (SPEAKS IN SPANISH). Mayor Ferre: (SPEAKS IN SPANISH). Mr. Marrero: (IN SPANISH). Mayor Ferre: (IN SPANISH). Mr. Marrero: (IN SPANISH). My question to him was has any other local government ask for or received any advertising or paid for and the answer is "none". Mr. Plummer: Well, may I ask what is the dollar amount expected of us? Mayor Ferre: Five thousand dollars is what he is asking for as an ad. And this has been going back and forth between the administration and the company for the last six months. Mr. Gary: Mr•. Mayor, we are going to need some time to review this. Mayor Ferre: All right, could we do it by the end of this day the meeting or do you want until the next meeting? Mr. Gary: The next meeting. Mayor Ferre: (SPEAKS IN SPANISH). All right, anything else on that? ------------------------------------------------------------ 9• GRANT REQUEST FOR FUNDS: "MIAMI CONFERENCE ON THE CARIBBEAN". Mr. Perez: The other one Mr. Mayor, we have Peter Johnson who came from Washington, he was in the last Commission meeting and he express... Mayor Ferre: Mr. Manager, is the City ready or the administration ready to take a position on this CCAA request? The annual request for funding for the December Miami conference meeting. Yes. Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor, we recommend it. Mayor Ferre: All right, are there any questions? Are you ready Miller? All right is there a motion? It's been moved, is there a second? Seconded, further discussion, call the roll. gl 11 June 28, 1984 -- I The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Perez, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 84-695 A MOTION GRANTING A REQUEST MADE BY REPRESENTATIVES OF THE FORTHCOMING 111984 MIAMI CONFERENCE ON THE CARIBBEAN" FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $25,000 IN SUPPORT THEREOF; SAID CONFERENCE TO BE HELD AT THE HYATT REGENCY HOTEL, IN MIAMI, DECEMBER 3 - 7, 1984. Upon being seconded by Commissioner X, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: None. Mayor Ferre: The request is for what? Twenty-five thousand and the County and the State are matching it as I recall. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. 10. PERSONAL APPEARANCE: MRS. THELMA GIBSON, TO DISCUSS LONG TERM, LOW -INTEREST LOANS TO COMPLETE ACQUISITION OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES AND REHAB OF THE TIKI BUILDINGS. Mayor Ferre: All right, Mr. Dawkins. Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Mayor, I don't like pocket items and I tell all my constituencies that I do not like pocket items. Now, I would like for you to get your material to me in time to where it could be scheduled on the agenda, but there do come times when there are emergencies and I have three people would like to be heard, Mrs. Adker, Mrs. Gibson and Mr. Rolle. Will you come to the mike... Mayor Ferre: All right, Mrs. Gibson and Annie Marie Adker. Mr. Dawkins: And then Mr. Rolle. Mayor Ferre: Did Mrs. Adker leave? Mr. Dawkins: No, she is here. Mayor Ferre: All right, Mrs. Gibson. Mrs. Thelma Gibson: Good Morning, Honorable Sirs and Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, Mr. Manager and staff, the Clerk and staff. It's my distinct pleasure this morning to address this august body. As I say thanks to you on behalf of the... Mr. Dawkins: Pardon me. Before you begin Mrs. Gibson let me understand. Mrs. Gibson is an agenda item, I just asked gl 12 June 28, 1984 that it be moved forward. That's all. Go ahead darling. Because she has to go. Mrs. Gibson: It is my distinct pleasure to address this august body this morning and as I say thank you on behalf of the citizens of Coconut Grove especially the Afro Americans for the positive things you are doing in our community. I come before you this morning on behalf of twenty members of Grovites United To Survive. That's called "GUTS, Inc." and there are some ten or eleven of us this morning and I would like for them to just stand so you could see them because they are a group of citizens from all realms of life. We have some real grass root people. Some of you don't get the Neighbors South and we have had some articles in that that told about GUTS and somebody asked how could we afford to be called GUTS and I want you to know it takes guts to do what we are doing and we are going to have guts corner before you know it. So that guts corner is going to be the cross roads of Grand and Douglas in the Black Grove. We believe in self determination not only in theory, but in fact. We want to help change the image of our community and we believe that one of the ways of doing that is to change the image of the cross roads of the Black community and the cross roads in that community happens to be Grand and Douglas. Much has been done in our city to improve it and you are putting in the brick sidewalks and we are must grateful for that, but we believe that we need more than just that. We to give jobs to young people. We want to employ some of the very people who have been destructive in our community. Those who tend to destroy could only destroy because they don't have a piece of the pie. We want to teach them some skills and especially survival skills. We want to provide some opportunities for goals and to have new directions. The Grove community is interested in doing and especially, GUTS, several things in our multi purpose building that used to be called the "Tikki Club". Many of you may not be familiar with that, but I don't know why not. But we would like... we have gone to the community and they have said to us they would like for us to do something for the youth of our community. They would like for us to do something for all age groups and so what we propose is to use the... We have nine thousand six hundred twenty square feet of space in that building. It's a two story building and what we would like to do is to use the upstairs to have some community activities. We would like to have dance space for young people. We would like to have bingo for senior citizens. We would like to do some things that will help enhance the Grove and have our own offices there. So, I come before you to ask that you will allow us to work with the Manager and the Community Development Department in asking for funds to get the rest of the property on that corner. We now own Gills Spot and the Family Furniture across the street. That's on the Southeast corner. We are just leasing the Tikki property for we have a sixty-five year lease and we would like to get the corner next to it and the adjoining properties and so what we are asking for is monies to do this in the form of a loan. We are not asking you to give us a grant and we are not asking for any give away stuff this morning. We are specifically wanting a loan, but we want a low cost low interest loan and that's why we are coming before this body to get your permission to ask for that. We would also like to sponsor some of the activities and there is an athletic workshop that's going to be going on on July 14th which we would like to invite you to participate in and be a part of. Two of our own young people, Neil Kolcy and Roger Bellinger two professional football players will be helping to sponsor that. They will need some additional funds. We have some community people that are going to give us some funds. We would like you to back us with that to the tune of two thousand dollars if we gl 13 June 28, 1984 Ell don't get all the money we need to run that. Now, I'm not really begging for that. I'm just asking you to do that. Next year if we get our loan this year we will be 4pnnsoring that in total and will not have to come back to this Commission to ask for funds. And so we are asking for the tune of a half million dollars to help us get the additional land that we need and to renovate the building and we are sure that you will be proud of what we are going to do in the Coconut Grove area. Mr. Dawkins: Mrs. Gibson, how long has your group been in operation? Mrs. Gibson: We came together with our first meeting at Billy Rolle's house in January and we became incorporated on April 19, 1984. Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Gary, why is it that this organization in it's efforts to upgrade the Grove... I have not seen anything come across my desk or heard anything come through City Hall as to the administration working with this group to identify UDAG grants, to identify HUD money or to do anything to assist this group that we do for people on Brickell Avenue, that we do for the Downtown Development, that we are offering to the Park West/Overtown area. What is the difference that we the administration has not provided this group with the supportive service necessary to identify the funding that they need? Mr. Gary: Commissioner Dawkins, we have been working with this group for some time. As a matter of fact we are talking about the market study. We did an initial study in terms of what should be done in that area. As a matter of fact, staff has been the catalyst in terms of a master plan and pushing for development of that particular area, particularly as it relates to improving the economic viability of the community and eliminating desirables. As a matter of fact Mrs. Gibson and I have had numerous conversations and I think that's why she is here today because of those efforts Commissioner Dawkins. Mr. Dawkins: Where has Dena... Ok. See, when you all come to me, you come to me with HUD grants for those people Downtown. Why haven't I seen anything across my desk like I see for these other things for these people? Mr. Gary: Well, let me just add one other thing Commissioner. They have... the HUD grants and particularly the UDAG, those are projects that are initiated by the private sector themselves and we are really a conduit by which we approve it through staff and the City Commission for them to receive funding. They have only been in existence now since January and what she is trying to do now is through our suggestion is to come through this process and receive endorsement by the City so that she can proceed to do those same things and we plan to give her and that group the same assistance we give any other neighborhood. Mr. Dawkins: Do you have the applications in hand that once we ok it that we can run with the ball? Mr. Gary: It's going to take some work to do that. Mr. Dawkins: See that's my point. All that work should have been done before I got here this morning. Mr. Gary: Well... Mrs. Gibson: I.. Let me... gl 14 June 28, 1984 Mr. Dawkins: No, no, no. Look you can't tell me nothing, I pay him to answer my questions. Mrs. Gibson: But I just wanted to say that we were remiss because we have been trying to do this rather quietly. Mr. Dawkins: Mrs. Gibson it's not you. It's the Overtown, Liberty, Coconut Grove, Little Havana and Flagami groups. Now, all of you are not remiss. So, you can't stand here and tell me that this City Commission cannot find methods and means of helping groups like you and as Mr. Gary say, public sector, I don't know what he thinks you are. I mean with the group you are running here if it's not a public sector. Now, but Mr. Gary said he is working on it. Before we recess in July I would like to know exactly what we are doing. A timetable of everything of how we are going to do this. Mrs. Gibson: I appreciate that Commissioner, but I do have to say that Dena has been working with us and we do have somethings going, but we were trying to be quiet because things started happening so fast as soon as the first article came out about us and the Tikki became available and shortly after that the property across the street became available. Mr. Dawkins: Mrs. Gibson, you are just like your husband, you are very religious and soul saving. Ok. Mr. Plummer: And to that I say thank God. Mrs. Gibson: I know I have to use the staff and I do want them to know that we are most; appreciative of all they are doing to help. Mr. Dawkins: Well, I am not appreciative of what they have done because they haven't done as much as I think they should do. Now, that's my own personal opinion. Ok. Thank you. Mrs. Gibson: All right, we have a goal to be open by Labor Day. So, we are working fast and we need to identify these monies so that we could borrow it as fast as possible and we appreciate that. Mr. Dawkins: So, then you are are contented with working with staff to come up with what you need. You don't want anything else from this board? Mrs. Gibson: Well, if you put it that way, we could use some start up funds right quick. You know, we put five thousand dollars a piece into this. We had a hundred thousand dollars to work with. And then we loan ourselves an additional thirty-six thousand dollars and we paid a hundred thousand dollars cash for Gills Spot. It was going to be a hundred fifty thousand if we had to take it the long route. So, we paid a hundred thousand dollars cash for that and put twenty-five thousand dollars down on the Tikki. So, we could use some money to fix the roof right quick and sort of thing, so that we could start some things in there soon and very soon. Mr. Dawkins: All right, then Mr. Gary, can staff come back at the next meeting and tell us how we can assist them in getting low cost loans or whatever they need to get this done? I beg your pardon? Mayor Ferre: Now, you heard. Mr. Dawkins: Now, you see, you. gl 15 June 28, 1984 Mr. Gary: Commissioner Dawkins, we will sit down with Mrs. Gibson, work out a program, come back to this City Commission with some positive alternatives for this City Commission to consider. I would like to say though if... Mr. Dawkins: You know, if it's no reason why I cannot wait until the next meeting to find out what you are going to do. I don't have no problems with that. Mrs. Gibson: We are also working with the Coconut Grove Local Development Corporation and they have been most helpful to us and we want to say that so that we really want to work with them in helping to develop that corner. Thank you, sir. Thank you, kind sirs. ----------------------------------------------------------- 11. EXTEND EMPLOYMENT OF JOSE GRACIA-PEDROSA AS CITY ATTORNEY THROUGH JULY 319 1984. ------------------------------------------------------------ Mayor Ferre: Wait a minute. Hold on just for a moment. Wait a minute, before you go... excuse me, Annie Marie. Before you ga. I sent you all a memo on the question of extending the City Attorney until the end of the month. Does anybody have any objections to that? Do you have any objections to that Miller? Do you have any objections to that J. L.? All right, would somebody make a motion to that effect? Mr. Carollo: So, move that we extend the selection of the new City Attorney to until the 31st... Mr. Plummer: No, not the selection. No, no, no. Mayor Ferre: No, not the selection. The... Mr. Carollo: You want the City Attorney to stay on until July 31st. That's fine. Mayor Ferre: Is there a second? Mr. Perez: Second. Mayor Ferre: Is there further discussion? All right, call the roll please. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Carollo, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 84-696 A MOTION APPROVING IN PRINCIPLE, A PROPOSED EXTENSION OF EMPLOYMENT OF JOSE GARCIA-PEDROSA, CITY ATTORNEY, THROUGH JULY 31, 1984. Upon being seconded by Commissioner X, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J.L. Plummer, Jr. Vice Mayor Demetrio Perez Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: None El 16/17 June 28, 1984 12. APPROVE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE CRIME PREVENTION PROJECT --�— AS OUTLINED BY ANNE MARIE ADKER ON THIS DATE. ----------------------------- ,_ -----_----------------------- Mayor Ferre: All right, continue. Quickly hopefully. Ms. Anne Marie Adker: I am Anne Marie Adker, 407 Northwest 5th Street. I am very desperate this morning. We have a summer camp program that we initiated in 1981 and each year we have been trying to add kids to it. The way that we have been doing it in the past was to get sponsorships from the businessmen in the Overtown community. The camp began June 24th and we had enough money to send six kids. I'm asking the Mayor and the City Commission to sponsor nineteen other kids for this summer camp. These are disadvantaged, but deserving children from the Overtown community that we feel deserve the chance to see a outside environment and I believe they benefit from it. Mr. Carollo: What is the total amount of dollars that you need? Ms. Adker: For the nineteen kids at three hundred thirty dollars a piece comes to seven thousand two hundred seventy dollars. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Gary. Mr. Gary: Based on what has been proffered by Mrs. Adker and knowing the neighborhood is a good program. We need some more details and we need a budget, but I think the program as proposed by her verbally is one to be supported. Is this the send a kid to camp that's done by the Herald? Ms. Adker: No, we have been doing it ourself, Mr. Gary, along with the businessmen. The businessmen have been sponsoring a kid. Last year it was two hundred seventy—five dollars. Mr. Gary: What businessmen are we talking about? Ms. Adker: We are talking about the merchants. Mr. Gary: In the area. Ms. Adker: In the area. However, this year I don't know whether it's because it's an election year or whether they aren't doing good at all, but we haven't been able to raise the sponsorship this year. Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor, I think it's a good program. I would suggest that if the Commission approves this program that it be administered through the Parks Department for the Overtown residents. Mayor Ferre: All right, is there a motion? Mr. Carollo: There is a motion Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: Is there a second? Mr. Plummer: Second. Mayor Ferre: Further discussion? This is going to the Manager Anne Marie, so you got to work through his office. - — gl 18 June 28, 1984 Ms. Adker: Well, the check will be made out to the YMCA? Mr. Dawkins: No, Ma'am. Mayor Ferre: That's not the Manager's recommendation. Mr. Gary : No. Mayor Ferre: The Manager's recommendation is that it be done through the Parks Department and that's what the Commission is voting on. In other words, the answer is "yes" we are going to help, but it has to be through the administration. Ok. Mr. Dawkins: And the other thing I would like, when yoga give it to the Manager, also go to the Manager to send to me the method you determine how the kid excelled and how you arrived that this kid is an excellent student. Ms. Adker: Yes, this is done through the schools. The counselors in the schools. We academically. Mr. Dawkins: Ok. I would like to see a copy of this academic achievement of each one that we send. Ms. Adker: All right, sir. Thanks a million. Mayor Ferre: All right, call the roll. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Carollo, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 84-697 A MOTION APPROVING PROPOSED "COMPREHENSIVE CRIME PREVENTION PROJECT" AS OUTLINED BY ANNE MARIE ADKER BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON THIS DATE, AND ALLOCATING $7,270 FOR THE CONDUCT OF SAID PROGRAMS, SUBJECT TO SAID PROGRAM BEING ADMINISTERED THROUGH THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote — AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Vice —Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. 13. ALLOCATE $10,000 TO THE "MIAMI GOOMBAY FESTIVAL". Mayor Ferre: All right, Mr. Rolle. Mr. Billy Rolle: Good Morning. My name is Billy Rolle. I reside at 3430 William Avenue. I'm here this morning for a confirmation resolution for the Goombay Festival of the gl 19 June 28, 1984 J money that was granted May 24th, M-84-575 and I understand I had to come back for a motion in order to pay the bills. Mr. Gary: Mr, Mayor, he does not have to come back for a motion, for a resolution . We have a pocket item right here as a resolution really confirming your decision at the last meeting granting additional monies for the Goombay Festival. Mr. Plummer: Has the audit been done? Mr. Rolle: The bills are paid by your department. We don't see any of the check at all. We just take the bills to them and then they take it in. Mr. Plummer: Has the audit been done? Mr. Rolle: The bills haven't been paid yet, the invoices really. We can't get an audit without paying the bills. Mr. Gary: It's not an audit. If I may the.. what was proposed at the meeting was funds to cover City supported services that we provide to the Goombay Festival. So, these monies even though you appropriate them is basically to pay for the police and sanitation services that we provide that we charge these kinds of events. This money will allow that to occur. After that is done an audit will be done to ensure that the funds that were allocated totally for this particular program were spent in compliance with the City Commission's intent. Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Rolle. Mr. Rolle: Yes, sir. Mr. Dawkins: What funding did you receive? From what agencies did you receive funding? Mr. Rolle: From Metro Dade County, City of Coral Gables, then we have sponsors. The only two... Mr. Dawkins: Ok. What sponsors? Mr. Rolle: Miller Beer eight thousand dollars. Mr. Dawkins: Only eight? Mr. Rolle: Eight thousand dollars from Miller Beer. Mr. Dawkins: Why they lied and said they gave you twenty? Mr. Rolle: Not Miller Beer. Mr. Dawkins: Well, they lied. Mr. Rolle: We will show it to you. Ok. Mr. Dawkins: Ok. I just wanted to know that's all. Mr. Rolle: We have audits right to Dr. Lizaso's office to substantiate the contract as soon as the bills are paid and we get the invoices. Mr. Gary: Well, there are two things that have to be done. He has to provide an audit, plus we do our own audit. Mr. Dawkins: Move it. Mr. Plummer: Second. gl 20 June 28, 1984 Mayor Ferre: All right, is ther further discussion? Call the roll. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Dawkins, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 84-698 A RESOLUTION ALLOCATING AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $10,000 FROM SPECIAL PROGRAMS AND ACCOUNTS, CONTINGENT FUND, TO THE MIAMI- BAHAMAS GOOMBAY FESTIVAL; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT PREVIOUSLY EXECUTED BETWEEN THE CITY AND MIAMI-BAHAMAS GOOMBAY FESTIVAL, INC., IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY. (Here follows body of resclution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: None. 14. STATE INTENT OF THE CITY COMMISSION TO EARMARK A PORTION OF THE 3% BED TAX MONIES TO THE UPGRADING OF THE COCONUT GROVE EXHIBITION CENTER. Mayor Ferre: All right, next. Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, I would like to ask Ken Treister to come in representation of the Coconut Grove businesses. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Treister. Mr. Carollo: This item I know was brought up in a different tense earlier this morning, but I think what Mr. Treister and the Coconut Grove business community wants to discuss is for a portion of the 3% convention development tax that is presently being collected by all the hotels in the City and the County be earmarked to make Coconut Grove Exhibition Center... Mayor Ferre: We have already... we did that. Mr. Carollo: Well, but there was no discussion and I think it was presented in a different way Mr. Mayor. So, if Mr. Treister can have the floor for a couple of minutes I think he could explain it better. Mr. Ken Treister: Thank you very much. Mr. Mayor and Honorable City Commissioners, my name is Kenneth Treister gl 21 June 28, 1984 and I live in Coconut Grove and I work in Coconut Grove on Bayshore Drive and we first of all want to thank you for that, you know, splendid resolution from Mr. Plummer and comments by the Mayor. Unfortunately, some of the gentlemen here Woody Wiser who is going to make this presentation had to go. He is... Marty told me to say that he was going to work out the peanut concession now in the Orange Bowl, but he is now full—time football I guess and part—time Community service. But the one thing that Commission Carollo said is correct. We are a little concern on the time problem that this coming week there will be a bidding or an... for the what was now commonly called the Downtown Convention Sport and convention facility and I think the State law doesn't say Downtown. I think the State law says Greater Miami and we completely agree with the Mayor's comment that he thinks as we do that some of that money possibly could go to Dinner Key and we would like to propose that at least in spirit that the Commission go on record this morning saying that it is possible that part of the 3% bed tax money would go to upgrade the Dinner Key facility and just quickly we would like to say that we have five major hotels in this area. We have a very fine convention facility here that with a little bit of money can become a great facility. With a little bit of money we could be a meeting hall for small upgrade scientifically, scholarly, top grade meetings like the Aspen Institute. Without that money we do not have a first rate facility. The State Legislature voted that 3% money for tourism. We believe that Coconut Grove is a tourist destination. We do not want all the money. We do not want most of the money. We would like enough money to upgrade this facility. We have met... Woody Wiser hired his own architect as a public service to do plans for Dinner Key. We want to do four things at Dinner Key. We want to create small dividing meeting rooms. We want to have a bleacher so we could have sport events like we used to have the University of Miami Basketball. We want to have kitchen so that we can have community banquets in Dinner Key and fourth, we want to have a community center fixed seat auditorium of approximately two hundred seats to have multi — language international meetings particularly highlighting the Americas as the Aspen Institute would do. We are afraid that if the vote on principle is left then we are really left out in the cold because there won't be too man y opportunities to get seven million dollars, our estimate of this cost, but out of the hundred million or hundred twenty million that will be raised from this bed tax we respectfully request that up to seven million be allocated to upgrade Dinner Key Convention Center. As a corollary, even though it's primarily for tourism. The community of Coconut Grove will enjoy and will use these facilities cause they are dual purpose. The Black community and the White needs a banquet facility. We need a meeting room facility and we need an auditorium and we just don't want to have a misunderstanding after today that the money is all going to Downtown and that we will have to somehow amazingly or probably it would be very diffi:.ult to come up with the seven million that is needed. The Coconut Grove hotels will participate in giving that money. We are not saying that's the reason. We are saying the reason is that Greater Miami needs Coconut Grove for a conference center a very special conference center. If you want to help Dade County Tourism, if you want to help Downtown Miami Tourism, I think you would hopefully agree that we need this upgrading here. We do not want to compete. We want to be compatible with Downtown. We want the big conventions. We don't want to hurt that existing concept, but we think it's incumbent upon the City to look at all of its facilities like the Mayor said and in augment the Dinner Key facilities and we would like to use the three percent tax as a vehicle to generate that money. Thank you. gl 22 June 28, 1984 Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Gary. Mr. Gary: Yes, sir. Just a minute Mr. Treister. Mr. Dawkins: We are planning to tear down the Bayfront Auditorium, is that correct? Mr. Gary: That's correct, sir. Mr. Dawkins: Well, when that is torn down what have we projected to use for the Lettermans Dance, the Omego Si Phi Fraternity Dance and other groups that have affairs at that facility? Mr. Gary: Well, we anticipate Commissioner Dawkins, that the facilities that exist within the City of Miami are adequate to handle those events that are currently being handled at Bayfront Park. As an example we have the Dade County Auditorium as well as our Exhibition Center here and our Exhibition Center as well as Dade County Auditorium is not use near to capacity. Mr. Dawkins: Which one? Mr. Gary: Dade County Auditorium and Dinner Key Auditorium. Mayor Ferre: Are you talking about dances? Mr. Dawkins: Yes, dances. Mr. Gary: Well, if you look, Mr. Mayor, they have dances over there now in the Exhibition Center and that is not utilized to capacity right now and I would like to say to you, Commissioner Dawkins, that that facility ---and we lose about two hundred fifty thousand dollars a year--- it is in deplorable condition. As a matter of fact it probably should have been condemn about two or three years ago. Mr. Dawkins: That's right see. But there again I'm back to what I said earlier. I have no problems with... it should have been destroyed. It's should have been down and something better should have gone up. Well, here we have a group who's trying to spearhead it, but no where do I see where we are saying that the money that's going to go into Bayside or the money... or the concession that we are giving some kind of a way some money should come from that to upgrade the facility that we know that's got to be used. That's all I'm... some kind of a way Mr. Gary, all I'm trying to say is... I'm not even saying it's going to be the bed tax, but someway, some kind of a way we have to find a way to get a developer or somebody to put up the money that we need to make the acoustics or whatever else it is in that place usable. That's all I'm trying to say. If it's the bed tax, fine. If it's not the bed tax let's find out what. Mr. Gary: If I might Commissioner Dawkins, I think the proposal by Mr. Treister is a very good proposal. However, I think this City Commission has to consider as it's first priority for the use of the bed tax the building of an exhibition center to protect our sixty million dollar investment at the Convention Center which is really not a convention conference center without the exhibition space. Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, I would like to make a motion in principle that we earmark up to seven million dollars of that three percent convention develoment tax money. Mayor Ferre: Commissioner, I would be grateful if at this time you wouldn't have a specific number, but say we will gl 23 June 28, 1984 earmark some money and we will come back and see whether it ten million or five million in the future. Mr. Carollo: All right, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: All right, is there a second? Mr. Plummer: In principle "yes" I will second it. - Mayor Ferre: All right, further discussion? Call the roll. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Carollo, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 84-699 A MOTION STATING THE INTENT OF THE CITY COMMISSION TO EARMARK A PORTION OF THE 3% BED TAX MONEY FOR PURPOSES OF UPGRADING THE COCONUT GROVE EXHIBITION CENTER IN ORDER TO PROVIDE FOR THIS CITY A HIGH QUALITY CONFERENCE FACILITY FOR COMMUNITY, NATIONAL AND WORLD WIDE CONFERENCES. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. 15. GRANT REQUEST MADE BY THE "BRIGADE 2506" FOR FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,000 FOR RESTORING A RECENTLY VANDALIZED MONUMENT. Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, if I could bring up members of the Brigade 2506 that are here. Mayor Ferre: All right, the members of the brigade would they step forward please? Mr. Carollo: They want to discuss the issue of the brigade monument. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, we are here on behalf of the Brigade 2506. As you know our monument was vandalized about a month and a half ago and we want to find out if the City of Miami will fix the monument and restitute it exactly the way it was before or it will fall in our hands to do it. Mayor Ferre: Well, the answer to that is as you know that the City of Miami Commission at the initiative of Commissioner Carollo, Commissioner Perez and myself, actually the whole Commission has already voted immediately after instructing the Manager to immediately fix up the monument at our expense. gl 24 June 28, 1984 Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor, we have let a contract and it cost forty-two hundred dollars... Mayor Ferre: How much? Mr. Gary: Forty-two hundred to restore that monument to its original form and the work should begin I guess within thirty days. We also have a response to with regard to the arson investigation which was another matter we also discussed. Mayor Ferre: Ok. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Ok. Thank you. Mayor Ferre: Ok. We will do it as quickly as we can. I'm sorry it's taken so long . These things should be done quicker, but: in democracies we have to go through as you know all ki.ids of bureaucratic red tapes and lettings and all of this other stuff. Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor, it would probably be appropriate just for expediting this process, because we have gotten a contract for forty-two hundred. You know as contractors as they work there they may start finding some other damages and we would... I would recommend to the City Commission that you approve expenditure up to ten thousand dollars for this project. Anything over ten thousand we come back to you. Mayor Ferre: You are talking about for the monument? Mr. Gary: Yes. Mr. Plummer: So, move. Mayor Ferre: Is there a second? Mr. Carollo: Second. Mayor Ferre: All right, call the roll on the motion for us at this time. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 84-700 A MOTION GRANTING A REQUEST MADE BY MEMBERS OF BRIGADE 2506 AND ALLOCATING AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $10,000 FOR PURPOSES OF REPAIRING A MONUMENT WHICH WAS RECENTLY VANDALIZED. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Carollo, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Vice -Mayor Demetric Perez, Jr. gl 25 June 28, 1984 i ------------------------------------------------------------ 16. GRANT REQUEST FOR FUNDING MADE BY THE "NEIL COZIE FOOTBALL, CAMP" AT GEORGE WASHINGTON, JR. HIGH SCHOOL.. — ALLOCATE $2,000. Mayor Ferre: All right, Mrs. Gibson, you had something that you omitted from your statement. Mrs. Thelma Gibson: I apologize to this Commission and to this body, but Mr. Neil Cozie that I mentioned is here now and we were asking for some funds for his program that he is going to have on July 14th in amount of two thousand dollars and I would like for Mr. Cozie to come forward and say what is going to happen with that. I think all of you must know Mr. Cozie from the Tampa Bay... Mr. Neil Cozie: I spent a year here too with the Dolphins. The proposal that I had was I have a yearly camp for kids who can't afford to go to these camps and be with the football players. So, what I have done and over the last year or so I have invited about ten of my teams mates down and I got about six or seven of the Miami Dolphins and I got some of the University of Miami football players and we have gotten together and we have put on a camp for the kids who can't afford to come to camp, because I know most of the camps that I have worked at it's been four or five hundred dollars per kids and I know that's not possible. So, I have taken the money out of my pocket and put it on the camp for two years and I came to some important people, Mrs. Gibson and some other people and they told me about the City helping me and I think the biggest thing I got out of my camp last year was that the kids... instead of the kids learning about football, the biggest thing one of the kids said in the newspaper was that's the first time I have ever heard football players stress education more so than trying to knock somebody's head. We were in there talking about writing, reading, discipline and education. So, I think the proposal is a good one and I want it to last forever, even when I'm out of football. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Manager, what's the administration's position? Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor, we are talking about between one thousand and two thousand dollars, I would recommend that the money be administered through the Parks Department for this camp. Mr. Carollo: So, move. Mayor Ferre: Is there a second? Mr. Dawkins: Second. Mayor Ferre: Further discussion, call the roll. gl 26 June 28, 1984 The following motion was introduced Commissioner Carollo, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 84-701 A MOTION GRANTING A REQUEST MADE BY NEIL COZIE AND ALLOCATING $2,000 FOR THE CITY'S SPONSORSHIP OF A CAMP GEARED FOR YOUTHS PRIMARILY IN OVERTOWN, LIBERTY CITY AND COCONUT GROVE, "THE ANNUAL NEIL COZIE FOOTBALL CAMP", AT GEORGE WASHINGTON JR. HIGH SCHOOL; SUBJECT, HOWEVER TO SAID PROGRAM BEING ADMINISTERED THROUGH THE CITY'S PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT. by Upon being seconded by Commissioner Dawkins, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. 17. APPROPRIATE $259000 IN AN ATTEMPT TO BRING THE "ANNUAL SISTER CITY INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION" TO MIAMI IN 1984. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, can I bring up that one short item that I had. Mayor Ferre: Yes, sir. Go ahead, it's 10:30. Let's go. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I will be going during the month of July to present this city at the Sister City International Convention. It has been the hope and the desire that we could bring this convention to Miami. I would ask this Commission to a motion of funds not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars so that we can make a bid for this convention and the appropriate staff. Mayor Ferre: What year is that? Mr. Plummer: Maurice, I think it's 1986. It could be 1987, I'm not sure. But I would move that the funds not to exceed twenty-five thousand and appropriate staff members be allocated to endeavor to bring that convention here. Mayor Ferre: Is there a second? Mr. Dawkins: Second. Mayor Ferre: Further discussion? Ladies and gentlemen, so that those of you perhaps don't understand the process in all of these things. A convention of this sort will bring to Miami and to the coffers of the City of Miami a lot more than twenty-five thousand dollars in expenditures of the participants and the money that will be expended in the publicity that we will receive. So, we like other cities around Country do spend significant amount of money in the gl 27 June 28, 1984 interest of bring these conventions here. Further -- discussion? All right, call the roll. The following motion was introdu,sed by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 84-702 A MOTION APPROPRIATING AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $25,000 SO THAT APPROPRIATE STAFF MEMBERS AND/OR COMMISSIONERS) MAY BID OR OTHERWISE ATTEMPT TO BRING TO THE CITY OF MIAMI THE NEXT SISTER CITY INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Carollo, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. 18. APPOINT VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS AS MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI WATERFRONT BOARD. ----------------------------------------------------- Mayor Ferre: All right, anything else now? I have got five = pockets items. Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, I have one last one if I could have the Chairman of the Waterfront Board come up. If you would sir. Mr. Peter Clements: Good morning, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Commissioners. My name is Peter Clements. I'm the Chairman of the Waterfront Board since John Brennan has resigned in April. He left us without a quorum and we have been on the agenda in May. I cut short a trip from Italy to come back to address the Commission at that time, but we were pretty far down the agenda. Mr. Carollo: That must be serious then. Mr. Clements: Well, it's serious in that the City of Miami is a waterfront city and right now we are operating without an advisory, a Waterfront Advisory Board. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Clements, I will tell you and I don't mean to get into a hassle with my colleagues here. I have been for the last six months offering up the following names for representing Yacht Clubs Bill Conover. That's category two, Frank Bauer in category five, Dario Pedrajo in category six and 011ie Washington as an alternate. I think these are all names that are familiar to you. Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, I have no problems with does selections. I will be willing to make the motion if it's appropriate at this time. gl 28 June 28, 1984 Mayor Ferre: You got any problems? Mr. Plummer: Question. I made an appointment in the name of Carol Dawson, is that one... As I recall that was a selection. Is that correct or not? Mr. Clements: That is one of the selections. Mayor Ferre: Well, then I would withdraw... Mr. Clements: Carol Dawson would fit in group two as a Yacht Club buff. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I would offer in group two the name of Carol Dawson. Mayor Ferre: That's acceptable. We will withdraw Bill Conover's name. The other ones would be in group five Frank Bauer, group six Dario Pedrajo and 011ie Washington as an alternate. Mr. Carollo: I accept it Mr. Mayor. So, move. Mayor Ferre: All right, Carollo makes a motion. Are you all set? Mr. Plummer: Second. Mayor Ferre: All right, further discussion, call the roll. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Carollo, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 84-703 A MOTION APPOINTING THE HEREINBELOW LISTED INDIVIDUALS AS MEMBERS OF THE WATERFRONT BOARD: FRANK BAUER DARIO PEDRAJO CAROL DAWSON OLLIE WASHINGTON - ALTERNATE Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. -------------------------------------------------------- 19. ALLOCATE $10,000 AS A CONTRIBUTION TO THE CUBAN ASSOCIATION OF ACCOUNTANTS IN EXILE" IN CONNECTION WITH THE HOLDING OF THEIR "XVI INTER-AMERICAN CONFERENCE" TO BE HELD IN AUGUST, 1985. ------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. Carollo: Last but not least Mr. Mayor, we passed a resolution on April 26th Motion 84-482 to allocate an amount not to exceed ten thousand dollars in connection with the Conference of the Cuban Association of Accountants in Exile. gl 29 June 28, 1984 Mayor Ferre: Of accountants? Mr. Carollo: Yes. Mayor Ferre: Is that for this big convention they are having of accountants? == Mr. Carollo: That's correct, Mr. Mayor, in August of 1985. So, what I would like to do is I think we need to bring it up again. And they are requesting. I don't know if they have a representative here now. It's their... Mayor Ferre: Well, Joe, didn't we vote on that before. So, this is just formalizing what we have already done. Mr. Carollo: This is formalizing Mr. Mayor, what we voted upon and what they are asking for is if they could start having use of those funds now in preparation for that conference. Mayor Ferre: Ok. Carollo moves, Plummer seconds, formalizing what we had previously done. All right, ready? This is on the accountants. Call the roll. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Carollo, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 84-704 A RESOLUTION ALLOCATING AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $10,000 FROM SPECIAL PROGRAMS AND ACCOUNTS CONTINGENT FUND, AS A CONTRIBUTION TO THE CUBAN ASSOCIATION OF ACCOUNTANTS IN EXILE IN CONNECTION WITH ITS XVI INTERAMERICAN ACCOUNTING CONFERENCE TO BE HELD IN MIAMI DURING AUGUST 1985; SAID ALLOCATION BEING CONDITIONED UPON SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF MIAMI ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY NO. APM.-1-84 DATED JANUARY 24, 1984; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, WITH SAID ORGANIZATION. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Gommissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. gi 30 June 28, 1984 ----- ----------------- --------------- ----------------------------- 20. ALLOCATE $6,200 IN SUPPORT OF "PUERTO RICO DAY". Mayor Ferre: We also, have also, the formalizing of the resolution for "Puerto Rico Day" which we had previously - voted on and this formalizes it. Is there a motion on it? Mr. Carollo: So, move, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: Is there a second? Mr. Plummer: Second. Mayor Ferre: Further discussion, call the roll. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Carollo, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 84-705 A RESOLUTION ALLOCATING AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $6,200 FROM SPECIAL PROGRAMS AND ACCOUNTS, QUALITY OF LIFE FUND, IN SUPPORT OF "PUERTO RICO DAY"; SAID ALLOCATION BEING CONDITIONED UPON SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF MIAMI ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY NO. APM-1- 84, DATED JANUARY 24, 1984. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins 21. INSTRUCT THE CITY MANAGER TO NOTIFY COOPERS & LYBRAND, - PRESENT EXTERNAL AUDITORS OF THE CITY, THAT AT THE END OF THEIR PRESENTLY EXISTING CONTRACT, THE CITY OF MIAMI INTENDS TO REVISIT THE IDEA OF HAVING THEM SERVE IN SUCH CAPACITY. Mayor Ferre: I have a very disturbing bit of news for all of you and it deals with Coopers & Lybrand, J. L. Dade County through the Industrial Development Authority is helping to reduce cost to businesses industry to encourage relocation into Dade County. So, what they have done is that they are taking Coopers & Lybrand out of Downtown Miami where they pay taxes to the City of Miami and taking them out to the County, but not only are they doing it and hurting the Downtown Miami area. They are doing... In other words they are now at Amerifirst Building and they occupy forty thousand square feet and two hundred employees there. Now, there is a Miami Herald article dated the 25th June that states that Coopers & Lybrand resently purchased 2.6 acres out in the County South of the East West Expressway gl 31 June 28, 1984 off of Red Road for 1.35 million dollars. The company plans to build and eight thousand square foot office building leasing ten thousand to another tenant also to be moved out of Downtown Miami. One of the problems is that Coopers & Lybrand has used the Industrial Development Revenue Bonds of Dade County and the authority director John Haley confirmed that Coopers & Lybrand were receiving a eight and a half million dollar Dade County Industrial Revenue Bond from the County. The bonds that are being purchased by North Carolina National Bank and it's paid back at sixty-two percent of the prime rate or roughly eight percent interest. There is also an addition savings since the interest is tax exempted and a savings of three percent is passed on to the borrower. Now, here we are trying to do everything we can to increase the tax base of the City of Miami working overtime doing everything we can to bring conventions and people down here and our own accounting firm and by the way I might say my personal account firm and yours is with Metropolitan Dade and moving out of the City of Miami and that's just unacceptable to me. So, I just put it to you this way. I would like to make a motion that the City of Miami... that we instruct the Manager to notify Coopers & Lybrand that we wish to revisit after the third year as our auditors the idea of their being our auditors and that the Manager bring back a recommendation to the Commission for a vote. I'm not saying that I am for or against, but I want the Managers input in this and I think Coopers & Lybrand should be told that... you know, what hurts me the most is that they didn't even have the courtesy to tell us that they were moving out of the City, that they are taking two hundred employees out of the City and that they are in effect doing the very same thing that other corporations have done. Here we are trvina to strengthen the Citv and they are moving out. And as far as I'm concerned if they don't believe enough in the City of Miami I don't think we ought to believe enough in them. And as you know, in the past we have had a policy to change our auditors every three to five years. Their third year will be up in January of this coming year. After they conclude this audit it is my opinion that we should go out for the selection of a new audit team and that if they wish to compete, that's fine, but I think it's time for us to move on and I would like to make a motion so instructing the manager to proceed in this way and bring it back with a recommendation for a final decision of this Commission at a future date. I so move. Mr. Carollo: Second. Mr. Plummer: Motion made and seconded. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, call the roll. ON ROLL CALL: Mayor Ferre: Reluctantly and with great regrets, but with great umbrage as to what they have done and I vote "Yes". The following motion was introduced Commissioner Ferrel who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 84-706 A MOTION INSTRUCTING THE CITY MANAGER TO NOTIFY THE FIRM OF COOPERS & LYBRAND THAT AT THE END OF THEIR THREE-YEAR CONTRACT, THE CITY WISHES TO REVISIT THE IDEA OF HAVING SAID FIRM SERVE AS THE CITY'S AUDITORS; FURTHER REQUESTING THE CITY MANAGER TO COME BACK WITH RECOMMENDATIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH. by gl 32 June 28, 1984 Upon being seconded by Commissioner Carollo, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Vice -Mayor Demetric Perez, Jr. Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins 22. STIPULATE THAT THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING PRESENTLY SCHEDULED FOR JULY 30, 19841 SHALL END AT EXACTLY 7:00 O'CLOCK P.M. Mayor Ferre: The next item that I have is Martha Raquel Fernandez. Is Raquel Fernandez here. Well, TeEme see what it is that she wants. We have a conflict in the use of Little Havana Community... Raquel are you ready to explain this. All right, this is a letter to Reverend Karry Mason of Tulsa, Oklahoma. The purpose of this letter is to inform you that on Thursday, July 31st the City of Miami will be holding a public meeting in the auditorium and therefore, it will be unavailable. The rest of the dates you have reserved are available also July 26th. Now, what exactly is the problem with Reverend Wadley and Reverend Mason. Ms. Raquel Fernandez: I am Raquel Fernandez. I am part of the Coordinating Committee of the Victory Crusade. These people from Oklahoma are planning to come to be in a crusade here from July 27th to July 31st. We had already spoken with the people from the community center and agreed tha Ms. Hernandez: We worked on the community center and agreed that those dates were available and that we could use them from 7:00 P.M. TO 11:00 P.M. four nights and from 1:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. Sunday. Now, after we have even given some money in advance, now we have received a letter, or they have received a letter in Oklahoma saying that we cannot have ... the letter says the night of the 31st. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Manager, I do have this problem coming up, because we have already advertised July 12th in Little Havana, and then we have to continue to give them a meeting, as she told me yesterday, for two minutes, and then continue the public hearing until July 31st. Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor, we advertised for July 12th to consid- er Gould's development order. The development order runs on July 26th. Mayor Ferre: Yes, but the point is that we are going to have a public hearing in Little Havana. Mr. Gary: On July 30th. Mayor Ferre: Is it the 30th or the 31st? Mr. Gary: 30th. gl 33 June 23, 1984 Mayor Ferre: All right, so you want the 31st, is that the problem? Ms. Hernandez: No, we had made arrangements to have August 9th. The letter says the 31st, but the gentlemen from the community center told me that he was it was the 30th Anyway, either night we need. Mayor Ferre: What is it you want? You have me confused. What do you want? Simply, in just one sentence. Ms. Hernandez: Okay, we had agreed that we would have nights, 27th 28th, Sunday afternoon and the night of the 30th and 31st. Mayor Ferre: Can't have the 30th. We have a Commission meeting on the 30th and there is nothing we can do about that. Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor,, could we do this? Can we have the meeting there in the morning and come here in the afternoon? Mayor Ferre: I have no problem with that. Mr. Gary: Well no, we have advertised. You can't do that. Mayor Ferre: Oh, we have advertised, yes. Ms. Hernandez: The thing is that we have advertised already too and we have everything ready for this meeting. Mayor Ferre: Let me put it to you this way. Look at this way. You are going to get it on the 27th. You are going to get it on the 28th. You are going to get it on the 30th. You are going to get it on the 31st, but you are not going to get it on the 30th. Ms. Hernandez: Look, our advertising is already done with those days and the people are ready...(INAUDIBLE). Mayor Ferre: It says 8:00 o'clock at night. We can be out of there by 8:00 o'clock. (INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO RECORD) Mayor Ferre: Mr. Manager... Mr. Carollo: We usually end the meeting at 9:00 o'clock. I will just make a motion that on that day we end the meeting at 8:00 P.M. Mr. Gary: I've got no problem with that. You all control that. I have no problems. Mayor Ferre: All right, there is a motion now that on the evening of the 30th, that the Commission meeting will termi- nate at 8:00 P.M., sharp so as to permit these people to have their...I mean at 7:00 P.M., so that they can have their function at 8:00 P.M. Mr. Carollo: Yes, at 7:00 P.M. so they can have it at 8:00 P.M. Ms. Hernandez: Okay. Mayor Ferre: That is moved by Carollo. Is there a second? Mr. Dawkins: Second. Mayor Ferre: Further discussion, call the roll. gl 34 June 28, 1984 The following motion was introduced by Commission- er Carollo, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 84-707 A MOTION STIPULATING THAT THE CITY COM- MISSION MEETING PRESENTLY SCHEDULED FOR JULY 30TH, AT THE MANUEL ARTIME COMMUNITY CENTER SHALL END AT 7:00 O'CLOCK P.M., ON SAID DATE. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Dawkins, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. ----------------------------------------------------------- 23. BRIEF COMMENT BY MAYOR FERRE REGARDING PROPOSED STRONG MAYOR FORM OF GOVERNMENT. Mayor Ferre: I have one other pocket item, and it deals with the question of a strong mayor which is something that has been discussed ... Mr. Carollo: Oh, my pocket item! Mayor Ferre: No, this is just for discussion purposes and no action, but what I would like to do is wait until we have a full Commission, since this is an important thing. Just so that nobody gets excited, I am not proposing that we go to a strong mayor form of government in 1985. I am propos- ing that we put it to the electorate after we have a series of public hearings and if we do it, we do it perhaps in the year 1987. Mr. Carollo: But, Mr. Mayor, you are leaving it open for either 1985 or 1987, correct? Mayor Ferre: Well, that is the will of this Commission. I am expressing my opinion that I think it should not be until 1987, but if three of you feel otherwise, that is obviously an open subject, but I think out of courtesy to Demetrio, I will bring it up this afternoon. 24. URGE GOVERNOR GRAHAM TO CONVENE A SPECIAL SESSION OF THE LEGISLATURE TO REPEAL THE 1983 UNITARY TAX LAW. Mayor Ferre: The unitary tax. Mr. Manager and members of the Commission, as you know, there is great consternation a- round the state on this unitary tax - would you make the mo- tion urging the Governor, one, to call a special session, and two, if that is not possible, in the November reorgani- zation, that he would also include in the November reorgani- zation a request to deal with unitary tax issues. ,j gl 35 June 28, 1984 Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, it is of great sacrifice when I ask the Governor to call a special session. That means I have got to work double, because Larry will be gone, but there is no question that this unitary tax to these people that I have spoken with is just devastating to the economy of this community as well as to the State and I think it is a thing that they can no longer push aside or pass the buck. They have got realize the impact that it is causing to a communi- ty that is growing like Dade County and the City of Miami in particular, and Mr. Mayor, I make that motion with all hopes and desires that they will realize what is necessary. Mr. Dawkins: Second. Mayor Ferre: Further discussion? Mr. Dawkins: Under discussion - I would hope that the reso- lution that we send is strong enough to indicate to the Gov- ernor our desire to have it repealed and changed, because when we went to France, and also when I went to Switzerland, the only thing I heard was, we are desirous of relocating in Florida. We have no problem with paying the tax. It is the confidentiality that we have a problem with. So we really should go on record strongly saying that we are against it. Mayor Ferre: Absolutely! That is the intent of the motion, right? Maker of the motion? Mr. Plummer: Right. Mayor Ferre: All right, are we ready to vote? I will tell you. I think that every other agency in this community has gone on record, including Metropolitan Dade County, the D.D.A. and other governmental agencies, because, let me tell you, Florida is affected by this, but Miami is devastated by it, because Miami has a lot more international trade and commerce going for it than does Orlando, or Tallahassee, Jacksonville or Tampa, so we are the ones that really get hit by it, so I really think we need to go on the record strongly on this. All right, further discussion on this? Call the roll. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION 84-708 A RESOLUTIONS STRONGLY URGING GOVERNOR ROBERT D. GRAHAM TO CONVENE THE LEGISLATURE IN SPECIAL SESSION IMMEDIATELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING IF NOT REPEALING THE 1983 UNITARY TAX LAW WHICH PRESENTLY RE- QUIRES A COMBINED REPORT OF RELATED COR- PORATIONS TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF "BUSINESS" INCOME OR, IF SUCH SPECIAL SESSION NOT BE CONVENED, STRONGLY URGING THAT THE ISSUE OF THE AMENDMENT OR RE- PEAL OF SAID LAW IS REQUESTED TO BE GIV- EN THE HIGHEST PRIORITY IN THE NOVEMBER, 1984, ORGANIZATIONAL SESSION OF BOTH THE FLORIDA SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRE- SENTATIVES; FURTHER DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO FORWARD A COPY OF THIS RESOLU- TION TO GOVERNOR ROBERT. D. GRAHhl', (Here follows body of resolutionk omitted here and on filQ ir, the Office of :he City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Conunissioner Dawkins, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: gl 36 June 28, 1984 El AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Vice -Mayor Demetric Perez, Jr. 25. CLAIM SETTLEMENT; BI3CAYME RECREATION DEVELOPMENT COM- PANY ($80,000). Mayor Ferre: All right, there are two items here brought up by the City Attorney, which is a resolution authorizing the Director of Finance to pay to Biscayne Recreation the sum of $80,000 without the admission of liability in full and com- plete settlement of any and all claims. Do you want to ex- plain this further, Mr. City Attorney? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes, sir. That is a claim, Mr. Mayor, that has been pending for a long time. As you know, the Plaintiff demanded a $225,000, I believe is roughly the fig- ure and after extensive settlement negotiations, your City Manager took the hard line, and by God, he prevailed for the sum of $80,000. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Manager you are recommending this? Mr. Gary: Yes, sir! Mayor Ferre: The settlement of the lawsuit. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: You have. it. Mr. Carollo: Can you explain what it is all about, Mr. Man- ager, or Mr. City Attorney? Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor, if you recall, we had a management contract for the management of Biscayne Recreation. Mayor Ferre: Is that the one off of Rickenbacker Causeway? Mr. Gary: No, Dinner Key Marina. Mayor Ferre: Oh, Dinner Key. Mr. Gary: This is at Dinner Key Marina for the management of that facility and if you recall, we terminated that con- tract and as a result, because of estoppel provisions and investments that the firm has made, they filed a suit to get $225,000 from the City, which, in their estimation, repre- sented their loses or their investments to obtain and to manage that facility and it was our position that that cost was not a cost that we should bear and that the real cost was more like $80,000 and through extensive negotiations, we convinced them that they should take the $80,000 and not go to court. Mayor Ferre: Another example of good bargaining powers. Mr. Carollo: Take the $80,000 instead of losing $300,000 and going to court - attorney's fees and everything else. Mr. Gary: Exactly. ld 37 June 28, 1984 Mayor Ferre: So you recommend it. Mr. Gary: Yes, sir, Mayor Ferre: And the City Attorney is recommending this? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: Who actually negotiated this? Mr. Gary: Well, there were a number of us who were ... my staff initially. It got to the point that they couldn't re- solve it and then Jose and myself sat down finally and said "This is it - take it, or leave it." Mayor Ferre: All right, is there a motion on this? Mr. Plummer: I've got a problem. Mayor Ferre: What is your problem? Mr. Plummer: My problem is that I object to paying the at- torney. If we are settling with the company, we pay the company. Mayor Ferre: How much is the payment to the attorney? Mr. Plummer: No, no! The whole thing is being paid to the attorney! Mr. Gary: J. L. ... Mr. Plummer: Now, we are not a collection agency for an at- torney! Mr. Carollo: Well, if they can pay it to the company, they could pay it to the attorney. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I would like this to come back up this afternoon. Mr. Gary: Hold on. Mayor Ferre: Well, what he is saying is, if you are paying... Plummer is right - it is paying to Herbert Stettin. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Let me clarify what it says. The sec- tion 1 provision, Commissioner Plummer says the Director of Finance is hereby authorized to pay Herbert Stettin, Es- quire, as attorney for Biscayne Rec. Mayor Ferre: Okay, that is the Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: And the reason that we do that as a mechanism, Commissioner Plummer, is for the protection of the City's interest. Obviously the settlement involves the exchange of settlement documentation and other documents that is in our interest to obtain and by placing the money with a lawyer, in essence, in trust with a lawyer ... Mr. Plummer: It doesn't say that! Mayor Ferre: Well then, I think you should amend this statement ... Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Okay, we can just add the words "in trust, pending receipt of all settlement documentation". Mr. Plummer: I could buy that. ld 38 June 28, 1984 Mayor Ferre: All right, with that change, then Carollo moves and Plummer seconds with the amended language. Fur- ther discussion? Call the roll. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Carollo, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 84-709 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE TO PAY HERBERT STETTIN, AS AT- TORNEY FOR BISCAYNE RECREATION DEVELOP- MENT COMPANY A FLORIDA CORPORATION, IN TRUST, PENDING RECEIPT OF SETTLEMENT DOCUMENTS, THE SUM OF EIGHTY THOUSAND ($80,000.00) DOLLARS, WITHOUT THE ADMIS- SION OF LIABILITY, IN FULL AND COMPLETE SETTLEMENT OF ANY AND ALL CLAIMS AND DE- MAND AGAINST THE CITY OF MIAMI AND EXE- CUTION OF A DOCUMENT RELEASING THE CITY OF MIAMI'S EMPLOYEES AND OFFICERS FROM ALL CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND UPON EXECU- TION OF OTHER SETTLEMENT DOCUMENTS, WITH FUNDS THEREFOR ALLOCATED FROM MARINA EN- TERPRISE FUND. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the reso- lution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. 26. APPROVE CONCEPT OF RESTAURANT ARCADES ALONG STREETS IN THE DOWNTOWN AREAS AND MORE SPECIFICALLY FLAGLER STREET; FURTHER REQUESTING OF THE STATE TO NO LONGER DESIGNATE FLAGLER STREET AS A STATE HIGHWAY. Mayor Ferre: The next one is a resolution approving in con- cept the establishment of restaurant arcades along downtown streets; specifically Flagler Street, formally requesting that Flagler Street no longer be designated as a State high- way. As you will recall, we did this in principle last time and this just formalizes it. Mr. Carollo: So moved. Mayor Ferre: Is there a second? the roll. Further discussion? Call ld 39 June 28, 1984 The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Carollo, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 84-710 A RESOLUTION APPROVING IN CONCEPT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RESTAURANT ARCADES A- LONG DOWNTOWN STREETS, SPECIFICALLY, FLAGLER STREET; FORMALLY REQUESTING THAT FLAGLER STREET NO LONGER BE DESIGNATED AS A STATE HIGHWAY; AUTHORIZING AND DI- RECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO PROCEED TO OBTAIN REQUIRED AMENDMENTS TO THE SOUTH FLORIDA BUILDING CODE TO ALLOW THE CON- STRUCTION OF THE ARCADES; FURTHER DI- RECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE THE NECESSARY AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY CODE AND ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT SUCH AR- CADES. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Dawkins, the reso- lution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins - Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. ------------------------------------------------------------- _ 27. DISCUSSION AND TEMPORARY DEFERRAL OF PROPOSED FIRST READING ORDINANCE TO CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION AT 6450-6470 W. FLAGLER STREET FROM RG-3/5 TO CR-2/7. (See later same meeting). ------------------------------------------------------------ Mayor Ferre: We are now Item 4 on the agenda, which is Joseph and Madeline Rehill Laferriere, power of attorney Armando Fonticiella. This is the address at 6450 West Flagler Street - Ordinance 9500 atlas change from RG-3/5 to CR-2/7. All right, are the applicants and the people in- volved present for this? Let's proceed Mr. Plummer: Where are the applicants? Mayor Ferre: Is the applicant here. Is anybody here on Item 4? Is anybody here who represents owners, or the ap- plicants. Is the attorney here? is anybody here? Mayor Ferre: Proceed, quickly. Mr. George Orta: Sir, this is George Orta, attorney for Armando Fonticiella and Julio Santoyo which are the power of attorneys in the property to be discussed at this time for _ the application. We are at this time handing to you certain items concerning our presentation. The property concerned here, it is a piece of property on Flagler Street and ap- proximately 65th and 64th Avenue. Planning Department de- nied and advised the Zoning Board to deny our petition. ld 40 June 28, 1984 What we are proposing to do in here is to build a one-story small shopping center. The developers of this proposed shopping center are reputable building people in this commu- nity which specialize in developing this particular kind of shopping center - small, basically one story shopping cen- ters serving a specific community. It is our feeling and our contention that Flagler Street is in fact, a corridor of commercial property and it is also our contention that we are not looking in any way, shape, or form, for any kind of capricious spot zoning, but rather in the reverse of that, the denial of this particular rezoning would in fact, create a reverse spot zoning. It is a common fact that most of the properties on Flagler Street are multi -family condominium units, or otherwise, commercial. We are in a main thorough- fare of Flagler, which starting downtown and nowadays going all the way to Sweetwater and past Sweetwater is developing and turning into commercial for simple reason that people in the community need where to shop. We have, at this time, five more signatures that we have sent to you at this point of people in this community in favor of our petition. On top of that, we had one more at the time that we went before the Zoning Board the first time. Now, if I may bring it out to you, one of the petitions that was in signed in favor of our project, was in fact, signed by a condominium board, representing 50 persona in no less than 17 units, and I am specifically referring myself to Royal Flagler Condominiums, at 6580 West Flagler. Now, these people happen to concur with us on the fact that we are going to show respect to the community, and at the same time, render the services that we need in there. The condominium, it is a small condominium with about 17 units, and they do feel that they deserve the privilege of shopping in the area. The only problem specif- ically that Zoning Department and the Planning Department thought that we would not have been able to comply with, had we been given the proper zoning, was the problem with the water. Now, we have submitted before you, a copy of an en- gineering report by a consulting engineer, stating what the solutions of this one particular problem are. There is in fact, a main force sewer and water connection at two point. One of the connections is at N. W. 66th Avenue at N. W. 2nd Street, abut less than 1,250 feet from where we are, and there is another connection about two blocks away from there. We propose at this point that we do not even need any kind of septic tanks in the facility, but rather, that we can go ahead and we can pay for a private connecting point to this line, and we shall also build the necessary pumping station within the property. Now, shopping center that we propose over there, it is one story shopping center. Among other things, all that the building code will require will be 24 parking spaces. We are providing for 35 parking spaces, and none of them, and I repeat, none of them will be compact parking spaces. We are limiting the area to about 17 spaces. That will be 17 small stores, and also at the same time, the plans that you have before you will show you that we are, in fact, dedicating an alley in the back, and we are creating a buffer zone between the shopping center itself, and any other properties in the back, for which we = are also going to build a C.B. concrete block separating wall in the back as a containment for the project. We once again emphasize the fact that at this point, there is only twelve letters that were sent to the zoning board opposing _= our project, and once again, ever since we went up there to - the community, and we explained to the community what we proposed to do, and the fact that the actual property right there now has the zoning ability to convert itself, either in a motel, which is actually what it is, or in some kind of low density housing property. They had convinced them- selves, and as a matter of fact, we spoke and I am hereby authorized to propound that three of the persons that o- riginally mailed the opposition to our petition, which is ld 41 June 28, 1984 Teresa Morales, William Morales, and Alberto Perez, we per- sonally spoke to them and they now agree that they would be better off with the shopping center over there. Once again, if we add up those three names to the 5 letters that we have now, plus the condominium, which is 50 persons with 17 units we have an overwhelming majority as to the fact that the shopping center is in the best interest of the community, besides, once again, Flagler Street, in most of its places it is a commercial street serving the particular com- munities which surround it. We see no reason why we should not get our proposal at this point. Before we move into final closing as to what we are proposing here, I would re- spectfully request from the Mayor that when voting takes place on our petition that the Commission would be sitting here. Mayor Ferre: You can certainly ask that and I have no prob- lems, and any individual has a right to request for a full Commission before voting. Now, Commissioner Perez is not here. He will be back at noon. there is nothing I can do about that, because he is on something, where he could not... Mr. Orta: We understand, your Honor, that is why I respect- fully request at this point that we have made our presenta- tion and we are will withhold any more. Mayor Ferre: You should have done that before you started on the presentation, but now, does any member of the Commis- sion wish to speak on this before I continue this matter? Mr. Plummer; Well, Mr. Mayor, no questions if it is going to be continued, because Demetrio isn't here. He would have to hear it all over again. I strongly suggest that it be put off! Mr. Orta: I would be very glad to re -present this later on, it is just that I was under the impression that all the Com- missioners were here at this point. Mayor Ferre: I do also have a feeling, Mr. Manager, that I think that whole area needs to be rethought. This is typi- cal of what is happening along our commercial streets and this is typical Coral Way problem. Mr. Whipple: No, sir. It is quite different. Mayor Ferre: Isn't this something that we are always coming up against, where you have an area ... Mr. Whipple: No, sir. It does occur in many areas, not only this area, where you do have residential along a main arterial street, which is quite compatible and quite viable as far as the development and usage. Mayor Ferre: Okay, are there any opponents that are here that wish to speak to the Commission? All right, if not, the Chair will continue this item until we have a full Ccm- mission, and it will be some time this afternoon, all right? ------------------------------------------------------------ 28. PERSONAL APPEARANCE: ALFREDO MENDOZA REQUESTING FUND- ING. (Referred to City Manager) ------------------------------------------------------------ Mayor Ferre: We are very happy and honored to have some young ladies from Miami that are representing different ld 42 June 28, 1984 countries. I see Mexico, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Cuba, Cuba, Panama, Colombia, Puerto Rico, U. S. A. Who have I missed? There is a request, Mr. Manager, on the part of the civic and cultural association, and signed by Mr. Alfredo Mendoza, requesting $9,000. We cannot vote on this today, because it has not gone through you. I am going to pass this matter on to you and ask that you come back and give us a final recommendation. The date on this is going to be October of 1984, so we have some time, but we would like to conclude it one way or the other before we go on summer va- cation. Okay? thank you very much, Mr. Mendoza. Do you want to add anything else to it? Mr. Alfredo Mendoza: (COMMENTS IN SPANISH) The name is Carnival, Wynwood - Allapattah 48 and this is the remem- brance of 1492 for the discovery of America and then I am going to present all of the girls. Mr. Dawkins: Well, why don't you have all of the partici- pants stand, so we can see all of them? Mr. Mendoza: Okay, please stand. Thank you very much, and I want to Mayor to take the coronation for Puerto Rican and the other thing is that Mr. Plummer takes the coronation for the Cubans and Mr. Dawkins, I want your coronation for Santo Domingo and Demetrio Perez, I want your coronation for Spain and Mr. Carollo, to Argentina. Mayor Ferre: Thank you very much, Mr. Mendoza. 29. INSTRUCT CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY TO MEET WITH Mr. THEODORE GOULD REGARDING THE BIFURCATED RAMP IN THE DUPONT PLAZA AREA. Mayor Ferre: We are now on item 31. I understand that Mr. Goodknight has a problem with Tallahassee and planes and all. Mr. Goodknight, are you and Mr. Taylor available now to discuss this bifurcated problem? All right, because of time constraints, we will take that one out of order. We will try to get to some of these other items as quickly as possible. All right, Mr. Goodknight, the Chair recognizes you. Mr. Plummer; Mr. Mayor, it my recollection that in refer- ence to this, that Miami Center was to be represented, that no one can speak for them, and I am asking if there is rep- resentatives here of the Miami Center. That was the reason for the deferral - one of the reasons. = Mayor Ferre: Well, what I think we need to do, Mr. Plummer, is hear form Mr. Goodknight, so that he and Mr. Taylor and the other people who have time problems can move along. All right, Mr. Manager, how do you want to handle this? Mr. Gary: We could let Mr. Goodknight speak. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Goodknight, the Chair recognizes you. Mr. John Goodknight: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My name is John Goodknight, District Engineer for the Department of Trans- portation. Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, I appreciate your taking our concerns out of order. We thank you for that. Mayor Ferre: Yes, sir. Go ahead. ld 43 June 28, 1984 m Mr. Goodknight: At the last meeting, there were several is- sues up in the air concerning the Department's position and the need with respect to the right-of-way for the bifurcated ramp system. Subsequent to that meeting, we had some dis- cussion with Mr. Gould and I have done some additional re- search to try to resolve questions that remain about what right-of-way was required and what design features we were concerned about. In the discussions subsequent to the last meeting, there were fundamentally two questions raised to my recollection. One of those was, how much right-of-way asso- ciated with any deviation from what Mr. Gould had indicated was approved as a part of the development order, and two, there was a question about the design, particularly at the crossing of the extension of Brickell Avenue and also at 3rd Avenue and Biscayne Boulevard Way. The issue of the right- of-way related to...and I guess all of this relates to fur- ther communications from Mr. Gould indicating that he had not approved the change. There is in fact, a deviation be- tween the Department's present plan and the conceptual plan that presumably was included in the development order. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Goodknight, the key question is this. Is it a substantial deviation? ... because look, let's bring it down to the lowest and simplest denominator that we can all understand. Mr. Goodknight: I have a map, but I think I can address that. Mayor Ferre: The question is this. Mr. Gould signed an a- greement as a part of the D.R.I. order and the City is involved in that; South Florida Planning Council. There are a lot of different signatories to that. In it, he agrees to dedicate certain rights -of -way to Dupont Plaza. Now, he claims that he will do what he has been requested to do in the documents that were signed and there were some drawings attached to the documents so that there is no question as to what it is that he was supposed to dedicate that he agrees to. He now claims as you remember, since you were at that meeting last week, that we have now made a substantial deviation, that's Number one; number two, that that substantial deviation emasculates this property, so that it renders it useless; and therefore number three, he will now not agree with giving us the property, unless it reverts back to the original corridor that was previously discussed. Now, where that leaves the City is this. The City of Miami would then have to proceed in taking the property. The problem with the taking of the property is number one, we don't have the estimated value of that land at this time, and I don't know what that entails. Is it $10,000,000, or $20,000,000 or $30,000,000, I don't know what it means. Furthermore, Gould claimed in front of you that he would want the City to buy the whole two lots, because he would have no further use for the property the way we are going to chop it up. On the other hand, he also stated to me something that I have never heard before, but he said that the City was aware of it, because he had told Rick Horrow, who he understood acted as our agent, which of course, is not so, but Rick Horrow has not passed this information on either to the Manager, to the members of the Commission, or to myself, that he would make available 400...and I think he said 30,000 (430,000) square feet of air right space for our exhibition hall, which is two full floors of those two blocks, including the air rights over the street, for $1.00 a year for 99 years. Now, that I had never heard of before and I thought I knew what going on. I didn't know about this! Now, the reason I bring all this out is because there are over $10,000,000 that you have in your current budget that has been appropriated and that you ld 44 June 28, 1984 have for this district, and you made the statement to me that unless we can work this problem out by the fall, that money will have to be used somewhere else, which means therefore, that Miami will lose the usage of that money in this property. Now, since Miami does not have any other re- quests for major Federal funding of roads, my guess is that we would then therefore lose it in Miami, period and it would be expended in some other part of the district. Mr. Goodknight: Perhaps another part of the state. Mayor Ferre: Another part of the state, which is even worse, so therefore, I think it is incumbent upon us, if possible to try to solve this problem and work it out as quickly as we can. That is why I ask you to meet with the Manager and to come back. Now that I have explained that, the question now reverts - the key question, is there a sub- stantial difference in what you are asking for? Mr. Goodknight: In my judgment there is not, but this is a judgment, and I would like to share with you what the dif- ferences are, and why. Look, this is a right-of-way map that we furnished to Mr. Gary several weeks ago, I believe, as basis for instituting the actual transfer. This portion in yellow shows you clearly what it is that is needed for land. Mayor Ferre: Is that now, or is that then? Mr. Goodknight: Now. It was furnished some weeks ago. Mayor Ferre: What was it then, in other words, when you signed the document? Mr. Goodknight: Okay. On the north block, the right-of-way is almost exactly as shown here. The conceptual drawing _ shown in the development order did not take this strip of land on this block... Mayor Ferre: That is his main complaint, as you know. Mr. Goodknight: Right, and in this block, the conceptual drawing showed this ramp shifted further south. Now, I would like to go through the differences and why. In the development order drawings that we have seen in the .......that Mr. Gould furnished me the day we met with him, he showed four lanes along this road. Mayor Ferre: Yes. Mr. Goodknight: One of those through travel lanes would have eliminated the parking in front of the Dupont -Plaza Ho- tel. Now early during the discussions about this project, I believe Mr. Shepard may even made a presentation to the City, but we have understandings that agreements were had by all parties, that we would not eliminate that parking lane and instead, would have to shift the project north along this strip. It is essential that that right-of-way come off of here. Now, the problem is that the development order drawing presumed that we would take away the parking lane in front of the Dupont Plaza Hotel. Mayor Ferre: All right, you see the problem is, then there is a substantial change, because you are talking about a strip on another piece of property that was never even dis- cussed in the original document, so the question is, it is a legal ... Mr. City Attorney, this is going to end up in your lap, because this is going to end up being a legal question. The question is this: Gould now says "I am willing, ready and able to give you what I promised I would give you with - Id 45 June 28, 1984 out any expense to the City. I will not give anything that is different from that". Now, comes the question whether or not this is or is not a substantial change. I am not asking you for an answer now. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: No, I know that, Mr. Mayor, but my un- derstanding is that Mr. Gould is not really offering the City what is contained in development order two. Now, that subject, obviously to discuss should from an engineering or an architectural... Mayor Ferre: That is a new development - I haven't heard this. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: That is not my understanding at all. Mayor Ferre: Well, Mr. Goodknight and Mr. Gould and I were at a meeting where Mr. Gould made that statement. Remember that, John? Now, I told Gould, "Look, you know, there is too much of this you saying one thing and then changing your mind and flip-flopping. This is a legal document, you are legally bound". And he said "I will live up to the agree- ment in this drawing", and then he gave you the sepia draw- ing, which is the original right-of-way..."and I will donate that, I will give that to the City for the usage of this bi- furcated system". Mr. Goodknight: Mr. Mayor, may I... Mayor Ferre: So, in other words, Mr. City Attorney, I am saying that what you are saying is not accurate. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: According to Mr. Gould, it is not, Mr. Mayor, but that is not our position. Mayor Ferre: What is that again? Mr. Plummer: He said according to Mr. Gould, it is not, but their position has not changed. Mayor Ferre: You are saying that he is, but he is not will- ing to do that? Mr. Plummer: He is wrong. That's it. Mr. Goodknight: Mr. Mayor... Mayor Ferre: He says he is. Now, I don't understand... Mr. Goodknight: There are some other features to the chang- es that bear on this too perhaps. If I may, I would like to go ahead and share those with you. The other deviations from the original concept were number one, this strip is wider. Mayor Ferre: How much wider? Mr. Goodknight: It is wider by approximately enough land to build one lane. That lane... Mayor Ferre: Ten feet, thirty feet...? Mr. Goodknight: Roughly twelve feet, plus or minus. That lane is a left -turn storage lane that serves traffic predom- inantly destined up in this area, presumably much of that for Mr. Gould's development. In terms of the highway sys- tem, the highway network, that lane primarily serves this development. ld 46 June 28, 1984 77. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Goodknight, how wide was the originally taking...thirty feet? Mr. Goodknight: There were no dimensions on that original drawing. Mayor Ferre: Well, there was the drawing, and you can meas- ure it, because it was a sepia drawing and you can take the dimensions roughly on. Mr. Goodknight: It would have been roughly twelve feet less, I believe. Mayor Ferre: No, no, the original taking that there was a drawing on - how wide at the widest point was it? Mr. Goodknight: I would like to say it was... Mayor Ferre: Thirty, forty feet? Mr. Goodknight: In that range, but I would like to be able to look at it in careful detail before I give you an answer, but it is in that ball park. Mayor Ferre: I mean, it is not three hundred feet, that we know, so it is what? Mr. Goodknight: Oh, no, no. We are talking about an addi- tional twelve feet, approximately. Mayor Ferre: What was the original taking? Mr. Goodknight: It is in the range of thirty, forty, fifty feet. Mayor Ferre: Okay, if it is thirty, forty, or fifty feet, _ an additional twelve feet, in my opinion is a substantial deviation. Mr. Goodknight: Well, my point is, that additional width is required to provide a left turn into that building. Mayor Ferre: That may be, but that is not the point. The point is, is it a significant change from the original de- sign. Mr. Goodknight: One other feature, and then perhaps we can discuss that. The other feature is that the whole alignment was shifted northerly at our understanding, the request of the architect for this reason. By shifting it northerly, it allowed the placement of the columns for the garage along the southerly boundary of the property, which allowed him to use the air space above the entire ramp. Mr. Plummer: His garage? Mr. Goodknight: His garage, so the bottom line of that is it very well may be by this combination of shifting it northerly, the widening - the land take through this area, he hass more developable floor area than he would have had under the conceptual drawing. Those are details that one would have to go through the detailed architectural plans to get a clear answer, but my judgment is that given that most of the development would be above the ramp, the shift does- n't materially affect his ability to use the land. Mayor Ferre: Look, the bottom line is, we want to get going with the ramp, okay? I mean, that is the bottom line. We have got $80,000,000 earmarked for this, $10,000,000 in this year's appropriation. We don't want to lose that. Okay, ld 47 June 28, 1984 now, Gould says that you have changed the game on him and =- you have a substantial deviation that he would not give us the land with this substantial deviation. Now, you may dis- agree that it is or it isn't substantial. I don't know. We need a legal interpretation as to whether or not this is a substantial deviation. He says that he willing to put in writing and immediately execute any documents that would - give us the original design taking and otherwise, we are go- ing to have to go through condemnation proceedings. Now,_= the state doesn't have the money. You have already made that clear that you have no money for the taking of this =_ property, and at this time, the City of Miami has no identi- fiable money for the taking of this property. I don't know how much it is going to be, but I am pretty sure you are talking about many millions of dollars. Mr. Plummer: Let me ask a question. Mayor Ferre: The question is, how can we force this issue legally? I am willing to force Gould legally, but we have to be on sound, legal ground, Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa, in whatev- er it is that we do. Mr. Plummer: Well, let's look at the alternatives. It is my understanding that if the state does not come forth with the money, that is out. He kills that. Then it is my un- derstanding that he, Southeast, and the others have to pick up the tab. Mayor Ferre: Not Southeast, they have already paid. Mr. Plummer: Okay, but he... Mayor Ferre: No, they haven't. Oh, okay! (INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENT NOT PLACED INTO THE PUBLIC RE- CORD) Mr. Plummer: Okay? In other words, he is going to have to come up with the money. Mayor Ferre: Not if he claims that we are the ones respon- sible and not he, because there is a substantial deviation. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, he can claim all he wants! Mayor Ferre: Well, I am talking about legal language now, J. L. I am talking to the City Attorney. You see, what you are saying is absolutely correct. You see, you are abso- lutely correct if it is not...if it is his fault, but if he, on the other hand says "I agree to give you 15 and now you want 140, and that is a substantial deviation" .... then you know, then it is our fault. Now, if on the other hand, he says "I agreed to give you 15 and this is 1911, and the City Attorney says that is not a substantial deviation, then I've got no problem forcing the issue. Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Mayor, where is something in writing that deals with what we are talking about? Mayor Ferre: Item... Mr. Dawkins: No, no. I mean where is it in writing that Mr. Gould is right or wrong, or that the City is right or wrong? Mayor Ferre: That doesn't exist. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: let me answer that, Mr. Mayor, because there is a clear cut answer to that and I think it is an im-- ld 48 June 28, 1984 portant point to make at this point. The development order II, Commissioner Dawkins, is the document that we need to focus on. Now, the problem with that is that the obligation of Mr. Gould kicks in under the development order II, upon the granting of all variances and conditional use permits, and so forth and so on, which have not yet been applied for by him, but once that happens, and this is where I think we should be very clear on what is required. Let me just read to you what is required, once he does make application. "The applicant shall dedicate all easements and rights - of -way owned by the applicant, required by the City, County and State, to implement, or provide access to required transportation and second level pedestrian system improvements, specifically including required dedications along the north right-of-way line of S. E. 4th Street, Biscayne Boulevard Way." So, it doesn't say, as a legal proposition, that he is re- quired to do what he sketched out at some drawing. Mayor Ferre: Miller, he didn't. It is the State. Mr. Dawkins: It didn't say that he is not supposed to do what the State said! Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: He said that he shall dedicate all easements required by the City, County, and State! So, I challenge, and I think the Administration challenges the notion that there has been a substantial deviation, but my position is, that even if there had been, he undertook to dedicate all rights -of -way required by the City, County and State. Mayor Ferre: If that is the case, then I am today and to- morrow willing to stay on that legal position. I would however, require, Mr. City Attorney, that before you con- clude on that, that you meet with his attorney, because let me tell you ... you know, I don't want a pyrrhic victory out of this. Do you know what a pyrrhic victory means? A pyr- rhic victory means that we win, and we get no road. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Well, I think it is important Mr. May- or, that I emphasize what I said at the outset... Mayor Ferre: And lose $80,000,000. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Right, I think I should emphasize what I said at the... Mr. Dawkins: But I also want to go on the record by saying that I don't mind losing the $10,000,000 and if you are go- ing to talk about spending $80,000,000, and then you have got to come up with $80,000,000 of City's money to complete the job! We have got to start talking in terms here. He just said we don't have any State funds. Mayor Ferre: No, no. Mr. Dawkins: Who is going to pick up the tab for the rest of this... Mayor Ferre: That is very important. Thank you for asking that question. This is all Federal money. Mr. Dawkins: Wait a minute. Mayor Ferre: Let me finish. All $82,000,000 is coming from the Federal Government. What I was talking about was that there is no money in the $82,000,000 for any land, so how much was that? ld 49 June 28, 1984 Mr. Goodknight: Mr. Mayor, we have talked about large packages that included Miami Avenue and a number of other ramps to get the numbers up about that level. Mayor Ferre: Yes, okay. All right, forget whatever it is that bifurcated costs - $20,000,000? Mr. Goodknight: $22,000,000. Mayor Ferre: $22,000,000. Let me finish, yes, all Federal money. Mr. Dawkins: $22,000,000 in Federal money? Okay, I want to be sure we are not taking this out of... Mayor Ferre: And there is no City money at all involved in any of this. Now, the point is, that there is no provision in any of those monies for the taking of any land. The land has to be given by the man who owns the land, or the City has to buy it. Now, what I am saying is, now if the man says "I won't give it to you because you are in effect confiscating my property by taking a road and putting it diagonally across my lot. You want that? Fine, buy my land, but you can't do it without paying me for it. Now, pay me" ... and all I am saying is since the City doesn't have those monies earmarked, I would hope that we could figure out a way to solve this problem. Otherwise, what we are talking about is the loss of $22,000,000. Mr. Dawkins: Mr. City Attorney, did I understand you to say that Mr Gould does not have the right, according to the development order to take the stand that he is taking, in our opinion? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Well, yes and no, Commissioner. Let me explain that. He does not, in my view. He does not, in my view. I want the Mayor to focus on this, because I don't know if I got my point across to him Mr. Dawkins: Well, that is the question I asked. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Okay, he doesn't have, in my opinion, the right to say that he can impose a sketch or a schematic on us, because that is not what the document says, but what I was saying at the outset and my answer to your question was, that its obligation to dedicate does not kick in until he applies for variances and conditional use permit and so forth and so on, and he hasn't done so. My fear, frankly is, that given what we are told is a difficult financial situation in that whole development, he may not do so be- tween now and whatever Mr. Goodknight needs to have a de- finitive answer, and if he doesn't do so between now and then, the legal obligation to make the dedication does not kick in. Mr. Dawkins: Well, Mr. Mayor, I think what the man is try- ing to tell us in a round about way is he is not going to do that until you solve his problem! Mr. Gary: If I may... Mr. Dawkins: I mean I think... Mr. Plummer: Well, I think it goes deeper than that. I think that the man has an obligation, according to what the City Attorney has read; I would assume that then comes into play with the development order, which he is on an exten- sion now... ld 50 June 28, 1984 Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Development order II. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Gary... Mayor Ferre: You are confusing apples and oranges and be careful on the legal of that! Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I think you were the one, sir, who made the motion before this Commission which stated very clear that this was put together as a total package. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: No, it wasn't. Mayor Ferre: I was mistaken in that, Mr. Plummer, and I was told by legal counsel, and by the Manager to be very careful not to mix up apples and oranges, because that could get us into serious legal problems, and I...you know, since we are dealing with a guy who is up against the wall and has a propensity to go into a legal action at the flick of a finger, it seems to me that we need to keep the eye on the ball, and the ball is not Gould, okay? The ball is getting a bifurcated ramp system built. That is what we are trying to do. Now, if there is a way, I do not believe in cutting my nose to spite my face. I am not one of those guys who likes to do that. I don't like to go around chopping off my hand because it got dirty. It just doesn't serve the interest of the taxpayers and people of Miami to do that. What we need to do is to work out a problem so that Gould will dedicate, without any cost, that land and so that Mr. Goodknight and Mr. Taylor can get on with the job of designing and building that $22,000,000 structure with Federal funds. The question is, how do we do that? ® Mr. Plummer: That negotiation, Mr. Mayor, was worked out. It was settled. It was understood by all parties concerned and now all we are asking, and I think we should accept his offer, and that is that he will live up to what he agreed to. The City Attorney has read to us what he agreed to. Mr. Gary: If I might, Mr. Mayor... Mayor Ferre: Yes, sir, Mr. Manager. Mr. Gary: Just to bring everybody up to date. There are two development orders, Commissioner Plummer and Commis- sioner Dawkins. One is Miami Center I, which is the area as he has developed his hotel and his office building, as well as the lot next to it. Miami Center II is the parking lot area, just for the sake of clarity, where they are now parked. Under Miami Center I, there is no requirement for a bifurcated ramp. Under Miami Center II, there is. And under Miami Center II, which is not developed yet, the bi- furcation responsibility and liability and condition comes into play when you ask for variance to build on the vacant parking lot. Mayor Ferre: Which he hasn't done yet. Mr. Gary: Which he has not done yet. So therefore, even though he is required to do it, he is only required when he gets ready to ask for a variance and construct on those va- cant parking lots, which he has not done. That could be five or six or ten years from now. It may not be ever. Now, I would like to say that our position is that he is required, not based on schematic design, but he is required to give whatever right-of-way that the State, the County and the D.O.T. says he has to give ... and the City, okay? Now, his contention (I disagree with his contention) that it is a substantial deviation, and even if it is a substan- tial deviation this development order, which he signed so Id 51 June 28, 1984 •-..--..-•• d.. +. vu... y.b aav ..a vv i.u...a cvvc vuc .va_uc.. tea. + uv land.. with that he can get the required land, and it has to be based upon their construction drawings, so he is re- quired to do that, Commissioner Dawkins. The third thing is, and I would like to state, and that is what Commission- er Dawkins just said, and that is that we have a task force meeting that this City Commission instructed this Admini- stration to sit down and work out the differences between Gould, Southeast, Skippy Shepard at Dupont Plaza. We have done that, and he has agreed to what we have done. You are correct; however, getting back to the bottom line, as the Mayor is saying, because he canet us on a technicality, g even though he has agreed there, that is not legally bind- ing, Commissioner Plummer. The technicality is that that condition of him giving that land is when Miami Center II goes into effect when he asks for variances, so he can get us on a technicality. Now, in my estimation, based on my reading of the documents, unlike Mr. Gould saying I don't understand English, and also what the City Attorney says who agrees with me, is that I don't think we need any money to take his land, for the mere fact that development order which he signed to increase the value of his land and do development ..... he will give the necessary right-of-way and dedication for the bifurcated ramp, and... Mayor Ferre: Do you have a legal position on that? Mr. Gary: On what? Mayor Ferre: What you just said, because that could be the whole key to the thing. Mr. Gary: What is that? Mayor Ferre: Well, you just said that we don't need any money to take his land; we can take it because he has a- greed to give it to us. Mr. Gary: Well, that is my position, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: I know, but we need a legal position, because you are talking about very, very touchy .legal areas, you know. Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor, when I say take his land, I am saying we don't need the money to take his land on the quick take. As you said, we would need it because we are complicating an ....... What I am saying is, he agreed to give us the necessary and required dedication. Mayor Ferre: We could proceed. I see your tactic, and I think that makes a lot of sense. What you are saying is, don't quick take. Go to the Court and say "Your Honor, here is the document. We are going to lose $22,000,000, in effect, if we don't proceed with this. This man is giving us a hard time. We want your authority now to proceed with the construction and we will settle what we own him later on. It Mr. Gary: Under emergency conditions, because we don't want to lose our money. Mayor Ferre: All right now, Mr. City Attorney, you are go- ing to have to do some heavy duty research on that and make sure that we don't get ourselves into a mess and end up owing the guy $100,000,000 for as he says, emasculating his property. -- Mr. Gary: Let me just add one question, because ... and I was trying to get to the point, Mr. Mayor, is that all of ld 52 June 28, 1984 those are detailed, technical legal issues, but the bottom line is, we need to protect our investment and he can stop it on a technicality and I think what we are saying is, "How do we proceed to insure that we protect the City's rights and the citizens rights?" Either through negotia- tion, carrying it into court, somebody needs to decide. Mayor Ferre: But Howard, I will tell you. Any competent Judge would tell you, "Have you exhausted your Administra- tive procedure. Have you met with the man and tried to ne- gotiate this out." Therefore, I would recommend to you, Number one, that we ask, and I am asking you right now, Mr. City Attorney, to give us a legal position on the Manager's stand, which I think makes a lot of sense. Secondly, and it proves not only can he reach English fairly well, I think he can think pretty good too, because that makes a lot of sense. Two, I would like to ask the Manager and you to meet with Mr. Gould and/or his representatives or your representative to see if there is a peaceful way of solving this before our next meeting. If there is no peaceful way of doing it, then I think we ought to be prepared to take quick legal action based on ... and you had better do a lot of legal research on this, Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Gary, I want to be sure I am understand- ing what I am hearing. Mr. Gould was allowed to proceed, to construct what he is doing, because the City of Miami granted him the right to do so, is that right, or wrong? Mr. Gary: It all depends. Mr. Dawkins: And in order, when we granted him these rights to do what he wanted to do, he made certain promises as gratitude to City of Miami, am I right that far? ---•-----------------------•----•----------------------------- , NOTE FOR THE RECORD: Vice Mayor Perez entered meeting at 11:25 A.M. -------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Gary: Correct. Mr. Dawkins: Now, so therefore, we lived up to our part of the bargain by giving him the variances, etc., that he needed. Mr. Gary: Not quite, Commissioner. Mr. Dawkins: Why, what didn't we give him? Mr. Gary: If I may explain to you - it is very important. We have two issues involved, Commissioner. That is why I am making a condition. Right here is where he built this hotel. Here is a vacant parking lot, okay? I am talking about ... these are the two key ones right here, and this one. This is development order number one for this area. This is development order number two - these three areas. Now, with regard to this, number one has nothing to do with number two. Under number two, he is required to give us land right away for this bifurcated system, okay? Commis- sioner, he has not built anything here. Only time he had to give us this dedicated right-of-way here, is when this City Commission gives him variances to build buildings on these ... here. He has not asked for that, and therefore technically and legally, he doesn't have to give this until the City Commission grants him variances, or grants him conditions where he can -build on his property, and that is the technicality he is using. Now, if I might, Commission- er Dawkins, just look at this map. This is development one. Anything that he built here, he has to comply with Id 53 June 28, 1984 conditions of that, such as surface streets, and he has to do grading the park. You have to look at that separate. You cannot tie these bifurcated ramps into development or- der number one, okay? This is the hotel. You cannot tie the hotel to these properties here. They are two separate development orders, and because he has not asked for any- thing to be built here yet, then, he doesn't have to give this; however, on good faith, Mr. Gould, at the urging of the Commission to resolve differences, agreed to sit down with a committee to resolve the bifurcated ramp system with the understanding that we were to agree on how it is come _— down, how it is going to be elevated, so that we can move forward and get that project done, but that is not any kind x of legal binding on him, for the mere fact that until he asks us for the variances to start construction, he doesn't have to dedicate this. Mr. Dawkins: So in other words, Mr. Gould has got the dice and the money. I don't know what we are arguing about, then. Mr. Gary: Yes, but... Mayor Ferre: We are arguing about getting a ramp built. Mr. Dawkins: Yes, but we are going to make whatever con- cessions he wants to get it here! Mayor Ferre: No, no. Mr. Dawkins: Yes, yes. Mayor Ferre: No concessions! We are not going to concede anything! Mr. Dawkins: You are conceding now, because he would not give us what you want to get the money for the ... Mayor Ferre: No, no, now look. Mr. Dawkins: That is my opinion! Go ahead, clear it up. Mayor Ferre: Miller, look. One and two is separate, as the Manager has explained, and apples and oranges ... and just because one apple tree is full of worms or one orange tree has Mediterranean fruit flies doesn't mean that the other one has. Mr. Dawkins: But you spray just the same all of them! Mayor Ferre: All right, now this tree, like Ernie Fannatto would say, "This here tree"...you see, we need to do some- thing to it to improve it and if we don't do it, it is go- ing to cost the City $22,000,000 that we are going to lose. Now, Gould has agreed to do certain things, and he says he is willing to do it, and he says he is on the record. All I am asking now is, Number one, Manager and City Attorney, go negotiate this and see if you can bring it down to some reasonable way that we can all proceed. This is in Gould's best interest too. I mean, he owns all this land and he and his creditors want this ramp built. It is to their best interest. Now, the second thing that we are saying is, if we can't agree with it, Mr. Manager, and you can't come to a logical conclusion with Mr. Gould after you sit down and negotiate with him, then what you are saying is legally correct, let us proceed going to a Judge and say "Judge, he made a promise, and now we are going to proceed in taking it based on that, if that can legally be done. Id 54 June 28, 1984 ...., .-- nm n; , yr. Dawkins: The only thing I would like to add to that, is Mr. Gary, when you and the City Attorney go to negotiate - - with Mr. Gould, you be just as arrogant as he is. You do not sit there and let him throw his arrogance around on you and just because we told you to negotiate, you think you =1 have to be abused, okay?_ - Mr. Gary: I've taken a course in that. Mr. Dawkins: No, no. Mr. Gary: If I may, though... Mayor Ferre: I tell you, I think Howard Gary can take care of himself pretty good, so I am not worried about anybody abused. Mr. Dawkins: But, you see, Mr. Mayor, I stated my point - my opinion. Now, if you want to state yours, you can do that, but that still doesn't alter mine. Mayor Ferre: Well, that is what I am doing! Mr. Plummer: Well, I've got a solution to that, Miller. My solution is, since Mr. Gould has said Mr. Gary cannot speak or understand English, we send you as a translator! Mr. Gary: If, I might, because I think that the point that the Mayor is trying to get across is important and Commis- sioner Dawkins just hit on it, Mr. Mayor, and I would like to if I can. Legally, he has to give us the necessary right-of-way to build this bifurcated ramp. Mayor Ferre: If and when he ever asks for the permits. Mr. Gary: Now, the issue is, he really has us, okay? Let me tell you why he really has us. For the mere fact, until he comes in here and asks for the variance for the land, he does not have to dedicate this property, and therefore, he has time on his side and we have time against us. Mayor Ferre: That is right. Mr. Plummer: Well, let me ask you a question. Mayor Ferre: Wait a minute. Mr. Manager, it is almost 12:00 o'clock, and we have got to be out of here in a lit- tle while. I would like to get this thing on top of the table and clarified. I would like to move the following resolution: That the City Manager and the City Attorney jointly be instructed, each in their pertinent competence, to meet with Mr. Gould and/or his attorneys and representa- tives to try one, to finalize his compliance on Phase I, which we recognize is totally separate from Phase II, and has nothing to do with Phase II, but since we are dealing with the same individual, then that would be Part 2 of this motion, and that is that you and the City Attorney also sit down to negotiate that portion of Phase II that deals with the bifurcated ramp and the property that is needed for the construction, because we need to work that out before the fall, or we will lose $10,000,000 in this year's already earmarked appropriated money, and Number 3, if those things fail, separately, and not related, that you then come back with a recommendation as to what further actions this Commission needs to take, both legally and administratively, and I so move. I think that covers everything - is that right? Did I miss anything, Howard? Mr. Gary: I would ............. Id 55 June 28, 1984 Mayor Ferre: I so move. Mr. Plummer: 'There is a motion made and duly seconded. Under discussion? Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Gary. Mr. Gary: Yes, sir. Mr. Dawkins: When the bifurcated structure was first being discussed, did not the Administration sit down with Mr. Gould and make all these changes for his benefit, and these are the things that he wanted and did not ... this Admini- stration bend over backwards to give him the things that he desired. Mr. Gary: I would say with regard to the development order, the answer to that question is "yes". With regards to sit- ting down Mr. Gould, the answer is, we found Mr. Gould and all of the affected parties on a committee, transportation committee for the purpose of coming up with a compromise solution that will benefit Mr. Gould, benefit Dupont Plaza, benefit the citizens of Miami. So, he was a part of that, he had input into that, and we were all under the impres- sion that we had agreement on that, Commissioner Dawkins. Mr. Dawkins: And at that time, the ramp took priority over a tunnel. Mr. Gary: The ramp took priority because everybody was concerned about the traffic impact, including Mr. Gould, on the development of that project and everybody wanted to make sure that ramp was done, because it would effect the economic viability of those projects. Mr. Dawkins: But, you could have very easily have sent that traffic through a tunnel, sir. Mr. Gary: Well, there was talk of a tunnel, Commissioner. Mr. Dawkins: There was talk of a tunnel, but you ended up in favor of the ramp. Mr. Gary: Correct, because the cost... Mr. Dawkins: Because the ramp would benefit all of these people you just named, more so than a tunnel. Am I right, or wrong? Mr . Gary: No . Mr. Dawkins: No, I am wrong, or no, I am right? Mr. Gary: No, you are wrong in that the tunnel would have benefited them as well as the bifurcated ramp, but because of the cost of building a tunnel was much greater than the bifurcated ramp. Mr. Dawkins: No, but the tunnel would not have gone up by Mr. Gould's building and down around by the Southeast Bank and deposited people at their door, Mr. Gary, so now.... Mr. Gary: Okay. Mr. Dawkins:....in terms of talking about what benefit, I think I am right! Now, if I am wrong, I will let you show me I am wrong. Mr. Gary: You and I agree. I am just saying that the tun- nel and the bifurcated would have benefited primarily those two projects. ld 56 June 28, 1984 Mr. Dawkins: Thank you. Mayor Ferre: Are you ready to vote? Mr. Dawkins: Yes, call the question. a Mr. Plummer: I want to ask a question. Mr. Goodknight, you have indicated that if there is a deviation, it is the 12(b) which in your presentation was solely — well mostly, for the benefit of the project. Is that correct? Mr. Goodknight: We identified three or four deviations. The twelve feet that I talked about in the southwest block was to provide a turning lane into the garages. The devia— tion on the easterly block was in order to keep from taking the parking lane from the Dupont Plaza Hotel. Mr. Plummer: All right, let me ask you this question. Is it possible that that thing could be built without that de— viation and without that additional twelve feet? Mr. Goodknight: On the easterly block, it is not in my judgment, not possible to build it without this. It is possible to shift this back some distance, but I think that would result in less developable property for Mr. Gould. Mr. Plummer: That is not my point, sir. If that twelve feet, which is the deviation is basically and primarily for his benefit, can we eliminate that twelve feet and be back _= in compliance with the original development order? Mr. Goodknight: The twelve feet, along this corridor, I believe could be eliminated. Some of that may clear... Mayor Ferre: Let the Manager do that, J. L. Mr. Plummer: Well, what I am saying — I am giving the Man— ager some food for thought. What I am saying is, if he is trying to kill the project, and we can come back in compli— ance totally... Mr. Garcia —Pedrosa: No, no. Mayor Ferre: Amen! Amen to that! Mr. Garcia —Pedrosa: Well, you don't want to say to put us back in compliance. Mr. Plummer: Him in compliance! Mr. Gary: We are already in compliance. Mayor Ferre: Hey, Howard, he happens to be right! I think ... as a matter of fact, Mr. Manager, I think what Plummer is saying is the solution. Mr. Gary: He is wrong, Maurice. Mayor Ferre: Well, okay, you negotiate it out with him if you can, and not come back and tell us what to do. Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor... Mayor Ferre: I call the question. Mr. Gary: May I ask a question? Mayor Ferre: Go ahead, Mr. Manager. ld 57 June 28, 1984 Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor would you think it would be appropri- ate that during this negotiation, that we have involved in that transportation... Mayor Ferre: Mr. Manager, I give you full authority, if this Commission votes on it to do whatever you want with whomever you want, however you want, okay? I am not put- ting any constraints or limitations on how you go about do- ing it. All I am asking you to do is, find a — the name of = the game is $22,000,000. It isn't Gould. I could care less. Gould may or may not be here next year. I am trying to get this bifurcated thing finished and all I am saying is, please try to get it done and you bring us the best so- lution that you possibly can, that is all, period! I call the question. Mr. Plummer: Call the roll. The following motion was introduced by Mayor Ferre, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 83-711 A MOTION INSTRUCTING THE CITY MANAGER AND THE CITY ATTORNEY JOINTLY, EACH IN THEIR PERTINENT FIELD OF COMPETENCE TO MEET WITH Mr. THEODORE GOULD OR HIS LE- GAL REPRESENTATIVES IN ORDER TO ACCOM- PLISH THE FOLLOWING: 1) TO TRY TO FINALIZE HIS COMPLIANCE OF PHASE I OF THE MIAMI CENTER PROJECT. 2) TO NEGOTIATE THAT PORTION OF MIAMI CENTER PHASE II THAT DEALS WITH THE BI- FURCATED RAMP AND THE PROPERTY THAT IS NEED FOR ITS CONSTRUCTION; AND 3. FURTHER STIPULATING THAT IF ALL OF THE OTHER STEPS FAIL, THE CITY MANAGER IS TO COME BACK WITH RECOMMENDATIONS AS TO WHAT FURTHER ACTIONS THE CITY COMMIS- SION SHOULD PURSUE BOTH LEGALLY AND AD- MINISTRATIVELY; FURTHER GIVING THE CITY MANAGER FULL AU- THORITY TO PURSUE THESE NEGOTIATIONS HOWEVER HE DEEMS BEST. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Carollo, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ld 58 June 28, 1984 --- ��'---------------------4----;=-------------- =-_------- 30. SELECT LUCIA ALLEN DOUGHERTY AS THE NEW CITY ATTORNEY EFFECTIVE AUGUST 1, 1984. (SEE LATER FORMALIZING RESOLUTION). ------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, with a full Commission we have possibly the time to take up the City Attorney. Mayor Ferre: I am for that. Are we ready to vote on that? Everybody ready to vote on that? All right, I will open up now the nominations for City Attorney. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I would like to nominate the name of Lucia Allen Dougherty. Mayor Ferre: Lucia Allen Dougherty. Are there any other nominations? Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, I would like to nominate Mr. Jorge Fernandez. Mayor Ferre: Jorge Fernandez. Are there any other nomina- tions? Mr. Plummer: If it is in order, I move the nominations be Mayor Ferre: Wait a minute! I am running the meeting, now hold on. Mr. Perez: I would like to nominate Ann Maria Carnesolta. Mayor Ferre: Anna Maria Carnesolta. Are there any other nominations? Mr. Dawkins: Howard Gary! Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Commissioner, he doesn't meet the qual- ifications to be a City Attorney! (LAUGHTER) Mayor Ferre: Are there any other nominations for the second time? Does any member of this Commission wish to nominate any other individual for the position of City Attorney? Hearing none, is there a motion that the nominations be closed? Mr. Carollo: Closed. Mayor Ferre: It has been moved. Is there -a second? Mr. Dawkins: Second. Mayor Ferre: It has been moved and seconded. Further dis- cussion? Call the roll on the closing of the nominations. ON MOTION DULY MADE by Commissioner Carollo and seconded by Commissioner Dawkins, the City Commission closed nominations for position of City Attorney. Mayor Ferre: We now have the ballots which are marked bal- lot number one, and please ... Mr. Plummer: I want my vote to reflect that lad is a girl. Mayor Ferre: If there is not a majority at this time, then I think we should have some discussion. I will have a com- ment if there is a majority. Ms. Hirai: Commissioner Dawkins, Mr. Plummer and Mayor Ferre have voted for Lucia Allen. Commissioner Carollo vot- ed for Jorge Fernandez and Commissioner Perez voted for Anna Maria Carnesolta. 1d 59 June 28, 1984 Mayor Ferre: All right, congratulations, Lucia. Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion now that unanimously appoint Lucia Allen Dougherty as the City Attor- ney. — Mayor Ferre: Is there a second? Mr. Perez: Second. Mayor Ferre: All right, second by Commissioner Perez. Fur- ther discussion? Mr. Plummer: In voting against that motion...(LAUGHTER!) Mayor Ferre: All right, call the roll on it, making it u- nanimous. THEREUPON, THE FOREGOING MOTION, (M-84-712) duly made by Commissioner Carollo and seconded by Commissioner Perez was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES. Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetric Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None ABSENT: None (LATER FORMALIZED INTO RESOLUTION NO. 84-714) Mayor Ferre: I would like to make a comment into the re- cord. First of all, I want to once again thank the Commit- tee for the outstanding work that they did, of the long hours of work in the recommendations that they came up with. And I would like - David, if you would please stand - I would like to recognize to recognize a very able City Attor- ney of Naples. He and I have been talking as other members of the Commission have been talking. He and Lucia were the two recommended finalists. I would have been pleased and happy to vote for either one of them. I think they are both extremely and highly qualified. I think their experience and their background would justify either one of them, and David was not able to get any member of the Commission to be a sponsor and therefore, I think it would have been futile -- effort to have nominated him. I want to say that I could have just as easily have voted for you, sir, and I say that very sincerely. I think you have a tremendous record. I am sure that you will be a major contributor to municipal law in this State and this Country. You already have been and I know that we will be seeing more of you in the future. I am sorry that we don't have more than one position to fill, be- cause I certainly would have been happy to have voted for you. Now, I would like to make a statement to Mr. Fernandez and to Ms. Carnesolta, who were the other two nominees. Ms. Ca- rnesolta is a qualified attorney who has only practiced law in the City of Miami Law Department less than one year. Her previous experience has been in criminal law. I think she a offers a great deal in the future. I would hope that she would bide her time and prepare for the time and the moment when her turn will come, and I am sure her turn will come, and I hope that she will broaden her experience. I don't think she has practiced law quite five years. How many years? Six year, I am sorry. She has practiced law six years, of which five years has been in criminal law, and one ld 60 June 28, 1984 year has been in the State of Florida, of which the last six months, or seven months has been in the City of Miami. I do not think that a person whose expertise is criminal law, and who has practiced law in the City of Miami for seven months is sufficiently prepared to be City Attorney, and I look forward to the opportunity when she will be prepared to take what I am sure will be an appropriate position. Mr. Fernandez, whom I was responsible for originally recom- mending to then City Attorney George Knox is also a highly qualified attorney. I don't know whether Mr. Fernandez is still here, but as I remember when Mr. Fernandez and I first talked two and one-half years ago, he had been out of law school a year and one-half. I do not think that Mr. Fernandez has been out of law school for five years, or if he has, not much more than five years. He did not make the finalist list. I know, I see my friend Lazaro Albo is all upset because I didn't vote for a Cuban -American. I would like to say that the Cuban community and the Black community do not own any of these seats. The City Attorney seat is not Black, I mean the City Manager's seat. The City Attor- ney's seat is not Black, because under that theory, then once we had George Knox in as City Attorney, then the next City Attorney should have been Black too, and the fact is that we have now proven once again that the City of Miami Commission is able to deliberate on these issues on the mer- it and I think we voted for the most qualified, as I see it ... I did so last time with Jose Garcia -Pedrosa. We have now had in succession, a Black City Attorney, a Cuban -Ameri- can City Attorney and now we have a woman City Attorney, so I think that certainly we have shown that we do these things based on qualification, experience and recommendation. Lastly, I know that nobody else made this commitment, but, in the last two selections, I have publicly stated that I would only (speaking for myself) vote for that person that met the high standards and scrutiny of the Blue Ribbon Com- mittee. I might point out that the Committee that scruti- nized these individuals were made up of no less than three law school deans: The dean of the University of Miami, Nova University and Florida State University in Tallahassee. The president-elect of the Dade County Bar, A. J. Boranko, the president of the Cuban -American Association, the former president of the Young Lawyer's Association, the president of the Black Lawyer's Association and the president of the Woman Lawyer's Association of the State of Florida. Now, these certainly under any circumstances, appears. It just happens that two of those people out of the eight were wom- an, two were Cubans and two were Blacks, and so I think that there was ample minority and women's representation on the committee. They deliberated and came back with a recommen- dation and I am happy that Lucia, you have been selected. The last thing I want to say about this is Lucia. Lucia Al- len Dougherty has a distinguished public record of a- chievement, especially in the field of municipal law, which is a dinner specialty and within that, in real estate, zon- ing, and development law. The City of Miami is not beset our new ordinance 9500, and it is going to be a series of continuous challenges dealing with real estate. We just spent an hour on the bifurcated system in Dupont Plaza. We are getting into very heavy duty law on land, because this is a City that is developing, so the attorney that we need here at this time has to have to sensitivity to minorities, has to have a clear knowledge of the law; have to have expe- rience in municipal law; and has to understand real estate development and zoning matters, which is the heavy duty stuff that is coming up before this Commission. Lucia Allen did so in Miami Beach. She came and worked in this City for six months and certainly was highly regarded by her peers. She went back to Miami Beach where she has been the practic- ld 61 June 28, 1984 ing City Attorney for well over a year and one-half now, and now we are fortunate to get her back here in the City of Miami, and I just want to say how very pleased and honored we are, Lucia, to have you back. Ms. Lucia Allen Dougherty: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, I am deeply honored by this selection, especially when it is made by such an august committee and an august field of applicants. I want you to know that it is with great appreciation and humility I accept this appointment and I have every confidence that the City Attorneys office and I can assist you in the development of this great City. Thank you. Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, if I may, I would like to congratu- late Lucia. I think that we have picked an extremely compe- tent and professional City Attorney. I think that we had probably the best field of good qualified professional can- didates that I have seen in a long time, and I think it is a very hard choice for some of us to make, and what it came down to was that out of all the highly qualified individuals that we had, some of us made individual choices. At the same time, I think that the Mayor stated something here that should be taken to heart by everyone in Miami, and I would like to endorse what he said in the fact that there is no seat anywhere in this City government that belongs to one ethnic group, one racial group, one religious group or an- other. We will vote for the people that we think are most qualified, whomever they are, for there is no stamped for any one group for any seat in this City government. Con- gratulations again, Lucia. Mr. Perez: First, I would like to congratulate Ms. Dougherty. I think that she is a great asset to this commu- nity and especially for our legal community. I am very proud of her credentials. There is multi -cultural back- ground, there is knowledge of the Spanish language that I know will be very helpful for this community to try to im- prove the relations with our whole community, but I Want to explain and to make clear why I supported Anna Maria Car- = nesolta in this case. The Mayor mentioned her credentials. I think her outstanding credentials six years in the le- gal life, but I think she is a qualified person and I know her from my hometown in Cuba also, and I would like to em- phasize also the credentials also of Jose Fernandez, but I think that this issue cannot divide this community. I think we have to work unites' and I am very proud of the position of this Commission today. I am very proud of the ap- pointment of Ms. Dougherty and I am sure she will be a great asset to our City of Miami Commission. Mr. Plummer: Merely just let me state congratulations, and I hope all of your legal opinions are brief as the comments you must made. 31. ACCEPT PLAT: HIGHLAND PARK DRIVE - SECTION 2" -------------------------------------------------- Mayor Ferre: All right, we have Item 14, which is a non- controversial acceptance of the plat - Highland Park Sec- tion. This is the University of Miami and Metro -Dade Coun- ty. ...(TAPE6 L.D.) Is there anybody here that objects to the acceptance of that plat as recommended by the Plat Com- mittee? ld 62 June 28, 1984 Mr. Plummer: What is presently there? What is presently on that piece of land? UNIDENTIFIED: Just a street, Mr. Plummer. Mr. Plummer: It is street only? UNIDENTIFIED: Yes, this is the street closing for the purpose of the pedestrian wall that we have presented here in the past. Mr. Plummer: Is the other street finished? UNIDENTIFIED: Nov it is going to start construction in the middle of July. It will be finished by the end of the year and only then, after the new 9th Avenue bypass is in place will we probably vacate and close 10th Avenue, probably in the middle of 1985. Mr. Plummer: It was my understanding that this was not to be granted, or it was subject to the other one being fin- ished first. I would move Item 14 subject to that stipula- tion that you must complete the other one first, and as such, I so move. Mayor Ferre: Is there a second? Mr. Perez: Second. Mayor Ferre: Further discussion? Any problems now on that? Call the roll on 14. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 84-713 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED HIGHLAND PARK DRIVE SECTION 2 (MORE PAR- TICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN), A SUBDIVI- SION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI; ACCEPTING THE DEDICATIONS SHOWN ON SAID PLAT; AUTHOR- IZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE PLAT AND PRO- VIDING FOR THE RECORDATION OF SAID PLAT IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA; FURTHER, PROVIDING FOR CONDI- TIONS UPON SUCH ACCEPTANCE. (Here follows body of resolution, omit- ted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Perez, the resolu- tion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ON ROLL CALL: Mr. Dawkins: What is the recommendation of the Administra- tion? ld 63 June 28, 1984 Mr. Gary: The recommendation is that we accept the plat with the condition that Commissioner Plummer placed on it. THEREUPON THE CITY COMMISSION WENT l:Tr A BRIEF - RECESS AT 12:12 P.M., reconvening at 2:15 P.M. with all members of the Commission found to be present except for: Commissioner Joe Carollo. ------------------------------------------------------ 32. PRESENTATION TO JOSE FERNANDEZ AS OUTSTANDING OFFICER OF THE MONTH. Presentation: Officer Jose Fernandez, as outstanding Police Officer of the month. 33. FIRST READING ORDINANCE; CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION AT 3930-4024 N. M. 7TH STREET FROM RG-2/4 TO CR-2/7. Mayor Ferre: Agenda Item Number 6. Is the Administration prepared to move on the application of Otto Espino and Aldo Busot? Gary Held, Esquire, is representing the Applicant. This is a petition of an Ordinance 9500 - atlas change from RG-2/4 to CR-2/7. It was recommended by the Planning De- partment with approval and the Zoning Board recommended it unanimously 7 to 0. Is the Applicant here, or his represen- tative? Mr. Traurig: Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre:All right, let us first hear from the Applicant. We will then hear from the Department, or perhaps we ought to do it the other way around. Is the Department ready to speak on Item 6? All right, we will hear from the Depart- ment and then from the Applicant. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, may I try to save some time? I know Mr. Traurig works by the hour, but still... Mayor Ferre: There are some citizens here that want to speak. Mr. Plummer: Oh, excuse me. Are there citizens here in op- position? Mayor Ferre: Yes, you were not here before. Let me repeat if for your sake. When we broke up at 12:00 noon, several citizens came up to me very concerned and some of them up- set. They had been here since the morning and they had not had an opportunity to speak on Item 6. They were upset be- cause they had given up a work day for this. They wanted to get back to work. I gave them the option to speak immedi- ately at 2:00 o'clock or at 6:00 o'clock in the evening. They insisted that it be at 2:00 o'clock, and that is why we are hearing it now. Proceed. Mr. Richard Whipple: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commis- sion. The Planning Department recommends approval of this item. It is an item initiated by the Private Sector and we believe because of the existing commercial zoning across the street and because this is basically a pocket of residential ld 64 June 28, 1984 zoning existing between two commercial zonings on the east — and west, and to the north across the street, that this is a proper request for a rezoning. We believe that the regula- tions as they apply to the commercial zoning to be applied are protective of the residential area to the south and we recommend approval. Mayor Ferre: All right, the Applicant? Mr. Robert H. Traurig: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My name is Robert H. Traurig, 1401 Brickell Avenue. I represent the applicants, Otto Espino and Aldo Busot who have this parcel of property on N. W. 7th Street between 39th Avenue and 40th Court. It is that parcel of property which fronts on N. W. 7th Street and you will not that is a very shallow parcel of property. It actually is 775' long, but only 101.5 feet deep and it is currently improved with some one story apartments which are 48 apartments, none of which have any parking on site. So therefore, this development is an early Miami development, which really doesn't comply with current code and creates a neighborhood problem because of the parking situation, but more than that, it is an old development which needs to be either improved substantially or else demolished so that new improvements can be placed on the property. Now, the property which is the subject of this hearing is currently zoned RG-2/4, which permits apartments, but interestingly, it is just about the only parcel of property on 7th Street from 12th Avenue all the way west of LeJeune, which is zoned for apartments. Everything else on 7th Street is zoned and is being used for commercial development, and we are asking for the rezoning of the property to the CR-2/7 classification, which is what Mr. Whipple indicates would be appropriate in view of the property across the street and the property east and west. You can see from this aerial photograph the general nature of the area to the north - the central shopping center and all this property west of this which is commercial. This is a map which reflects the character of zoning on 7th Street all the way from 12th Avenue west ... (INAUDIBLE)...reflects that the entire property is CR-2/7, except for those very narrow pieces that I just referred to. Generally, we think that the present zoning classification is inappropriate. It is in conflict with the uses generally permitted and existing on 7th Street, and it is on a parcel of property that has to be redeveloped. If not, it will continue to deteriorate and become a neighborhood eyesore and we believe that because we have such a poor cash flow, that it is inappropriate to redevelop the property, and even if we did, it would still be inconsistent with general pattern of development in the area, because we don't have the parking because we will be under developing the property and not developing it in the commercial mode. There are insufficient revenues at the present time to permit the redevlopment of the property. Now, in view of the fact that it appears to be an anomaly, and it is the only parcel of property that is residential and it has got commercial on both sides of it and across the street from it, it certainly appears on the surface to be an appropriate candidate for the rezoning that Cr-2 sets. We have got neighbors who live in the back of us and they have been very concerned with the effects of that redevelopment of the property. We have said to them, among other things in a series of meetings that we have conducted with them that we would build an eight foot wall in the back of our property and we would, in addition to the landscaping which is already heavy on their side of the wall, install whatever additional landscaping they feel would be appropriate to protect their view of what in on 7th Street. Our argument is that just as we shouldn't invade their property, their area with commercial development, residential is equally inconsistent with the ld 65 June 28, 1984 pattern of development on 7th Street, but that we would protect them against what they may consider to be an intrusion into their neighborhood because of the height. They keep talking about the height and I would point out to you that the same height that we would achieve in the CR- 2/7, could be achieved under the current zoning of RG-2/4, and because we only have the 101 feet of depth, it is not an appropriate area for the redevelopment of the parcel. Spokesperson after spokesperson who appeared before the Zoning Board on this said "We recognize that something has to be done to change this. We are just concerned about how it will affect our property", so we are saying that the solution will be that we will voluntarily assist them by the wall and by that landscaping. I would like you to know that really the only parcels of property that are affected by this are those that back up to our property, and those are the properties between 39th Avenue and 40th Court, of which only four have indicated their opposition to this applica- tion. We again point out to you that height is not the function of the zoning, and that it is an application that is consistent with the development pattern. I would also like you to know that it is our objective to create some- thing in the nature of a mixed use of the property, where we would have a combination of commercial and offices and resi- dential, but the residential above the other uses. We think that that will add vitality to the area, will be consistent with the area and as the Planning Department and the Zoning Board indicated is a basic pattern in conformity with the basic pattern already approved for N. W. 7th Street. Thank you very much. Mr. Plummer: We hear from the people of the public that wish to speak. Anybody from the public wishing to speak, -- please come forward. For the record, please give your name and mailing address. Mr. Robert McClasky: I am Robert McClasky. I live at 551 N. W. 39th Avenue - Mayor Ferre: Mr. McClasky, let me once again apologize to you for the inconvenience of keeping you all morning and now it is 2:30 P.M. Mr. McClasky: I thank you for your apology. I am here to speak for myself and I presume most of the affected resi- dents in the area. We obviously oppose any zoning change of the property in question. We are concerned about things Mr. Traurig mentioned. We are concerned about some of the things he didn't mention. One of our principal concerns is the parking, the street parking by our residences. I am, you will find, no match in persuasiveness with Mr. Traurig, who we all know by reputation. He has been most pleasant and courteous in this matter. He is here representing his client. He is a professional and we, the property owners Mr. Plummer: Mr. McClasky ... Mr. McClasky: Your concerns, see, I think you should be ex- pressing those - the things that Mr. Traurig didn't speak to, is I think what you should be telling this Commission. Mr. McClasky: All right. If we examine what Mr. Traurig said, as I understand it, there are two reasons for rezoning this property. One is, another property along 7th Street has a different zoning. To me that is not a compelling rea- son. I think this body should be looking to a compelling reason before they approve the zoning. I don't see the com- pelling reason in the fact that other properties have com- mercial zoning and this does not. There would seem to me ld 66 June 28, 1984 that there must be some overriding community benefit in changing the zoning. I haven't seen there is such a condi- tion. The other thing that Mr. Traurig mentioned only briefly, and I think is the real reason we are all here is that zoning will enhance the value of that property. Mr. - Traurig, in our conversations with him has not denied that. I don't think anybody...(yes, that is right, that is where I live)... disputes that. However, I don't think the purpose of this body, or the Zoning Board to rezone a property for the benefit of the property owner. I don't think there is any hardship here. The present owners acquired this proper- ty. They knew what was on there. They knew what the zon- ing was. They are now looking for a rezoning to benefit themselves and we think, the property owners, at our ex- pense. It is going to interfere, and we believe, reduce the value of the property in the immediate area. That ... Mr. Plummer: Mr. McClasky, we know all of that, sir. What is it that he didn't say that is giving you concern? Mr. McClasky: Well, he didn't dwell to any extent on the problem, the concern that we all have about the parking in the area. We all have seen it. I have see it in the build- ing where I have my office in - a commercial building. The people in the neighborhood, there are residents adjoining the building and I see what a problem they have with commer- cial parking around their houses. We are concerned with that. We firmly believe that this will happen if this strip of property is developed commercially. I think my other point is that these zoning classifications are set - I don't think they should be changed without a compelling reason. I think the reasons put forth so far are not compelling. I think the enhance of th value of the property for the property owner is not a compelling reason. I just don't think it should be a consideration by this board. To con- sider the consideration of the adjoining property along property along 7th Street, I don't think is a compelling consideration. What is wrong with having a residential area along 7th Street. I haven't heard anything that that is a disadvantage. We just think it should remain as it is. We don't think that this board has any reason to change it. Incidentally, I see the figures here at the Zoning Board meeting, 41 proponents, 16 opponents. I hope this body doesn't consider that to be an accurate count of the proper- ty owners in the area. That is all I have to say. Mayor Ferre: All right, do we have any other speakers that would like to address the Commission on Item 6? Mr. Plummer: While she is coming up, let me ask a fast question. Mr. Whipple, my agenda doesn't show that there were 41 proponents at the meeting. It doesn't show any pro- ponents at all. I am sorry - proponents present at the meeting, according to mine, is 3. He said 41. Mr. McClasky, did you say 41 proponents. (INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS) Mr. Plummer: I am sorry, my mistake. I am reading the wrong one. I stand corrected. Your name and address for the record. Ms. Pearl Reisman: My name is Pearl Reisman. I live at 3961 N. W. 6th Street, directly behind this project that is to be considered. I have been a resident in that house since it was constructed, and that is over 30 years. My house is paid for and I have been looking forward to re- tirement. The area is strictly residential of people who have lived in those houses for 10 years and over, and most of them feel like they are being put out. We have yet to 1d 67 June 28, 1984 see a picture of the proposed plan for what is going up there. We don't know. We have been told there will be un- derground parking. If that is true, we are going to have fumes, gas, cars, people, in our backyard. If the building is five stories high, and I have driven up and down 7th Street from 17th to LeJeune Road and I have yet to find one five story building. I found one four story apartment on the north side; one three story building on the north side, and all the rest are one story, or two story, considering the bank. The parking and the traffic on 7th Street at the present time is tremendous. This is going to cause more traffic. We have parking at our front doors now because of a funeral home on the corner of 40th and 7th. Mr. Plummer: Not mine! Ms. Reisman: Not yours, I know that, but you know, I come home sometimes, I can't get into my driveway, and the cars are there. I know the people have to have a place to park, but this is going to cause even more problems, not to con- sider more people in the area, and we really don't know what is going to happen. We have been told a lot of things, but we haven't seen anything. We have come this far, and we are still up in the air. Thank you. Mayor Ferre: All right, thank you, Ms. Reisman. Are there any other statements? Mrs. Anita McClasky: My name is Anita McClasky. I live at 551 N. W. 39th Avenue, and I have lived there over 30 years. I am just an average citizen. I am not here pleading dimen- sions or anything. I am just pleading to keep a residential section. Is that an impossible thing to ask? This is pri- marily - if you will look ... what is wrong with living in the City of Miami. We pay the taxes, why can't we have a residential section? Three blocks from 7th Street to Flagler Street, it is solidly residential. Why do we have to have this at our doorstep? I am right on the corner right there. And incidentally, this map is correct. You do not have all the no's on that map. That was corrected be- fore. That was noted before, not now. There are a lot of incorrections here. The truth of the matter is, we are pleading to be able to live decently in our homes. I would like to ask each one of you Commissioners - would you like to have commercial at your front door? I don't think any one of you would and you would also understand how we feel about this, and we hope that you will give us consideration, which we have not had. Thank you. Mayor Ferre: All right, are there any other speakers? Are you a speaker, sir, on this? All right, sir. Mr. Roy Levi: My name is Roy Levi, I live at 3889 N. W. 6th Street. I am against this for the following reasons. It is completely contrary to established land use pattern. This is a residential, family orientated neighborhood. The com- mercial will intrude and virtually destroy all land use pat- terns. The funeral home, located at N. W. 41st Avenue and 7th Street is a prime example of this. It will create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby dis- tricts. The boxed -in effect and the dog track to the east, a funeral home on the west and this new project to the north. there will probably be only 40 feet between the houses and the back of this project, if there is that much. It is completely out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the City. We do not need a new shopping mall. Our needs are completely satisfied with existing shopping areas. Blighted neighborhoods have been created in the past need not be duplicated. It will materially alter the population density pattern and it will increase the load _ ld 68 June 28, 1984 on the public facilities. Of course, now this is the main purpose of this project, and that is, to put more people into this small area, in our family orientated neighborhood or community. It is not necessary due to change or changing conditions in our family orientated neighborhood. The only change that has happened was brought about by the Zoning Board, and what change was that? This area was formed as Durham Terrace and should remain that way. It will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood as the population increases from this project. In our family orientated community, the children will no longer feel free to play in their yard, or skate on the sidewalk. We bought our houses and places to raise our family and not back up to commercial property. It will create an excessively increased traffic congestion and affect public welfare. The purpose of this project is to increase the number of people in this now inaccessible land use proposal, and traffic problems? For example, Central Shopping area — how many people have been killed or injured going to and from the plaza? How many of our children have to die to satisfy a monetary interest of the petitioner? The children are unable from across the street that walk to and from the school. Traffic problem is now great, and this project will increase the traffic problem in our family orientated neighborhood or community. It will create a drainage problem. The petitioners plan that were shown to us indicate that to solve the parking problem in our family orientated neighborhood, it appears that they plan to dig a big dry well, leave out the pea rock, cement the bottom and then when you have gully washer like we had the other day, the automobiles that are parked there will become amphibi— ous. It will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent ar— eas. It was impossible to construct a structure of this size and a wall proposed that will not restrict the natural flow of air to the houses adjacent. Come out to our family orientated neighborhood and observe the wall constructed be— hind the funeral home. Stand behind the wall and be aware of the air flow restrictions. It will adversely affect property values in the adjacent areas in our family orientated neighborhood, property values will decrease tre— mendously. The property value of the will decrease so that the only value would be to use it for a parking lot, and I don't think it is zoned for that yet. It would be a deterrent to improvement or development of adjacent property in our family orientated neighborhood. Who would want to improve their property that is back to a farmer's market, or a roadside stand? Come out to our family orientated neighborhood. ..(TAPE 8 L.D.) Who would want to improve their property where property values were actually decreased? It would constitute a grant of a special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with protection of the public welfare. This of course, is the main interest of the petitioner. It appears no monies were used to improve or keep up the property in question and this was indicated that it was at this time. At the first meeting the property was in deplorable condition and needed to be replaced. The Zoning Board, it is a shame that they are not elected officials, because I think we could maybe some of us vote them out. I'd like to leave this definition — it is tunnel vision: a disorder of the eye in which the vision is contracted so that only objects in the direct line of sight are seen clearly. This is the way it was. Everybody sees straight down 7th Street. You don't look at the neighborhood, the traumatic effect, the devastating and emotional effect that will be cast upon the people behind there. I live in the block that east of this. At the first meeting we had, there is no record in these minutes that there were a great number of people who were against this petition and only a few were for it, but as soon as this passes, and I will guarantee it (I won't ld 69 June 28, 1984 guarantee it) but, the property behind me quickly, pretty quick, they are going to be down here getting a zoning change. Thank you for your consideration, Mr. Mayor and duly elected officials of this City. Mayor Ferre: Thank you, sir. All right, are there any oth- er speakers who wish to address the Commission on Item 6? If not Counselor, I will give you a brief time for rebuttal and questions from the Commission and rebuttal of any kind from any of you neighbors. Mr. Traurig: I would like to compliment this neighborhood. I personally met with them on a number of occasions. Their positions have been consistent. They are very concerned a- bout the basic character of their neighborhood. I would like to discuss with you very briefly about the characteris- tics of N. W. 7th Street and the characteristics of the res- idential neighborhood. There is a distinction that has to be made. N. W. 7th Street has a commercial characteristic. It is commercial from 12th Avenue all the way west, and the property on the north side and on the south side of the 7th Street corridor are residential. They ought to stay resi- dential. I think it would be onerous and inconsistent with the neighborhood pattern to place commercial within their neighborhood, but it would be equally onerous and equally inconsistent with the basic characteristic of N. W. 7th Street to place residential, newly developed residential on a corridor which is almost exclusively commercial. They have talked about the traffic and the parking. I would like you to know that at the present time we have an adverse ef- fect upon their parking problem because we don't have any parking on our site. Under the new code, when we redevelop our property, we will have on -site parking for our people. We think that the Planning Department was totally correct when they talked about the analysis of 7th Street, north side, south side, east and west of our property and called to your attention that what we are seeking is consistent with the neighborhood development and the development of this corridor. We urge you to support the Planning Department your Zoning Board and this application. Thank you very much. Mayor Ferre: All right, questions from the Commission. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I would like to hear from the Plan- ning Department. They have recommended it and I think they have taken note of all of the concerns of the residents and I would like them to address each one of the concerns. Mayor Ferre: All right, let's hear it again. Mr. Whipple: If I may, Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, I think Mr. Levi made an excellent presentation and I consider it excellent because he is basing it upon the perimeters of the zoning ordinance, which sets forth that when the Zoning Board and City Commission considers amendments to the zoning ordinance, they should consider those factors which Mr. Levi alluded to, Section 35.09, as to what should be taken under consideration. Our only difference is that we agree that all of these factors should be taken into account; our dif- ference is that we would disagree with Mr. Levi on some of these points, and therefore our recommendation is that of granting, as opposed to denial as Mr. Levi has suggested. Mr. Plummer: Address the point - parking, the drainage, and I think the residential character has been addressed enough, but those two points that he made I think need addressing. the drainage problem, and the parking. ld 70 June 28, 1984 Mr. Whipple: The drainage problem, with respect to the pro- posed request, should not contribute any additional problems to the neighborhood. As a matter of fact, it will probably correct a lot of problems that exist pursuant to the subject property. In essence, as this property was developed many years ago at a level that is not standard for today, there is a good probability that they contribute more to the drainage problems today than they would when they are rede- veloped under the new standards that they will be subjected to with redevelopment.. Mr. Plummer: I think there concern is about the level of parking below ground. Mr. Whipple: The level of parking below ground would be no problem. That does not cause drainage problems. It has to be handled on site through whatever methods are available, be it mechanical or natural, and the parking below ground should cause no adverse drainage impact on the surrounding area. Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Whipple, on Page 2 of the fact sheet, third paragraph from the bottom, Public Works, it says "San- itary Sewer system under construction - completion date es- timated June 1984". Has that been completed? Mr. Whipple: May I defer to the Public Works Department to respond to that. I don't have anybody right here, but if you will give me a few moments, I am sure we can get the an- swer if you want to continue on. Mr. Dawkins: We are talking about drainage. Mr. Whipple: Well, there are two sides of drainage, Commis- sioner. Mr. Plummer: Well, there are two types, like the difference between sanitary and storm. Mr. Whipple: Yes, sir, and also site runoff, which quite -- often causes a problem. Mr. Dawkins: Yes, but you see, my problem, Mr. Whipple is simple we put down the sanitary sewer and then we come back and tear up the streets and put down a storm sewer. If you are going down with a storm sewer and we are already saying here now we are putting down the sanitary sewers, why aren't we doing them both at one time? Mr. Whipple: Well, that is true, but that is handled in a manner that has to be acceptable either through the storm sewers or through provisions of the drainage. Mr. George Campbell: The estimated completion date, as it says here, is June of this year. I don't know if this has been accepted yet by the Department. Mr. Plummer: Is the work done? Mr. Campbell: I don't know, I am sorry. Mr. Dawkins: Well then, say that. I mean, you can't accept it if is not done. Don't talk in double talk! Mr. Campbell: No, the work ... Mr. Dawkins: Okay, is the work completed? Mr. Gary: He can't tell you that ... ld 71 June 28, 1984 Mr. Campbell: I don't know. I think that what we are say- ing here Mr. Dawkins: What you are saying is that I haven't accepted it because it is not complete. Mr. Campbell: No, what we are saying here is that there is a sanitary sewer system under construction, and we, under the contract, it was to be completed some time this month. Mr. Gary: I will tell you what. We are going to call some- body right now. Mr. Campbell: Let me call my office. Mr. Traurig: I would tell you that Mr. Espino, who lives behind this project tells me that they are being connected right now, so they obviously have been completed. Mr. Whipple: The other points with respect to Commissioner Plummer is that of parking congestion. I think it has been pointed out previously and again now that there is no park- ing being provided for the development that exists on the site. The new development - redevelopment, would have to provide parking. I would surely think that that would less- en the congestion and the parking problems in the area, as there is none being provided now. Mayor Ferre: Come right up and I will recognize you. Mr. Plummer: The other question that they kept reappearing was the height. Mrs. McClasky: May I say something about the parking, please? Mayor Ferre: Yes, Ma'am. Mrs. McClasky: The people in this apartment do have a place to park off of 7th Street. There is a vacant lot adjacent to our house, and that is why we do not have the people park in those apartments by us. There is an empty lot, and they all park there. That was not a true statement by Mr. Traurig. The people do have a place to park that live in those apartments right now - they do. Mr. Plummer: The height of the building? Mr. Whipple: The height of the building, Commissioner, is per the district, is based upon a light plane established at a certain angle, so many feet from the back onto the commer- cial property, in addition to a spacing formula, depending upon the height of the building, the length of the wall, they have to continue setting back away from the commercial development. Mr. Plummer: And in this particular district, what is the maximum height? Mr. Whipple: There is no maximum height - it becomes a practical height, because as the light plane, as you go up, you keep interfering with the light plane and it becomes cost ineffective to go much higher, depending upon the depth of the lot. Now, in relation to something the lady just said, and if the Commission is seeing fit to proceed on this item, there were certain things proffered, i. e., the wall, the additional landscaping. We would also perhaps suggest to the Commission they might want to consider some condition or covenant that the blue properties on the map, which are also owned by the applicant, would not, say, be utilized for ld 72 June 28, 1984 off-street parking or some other request that they could proffer to the City, that they would remain and be used for - the zoning which is attached to them. Mr. Plummer: How do you condition zoning, Mr. Whipple? Mr. Whipple: We don't sir. Mr. Plummer: You are saying they could give a voluntary covenant? Mr. Plummer: That is what you said, sir. Mr. Plummer: I understand the answer, I just don't under- stand the question. = Mr. Whipple: Well, I am just saying that if in the Commis- sion's wisdom, and in the manner in which they proceed, they would like to add that onto their considerations, they so could. Mayor Ferre: All right, I assume if somebody does make a motion, that will be part of it. Mr. Traurig: We volunteer that. We will provide a cove- nant. Mr. Whipple: You said it could be a condition of .-he motion and I am saying sir, you cannot condition changes of zoning. Mayor Ferre: I am sorry, what I mean is, that it can be volunteered. Mr. Traurig: Before the public hearing closes, I would like to volunteer that between this first reading and the second reading, we will produce a covenant, in which the owner of this property commits to a.) the wall, b.) the landscaping within the property owner's northerly boundaries as they are contiguous to the wall to protect that, and a.) to protect against any of the lots o%;ned by this owner on N. W. 6th Street being converted to be either transitional uses or any other uses related to the Ch--2/7 that we are seeking to be rezoned on 7th Street. Mr. Plummer: What about Number 4? Mr. Traurig: I didn't hear Number 4. Mr. Plummer: I am listening for Number 4. Mr. Traurig: My list was only 3, so ... Mayor Ferre: I guess what we have done is too short. Mr. Plummer: No, he is short. Mr. Traurig: If in the opinion of the City there are any contributions that ought to be made to ameliorate the neigh- borhood conditions, we would be happy to consider them as well. Mayor Ferre: Well, it has to be voluntarily proffered, Counselor. We can't tell you what to do, Mr. Traurig: I would ask you, sir, to approve this on first reading and between first reading and second reading, I will be happy to talk to your staff about Number 4 in our cove- nant. Mayor Ferre: Which would be neighborhood improvements. ld 73 June 28, 1984 Mr. Traurig: Neighborhood improvements, yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: This lady wishes to be heard. Yes, Ma'am, please step right up, because we are really running late, it is almost 3:00 P.M., so, let's be real right to the point. `-- Ms. Reisman: Pearl Reisman. I would like to know ... di- rectly behind us, right in the middle, and I don't look for- ward to a five or six story building, supposedly automo- biles, offices, stores, and apartments. I don't look for- ward to people looking down into my house. Mayor Ferree: I don't blame you. Ms. Reisman: I would like to know the height, something a- bout it. Mayor Ferre: What is the height recommended in this pro- ject? Ms. Reisman: There is no directions or height. Also, we are in the flight pattern to the airport, so they have to take that into consideration. Mayor Ferre: Counselor, do we have a height that is being proposed? Mr. Traurig: No, sir. There is no specific height limita- tion being proposed, because the height permitted in the 2/7 and the height permitted in the 2/4 are identical, so either way ... Mayor Ferre: What is the height permitted in 2/7 and 2/4? Mr. Traurig: There is no height limitation. Mr. Plummer: Depending on the size of the lot ... Mayor Ferre: Okay, well, Mr. Whipple, I think Mrs. Reisman is entitled to an answer. Mr. Whipple: One basic answer is that there is no height limit. However, there are light planes associated and spac- ing formulas associated with that commercial development. Mayor Ferre: And the answer, therefore is Mr. Whipple: In a sector 7, the light plane begins at 40 feet, at the depth of the setback, which I believe is 10 feet and goes in an angle of 75 degrees inward over the property. That is equivalent, Mr. Mayor, if I may translate it into more simpler terms - we had a previous regulation under the old ordinance that said you setback 10 feet the first 25 feet of building height and then you setback 1 foot for every 2 foot of additional height. This is not that far off from that previous regulation; in other words, there is a respect to the abutting residential property, as to com- mercial penetration towards the residential area. Mr. Roy Levi: My name is Roy Levi, I live at 3889 N. W. 6th Street. The only covenant that we have discussed at the meetings that we had with the attorney; there was no news about a third covenant at all. The only thing that we had was the wall, the trees, and then when they started discuss- ing about "What kind of business would you like in this?" There was no covenant talking about parking, and I don't un- derstand right now what you are talking about on this prop- erty, I can't figure out whether you are talking that you are going to make this a parking area and rezone it, because ld 74 June 28, 1984 I have an excellent idea - zone the whole block commercial and then that will solve the whole thing, but I don't under- - _ stand these three houses that you just now are talking about - a covenant on the ... Mr. Plummer: All right, let me explain it to you quickly. Mr. Levi: Yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: You find in a lot of these cases that the peo- ple who build on the front side, if they own the back, they come back here and ask if they will allow them to use a con- ditional parking, okay? In other words, those three in the blue that he owns, some day he might want to come back here and say "Let us use those for parking lots" - for additional parking, or even to meet the parking. All right, sir, what he is volunteering now, that he will not come back before this Commission and ask that any of those lots that he owns, he will never ask for parking on those lots. Mr. Levi: This is also if he purchases other houses in the neighborhood. If he he purchases other houses in the neigh- borhood, is this part of the convenant? Mr. Plummer: Sir, we can only speak to what he owns. Mr. Levi: All right, but I was under the impression that you were going to make a parking lot in the grassy area. Mr. Plummer: No, sir, we are prohibiting the parking lot on those properties that he presently owns. Mayor Ferre: You have had clarifications. mission? All right, are there any other speakers now? ample time to get rebuttals, exchanges, Further questions from members of the Com- Mr. Perez: The only thing, Mr. Mayor that I would like to clarify is the concern of some neighbor about increased crime in the area, and that the property values will de- crease. That is two other complaints that they have, and I would like to clarify that. Mr. Whipple: Commissioner, I don't believe that I could re- ally clarify that. That is a suggestion. It is a concern in any neighborhood. There is two sides to look at - new development might not give the opportunity for additional crime. On the other hand, new development, depending upon �_ the type, might increase crime. There really is no answer, and I am not standing up before you pretending to give an answer. I believe that is a variable that is subject to _= concern of all properties in the City of Miami. There is - just no direct answer. We have no knowledge or studies that would suggest that this rezoning would promote crime, or would hamper property values, to the best of my knowledge. Mr. Perez: In accordance with your statistic information, all of your data, I think it would be great if you tried to explain to these people the experience that you have in the area in the past. Mr. Whipple: Experience as to what crime has occurred, or things like that - we do not have that information before us =_ at this time. Mr. Perez: Do we have anyone from the Police Department? Mr. Whipple: No, sir, we do not. It may be available, but I don't have it. ld 75 June 28, 1984 Mr. Perez: Okay, I would like when we have a second reading on this issue, I would like to have a report from the Police Department about the crime possibility in the area. Mr. Whipple: Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: All right, further statements or questions? If not, what is the will of this Commission? Mr. Plummer: I think that this gentleman might have an an- swer for us. Mayor Ferre: All right, let's have an answer. Mr. Campbell: Yes, the sanitary sewers in that area have been placed in service and they are available for hookup. Mr. Plummer: What about the storm sewers? Mr. Campbell: Storm sewers in the streets themselves are local drains, to the best of my knowledge in that area. Mr. Plummer: There is adequate drainage there now? Mr. Campbell: I believe there is, yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: Other questions? All right, what is the will of this Commission? Further questions? Further statements? What is the will of this Commission? Mr. Plummer: We look to the wisdom of the center chair! Mayor Ferre: I traditionally have taken the position in fa- vor of the recommendations of both the Administration and the respective boards, unless there is an overriding reason, and the overriding reason usually deals with a specific in- justice to a neighborhood, we have an ongoing critical situ- ation in Miami, which deals with the ever booming conflicts between the increased commercialization of Miami as a City and the properties that abut these commercial strips. This is a problem that we have had in parts of Coconut Grove. This is the problem that we have had in Allapattah and Wyn- wood. This is certainly the problem we have had along Coral Way, which is the most dramatic of all of these critical points. What occurs is that as the City grows, people need to expand in commercial areas, and it invariably infringes on neighborhoods, where people are living, and they are en- titled to live in peace and tranquillity. The problem arises in all of these cases when whether or not the overall good of the City is at stake, or whether it is not. When it is not, then I think the neighbors are entitled to the protection and the safety of their individual neighborhoods where they live and have lived in many cases for 10, 20 or 30 years as is the case presented here. We are on our way, some of the members of the Commission, and the Manager, and the Planning staff, to Seattle in the state of Washington in July. The purpose why we are going there is because Seattle has found a partial solution to this problem and what they have done is, they have closed off in the classical good system which American cities have, like this, in other words, the square is in a rectangle - they have closed off certain streets so that there is a maintenance of the integ- rity of that neighborhood as a residential community, and there is no intrusion of commercial traffic into it. It is not an easy answer. I don't know that it works. I have talked to many, many people from Seattle. In fact, in Wash- ington last week, I met with about 4 or 5 people that are in ... one is a very able Black attorney who is involved in le- gal services in Seattle, who was at the Democratic platform convention and he was all in favor. He says it works for ld 76 June 28, 1984 Black and White neighborhoods and has been a great success. Others question whether or not these answers work. The fact is, we don't have that here in Miami now, so we have got to deal with the reality the way it is, and the way it is is that slowly there is an infringement of the urban area into the residential area, and we need to slow it down wherever we can. However, we cannot slow it down to the point where it does irreparable harm to the future growth continuity of the City. I think the Administration and the Planning De- partment and the Board have gone to great lengths and I am impressed after having read this, that the Zoning Board rec- ommended it unanimously., If there had been one, or two, or three dissents, then I would have been more concerned. We have asked the Administration to again express their posi- tion, and they have been fairly strong. Mr. Manager, my po- sition is that I will be supporting the Administration, but I would like once again for you to put on the record that you feel that this is a necessary step. Mr. Gary: Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: You have now heard my opinion. Mr. Perez: Mr. Mayor, I would like to move to be approved subject to a report from the Police Department on second reading. Mayor Ferre: All right, I wish to ... I accept that, of course. Is there a second to the motion? Mr. Plummer: Second. Mayor Ferre: It has been seconded. I wish to ... Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: No, no, no. Mr. Plummer: What is that? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: You either rezone the property, or you don't. Mr. Plummer: No, no, no. You didn't listen to the gentle- men. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: I am sorry. Mr. Plummer: The gentlemen said that between now and the second hearing, he would like a report from the Police Department. It is not predicated and it is not their con- dition. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: I beg your pardon. Mayor Ferre: Let me repeat the motion. The gentlemen made a motion in favor of the Administration's recommendation and the Zoning Board's on first reading. He said, however, that before second reading, he wanted a police report. The motion was then seconded. I wish to state on the record that I am right on the border. I would just as soon vote against this as vote for it. I have no very strong convictions or feelings on this, and I want to say, so that you don't misunderstand me, Counselor, on second reading, I may vote against this, so I just want to say I am voting on it on first reading to get it beyond today, and on second reading, I may reverse my position. Further discussion? Mr. Plummer: Well, all I wanted to put on the record, I have heard the concerns of these people. I think that what we have to understand, is that N. W. 7th Street has an identity of its own. It is a main arterial in this ld 77 June 28, 1984 community. It is not the same as 6th Street, which its main identity is residential. There is no question that from 7th Street, as far out I guess, as St. Dominic's, it is commercial. There is no question that that is the fact. This property, at the present time, does need some attention. If you go with the intention as it stands today, it has to go back into multiple use apartments. Under multiple use apartments, they would be providing off-street parking, which is not there today. The lady brought out that there is an empty lot which is being used by the tenants, but that within itself is not legal. Unless it is in fact, an off -site parking structure, not structure, but off -site parking, which then has to be lighted and drained, secure and the fences, so I am assuming that it is not a legal, permissible use. There is a big difference between 7th Street and 6th Street and I think that the use has been established, long established. Mr. Whipple, the only concern that I have, sir, is the zoning to the east. If we are going and striving for uniformity, I would like (TAPE 9 l.d.) you to come back and tell me how much of this 7th Street is not uniform. You can tell me that at the next meeting, sir. Mayor Ferre: All right, further discussion? Ready to vote? Call the roll, read the ordinance. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 9500, THE ZONING ORDI- NANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF APPROXIMATELY 3930 - 4024 NORTHWEST 7TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA (MORE PARTICULAR- LY DESCRIBED HEREIN), FROM RG-2/4 GENER- AL RESIDENTIAL TO CR-2/7 COMMERCIAL RES- IDENTIAL (COMMUNITY) BY MAKING FINDINGS; AND BY MAKING ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES ON PAGE NO. 32 OF SAID ZONING ATLAS MADE A PART OF ORDINANCE NO. 9500 BY REFER- ENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE 3, SEC- TION 300, THEREOF; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. Was introduced by Commissioner Perez and seconded by Commissioner Plummer and passed on its first reading by ti- tle by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio J. Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ON ROLL CALL: Mr. Plummer: As amended! It was amended by the wall, and it was amended by ... Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Oh, okay. Mayor Ferre: By the covenant, those are not amendments! Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: No, no. Mayor Ferre: Covenants that will be ... ld 78 June 28, 1984 Mr. Plummer: Those were accepted per the covenant, volun- tarily given. Mr. Dawkins: I am voting "yes" with the stipulation that I have a concern and if it is raised by the residents at the next meeting, I will be voting "no". The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and stated that copies had been furnished to the City Commission and that copies were available to the public. Mayor Ferre: We will see you then on second reading. The second reading will come up when, Mr. Manager? ... so that we can tell the ... Mr. Gary: The 31st. Mayor Ferre: The 31st of July right here in this hall at what time? Mr. Rodriguez: Beginning at 10:15 A.M., sir. Mayor Ferre: 10:15 A.M., all right. We shall bring this up for one more consideration at 10:15 A.M. THEREUPON, THE CITY COMMISSION WENT INTO A BRIEF recess at 3:17 P.M., reconvening at 3:30'P.M. with all members of the Commission found to be present except for: Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez. 34. FORMALIZING RESOLUTION; APPOINT LUCIA ALLEN DOUGHERTY AS THE NEW CITY ATTORNEY EFFECTIVE AUGUST 19 1984. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 84-714 A RESOLUTION ELECTING AND APPOINTING LUCIA ALLEN DOUGHERTY AS CITY ATTORNEY OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, EFFECTIVE AUGUST 1, 1984, TO HOLD OFFICE UNTIL THE FIRST MEETING FOLLOWING THE NEXT REGULAR CITY ELECTION AS PROVIDED FOR IN THE CITY CHARTER. (Here follows body of resolution, omit- ted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Dawkins, the reso- lution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. ld 79 June 28, 1984 35. ENCOURAGE OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF FOREIGN FLAG PASSENGER VESSELS WHICH CALL AT FLORIDA PORTS TO EMPLOY U.S. CITI- ZENS RESIDING IN THIS COUNTRY. Mayor Ferre: -All right, Commissioner Dawkins: Mr. Dawkins: Mayor, I would just like to encourage owners of foreign flag passenger vessels which call at Florida ports to employ U. S. Citizens residing in this country, particularly those vessels that are home port in Miami and southeast Florida to employ those U. S. citizens residing in this country who are schooled and trained in the labor skills necessary to perform the duties and labor thereof. Mayor Ferre: Is there a second? Mr. Plummer: Second. Mayor Ferre: Further discussion? Call the roll. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Dawkins, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 84-715 A RESOLUTION STRONGLY URGING THE OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF ALL FOREIGN -FLAG PAS- SENGER VESSELS WHICH CALL AT FLORIDA PORTS, PARTICULARLY THOSE VESSELS THAT ARE "HOME PORTED" IN MIAMI AND SOUTHEAST FLORIDA, TO EMPLOY THOSE U.S. CITIZENS RESIDING IN THIS COMMUNITY WHO ARE SCHOOLED AND TRAINED IN THE LABOR SKILLS NECESSARY TO PERFORM THE DUTIES OF SHIP- BOARD LABOR. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the reso- lution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. 36. CONFIRM ACTION OF THE CITY MANAGER WAIVING COMPETITIVE BIDS REQUIREMENTS FOR MODULAR WORK STATIONS IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. Mr. Plummer: Joe, this is ... do you want me to read it a- gain? 140TE: AT THIS POINT, Commissioner Plummer reads resolution into the Public Record. (See below) ld 80 June 28, 1984 -= Mr. Plummer. It now has the Manager's approval. Mr. Carollo: All right. It has been moved? Second. Mayor Ferre: All right further discussion? Call the roll. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 84-716 A RESOLUTION RATIFYING, CONFIRMING, AND APPROVING, BY A FOUR -FIFTHS AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF THE CITY COMMISSION, THE ACTIONS OF THE CITY MANAGER IN WAIVING COMPETI- TIVE BID REQUIREMENTS AND IN AUTHORIZING THE EMERGENCY PURCHASE ON THE OPEN MAR- KET OF MODULAR OPEN -OFFICE WORK UNITS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $20,000 WITH FUNDS THEREFORE ALLOCATED FROM THE 1983- 84 OPERATING BUDGET OF THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Carollo, the reso- lution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. NOTE FOR THE RECORD: Agenda item 38 was continued. 37 DISCUSSION AND TEMPORARY DEFERRAL OF ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE CITY MANAGER. Mayor Ferre: All right, we now have a full Commission meet- ing. We are now on the evaluation of the City Manager. I would, in opening up this discussion, Mr. City Manager, I think you may want to listen. In the evaluation of the City Manager, I personally have gone over the issues pro and con. It is my personal conclusion that although I do have some disagreements and some of them are serious disagreements with the Manager, none of them outweigh the positive per- formance in those areas that I find that he is performed ex- tremely well in. I have asked him and will be asking him to respond to a series of things that I feel have not been done or need to be done that the Commission has officially gone on record for, and I will be discussing those with him. Now, I do not think at this time, as I said previously, that they are of sufficient impact to hold up the proceedings. My conclusion therefore is that the Manager's good parts ld 81 June 28, 1984 outweigh the bad parts and my position is in favor of Howard Gary as City Manager; in addition to which comes the issue of salary. Now, I think it is a moot point, because Mr. Gary himself has stated that he would not accept a salary increase. I think that is a wise choice on his part. It seems to me that $108,000, even though in the private sector is not a proper salary for a person managing an operation this big, in the public sector, other than the Mayor of New York, who overseas a City of of 9,000,000 people and a budget which is the fourth largest budget in the United States of America and supervises hundreds of thousand of em- ployees, the Mayor of New York makes a 1•arger salary; but there is no other local administrator in the United States that makes $108,000, that is certainly those that are ap- pointed. In addition to which, there is nobody in the State of Florida that makes that much money, including the Gover- nor, who makes substantially less than $100,000. I do think and it has nothing to do with Howard Gary, that we had a - and Mr. Krause made for us a book looking at all the sala- ries and one of the things that concerns me the most about the result, is that in almost every single occasion, whether it be City Attorney, Assistant City Manager, head of Plan- ning, whatever department it was, the City of Miami was sec- ond, third or fourth in the nation. Now, whereas I think it is good to motivate people and have people properly motivat- ed by making a high salary, I also think that when we end up with the top 15 or 20 officials in the City of Miami that makes salaries substantially higher than their counterparts in Houston and Chicago and Los Angeles and other major Amer- ican cities, that I think we are way out of kilter in the salaries that we are paying, and even though this is not a related item, I think somewhere, Mr. Manager, in the next six months or a year, we really should come back with a pro- fessional evaluation of comparable salaries, and I don't mind being 25% above the average. I think we ought to be. In fact, I would like for Miami always to be the highest paid City for executive salaries, but I think there has to be a reasonable limitation. I am not talking about the Man- ager's salary, but I am talking about, for example, the Per- sonnel Director. As I remember looking at the Personnel Di- rector's salary, there is only one personnel director, maybe two in the nation that make more money, and yet these are cities that have 50,000, 100,000 employees and here is a guy that is in charge of ... do you want me to give you the spe- cifics? i've got the book right here. Anyway, I don't think that is where we are at, but eventually I would like for you to bring it back for discussion and I think that is something that we need to talk about, but the salary issue is not an item for discussion, since I think by your state- ment you made it a moot point. So, what remains before this Commission, basically is what was on the agenda on the 23rd day of March, and on that particular day, there was a reso- lution that outlined the compensation, benefits and emolu- ments, that were received by Howard Gary as City Manager. Let me repeat, so that there is no misunderstanding - this is not a contract; this is the emoluments affiliated with the job and they are very clearly and specifically ear- marked. I have no problem with any of the ten sections. I asked the City Attorney to look at the document, Mr. City Attorney, and to approve it as to legal form and I under- stand you have done that, so whenever everybody else has concluded their statements, I would perfectly willing to ac- cept that, or would myself make the motion to that effect. With that I open it up for somebody else. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, my comments will be brief. I would say that on a scale of 1 to 10, I think Mr. Gary comes in about an 8. I would like to see him grow into a Number 9, because in my book he will never be a 10, because a 10 is perfect, and I would think that he would continue. I think k- ld 82 June 28, 1984 this City has progressed under his administration and yours. I am not suggesting a salary increase for the Manager, but I think Mr. Gary has proven himself over the period of years, not just for the last 12 months. It has been my pleasure to serve with a man who, in my estimation is honest, a man who has integrity and least, but not the most important, profes- sionalism, and I think he has made a good manager and he will continue to do such and we will continue to observe and to monitor in the coming 12 months. Mayor Fevre: Other comments? Now then, I will be happy to, unless somebody else wants to move it, I am happy to ... Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I recall that on the 23rd of March it was in two parts. One was the evaluation; the second part was that of the emoluments and if it is in order, I would move that the evaluation for the record of Mr. Gary be approved and ... Mayor Ferre: I don't understand. You have to ... Mr. Plummer: There were two parts. Mayor Ferre: You have to define what you mean by approve. Mr. Plummer: One part was the evaluation, the other was making the emoluments a second part. Mayor Ferre: Yes, but you are making a motion, first I want you to explain what you mean by that. Mr. Plummer: Accept the evaluation as approved. Mayor Ferre: What about this. Mr. Plummer: The evaluation that we have done of the docu- ment which he has given us. Mayor Ferre: But you see, the point is, that the Manager submitted a self -evaluation. Are you saying you are voting on that? Mr. Plummer: Accepting that. Mayor Ferre: Accepting that? Mr. Plummer: If you don't want it, that is fine with me. Mayor Ferre: No, that is not ... well, you can do whatever you want, but what I am going to vote for is a resolution outlining the compensation benefits and emoluments to be re- ceived by Howard Gary. Mr. Dawkins: Hold it, hold it! Point of information - point of clarification. Part A, 9:15 A.M., Item 2, Annual Review of the City Manager - Mr. City Attorney, explain that to me, please. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Commissioner Dawkins, that is the op- portunity that the Commission has to go over and evaluate the performance of the City Manager in this last 12 months. Mr. Dawkins: And after that, after each Commissioner has had his say, what is the proper procedure? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: There is no requirement after such, Commissioner, that any formal action be taken. You may if you wish, adopt a resolution embodying what the majority of the Commission considers to be its evaluation of the City Manager's performance, or if you wish, you may let it go at ld 83 June 28, 1984 individual comments for the edification of the Manager in - the conduct of his office in the next 12 months. Mr. Dawkins: So, in other words ... Mayor Ferre: I will accept any motions you want to make. Mr. Dawkins: When the Mayor is finished, I will .., Mayor Ferre: Go ahead! Mr. Dawkins: So in other words what we have been putting off for the last five weeks is an exercise in futility, be- cause if you are telling me that all I have been waiting for is a chance to say Howard Gary is or is not a manager, peri- od, then I really and truly don't understand why we took up the citizen's time to put this on the agenda. Mayor Ferre: let me explain to you why. Mr. Dawkins: No, let me finish with the City Attorney, then I can listen to you, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: I will stand and wait for you. Mr. Dawkins: Okay thank you. Mr. City Attorney, can you explain to me, according to Mason's rules and what have you in according to the agenda, and everything else, what would prompt this Commission to put something on the agenda that was ,gin exercise in futility? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Well, Commissioner, the judgment as to whether something is or is not an exercise in futility is one that of course, each of you has to make. Let me ask you a question this way, though. While there is no ... Mr. Dawkins: After you answer my question, you ask me one, yes. Mr. Garcia-pedrosa: All right. While there is no legal requirement either in the Code, or in the Charter or in the rules of procedure, the Manual of Legislative Procedure put out by Mason's that there be an annual evaluation of the City Manager's performance, it is not only customary, but probably salutatory for the Commission to consider the job done by its appointees. I know that I have been the subject of your evaluation from time to time and I think it is en- tirely legal and appropriate for the Commission to undertake to review the conduct of the people that are directly re- sponsible to you. Otherwise, as particularly in the case of a city manager, who by Charter has no fixed term and would remain in office indefinitely; otherwise you would have no vehicle with which to offer constructive criticism, provide praise, if appropriate, or in any way give guidance to those • people whom you select as your three appointees, this being one of them. Mr. Dawkins: Yes, but all I am saying is, and all I am ask- ing for is clarification. You know, what am I supposed to be doing, sir? Mr. Plummer: Can I try and help? Mr. Dawkins: Yes, somebody help me. Mr. Plummer: Okay... Mayor Ferre: Wait a moment! No, you let the City Attorney finish. Go ahead, let the City Attorney ... ld 84 June 28, 1984 Mr. Plummer: I am sorry, I thought the City Attorney ... Mr. Garcia --Pedrosa: I am through. Mr. Plummer: That is what I thought. Mr. Dawkins: I will listen to you. Mayor Ferre: I will yield to my colleague. Mr. Plummer: I speak Pedrosaisms. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: And if I hadn't been through, I would have been through anyhow! (LAUGHTER) Mr. Plummer: You are getting smart in your old age! Mr. Plummer: Commissioner Dawkins, let me try to give you a history from a person who has been here for a long time. We never went through an evaluation of a Manager until such time as one year when Mr. Gary got what was considered by some as to a very large raise. There was never an evalua- tion ever done of Mr. Mel Reese. There was never one done of Paul Andrews. There was never one done in the short in- terim time of Mr. Fosmoen. It was felt because Mr. Gary was reaching some very high planes in salaries ... INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENT Mr. Plummer: Well, okay, that is all part of it, but I thinking that this evaluation came about because it was to be said this was the only way to measure what Mr. Gary was entitled to in the coming 12 months in the way of salary and emoluments. Mr. City Attorney has said "There is nothing, there is no requirement that in Charter, in the Code, no- where does it call for an evaluation, but it was to be said that if this Commission was to act reasonably, that we would have to have an evaluation of what was his accomplishments so that we could use that as a predicate for setting his coming year's emoluments, salaries, and other things". Let me say I am sorry I ever brought it up today, I thought it was two items. Maybe it was not and you can tie the two together, but that is how it came about in the way of an e- valuation. Mayor Ferre: Now let me give you my input in this. I have already made my evaluation and I have made my evaluation known publicly. If somebody else wishes to make his evalua- tion made publicly, then can make their evaluation made pub- licly! If we get into a document, then I will need at least 4 hours of discussion today, or whenever it is that we get to it. It is my recommendation that we not do it that way. I would prefer to do this in person through the City Manag- er. I have come to my conclusions that this will not in any way change my conclusions. I think the City Manager has done a good job. I am satisfied when I weigh the plus and the minuses with the Manager's job. The history of the e- valuation comes because of the contract. When we came up with a contract, it was my position always that we have a Manager form of government. The Charter says the Manager serves at the will of the Commission. There is concern there would be political interference by this Commission with this Manager, and therefore there was a contract that was made. That contract was subsequently broken because the votes were not here to sustain it. Upon the completion of that, the Manager, to his credit, himself said that the As- sociation of International City Managers themselves recom- mended an evaluation. At the very same time, Metropolitan Dade County was implementing an evaluation of the County Manager. Broward County had previously, the year before, ld 85 June 28, 1984 come up with a very complex and elaborate, almost documenta- tion of all the issues that would be used for the evalua- tion. I have used the International Manager's Association in my evaluation. I have the papers that are carefully doc- umented on that evaluation. I at this time did not think it was necessary to make information public and it is something that I can deal with in private with the Manager. As far as — I am concerned, the only thing that we are voting on today, other than the statements by each individual of the Commis- sion's personal evaluation of the Manager, is the question of his emoluments, which has been basically in limbo, since the contract was withdrawn and we let it sit there until we F= got into this automobile question of the repairs of the au'_ tomobiles, and at that point, after the Knox memorandum was brought out from my office that clarifies this situation and we finally got this whole matter clarified, I made the statement that it was the Commission's fault that we had not finalized in outlining the emoluments. That is what is be- -_ fore us as far as I am concerned. However, if somebody wishes to get into an open detailed point -by -point evalua- tion, that is fine. Mr. Dawkins: I take everything that was said as a threat, but I don't mind. "Each year at this time the Commission evaluates the City Manager's performance. The evaluation should be predicated upon principles of sound gov- ernment. The issues to be resolved during this e- valuation is whether the City Manager has provided adequate City services to the citizenry, and pro- tect and promote the general welfare of this City. This issue is now and has been, not only a concern of mine, but a concern of most of the constituents of this City. As an elected official, elected to safeguard the rights and privileges of the citi- zens, my evaluative response is based on comments from my constituents, my personal observations and investigation of areas of importance. First, I would like to commend the City Manager in his over all performance. However, there are areas where praise should be highlighted and of course, areas where improvement is needed, in my opinion. The area where the City Manager did an outstanding job are - for the first time in 27 years, the City of Miami received a Certificate of Conformance in fi- nancial reporting from the municipalities generat- ing annual financial reports that are easily read, efficiently organized and conform to generally ac- cepted accounting principles; two, upgraded the City bond ruling from "A" to "A plus", monitored and managed the City financial position, reflected, much to my regret a general fund balance of $8,200,000, developed under guidance from the City Commission a unified development ordinance, which resulted in the selection of developments less questionable as political maneuvering, provides the Commission with a complex agenda for Commission meetings and backup data for every item; completed construction on a $1,000,000 redevelopment project in Hadley Park which I have a problem with; com- pleted tree and sod planting and playground instal- lation in 14 parks, which I do not see completed; completed the preliminary renovation for African Square Park, which I do not see. Areas in my opin- ion which the City Manager needs to improve are: Provide additional personnel for City parks and gyms. In his reorganization of Parks and Recrea- tion, the drug problem and its sources were over- looked. Considerable amount of illegal drug sales ld 86 6/28/84 E to our youth take place in City Parks. It would appear that additional personnel would have been appointed to combat this growing problem. In sum- mary over all the City Manager has performed very well under the sort of stress he finds himself working within - some of the stress is brought on by himself, some by this Commission, some by the community and some by his peer groups. I do have a problem with the Manager's failure to give profes- sional service to this Commission and stick by his conviction. An example: an issue can come before this Commission. I can have in my hand the agenda with the Manager's recommendation. Once the issue is being discussed and the Mayor is in disagree- ment, than Mr. Gary no longer sticks by his convic- tion. He now has a solution. This I now have a problem with; have had a problem with and will con- tinue to have a problem with. Another area that I have a problem dealing with the Manager is in the area when I come to him with a complaint about an department, in our discussion, he always rational- izes away my concerns and never gets to the prob- lem. During my tenure here, I have observed Mr. Gary as he perform the duties of the City Manager and daily my respect for him as a professional grows. The reason for this is that any man who can push aside the racism that he constantly has to deal with and perform at the level that he performs is truly a professional. All in all, Mr. Gary, you have done a tremendous job in spite of 2:47 A.M. firing that the public made such a big issue about, in spite of the other negatives that you have en- dured, in spite of the community not taking the pluses and weighing them against the minuses and then giving you a good roll of the dice, I sincere- ly hope that the citizens of the City of Miami will demand that the Commission lets you continue to do a good job within the City of Miami." Mr. Carollo: I don't have any letters to read, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Dawkins: Maybe you don't know how to write none! Mr. Carollo: No, that is not the case. I just don't need people like you have, Mr. Dawkins, to write them, but I will tell you ... Mr. Dawkins: Well, I've got a degree and you have got a certificate of attendance. Mr. Carollo: I tell you, Mr. Dawkins ... Mayor Ferre: Now, now, now! Mr. Carollo: It is my turn to speak, Mr. Dawkins. Mr. Dawkins: Well, you get off my back and I will get off yours. Mayor Ferre: All right, let's get on with the business ... Mr. Carollo: Well, you tell me when I can speak, Mr. Dawkins and I will speak. Mr. Dawkins: .............. Mayor Ferre: No, I am the one who is officiating. Mr. Carollo: Well, I wouldn't want to act like you do and say that you are being a racist again because I am white now, right? 1d 87 6/28/84 Mr. Dawkins: No, and more ... Mayor Ferre: Now, come on, lets ... Mr. Dawkins: I would like to be a racist and would get ..... if I could be a racist ... Mr. Carollo: Mr. Dawkins, the only thing I would like to say is that you have a right to your opinions. You read them. I do not need any one to read for me or .write for me any statements, and do you know what I resent the most? What I resent the most is since I have been here, I have been able to sit here with a variety of people in this Com- mission. Commissioner Gibson and I, when he was here agreed on many things; we disagreed on other things, just like on every Commission meeting we all disagree and agree on dif- ferent issues, but while nobody could deny the fact that Commissioner Gibson represented old Miami and Commissioner Gibson truly was interested and represented the needs of the Black community, Commissioner Gibson did not try to use cheap demagoguery and try to make every issue into racism and this is what I resent. I resent a statement that was finally put at the end there, just like many statements that are given to you to read on many occasions and that you have made on many occasions, that it seems that you find racism behind every rock. It is sad to have our own low Lois Farrakan sitting here in our Commission in Miami, but that is the only character that I can certainly compare it to. Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Carollo, I resent the implication, al- though you have a right, and it could be your mentality that you don't know any better to assume that I do not have the intelligence to write that which I read, but you see, I fin- ished from school, and since you tried to deal with racism, let me help you. I finished from an all Black school that had all Black teachers that demanded that I come out of school with the survival skills. Maybe you were not that lucky; and they taught to read, write and eomputate, there- fore I do that well, sir, so when you see me and if you ever in your life, in my presence make a statement again that I have read something written by someone for me, than I shall take you to court and sue you and make you prove it, and if you want to make that statement again now ... Mayor Ferre: All right ... Mr. Dawkins: ... I will get a lawyer and make you pay. Mayor Ferre: I think we should get on with the evaluation of the Manager. Mr. Carollo: The courts, you could go to the phone book and get the address and go to it, sir, any time that you would like. Mayor Ferre: Are we ready to move along now? Anything else? All right, Commissioner? Mr. Perez: Mr. Mayor, I have a a 12 page report, but I have some questions and some recommendations that I would try to address personal and direct to the City Manager and I would like if possible to have a report on all of those issues for the next regular Commission meeting. Mayor Ferre: All right, sir, Mr. Manager? Are there any other statements at this time? All right, if not, we have Mr. Carollo: Any purple hearts anybody wants to give out? ld 88 6/28/84 Mayor Ferre: We now have a resolution outlining the compen- sation, benefits, emoluments to be received by Howard Gary, City Manager. They are the same statement that was passed _ March 23rd. Mr. City Attorney, would you pass out the extra copies, or have you done that? And I would like to ... Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, if I would for the record, since this item was not placed on the agenda as such, and since we lt7 have not received a copy of that since that March meeting - 'N I am talking about the emoluments, I do not have a copy in my presence of what you have before you, sir. Mayor Ferre: Well, we will have an opportunity to meet on July 12th. Are you going to be here at that meeting? Mr. Carollo: I certainly intend to. „sue Mayor Ferre: Are you going to be here? Are you going to be here? You are going to be here. All right, since I have no problems with the emoluments the way it was outlined March 23rd, and I will say that on the record. If you ... I - do not know how to do this legally, the resolution... - Mr. Gary: It has been on the Agenda 4 times. Mr. Plummer: It has been on the Agenda 4 times. Mayor Ferre: It has been on the Agenda 4 time. It is on the Agenda right now. _ Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, this, as I understand, is... Mr. Carollo: Not the emoluments. If you read the agenda, and I submit to you sir - it says 112. Annual Review of the City Manager". It did not specify emoluments there. The pages we had outlining his emoluments were not placed in this package. Mayor Ferre: Commissioner Carollo, let me tell you why I have to rule differently. Mr. Carollo: But, Mr. Mayor, I have no problems if you want to take -it up. What I would like to at least ... Mayor Ferre: Let me explain to you why so we understand each other. See, this was on the March 23rd Agenda and the fact is that on March 23rd Agenda it was extended for the same reason that you are outlining that we didn't have time to read it, so technically, Mr. City Attorney, this is a continuation of the thing that has been put off in April, May and now we are into June, and therefore it is a continu- ation of the March 23rd matter so, I would rule that it is properly before us at this time. Now, I would, out of courtesy to Commissioner Carollo, I have no problem in ex- tending this so that we can vote on it later on in the meet- ing. Mr. Carollo: Look, Mr. Mayor, what I would like to have is to either have you read it item by item into the record, or if I can get a copy of it we could bring it up in just a few minutes. Mayor Ferre: All right, will you pass out copies of it and we will bring it up in a ... I have a request here by a cit- izen who wishes to speak on the comments. I would like to ask all of you just to leave this matter go now, because I really don't think that any other comments can do anything but create further discussion, and I don't think that serves the purpose of what we are gathering here to do, so I am not ld 89 6/28/84 going to recognize anybody from the public to get into this discussion any further. I don't think it serves the public purpose to do so and we will now move along to the next a- genda item and we will come back to this resolution in just a few minutes. ::- 38. CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING OF REQUEST FOR CHANGE OF ZONING CLASSIFICATION AT 6450--6490 W. FLAGLER STREET PENDING A MEETING BETWEEN CITY MANAGER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND THE APPLICANT. Mayor Ferre: As I remember, there were people here on Item 4 and 5, and we will take up Item 4 now. Mr. George Orta: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, George Orta, Attorney at Law, representing the prospective buyers of this property, Armando Fonticiella & Julio Santoyo, power of attorney for Joseph & Madeline Rehill Laferriere. As I priorly stated to you in a brief synopsis of what the situation in here is the following: The present zoning of the particular piece of property which we are here requesting to be changed is an R-4. Now, that piece of property, once again, follows into the typical commercial corridor. This is Flagler Street, commonly well known Flagler Street, by all means at this point, statistically speaking, it is 85% commercial form downtown to Sweetwater. Now, the present zoning ® Mr. Plummer: Can I stop you a minute, because we did your thing kind of like out of order. Mr. Whipple, let me ask you a question, because we have not had your recommendation. Tell me, sir, where my thinking is wrong, that this is exactly the same parallel as the item before. Flagler Street is a main arterial. Flagler Street is very heavy commercial. These were the very arguments that you voiced - for approval on N. W. 7th Street. How is this different? I don't see the difference! Where this is on a main arterial, it is greatly commercial - what is the difference? Why do you recommend one and recommend denial on the other. That is what I do not understand. Mr. Whipple: Well, first of all, Commissioner Plummer, you are stating, which I don't accept as fact, that it is a commercial corridor, and the conditions are the same. They are not, and I would like to tell you why they are not the same. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Whipple, if you would like it played back for you, listen to my statement. My statement was a.), it is a main thoroughfare. Are we on agreement on that? Mr. Whipple: Yes, sir. Mr. Plummer:... b.), it is mostly commercial. Mr. Whipple: Wrong. Mr. Plummer: Then we disagree. Mr. Whipple: If we could just, on that point, put that slide up. That is the Flagler corridor between 57th and 67th Avenue. Those areas colored in brown are residential multiple family. Those blank areas, which are CR-3 at the commercial nodes at 57th, and on the other side where he is pointing, at 67th, those are commercial nodes. That Id 90 6/28/84 commercial zoning and use only exist at the ends of that one =- mile stretch of residential development. Now, that difference... Mr. Plummer: Wrongt Wrong! Pull the map back up. A little bit more, now see the number of blocks, Mr. Whipple, west of 57th Avenue that are commercial. Mr. Whipple: Four. Mr. Plummer: Fine, go back to the other side, sir. Give me the number of blocks that are commercial. Mr. Whipple: Mr. Plummer: One. Thank you, sir. Mr. Whipple: Is there a magic to number four, sir? Mr. Plummer: No, sir, but I am using your argument that says that there is a natural amount of commercial at each of the major intersections. Mr. Whipple: I did not say that, sir. I said there is approximately a one mile stretch, a little less than a mile that is all residential, and the difference between this "major thoroughfare" and the other major thoroughfare at 7th Street is that we had two blocks of residential, one of which was being requested for a rezoning and the rest of that mile is commercial, and that is a big difference, in my opinion, sir. Mr. Plummer: May I see the map as it exists from 67th Avenue west? Show me west of 67th Avenue. Mr. Whipple: We just took a couple samples pursuant to the previous comments, and I do not have 67th west. 67th west, _ as you know, runs on out to the railroad tracks, and I believe both sides from 67th westward are commercial. Mr. Plummer: That is all I need. Mr. Whipple: Do you want us to proceed with our presentation, or...? Mr. Plummer: No, sir. We have a basic disagreement — it is not the first time, and it won't be the last. Mr. Whipple: Well, I sincerely suggest, Commissioner, there is quite a bit of difference. Number one, if you are using 67th west as an argument, I would point out to you that that only accounts for about a third of a mile before we are out of the City limit area. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Whipple, in 17 years that I have been in this Commission and been associated with you, the one thing that you have driven home to me, and driven home to me, is a little thing called uniformity. Mr. Whipple: Uniformity within reasonableness sir. Uniformity from one lot to another lot, or from one district to another, and you have a district established, and you are saying that that block of yellow in the middle is going to make that uniform? I disagree with you, sir. Uniformity is within the existing zoning and existing land use. Mr. Plummer: I am saying the uniformity of the major intersection of Red Road as opposed to Ludlum. Am I right? ld 91 6/28/84 k Mr. Whipple: Well, what you are saying is because Red Road has four blocks of commercial along Flagler, Ludlum should have four blocks. I suggest to you that commercial zoning is based upon need; it is based upon planning; it is based upon the relative land use activities in the area. There has not been, to the best of my knowledge, a need for the additional commercial zoning that would indicate that we need four blocks of commercial along Flagler and Ludlum, and that is what we are recommending. No, we do not see that _— need. Mr. Plummer: What is the block to the west of the yellow property on the south side? Mr. Whipple: Residential, sir. Mr. Plummer: What kind of residential? Mr. Whipple: Multiple family, RG-3/5. Mr. Plummer: The structures thereon are how high? Mr. Whipple: Boy, you want a photographic memory here. I would say that they are probably three stories. There is a history to this stretch of Flagler Street, if you want me to take just a moment to go back and Commissioner Plummer, you happened to be involved, I believe, at the time, if not — the Mayor. Mr. Plummer: Yes. Mr. Whipple: And we are going back to the era of the early 160's - 163, 164, particularly, and the development in this area prompted an apartment study, because there was concern about what we thought was the bulk the starkness, and the lack of controls for multiple family development, and pursuant to that, we are enacted new apartment regulations that were applied to this area, and the rest of the area developed in accord with those regulations. If you go out there today, you will see that those older structures, which are 15, 20, years old are now being upgraded into condominium, fixing up the yards, providing additional parking where they can, clean up, fix up, and actually, some of them are looking better than when they were built in 1964, and this is a very sound, multi —family, residential resource! Mr. Orta: Commissioner, if I may add, I couldn't agree any more with what the Department has been saying about N. W. 7th Street. First of all, whether that is one mile, I don't know. Secondly, if we are talking about uniformity of anything, we are speaking of Flagler Street, which of course, has many, many more miles. Were we to try to develop anything into any of the sectors of residential areas, either to the north or to the south of Flagler Street, of course, we will be penetrating into residential neighborhoods. Now, first of all, the 1980 census very clearly has established that whereas we ranked number 26 in providing single family homes and residences, we rank Number 80, and I repeat, Number 80, as far as providing commercial sites. Now, we are growing. We are a dynamic city. We have to go somewhere. If we cannot build in somebody else's back yard, we have to go somewhere. This conforms with the uniform plan of the City of Miami. Flagler happens to be commercial more than 85%. This is reverse spotting. I cannot understand why somebody who wants to go and build a one story shopping center to service the area, I cannot understand why, where we have the condominium associations of the largest multiple unit buildings in Flagler saying that we are right in doing that...I cannot understand why ld 92 6/28/84 ' when Dadeland is so far away and Central Shopping Center is so far away, and in fact, there are no shopping centers of this kind of quality and dimensions - I cannot understand why, when according to what we are submitting for building, we only need 24 parking spaces, and we have 35 parking spaces, I cannot understand why the Department, after so vehemently defending N. W. 7th Street for the same reasons, - are now going against their own words. I find all the same facts that they were defending in N. W. 7th Street to be true here. - Mr. Plummer: Anybody in the Public that wishes to speak? Mr. Whipple: Are we going to be able to give our recommendations? Mr. Perez: What is the actual use of this property at this time? Mr. Whipple: It is two story apartments, and I believe a motel building. Mr. Orta: If I may add, it is a motel, Commissioner. Mr. Perez: It is a motel at this time? Okay, in your point of view, what is the difference, the technical difference between a motel and a shopping center. Mr. Whipple: Well, a motel is a building designed for residency and requiring setbacks, open space, green, for transient population. A shopping center is a structure for retail and commercial services of goods and products, groceries, new cars, bicycle shops, T.V. shops - a shopping center which you would typically find - that is the difference between the two. Mr. Perez: Why do you think that the shopping center would adversely affect the neighborhood instead of the motel? Are you familiar with that area? Mr. Whipple: Yes, sir, very familiar. Extremely familiar, as a matter of fact, going back to 1964 in relation to the studies that were performed then. Mr. Perez: We have a lot of motels from 42nd Avenue to 60th something, that I don't think does too much for the image of the neighborhood there. When I was at campaign time, that area, I think that the motels are affecting what the real image, the real challenge to the neighborhood. Mr. Whipple: In my opinion, in watching the area and having visited the area many times, the motel population has been steadily decreasing for a number of years, and it is almost nil now. They have been torn down and replaced by apartments. That is not an area that is conducive to the motel industry any longer like it used to be, and the motel population is just been going. Mr. Orta: I take exception to that, Commissioner and Mr. Mayor. the hotel industry in that particular area, as a matter of fact, is very thriving with fly-by-night outfits and we all know that as a common fact. This particular property that we are speaking of is a neglected piece of property that is producing no income and no revenue for the City, nor for anyone else, and at this point, unless the whole thing is torn down and something of quality put in there, the City has an eyesore, plus a responsibility and a liability for probably any kinds of problems in there, and we are proposing a good business in the community, needed, as has been reflected by the desire of the people around the -= ld 93 6/28/84 area, plus a revenue source of taxes, sales tax, property taxes and everything else, and definitely not a motel, and especially not a motel which operates on a nightly basis. Mr. Plummer: What is Public Works trying to tell us? Mr. Whipple: Mr. Mayor and Mr. Vice -Mayor, if I may make a suggestion, we can go back and forth, which I don't wish to do. Either before or after Mr. Campbell, I believe that the Department would like to present their recommendation in full, rather than just do it piece -meal through the comments back and forth. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Campbell. Mr. Campbell: Earlier in the day, when the applicant was first up, he mentioned something about the fact that they would not have to have septic tanks or what have you. There are no sanitary sewers available in this area. That is a statement of fact first off. They mentioned something about connecting to a private sanitary force main, and they mentioned there are two in the neighborhood, all within reasonable distance. They would be connecting to existing private sanitary force mains. We have in the past, the City has allowed this on certain occasions. We have had some considerable difficulties with these private sanitary force mains from the standpoint of maintenance and repair. Water and Sewer Authority is opposed to private sanitary sewers and/or private sanitary force mains. We have a letter in our files in the office to that effect. The fact that with this type of zoning they could put in such things as coin operated laundries, which use a great deal of water. They could put in other things. I believe they can put in certain restaurants and so on, which are great producers of sanitary effluence. We, the Department, would take a very dim view of any application or any request to extend or connect an existing, or connect a new private sanatary force main to an existing sanitary force main. It gets to be very sticky wicket, as we say. Mr. Plummer: So, what you are saying - are you saying we are spinning our wheels?...that if they got with the approval of zoning, that they couldn't get a permit to build, is that what you are saying? Mr. Campbell: It is entirely possible that W.A.S.A. would not allow them to go through with the sanitary. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion at this time that the applicants get together with Pulbic Works Department, see if your problem can be worked out, because there is no use us even talking up here if you can't get a permit! Mr. Orta: Commissioner, if I may ... Mayor Ferre: Hold it. Nr. Plummer: What I am doing is making a motion - the applicants get together with the Public Works Department to see if this problem could be ironed out! If it can't we are wasting our time. Mayor Ferre: There is a motion on the floor. Is there a second? Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, there is a portion (b). Mr. Mayor, I do see it. M.r Whipple, it is not like you to drop the gun. There is a big difference here that I haven't seen before, and I want to go out and look, and that is that there is no street behind this project, it is not a street ld 94 6/28/84 which clearly delineates the difference betwen a commercial and a residential. Mr. Whipple: Yes, sir, and I also wanted to point out the zoning on that 7th Street item as opposed to what we are talking about - where we had commercial zoning directly to the west, directly to the north ... Mr. Plummer: If the Commission goes with my motion, then it will give me time to go out and look. Mr. Whipple: I would be glad to do that. Just let the record show we did not make our presentation at this time. Mr. Plummer: Let the record show that you will have full opportunity at the time this comes back before us. Whipple, you ain't never dropped a gun yet! Mayor Ferre: All right, a motion is on the floor. Is there a second? Mr. Dawkins: Second. Mayor Ferre: All right, further discussion? Now, do you want to say something? Mr. Orta: Yes, Mr. Mayor, if I may clarify - at the time that we came before the Zoning Board, the Department clearly stated that Flagler Street specifically at that area will have sewer facilities and mains installed within less than a year and that was stated by the gentlemen at the microphone at this point. Now, we don't even have permits to build at this point. Secondly, we do have a consulting engineer's report as to the effect that there is a connection, and as far as we are concerned, it is not even a private connection, at N. W. 66th Avenue and N. W. 2nd Street, to which we may connect a private line. Secondly, one again, Flagler will have main sewers within less than a year, as their own statement of the Zoning Board, when we first presented it. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Campbell,would you elaborate on your statement, sir? Mr. Campbell: All right, at the present time, we are working on, or will install soon a portion of sanitary sewer in West Flagler Street, or in portions of West Flagler Street prior to the State's rebuilding of the street. This is in order to have those facilities in the ground available when the sanitary network is extended and tied into the trunk mains. This will be put in Flagler or portions of Mr.Mayor Ferre: It is 4:20 P.M., we need to move along now. I think we are just going in a circle and retreading over and over and over again. Are we ready to vote now on Plummer's motion? Call the roll, please. I 95 6i28i84 11 Ll The following motion was introduced by Commission- er Plummer, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 84-717 A MOTION CONTINUING PUBLIC HEARING IN REGARD TO REQUEST FOR ATLAS CHANGE OF ORD. 9500 AT APPROXIMATELY 6450-90 WEST FLAGLER STREET FROM RG-3/5 TO CR-2/7 AND INSTRUCTING THE CITY MANAGER TO ARRANGE FOR A MEETING BETWEEN MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND WITH THE AP- PLICANT TO SEE IF PRESENTLY EXISTING PROBLEMS CAN BE WORKED OUT. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Dawkins, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio J. Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo 39. DISCUSSION CONCERNING FORTHCOMING PROPOSED BOND ISSUE FOR PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES BONDS. Mayor Ferre: All right now, I promised Janet Cooper - is Janet Cooper here? All right Janet Cooper, quickly. I a- pologize ... and then we are going to take up 15 right after that. All right, Janet. Let me first of all, apologize to Ms. Cooper for the fact that we are 45 minutes late. I promised her that we would get her within 15 minutes of 3:30 P.M. We are a half hour beyond that, and there is no way I could have changed it, Janet, I apologize. Ms. Janet Cooper: I understand. I have no problem. I just hope that if there were any committee members or other mem- bers of the public here, that they haven't left. I have nothing substantive to say on any of the issues. I just came to hear what the public had to say on the Parks & Rec- reation bonds, the Park West/Overtown and East Little Havana portions of it. Mayor Ferre: Mr. City Attorney, the Chair will now turn to you and ask for a clarification. We have a technical, legal problem that has now come up, which precludes us from taking this to a ballot in September, because the State law specif- ically states, Mr. City Attorney, why don't you read it? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Well, it is Section 100.331, Janet. "If any bond referendum is called is held for approving the issuance of bonds for a particular purpose and such referen- dum does not result of the approval of the bond, then no other referendum for the approval of bonds for the same pur- pose shall be called for at least six months." ... Now, there is some question as to what "calling" means, but in light of the fact that the statute reads "called and held", we assume that it is not the same thing as holding the elec- tion, and so what I would advise, Mr. Mayor, is that while the Commission would be certainly empowered at this point I 96 6/28/84 today to adopt on second reading the bond ordinance, the call of the election should be deferred until. September. Mayor Ferre: Well, which means that if we call the election - in September, six months will have passed is your legal in- _ terpretation, which means that we cannot therefore, have it obviously in the September election. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: The only way we can have Parks for Peo- ple bond in November, so it looks ... Ms. Cooper: Not on the October ballot? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: No, because there is also the problem of the 45 day notice that you have to give under State law, and so if we ... Mayor Ferre: So because of legal reasons the only thing I can tell you is the parks $35,000,000 issue is now rolled over into November. Unfortunately, then we will have both of those issues coming up in November, which is what Plummer wanted from the beginning anyway, so for technical reasons, we are going to end up with that. Yes, sir, Mr. Merrill. Mr. Clark Merrill: Mr. Mayor, I just talked with David Leahy of the Elections Division and he was just telling us that there are eight constitutional amendments coming up in November. Mayor Ferre: Eight? Mr. Merrill: Yes, there are ten petitions out. Three most likely will come back in and that there likely will be very little, if any room, on the ballot for municipal issues and the alternative to that is to hand out a paper ballot and count those ballots at the precinct, so that would be the process. Mayor Ferre: I am afraid we are going to have to do it that way, and I am sorry, but the law is the law! Ms. Cooper: Would that be for both bonds? Mayor Ferre: Yes. Ms. Cooper: Would we have one paper ballot for both? Mr. Merrill: That is mechanical. I would have to check that with the supervisor. Ms. Cooper: All right. Mayor Ferre: You mean to tell me that we don't have space for anything? Mr. Merrill: Well, he can't make a judgment right at this moment, because he doesn't know exactly how many people are going to end up on the November ballot, but he said right now it is very crowded and it is likely that we will have to go to a paper ballot. Ms. Cooper: This may actually make it easier for us to work. It gives us more time and it will give us the oppor- tunity to approach a group one time instead of having to ap- proach them twice, which may be difficult. Mayor Ferre: Is there anybody else that wishes to speak at this public hearing on this public item which was advertised on the 3:30 P.M. agenda that deals with the proposed bond issues? ld 97 6/28/84 Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Mr. Mayor, we should clarify that on =_ the agenda it shows as second reading, Items 41 and 42. In fact, those have been advertised, I am told, for second - reading on July 30th, and so this is merely an opportunity to obtain public input, as opposed to an actual second read- ing. Mayor Ferre: That is correct. All right, is there any fur- == - ther discussion? Do we need to take action on this?_ Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: No, sir. Mayor Ferre: I don't think we do at this time. 40. ISSUE FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR SIXTH FLOOR AD- DITION TO THE MIAMI HERALD BUILDING. Mayor Ferre: -All right, Item Number 15, which was the item where a whole bunch of people were here on. Go ahead Mr. Davis, quickly. Mr. Dorey Davis: Mr. Mayor, for the record, I am Dorey Davis, Southeast Bank Building, appearing for Knight-Ridder newspapers. We respectfully request your adoption of the resolution that is submitted to you. Mayor Ferre: All right Mr. Manager, does this meet with your approval? Mr. Gary: Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: Anybody want to speak on this question? If not, I will accept a motion. Is there a second on Item 15? Mr. Plummer: Second. Mayor Ferre: Further discussion? It is a resolution. All right, call the roll. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Dawkins, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 84-718 A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE CITY MANAGER TO INSTRUCT THE BUILDING AND ZONING DI- VISION OF THE FIRE, RESCUE AND INSPEC- TIONS SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO ISSUE A FI- NAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR THE SIXTH FLOOR ADDITION TO THE MIAMI HERALD BUILDING, SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH AP- PLICABLE CITY CODE AND ZONING REGULA- TIONS. (Here follows body of resolution, omit- ted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) ld 98 6/28/84 Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the reso- lution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ON ROLL CALL: Mr. Plummer: Hold one second. Mr. Manager, I want to make sure that part of this granting was the landscaping on the north side. That was tied to this Certificate of Occupancy. I have your assurance that all of that has been done as a- greed upon? I have one further question. There was also attached to this a provision in reference to a vehicular bridge across the causeway. In lieu of the City not moving fast enough, there was to be a cash contribution... Mr. Gary: $100,000. Mr. Plummer: Are we still in order on that? Mr. Gary: You have it. Mr. Plummer: We have the $100,000? Where did you put the $100,000? (LAUGHTER) Mr. Gary, all kidding aside, is that being held and restricted for that particular use? Mr. Gary: Yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: I vote "yes". 41. AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE STIPULATION OF SETTLE- MENT CASE NO. 84-0550-Civ-SMA - KENNETH I. HARMS vs. CITY OF MIAMI. Mayor Ferre: Take up Item 3. This is the pending lawsuit on the Harms case. Mr. Carollo: Oh, another lawsuit! Mr. Peter Hurtgen: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, my name is Peter Hurtgen, and there are in fact, two law- suit, both of which have been settled pursuant to the docu- ment that I presume everyone now on the Commission has had an opportunity to review, and that is a lawsuit filed by Captain Harms initially against his replacement Chief Bres- low, claiming that Chief Breslow was in fact, not the Chief and he (Harms) still was and the second lawsuit filed in Federal District Court against the City, against the City Manager, as the Manager and individually, and against the Mayor and two members of the Commission individually also. The second lawsuit ... Mayor Ferre: I thought tat Plummer, Dawkins and I were dropped. Mr. Hurtgen: Well, in the meantime, since the execution of the settlement agreement, I believe notice of withdrawal those individuals has been filed. ld 99 6/28/84 Mayor Ferre: I am frankly sorry that I was dropped, because - I was looking forward to this. I was going to greatly enjoy this. Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, Is Mr. Hill Colson here? Mr. Carollo: Well, we don't have to vote for it. =5 Mr. Hurtgen: Not any longer, Commissioner. Mr. Plummer: It was my understanding from my attorney that the three members of this Commission were to be dropped pri- or to the settlement. Mayor Ferre: And that is the way it is. Mr. Plummer: I am asking on the record. Mr. Hurtgen: You have been dropped as a defendant. Mr. Plummer: You are saying as of today, the three of us are not ... Mr. Hurtgen: That is correct. Mr. Plummer: Okay. Well, that ... Mr. Carollo: What's more lawsuits than are left, Plummer, you know? This business, everybody is always threatening somebody to sue you, huh? Mr. Hurtgen: Well, this wasn't a threat, Commissioner. This was a fact. There are two of them, and the settlement is that. It is a document that resolves all of the problems attendant upon the removal of former Chief Harms as the Chief. It provides, as you will see when you read it that Captain Harms is allowed to go into his full service retire- ment, either by reason of enactment of an amendment to the City's pension system, calling for rule of 70 retirement, which he would already be eligible for, in which case he must then retire; or barring the failure of that, then when tie reaches age 50, it is the point, of having possibly to reach age 50 before he can receive full retirement that brings to play the other features, or one other feature of the settlement into existence, and that is, he is retained as a City employee on administrative leave for however long it is necessary until he receives his full retirement. That provides full pay for five and one-half months period which began on April 26th, and then a six and one-half month peri- od at pay at the rate of $27.70. Those are both offset by reason of any other employment he may obtain, and he is of course, encouraged to do that. Mr. Plummer: For the record, if the rule of 70, which is now proposed and is well on its way to becoming a law of this City, he would be entitled to that today? Mr. Hurtgen: Yes. Mr. Plummer: That is for the record. Mr. Carollo: Question, the audit that was conducted by ... who conducted the audit? Mr. Hurtgen: The City ... Mr. Gary: City of Miami. ld 100 6/28/84 Mr. Hurtgen: Mano Surana, or . the City of Miami but who in the City of Miami conducted the audit? Mr. Gary: Audit Department. Mr. Hurtgen: It was actually ... Mr. Carollo: Audit Department? Okay, we will play that game. Who in the Audit Department conducted the audit? Mr. Hurtgen: Commissioner, a Mr. Brown, and the other gen- tlemen's name I have forgotten, frankly. Mr. Carollo: Brown was one of them, right? I would imagine the other one was Mano, or Chhabra, in the Audit Depart- ment - Chhabra, right? Mr. Hurtgen: He is the Department head or the Division head, but the actual audit was ... Mr. Carollo: He was one of the responsible parties to it, is what I am trying to get at, one of the people that has been here for a while. It is my understanding from what I understood at the time that the allegation was, according to his official City of Miami audit, that former Chief Harms did not have any hours left. Wasn't that the allegation at the time? Mr. Hurtgen: But it was only that, Commissioner, and it wasn't a concluded official City of Miami audit. Mr. Carollo: In other words, it was a mistake. Mr. Hurtgen: No, sir, it was not. It was an audit only of the documents for recording of time, vacations, sick leave, etc., which begins in the Police Department and winds up in Payroll. You never complete an audit until such time as you have taken the questionable documents and pursued them by interviewing the individuals involved. Mr. Carollo: Well, I am trying to clarify a point. I think I have clarified it as much as I can. Mr. Hurtgen: Well I ... let me ... Mr. Carollo: There was an accusation made by the people that were working that audit that was immediately given to the press that the former chief in fact owed the City hours and apparently from what I have here before me, it has been cleared up extremely well now. In fact, and correct me if I am wrong, according to this agreement now, former Chief Harms has approximately - well, not approximately, will be paid for 540 hours vacation time that he had accrued that totals $20,055.60. Is that correct, sir? Mr. Hurtgen: That's correct. Mr. Carollo: He also has 288 hours of sick time ... Mr. Hurtgen: That's correct. Mr. Carollo: ... that he will be paid for $20,029.98. Cor- rect? Mr. Hurtgen: That's correct. Mr. Carollo: And he has 114 hours of compensatory time, which he will be paid for $1,699.74? Mr. Hurtgen: That is correct. Id 101 6/28/84 Mr. Carollo: is that all the hours that he had accrued that he will be paid for? Mr. Hurtgen : Yes, that is correct. That is after the de- ductions that were made. There were significant numbers of hours removed, both from the vacation and sick leave ac- counts. Mr. Carollo: But, this is what he is going to be paid for it? Mr. Hurtgen: At retirement - that is the normal ... the rules require that, Commissioner. Mr. Carollo: I've gone through this whole agreement as carefully as I possibly can. I would like to say for the re- cord that there are many areas that I think are wrong, but for the record, I would also say this - that I think it would be a greater wrong if we do not approve this today. The reason I am saying that is because I think there is a great injustice that was done the way this man was fired, and the whole proceedings after he was fired, and I don't think it was right because of the mistake and the wrongdoing of the way he went about this if one individual could punish another and I think it is only fair and right to let Mr. Harms go about with his life and clear this matter as best as it possibly can at this point in time. The one area that I am going to bring up that I am not voting for - I will vote for everything else in here, is the fact that the City of Miami is going to be responsible in paying $10,000 a shot if at any time in the future Mr. Gary or anyone working un- der him speaks evil of Mr. Harms. I don't think the City of Miami should be responsible whatsoever for that. If Mr. Gary wants to include that in for whatever his personal rea- sons are, then I think Mr. Gary, whomever for him, associ- ates with him, should pay for that out of their own pockets like Harms would have to, but I don't think the citizens of Miami should have to pay the bill. Mayor Ferre: Let me just say ... Mr. Carollo: Everything else I will vote for. Mayor Ferre: Let me just say for the record, so we under- stand each other. My personal position, as I told you, Pe- ter, is and I want to put it on the record, is that nothing that we are voting for here should at any time be construed as a waiver on our part, because, first of all, constitutionally we cannot waiver. Secondly, we can not waive it because of the State law, and thirdly we cannot waive it because of our own Charter, so that if Kenneth Harms at any time comes under investigation for whatever reason with the City of Miami, there is no way that we can assure or guarantee that his name won't be mentioned, and I just wanted ... I want the legislative intent clearly ex- pressed here, that the City of Miami and this Commission, in voting for this document, in no way abrogates its sworn duty to uphold the constitution of the laws of Florida and the Charter of the City of Miami, that in any way are we agree- ing to the fact the name Kenneth Harms will never come out from any public document in the City. Now, whatever inves- tigations may or may not be occurring now, or may occur sub- sequent to now ... Mr. Carollo: That works both ways, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: What do you mean, it works both ways? ld 102 6/28/84 m Mr. Carollo: Well, you know investigations can work both ways - that in the sense that it applies to one, it can ap- ply to the other. Mayor Ferre: Oh fine, okay. Well, but the point is that Kenneth Harms will not in a position of authority in the _ City of Miami, and therefore, I frankly am not worried about any investigation - I assume what you mean by that, is in- vestigation of Howard Gary, but I could care less what Ken Harms says. That is between Howard Gary and Ken Harms, and I think they have a contract between themselves individual- ly, which is his right, and I respect that. I am not wor- ried about what Ken Harms and Howard Gary say about each =- other. That is their problem. My concern is not Ken Harms r or Howard Gary. My concern is that suppose the City of Miami today or in the future has an investigation and all of s a sudden the narne Kenneth Harms comes out, you know, like about dealing with the death of two goldfish. You know, maybe ... Mr. Hurtgen: I was hoping you were not going to raise that, Mr. Mayor. = Mayor Ferre: Well, those two goldfish were a great mystery, you know. Howard and Maurice, how their demise came about Mr. Hurtgen: I managed to put that one beside us in the settlement negotiations and you managed to resurrect it. Mr. Plummer: And I absolutely refuse to bury either one of them free! Mayor Ferre: I don't know how those two goldfish met their end, but I mean, suppose it comes out in the future? Mr. Carollo: Well, is Homicide investigating it? Mayor Ferre: I don't want to be sued for $10,000 on that! Mr. Hurtgen: For the record, on the subject of the fish, only one of them is no longer with us. One survived! Mayor Ferre: I would like to know which one of the two sur- vived? For the record, I want to know whether Howard or Maurice survived! (LAUGHTER) Mr. Hurtgen: Maurice. Mayor Ferre: Maurice survived? Mr. Hurtgen Sure. Mayor Ferre: Oh, well. Now, this may have very bad impli- cations! Mr. Hurtgen: What is going to happen to Maurice afterwards? (LAUGHTER) Mr. Plummer: Welcome to the fish fry! Mayor Ferre: Well, we already know what happened to Howard. Mr. Plummer: No, you don't! Howard is still in a deep freeze down there. Mayor Ferre: You know, for all intents and purposes, maybe Howard maybe swimming around in freedom somewhere. He may have gone down that drain and gotten away, and he may be living happily in the street of Miami, but poor Maurice is ld 103 June 28, 1984 still incarcerated, I understand! Well anyway, I think you get the gist of what I am trying to say, in all seriousness, now. Mr. Hurtgen: Well, and I will simply say that your under- standing of the intent and effect of this document is cor- rect. Mayor Ferre: Okay, Marie just tells me that - this is for the record, that Mr. Blumberg who she just talked to says that Plummer, Dawkins and Ferre was dismissed with preju- dice, that Peter Hurtgen has a copy of the dismissal and you should have it with you. With prejudice means that they can refile at any moment again, which is fine, in fact I would welcome it. Mr. Hurtgen: Well, no. Without prejudice means they could refile again. With prejudice means they cannot refile a- gain. Mayor Ferre: Oh, they cannot refile. Marie, was it with prejudice, or without? Mr. Hurtgen: It is without prejudice. Ms. Petit: With prejudice, according to this. Mr. Carollo: You all better be careful of that word thrown loose around here. Mayor Ferre: With prejudice means that they cannot refile it again. Ms. Petit: No, with prejudice they can refile. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: No, it is the other way around. Mr. Hurtgen: That is right. I am not going to argue with = you, Marie, but with ... Mayor Ferre: Well, tell me which. I don't care, it doesn't matter. Mr. Carollo: I don't care right now whether either of these gentlemen are prejudiced or not. What I do care about is that I don't want to see the City of Miami liable for $10,000 a shot. That can get quite expensive. Now, if they want to have a separate agreement between them, that is fine, but Mr. Mayor, I don't think it is appropriate for the City of Miami to be responsible to pay $10,000 a shot. Mr. Hurtgen: Commissioner, let me clarify that for you also, a couple points, I guess. First of ,ill, it isn't giv- en to you to approach this settlement on a line item basis, not that it might not have been an appropriate idea, but it isn't, in that case. It is an all or nothing settlement, but secondly, more importantly... Mr. Carollo: Whoa. I cannot believe that. I cannot be- lieve that Mr. Harms is the one that insisted that that par- ticular item to be placed in there. Mr. Hurtgen: Let me address that. That is my second point. Mr. Carollo: And let me say this for the record - I haven't spoken to Ken Harms at all, whatsoever about anything here. Mr. Gary: Then how does he know? ld 104 June 28, 1984 Mr. Hurtgen: No, Commissioner, here is what I was going to say my second point is. This agreement does not on its face, or in fact anyway mandate that the City of Miami would be obligated to pay $10,000, were there to be a breach by Howard Gary individually. So, to vote to approve this set- tlement is not a vote signing the City up for $10,000 per breach. That is another issue for another day, depending on the circumstances of the breach. Mr. Carollo: Can read for the record, *ir, the part per- taining to the $10,000? Mr. Hurtgen: It is set forth on Page 7 in paragraph 4. It reads as follows: "The mutual covenants set forth in paragraph 3rd are considered essential to the continued operation of this stipulation of settlement. Accordingly a breach of those provisions by Kenneth Harms or Howard Gary will be remedied by the payment of $10,000 per breach. Disputes concerning the existence of a breach of this stipulation of this settlement by either Howard Gary or Kenneth Harms shall be resolved as follows:" And it sets forth an arbitration procedure. So, all we have set forth in the agreement is the damages if there is a proven breach. It doesn't provide, nor should it provide, who pays that $10,000, because that would depend upon the fact of the breach. Mr. Carollo: Yes, but, here we are talking abut in Item 3, that - this is where I think the City will be liable, the stipulation of settlement that..."no defamatory statements will be made by either Howard Gary or Kenneth Harms by the other, or by their respective agents and employees..." Mr. Hurtgen: That is correct, but notice the word "defama- tory statements". Mr. Carollo: Well, as you well know as an attorney, that could be a very wide area of law of what might be defamatory to one, would not be to the other, and sometimes, just the fact that you are breathing, some might find that defamato- ry, and want to sue for it, se, you know, that ... if we want to stipulate here that the City of Miami, and Mr. City Attorney, you are the guy that I pay - Mr. City Attorney, you are the individual that we, the taxpayers, pay to guide US. Can you tell me how we can protect the City to the fullest, whereas if there is a breach by Mr. Gary or any of his employees, that the City would not be liable in having to pay for them. Can we stipulate something to that effect, either in adding it to this agreement, or in the record with the agreement? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: I think the only way to do that, Com- missioner, would entail an amendment to the agreement. The agreement also provides, I believe, and if not, it is true by operation of law, that what is not in it doesn't count. Let me see if I can find that. Mr. Carollo: Well you see the point that I have made, that the way that this is written, and that when it is approved by us, it is going to leave us wide open for the possibility of a lawsuit by Mr. Harms in the future if Mr. Gary or any of his employees speak evil of him. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Paragraph 11, Commissioner Carollo, at Page 10 provides that "This stipulation of settlement con- tains the full and complete agreement between Kenneth I. Harms and the City of Miami and Howard Gary, and no oral or ld 105 June 28, 1984 implied modifications or agreements not specifically set forth herein exists, no revision. modification, or alterna- tion of this stipulation of settlement may be made,"... and =_ this answers your question now, ... "except by mc-ans of a - written agreement signed by the parties hereto...", so I think the answer to your question is that the only way to close that door would be to amend this agreement in writing. Mr. Carollo: Well, Mr. Mayor, I will be more than happy to make a motion to approve this here today with the stipula- tion that we will get a signed statement by both Mr. Gary and Mr. Harms that they both understand that if there is a violation on Mr. Gary's part, or any of the employees work- ing under him, that they would have to pay for it personal- ly, not the City of Miami. Mr,, Hurtgen: I think you are asking, Commissioner, if I rrig ht interject before the Mayor or other member respond, You are asking for something that no person would reasonably be willing to agree to, because that buys something that no one knows in the future. Mr. Carollo: In other words, what you are saying is no per- son wants to agree with it, because in fact, you are agree- ing with what I am saying that this City of Miami can be li- able if we approve this. Mr. Hurtgen: No, you are asking for a waiver, in effect as I understand it, your point. Mr. Gary, as well as yourself, and members of the Commission and employees of the City have the right to expect the City to stand behind them when they do something in good faith, acting as an employee, or an of- ficial of the City of Miami, and if that is the case, as a matter of law, this City is going to be responsible for vio- lations of other rights that might result, and no, you are not going to waive your right to claim that you were acting within the scope of your employment, nor is Mr. Gary. Mr. Carollo: Counselor, I understand where you are coming from, but City of Miami should not be responsible for Mr. Gary or any employee if they want to out in the streets on their own time or anything else and say - Kenneth Harms says that or the other!... and this is where I am getting at. This is.where I am getting at. I want to finish this right now, so it can put to rest. Harms can go on with him life and get a new job, whatever, but I don't think the taxpayers of Miami, that had nothing to do with this, never even had a right to come to this Commission and express their feelings should now be forced to have to boot a possible bill in the future and a bill that could become quite expensive; in fact, it could become much more expensive then any of the monies that have been spent up to now in this whole charade. Mayor Ferre: All right, we have, as I understood it, a mo- tion on the floor with a condition. Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, before we get into that, if I could go again to our City Attorney and get some additional legal advice from him. Mr. City Attorney, a question again. Do you feel that as this contract is written now, the one we have before us, do you feel that with this contract, if it is approved as it is written, that in the future Kenneth Harms does have a high percentage of possibilities if he would sue the City of Miami because of Mr. Gary or another _ employee speaking bad of him, of winning a judgment from the City of Miami, based upon this contract, instead of suing Mr. Gary personally. (TAPE 12 - LD) Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Well, I don't know how to gauge the probability of what could happen in the future, but I think ld 106 June 28, 1984 it is certainly within the possibility, the realm of possi- bility that under this agreement, an incident could occur in the future which would visit liability to the tune of $10,000 upon the City, yes. Mr. Carollo: Okay, you answered my question. Mayor Ferre: I think if I may, just to be very clear on this - let's start, you know, I like to build these things like a ladder. Let's start at the bottom, so that it is at its simplest denominator. Is there any possibility that the City of Miami and the taxpayers would be liable for $10,000 or more under this contract. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes. Mr. Carollo: That is the bottom line. Now, like I said, I am willing to approve everything else that is here, even though I have some very strong reservations and disagree- ments, but I want to finish this once and for all, let Harms get on with his life, but to put the City of Miami in a po- sition that, you know, we might have to be facing paying $10,000 times twenty or thirty times, or more, that could get pretty expensive. Mayor Ferre: Let me ask you this. In your interpretation, and then I will ask the attorney - it says "Howard Gary, his agents or employees". By employees, I sure that that means employees of the City of Miami. It also means his personal employees, should he have any, I would assume. Mr. Hurtgen: That is correct. Mayor Ferre: Or suppose, you know, five years from now, Howard Gary becomes the president of the Burger King Corpo- ration, okay?...or forms a franchise company where he is go- ing to operate with Earl Worsham... Mr. Hurtgen: It seems to be a place where they go, isn't it? Mayor Ferre: No, a corporation or something or other. I don't mean to ... but, do employees mean those people that are working for him in his private capacity? Does it mean City employees? And specifically, does it mean members of the City of Miami Commission? Mr. Hurtgen: No, it does not mean members of the City of Miami Commission. Mayor Ferre: Well, the City of Miami Commissioners receive pay. Mr. Hurtgen: Yes, but they are not...the phrase here is "Howard Gary or Kenneth Harms, including those of their re- spective agents and employees to the extent controlled by each of them". That is the phrase. Mayor Ferre: "...to the extent controlled by each of them". Mr. Hurtgen: Right. Mr. Carollo: Yes, but not only that, Mr. Mayor... Mr. Hurtgen: In the example you just gave of the Manager no longer with the City of Miami, and working some place else, then my answer is there is clearly no liability... Mayor Ferre: ployees. He has his own corporation and he has five em- ld 107 June 28, 1984 Mr. Hurtgen :...nor could there be for the City of Miami un- der this agreement. Mr. Carollo: For the record... Mayor Ferre: The Manager now has a consulting firm. It is five years down. He has ten employees and one of them comes and and says "Well, Kenneth Harms and etcetera, etcetera." Mr. Hurtgen: City of Miami, no liability. Mayor Ferre: Now, the City of Miami is not responsible for that, because that stands to reason. It is illogical. So, in other words, when we are talking about employees, these are employees under his control, so employees under his con- trol, for example, that is not the City Attorney. So, if the City Attorney says "I think this for Harms" ... the fu- ture City Attorney, she would be included, or he. Now, what we are talking about therefore, are the people that are within his control. Those that are within his control are the employees of the City of Miami, okay? In other words, whether they are civil service or not, they are within his control, so suppose ... that is why I wanted to put on the record so that we didn't have any doubt, that if there is an internal security investigation on x, y, z, case, and it comes out and the Miami Herald sends their attorneys to sue for the document once the report is concluded, and there is no criminal charges and they get a copy of it, and in the report there is Lieutenant So an So saying "Well, Kenneth Harms did this and that, and the other and this and that and the other", is that under this - I would imagine and this is my concern, because I see it a little bit differently than Carollo. My concern is that that there would not be con- strued as criticism of former Chief Harms, if it is within the regular duty, and that is not ... was the word "mali- cious"? What was the word? Mr. Hurtgen: Defamatory. Mayor Ferre: Defamatory Mayor Ferre: Defamatory, now, it may be critical, but I don't think you could construe as defamatory, if it is in the part of the ongoing investigatory capacity of the po- lice. Mr. Hurtgen: That is why Mr. Mayor, we chose the word "de- famatory". That is why the language provides that it is the intention of th parties to the stipulation that no defamato- ry statements will be made by either Howard Gary, or Kenneth Harms about the other. Mayor Ferre: I don't exactly see the problem that Commis- sioner Carollo does because of the fact that if it is within the regular course of business, and it doesn't mean that I, or any member of the Commission, City Attorney, or even if it is an employee, they have a right to make statements, as long as they are not defamatory in nature. Now, what Carollo says, and I see his point, is that the word defama- tory can be widely interpreted and it is a matter of legal interpretation. Mr. Hurtgen: That is correct in part, but without getting into a discussion here of court law, in fact defamation, as it relates to public officials, or public statements about other public officials, or former public officials is fairly narrow. Mayor Ferre: How well I know! I 108 June 28, 1984 Mr. Hurtgen: And you have got to go a long way to commit defamation ,.. Mayor Ferre: To a public official ... Mr. Hurtgen: Or about one. 41 Mayor Ferre: Or about a public official, in other words ... Mr. Carollo: Yes, sir, but you, being an attorney, you very well know that in this country of ours, anyone could sue an- yone, whether there are reasons or not, and particularly, if you leave yourself, even if it is just a little bit, and I think here it is a big way, that makes ... Mr. Hurtgen: That is my point, Commissioner. Mr. Carollo: that makes it even the more expensive for us in the long run. Mr. Hurtgen: My point is that this documents neither widens nor narrows the breach through which anybody can sue the City of Miami for acts of its officials. Mr. Carollo: That is where we disagree, Counselor. I think that by not having spell out clearly that we are not going to pay for anybody, it widens the gap of the liability that will be upon us. I think, if anything else, you have done a fabulous job of drafting this. Mayor Ferre: By the way, I want to put it in the record, Mr. Hurtgen, that I feel that this a very fair settlement and it addresses the issues well, and I think that it is good for the well being of the City of Miami, and I congrat- ulate you and the others that were involved in negotiating this to this conclusion. We do have this issue before us and I am ready to deal with it anyway you want, so I am open for whatever you want to do. Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, unless our City Attorney can guide us in a better way of going about it, the only one I can think of is approving it with the clause that it is approved upon getting a signed statement from both parties, that be- ing Mr. Harms and Mr. Gary that they are both aware that the City of Miami would not be liable in paying for Mr. Gary, or for Mr. Harms. Mayor Ferre: All right, Mr. City Attorney, I think it was a question to you, otherwise, I assume that you are making that in a force of a motion. Mr. Carollo: Do you think that is the best way of going a- bout it? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Well, I think that the form that you would want to give that motion, Commissioner Carollo is, to authorize the City Manager ... I think that we should make clear that the agreement has not been signed on behalf of the City of Miami, and so perhaps the way to give form to what you are saying is to authorize the City Manager to sign the agreement on behalf of the City of Miami, upon the hap- pening of whatever event you wish to specify. Mr. Carollo: Do you think it would be more appropriate for the Mayor to sign it instead of the City Manager represent- ing the City of Miami? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: No, sir, I think the City Manager is the one that signs all contracts and this is a contract that should be signed by the City Manager. ld 109 June 28, 1984 Mayor Ferre: Okay, you have now the advice of the ,,. as I - understand it, you can do it either of two ways. You can - say "by the removal of that clause", or you could say by the - signing of separate agreement which stipulates that the City of Miami would not be liable. Mr. Carollo: Jose, guide me, which of those two roads that we have is the best one to take? - Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Well, I suppose that it would be clear-AE er if you were to articulate exactly what it is that you are requiring &nd that be made by way of an amendment to this agreement, so we don't have to go back and remake this a- greement. Mayor Ferre: He has already stated it about 20 times. His iLL position, as I understand it, is he simply does not want citizens of Miami to at any time be liable for any money, no matter who says what about anybody. I mean, it couldn't be - clearer. - Mr. Carollo: That is correct, Mr. Mayor, I can't be any clearer on that. Mayor Ferre: I mean, that is the position he stated. Now, whether there is concurrence at this Commission is another matter which now needs to be clarified, but help him so that he can make ... and if you have any disagreement with the motion that he is going to make, because I will accept it -- and if there is a second, we will get on with the voting of = it Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Okay, the way to do that, I suppose is to take Paragraph 4 on Page 7, and where it says ... "ac- cordingly a breach of those provisions by Kenneth Harms or Howard Gary will be remedied by the payment of $10,000 per breach", you would add the words "by payment by Howard Gary, or by Kenneth Harms of $10,000 per breach to the aggrieved party", or words to that effect, and further you could clarify that under no circumstances shall the $10,000 per breach be payable by the City of Miami. Mayor Ferre: Okay, is there a motion then? Mr. Carollo: There is a motion, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: With that change Mr. Carollo: With those stipulations as stated by the City Attorney, City of Miami. Mayor Ferre: Is there a second? Mr. Perez: Second. Mayor Ferre: All right then, under discussion - anybody want to comment on this? Mr. Gary: The agreement that you have before you, Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, was an agreement which af- fects a number of parties. It appears that what you have before you reflects a long, at the request of Mr. Harms, settlement. It appears that any agreement with regards to a settlement should be one that afford the opportunity to re- move all outstanding issues regarding what is to be settled. I think it would be appropriate that the agreement as signed by all parties be approved in its entirety. ld 110 June 28, 1984 Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Mr. Mayor, let me add, if I might, one thing to what I said previously because as I think about it, I think that perhaps the wording that I suggested in re- sponse to Commissioner Carollo's questions, may or may not - I think it may, Commissioner, go beyond your concerns. I guess I am thinking of a situation in which an employee of the City of Miami, deemed to be an agent of Howard Gary, goes out an makes a defamatory statement, and I just want you to be aware, before you vote on this, of whether it would be fair under those circumstances, if just because the person is an employee of the City and goes out and says something defamatory, that Mr. Gary would under those cir- cumstances be required to make payment. I don't think that is what you had in mind, and yet that is the situation that could arise in the future. There are ways of perhaps cir- cumscribing the language to what you had in mind so as not to make him liable for what someone else does. Mayor Ferre: I think that is totally appropriate. Mr. Carollo: My concern is protecting the City of Miami, not any one individual. Mayor Ferre: We have got to be fair about this, and the fact is, I think it would be unfair to Howard Gary if some- body, Jack Eads, for example, were to go out and make a statement publicly ... well, suppose Jack Eads got very an- gry at J. L. Plummer because he stood him up for three hours and went out and had a couple of bourbons and tap water, and the next thing you know, is he runs into Rick Hirsch and he starts cussing out and saying something about the former Chief, and Hirsch writes the story in the Herald, and the next you know, they are suing Howard Gary and he has got to pay $10,000 for what Jack did, I understand that it has to be ... Mr. Carollo: Well, we clarify it even further then, I have no problems with that. Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor, as Mr. Hurtgen stated before, and if we can move ourselves temporarily form personality issues, I think it ... and this City Commission has taken this policy in the past, and that is that City Manager as well as all the employees in the City have a fiduciary responsibility, as well as the Mayor and Commission and to the extent to which we try to carry out those fiduciary responsibilities, we assume, and you have gone on record stating it, that we will be protected in terms of carrying out those fiduciary responsibilities. That is just like a police officer ar- resting someone and he does his job as he saw fit and that employee felt that in the exercising of his responsibility, that this City was not going to protect him, I think it would have an effect on your productivity and an effect on how we do our work around here. I think it is important that we take that under consideration and I could give you a number of instances where that has occurred. We have passed legislation here, we have implemented legislation here, and also to address too, Mr. Mayor, an issue you brought up, and that is one of future investigations that may occur that may involve Mr. Harms, or may involve anybody - now, to the ex- tent to which you give the impression to people that in car- rying out their fiduciary responsibility, this City will forego a long, established policy, not only to this City, but probably to every major City in the country, that it is going to leave its employees out there on a limb, then that jeopardizes somebody willing to do that, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Plummer: Yet, but let me tell you where I disagree. I partially agree with Commissioner Carollo. Example: You or one of your agents or employees go to an party - a private ld 111 June 28, 1984 party, it has nothing to do with the City. The way this document is written, if you, or one of your employees or a- gents makes a defamatory statement about the other party, you have done that basically as an individual, but according to this and what Joe is trying to prevent, that if you do it as an individual, you pick up the liability as an individu- al. Mayor Ferre: Well, Mr. Hurtgen is saying that's ... Mr. Hurtgen: I am saying that is the status of the law, and this agreement doesn't change it. Mayor Ferre: But it is not spelled out! Mr. Hurtgen: But, you don't try to put into one agreement, the entire body of case law that has developed. Mayor Ferre: That is the difference between us and Napole- onic laws. See, in the Napoleonic law, you spell everything out in detail. Here, ... Mr. Carollo: You know what bothers me in this? So far the only darn people that have wanted this are all of the attor- neys involved with this. Mr. Hurtgen: Well Mr. Carollo: Well, and the only people that are going to benefit from it in the future, if any problems that happen to the City of Miami, are going to be all of the other at- torneys that are going to be involved with this. Mr. Plummer: That is always the case, Joe. Mr. Carollo: Now, you know, Mr. Gary made the statement that well gee, City employees are gong to be left out on the limb. That is a lot of hogwash, because the City of Miami has spent thousands and thousands of dollars protecting Mr. Gary's behind in this matter! Mayor Ferre: Well, let me give you another scenario, if you want to get into scenarios, I will give you a wild scenario. Suppose somebody who is not a friend of Howard Gary, and is a friend of the former City Police Chief, were to come out and make a big to-do, go on a radio talk show and mention him three or four times; go on television, have a press con- ference, and for a week just rattle off and all of a sudden we have a lawsuit for $300,000 worth of mentions, you know, and under this contract, it has been done, he is an agent = and an employee. Howard Gary fires him, properly so, but that doesn't make any difference, and the Chief now ends up with a nice $300,000 kitty! I mean, I don't think that is a likely possibility, but what I am saying is, that you can go any kind of scenario in this, and I think what Plummer is saying is, perhaps we need to tighten up the language a lit- tle bit. I think we all know what we want to do; we want to do the right thing. It is a settlement, Peter, and I think it is an appropriate settlement, but I think there is this question as to who pays this $10,000 every time a dishonora- ble mention is made. Mr. Carollo: You know, one way of ending this once and for all is just crossing the $10,000 out of this. You know, why is there a need for it? Mr. Hurtgen: Whoa. Well, let me tell you how we got there then. We determined ... ld 112 June 28, 1984 Mr. Carollo: I really would like to know, because of this seems to me is that ... Mr. Hurtgen: Okay, good question. Mr. Carollo: ... a gag rule is being applied! Mr. Hurtgen: Well, it isn't that. I mean, the one thing we are not doing is gagging, but realize what happened that led up to this lawsuit. We had the removal of the Chief. We had thereafter a number of public acrimonious statements made orally and in writing by the Chief addressed to the City, its Police Department, its Manager, and this contin- ued. When we decided that on an amicable basis, we would permit then Captain Harms to grow into his full retirement, and we would be lenient in giving him every benefit of the doubt on the questionable vacation and sick leave emolu- ments, and lastly, we would allow him to be off on an admin- istrative leave, drawing pay while this process went, for- ward, it seems to us ridiculous to do all of that, and not also end the running attack that kept going on daily or weekly, with regard to the new Police Administration, with regard to the City Manager, City Manager form of government, etc. So, we decided that we would ... Mr. Carollo: Counselor, would ... Mr. .Hurtgen:... excuse me, Commissioner, we decided that we had to have in here, some basis for ending that, and this was what we wound up with. We had other things which they didn't like. The $10,000 per breach idea came from Captain Harms and his attorneys; it did not come from us, so this is not something we wanted in there to keep Howard Gary's mouth shut. Mr. Carollo: Well, from the way you started explaining it, it seems like it was coming from - not Mr. Harms. I will tell you, I am personally going to call his attorneys and find out exactly where the idea came from, but let me say this to you, Counselor - the way you described the happening of events, you wouldn't leave the average person to think that Kenneth Harms was not entitled to any of the vacations, sick time, compensatory time that he had here, that Kenneth Harms was the only person that went to the media and made statements and Kenneth Harms was the only person that leaked information to the media, that gee, Kenneth Harms, it is all his fault that he got fired at 2:47 A.M. in the morning! Mr. Hurtgen: Well, I think it was 1:37 A.M., but I have been waiting two weeks to say that. Mayor Ferre: Okay, can we cut through all of this? The City Attorney has written something out and so that Ted Gould won't say that. I can't read English too, let me read it. Mr. Carollo: You can say it in Spanish, if you want to, don't worry, you can say it in Spanish! Mayor Ferre: Is this your handwriting? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: "...provided however, that in no event shall the City be liable to K. I. Harms for any defamatory state- ments made by Howard V. Gary, personally, or at his specific direction. That solves the problem. Mr. Hurtgen: All I can do is reflect upon it and take it back to the table. ld 113 June 28, 1984 2 Mayor Ferre: Is that acceptable to you? Mr. Carollo: That is the best we can do - either that, or just take that position out all together. I don't really see a need for it. Mr. Hurtgen: At least the City and the Manager would agree to that amendment. Mayor Ferre: In other words, it would be "provided howev- er .." Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Mr. Mayor, excuse me. That would come after the second sentence in Paragraph 4. Mayor Ferre: Read the full sentence. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Okay, the full sentence would be Mr. Hurtgen: What page are you on, Jose? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Page 7, Peter. "Accordingly, a breach of those provisions by Kenneth Harms or Howard Gary will be remedied by the payment of $10,000 per breach, provided how- ever, that in no event shall the City be liable to Kenneth I. Harms for any defamatory statements made by Howard B. Gary personally, or at his direction." Mr. Hurtgen: At his personal direction - personally, or at his personal direction. I do not want somebody saying that because I work for the City Manager ... Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: That is even better. Mr. Plummer: How about the word, rather than "personally", individually? Mr. Hurtgen: Personally and individually, I will accept that. Mayor Ferre: They are going to ask you who you are repre- senting now. Mr. Hurtgen: Well, that is a good question! No, I repre- sent the City and the Manager, as the Manager and individu- ally, and will do so until such time as there is a diver- gence of interests. Mayor Ferre: Well, I have no problems with the way this is worded, because the City Attorney, who does represent the City, and not the Manager individually, came up with what seems to be an agreeable middle of the ground, and if it is all right with Howard, and you accept it legally, I think we can move along and get over this solution. Are we ready to go? Howard? Mr. Hurtgen: Yes, you need a motion. Mr, Garcia -Pedrosa: It is personally and individually, right.? Mayor Ferre: Okay? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: To clarify, it is "personally and indi- vidually, or at his personal direction". Mayor Ferre: Okay. Mr. Hurtgen: Correct, that is fine. ld 114 June 28, 1984 Mayor Ferre: Are you ready to go? All right, go ahead, make the motion. Mr. Carollo: The motion is that we accept this, approve this, upon the verbal and signed agreement of both Mr. Gary = and Mr. Harms that that would be made part of the agreement. _ Mayor Ferre: As amended - just write into the record by the City Attorney. Is that correct? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: I am not sure. I couldn't hear very well what Commissioner Carollo said. I think the. motion, Commissioner Carollo, that would recommend to you is, that you offer .. { Mr. Carollo: Go ahead and make it, Mr. City Attorney. - Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: I'm sorry? Mr. Carollo: Go ahead and make the motion. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: That you authorize the City Manager to sign this contract on behalf of the City, provided that the Paragraph 4 of Page 7 be amended in writing signed by all sides, in the manner that I have read. Mr. Carollo: Do you think Ted Gould would approve that? Mayor Ferre: is there a second to the motion? Mr. Perez: Second. Mayor Ferre: It has been seconded by Commissioner Perez. Do you have any problems with this, Commissioner Plummer, Commissioner Dawkins? Are you read to vote? Anybody wish to comment further? Call the roll. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Carollo, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 84-719 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAG- ER TO EXECUTE THE ATTACHED STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT CONCERNING CASE NO. 84- 0550-Civ-SMA, A LAWSUIT FILED BY KENNETH I. HARMS AGAINST THE CITY OF MIAMI AND CERTAIN CITY OFFICIALS. (Here follows body of resolution, omit- ted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Perez, the resolu- tion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ON ROLL CALL: Mr. Dawkins: Reluctantly, yes. Id 115 June 28, 1984 42. FIRST READING ORDINANCE; CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION AT APPROXIMATELY T25 N. W. 35TH AVENUE FROM RS--2/2 TO RG-1/3. ------------------------------------------------------------ Mayor Ferre: We are now on Agenda Item Number 5 - Raul and Victoria Suarez, and Teobaldo and Lucy Grimal. This is an Atlas Change from RS-2/2 to RG-1/3. The Department recom* mended denial. The Board recommended approval on a 5-2 vote. Would the Department begin? Mr. Whipple: Mr. Mayor and members of the Board, I think your best explanation for a denial is the viewing of the map showing the two lots in yellow intruding into the RS-2 zone, which is single family by an RG-1 zone, which is to the east of the two-family. We believe that this is in essence spot zoning being surrounded by RS or single family zoning, both to the north, west and south. We find no basis or need for additional duplex zoning tearing down the single family zoning in the area. On that basis, we have recommended de- nial. (TAPE13-LD) Mr. Al Cardenas: Mr. Mayor, and members of the Commission, for the record my name is Al Cardenas. I am an attorney, the City of Miami, at 1 Biscayne Tower. I represent the owners, Mr. and Mrs. Suarez-Murias and Mr. and Mrs. Grimal. Basically, for the record, let me tell you how this matter came about and why I think it is not within the purview of spot zoning. Mr. and Mrs. Suarez-Murias and Mr. and Mrs. Grimal purchased lots 11 and 12 that are delineated in yel- low on the board. Approximately a year and one-half ago at a time when you could build single family dwellings in these 25 X 120 foot lots, they bought these lots jointly. They are two separate families and they wanted to build their homes at these lots. Subsequent to that and without their knowledge, Ordinance 9500 became adopted and it, in essence, said you can't build single family homes any longer on 25 x 120 foot lots, and they came to me and told me a story, and I said "Well, just from what you have told me is something that certainly has a lot equity, but somehow, some way, we have got to find a reason why this is not spot zoning, or you are not going to be able to prevail". It is just going to be a hard luck story, and I looked into the neighborhood, and I looked at that particular zoning area, and low and be- hold, I think we crossed that threshold where I can comfort- ably represent to the Commission that we don't have spot zoning here. Let me give you my four quick reasons. One, the rear boundary of the tract in question, the property in yellow there, adjoins the RT-1/3 zoning, so if the adjoining property within the same block is permitted to have duplexes constructed therein, that is an item number one. Item Num- ber two is that within this specific RG-3 zoned property, there are five duplexes already built within that particular location, and let me say this, of those five that are al- ready there, there is not one that adjoins the RG-1/3 zone, so if we could permit five duplexes in that particular are- as, there is certainly more than enough argument to say that one that you should permit is the one that adjoins the RG- 1/3 zoned property. Number two, the property in question is 50 feet from the CR-2/7 zoned property. Number three, and most compelling is that in that whole RS-2/2 zoned property, there isn't one other vacant lot in the whole tract, so you are not creating a precedent that you are going to be uncem- fortable with. Two, the precedent has already been created. There are five properties with similar duplex zoning. Item ld 116 June 28, 1984 three, I think it is more important that about the neighbor- hood concept. Notices were mailed to 146 property owners in the area. There were six replies, four in favor, two a- gainst. The two against, we subsequently spoke to. Their reasoning for being against was that they feared the taxes would be higher. We explained to them what we felt our po- sition was and they agreed not to disagree with us, that is _ the reason why they are not here today. Number four, the reason why the two members of the Zoning Board, as stated in `- the transcript, so the Zoning Board Committee meeting voted against us, otherwise it would have been unanimous, was I think to a fault of mine of not explaining it p g properly. The two of them voted against us, because they felt that the property in question, which is 50 x 120 was too small for duplex zoning, and at the time they voted, they gave that reason. Let me explain right here, that on a 50 x 120 foot lot, assuming this property was zoned RG-1/3, under the pro- visions of Ordinance 9500, as they would not need one single variance from anyone to construct a duplex - as a matter of fact, the property exceed the number of square feet neces- sary within which to build a duplex, so I think what we have got here, is we have got five criteria that have have estab- lished that this is not spot zoning. I think more important than that, you have got an equity situation involving two people who wanted to build their home. All of a sudden you tell them they couldn't, and they have come back to you and said "We have done some thinking and now we can't build two single family houses, but why don't you let us build a du- plex and we will be happy thereafter". And it is a good, neighborly thing. No neighbors have opposed this thing, other than the two I have talked about and they have now a- _ greed. The neighborhood, the adjoining lot, in the same - block is RG-1/3. There are no more vacant lots in the prop- erty. They are fifty foot away from commercially zoned property and there are five duplexes in the area. I think the equities of the matter are obvious and we hope you agree with the Zoning Board who fully heard this matter, and a- greed with our presentation. Mayor Ferre: All right, are there any opponents who wish to speak? Is there anybody in opposition to Item Number 5 who wishes to be heard. All right, one last quick statement from the Administration and then one last rebuttal and then we are off. Mr. Whipple: Mr. Mayor, the dates and the timing of this, I think are important. It is our understanding that the land was bought in May of 1983. If you will remember, the com- prehensive zoning ordinance, pursuant to, I don't know how much time, was basically adopted in December of 1982 with an effective date of June, 1983• I guess what I am suggesting here is that was the pending law and they should have been aware of it. This site was previously occupied by a single family home, which was demolished. We cannot find the per- mit on it to establish exactly when it was demolished, but it was a single family site. It is true that as I pointed out, you do have the rear boundary to a duplex zoning, but notwithstanding that the three other sides are with single family zoning, and we think that, is spot zoning even though you are next to an adjacent zoning, and even then there is an alley in between the two zoning classifications. The va- cancy question, we believe it does present a precedent, and -- that those single family units, which is the preponderance in this four block area - the two across from each other and on this block and the two north, it will set a precedent, and perhaps just other rezonings which we do not think are appropriate, because they are predominant use land use. - Those five duplexes in the area which you did not define, according to our records, occur in that four block area both sides of the street, and as you see are two, or four very ld 117 June 28, 1984 long blocks. Even though there are no objections from the neighborhood, I believe that the Commission is aware that we don't do a hand count or a neighborhood count by which to determine zoning. That is a legislative matter delegated to this Commission. The last statement which I have a prob- lem with and cannot properly respond to is was the fact that there was enough area for duplex without going through this process, or this change of zoning. To my knowledge there is no provision under 9500 which a duplex could be erected on this lot other than the rezoning being sought, and we recom- mend denial of that. Mayor Ferre: All right. Mr. Carollo: Mr. Whipple made a statement there that I think should not go unanswered. I don't know what criteria you use, Mr. Whipple. I am not an architect - I am not a planner - I am not a designer, but the criteria I use is common sense, and this is what I see in this particular property. Common sense tells me that when these individuals bought this parcel for the reasons their counselor stated, they were allowed to build there. Because the law was changed on them, they were not informed of such, they should be at least grandfathered in. Maybe that is an inappropri- ate word to use. Maybe estoppel might be more of an appro- priate word to use. If they bought the property with those intentions, they might have that right still, but listening to some of the arguments that their counselor stated, I re- ally do not see why these people should not be given the ap- proval by this Commission to go ahead and build and common sense tells me this. Mr. Mayor, I am willing to make a mo- tion ... Mayor Ferre: There is a motion on Item Number 5 that the Mr. Carollo: ... to uphold the approval of the Zoning Board recommendations. Mayor Ferre: That the Zoning Board be upheld. Is there a second? Mr. Perez: I second and I vote in favor of the approval of the Zoning Board. Mr. Plummer: Under discussion, let me understand clearly now. What you are saying is that when your clients bought this property, it was zoned so that they could put a duplex. Mr. Cardenas: No, it was zoned so that they could build two single family homes in the two lots. They bought the two lots jointly. They are friends. They own the property jointly and they wanted each to have a single family house there and each live next to each other. One of them, I may add, Mr. Plummer, in reference, it might give an indication as to why these folks, in good intentions was not aware of it. One of the gentlemen in question happens to have spent over 12 years in jail in Cuba, and this is his first shot at having a place there, and that is the reason he bought the property jointly with his friend. Now, you all came in and passed a law and I think it is a good one to a great extent, but as it applies to these individuals, based on the price that they paid for that property - you told them that they could do what they were allowed to do when they bought it - they came back and said, look - we will meet you half way. We are not going to build two single family homes, but at least let us build a duplex, which you can on that size lot. Mayor Ferre: Counselor, I think you are ahead. Do you want to keep on talking? ld 118 June 28, 1984 Mr. Cardenas: No, I am fine. I am fine. Mr. Whipple: Could I add to Mr. Plummer's question, the fact is these two 25 foot lots were used as a single family site. Now, if they are coming before you today saying we want to build two 25 foot lots and want to take us to a court because our ordinance changed and they didn't have a chance to build on the two 25 foot lots, then fine, that is a court item, but to come before you today and say "Well, yes, were going to build two single family homes on a 25 foot lot" ,... particularly in relation to the character of the neighborhood that exists, I say there is a serious ques- tion there in my mind. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Whipple, these lots are 25 feet wide? Mr. Whipple: Yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: What is the setback? Mr. Whipple: Under the new ordinance, it would be 5 feet on each side, to 10 feet in the front and 10 feet in the rear. Mr. Plummer: That means they can build a 15 foot wide house? Mr. Whipple: Yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: Do you want a City full of 15 feet wide hous- es? Mr. Whipple: No, sir, that is why we changed the law with 9500 to prohibit that. Mr. Gary: That is right. Mr. Whipple: But, it has occurred in many instances in Co- conut Grove, as you know. Mr. Plummer: Yes, sir, there are exceptions to every rule. We really feel this is a self-imposed hardship. I don't know whether the zoning wasn't checked out properly, or what have you, but it is quite clear, if you will look at the aerials attached to your fact sheet, this is a sound neigh- borhood - I don't know of a 25 foot site that has been built upon in that area, but that is what they are trying to tell you today. Mr. Plummer: That is exactly my point. My bedroom is wider than 15 feet! Mr. Whipple: Well fine, they can build a single family home 40 feet wide! Mr. Carollo: Mr. Whipple, I am sure that when you were a young man, you saw the Wizard of Oz, at least on one occa- sion. Remember what the problem was with the tin man? Mr. Whipple: No sir, as a matter of fact, I never did watch the movie all the way through. Mr. Carollo: He didn't have a heart. He didn't have a heart, Mr. Whipple! Mr. Whipple: Oh, okay. Mayor Ferre: All right, I wish you wouldn't get involved in democratic party politics, Mr. Carollo. I don't see any need for you to get involved in issues that are not contain- ing ... ld 119 June 28, 1984 Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, are you saying that Democrats don't = have a heart? _ Mayor Ferre: Not any more, we don't! It is gone. Mr. Carollo: Oh, you never know. Mayor Ferre: All right, anything else? We have a motion and a second. Are you ready to vote. Call the roll. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Let me read the ordinance, Mr. Mayor. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 9500, THE ZONING ORDI- NANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF APPROXIMATELY 725 NORTHWEST 35TH AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA (MORE PARTICULARLY DE- SCRIBED HEREIN) FROM RS-2/2 ONE FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL TO RG-1/3 GENERAL RESIDENTIAL (ONE AND TWO FAMILY) BY MAK- ING FINDINGS; AND BY MAKING ALL THE NEC- ESSARY CHANGES ON PAGE NO. 26 OF SAID ZONING ATLAS MADE A PART OF ORDINANCE NO. 9500 BY REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE 3, SECTION 300, THEREOF; CON- TAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. Was introduced by Commissioner Carollo and seconded by Commissioner Perez and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins ON ROLL CALL: Mr. Plummer: My vote is affirmative, not necessarily for the applicant, but in opposition to 15 foot wide houses. I vote "Yes". The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and stated that copies had been furnished to the City Commission and that copies were available to the public. 43. FIRST READING ORDINANCE; CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION AT APPROXIMATELY 3251 SOUTH MIAMI AVENUE AND 50 S.Y. 32 RD. ("VIZCAYA") FROM RS-2/2 TO GU. Mayor Ferre: We are now on Agenda Item Number 7 - Metropol- itan Dade County Planning Department. Our Department recom- mends it and the Advisory Board recommended it 6 - 0. Is there any opponent to Item 7? If not, is there a motion. Mr. Carollo: Item 7? ld 120 June 28, 1984 11 • Mayor Ferre: Yes. Mr. Carollo: Moved. Mayor Ferre: All right, it has been moved. Mr. Plummer: Second. Mayor Ferre: Second by Plummer. Mayor Ferre: It has been moved and seconded. Further dis- cussion? Read the ordinance. (THEREUPON, AT THIS POINT CITY ATTORNEY READS ORDINANCE INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD) Mr. Plummer: Under discussion, Mr. City Attorney, what hap- pens if we don't pass this? What happens if it is denied? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: That is a good question, Commissioner Plummer. Mayor Ferre: You have a question that is being asked of you, do you want to answer it? Mr. Plummer: No, I asked it of the City Attorney. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: I don't know the answer to that. Mr. Plummer: Well, let me tell you where my area of concern is - not necessarily if it is denied. Every time this City, in its great generosity to the County has given them some kind of land or facility, there was always a zinger that said if they ever vacated, it reverted back. You can't con- dition a change in zoning. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: No, but the County can proffer a cove- nant. Mr. Gary: Have them proffer it. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: You might want to defer this item for a future ... Mr. Plummer: I move Item 7 subject to the County ... Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: No, no. You might want to defer it. Mr. Gary: What you want to do is you want to continue this and ... Mayor Ferre: For more information. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Or you can pass it on first reading and Mr. Plummer: Is there anyone here from the County? Would you stand up so we can not miss you with the rocks, and come to the microphone? Do you understand my concern? Mayor Ferre: No, nobody does. Unidentified Speaker: No, sir, I really don't. Mr. Plummer: Okay, there is the possibility that when we defer this, you clan voluntarily give a covenant that if you ever vacate it reverts back to its present zoning - the same thing you ask of us. You have Mr. Stierheim call Mr. Gary. He will tell him what I am talking about. Id 121 June 28, 1984 Mr. Whipple: Did you want to go first reading, and we will work on the covenant? Mr. Plummer: Okay, first reading fine, and then be- fore the second reading. Mayor Ferre: On first reading - have you read the ordi- nance? Call the roll. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 9500, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE ZON- ING CLASSIFICATION OF "VIZCAYA", LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3251 SOUTH MIAMI AVENUE AND 50 SOUTHWEST 32ND ROAD (MORE PARTIC- ULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN), FROM RS02/2 (ONE FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL) TO GU (GOVERNMENTAL USE); MAKING FINDINGS; AND BY MAKING 1,LL THE NECESSARY CHANGES ON PAGE NO. 44 OF SAID ZONING ATLAS MADE A PART OF SAID ORDINANCE 9500, BY REFER- ENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE 3, SEC- TION 300, THEREOF; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. Was introduced by Commissioner Carollo and seconded by Commissioner Plummer and passed on its first reading by ti- tle by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins ON ROLL CALL: Mayor Ferre: "Yes", on the condition that on second read- ing, Mr. Plummer's statement will be clarified. The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and stated that copies had been furnished to the City Commission and that copies were available to the public. NOTE FOR THE RECORD: AGENDA ITEM MO. 33 WAS CONTINUED TO MEETING OF JULY 31ST. id 122 June 28, 1984 ______________ _____________________________A*;OSED ______�______________.__44. DISCI.ISSIO CONTINUANCE TO JULY 31ST OFFIRST READING ORDINANCE APPLY SECT. 16.10 HC-1 GENERAL USE HERITAGE CONSERVATION dVERLAY DISTRICT TO "VIZCAYA" Mr. Plummer: Move it. Mr. Perez: Second. Mayor Ferre: Under the same conditions? Mr. Plummer: Same conditions. Mayor Ferre: it has been moved and seconded by Commissioner Perez. Further discussion? Read the ordinance. Mr. Plummer: Has the County agreed to this? We have a let- ter in the file? Ms. Joyce Meyers: Not at this point, sir. Mr. Plummer: I move this item be deferred. Mayor Ferre: There i:: a motion that Item 8 be deferred. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Wait a minute, if you do that, I do not know if you can comply with the 90 days because you are re- cessing in August. (INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS) Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Oh, it doesn't count, that is right. Mr. Plummer: Move that it be deferred. Mayor Ferre: Plummer moves this item be continued, Item 8. Second by Perez, call the roll. Mr. Plummer: Under discussion, Mr. Mayor, I am ... Little Lady, I want to tell you, I have warned you and warned you. I either want the owner here or a letter. We are continu- ously coming and confronted with this problem. Now, I am saying to you that in the future, don't even put the item on the agenda unless you have the owner present, agreeing to, or a letter from the owner. How many times do I have to say that? Mayor Ferre: About 20! Mr. Plummer: About 20. I've only got one more to go. At least 20 times, and I don't think it is unreasonable. Mayor Ferre: Call the roll. UPON MOTION DULY MADE AND SECONDED, THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner Joe Carollo ----------------------------------------------------------- NOTE FOR THE RECORD: THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WERE CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF JULY 31ST - AGENDA ITEM 8 AND 9. ---------------------------------------------------------- ld 123 June 28, 1984 ----w --- ----------------------------------------------------- 45. FIRST READING ORDINANCE; APPLY SECT. 16.10 HC-1 GU HER- ITAGE CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT TO THE CUSHNAN SCHOOL, LOCATED AT 592 N. E. 6OTH STREET. ---------------------------.----_-__----------.-_-__._ Mayor Ferre: Anybody here on Agenda Item 10? Ms. Joyce Meyers: I have a letter on Agenda Item 10. Mr. Plummer: May I see it, please? Ms. Meyers: This is a proposal for designation. It was in- itiated by the owner, and I have it here. Mr. Plummer: I move Item 10 be approved. Mayor Ferre: is there a second? Mr. Perez: Second. Mayor Ferre: All right, Item 10 has been moved and second- ed. Read the ordinance. Mr. Plummer; Let the record the owner has made application indicating voluntarily that he is interested in this being applied. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 9500, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY APPLYING THE HC-1: GENERAL USE HERITAGE CONSERVATION OVER- LAY DISTRICT TO "THE CUSHMAN SCHOOL", LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 592 NORTHEAST 60TH STREET, (MORE PARTICULARLY DE- SCRIBED HEREIN); MAKING FINDINGS; AND BY MAKING ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES ON MAP NO. 14 OF THE ZONING ATLAS MADE A PART OF SAID ORDINANCE NO. 9500, BY REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE 3, SECTION 300, THEREOF; CONTAINING A REPEALER PRO- VISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. Was introduced by Commissioner Plummer and seconded by Commissioner Perez and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner Joe Carollo The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and stated that copies had been furnished to the City Commission and that copies were available to the public. ld 124 June 28, 1984 11 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 46. VACATE AND CLOSE A PORTION OF N.W. 11TH TERRACE IN CON- NECTION WITH THE CULLER STATION, FIRST ADDITION, PLAT NO. 1212. Mayor Ferre: We are now on Agenda Item 11. Planning De- partment recommends. Zoning Board recommends 6 - 0 unani- mously that it would be a better, more appropriate situation around the Culmer station. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, this was the item that I asked be deferred, predicated on the fact of the close semblance to the school. At the time that I went to the school the other day, I did have the opportunity to look at it, and I have now been shown a letter by the County that is from the school and they have no opposition, and as far as I am con- cerned, I am ready to move Item 11. Mayor Ferre: Is there a second? Mr. Perez: Second. Mayor Ferre: Further discussion, call the roll. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I would want before ... does this take a second reading? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: No, sir. It is a resolution. Mr. Plummer: Sir, this will be a resolution for street clo- sure, subject to you surrendering to the City (this does not change the zoning) a voluntary covenant that at any time you vacate, that street and property revert back to the City of Miami, so it is not officially done until you surrender that letter. Mr. George Campbell: All right, Mr. Plummer, I believe this plat has to come back to you for approval, and that could be put on as codicile the plat. Mr. Plummer: All right, sir. I will expect the Department to remind us. Mayor Ferre: With that condition, call the roll. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 84-720 A RESOLUTION CLOSING, VACATING, ABANDON- ING AND DISCONTINUING THE PUBLIC USE OF _ THAT PORTION OF NORTHWEST 11TH TERRACE BETWEEN THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF NORTHWEST 7TH AVENUE AND THE WEST RIGHT- OF-WAY LINE OF NORTHWEST 6TH AVENUE; ALL AS A CONDITION OF THE APPROVAL OF TENTA- TIVE PLAT #1212 - "CULLER STATION FIRST ADDITION", SUBJECT TO EXECUTION OF COVE- NANT PROVIDING FOR REVERSIONARY INTEREST IN CITY OF MIAMI. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Perez, the resolu- tion was passed and adopted by the following vote- ld 125 June 28, 1984 AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. _ Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. — ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner Joe Carollo ------------------------------------------------------------ 47 DENY .PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S APPEAL OF VARIANCE GRANTED BY THE ZONING BOARD TO SPANISH INTERNATIONAL CONMUNCA- TIONS LOCATED AT 2501 N. H. 7TH STREET., 740-742 N. E. 25TH AVENUE AND 741-743 N. V. 26TH AVENUE. ------------------------------------------------------------ Mayor Ferre: We are now on Item 12, Spanish International Communications. This is an appeal of the variance granted by the Zoning Board. Mr. Whipple: Mr. Mayor, if I could direct your attention down to the note on the bottom underlined - time limitation only. You have already acted on the request. However, a time limit for the running of the variance was not attached, and that is a requirement. Mayor Ferre: All right, what time are you recommending? Mr. Whipple: The normal time for variances has been 6 months. Mayor Ferre: Do you have any problems? Mr. Robert Traurig: Yes, sir. The Zoning Board recommended one year at our request and we would like one year. This is the Channel 23 Building on N. W. 7th Street. Mayor Ferre: Is there a motion? Mr. Plummer: Yes. Mayor Ferre: Plummer moves. Is there a second? Mr. Perez: Second. Mayor Ferre: Perez seconds that one year be granted. Fur- ther discussion? Call the roll. 126 June 28, 1984 ld The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner -- Plummer, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 84-721 A RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING BOARD GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM ORDINANCE NO. 9500, ARTICLE XX, SECTION 2003.41 SECTION 2016.3 AND SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, PAGE 4 OF 6, TRANSITIONAL USES, STRUCTURES AND REQUIREMENTS, CR (COMMERCIAL -RESIDENTIAL (GENERALLY) 1.a. OF ORDINANCE 9500, AS AMENDED, TO PERMIT THE ERECTION OF TWO (2) DISH ANTENNAS AND ONE (1) BROADCAST- ING ANTENNA AT 2501 NORTHWEST 7TH STREET, APPROXIMATELY 740-742 NORTHWEST 25TH AVENUE AND 741-743 NORTHWEST 26TH AVENUE (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN), AS PER PLANS ON FILE, WITH A PROPOSED 10' YARD FOR ALL ANTENNAS (45.65' REQUIRED) AND A PROPOSED 86' PENETRATION OF THE LIGHT PLANE BY THE BROADCAST ANTENNA (NO PENETRATION OF LIGHT PLANE ALLOWED), ZONED RG-1/3 GEN- ERAL RESIDENTIAL (ONE & TWO FAMILY), SUBJECT TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT WITHIN 12 MONTHS OF JUNE 24, 1984 , THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE REZONING OF THE PROPERTY. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Perez, the resolu- tion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner Joe Carollo 48. ACCEPT PLAT: "C-SAIL". Mayor Ferre: We are now on Agenda Item 13. Plat and Street Committee recommend - 14th Street & 14th Avenue. Owner a- grees to landscape at his own expense - Metro Dade County. Any problem with this? Manager recommends. Are you ready? Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute. What about the provisions of reverting? Mayor Ferre: Put the drawing up on the board, would you? Would you put the map on? Mr. Whipple: We don't have a map for this one. This is right on the corner, Mr. Mayor, of 14th and 14th, due west of Cedars of Lebanon. It is C. P (cerebral palsy) Building. I assume that they are planning to expand, and in order to expand, they have to plat their property, which is what they are doing at this time. id 127 June 28, 1984 Mr. Plummer: Why then is the Applicant Metro? Mayor Ferre: This is isn't the C. P. Building. You are talking about - oh, the one that Bob Hope, and Claude Pep- per... Mr. Plummer: No, that is Parkinson's. That is on the other side of the hospital. Mr. Whipple: Mr. Plummer, the reason the Applicant is Metro Dade County is that they own the property. Mayor Ferre: Okay, are we ready to accept this plat? Mr. Plummer: I understand where it is, but ... (INAUDIBLE) Mayor Ferre: Plummer moves. Perez seconds. Further dis. cussion on Item 13? Call the roll. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 84-722 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED C-SAIL SUBDIVISION, A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF MIAMI; AND ACCEPTING THE DEDICA- TIONS SHOWN ON SAID PLAT;, AND AUTHORIZ- ING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE PLAT AND PRO- VIDING FOR THE RECORDATION OF SAID PLAT IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Perez, the resolu- tion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner Joe Carollo 49. AUTHORIZE FINAL APPLICATION FOR MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE 1221 BRICKELL PROJECT - AMERISWISS ASSOCIATES. Mr. Joe McManus: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, on May 4th of this year this Commission adopted a develop- ment order for the 1221 Brickell project as a Development of Regional Impact. Item 16 tracks and is identical with your previous action. It issues a Major Use Special Permit for the 1221 Brickell Project. I think you're well acquainted from the previous discussion, there are no additions or deletions other than you previously adopted on May 24th. ld 128 June 28, 1984 Mr. Plummer: Which is the 1221 Brickell? Mayor Ferre: It's that building that is under construction now, we're just agreeing to go from 17 to 27 stories. It is right in front of Morley's, catty -cornered. Mr. Plummer: That's the one that is going to be increased by 10 floors? Mayor Ferre: That's right. Mr. Plummer: Refresh my memory. What did we get in return for allowing it? Mr. McManus: We have substantial contributions from the developer starting off with $100,000 in street improvements added to some - that is required by the development order. Mr. Plummer: Well, but I mean that is something that he had to do irrespective. Mr. McManus: From the Development Order that you did on May 24th. Mr. Traurig: Mr. Plummer, my name is Robert H. Traurig. I would like to call your attention to the resolution that's part of your package that says that in Resolution 84-589, the City Commission has noted with approval that Ameriswiss Associates has offered to contribute the sum of $25,000 to the City Housing Trust Fund or to contribute the cost of constructing a tennis court in Moore Park, if you recall that matter. Mr. Plummer: And you have agreed to that? Mr. Traurig: We have agreed and we reconfirm that. Mr. Plummer: And as I recall, you really laid yourself wide open on the tennis courts because whatever the cost was you were going to do. Mr. Traurig: Yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: That's more than fair. Okay. Mayor Ferre: Are you ready? Mr. Plummer: Yes, I'm ready. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 84-723 A RESOLUTION ISSUING A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT, ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT "A" AND INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, THE 1221 BRICKELL AVENUE PROJECT, PROPOSED BY THE AMERISWISS ASSOCIATES, FOR 1221 BRICKELL AVENUE; MAKING FINDINGS; PROVIDING FOR ISSUANCE OF CLASS C SPECIAL PERMITS, AND PROVIDING THAT THE PERMIT SHALL BE BINDING ON THE APPLICANT AND SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST. (Here follows body of resolution, omit- ted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) ld 129 June 28, 1984 Upon being seconded by Commissioner Perez, the resolu- tion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio J. Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins 50. DISCUSSION AND TEMPORARY DEFERRAL OF FINAL APPLICATION BY THE ROUSE COMPANY FOR A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE BAYSIDE PROJECT. Mayor Ferre: We're on Item 17. Mr. Manager, do you want to bring this up again? Mr. Gary: Yes, Mr. Mayor, along with this item I would like to inform the Commission that at the last meeting we talked about the 2.2 million dollars to purchase the Miamarina Restaurant, Restaurant Associates' lease that Rouse was going to pay us interest on the 2.2 million dollars, the answer to that is they aren't going to pay us interest and the reason for that is before the agreement, we had worked out agreement pursuant to this City Commission's directive with Restaurant Associates where we would pay them money on January 15th at an early date even though we aren't giving possession, so that is just to correct the record for the Mayor and Commission. Mayor Ferre: January 15th of what year? Mr. Gary: I'm sorry, June 15th of this year. Mr. Plummer: Let me ask a question. Mr. Gary, is the final contract with Rouse signed? Mr. Gary: The final terms of the contract are finalized with exception of the parking. Mr. Plummer: Okay, I'm not talking to the restaurant and the payment, I'm speaking to the item before me. Mr. Gary: No, that is just information for you. Mr. Plummer: I understand. Now, my question is, what we're doing in this item 17, will Rouse have any vested right if, for some reason, the contract is not signed? I question that Rouse can join with the City when they don't yet have a vested interest. I am concerned that if they are ... Mr. Gary: The answer is they don't get any rights, Commis- sioner, and the contract specifically states that, but more importantly, Commissioner, turn your thing off... Mr. Plummer: I move Item 17. We're deserted. ld L,-.� _ i 130 June 28, 1984 51. BRIEF COMMEq& By COMMISSIONER J.L. PLUMMER R RDING THE FISHING TEAM AWARDS WQUET, Mr. Plummer: While we're waiting for the Mayor to come back, Mr. Gary, I want to tell you, I had the opportunity the night before last to attend the Met Fishing Tournament, the Awards Banquet. I have invited those people to come here for possible funding. I want to tell you I was tremen- dously impressed at the amount of young people involved and the good that I think that thing is doing and I have person- ally invited them to come here and ask this City to partici- _Y pate. They had over 18,000 entries this year, 9,000 out of this community and approximately 9,000 in. Mr. Carollo: Is this another Budweiser event? Mr. Plummer: No, sir. Well, you could say it if the fish were cooked and it goes "This Bud's for you". But I want to tell you that, Mr. Gary. I wish some of the others, and I want to tell you the most impressive thing of the evening, one of the master anglers, they had, Mr. Gary, I think at least 15 kids ... Mr. Gary: How many black? Mr. Plummer: ...and the big winner - there were no black kids. - Mr. Gary: No Latin kids? Mr. Plummer: I can't say whether they're Latins or not. The master angler of the juvenile division from Isla Morada was a handicapped child. I was tremendously impressed and I _ think you will be too. So I want to tell you when they come knocking on your door and they mention my name, they're correct. ------------------------------------------------------------ 52. AUTHORIZE FINAL APPLICATION FOR MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT BY THE ROUSE COMPANY IN CONNECTION WITH THE BAYSIDE PROJECT. Mr. Plummer: I have moved Item 17, Mr. Mayor. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 84-724 A RESOLUTION ISSUING A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT, ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT "A" AND INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, THE BAYSIDE PROJECT, PROPOSED BY THE BAYSIDE LIMITED PARTNER- SHIP AND HOWARD V. GARY FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, FOR APPROXIMATELY 499 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD; MAKING FINDINGS; AND PROVID- ING THAT THE PERMIT SHALL BE BINDING ON THE APPLICANT AND SUCCESSORS IN INTER- EST. (Here follows body of resolution, omit- ted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Perez, the resolu- tion was passed and adopted by the following vote- ld 131 June 28, 1984 oil IN a AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. —_ Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. _— Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins ------------------------------------------------------------ 53. AUTHORIZE FINAL APPLICATION FOR MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT IN CONNECTION WITH THE COMMODORE BAY, LOCATED AT 3471 MAIN HIGHWAY. Mr. Plummer: I move 18. Mr. Joe McManus: Mr. Commissioner, might I suggest in section 3 of the resolution on the Commodore Bay project the Commission is establishing a future public hearing date for the applicant to come back for final resolution. Mr. Plummer: Sir, that is here. Mr. McManus: Yes. The date suggested in the resolution is July 31st and because the preliminary, the hearing before the Planning Advisory Board will only be on July 18th I don't think that gives us adequate time between the two hearings. So I'm suggesting.... Mr. Plummer: Who recommended this date? Mr. McManus: Well, we had some reflection on this after- wards. Mr. Plummer: So what are you suggesting, September? Mr. McManus: The September City Commission Meeting on Planning and Zoning. Mr. Plummer: What is the recommended date? Mr. Gary: The second meeting in September. Mr. Plummer: To the Zoning Meeting in September. Doesn't it have to be to a date definite? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: No. Mr. Plummer: I move Item 18 with a change that the public hearing be on the Zoning Meeting or second Meeting in Sep- tember. Mayor Ferre: Now, Joe, let me understand this. On this particular piece of property is there any agreement at this point as to what this is going to be? Mr. Sergio Rodriguez: There is an agreement with the con- cept just in principle at this point of a possible mixed use development but we have some reservations of intensity. Mayor Ferre: Yes, but as I understand, they're proposing to increase the density tremendously... Mr. Rodriguez: We don't have an agreement there. Mayor Ferre: That is going to come before the Commission. ld 132 June 28, 1984 Mr. Rodriguez: Definitely. Mayor Ferre: And that will be debated publicly, because I want to tell you, and I haven't talked to Kenny on this, but I've got some serious concerns about the density that is being proposed here and I think this needs to be talked about. Mr. Rodriguez: We do too. Mayor Ferre: You know, on the one hand we've got to be consistent throughout the Grove, especially this is a very delicate area - we've got the Barnacle on one side, we've got some very precious ecologically important trees in areas, we've got Peacock Park, this is immediately adjacent to Peacock Park. I think this is serious. We've got to take into account what we're going to be doing over here from Kennedy Park all the way, we've got this Master Plan, I'm not willing or ready to vote on this until we vote on the whole thing, until we understand where we're headed and the whole waterfront. I'll tell you what, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and I don't buy this, "Well, this is a public piece of property and the other is a private piece of property" and all of that. As far as I'm concerned, that right now is zoned what? Mr. Plummer: R-1 (Single Family). Mayor Ferre: Okay, I want to put on record that as far as I'm concerned that is what it ought to remain and we'll be talking about what else further on. Mr. Charles Treister: Mr. Mayor, my name is Charles Treister, I'm representing the owners. My address is 2699 S. Bayshore Drive. What we're before the Commission today is simply to approve our application so we can begin this process and it is not in any way approval of the project. Mayor Ferre: I know. Mr. Treister: And that is what we respectfully request, that you allow us to do. Mayor Ferre: And the other thing, Charles, that we need to talk about is also what is going to happen to the Episcopal Church property. Mr. Plummer: That is sold already. Haven't you seen the plans? Mayor Ferre: I haven't seen the plans. Mr. Plummer: Well, that is all in there, as a matter of fact, they're re -building part of the school. Mayor Ferre: I need to see all of that, we need to have a public discussion on this. This affects Kennedy Park, the Treister project... Mr. Plummer: Not Kennedy, Peacock Park. Mayor Ferre: No, I want to talk about Kennedy Park in other words, the Master Plan for Coconut Grove, this is part and parcel of it. I'm talking about Kennedy Park over here next to the two Yacht clubs, Monty Trainor, Elizabeth Virrick Gym, the hangers, the old navy and coast guard hangers all the way down to the auditorium, Peacock Park and beyond Peacock to this property, that's what I'm talking about - the whole ball of wax. ld 133 June 28, 1984 Mr. Rodriguez: We are scheduling this before the Planning _ Advisory Board on July 18th and that's what.... The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 84-725 A RESOLUTION PERMITTING THE APPLICANT FOR THE COMMODORE BAY PROJECT, LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3471 MAIN HIGHWAY, TO PROCEED TO FIE A FINAL APPLICATION FOR MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT WITH THE DIREC- TOR OF PLANNING; PROVIDING CAVEATS; AND ESTABLISHING 3:30 P.M., THURSDAY, SEP- TEMBER 27, 1984, AS THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL APPLICATION FOR MAJOR USE SPECIAL PER- MIT. (Here follows body of resolution, omit- ted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Perez, the resolu- tion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio J. Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins 54. ESTABLISH THE DATE OF JULY 12, 1984 AS A SPECIAL MEETING AT THE MANUEL ARTIME COMMUNITY CENTER TO CONSIDER EX- TENDING THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER FOR MIAMI CENTER -PHASE II. Mayor Ferre: Now we're on 19, requesting a Special Meeting on July 12th to consider an extension of the development order for Miami Center II. Evidently, unfortunately it has been advertised. If we don't do this the thing runs out on the 26th of July and we don't meet until the 30th so we've got to do this so we've got to have a special 5 minutes at... what time? Mr. Joe McManus: It is advertised for 3:30 at the Manuel Artime Center in Little Havana. Mayor Ferre: at 3:30 to continue it to the 30th, is that correct? Mr. Gary: Yes, at Manuel Artime. Mayor Ferre: At Manuel Artime Community Center in Little Havana. Mr. McManus: Mr. Mayor, you have to have the Meeting on the 12th and sometime between the 12th and the 26th there has to be action to actually extend the.... ld 134 June 28, 1984 Mr. Gary: No, July 12th is going to be to extend the Devel- opment Order to the 31st. Mayor Ferre: There will be 3 members of the Commission here, Carollo, Plummer and myself. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 84-726 A MOTION SETTING THE DATE OF JULY 12, 1984 AT 3:30 P.M. AS THE DATE OF A SPECIAL MEETING TO CONSIDER AN EXTENSION FOR THE MIAMI CENTER II/DUPONT PLAZA PROJECT. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Perez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio J. Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins ------------------------------------------------------------ 55. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: TEXT CHANGE TO ORD. 9500 - ADD NEW SUBSECTION 2003.9 ENTITLED "TEMPORARY SPECIAL EVENT". Mayor Ferre: We're now on Item 20. Any discussion? This is clarifying that carnivals would be held Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sundays and legal holidays. Mr. Gary: In the Grove. Mayor Ferre: Any other days need City Commission approval. If an affair does not include a mechanical ride it can be held on any day of the week, if mechanical ride is included it must be held at Watson Island, Virginia Key or the park- ing lot of Marine Stadium and temporary special events are limited to two per site per year. Mr. Plummer: Unless otherwise designated by the Commission. Mayor Ferre: Now, have we talked to the archbishop about this or is Plummer going to be defrocked? Mr. Gary: He's satisfied. Mayor Ferre: Does anybody know? Mr. Gary: We resolved the problem, Maurice, when he said unless otherwise.... ld 135 June 28, 1984 11 C Mayor Ferre: Unless otherwise provided by Plummer, his agents, employees, clients or friends, not necessarily in that order. AN ORDINANCE - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TEXT OF ORDI- NANCE NO. 9500, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY ADDING A NEW SUBSECTION 2003.9 ENTI- TLED "TEMPORARY SPECIAL EVENTS; SPECIAL PERMITS, " TO SECTION 2003 ENTITLED "ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES," OF ARTICLE 20 ENTITLED "GENERAL AND SUPPLE- MENTAL REGULATIONS," BY PROVIDING FOR REGULATIONS OF CARNIVALS, FESTIVALS, FAIRS AND SIMILAR ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE CITY OF MIAMI BY RESTRICTING DAYS OF OPERATION AND LOCATIONS AND REQUIRING CLASS B PERMITS; FURTHER, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ESTABLISH ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES AND SAFEGUARDS AS NECESSARY; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of May 24th, was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Plummer, seconded by Commissioner Perez, the Ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 9857• The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and to the public. 56. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: TEST AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 9500; AMEND ART. 20 - SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS, SEC. 2031 AND 2031.2 "DRIVE-IN ESTABLISHMENTS; CAR WASHES, ...", ETC. Mayor Ferre: We're now on Item 21. Mr. Plummer: Mr. City Attorney, as it relates to a spin-off of this item, i.e. McDonald's on 32nd Avenue and Dixie Highway, I made a motion at the last meeting approving the zoning. It was predicated upon information given to me by the administration indicating that upon approval they would still have to come back to this Commission for the drive-in facility. To that point, administration, am I correct? Okay. Mr. City Attorney, I have to tell you at that time I was reluctant to make such a motion without that. Subse- quent to that motion passing this Commission, I got emergen- cy calls from the administration - I think that is the most charitable way I can put it - informing me that they had Id 136 June 28, 1984 goofed, that they were wrong. And I admire them for stand- ing up and saying they goofed. My question to you, Mr. City Attorney, is that I would never have made that motion predi- cated on the wrong information. I have to ask you now, since that was, in fact, second reading - it was final reading, that's where the bind comes. Whether or not the motion which I made in good faith predicated on the informa- tion given is binding or it is not? Excuse me, to the administration before I tear your behinds, am I being hon- est? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: The answer to your question is yes, but in all fairness to the administration, Commissioner Plummer, I think that I should have been alert to the question and the answer and, if you're going to spread blame I think you ought to spread some of the blame that you have indicated upon me, but regrettably, whether you acted under a misim- pression or not as to whether the matter would come before you again, nevertheless, the vote is final and is binding, yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: Let me then put on the record once again I am going to then reverse and I am going to appeal to the people of McDonald's, you gentlemen. I have stated for the record before, I am going to state it again, I say to you that any ingress or egress on Dixie Highway is an absolute safety problem. It is unfortunate you do not have the room to put a decelleration lane that exists in most of the other major developments that generate high traffic which you will. I will sit here and I will remind you and I will remind the administration every time I see an accident at that particu- lar locale because it is going to happen. I think that you can build that structure, I think you can ingress and egress from 32nd Avenue alone or from Trapp. I think the safety factor has been completely overlooked. Yes, I understand that the company that was there before had it, it doesn't make it right and I am merely putting on the record that I just feel that it is wrong. I still will pursue the second motion that I made that any further development Dixie Highway from 17th Avenue to the City Limits west, that it will require a hearing before this Commission to prove a safety factor of either a decelleration lane or some other alternative that will not put people in jeopardy of this I am convinced will happen in this particular locale. My conscience is clear, I have made my point, it is unfortu- nate, it will now be on the conscience of the administration for giving the wrong information. Enough said, I can't do any more. Excuse me, I now ask you where is the motion which I made before this Commission? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: It's got to go to... Mr. Plummer: Excuse me? I understood that it was to be sent to the Planning Hoard. Mr. Gary: It will be done. Mr. Plummer: The sooner the better, because as you know, I wanted to offer a moratorium at that time and told I could- n't do it, it was indefensible in court. And there is another, I don't know what the structure is, that is going in on the east of Zayres. There is some big development going on east of Zayres, they are digging a big hole in the ground and I would like to have the sense of security that, in fact, this City has addressed the safety factor. I realize that this motion here does not directly affect you. Addressing this item, Mr. Whipple, do we understand each other that my intent was that any drive-in facility whether it be a bank, a package store, a restaurant, a drive-in facility period, that if they have ten stacking spaces it 1d 137 June 28, 1984 would preclude in the future their coming before this Com- mission as an automatic approval, that if, in fact, they had less than the 10 it would still require a hearing before this Commission? Mr. Whipple: No, sir, that was not our understanding. -- Mr. Plummer: Okay, can I correct it? Because that was my intents Mr. Whipple: Could I interject a thought? Mr. Plummer: Surely, sir. Mr. Whipple: The 10 was mentioned across the board and that was the way it was advertised. Mr. Plummer: yes, sir. Mr. Whipple: And as you know, we went ahead and did an evaluation as to what we thought the number of spaces re- quired were, would be and we did put in the 10 for the drive-in tellers, 8 for the drive-in windows, were the only two changes from the existing ordinance. So what you are... Mr. Plummer: What I am suggesting, that where I had two years requested that any drive-in facility had to come before this Commission for approval, I am saying that if they provide at least 10 that that would not require a hearing but it does leave the door open that if they had and could prove safety factors to this Commission they could request with less than 10. I'm not trying to absolutely deny anybody. Mr. Whipple: I'm trying to think how we might still facili- tate outstanding requests for permits, not any specific but there are other facilities. Mr. Plummer: Well, excuse me, I have to ask this question. Mr. Whipple, do you feel that what I have stated is fair? Mr. Gary: Yes. Mr. Plummer: Thank you, Mr. Whipple. We'll talk about it Dick. this is on First Reading, right? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: No, sir, Second Reading. Mr. Whipple: If I may ask, I believe there is room within -= the advertising and the wording that we could go ahead and improve this wording pursuant to your resolution or motion to be included in this ordinance so it wouldn't have to go back is all I'm saying. Mr. Gary: (INAUDIBLE) Mr. Plummer: Okay, I'm assuming I'll move this ordinance. Do you want it deferred? Mr. Carollo: Well, what is voting for this going to do with the item that we approved for the McDonald people the last time around? Mr. Plummer: Absolutely nothing, it doesn't affect them now. Mr. Carollo: I don't recollect how the vote was on that when it came last before the Commission, I know I voted in favor of at least letting the vehicles go out that way or come in, rather, but I don't recollect what was approved or not. HT 138 6i28i84 Mr. Gary: Okay, what you agreed and what they offered, you _ agreed to the zoning, they proffered that they will allow ingress from U.S. 1 ... Mr. Carollo: Egress out of 32nd Avenue. Mr. Gary: Exactly, and they agreed to do that. Mr. Carollo: Okay, now this will not affect that for them that we voted upon? Mr. Gary: Nov it doesn't. Mr. Carollo: Okay, fine. Mr. Plummer: It's not fine but I am bound. Mr. Robert H. Traurig: Mr. Plummer, with regard to your statement which said that you don't want to preclude anybody and you want them to come here, if the language of the ordinance remains as it is here, in order to get here we'd have to file an application for a variance and we'd have to show hardship. I know that that wasn't your intention. Perhaps we can arrange it so that by special exception we file an application which is reviewed by the Commission for safety and other considerations so that we don't have the burden of overcoming the hardship provision. Mr. Plummer: I have no problem with that. Mr. Traurig: Is that a reasonable request, Planning Depart- ment, City Attorney and City Manager? Yes, thank you. Mr. Plummer: Mr. City Attorney, let me clarify on the record something. The motion or item 21 that is before us now in no way affects McDonald's at 32 and Dixie in no way? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Right. Mr. Plummer: In no way. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Correct. Mr. Plummer: In other words if I deferred this or defeated this it doesn't affect them. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: That's correct. AN ORDINANCE - A14 ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TEXT OF ORDI- NANCE NO. 9500, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING SECTION 2031.2 OF SECTION 2031 ENTITLED "DRIVE-IN ESTABLISHMENTS; CAR WASHES," BY CLARIFYING LANGUAGE AND INCREASING THE REQUISITE NUMBER OF RESERVOIR SPACES FOR DRIVE-IN FACILITIES OF BANKS, CAR WASHES, AND EATING ESTABLISHMENTS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of May 24th, was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Plummer, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, the Ordinance was thereup- on given its second and final reading by title and passed and adopted by the following vote- RT 139 6/28/84 AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice --Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre =_ NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 9858. The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and to the public. ------------------------------------------------------------ 57• DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED FIRST READING ORDINANCE TO AMEND ORD. 9500, ART. 15, SPI-2 AND 3PI-6 - "POLITICAL CAM- PAIGN SIGNS". Mayor Ferre: We're now on Item 22. Mr. Sergio Rodriguez: Item 22 is the amendment "K" for political signs. This amendment will allow temporary civic and political campaign signs in certain areas. Mayor Ferre: Now, let me ask you this, because I have now gotten the Coral Gables City ordinance which is a lot stricter than anything I have ever seen before and I also have here the copy of the Supreme Court Ruling on Los Ange- les and I might point out that to my amazement - well, I guess it's not surprising - the people that vote with the majority of the Supreme Court are the so-called conservative judges and that the dissenting judges that vote on this... Mr. City Attorney, it says Brennan filed a dissenting opin- ion in which Marshall and Blackman joined. That means that the three of them were opposed, is that correct? That's correct. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: That's correct. Mayor Ferre: The basis of the Supreme Court Ruling is that cities like Los Angeles and in our case Miami have a right, and that it is really not a violation of the First Amend- ment, you know, every time we start talking about Scarface or about pornography on television or about signs or some- thing the Miami Herald and everybody else around here goes bananas about our tampering with the First Amendment and here the Supreme Court of the United States very clearly rules that it is within the purview and it is not a viola- tion of the First Amendment for government to curtail polit- ical signs because it hampers the aesthetic values of the community. Would you explain basically what this ordinance would accomplish? Mr. Rodriguez: Are you asking me or the City Attorney? Mayor Ferre: Well, who else would I be asking? You're the author of this. Mr. Rodriguez: The ordinance is in response to your request and there was an opinion by the Law Department dated October 26, 1983 expressing the fact that we could not limit the different people that were running for the elections to have _ political signs. RT 140 6/28/84 Mayor Ferre: This is not a prohibition, I don't want to prohibit, all I want to do is limit. I don't think we should get involved in prohibiting political signs but what I am trying to do is to find some kind of a reasonable, and by reasonable I mean within a certain size and time of political signs. Now, I'd be perfectly happy with the Coral Gables ordinance. Mr. Rodriguez: I haven't seen that one. Mr. Plummer: Neither have I. Mayor Ferre: You haven't seen it? Mr. Rodriguez: No, sir. Mayor Ferre: You haven't seen it? Mr. Rodriguez: No, sir, specifically I haven't seen that in detail. Mayor Ferre: Have you seen any? Mr. Rodriguez: We checked for ordinances in different places and we worked with the Law Department to make sure... Mayor Ferre: Let me explain to you. Probably the most conservative city in Dade County is Coral Gables. I would recommend to you that in these type of things, Sergio, that you look, you know, obviously, it seems to me that you ought to be looking at what other cities in our own community are doing. Mr. Rodriguez: If I may say, sir, when we worked on this, because of the legal opinion from the Law Department, they were our basic guide as to what areas we should be covering in relation to the limitation of what signs could be allowed and we were guided by their advice in all the research that was done, it was very extensive by them as to political signs in different places in Florida. So based on that we tried to work out some recommendations as to possible limi- tations that we felt could be reasonable which is what you have in front of you today. Now, there could be arguments back and forth as to how far we can go into the timing which they will be allowed and things of that nature, but basical- ly what we have recommended have followed all the major cases that have been approved in Florida in the past. Mayor Ferre: Including the Supreme Court's Ruling of three weeks ago? Because when I first asked you to do this this had not come out. Mr. Rodriguez: No, right. Mayor Ferre: this is the Supreme Court Ruling now, this is the law of the land, the United States of America as of May 15th. Now, this is brand new. Mr. Gary: It's not law yet, Maurice. Mayor Ferre: I know, but I mean I can't ask you, but we have an ordinance here and are you recommending this? Mr. Gary: Well, you've got to ask two people, him and the lawyer. Mayor Ferre: Okay, forget the legal of it. What is it that we're going to do if we pass this ordinance? RT 141 6/28/84 Mr. Rodriguez: This will allow political signs in residen- tial areas up to a certain size and height for a period of time. Mr. Plummer: What about commercial areas? Mr. Rodriguez: Commercial areas they are allowed already. Mr. Plummer: Without a permit? Mr. Rodriguez: I can go into detail. This would not re- quire a sign permit, this will allow signs that will be a maximum of 16 square feet per site at a maximum height of 6 feet in residential areas. In commercial and industrial districts, the height and the area of the signs will be limited to half of what is allowed there now as all the regular signs that we have in the district. Mr. Plummer: Which is what? Mr. Rodriguez: It depends on each area. There are certain sizes which are allowed, depending on what district they are located. In cases of sign vehicles.... Mr. Plummer: Wait. Mr. Rodriguez: If you want .... Mayor Ferre: Look, let me put it to you this way. This is a free for all, this is not, you're not doing anything with this. Mr. Plummer: You're not accomplishing anything with this. Mayor Ferre: What you're doing is making it worse. I mean look, first of all you allow 16 square feet in 6 feet of height in residential. Mr. Plummer: That's crazy. Mayor Ferre: In commercial and industrial the signs are limited to the height of yard of the off site. Sign vehi- cles are limited to 16 hours per day. You know, come on. The South Florida Building Code, no signs shall be in- stalled .... Mr. Plummer: Well tell me, Maurice, what does the Coral Gables ordinance do? Mayor Ferre: The Coral Gables ordinance is a lot stricter. Coral Gables says, "A sign erected to advocate the candidacy _ of a party or an individual for elective office, an issue, cause or referendum is allowed", but then here are the restrictions: ... Go ahead. Mr. Rodriguez: If I may, in the opinion that we received from the Law Department, in the section that talks about the Baldwin Case, and I hate to get into this because I'm not a lawyer, but it tells us that the permit system provided for in Section 2025.3.11 with respect to temporary political campaign signs in excess of 15 square feet could be regarded as unnecessarily burdensome. Mayor Ferre: But see, the point I'm trying to make to you is that since the Supreme court ruled on the Los Angeles case I think you'd better revisit the whole issue and per- haps what we ought to do is just send it back to you and you ought to look at what other progressive major American cities are doing with regards to visual signs including Coral Gables. RT 142 6/28/84 Mr. Plummer: My concern happens to be the intersection of - 27th Avenue at Dixie Highway right now. Mayor Ferre: See, we've got elections coming up which is what I'm beginning to worry about, you take, for example, like US 1, there is that lot off of 22nd, I have already counted about 15 signs on top of that thing and it is just going to get worse and worse and worse. Mr. Carollo: Where is that, Mr. Mayor? Where I had my signs? Where? Mayor Ferre: I don't remember, did you? Mr. Carollo: You're saying just regular 4 X 8's? Mayor Ferre: I don't have any problems with - look, Joe, I've got no problems with political signs. I do have prob- lems with political signs at every corner, every intersec- tion of a very large size without any control forever and ever, and I think what I'm saying is we need to regulate it somehow. I think a reasonable sign on a commercial lot is no problem for me. Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, it cost me a lot of valuable cam- paign funds of my contributors to beat the City of Miami in court and, in fact, we made Florida Case Law, when we beat the City of Miami on that occasion. In the meantime... No, what the Supreme Court has said, and I received your memo- randum, it has to do with an issue that is quite different. The Supreme Court issued a statement that has to do with "Public Property" and not private property. And my issue had to do completely with private property, residential and commercial. Now on public property, I agree with you, if it is public property we should have some very strict regula- tions but when it comes to private property whether it is residential or commercial.... Mayor Ferre: And you think that people have the right to put any sign they want as big as they want as long as they want, it can hide the sun.... Mr. Carollo: Well, there have to be some limits but I think at least 4 X 8's like I had are very reasonable sizes. You ask Joe Gersten, the judge, I mean and many other judges... Mayor Ferre: Joe Gersten, father and son feel very strongly about this and I understand why. Mr. Plummer: They're already up. Mayor Ferre: But the point I'm trying to make is that, you know, your election is over and the City elections are over for now, we've got another series of elections coming up at the County.... Mr. Carollo: But I might have some candidates, Mr. Mayor, that I might be backing very strongly real soon and they might feel the same way as I did, they might want to put their signs up on private property. Mayor Ferre: And you have the right to express your posi- tion and I have the right to express my position and we need to get a proper legal interpretation as to what can and cannot be done and hopefully we can come to some kind of a reasonable consensus. Mr. Carollo: Well, I think before we do we should invite Alan Rosenthal, the attorney that represented me to come RT 143 6/28/84 before this Commission because I think if anybody is well appraised of the law and the limitations it is Alan. Mayor Ferre: I accept that. You see, it is like, for example, animals, whether it be farm animals or wild animals in residential properties. I do think that right now... Mr. Carollo: Howard is laughing, he didn't want to go for any additional depositions. Mayor Ferre: See, the fact is that right now the law per- mits anybody to have tigers, monkeys, spider monkeys, in my residential property and you can't tell me, as long as I've got a State License, you can't tell me not to do it. Now that doesn't make it right, as far as I'm concerned and I think we need to deal with the issue as to whether or not somebody can have one or twenty wild animals in a residen- tial property. By the same token, I do think that this whole question of political signs on residential properties that we as a government have certain rights just like we have zoning rights, just like you have a right to say that you can't build a building that will cast a shadow over somebody else's property all day. I mean we have certain rights. Now, I don't know what those rights are because it is a legal matter but in principle, I am saying we have got to get a handle on some of these, in my opinion, excesses in residential properties in political and any other kind of signs for that matter. Mr. Carollo: Well, what is in excess though? What is an excess, 250 signs, 300 signs? Mayor Ferre: Well, I think we have to talk about that. I don't mind saying that a 50' by 100 foot lot can have a certain size sign and a larger lot can have a larger sign, but I think we have to deal with the issue whatever it is that we come up with. It has to be reasonable, I'm not saying that we should prohibit signs. I am saying that we should deal with the issue. And it is not a personal issue now because I'm not running and you're not running so it isn't anything dealing with you or me right now, it is dealing with an issue. Mr. Carollo: Well, it is dealing with First Amendment rights, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: And the Supreme Court has been ruling on that in very different ways. Mr. Carollo: No, the Supreme Court, Mr. Mayor, don't mix the two items involved here. The Supreme Court Ruled on public property, not on private property. Mayor Ferre: It did not rule on that, you see. It says, municipalities have a weighty essentially aesthetic interest in proscribing intrusive and unpleasant formats for expres- sion. The problem addressed in 2804, the visual assault on the citizens of Los Angeles presented by an accumulation of signs posted on public property constitutes a significant substantive evil within the City's power to prohibit. By banning posted signs the City did no more than eliminate the exact source of the evil it sought to remedy. The validity of the City's aesthetic interest in the elimination of signs on public property is not compromised by failing to extend the ban to private property. That's the point. In other words.... Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor. That could be interpreted in different ways, RT 144 6/28/84 Mayor Ferre: Well, it can be interpreted by the Supreme Court in a very clear way, and you know, the English lan- guage is the English language. The Supreme Court has ruled on that. I'm not telling you that we're at a point where we understand all this, I think what I'd like to do is to send it back to the Law Department for further legal interpreta- tion after the Supreme Court Ruling and ask the Department to survey other cities and to come up with recommended reasonable limitations on both public and private property and we'll have a public debate on it at the right time. Mr. Carollo: And if you could call Alan Rosenthal, esquire. Mayor Ferre: And have Alan Rosenthal also be present in the discussion please, would you, please. And call Joe Gersten, the State Senator so that he can be present too. Okay? So on this matter, what are you doing? Mr. Plummer: I'd like to ask a question of the City Manag- er. Can the City right now without this ordinance, can we regulate how long a sign can be up? Mr. Gary: No. Mr. Plummer: Can we regulate as to whether they're safe or they're not? Mr. Gary: No. Mr. Plummer: Do you mean to tell me that those signs that blew out into Dixie Highway the other day into traffic, we have no control over? Mr. Gary: Well, let's put it this way: With regard to the security of the signs on commercial,yes - with regard to private property, no. Mr. Plummer: Okay, I'm talking about that on Dixie Highway just west of the Phillips Station. Mr. Gary: Is it private property? Mr. Plummer: I think yes. Mr. Gary: If it is private property and not commercial property the answer is no. Mr. Plummer: And we put a bond on them requiring them to remove them after the election is over within a specified number of days? Mr. Gary: Right now? Mr. Plummer: Yes. Mr. Gary: No. Mayor Ferre: Well, I removed all of mine. Mr. Gary: Yes, you removed them but the question was can we require them under current ordinance - no. Mr. Plummer: I didn't put any signs up, my brother was the recipient of all my signs. Mayor Ferre: We have a problem and we need to deal with it. I don't know what the solution is but we need to deal with it. RT 145 6/28/84 Mr. Plummer: Let's adopt the Coral Gables ordinance if that's legal and binding. Mayor Ferre: But let's look at it first, J. L., and let the Department look at it. Okay? Look, Mr. Manager, so we can move along I move that the Department be instructed to revisit this issue, Mr. Manager, for both public and private property. Mr. Carollo: Uh-huh. Mayor Ferre: Both public and private property and to come back with a specific recommended series of ordinance or ordinances and that before it be finalized that you have meetings with attorney Rosenthal and Senator Joe Gersten and that you also look at the Coral Gables law, the Supreme Court Ruling of May 15th and other pertinent information and come back and call a public hearing for the purposes of adopting an ordinance in the future. Mr. Plummer: Well, my three thoughts are (1) we regulate the size, (2) that they are safe, (3) that we are able to specify a time limit and (4) that a bond would be placed, that they have to place that bond and remove within a cer- tain specified number of days or we do the work and draw it from the bond. Mr. Carollo: And you have to pick the colors of the signs ahead of time so that nobody has the same colors. Mr. Plummer: I don't have any problem with that. Mr. Carollo: I've got orange and blue, Plummer, I don't know what you have. Mayor Ferre: Are you ready? Actually, you don't need any action on this, do you? 58. FIRST READING ORDINANCE. AMEND TEXT OF ORDINANCE 9500. PT,ANNFn nF1rFLnvMrNT DISTRICTS, LIGH PLANES, OFF-STREET PARKING REOUIREMENTS. HOME OCCUPATIONS. ETC. ----------------------------------------------------------- Mayor Ferre: Okay, we're on to the next subject which is what, Item 23. All right, this is a planned development housing district, public interest district and a whole other... Go ahead. Mr. Sergio Rodriguez: Item 23 which is Amendment F which was the result of the series of meetings that we had with the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee that you appointed in July of last year and the time expired on this and it is coming back to you so we started the process all over again. Mayor Ferre: This is on First Reading, are there any speak- ers to this? All right. Mr. Pablo Acosta, Jr.: My name is Pablo Acosta, I live at 8900 S. W. 76th Street. I have a question to the Commis- sion. I would like to know why the Rg-3 is not being in- cluded in this amendment. Mayor Ferre: All right, Sergio? Mr. Rodriguez: In what sense? RT 146 6/28/84 Mr. Acosta, Jr.: In what sense? I am an owner of an RG-3 lot on West Flagler Street and 31st and according to the requirements that you posted, that were given last July, 50 feet is required to be the width of the lot and now the new ordinance is it's 80% of the 50 feet as required. That is being applied only to the R-2 so the only thing that is ben- efiting from this new amendment is the R-2 and not the R-3. What about the taxpayers who own R-3 lots who cannot construct now? Mr. Rodriguez: We felt when this was discussed at the different meetings with the Committee that the exceptions that were being made in relation to one family detached and single family detached could be stretched all the way = through to multi -family and in a lot that narrow, and we are talking about the 80% exception, you know, we felt that it would not be appropriate to make that kind of exception for multi -family housing because the resulting development would not be in the best interest of the City. Mr. Acosta, Jr.: I see, and then I would like you to answer me one question more. What would be the difference then, or what is the difference between my lot which is 47.5 by 128 and neighboring lots nearby which I have the permit numbers and everything which are under construction which are 50 by 100, what is the difference? Mr. Rodriguez: A few feet. Sir, we can go into detail and discuss with you as to the affect that it may have on your property but the idea that we had with this was to try to reflect what it was in Ordinance 6871 prior to this new ordinance being in effect and what we tried to accomplish was to translate the exact requirements with some modifica- tions to adjust, to make it more flexible into the 9500 ordinance. In the past we had a requirement that single family lots and duplexes would be allowed to be developed if they had a minimum of 4000 square feet lots and multi -family lots if they have a 4500 square feet lot. What we are doing now with the ordinance with this section of the ordinance, is allow an 80% flexibility in the sense that if you meet the 80% requirement you will be allowed to build other- wise,.... Mr. Acosta, Jr.: Only duplex though. Mr. Rodriguez: Duplex or single family - Mr. Acosta, Jr.: But what about R-3, multiple family? Mr. Rodriguez: I would like to see specifically the case you're talking about to see if we are leaving anything out. So if you want to call us we can discuss that. Mr. Acosta, Jr.: Where can I get in contact with you? Mr. Pablo Acosta: Yes, my name is Pablo Acosta and I own this property and I want to know the Planning Department approved the regulation about 50 feet front, everybody know in Miami there's a lot of lots with 49.5, with 2 inches less, it is all over Miami. When the City made this regula- tion I believe the City had to make some study about that, no? What about the people having a lot with the 2 inches or 3 inches less because the specifications said 50 feet front? Mr. Rodriguez: This is precisely what we are doing, we are saying that if you meet 80% of the minimum requirement that you will be allowed to build under certain conditions. Mr. Acosta: Yes, in R-2. But the regulation said R-2, it - is the same as the R-3, that's what it says here. RT 147 6/28/84 �t 1 Mr. Rodriguez: I'm sorry, sir, where are you reading from? Let us look into that to make sure, I think that what we are proposing covers your case from what he has explained to me. But let us get together and try to find out what is the problem that you're having with recommendations that'we have and since this is going to come before the Commission for Second Reading July 31st, you will have some time between now and then to express your concern if you have any prob- lems with that. But I think we are covering the situation you are specifically talking about. Mr. Acosta: But only my classification, there are a lot off people in the same position like me with the two or three less inches in that lot. It was a legal plat in that way. fr The City accepted that kind of plat year and years ago. When you talk about 50 feet front you're supposed to say 50 feet front or 1% of the lot because a lot of lots in Miami are platted with two or three inches less. How can it be exact? It's impossible. - Mr. Rodriguez: That's what we're saying, that we're trying to allow the flexibility of 80% of that lot. 80% of 50 will be 40 feet. So if you were to have, according to this, and that is why I would like to see specifically your case, a lot that instead of being 50 is 40 feet, you will be allowed to build. Mr. Acosta: But allowed to ..... our street is a multiple family. Mr. Rodriguez: Well, you will be allowed to build whatever we are specifying in the amendment. Mr. Acosta: But the amendment says only the R-2. Mr. Rodriguez: I have to see what you are talking about specifically. Mr. Acosta: What I'm talking about, it says add to in the amendment... And the same regulations by applied for the R- 2 is the same regulation in R-3. What is the difference between that. Mr. Rodriguez: You see, the problem I'm having in under- standing you is that we don't have an R-2, we have an RG-2r RS-2 and so on. I don't know which one you're talking about. Mr. Acosta: I'm talking about R-3. Mr. Rodriguez: We don't have an R-3 zoning classification, we have RG-3 and RS-2 and RG-2. Mr. Acosta: That's what I mean, RG-3, multiple family. Mr. Rodriguez: I don't think this is the place to discuss this so I will talk to you after the meeting and try to find out exactly what is your problem and you have between now and July 31st to come back before the Commission to express your concern in relation to this amendment. Mr. Acosta: Thank you. RT 148 6/28/84 0 Mayor Ferre: Are we ready to vote on this now? This is on First Reading, we'll have an opportunity to discuss it again on Second Reading. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TEXT OF ORDI- NANCE NO. 9500, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING SUBSECTION 515.1 TO DELETE AN ERRONEOUS REFERENCE, SECTION 606 TO PERMIT CERTAIN FACILITIES IN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DIS- TRICTS, SUBSECTIONS 612.6 TO CLARIFY LANGUAGE PERTAINING TO LIGHT PLANES, SECTION 1568 TO CLARIFY OFF-STREET PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS, SUBSECTIONS 2000.1.1 AND 2000.1.2.1 TO CLARIFY LANGUAGE RELATIVE TO VARIATIONS IN FLOOR AREA RATIOS AND OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS, SUBSECTIONS 2003.5 TO CLARIFY LANGUAGE PERTAINING TO HOME OCCUPATIONS, 2008.8.1 TO CLARIFY RESTRICTIONS APPLICABLE TO MULTIPLE FAMILY DISTRICTS, 2102.1 TO INCLUDE ONE -FAMILY SEMI-DETACHED AND TWO-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS AND ADDING NEW LANGUAGE PERTAINING TO THE USE OF NON -CONFORMING LOTS, 2102.1.1 TO PROVIDE FOR CLASS C SPECIAL PERMITS FOR USES EQUIVALENT TO ONE -FAMILY SEMI-DETACHED, TWO-FAMILY DETACHED, AND ONE -FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS 2510.2.3 TO CLARIFY HEIGHT AND LIGHT PLANES, 2510.3.2 TO PROVIDE FOR NOTICE, 2510.2.3 TO CLARIFY HEIGHT AND LIGHT PLANES, 2510.3.2 TO PROVIDE FOR NOTICE; BY DELETING SUBSEC- TIONS 2802.2, 2802.2.1, 2802.2.2., 2802.2.3 AND SECTIONS 2800 AND 2802 TO ABOLISH PRELIMINARY APPLICATIONS, SEC- TIONS 2803 RELATIVE TO STANDARDS AND FINAL REVIEW OF CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS AND 3004 PERTAINING TO NOTICE REQUIRE- MENTS, SUBSECTION 3101.1 TO PROHIBIT FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCES, AND 3602 TO CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF "FAMILY"; FURTHER, BY AMENDING THE OFFICIAL SCHED- ULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS: PAGE 21 BY ADDING "RESIDENTIAL" TO THE TITLE OF TABLES 1 AND 2; PAGE 3, RO -1, RO-2, RO- 2.1, RO-3, RO-4, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE, TRANSITIONAL USES, STRUCTURES AND RE- QUIREMENTS, TO PROVIDE NEW TRANSITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND LIMITATIONS AND ADDING "NON-RESIDENTIAL" TO THE TITLE OF TABLES 3 AND 4; AND PAGE 4, CR-2, COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL (COMMUNITY), PERMISSIBLE ONLY BY SPECIAL PERMIT, BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS TO "NEW" AUTOMOBILES; CON- TAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. Was introduced by Commissioner Plummer and seconded by Commissioner Carollo and was passed on its first reading by title by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. RT 149 6/28/84 ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public - record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and to the public. ------------------------------------------------------------ 59• DEFERRAL OR PROPOSED FIRST READING ORDINANCE AMENDING 9500 - AMEND SEC. 2026- "SIGN LIMITATIONS" - REFER THIS BACK TO PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD. ------------------------------------------------------------ Mayor Ferre: We're now on 24 which is an ordinance on First Reading. This limits signs. Mr. Whipple: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, just going back in a little bit of history, as you know, we proposed a meeting or two ago that we establish a height limit for general advertising structures which 9500 had inadvertently left out. At that time, a public hearing before this board representatives of one of the billboard companies in the City approached the Commission and asked that (1) a greater height be permitted than what we were recommending, i.e., the 30 feet the Planning Department was recommending, 50 foot being requested and at that time the Commission said let's refer it back to the Planning Advisory Board and in addition, they said as long as you're going back to the Planning Advisory Board - this is the industry, we would like you to also consider introducing a spacing -- formula or spacing between signs and that you change the angle of the signs in relation to billboards adjacent to the expressway. Mr. Carollo: Mr. Whipple, it is my understanding that one of the Assistant City Attorneys took it upon themselves to interpret what I meant with the motion that I made on that occasion. Let me clarify myself as much as I possibly can. What I meant when I made that motion on April 26th was that I want the Planning Department and the Planning Advisory Board to have brought back to this Commission a recommenda- tion on whether or not we're going to have billboards and outdoor advertising on highways such as I-95, 836, 112, 195, etc.. I wanted a recommendation as to the height of the signs, the distance between the signs, whether or not the signs can abut these roads, very specifically with the current zoning regulations that prohibit signs within 600 feet or so from an expressway, and, of course, the angle of the signs and so on. I am sorry that even though I know the intentions were honorable, that this person did not come to clarify what the Commission meant, what I meant with my motion before they took it upon themselves to interpret it. But I would like to be clear on that motion what was meant by it and I would also like to have this recommendation back to the City Commission no later than the last Planning and Zoning Meeting that we have in July. Mr. Whipple: May I comment? Mr. Carollo: Certainly. Mr. Whipple: I have no problem, well, I don't know, we may - have a legal problem with respect to running changes back to the Planning Advisory Board, I just wanted to clarify your initial point. I'm not sure about the attorney's office, what they thought the request was, but we felt we were quite clear as to the request, and to be honest with you, we did not have it as you have stated it here this evening, so I RT 150 6/28/84 r just wanted you to know that the Department wasn't of that opinion either. Mr. Carollo: Mr. Whipple, I'm not blaming anybody particu- larly, I understand that. Mr. Whipple: As a matter of fact, if that is the request of the commission, that is what, in fact, should be, as you worded it, as your understanding, should be sent back to the Planning Advisory Board so that the proper amendment to accommodate that could be accomplished. Mr. Carollo: Well, Bob, should I make the statements that I made in the form of a motion or how should it be made? Mr. Robert Clark: It might help if you would identify the failure of this piece of legislation to comply with your original motion so that we could get further guidance. Mr. Carollo: Well, I've just done that, I think, by the statement that I made. Now, after having done that with the clarifications that I made, what would be the next step? Do we make a motion? Mr. Clark: I think the procedure that you just followed with respect to the prior ordinance is probably the one that you should be thinking about in this instance. Mr. Carollo: Well, let me specify for the record again what I want to accomplish. I want the Planning Department and the Planning Advisory Board to bring back to this Commission recommendation whether or not we're going to have billboards and outdoor advertising on the expressways that I've men- , tioned, I-95, 836, 195 and 112 and I want specific recommen- dations as to the height of the signs, distance between signs, whether or not the signs can abut these roads that I described here and mentioned here, bearing specifically with the current zoning regulations prohibiting signs within 600 or so feet of the expressway. And last but not least, the angle of the signs as to the expressways that are adjacent to them. I would want all this back before the last meeting in July for Planning and Zoning because August we're on vacation, otherwise we won't be able to take it up until September. Mr. Whipple: I'll have to seek the Law Department's guid- ance, but I think we're going to have a problem there in that we have to advertise and would probably, I don't know = whether we can get it on the last PAB Meeting in July or not but I am not sure that we can get it to the City Commission in time for the 31st, it would probably be the Meeting in September. We can do it - I'm being coached here - we can get it on the PAB but it would have to come to the Commis- sion in September. We cannot make the 31st. Mr. Stanley B. Price: Mr. Mayor and members of the Board, my name is Stanley B. Price. I'm with the law firm of Fine, Jacobson, Block and England representing E. A. Hancock Advertising, Inc. One of the problems we faced at the last Planning Advisory Board Meeting was the question of the City attorney permitted us to discuss the angle of the signs to the expressway but indicated we could not, it would be of no =_ moment in that there is another provision of the City Code which prohibits signs from being visible from expressways. We would like it perfectly understood that the Commission is asking the Planning Board to also review that aspect of the City Code and in addition, we would like some clarification �_ on the size of signs as they are presently written into the Ordinance 9500. We do not want to be caught once again with _ being able to discuss angles of signs but then having the RT 151 6/28/84 City Attorney instruct the Board that it is of no moment because once again you're not allowed to have signs visible from the expressways. - Mr. Whipple: Mr. Mayor, that is fine, what they are asking is that they be permitted, or that consideration be given to allow billboards along expressways specifically as prohibit- ed, and I'm just helping out, 2026.15.2 which is limitations on location, orientation of outdoor advertising signs in relation to limited access highways and expressways. Mr. Price: And visibility from the expressways. Mr. Whipple: Yes, sir, that is in the same paragraph. It contains visibility and it contains prohibitions and it contains the exceptions. That's what you're asking. Mr. Clark: Commissioner Carollo, do you want to include that in your mandate back or your referral back to the Planning Advisory Board and incorporate that concern? Mr. Carollo: That could be included in there, I have no objections to it. Mr. Whipple: Was that the reference that I made or the additional reference? Mr. Clark: No, the additional reference that Mr. Price had referred to, do you want the Planning Advisory Board to include that in their considerations. Mr. Carollo: Yes, I have no objections to that. Mr. Whipple: The other point, so that there is no confusion again, was the point that Mr. Price made with respect also clarification of sign size, do you want that included in the motion, sir? Mr. Price: Mr. Mayor, for clarification purposes we would like to be heard by the Planning Board on the 18th of July which is their next meeting, which under our computations would require an ad to go into the paper by July 4th. Mr. Carollo: Well, that's what you meant, of course, when you said that the Planning Board will be able to hear them in July. Mr. Rodriguez: We have time to put the ad for the July 18th - Meeting of the PAB, that is clear. Mr. Carollo: Fine, so you'll put it on the 18th then? Mr. Rodriguez: Yes, sir. Mr. Carollo: Because that is what I understood you said. Mr. Price: Was there a ruling on whether that could be heard on the 31st of July? Mr. Gary: No, we can't hear it on the 31st. Mr. Price: But we would still make the 90 day provision un- der the terms of the ordinance? =- Mr. Gary: Yes, you don't count August. v Mayor Ferre: All right, what is the action now that is needed by this Commission? RT 152 6/28/84 Mr. Gary: We have already got that - we have got the spe- cific directions and what I understand is that this matter is not to be taken up. You can continue it. No, you can't even continue it. Mr. Clark: Back to the P.A.B. Mr. Gary: Back to the P.A.B. - remand it to the P.A.B. Mayor Ferre: So what is the legal action that we need to do now? Mr. Gary: Just remanding it back to P.A.B. You will do it by motion. Mayor Ferre: Okay, Carollo moves, Plummer seconds. Further discussion that this is going to be sent back to the P.A.B. for further deliberation. Call the roll. The following motion was introduced by Commission- er Carollo, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 84-727 A MOTION REFERRING TO THE PLANNING ADVI- SORY BOARD A PROPOSED FIRST READING OR- DINANCE FOR TEXT AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 9500 REGARDING SIGNS, BILLBOARD HEIGHTS, BILLBOARD SPACING FORMULAE, LIMITS ON ANGLE OF BILLBOARDS, FROM LIMITED ACCESS HIGHWAYS, ETC, FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF SAME. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Note: The City Commission recessed from 7:15 to 7:45 and reconvened with Commissioners Carollo and Dawkins absent. 60. BRIEF DISCUSSION AND TENPORARY DEFERRAL OF A PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING A NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN (for the Silver Bluff area). Mayor Ferre: We're on Item 25. Mr. George Campbell: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commis- sion, at the previous Commission Meeting on May 10th we were asked to look into the possible traffic problems in the area bounded by 22nd Street, that's Coral Way, S. Dixie Highway, 22nd Avenue and 27th Avenue. This was engendered, of course, by the White Office Plaza development with their suggestion for closing off the end of 25th Avenue with a curbing. We looked into that, we went through the exercise, we contacted the various .... Mr. Plummer: Curbing or cul-de-sac? RT 153 6/28/84 Mr. Campbell: Well, it would be actually like a "T-turn-around". There is no room there for a proper cul- de-sac, it is only 60 feet wide. Mr. Plummer: The curbing you can go over. Mr. Campbell: This was one of the provisions, yes, that the curbing could be driven over. We met with thee Fire Depart- ment and the Police Department, they were not too happy about it, we discussed also with them the possibility of other ways of doing this. On June 7th we met with members of the Silver Bluff Homeowners Association at their regular monthly meeting, I think there were close to 100 people there at that time and we presented to them what we thought would be a viable approach. Now, I have some ... Mr. Plummer: I thought all of these people were in favor of this thing. What happened? Mr. Campbell: They weren't too favorable at that meeting, there were an awful lot of questions and there was a lot of discussion. Mr. Plummer: Is it the difference between a cul-de-sac and a curbing that got them upset? Mr. Campbell: I'm not quite sure what it was. My under- standing from the Meeting was that in general the people were concerned about closing it off. They were also con- cerned about the increase in traffic to be generated by the White Office Plaza. The Department of Public Works is not particularly in favor, in fact, we are opposed to closing off the end of the street. If you'll remember, we had a proposal similar to that up in the Belle Meade area where they wanted to close off the ends of several streets and leave one access through there. That was again a perceived problem of a lot of traffic filtering through there and crime and what have you. We looked at the area, we went out and did a check on the actual conditions in the area as far as the existing stop sign situation goes. What we found was this: This is the existing stop sign pattern in the area. We found that.... Mr. Plummer: Where is the White building? Mr. Campbell: It is up in this corner here. And we found that in looking at our records that most of these streets in here are 60 feet wide, the minimum is 50 feet but many of them are 60 feet wide. What happen traffic -wise, the traf- fic pattern here, when they come down to 25th Avenue they make their turn and then can come down without stopping until they get to 24th Street then they can turn right go around here. 24th Avenue is a straight shot through to Dixie Highway. Mr. Plummer: No. Mr. Campbell: We just went out and checked the location of all of these signs, sir. Mr. Plummer: You're incorrect. Mr. Campbell: Well, according to the information, according to the Department and the people that went out there, and they drove through the area and actually plotted the loca- tion of the stop signs, there was nothing to stop traffic going southbound on 24th Avenue until you came down here at this point. RT 154 6/28/84 Jok Mr. Plummer: That's correct, but not to Dixie. Mr. Campbell: I stand corrected. Similarly, on 23rd Ave- nue, you come down, there is a stop here, apparently they = have had some problems there so they have had two stop signs put in at this location and then they can go on down and pick up another stop sign at this location. This is a _= parallel roadway here with Dixie Highway. On 24th Street, this apparently, from what we saw was used as a bypass, people come down 22nd Avenue, cut across 24th Street because there is only one stop in the middle here and then this is an easy shot out onto 27th Avenue at this point. In looking at the area after this, we looked at it closely, and so that we could reverse some of the stop signs at these intersec- tions in yellow would be the reversals and with the possi- bility, after studying it and putting in 4-way stops at 3 locations which would break up the pattern of through traf- fic or help to break up the pattern of through traffic... Mr. Plummer: Mr. Campbell, may I suggest we take a break, you don't have a quorum. Mr. Campbell: As you wish, sir. Thereupon the City Commission recessed from 7:15 to 7:45 P.M. 61. APPROVE CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE RENTAL RATES AT THE MIAMI OUTBOARD CLUB FOR THE LEASE PERIOD TO BEGIN MARCH 11 1982 AND TERMINATING FEBRUARY 28, 1985. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 84-728 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CITY MANAG- ER'S RECOMMENDATIONS TO ESTABLISH THE RENTAL RATE FOR THE MIAMI OUTBOARD CLUB AT WATSON ISLAND IN THE AMOUNT OF $13,120000 PER YEAR PAYABLE MONTHLY FOR THE LEASE PERIOD WHICH BEGAN MARCH 1, 1982, TERMINATING FEBRUARY 28, 1985, AND TO WAIVE THE PERCENTAGE CHARGE OF GROSS INCOME AND THE PER CAPITA TAX TIMES THE NUMBER OF NON-RESIDENT MEMBERS OF SAID CLUB; AND, FURTHER, TO ESTABLISH THE RENTAL RATE FOR THE MIAMI YACHT CLUB AT WATSON ISLAND IN THE AMOUNT OF $16,326.29 PER YEAR PAYABLE MONTHLY FOR THE LEASE PERIOD WHICH BEGAN MARCH 1, 19821 TERMINATING FEBRUARY 28, 1985, AND TO WAIVE THE PERCENTAGE CHARGE OF GROSS INCOME AND THE PER CAPITA TAX TIMES THE NUMBER OF NON-RESIDENT MEMBERS OF SAID CLUB. (Here follows body of resolution, omit- ted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) RT 155 6/28/84 Upon being seconded by Commissioner Perez, the resolu- tion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio J. Perez, Jr. = Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins 62. DISCUSSION REGARDING CODE COMPLIANCE AT 3940 DOUGLAS ROAD. Mayor Ferre: We're now on 32 which is the Zoo on Douglas, the Douglas Zoo. Are these people have been sitting here all day waiting to talk about the zoo. Okay Gene, get the neighbors in. We're talking about the Douglas Zoo. Are you here representing the neighborhood? Mr. Manager, we're waiting to hear... Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor, we have a report. We'd like to give you a summary but we would prefer or we would suggest that the Mayor and Commission not respond in terms of particular issues or particular philosophy. Mayor Ferre: You just want us to listen and not talk? Mr. Gary: Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: Okay. Mr. Gary: There is a reason for that. Mayor Ferre: I understand the reason too. I'm listening. Mr. Jack Eades: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, the Manager submitted to you this morning a memorandum outlining the various actions taken by City Departments relative to 3940 Douglas Road. The Fire Rescue and Inspec- tion Services Department visited the site a number of times and found construction to have taken place in advance or beyond the limits of the building permit. A notice to stop work was issued and the owner is required to, through his architect to bring specific plans back to the Commission or to the Department, citing what work was done and try to bring it into conformance with the building and zoning regulations. The wall specifically around the property is, in fact, in excess of 8 feet in certain locations. There are some solutions available to the property owner to this. He has to deal directly with the Inspection Services Divi- sion of the Fire Department to make those corrections. The Police Department acquired the services of the State of Florida Game and Fresh Water Commission concerning the permit that they issued. They, in fact, have issued a permit for the keeping of wild animals at that location. We do have some legal questions of that which the Law Depart- ment is pursuing through Tallahassee. Mr. Carollo: Mr. Eades, how long has that fence been up and some of the other construction items? RT 156 6i28i84 Mr. Eades: Let me get you an answer to that, sir, I don't know right off the top of my head. Let me get a response. Since the first of 1984, January of 1984. Mr. Carollo: And it took six months for it to get to where we are now? Mr. Eades: This is where we are now, sir. Mr. Carollo: I'm glad we have established in the record the reasons why Building and Zoning was taken away from one area and brought to another. I won't make any further comments, I think I made my point. Mayor Ferre: All right, do you have anything else? Mr. Eades: No, sir, I think if I could just summarize. There are a number of deficiencies on that property that need to be corrected. The owner has been contacted by the Fire Rescue and Inspection Services Department, those defi— ciencies are being identified specifically and a course of corrective action for him. That may or may not involve the property owner having to come back to the City and request zoning variances. If that is the case, he will have to follow that process and may be before the Commission at a later date. Mayor Ferre: Well, you tell me if I begin to talk in areas that I shouldn't be talking about, but is there any reason why, for example, we should not take interest in Tallahassee in this? Mr. Eades: No, sir, we should take interest in Tallahassee in that. Mayor Ferre: I can say that, can't I? Mr. Eades: Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: Mr. City Attorney? Mr. Garcia —Pedrosa: We have contacted Tallahassee and we are in communication with the Commission. Mayor Ferre: Well, we have some friends I think that go up there... No? Okay. Anything else? Gene, do you want to add anything to it? Any further discussion on this item? All right, sir, we shall continue then 63. AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT "URBAN STUDIES INSTITUTE, INC.", BARRY UNIVERSITY, FOR OVERALL CONSULTANT SERVICES. Mayor Ferre: Did you say item 64? This is a resolution authorizing the Manager to execute professional services with Urban Studies Institute at Barry University to provide overall consultant services to review current police training. Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor, we can explain this. If you are going to do them, I would suggest you do 64, 65, and 66, because they are all related. RT 157 6/28i84 Li U Mayor Ferre: Are these non -controversial items? Mr. Gary: Yes, this is what you recommended. They are non- controversial. Mayor Ferre: I didn't realize they were $127,013. Mr. Gary: We invested in...if it is done right, we'd be saving a lot of money. Mayor Ferre: You are recommending this? Mr. Gary: Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: Any discussion? Mr. Plummer: Move 64. ' Mayor Ferre: Is there a second? Mr. Perez: Second. Mayor Ferre: Further discussion on 64? Call the roll. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 84-729 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, WITH THE URBAN STUDIES INSTITUTE, INC. AT BARRY UNIVERSITY TO PROVIDE OVERALL CONSULTANT SERVICES TO REVIEW CURRENT POLICE TRAINING WITH EMPHASIS ON RESPONSIVENESS TO THE MULTI -ETHNIC COMMUNITY OF THE CITY AND TO INCLUDE SUGGESTED RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE TRAINING METHODOLOGIES WITH FUNDS THEREFOR ALLOCATED IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $127,013 FROM FISCAL YEAR 1983-84 BUDGETED POLICE DEPARTMENT FUNDS. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Perez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins 64. AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA MEMORIAL COLLEGE - HUMAN RELATIONS TRAINING, FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. Mr. Plummer: Move 65. RT 158 6/28/84 Mayor Ferre: Plummer moves item 65. Mr. Perez: Second. Mayor Ferre: Perez seconds. Further discussion? Call the roll on 65. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 84-730 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, WITH FLORIDA MEMORIAL COLLEGE TO PROVIDE HUMAN RELATIONS TRAINING FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI POLICE DEPARTMENT WITH FUNDS THEREFOR ALLOCATED IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $73,000 FROM FISCAL YEAR 1983-84 BUDGETED POLICE DEPARTMENT FUNDS. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Perez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins ------------------------------------------------------------ 65. AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH VALLE AXELBERD AND ASSOC. TO PROVIDE CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR POLICE DEPARTMENT. Mr. Plummer: Move item 66. Mayor Ferre: Who is Valle-Axelberd? Are they local people? Mr. Gary: Yes, we've been using them, Mr. Mayor, for years. Mayor Ferre: O.K., moved by Plummer, 66. Is there a second? Mr. Perez: Second. Mayor Ferre: Second by Perez. Further discussion? Call the roll on 66. RT 159 6/28/84 The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 84-731 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY WITH VALLE-AXELBERD AND ASSOCIATES, INC. TO PROVIDE OVERALL CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR THE PURPOSES OF IDENTIFYING AND ANALYZING THE PSYCHOLOGICAL STRESS FACTORS PRODUCED FROM POLICE TRAINING ASSOCIATED WITH THE APPLICATIONS OF THE SME 33 SIMULATOR, WITH EMPHASIS ON SUGGESTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RESOLUTION OF INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSES DISPLAYED BY POLICE OFFICERS WITH FUNDS THEREFOR ALLOCATED IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $25,000 FROM FISCAL YEAR 1983-84 BUDGETED POLICE DEPARTMENT FUNDS. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Perez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins ------------------------------------------------------------ 66A DIRECT CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION TO ENSURE THAT ARCHITECTURAL RENDERINGS OF PROPOSED BUILDINGS TO BE BUILT ON ANY PUBLIC PROPERTY SHALL BE _ SUBMITTED TO THE CITY FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF FINAL PERMITS. ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ Mayor Ferre: Item 57, authorizing the Director of Finance to pay Marine Stadium Enterprises the sum of $35,821.00, in two equal payments, in full and complete settlement of any and all claims and demands against the City of Miami. Mr. Manager, do you want to explain that? Mr. Gary: I think that is the Law Department. Isn't it? Mayor Ferre: Law Department, do you want to explain that? Mr. Garcia Pedrosa: Yes, sir, this is a suit concerning a parcel of land on property located at the Marine Stadium, which was leased to the Marine Stadium Enterprises, Inc. It was for an allegation that we violated the Charter procedures in the bidding selection. There was a court proceeding on it, subsequent to which a new lease has been prepared and it allows the City to maintain the present interest to the Marine Stadium without having to build a new entrance. As a result of the court proceeding itself, the.... RT 160 6/28/84 Mayor Ferre: Is this a negotiated settlement? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes, sir, the amount was $35,000, almost $36,000. Oh, that is the negotiated settlement, $35, 821. Mayor Ferre: This isn't part of the savings you had last year in your budget? Is it? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: No, sir. Mr. Plummer: Move it. Mayor Ferre: This is a negotiated settlement that you negotiated and you recommend a deal? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes, sir, and there was a finding of a liability on the part of the City. Mayor Ferre: Do you feel this is a reasonable negotiation? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: Is there a second? Mr. Perez: Second. Mayor Ferre: Further discussion? Mr. Carollo: Who is involved in Marine Stadium Enterprises Inc.? Mayor Ferre: That's Hancock. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: They were co-defendants with us in the law suit. Mr. Carollo: Cc -defendant. Mayor Ferre: Oh, Hancock was a co-defendant. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Co-defendant. Mr. Gary: Rayburn sued us. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Sued us both. Mayor Ferre: Who are we paying? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: We are paying the plaintiff. Mayor Ferre: Who is the claimant? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Marina Biscayne Inc. Mayor Ferre: Is that Rayburn? Mr. Gary: Yes, he sued us. Mayor Ferre: This is the Rayburn thing going back and forth? Mr. Gary: Yes, you remember, Mr. Mayor, we changed the configuration for the entrance way to allow access.... Mr. Carollo: Taking about Mr. Rayburn, what is going on over there in the entrance to Rusty Pellican. There is a monstrous building going up. Mayor Ferre: They keep going up and up. RT 161 6/28/84 Mr. Carollo: Yes, they keep going up and up, a heck of an eye sore to that entrance. It just killed the whole, complete entrance to that place. Who ever approved that? Mr. Gary: You did. The whole Commission did. Mr. Carollo: When? Mr. Gary: This was brought before the Commission? Mr. Carollo: When? Mayor Ferre: I want to tell you something. I agree with Carollo on this. That thing is a monstrosity. Mr. Carollo: When? I never recollect that. Do you, Mr. Mayor? Mayor Ferre: I don't remember voting on it, no. Do you want to turn him on? Mr. Odic: Commissioner, that contract was before your time. Mr. Rayburn, as part of his deal with the City when he obtained the marina, had the right to build a restaurant right there. Mr. Carollo: Oh, oh, before our time. Yes, but is this the one that all of a sudden a lot of the beach was washed away and all kinds of excuses that I remember here of one time or another. Is this the one that had to do with that? Mr. Odic: I don't know what you are talking about. Mr. Plummer: He's not there anymore. He's gone. Mr. Odic: Rayburn sold his rights to Mack Brandon. Mr. Carollo: Let me tell you. That is a heck of an eye sore. I want to know what the heck is coming up in there. For instance, what are they putting in there? Mr. Plummer: Horatios Restaurant, I can tell you. Mr. Carollo: A restaurant? Are they going to have liquor in there? Mr. Plummer: Oh, yes, sure. Mr. Carollo: Doesn't that have to come before us for a liquor license? Mr. Gary: When you gave the lease to Rayburn for that property, it allowed all that just like it allowed Mr. Hancock to do what he does over at his place. That lease was in existence before I became Manager; I don't know, even before Grassie. Mayor Ferre: No, it was Grassie. Grassie negotiated that. There was a lot of heat and arguments as to why Grassie was being so generous and why he did, he went overboard. Don't you remember that whole thing? And Rayburn got a contract that now is beginning to plague us. But let me ask you this. How long is the lease for? Mr. Odic: Thirty-five years. Mayor Ferre: Let me tell you something, Mr. Manager, I want to make a ►notion right now. I don't know how you can do this, but you, Law Department come back with the legal way RT 162 6/28/84 of putting a legal handle on this. I would like to move that the Administration be instructed to come back in the future, any building on public property has to have an architectural approval of some sort, so that we have some kind of a handle and that I would like to ... you come back whether we put one architect, one planner, one landscape guy, one builder. I don't know. We have to figure out the formula, but we need to have some kind of a board.... Mr. Plummer: How about the Waterfront Board? Mayor Ferre: They don't know anything about this. We need to have specialists that will recommend to us the architecture of any building on public property that is leased. Let me tell you something. One of the things that I regret the most having done, and I did it in all good sincerity and good faith, was to let that restaurant go up here where the Chart House is. They built a restaurant with concrete walls that you can hardly see the bay. I'm sure the building was designed for Montana, or Utah, or someplace up in the mountains, and it has absolutely no relationship with the water. You can't even go out. There's no balcony. It totally misuses probably the most beautiful waterfront property to build a restaurant in Miami. They totally screwed it up. I tell you, when that thing started going up, I screamed bloody murder. ..IIm talking about the Chart House right next door. That is a monstrosity. I'm not saying that it is architecturaly bad for a restaurant in Denver, Colorado. I am saying that it is a monstrosity for where it is. Anybody with any architectural sense would have stopped it immediately, and we didn't have anyway to stop them. So, I would like to move that you come back with an ordinance where on any public property before a building goes up, that is has to have architectural approval before this body. Mr. Carollo: How many stories are they going up with? Mayor Ferre: Wait a minute. I'd like to move that as a motion. Mr. Carollo: Second it. Discussion, how many stories are they going up with over there? Mr. Odio: That's the height they are going to have, what you have seen so far . Mr. Carollo: How many stories is that? Mr. Odio: It's about two and a half levels, I think it ends up being. Mayor Ferre: Can they go up higher? Mr. Odio: No, they are not going higher. Mayor Ferre: But can they? Mr. Odio: I don't know, sir. I don't know what their permit allows. Mayor Ferre: Can you look into c-Lat and come back, because I'd like to see how we can put sot, a kind of restrictions or something, because otherwise that could end up being a monstrosity. Mr. Odio: It's a good restaurant, though. I have seen the plans that they have for it. It will be a, I think.... RT 163 6/28/84 Mr. Carollo: Nobody is questioning that, whether it is good or bad, the point is what concerns me is just that big mass of concrete is blocking the entrance to that marina and everything else there. Mayor Ferre: Well, come back with a report, Mr. Manager. Mr. Carollo: Well, maybe the bridge will cover it when it starts going up. Mr. Perez: We have to vote. Call the roll. The following motion was introduced by Mayor Ferre, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 84-732 A MOTION INSTRUCTING THE ADMINISTRATION TO COME BACK WITH PROPOSED LEGISLATION STIPULATING THAT, IN THE FUTURE, ANY BUILDING TO BE BUILT ON PUBLIC PROPERTY SHALL HAVE TO PRESENT TO THE CITY AN ARCHITECTURAL RENDERING, WHICH RENDERING SHALL BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY PRIOR TO FINAL PERMITS BEING GRANTED. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Carollo, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote — AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice=Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins ------------------------------------------------------------ 66B CLAIM SETTLEMENT: MARINE STADIUM ENTERPRISES, INC. $35,821.00. ------------------------------------------------------------ Mayor Ferre: Now we are back on item 57. Is there a motion on it? Mr. Carollo: Move. Mayor Ferre: I think it has already been moved. Hasn't it? Mr. Odio: Did you pass a motion on the settlement? Mayor Ferre: On 57, who moved it? Mrs. Matty Hirai: Plummer, Perez. Mayor Ferre: Ready to vote? Call the roll. RT 164 6/28/84 The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 84-733 A MOTION AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE TO PAY MARINE STADIUM ENTERPRISES, INC., THE SUM OF $35,821.00, IN TWO EQUAL PAYMENTS, IN FULL AND COMPLETE SETTLEMENT OF ANY AND ALL CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY OF MIAMI, ITS OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES, PURSUANT TO THE TERMS SET OUT IN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, AND UPON EXECUTION OF A RELEASE RELEASING THE CITY OF MIAMI, ITS OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES, FROM ALL CLAIMS AND DEMANDS, AND UPON EXECUTION OF THE SETTLEMENT DOCUMENTS. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Perez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins 67• AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT TO THE $19300000 REVOLVING LOAN FUND AND $120jOOO ADMINISTRATIVE CONTRACT BETWEEN MIAMI CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT, INC. AND THE CITY OF MIAMI - EXTEND CONTRACT PERFORMANCE PERIOD. ------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. Plummer: Is item 62 controversial? I'm told if we don't pass that, they are out of business tomorrow, Miami Capital. It's non -controversial. I move it. Mr. Gary: It's just an extension of time. Mayor Ferre: Plummer moves 62. Mr. Carollo: Second. Mayor Ferre: Second by Carollo. Further discussion? Call the roll on 62. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 84-734 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, TO THE $1,300,000 REVOLVING LOAN FUND AND $120,000 ADMINISTRATIVE CONTRACT BETWEEN MIAMI CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT, INC. AND THE CITY OF MIAMI IN ORDER TO EXTEND THE CONTRACT PERFORMANCE PERIOD FROM JUNE 30, 1984 TO DECEMBER 31, 1984. RT 165 6/28/84 (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Carollo, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins 68. DISCUSSION AND TEMPORARY DEFERRAL OF PROPOSED NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN FOR A PORTION OF THE SILVER BLUFF AREA (See label 70). Mayor Ferre: We are back to item 25. Let's continue. Mr. George Campbell: Anyway, we went out and looked at the area and we thought, the department, that rather than go in and just arbitrarily cut this off to exclude any traffic, you do a step at a time approach. First off, there should be a reasonable traffic survey here. Not just to determine the number of vehicles entering and leaving the area, but physical visual observation of where they are going, how they are circulating through the are; this can be done without much difficulty. Then, modify these routes, inhibit the traffic, make it a little bit more difficult for them to go through easily by reversing some of the stop signs and installing possibly four-way stops if necessary. This should aid in controlling the traffic. One of the questions that was brought out at our meeting with the property ownersthe homeowners was in the area to put four-way stops in everywhere. This doesn't work, as you well know. This _ is their more honored in the brief in the observance when you put all four-way stops in. So a few scattered through; one here, here and here. We felt three was sufficient, tended to break the pattern up. Now, if there is still a perceived problem, then a third alternative would be to then install small traffic circles as has been done in other cities with somewhat pretty good success, which slows down the traffic. It allows, for instance, the vehicle coming through to negotiate. We have checked this out with bus - sized vehicles that is the design of bus -sized vehicles, we checked with the Fire Department and the Police Department; they have no problem with it. We have checked with Solid Waste; their vehicles can negotiate these little round abouts that we are talking about with no problem. Again, this is the last final step. That is only if it is absolutely necessary. On June 19th, we wrote this in a memorandum to the Manager and we suggested that this traffic survey might be made a requirement of the platting process so that we could really determine what the impact of White Plaza is on the area. This is a schematic of what the little traffic circle would look like. As you see, it is fairly small. Landscaped somewhat, it is not heavily landscaped, but is sufficient to make it stand out with of course reflectors to alert the traffic. This has been successful in other cities where they have had serious problems in reducing the flow of traffic, in reducing the speed of traffic, and incidentally, reducing the incidents of accidents in certain cases. Where I say, in certain ld 166 6/28/84 cases, where they had high incidents of accidents. The accidents were reduced considerably. We checked with Seattle. We also checked with Berkeley, California, and with St. Louis, Missouri, where they have set up the neighborhood traffic systems engineer analysis for just this sort of thing; where they have a problem, they go in and look at it and make certain changes with the approval, of course, of the neighborhood, the property owners in the neighborhood. We, in the department would suggest that we enter into some program like this as a test case, rather than just closing off one intersection and ignoring the rest of the neighborhood. We've been in contact also with Dade County traffic people. They have a positive reaction to this. Our approach, they feel, is the valid approach to this, rather than going in and locking something off, to take it a step at a time, find out where the problems are, what they are, and them then solve the area problems rather than one possible problem at one intersection. Questions? Mr. Plummer: Can I tell you something? I want to tell you that we tried the four—way stops in my neighborhood. It didn't work. Mayor Ferre: Nobody stops. Mr. Plummer: We didn't try the rotundas. Mayor Ferre: Those rotundas are good because they stop you. When you go fast you hit them. Mr. Plummer: You mean if they are made out of rubber. Mayor Ferre: After you hit two or three, then you know you have to slow down. Mr. Plummer: Let us hear from the objectors. Mr. Arsenio Milian: My name is Arsenio Milian, for the record. I'm a property owner. I live on 2657 S•W• 23 Street. I've been hearing Mr. Campbell express his opinion about the reaction of the Homeowners Association of the members that attended that meeting. I think it needs to be clarified. The Homeowners Association, the people that attended that meeting were for the first time mostly were confronted with these situations because most of them do not live within the 325 feet of the affected area. What Mr. Campbell was presenting to them I would be opposed to myself. He had no consideration whatsoever of the additional traffic that was going to be generated by the White Office Plaza. He had no consideration whatsoever of another major point which is not traffic, but is the parking that is going to be resulting from the employees that are going to be working to be working at the White Office Plaza, who are not going to be paying parking, because they probably cannot afford it. So, the easy way is to go into the neighborhood and it is going to change the character of the residential area. So that is another consideration for the closure of the street. Mr. Plummer: You don't know Roger Carlton. Mr. Milian: Probably not, I haven't had the pleasure. The proposal that Mr. Campbell has presented to you is for stop signs. I am a civil engineer myself, so I know a little bit about what he is talking about. I can tell you that there will be no effect with the amount of traffic. Perhaps what you will do is to reduce the speed at which these vehicles are going to be driving, but it is not going to have a total effect on the volume of traffic that is going to be generated. The second proposal, of course, the islands that ld 167 6/28/84 he has mentioned, is exactly the same thing. There is no change in the volume of traffic that is going to be resulting from these large developments. It's just going to be reducing the traffic flow. I agree that perhaps the City of Miami should have a study of the entire area. However, at the present time we are going to be facing a change of zoning and the nearby neighbors that are going to be mostly affected by this change in zoning are the ones that are going to be hurt by the increase in traffic and I think some consideration should be made in conjunction with the change in zoning if —and then they can do all the studies they want. I have seen a lot of proposals for studies. One good example is the Pantry Pride area, where the developer proposed to have a study made. From what the neighbors tell me, it has never taken place. They never provided that study so far, and they were due back in February. I am very hesitant to see that a decision is made without consideration of the tremendous impact that it is going to have in this nearby area. I'm sure that the agreements that we have reached with the developer and the covenants that the developers have proposed, I think, will be in benefit not only of the developer, which we are not totally opposed, if the covenants are approved. If the covenants are not, and the closure of the street and the traffic is not addressed, we are totally opposed to the change in zoning. Some of the neighbors in the are are not present because they feel they have this defeat attitude that they think that there is nothing that they can do and that the City Commissioners are not going to be listening to them. We tall them otherwise. We tell them that we have to even at least try. That's why we are coming before you. I have some children that live in that area, are going to be very much affected by this change in traffic. There are a lot of people in that area that have their life savings invested. I think that should also be a consideration before you make a decision. Mr. Plummer: Let me understand from you. You have no problem with the change of zoning, if the covenants which include a blocking of the street are approved. Mr. Milian: That is correct, sir. Mr. Plummer: That's what I said before. Somebody said I was wrong. Mr. Milian: If those covenants are not approved, I would be totally opposed to it. Mr. Carollo: What they are asking for is something that is going to be extremely reasonable and it's not going to affect whatsoever any emergency vehicles that might need to go in that area, none whatsoever. Mr. Plummer: Joe, my problem was that it was my understanding that the neighbors were in accord. This morning somebody tells me, "No, the neighbors are not in accord." What they are not in accord is this plan. They are in accord with the blocking of the street. Mr. Milian: That is correct. The neighbors are opposed to that proposal that changes, adding stop signs all over the place. I am totally opposed to that. That is not going to solve the problem. Mr. Carollo: That is not going to solve the problem in that are with stop signs. Mr. Plummer: How about doing both? Id .: 6/28/84 Mr. Randy Simpson: My name is Randy Simpson. I live at 2248 S.W. 25 Avenue. The comments that some of the neighbors made was that it's kind of interesting how we have started the ball rolling finally about the addressing the problem that affects that entire neighborhood. The two things that are very much important to us all is being able to try to reduce the penetration of traffic into the neighborhood, as well as controlling what traffic does come into the neighborhood. The reduction of penetration is strictly designed to have a positive effect on parking, as a result of this office building, the parking garage is going to be right adjacent to the neighborhood, reduce parking in front of people's home, etc., as well as reduce the speed of traffic going through the area. Mayor Ferre: Let me ask you another question about the circles. Is there a statistical record where they exists whether or not they cause accidents where the people crash into these things? Mr. Campbell: I have a letter, an article.... Mayor Ferre: They exist all over Europe. The question is, somebody in a rush down the street where for three streets there is no circle, all of a sudden, there is a circle, bam! They run right into it. If there is a tree or something, they run right into the tree. Mr. Plummer: Look at Coco Plum. Mayor Ferre: Do people run into Coco Plum? That's a big circle. Mr. Plummer: I want to tell you that banyan tree has more notches in it than.... Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, I hope we can save a lot of time today. What it comes down to, really, is that the neighbors are realistical enough to understand that progress will be coming into that area. Maybe what some see as progress, others might have different definitions for, but nevertheless, the neighbors are in favor of it, I just want to protect their area and have that street blocked. I think we can save a heck of a lot of time if we establish our position. I think what they are asking for is something extremely reasonable. Mayor Ferre: I would just like an answer to that question. Then I'm ready. Mr. Campbell: On the reduction of accidents.... Mayor Ferre: Just give me a simple version of it. Would you? Mr. Campbell: O.K., in Seattle, they wanted to isolate the impacts of traffic circles on the accident rates. The total number of reported collisions -this is in a year before, year after period- total number of reported collisions was reduced from 33 to 3 as a result of the installation of the traffic circles, yielding a 91% decrease. Mayor Ferre: So you are telling me that traffic circles helping accidents. Is that what you are are saying? Mr. Campbell: Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: In your opinion? know. What else. O.K., that's all I warited to 1d 169 6/28/84 14 Mr. Sergio Rodriguez: I just wanted to say something on the record. I attended a meeting with the Silver Bluff Civic Association -I believe that's the name- and my understanding at that meeting was, unless there has been a meeting after that in which the neighbors have changed their position, that they were concerned about the change of zoning in the area and they even mentioned about the idea of a domino effect and the possible increase of commercial zoning and the effect that it will have on their property. They were surprised by the proposal. They were not receptive of a change in zoning in the area. Actually, they said they should eliminate the Planning Department because we were in - agreement with the developer. Mr. Plummer: That's not a bad idea. - Mr. Rodriguez: What, the agreement with the developer, or the Planning Department? Mr. Plummer: Both. Mr. Rodriguez: Seriously, I wanted to make sure that I put that on the record because my impression was that they are afraid that if the zoning goes through, they will have nothing left with because the developer will get the zoning and they won't get any concessions. But if they have their option, they would prefer the zoning change not to go through. Mr. Milian: I would like to clarify what Mr. Rodriguez has said. I have to agree with him. The great majority of the neighbors are opposed to the zoning change, including me in principle, because I think it is going to have a bad effect. However, I think we have to be realistic. The developer can have, as it is with the present zoning, he can have a building there, whether we like it or not. So, that is the reason why we have taken the attitude let's not entirely oppose and try to minimize the negative impact that this - building could have on the neighborhood. That is the only reason ... I have to agree with Mr. Rodriguez. I think, in principle, we are not in agreement. We don't like the idea of the zoning changes. I think that the great majority of the people there are opposed to it. However, as it stands, and I say this again, I think the developer can do something with his property. He's entitled to do it. So, that's why we have taken the approach of meeting with the developer and try to work a compromise that will minimize the negative impact. That's our position. Mr. Rodriguez: I would say that probably the most important aspect of this zoning change is that we are not dealing with this zoning change by itself, but by approving this zoning change, as you know, and we have mentioned to you before, we are opening up the door to possible zoning changes adjacent to this area. Mayor Ferre: I tell you what, my position last time around was that I was in favor of the zoning change, but I was opposed to the closing of the street unless we made some substantive studies, and that for that purpose we're going out to Seattle to see how that system works. I'm willing to do this. Are you recommending these circles? TAPE 18 Mr. Campbell: Our recommendation is the circles as the last resort. We would like to go through and do a study, make whatever adjustments there are in the stopping conditions. Id 170 6/28/84 Mayor Ferre: I'm willing to vote on this thing this way. This - is one person's opinion here. I'm willing to vote for the zoning change, provided however, that we proceed with the closing of streets on the basis that we're going to have to come up with between now and the opening of that project, for the whole neighborhood including circles, if necessary. We're going to have to do this all over the City of Miami eventually. Mr. Gary: Conditional zoning? Mayor Ferre: What's the legal way for me to do that? Mr. Gary: You can volunteer that the study has to be done before he opens up, if he wants to. Mayor Ferre: Can they get financing by doing that? Can you volunteer that the study has to be concluded and finished before you open it up? Mr. Robert H. Traurig: No, sir. Mr. Rodriguez: May I suggest a possible way? Mr. Traurig: We could agree that we would contribute to the cost of the study, that we will contribute not only dollars, but our services, and that we will work very closely with this neighborhood, which has been very cooperative. Mr. Milian's attitude has been wonderful. Mr. Simpson's attitude has been wonderful. We're very pleased with the opportunity to work with them. We have committed to them that we will continue that effort until we can conclude this to protect the neighborhood against that infiltration. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Manager, there are four people on this board right now. My vote is I'm willing to vote for the zoning change, provided t,owever, that we approach the closing of streets on neighborhood basis between 22nd and 27th Avenue, and between 22nd Street and Dixie Highway. That be designated as a neighborhood and I don't mind closing the street or streets, depending on what it is that you come back with, including circles in a certain area. I don't know how else to do it. I'm certainly not willing to close a street. I just can't go for that. Mr. Traurig: Mr. Mayor, you have three different items on the agenda. The first item gives you the opportunity to develop this concept. The second item deals with the internal alleyways within the site. The third item is the zoning change. Assuming that your colleagues on the Commission concur with you that the Commission and the City Administration ought to undertake a study, I think that can conclude item 25. We are offering our unlimited support to that effort. We're offering to help fund the study and to provide our services in connection with it, my services, David Plummer's services, and the services of Mr. White's organization. Mr. Perez: Mr. Milian, the Mayor's proposition satisfies the neighbors of the area? _ Mr. Milian: I don't believe so. The reason that it does not, and I tried to go over it with you again is once the change of zoning is granted, there is no way that you can reverse it. If they do a study and that, for any reason, cannot be legally closed, then we would have been wasting all of our time and efforts in reaching a compromise. Mayor Ferre: I tell you what, I'm so confident that this study is going to be positive, that I would be willing to say that the study does not solve the problem on a neighborhood basis, then I would be willing on a one-shot basis ... you are talking about the closing of one street, which in effect is 25th Avenue. 51 171 June 28, 1984 11 Mr. Milian: because this affected. Mr. Mayor, the reason we are requesting this is is the area that is going to be most heavily Mayor Ferre: Milian, I don't blame you at all. But my vote cannot go for the legislation on a slip shot basis on a one-shot kind of a thing. If we're going to do it on a neighborhood basis, in a carefully planned way, then I'm for it. What I'm saying, I'm taking one step further now. What I'm saying is that if at the end of the process, and the study and the plan and the trip to Seattle and everything that you come back with, nothing else works, then I would concede that I'm willing to vote for the closing of 25th Avenue before they open. I'm willing to do that at that time. But that is the last resource. In other words, if everything else has failed and we can't come up with a neighborhood plan before they open, we'll have to close off 25th Street. Mr. Milian: Mr. Mayor, the only problem that I have with that, and you're saying that it's just a one-shot deal, in effect we're changing the zoning as a one-shot deal. We haven't looked at the entire neighborhood and how it will be affected, and the changes in zoning that are going to be taking place. So, if we're going to do something on a one-shot deal, which is changing the zoning, I think we should take a look at the change also the protection of the neighborhood on a one-shot deal. Then we can do all the studies that are necessary. Mayor Ferre: I've already bent my position twice and I just can't go any further than what I've said. I'm willing to vote for the zoning change. I'm willing to vote for the closing of 25th Avenue, if after we have concluded our studies and after everything has been done, there is no solution, we have no agreement, you will have a vote from this Commission, if it passes, that 25th Avenue must be closed before they are given a certificate of occupancy. So I, in effect, am agreeing with you. It's a question of timing. Mr. Plummer: You'll get no less than the cicsure of the avenue. Mr. Walter Pierce: You cannot condition the zoning action to a certificate of occupancy. You can't condition a zoning change at all. Mr. Plummer: They can volunteer to agree to it. Mayor Ferre: They can volunteer that they will not get...is that legally binding? Mr. Carollo: of course it is. Mr. Pierce: You have to have that property agreement in hand. This is second reading. Mayor Ferre: I'm saying is it legally binding on them that they volunteer that they will not open their building until 25th Avenue is closed at that particular corner? Mr. Carollo: If they volunteer it, it certainly has to be. Mayor Ferre: Mr. City Attorney? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes, sir. Mr. Carollo: volunteering closed? Mr. Traurig, you heard the question. Are you that you will not legally open until that street is sl 172 June 28, 1984 Mr. Traurig: I've heard the question. They won't be able to build the project if we had given a covenant, which is a matter of public record, which the title insurance policy will pick up, which says that we may never get it if this Commission some day in the future ... you and I know that this Commission has committed itself. I have total confidence that will be done. But the title insurance policy will reflect that as an encumbrance. I'm sure that we will not get the construction with that outstanding. Mr. Carollo: The bottom line is this, as I see it. Let's try to go right to it. Even if we vote upon it right now to close that street, there is nothing binding in this Commission, there's never would have been, for us to come back next week and say we want it open again. What is binding is once we give them the zoning, you can't come back on that. So let's not kid each other all along. Would you have any objections just to go ahead and vote upon it now to close it to satisfy all the neighbors that have legit concerns? Mayor Ferre: As long as it is clearly understood on the record and legally that this Commission would have the right to open up the street again if we're not satisfied with the way it is working, or a future Commission. Mr. Simpson: If the street is closed and you want to experiment with it and see how it goes later on, I think all the neighbors would be in total agreement with that. Mayor Ferre: In other words, if we come up with a plan which requires the opening of that street, and the closing of another street somehow.... Mr. Simpson: I think that would work fine because then you are taking a comprehensive attitude toward the entire neighborhood. That's what we really want. Mayor Ferre: I don't have any objections to doing it that way. Mr. Carollo: Then let's do it that way. Mayor Ferre: Before we do it legally, let's get in the record, Mr. City Attorney, I want you to tell me that if we close off 25th Avenue so that we can proceed, we're giving these people the zoning change they want, and in the future, if we come with a comprehensive plan, and that comprehensive plan requires the opening of that now closed street, that we can re -open it and that we won't have a law suit. I mean, I can't ask you to guarantee against a law suit, but in your legal opinion, the City of Miami has the right to re -open the street. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes, that is correct, Mr. Mayor. You have that on the agenda too for closing on item 48. Mayor Ferre: I have no objections to proceeding this way. INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD. ------------------------------------------------------------ 69. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TO ORD. 9500 SEC. 2026 - "BILLBOARD SIGNS", ETC. ------------------------------------------------------------ Mayor Ferre: While you are arguing the legal part of this, let me put into the record a letter which I have on item 24. This is a letter from the South Florida Chapter of the American Institute of Architects signed by the President, Jerome Fyler, which in effect voices their concern and their objections to the sign and billboard legislation of the City of Miami, saying that the sl 173 June 28, 1984 proposed sign of 50 feet is excessive and that not in scale with urban structures, that the billboard placing, although in control, is not one that would necessarily lessen the number of new signs and locations is our said land use pattern. Mr. Plummer: Then they should be aware that the item was deferred. Mayor Ferre: They are directing the prohibition of billboards along expressways and the chapter would strongly urge the Commission to turn down any proposed amendment that would lead to elimination of this prohibition. You've all received copies of this letter. Mr. City Clerk, you would you acknowledge it to Mr. Fyler and inform Mr. Fyler that the matter is deferred and is being sent back to the P.A.B. INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD. 70. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING OF PROPOSED NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN FOR A PORTION OF THE SILVER BLUFF AREA; VAC/CLOSURE OF ALLEY IN CONNECTION WITH PLAT NO. 1169-C "WHITE PLAZA SUB". Mr. Traurig: Mr. Mayor, I think we have accomplished the objectives of the neighbors in protecting the neighborhood so that a certificate of occupancy will not be issued except under certain circumstances. Mayor Ferre: Have you worked out the legals of all this now? Mr. Traurig: Yes, sir. It's all in the hands of the City Attorney until his resignation. Mr. Plummer: You mean the lame duck over here? Mr. Traurig: Yes, the lame duck. Mayor Ferre: Mr. City Attorney, what are we doing? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Mr. Mayor, the problem is, as was pointed out a moment ago, that the ordinance in 48, even if you approve it today, of course, does not become effective until 30 days from now. So, in order to achieve the same result in a way that can be accomplished immediately, I have in my possession, as required by law a covenant to which the following sentence has been voluntarily proffered, of course, to which the following clause has been added: "The owner agrees that it will not apply for a certificate of occupancy on the property until S.W. 25th Avenue, south of S.W. 22nd Terrace, has been closed or a comprehensive neighborhood traffic study has been completed, approved, and implemented." That clause has been initialed by the representative of the owner. Mayor Ferre: Are you ready to vote on it? Mr. Plummer: May I inquire as to whether we're voting on 25, 26, or 27? Mayor Ferre: 25 is the first one that we need to vote on. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: 25 is just a discussion. I think what you need to do, Mr. Mayor, is vote on 26 and 27. When you vote on 27, consider the voluntarily proffered covenant that I have just referred to. Mr. Carollo: Do we need to vote on 26 first? sl 174 June 28, 1984 Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Traurig, how many square feet did you and I sit - down and figure those alleys were? Don't laugh, Mr. Plummer, you were there also. Mr. Traurig: I don't recall, Mr. Plummer, but I would like.... Mr. Plummer: Sir, I'd be glad to refresh your memory as to the ... what is your computation? Mr. Campbell: Total square footage for the alleys to be closed 24,000. Mr. Plummer: Excuse me? That sounds high. Mr. Campbell: The total square footage of alley is 14,280 square feet. Mr. Plummer: We weren't far off, Bob. Mr. Traurig, do you recall, sir, what you thought approximately a square foot of property was worth in that area? Mr. Traurig: No, sir, because I don't think that a square foot of usable property has the same value as the square foot of alley, which can only be used by the owner. We would like to make an offer to you, sir, of a contribution to the City for use in parks of a $1.25 for each square foot that is being closed, which is a contribution of approximately $17,500, which would be used in the community parks system. That is consistent with the contributions made by others. I said $1.25 per square foot, based on 14,280 would be somewhere between $17,500 and $18,000 into the park fund, which we think is a very fair offer. Mr. Plummer: That's a good place to start negotiation. Mayor Ferre: Would you consult my advice here for a moment? Mr. Traurig: I think I do this every meeting. Mr. Plummer: I think Mr. Traurig, that you have your figures just reversed. You and I agreed on $75,000. You talked about $10 a square foot and then we came down to $5. Where are you going to come in? Harold, you're not going to get out for less than $25,000. That's where you are. Mr. Mayor, I would like to make two changes. Mr. Traurig, I don't think that you are really concerned except that it goes for the good of the City. Mr. Traurig: I do think that there has been a concern in the part of the Administration for improvement of the park system. We would like to make the offer based on that. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Manager, I would like to take the money that they are proffering to the City. My colleague, Commissioner Joe Carollo has and wants to establish a fund for a rewards of criminal activity and directly related to drugs. We have no funds at this particular time for that. I would like to see that this money of $25,000, establish that fund for the Police Department to use in the program offered by Commissioner Carollo. Predicated on that, I will move item 26. I move item 26 with those amendments. Mr. Carollo: Will you repeat them again? Mr. Plummer: That their proffer of $25,000 will establish the fund that you wanted to create for reward money to be given by the Police Department in those areas of criminal activity, i.e., or more specially drug related. sl 175 June 28, 1984 Mr. Carollo: Good, and we still have to get the Chief to come back and ask for that. Mr. Plummer: But that will establish the fund of $25,000. Mayor Ferre: Is there a second? Mr. Perez: Second. Mayor Ferre: Further discussion? Mr. Carollo: Now, Mr. Mayor, under discussion, would it be appropriate that we establish a date at this time, based upon their opening date of when the street will be closed? Mayor Ferre: The street must be closed at least 30 days before the opening of this. Mr. Carollo: When do you envision the opening day is going to be? Mr. Traurig: Approximately 15 months from now. Mr. Plummer: Do you have any problem with closing it next month? Mr. Traurig: No, we're going to try to expedite that. Mr. Carollo: Next month. Mr. Plummer: The alley or the avenue? Mr. Carollo: The avenue we are talking about. Mr. Gary: He's talking about the street. Mr. Carollo: The avenue he is talking about. Mayor Ferre: What for? Mr. Plummer: Why not? Mayor Ferre: There is no construction. There is no activity. Mr. Plummer: To give the neighbors some relief. Mr. Simpson: That gives you time to start your comprehensive planning, and if it is going to be opened, it gives you a chance to experiment. Mr. Gary: Are you going to close the street now? Mr. Plummer: Sure, why not? Mr. Campbell: May I suggest.... Mr. Plummer: I understand, but also tied with 26 is the closure and the comprehensive study. Mr. Gary: No, no, that's 27. Mr. Plummer: Then we are premature. We'll address that next. Mayor Ferre: Do you want to do 27 first? Mr. Plummer: No, do 26. I've made a motion. Mr. Carollo: On 26 the point I'm trying to get across is to establish a date for the closing; ►.could August the 1st? Mr. Gary: That is item 27. sl 176 June 28, 1984 Mr. Carollo: We can do it on 27. Mr. Gary: We are on item 26. Mr. Carollo: Well, let's jump to 27 and then we'll do 26. Mr. Gary: There is a motion on 26, Joe. Mr. Carollo: I know. J.L., can you withdraw your motion and make it for 27? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Oh, no, you don't want to do that. You want 27 to apply to the closed street. Mr. Carollo: O.K., Plummer just made a motion for 27; I seconded it. Now, open for discussion, included in the motion, if it is all right with the maker of the motion, that the street will be closed by August 1st. Is that all right with you. Mayor Ferre: I tell you, you have enough people to vote on that without me, but I won't be on that vote. I won't be on that vote because I see absolutely no sense in closing that Avenue until that building is near completion. Why are you closing up the avenue? Mr. Gary: You are talking about the street. Mr. Carollo: No, the Avenue. Mr. Gary: The law doesn't allow you to do it right now. Mr. Carollo: Mr. City Attorney. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Mr. Mayor, item 26, do we have a graph of this thing? I think we are confusing the alley with the street. Mayor Ferre: No we are not. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Well, you can't close the street just now or say that you are going to close it August 1st. Mr. Walter Pierce: You can't close the street until July 30th or 31st. Mayor Ferre: You are talking about the avenue. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: The avenue, correct. You can't do that today, Commissioner Carollo. Mr. Gary: Because the law does not allow you to do it. You have to pass 48 first. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Then you have to allow 30 days after 48. Mr. Gary: The law that permits you to close the street, Commissioner Carollo, is not in effect. It's on second reading the day of item 48. It doesn't become effective until 30 days after you vote for it today. 5o for you to vote to close the street now would not be technically legal. Mayor Ferre: He can vote for it, it just won't be closed.... Mr. Gary: Exactly. Mayor Ferre: ....for 30 days. Mr. Gary: No, no. sl 177 June 28, 1984 Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: No, you don't have any basis on which to vote for it now. You don't have any mechanism in the Code. Mr. Carollo: So, we can't pick a date until the second reading. Then we can pick a date. Mr. Gary: This time it is second reading. Thirty days after today it goes into effect on law. Then at the next City Commission meeting, you can vote to close that street. Then the law would allow you to do it. Mayor Ferre: Where do we stand on item 27? Are we ready to vote on it? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: No, let's do item 26 first, Mr. Mayor, please. Mr. Carollo: Demetrio, J.L., do you understand that? After it comes back again, then we can install the date. Any problems with that? Mr. Plummer: As far as I am concerned, they can put it in tomorrow. Mr. Carollo: Demetrio, any problems with that? Mayor Ferre: The City Attorney is requesting that we do 26 first. Why is that? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: So that your change of zoning will clearly apply to the whole property without any question being raised about that. Mayor Ferre: Do you have any objections to that? Mr. Carollo: None. Mayor Ferre: So we are back on 26. Plummer moves; Carollo seconds 26 with the proviso that have been proffered. Is that it? Mr. Traurig: Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: Are we ready to vote on this? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: That's the $25,000 fund proviso. Mayor Ferre: Are we ready to vote to vote on the resolution 26? Call the roll. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 84-735 A RESOLUTION CLOSING, VA�,ATING, ABANDONING AND _ DISCONTINUING THE PUBLIC USE OF THE NORTH/SOUTH ALLEY AND THE EAST/WEST ALLEY LOCATED IN THE BLOCK BOUNDED BY SOUTHWEST 25TH AND 27TH AVENUES AND SOUTHWEST 22ND STREET (A/K/A CORAL WAY) AND SOUTHWEST 22ND TERRACE, ALL AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PLAT #1169-C "WHITE PLAZA SUB". (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Perez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote- - sl 178 June 28, 1984 AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins 71. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION AT 2226 S.W. 25TH AVE. AND 2511-2575 S.W. 22ND TERR. FROM RS-2/2 TO CR--2/7 - Mayor Ferre: We are back to item 27. Carollo moves; Plummer seconds. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Mr. Mayor, this being a public hearing, also on a second reading, I think the neighbors want to say something else about the 27th problem. Mayor Ferre: Does anyone else want to add anything else other than what has been said already? Mr. Simpson: Commissioner Carollo has already discussed it, and Commissioner Plummer too. We're trying to get a date and make sure this thing actually takes place, as opposed to giving lip service and some sort of covenant. I think we're leading towards that now, anyway. I think some of my questions have been pretty much answered. Mayor Ferre: Are we ready to vote? Call the roll. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Let me read the ordinance on second reading. Mayor Ferre: Call the roll. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 9500, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF APPROXIMATELY 2226 SOUTHWEST 25TH AVENUE AND 2511-75 SOUTHWEST 22ND TERRACE, MIAMI, FLORIDA (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN) FROM RS-2/2 ONE FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL TO CR-2/7 COMMERCIAL -RESIDENTIAL (COMMUNITY) BY MAKING FINDINGS; AND BY MAKING ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES ON PAGE NO. 43 OF SAID ZONING ATLAS MADE A PART OF ORDINANCE NO. 9500 BY REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE 3, SECTION 300, THEREOF; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of May 10, 1984, was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the Ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and adopted by the following vote- sl 179 June 28, 1984 AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. -_ Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 9859 The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record = and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and to the public. 72. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: AMEND CITY CODE SEC.54-17 - PROVIDE FOR PROHIBITION OF VEHICULAR ACCESS TO A PARTICULAR STREET WHERE SUCH PROHIBITION IS FOUND TO BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. ------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor, item 48 would probably be appropriate to take up at this time, because that deals with the other issue. Mayor Ferre: Take up item 48. Mr. Carollo: Item 48. Mr. Gary: This allows the law, allows you to close the street. Mr. Carollo: Move. Mayor Ferre: This amends the Code by adding a new section providing that vehicular access to particular street can be prohibited. Seconded by Commissioner Perez. Mr. Plummer: As soon as this passes, can I apply it to Bay Heights? Mayor Ferre: Yes. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Now if you want to close the street on 31st, you'd better.... Mayor Ferre: Mr. City Attorney, on the record, this does not preclude the City Commission in a future date, if something doesn't work out to reverse it. Is that correct? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: That is correct, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: Further discussion? Does anybody want to speak to item 48? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: J.L., if you wanted to put now public hearing for the 31st to close the avenue, now you have to do it. Mayor Ferre: Read the ordinance. Call the roll. sl 180 June 28, 1984 AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, AS AMENDED, BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 54--17 PROVIDING THAT VEHICULAR ACCESS TO A PARTICULAR STREET BE PROHIBITED AT AN INTERSECTION WHERE SUCH PROHIBITION IS FOUND TO BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC; PROVIDING A PROCEDURE TO OBTAIN SUCH PROHIBITION; AND, PROVIDING FOR A CUL-DE-SAC OR OTHER TURN AROUND ON STREETS WHERE VEHICULAR ACCESS IS PROHIBITED; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of June 14, 1984, was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Perez, the Ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetric Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE N0._9860 The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and to the public. ------------------------------------------------------------ 73. ACCEPT PROPOSALS OF KURFEST COMPANY AND SLACK, SLACK & ROE, INC., M.A.I. APPRAISERS - REVIEW OF LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND BAYSIDE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP FOR DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION] LEASING AND MANAGEMENT OF THE BAYSIDE SPECIALTY CENTER. Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor, if I may, the item with regard to the appraisals, I'd like to get that out of the way for the Rouse project. Mr. Plummer: What number is it? Mr. Gary: No, I just gave it to you right there. It's two appraise ... you told me to bring it back to you. This is appraisals for the Rouse project. Mayor Ferre: Bayside lease appraisals, right? Mr. Gary: Correct. Mayor Ferre: Bids for appraisals, this is the Kurferst Company and Slack and Roe for a fee of $6,650 and $12,000, respectively. Why are they so different? Mr. Gary: Those are the bid prices. Mr. John Gilchrist: Sir, we had a range of bids from $6,650 to $35, 000. If you look at the very last document on the exhibit, you'll see what we asked them to perform. sl 181 June 28, 1984 Mr. Plummer: Isn't there an item here on the agenda? Mr. Gary: That deals with something else. Mayor Ferre: Is there a motion on these appraisals? We need to move on with Park West. Is there a motion? Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I have not even read them. I move. If no Commissioner objects within 48 hours, it's approved. If they do, it'll be carried over to the 31st. Mayor Ferre: Moved by Plummer. Is there a second? Mr. Plummer: With that stipulation. Mayor Ferre Second by Carollo, with the stipulation that there be a 48 hour veto. Further discussion? Call the roll. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 84-736 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PROPOSALS OF THE KURFERST COMPANY AND SLACK, SLACK & ROE, INC., M.A.I. APPRAISERS, FOR FEES OF $6,650 AND $12,000, RESPECTIVELY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF _ DETERMINING IF THE TERMS OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT _ BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI AND BAYSIDE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP FOR THE PLANNING AND DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, LEASING AND MANAGEMENT OF THE BAYSIDE SPECIALTY CENTER RESULT IN A FAIR RETURN TO THE CITY, PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY'S CHARTER. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Carollo, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins 74. AUTHORIZE EMPLOYMENT OF C.M.S. INTERNATIONAL TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANT SERVICES REGARDING ARBITRATION WITH MIAMI CENTER ASSOCIATES CONCERNING APPORTIONMENT OF OPERATING COSTS FOR WATER EXPENSE AT THE CONVENTION CENTER. Mr. Gary: The next one is we have a dispute at the convention center in terms of how much the developer should pay for electricity and chilled water. We have before you a third party who is going to go and evaluate the usage of both parties and that's going to be binding. It's going to cost us $4,500. I just need the City Commission to bless that. Mayor Ferre: Who is the third party? sl 182 June 28, 1984 i Mr. Odio: It's between the City and.... Mr. Gary: Who is the third party? - Mayor Ferre: Who is the third party? Mr. Odio: C.M.S. International. _ Mayor Ferre: Who is C.M.S. International? T Mr. Dean Hoffineister: It's an outside consulting and engineering firm that was mutually selected by the developer. Mayor Ferre: Wait, I'll ask you again. Who is C.M.S. International? Here is the kind of answer I want. It's is a New York Engineering firm, owned by Mr. Castro, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Morgan. It does work all over the United States in these types of things. Now, that is an answer that I'd like. Or, yQu can say, C.M.S. is a local outfit that does engineering work, $2,000,000 a year. It is a over the stock company; I don't know who the stockholders are. I'll ask again. Who is C.M.S.? Mr. Hoffineister: It is a local consulting engineering firm that has done work before for the City and for other developers in the area. Mayor Ferre: Who are the principals of C.M.S.? Mr. Hoffineister: The principal that we have been working with is Mr. Nestor Martinez. Mr. Plummer: It is a minority firm. Let me ask a question. It would seem like to me in the form of a dispute, the losing party would pay for the arbitration. If we are the guilty party, we should pay it. If they are the guilty party, they should pay it. Mayor Ferre: J.L., this is an important thing. Mr. Plummer: So what? Mayor Ferre: If they come to an agreement on $4,500 a piece.... Mr. Plummer: Why should we pay it? Mayor Ferre: Why should they pay? Mr. Plummer: The loser pays it. Whoever the binding arbitration says is at fault, let them pay for the repairs and pay for the $4,000. Mr. Odio: J.L., let me explain this. It's more complicated ... I didn't want to get into this. We're talking about the hot and chilled water equipment. They feel they should only be paying depreciation on certain parts of the equipment. We feel that they should be paying depreciation on all of the piping and everything else. Mr. Gary: Because they use it. Mr. Odio: So you need this and we have to go 50/50 because we need to resolve this. It's a $600,000 that are pending. Mr. Gary: Come on, J.L.! Let me get this out of the way. They owe us money. We have to get our money. Mayor Ferre: Plummer moves. Demetrio Perez seconds. Further discussion? Call the roll. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: sl 183 June 28, 1984 MOTION NO. 84-737 A MOTION AUTHORIZING THE EMPLOYMENT OF C.M.S. INTERNATIONAL, INC. TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANT SERVICES REGARDING ARBITRATION IN A DISPUTE WITH MIAMI CENTER ASSOCIATES OVER THE APPORTIONMENT OF OPERATING COSTS FOR HOT AND CHILLED WATER EXPENSES AT THE MIAMI CONVENTION CENTER. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Perez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio J. Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins ------------------------------------------------------------ 75. AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT RENTAL REHABILITATION GRANT FROM H.U.D. TO INCREASE SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE STANDARD HOUSING FOR LOWER INCOME FAMILIES. Mr. Gary: Item 52, this is a H.U.D. grant for $696,800 for rehab. Mayor Ferre: You better get Carollo back here because I have two or three things that I'm leaving over from this morning. Go ahead. Mr. Gary: Item 52. Mayor Ferre: Can't say no to that. Plummer moves 52. Perez seconds. Further discussion? This accepts rental rehabilitation program grant monies to the tune of $696,800. Further discussion on the acceptance of this money from the government? 52, call the roll. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 84-738 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT A RENTAL REHABILITATION PROGRAM GRANT FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) FOR $696,800 TO INCREASE THE SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE, STANDARD HOUSING FOR LOWER INCOME FAMILIES; AND FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT THE PROGRAM DESCRIPTION TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT FOR APPROVAL. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Perez, was passed and adopted by the following vote - the resolution sl 184 June 28, 1984 AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None . ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins ------------------------------------------------------------ 76. AUTHORIZE AGREEMENT WITH METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF DADE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM - 9TH YEAR. ------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. Plummer: I move item 60. Mayor Ferre: Plummer moves item number 60. Mr. Gary: That is money coming from Dade County to support Miami Capital. Mayor Ferre: It's been seconded by Carollo. Further discussion on 60? Call the roll. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 84-739 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, WITH METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPLEMENTING A PORTION OF DADE COUNTY'S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM DURING THE NINTH YEAR TO FUND A PORTION OF MIAMI CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT, INC.'S ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGET; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT A TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM DADE COUNTY IN THE AMOUNT OF $56,204 CONTINGENT UPON APPROVAL BEING GRANTED BY THE METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY COMMISSION. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Carollo, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins sl 185 June 28, 1984 77. DIRECT CITY MANAGER TO CHOOSE FROM A LIST OF INDIVIDUALS TO FORM A COMMITTEE TO EVALUATE THE CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Manager, I have three things that I e r. Plummer, we have a matter on cable television, which is to evaluate the franchise and to determine the viability of the company under the franchise as well as what the other accounting request. I would like to propose the following committee which the Manager will choose five to seven members to serve on this committee to recommend the company that is going to do this. Bob Dickenson, who is the Vice -President of Marketing of Carnival Cruise Lines, Dr. Willy Robinson, the President of Florida Memorial College, David Blumberg, local developer, Mr. Armando Codina, Father Jose Nicksee, in charge of Communications for the Archdiocese of Miami, Mr. Steve Cohen, of Touche Ross, Mr. Bill Allen, President of Pan American Bank of Miami, Father Neil, President of Villa Nova University of Miami, Sister Jeanne O'Laughlin, President of Barry College, Mr. Don Lefton, of the local hotel operation, and Rev. Antonio Ramos. You choose five to seven of these people I have mentioned to be a selection committee. Come back with a recommendation for the independent consultant. I so move. Mr. Carollo: Second. Mr. Perez: Call the roll. The following motion was introduced by Mayor Ferre, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 84-740 A MOTION DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO CHOOSE FROM 5 TO 7 OF THE HEREINBELOW LISTED INDIVIDUALS WHO SHALL COMPRISE A COMMITTEE WHICH WILL BE ENTRUSTED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF EVALUATING THE CABLE TV FRANCHISE TO DETERMINE THE VIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THE FRANCHISE AS WELL AS TO LOOK TO THE OTHER ACCOUNTING REQUESTS: 1. BOB DICKINSON, VICE PRESIDENT OF MARKETING, CARNIVAL CRUISE LINES. 2. DR. WILLY ROBINSON, PRESIDENT FLORIDA MEMORIAL COLLEGE 3. DAVID BLUMBERG, DEVELOPER 4. ARMANDO CODINA, BANKER 5. FATHER JOSE NICKSE COMMUNICATIONS, ARCHDIOCESE OF MIAMI 6. STEVE COHEN, TOUCHE ROSS 7. BILL ALLEN, PRESIDENT PAN AMERICAN BANK 8. FATHER NEIL, PRESIDENT OF VILLA NOVA UNIVERSITY 9. SISTER JEANNE O'LAUGHLIN, PRESIDENT OF BARRY COLLEGE 10. DON LEFTON, HOTEL OPERATOR 11. REV. ANTONIO RAMOS Upon being seconded by Commissioner Carollo, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins sl 186 June 28, 1984 78. INSTRUCT CITY MANAGER TO REVISIT ZONING IN THE INDUSTRIAL AREA OF ALLAPATTAH, PARTICULARLY, IN THE VICINITY OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS. Mayor Ferre: Secondly, I would like to move that the City Administration be instructed to revisit the industrial area in Allapattah to see whether it is time for us to rethink the way we have industrial zoning in that area, especially in the vicinity of the railroad tracks. I so move. Mr. Carollo: Second. If there is no further discussion, could we have roll call? The following motion was introduced by Mayor Ferre, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 84-741 A MOTION INSTRUCTING THE CITY MANAGER TO REVISIT ZONING IN THE INDUSTRIAL AREA OF ALLAPATTAH IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT IS TIME FOR THE CITY TO RE -THINK INDUSTRIAL ZONING IN SAID AREA; PARTICULARLY, IN THE VICINITY OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Carollo, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins 79. REQUEST CITY MANAGER TO BRING BACK FOR DISCUSSION A REQUEST TO RENAME 15TH STREET AS "ALVAH CHAPMAN STREET". Mayor Ferre: Mr. Plummer, we have the question of renaming 15th Street for Alvah Chapman. This matter was previously discussed. We asked the Memorials and the Plat Committee to vote on this. We haven't gotten an answer on it. I would like to move that 15th.... Mr. Gary: Maurice, it's in the Plat Committee now. They meet once a month. It's in there. Mayor Ferre: The Plat Committee has not met on this. You'll bring it back from the Plat Committee? NOTE FOR THE RECORD: Proposed Resolution (Agenda item No. 53) rest a uling tie City Commission meetings in July had already been passed and adopted by the City Commission at the meeting of June 14, 1984, as R-84-617. ------------------------------------------------------------ sl 187 June 28, 1984 11 81. SECOND READING GRAMMATICAL, CHARTER. ORDINANCE: CHARTER AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CORRECT SYNTACTICAL AND LINGUISTIC ERRORS IN THE Mayor Ferre: Take up item 49. Item 49 is Charter Amendment No. 1 on grammatical errors, syntactical and linguistic errors. Does anybody here wish to read this or speak to it? Is there any discussion on item 49? It's been moved by Perez; seconded by Plummer. Do we have to read it? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Just the title. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE SETTING FORTH A PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT, KNOWN AS "CHARTER AMENDMENT NO. 1", AMENDING THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY CORRECTING GRAMMATICAL, SYNTACTICAL, AND LINGUISTIC ERRORS ELIMINATING OBSOLETE OR REDUNDANT PROVISIONS, AND RESTRUCTURING AND RENUMBERING CHARTER SECTIONS AND PARTS THEREOF FOR CLARITY; INSTRUCTING THE PROPER CITY OFFICIALS TO TAKE ALL NECESSARY ACTIONS FOR SUBMISSION OF SAID PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT TO THE ELECTORATE AT A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON SEPTEMBER 4, 1984; AND CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of June 14, 1984, was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Perez, seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the Ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 9861 The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and to the public. ------------------------------------------------------------ 82. AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENT WITH SPARBER, SHEVIN, SHAPO & HEILBRONNER, PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION, FOR SERVICES OF ARTHUR E. TEELE, JR. TO REPRESENT THE CITY BEFORE THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT. Mayor Ferre: Take up item 61. This is for Arthur E. Teele, Esq. of Sparber, Shevin, represent us in Washington. Mr. Manager, the record, that I fully expect, because of and Arthur Teele that we will do better things that hopefully we will achieve with the purpose of hiring Shapo & Heilbronner to I want to put this on my conversations with than $42,000 worth of the same way, the same sl 188 June 28, 1984 conditions that we put on Cramer and that we put on all the lobbyists and legal representatives that we have on these issues. I just want to put that on the record, so we understand. Who moves 61? Mr. Gary: Well, you were the one that wanted him. Mayor Ferre: Moved by Demetrio Perez. Is there a second? Plummer seconds. Further discussion? Call the roll. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Perez, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 84-742 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY WITH SPARBER, SHEVIN, SHAPO & HEILBRONNER, PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION, FOR THE SERVICES OF ARTHUR E. TEELE, JR. ESQUIRE, OF COUNSEL, TO SERVE AS REPRESENTATIVE AND REPRESENT THE CITY BEFORE THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, TRANSPORTATION AND OTHER APPROPRIATE FEDERAL AGENCIES; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE PAYMENT OF $42,000 AS A YEARLY FEE FOR SAID SERVICES AND AN ADDITIONAL SUM OF UP TO $12,000 YEARLY TO COVER EXPENSES INCURRED DURING THE TERM OF SAID AGREEMENT, WITH FUNDS ALLOCATED THEREFOR FROM THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE, PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, IN THE AMOUNT OF $13,500 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1983-84 AND FROM SPECIAL PROGRAMS AND ACCOUNTS, LIAISON IN WASHINGTON, D.C., IN THE AMOUNT OF $40,500 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1984-85. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio J. Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins 83. CONTINUED DISCUSSION REGARDING CABLE T.V. - COMMENT BY MAYOR MAURICE FERRE. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Manager, on the question of that committee that you are going to choose five to seven members on the cable television. I would hope that committee would be in place by the next time we meet, and that it would start deliberating and that it would conclude and choose, select a consulting firm, certainly before we break, certainly by the time we get back from our August break. Mr. Gary: Maurice, everybody is going to be on vacation, including me. Mayor Ferre: July? sl 189 June 28, 1984 Mr. Gary: In August. Mayor Ferre: I'm talking about July. Mr. Gary: But next meeting you said the committee!. Mayor Ferre: I would hope that you would choose the committee next week. You would empanel it and they would come back with a recommendation, and hopefully by the 31st they would have a recommendation for you. Mr. Gary: Maurice, it doesn't work that fast. Mayor Ferre: Well, then it would be the next meeting after the August break. Mr. Gary: Can't do it in such a short period of time. INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD. 84. DISCUSSION AND TEMPORARY DEFERRAL OF AUTHORIZATION TO ISSUE RFP'S FOR A U.D.P. FOR THE OYERTOWN/PARK WEST —PHASE I PROJECT. Mr. Herb Bailey: I thought we were talking about item 37. Mayor Ferre: The problem is we have an objection that we don't do 37 in this kind of a quick basis. Mr. Bailey: I don't know, Mr. Mayor, what he has to say as an objection. We, for the third time, have tried to get the opportunity to market the first phase of this redevelopment Overtown/Park West. If we don't get a permission to do it at this meeting, we won't be able to market until September or October. We have to go to the County Commission after you make your approval or either make your comments regarding this RFP. The County has scheduled it to be on their agenda by the 12th. We have been in constant communication with Mr. Brigham over there. I do think that perhaps we can sort of at least hear what he has to say in a very short period of time. Mayor Ferre: I don't have any objections to staying and listening to this matter. I just want you to understand that I think, you are dealing in a very sophisticated, complicated legal matter. That's a good lawyer over there. I'm going to tell you something. We just go into this thing and on a thirty second basis just flip it out like that. He's going to take this thing to court and he's going to have good grounds to stand on. Mr. Gary: Well, Mr. Mayor, we all want this project to succeed. We've had this on the agenda for a couple of months. We've even postponed it for counselor over here. Mr. Brigham: No, sir, you didn't postpone it for me. I objected at another 9:00 o'clock session and it was continued on that occasion. At the last meeting it was Mr. Dawkins that moved it to be continued. Mr. Gary: If you would allow me to finish. At the last meeting, the counselor raised objections, Mr. Mayor in terms of what we had in the document. Mayor Ferre: The problem, Howard, is that Mr. Brigham, representing his client or clients, has been here all day, or at sl 190 June 28, 1984 least all afternoon. The point is that here it is 9:12 and all of a sudden we are bringing this up now. I know it is not your fault; it's not my fault and it's not his fault, but you know, I'm willing to stay. Mr. Gary: My concern, Mr. Mayor, is that puts us in a hell of a position, because this project failed because we have been delaying it and delaying it and delaying and the costs constantly go up and up and up. Interest constantly dies and dies and dies _ because the developers use confidence in the process. Mayor Ferre: I'm willing to stay and listen to it. You go right ahead. Proceed. Mr. Plummer: You mean if you get a third person here. Mayor Ferre: I'm willing to stay as late as you want. I don't want anybody to say I wasn't willing to stay. By the way, I'm willing to vote on the emoluments right now, as I've said. If Carollo has left, then I'm awfully sorry. Let's proceed. We're on item number 37. — 85. PROVIDE FOR SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON SEPTEMBER 4, 1984 FOR APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF MEASURE KNOWN AS "CHARTER AMENDMENT NO. 1." Mayor Ferre: I'll take up item 67. Mr. Plummer: What is that? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: That's calling the election for Charter Amendment No. 1, that you just adopted, Mr. Mayor. That should .be non -controversial. Mayor Ferre: Plummer moves. Perez seconds. Further discussion? Call the roll. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 84-743 A RESOLUTION CALLING AND PROVIDING FOR A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON SEPTEMBER 4, 19841 FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI FOR THEIR APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL, A MEASURE KNOWN AS "CHARTER AMENDMENT NO. 1"0 AMENDING THE CITY CHARTER BY CORRECTING GRAMMATICAL, SYNTACTICAL, AND LINGUISTIC ERRORS; ELIMINATING OBSOLETE OR REDUNDANT PROVISIONS; AND RESTRUCTURING AND RENUMBERING CHARTER SECTIONS AND PARTS THEREOF FOR CLARITY. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Perez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio J. Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. sl 191 June 28, 1984 ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins 86. APPROVE AND CONFIRM CITY MANAGER'S ACCEPTANCE OF A $40,240.98 GRANT FROM METRO FOR CHILD DAY CARE SERVICES. ------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. Gary: While we are waiting, Mr. Mayor, take up some money from Dade County, Item 51. It's for child day care. Mayor Ferre: Take up 51. Mr. Gary: They are giving us $40,000. Mayor Ferre: Perez moves. Plummer seconds. Further discussion? Call the roll. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Perez, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 84-744 A RESOLUTION RATIFYING, APPROVING AND CONFIRMING THE CITY MANAGER'S ACCEPTANCE OF A $40,240.98 GRANT FROM METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY TO PROVIDE CHILD DAY CARE SERVICES TO CHILDREN FROM LOW- INCOME FAMILIES: AND FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY CONTRACT(S) AND AGREEMENT(S) TO IMPLEMENT THE PROGRAM. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio J. Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins ------------------------------------------------------------ 87. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: AMEND EXISTING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT APPROPRIATIONS ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE FOR LAND ACQUISITION FOR THE "CONVENTIONAL PUBLIC HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM. ------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. Gary: Are you settling this $2,000,000 thing from the money we have already spent? Look, if we lose $2,000,000 because the Federal Government doesn't give us the money.... Mayor Ferre: What item is that? Mr. Gary: 45. Mr. Plummer: Demetrio, do you have a problem with item 45? sl 192 June 28, 1984 Mr. Gary: The Commission already voted to spend this money. It is reimbursing us money back. We are $2,000,000 in the hole. Mayor Ferre: We can only vote on it on first reading. We can't vote on second reading. Plummer moves, Perez seconds item 45 on first reading only. Read the ordinance. Ms. Matty Hirai: We have to call the roll, Mr. Mayor. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 9534, ADOPTED DECEMBER 9, 1982, THE EXISTING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS APPROPRIATIONS ORDINANCE, AS AMENDED BY APPROPRIATING THE AMOUNT OF $2,219,000 FOR LAND ACQUISITION FOR THE CONVENTIONAL PUBLIC HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FROM ANTICIPATED LAND REUSE PROCEEDS PROVIDED BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HUD TO FUND THE SITE ACQUISITION FINANCING SHORTFALL; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. Was introduced by Commissioner Plummer and seconded by Commissioner Perez and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio J. Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and stated that copies had been furnished to the City Commission and that copies were available to the public. ------------------------------------------------------------ 88A SECOND READING ORDINANCE: (A) AMEND CODE CHAPTER 22 ENTITLED: "GARBAGE AND TRASH" - RE LOCATION OF DUMPSTERS. (B) INSTRUCT CITY MANAGER TO REVISIT THE ISSUE OF ABSENTEE GARBAGE FEES. Mayor Ferre: Take up item 47. Ms. Marilyn Reed: I have a problem with that. It would take a little more time than I'm sure you're going to be willing to allow. I have a very severe problem with this. Mr. Gary: Why do you have a problem with it? Ms. Reed: What would be the date it would come back? Mayor Ferre: There is a motion that item 47 be continued. Mr. Gary: Hold on, now, I have problems with consultants get paid and get into the administration. Mayor Ferre: Plummer moves. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Until July 30th. Mr. Plummer: What is your problem? sl 193 June 28, 1984 Ms. Reed ; I thought you didn't want to take time to go into it. It's on page 2, that whole paragraph. I have serious problems about inequity here. This is changing service charge for empty _= apartments. I want to go into that and give you some facts, because I really have a serious problem with that. Mr. Gary: If we take that philosophy, that means we would have very little police protection in Overtown. Ms. Reed: I dislike being charged to pick up garbage that doesn't exist, Mr. Manager. I would rather take the time to give you the facts, if you wouldn't mind continuing this. Mr. Gary: If that is the case,if for every vacant apartment, we cut out services, then we are going to have a total effect on - collecting garbage in this town. That applies to every municipal service. If we take that approach, we wouldn't have any education for our kids, because those who don't pay for education.... Ms. Reed: I understand that, but this is a hardship that I would have to explain to you that is being imposed on those of us who have a handful of rental units. I can't pay garbage for an apartment that was empty seven months last year. This year my apartment has been empty for four months. I was in Tallahassee for two months. Mr. Gary: That's a personal problem. Ms. Reed: We have no garbage, but I have to pay for it. So, I think something more equitable should be built into the ordinance. Maybe we can get some better language that is acceptable. That's all I'm asking for. Mayor Ferre: I don't have any problems voting for this and revisiting that issue. Mr. Gary: Let's go with it. Mr. Perez: What was the citizens committee recommendation that we appointed? Mr. Gary: The citizens committee recommended it. We are ready to go with this thing. That's why we have trash in the streets. Mayor Ferre: I'm ready to vote for it right now. Mr. Perez: I am ready to vote. Mr. Gary: Let's go with it. Mayor Ferre: There is a motion by Commissioner Perez. Mr. Plummer: Peter. Mr. Peter Joffre: I have questions on it too. Mayor Ferre: We'll come back and revisit it. Mr. Reed: I think it would be easier if we didn't do that so late at night. It's a public hearing. Mr. Gary: What does that have to do with this ordinance? This is enforcement. This has nothing to do with the garbage fee. Ms. Reed: On page two, Mr. Manager, in the next to the last paragraph, that's where the problem is. Mr. Gary: Mr. Mayor, I recommend that we vote on this. We have wasted enough time trying to get the City clean. I have Demetrio sl 194 June 28, 1984 U -- Perez always worrying about the City being clean. This is going to help us. Mayor Ferre: Are you ready to vote on this? Mr. Plummer: Peter brought a point to me about.... Mr. Gary: No, I resolved his problem. Mr. Plummer: No, there is a real problem about approved containers and one other item. Mr. Gary: Hey, J.L., we approved that. — Ms. Reed: I have no problems with containers and all that. — Mr. Gary: Why don't you approve this subject to Miller having the right to veto it. Let's move with this thing, man. Mr. Plummer: Let's do it this way. Let's move it subject to any Commissioner having a veto by next Wednesday. If no Commissioner =_ objects to the ordinance by next Wednesday, then it's approved. Ms. Reed: That doesn't allow public input. This is a public hearing. It would take me more time than you want to give me tonight. Mayor Ferre: Marilyn Reed is technically right. Mr. Gary: Let her talk. Mayor Ferre: You have the right to talk. Go ahead. - Ms. Reed: I didn't want to hold up Overtown. Mayor Ferre: No, I don't want to deny you your right to talk. - Ms. Reed: My problem is the language here. It says "and _- temporary vacancies shall not authorize or refund or excuse the non—payment of waste fee." Again I tell you.... INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD. Mr. Clarance Patterson: Mr. Mayor, that's not new in the ordinance. That's currently in the ordinance. That has nothing to do with this ordinance whatsoever. Mr. Gary: That's existing. R Ms. Reed: It's underlined. That means it's new. Mayor Ferre: Mr. City Attorney, is this a new part of the =_ ordinance or this the existing ordinance. Mr. Garcia —Pedrosa: It is an addition, Mr. Mayor, but this is the way it has been for a long time. Ms. Reed: What I'm saying, Mr. Mayor, is I think we need to look at the language —maybe we can do it later— to give situations = like I'm describing to you ascertain kind of relief. There may be a formula you can come up with. Mayor Ferre: Marilyn, I'm willing to do this. It's already in the law. After we pass this, I will pass a motion that the Manager be instructed to visit the question of absentee people paying fees when they are not in the apartment. Ms. Reed: Maybe we can work out a formula so they can be identified. sl 195 June 28, 1984 - p Mr. Gary: No way. Mr. Plummer: Let me tell you something. I've bitched about that in a house that's been empty for two years and you know what I was advised? I had to pay it. Ms. Reed: We are paying. Mr. Plummer: I was paying. Ms. Reed: We'll pay, but I think it's not fair and I think it creates a hardship. Mayor Ferre: I don't have any objections to revisiting the question. You come back with the recommendations and you tell Marilyn Reed we'll have another public hearing after we pass this. Ms. Reed: That's all right. If we can come back and revisit and work the language out, that would help us with this. Mayor Ferre: You have my word that I will make that motion next. Will you vote for it, Plummer? Mr. Plummer: Yes. Mayor Ferre: Will you vote for it? Mr. Perez: Yes. Mayor Ferre: Peter? Mr. Peter Joffre: My question was between garbage and trash, because I read in here on 22.2 garbage and trash containers. As I read this, it says that all garbage and trash should be in containers. Does that mean that everything that is put out has to be in containers? We go downtown and card board boxes which some of the people put, that means we cannot pick that up. I don't want none of my people wind up getting suspended or fired because picking illegal. Mr. Gary: Come on! Mr. Plummer: No, he makes a good point. This is not clear. He makes a good point that trash does not have to be put into containers; garbage has to be put into containers. Unless you are trying to pull a sneaky pete of putting a 82-gallon.... Mr. Patterson: The title of the heading of that is garbage and trash. That is somewhat synonymous. Commissioner, that is the current heading of that ordinance, garbage and trash. Peter Joffre knows as well as anybody in here that trash out front is not containerized. That is loose. Mayor Ferre: Let the record reflect that we understand that when we have trash, like cuttings from a tree, that's not going tc be put into containers. Mr. Patterson: That is correct. Mayor Ferre: Is that it? Commissioner Perez moves. Commissioner Plummer seconds. Further discussion on item 47? Read the ordinance. Call the roll. sl 196 June 28, 1984 AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 22, ENTITLED "GARBAGE AND TRASH", OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING SECTIONS 22-2, 22-3, 22-12, 22-17, 22-18, AND 22-43 OF SAID CHAPTER 22; PROVIDING BY SAID AMENDMENTS THE FOLLOWING: AN ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT FOR PLACEMENT LOCATION OF DUMPSTERS IN NEW COMMERCIAL OR MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS; A CLARIFICATION OF FEES DUE AND PAYABLE DURING PERIODS EVEN WHEN STRUCTURES ARE TEMPORARILY VACANT; THAT CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS OTHER THAN OWNERS SHALL ASSUME INCREASED RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CONDITION OF PROPERTY AND VIOLATIONS WHICH OCCUR ON SAID PROPERTY; THAT CITATIONS BE WRITTEN BY SANITATION INSPECTORS RESULTING IN PENALTIES IF SAID VIOLATIONS ARE NOT CORRECTED WITHIN A SPECIFIED PERIOD OF TIME; THAT ALL RECEPTACLES OWNED BY PRIVATE SANITATION COMPANIES ARE MARKED AND IDENTIFIED WITH THE COMPANY NAME AND TELEPHONE NUMBER; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of May 24, 1984, was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Perez, seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the Ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio J. Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollc Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 9862 The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and to the public. Mayor Ferre: Now Plummer moves and Perez seconds that the item dealing with absentee garbage fees be revisited by the Administration, that it be discussed with citizens, including Marilyn Reed, that it be brought back with a recommendation, and that if there is any action to be taken that a public hearing be called. Is there further discussion on that motion? Call the roll. sl 197 June 28, 1984 The following motion was introduced by Commi.ssi�ner Plummer, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 84-745 A MOTION DIRECTING THE ADMINISTRATION TO REVISIT THE ISSUE OF ABSENTEE GARBAGE FEES PRESENTLY BEING LEVIED; FURTHER INSTRUCTING THE CITY MANAGER TO COME BACK WITH HIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND, IF A FINDING IS MADE THAT ANY ACTION IS TO BE TAKEN, THAT SAID ISSUE THEN BE SET AS THE SUBJECT OF A PUBLIC HEARING SO THAT THE CITY COMMISSION MAY HAVE THEE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC INPUT. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Perez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio J. Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins 89. BRIEF DISCUSSION ITEM: REGARDING CITY RESIDENTS EMPLOYING THE SERVICES OF PRIVATE HAULING COMPANIES. Mr. Plummer: Let me address the issue very quickly. Mr. Patterson, I am getting fed up, sick and tired of driving around this town finding people who have dumpsters from private haulers who are using dumpsters half the size of what they need. What can we do, this City, to make people purchase from the private haulers a dumpster of sufficient size, that the garbage once it gets full is laying all over hell's half acre Mr. Plummer: (ccn't) Do we have any area of designating what size dumpsters these people must use, because it is very obvious, they are buying the minimum that they can buy, and the guy comes once a week, or twice a week. It is not adequate and all the rest of the stuff is just going on the ground. Mr. Patterson: Yes, sir. Commissioner, in the ordinance that you just passed gives us that under 22-2, which is the what you are talking about. Mr. Plummer: Fine, then I will be calling you, sir, if I can ever get you on the phone to remind you of those locations. 90. AUTHORIZE R.F.P.'S FOR A.U.D.P. FOR THE OVERTOWN/PARK WEST PHASE I PROJECT FOR RESIDENCES AND COMMERCIAL FACILITIES. ------------------------------------------------------------ Mayor Ferre: All right, we are now back to the Overtown issue. Yes, sir. Mr. Brigham: If I may, let me state my objections and then let Mr. Bailey deal with them. sl 198 June 28, 1984 1 Mayor Ferre: Go right ahead, please. Mr. Brigham: First of all, I would like to apologize to Mr. Gary for my outburst. It is late and I am hungry. I represent the owner Blumenthal, Mitchel, Maida, Moon, Schuessler, Yeminy,Van Zanft, Stone and Barkett. They own properties in parcels and blocks designated 45, 46, 55 and 56, which are the blocks immediately adjacent to and west of the rapid transit station at Overtown. On behalf of those clients object to the approval of the Request for Proposal that is before you at this time, and with its content. At this time, because we believe it is premature. Premature, because there is presently administrative proceedings taking place before the Zoning Advisory Board, in connection with the special public interest zoning ordinance for Southeast Overtown/Park West Community Redevelopment area, and in that zoning process, these owners have a right to be heard, as to what the floor area ratios, densities and use mix, should be allowed for that area. In your Request for Proposals, you are sending out to developers a maximum allowable density, and a maximum allowable development. We believe that if you pass this Request for Proposal, you are prejudicing the legal validity of the rezoning that is now taking place and it was denied to these owners due process of law because it would commit you in advance to the matter that you must consider on the rezoning. Mayor Ferre: Hold on. Mr. City Attorney, this is heavy duty stuff, you had better be listening, because I am going to be asking for a legal opinion in a moment. Mr. Brigham: Secondly, we believe it is premature. Mr. Plummer: You had better repeat that first one you must made. Mr. Brigham: All right, we suggested approving a Request for Proposal, which sends out to developers requests for development, which contains proposed maximum allowable development, as it does -- for each of these blocks commits this Commission to a position with regard to densities of development and mixes of uses development, which is now undergoing administrative process before the Zoning Advisory Board, and later will be decided by this Commission in connection with the special public interest zoning ordinance for the Southeast Overtown/Park West community area. I believe that would deny administrative due process of law. The second reason we believe it is premature, is because you don't own these properties yet and you may not be certain that you shall. The owners object to you soliciting development by others, as long as they still own the property. The major objection however, is to content, because we believe that in the more than a decade that the area of Overtown has been sitting on the shelf, outside the mainstream of the dynamics of the real estate market, there has grown around it, the rapid transit station, the government center, the post office, the people mover system, and that area has lccational advantages that exceed most of the areas of its central business district of downtown Miami. We would urge you to not put an arbitrary limit as to the proposals that you are asking developers to give you, but open those ceilings and open those restrictions to receive any bid from developers that they believed would be suitable fcr that area. We ask you to threat the four blocks, 45, 46, 55 & 56 immediately west of the rapid transit station as a special element of the Overtown redevelopment project, so that you can allow the same kin,1 of uses, the same significance of use and development there as any F::-r- nf downtown Miami. If these limits are sought to be imposed on the Allen Morris Company between the Brickell Station and Miami Avenue, or on Mr. Cod ina, and other portions of downtown Miami, they would be in here objecting. As it is, these owners have been fragmented. They have been under the blight of condemnation for all of these years, so I speak out for their interests, surely, but also for the future of the City of Miami. Once this area is committed to a medium density type sl 199 June 28, 1984 cf lase, in essence, a small residential community near to downtown instead of these four blocks, allowing major downtown district development, it will have that use for another 50 years until the economic life of those buildings are gone by, and we ask you not to waste the opportunity, but allow the market place to determine what those uses are, and we believe that you will find significant development. I would point out, and this is thrown in as an idea - the County owns a fee simple title to the area of this Overtown station that is surface parking. That area, like day tram should be tied in with the development of these four blocks, but nowhere in your Request for Proposal is there any idea that the County should contribute its fee simple title for those air rights that could be developed in any development proposal. So we would urge you to treat these four blocks, if you do proceed with a request for proposal - treat these four blocks the same as any comparably located downtown central business district area. The F.A.R that you allow for commercial at the maximum is 2, and there is a maximum 2 for residential, and those are far less than any other comparable area. Thank you very much. Mayor Ferre: All right, Mr. City do you want to answer first? Mr. Matthew Schwartz: Yes, Matthew Schwartz, of the Overtown/Park West office. First of all, acquisition of those four blocks where Mr. Brigham's clients are, has been initiated by Dade County. The offer to purchase of those properties went out February 16th. The County has indicated that they will be in Court on quick take sometime next week or the week after for the first phase of that, and all of these properties should be in ownership of Dade County by October. The density levels that we are talking about for the Southeast Overtown/Park West redevelopment area are consistent with downtown development for the block area. the maximum zoning for the nine blocks would lcw something like 1.8 million square feet of commercial space and 3,800 residential units. We are talking about densities that on one block in particular - Mr. Post owns property, of 760,000 square feet permissible under the existing zoning the way it is calculated today with the grossed wide area. We are trying to create a residential community in Southeast Overtown/Park West. That is the thrust of the redevelopment project. We are now looking for a commercial extension of downtown, although the plan does allow for high density commercial development by the transit station. We are looking for a residential community. These densities are far in excess of what we really think even the zoning which developers will be building. Based on our market study by Hamer, Siler & George which talks about to be in the next fifteen years an ultimate buildout of 22,000 residential units and a million square feet of commercial space. Based on the zoning, we could probably build ten times that amount. I think there is a lot of flexibility and we don't fell that there is any problem in getting this process going right new. Mayor Ferre: All right, Mr. City Attorney. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Mr. Mayor, I won't address the contents portion, because that is really up to the Commission to determine, with respect to the matter of ownership rf the property, all the resolution does is to authc rize the issuance of a request for proposal. The request for proposal itself does n-t state that we own the property, but rather that we intend to acquire it, and that obviously, or the possibility, remote though it might be that we not wind up acquiring it is one of the elements to be taken into account by any potential proposer who may respond to this request for Proposals. The same answer answer applies to the matter of zoning. There is tic locking in by virtue of issuance of a request for proposals. Again, the proposed R.F.P. on Page 20 even menticrns, under Item 5 that the zoning is proposed zoning, and that cbvic,usly the risk attendant sl ?00 June 28, 1yc;� to that proposal nest being effectuated is another -ne of the risks that any prospective prnpnser will have to bear, sri l don't think that by issuing a request t have pnr'ple --me in and make prnpnsals, the City would be in vinlatien of its Charter. Mr . Plt�-rmer : What about .. . Mr. Brigham: May I point out a few matters to the City Attrrney. I think it would be helpful - that is my intent. Because of the content of the proposal, if you will lrnk at Section 3, it says proposed maximum allowable development for each of these blocks - it is a low and medium density. There are several pages which say that proposals must comply with this maximum allnwable density, and mixed use. It says it must be in accrrd with the feasibility study of Hammer, Siler & George, all of which is staff. We are saying that you should not have a ceiling in these proposals, because then you are wasting these prcpnsals and getting bids and foreclosing, in effect the opportunities cf the owners to suggest that the maximum allowable density should be greater than these. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Mr. Mayor and members of the Ccmmissirn, the possibility that we may be wasting the time of any prospective proposer, is of course, one of the risks that they have tc bear as we do, but as respects each of the properties, it couldn't clearer when each of the properties said, as I have indicated earlier, that this is the proposed zoning that the City intends, or wishes to seek proposals on, and again, whether it ultimately happens or not, or whether it turns out to be a waste rf time, did not create a legal prohibition to the issuance of a reque,3t for proposals at this time, in my opinion. Mr. Plummer: Mr. City Attorney, you brought out a print about the fact that they are presently bef^re the P.A.B. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Who are they? Mr. Plummer: They, the owners cf the property. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Oh. Mr. Plummer: And does this not jeopardize their standing in front of the P.A.B. with their request? (INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENT) Mr. Plummer: Good point. Mr. Bailey: Commissioner, as I understand the Cnunselrrs is -ne of zoning, and you are right, we are before the P.A.B. We hope to have our first hearing July 7th, and it our ccntentirn that Mr. Garcia- Pedrosa: Mr. Bailey, can I interrupt you fir minute? Mr. Bailey: Yes, gc ahead. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: I am 1rst. Is the petition th",L i.s u�''�.r�.> the P.A.B. one that we have, cr one that they hav(2? Mr. Bailey: It is the one that we h,jve. we arc r(crmn;er,:,p. , Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes, but that is nrt wt-,,t n;n;ivsir,er Plummer said. Mr. Plummer: You said you had an applicLtirr;. Mr. Bailey: No, nc. sl 201 -- 1 E 0 Mr. Brigham: They are rezoning our property. We have a right to be heard. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Oh, no, no, but that is the City's application. Mr. Brigham: Yes, sir, but we have a right to be heard on that application ... Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Okay, all right. Mr. Brigham: ... and suggest to the Advisory Board and to this Commission that they for these four blocks, approve a higher density and a mix, like the other areas of the Central Miami business district, and for the Commission to put a cap on that use for these development proposals that they are requesting, we submit it is preconceiving their minds as to what they will allow. Mr. Plummer: How can you apply for the Board if you don't own the property? Mr. Bailey: Under the law, Commissioner, Chapter 163, if it is declared redevelopment area, the City has the right to market -- that land as if they own it. We are proposing, as it was �_ approved by this Commission and the County Commission, as a redevelopment plan for a special zoning district, the S.P.I. zoning which, in our opinion gives it the maximum development_ that is allowable, which is in compliance and is as liberal as downtown development, as you can see, we have a substantial amount of densityinvolved here. We are suggesting ggesting to developers that the amount that is permissible under the current S.P.I. zoning ordinance is the amount that we are suggesting to be the maximum, and we all know that every developer who wishes to propose a development that exceeds those limits, then they have -- the prerogative to come back before this Commission and ask for a_ zoning change. I believe that the counselor, and he probably will, in all probability, be before this Commission when we come and present our zoning ordinance with the same type case. He has other avenues in which he can have his concern about the zoning heard. We have already held a meeting with all of the property owners were invited to discuss this proposed zoning. We have not just made the proposal in secret. We had a meeting in our office _= June 11th. We had about 35 property owners who attended. We had no objections at that time. We were merely there to explain what the proposed zoning was going to be. Now, bear in mind this is property owners and developers. I have a hard time trying to determine whether or not these property owners that he is representing are going to be actual bidders for development, or what their concern actually is. Now, we understand that the =_ concern here of the counselor is one of condemnation, and we are going before the courts very shortly - the County is under the condemnation to take this property, and I can imagine that the defense there is going to be that because of the highest and best use cf the property should be afforded or allowed more than wnat we are offering. Now, I don't have any objections of this position, but what I am saying in terms of the zoning, I think this case is probably best discussed when we bring before this Commission the ordinance that will establish the zoning for this area. _ Mr. Brigham: Let me state my own position. If you here are deciding on maximum allowable development, and you are sending this nut to the world in a Request for Development proposals for these four blocks, we don't have a chance when it comes to coming before you nn the rezoning to really capture your minds to show yr:u why the zoning should be greater. Eminent domain and valuation is nrt an issue here because we can ask the value for —= the highest and best use, but if ycu zone this less than Central - Business District, you are wasting an opportunity for significant si 2�2 June 28, 1984 development there, which will create revenues to accomplish the = rest of the Overtown Development Project and which synergistically will cause other things to happen, but also, if you are talking about eminent domain and you have given it a lower zoning, then if in areas that do not have the locational advantages as this, it going to appear that you have kept the zoning low for the purpose of reducing the value paid to the = owners. We say Overtown should receive the same zoning as undertown, and if you don't do it, it doesn't bad for us; it looks bad for the City, if we are talking about eminent domain evaluations, but we are not. Sure these owners want to develop their properties. This is why they bought it. This is what they have been waiting for, and we simply ask that this area be recognized as an area that will support the most significant kind of downtown development, and that is not what you are asking proposals for. Mayor Ferre: All right Mr. Bailey, anything else you want to add? Mr. Gary: No, we would like for action. Mayor Ferre: Well, we are waiting for Plummer, then we will continue is a few minutes. Is there anything else you want to add, Howard? Mr. Gary: I'd like for you to vote on it. Mayor Ferre: Anything else you want to add, Mr. City Attorney? Are you ready to vote? Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, one suggestion. If Mr. Bailey is suggesting that, even though the zoning may be a low density, that the developers may come in and seek a rezoning, then in this request for proposal open up a ceiling and just simply have a statement that any developer may submit a proposal that exceeds the maximum allowable density here that they think is feasible for that particular area. Mr. Gary: No, no. You can't unilaterally say that you will have unlimited zoning. Mayor Ferre: Well, are we ready to vote on this? Yes. Mr. Gary: Yes. Mayor Ferre: The Chair is open for a motion. Mr. Plummer: Let me ask one question. Mr. Bailey, I still want to make sure the people who are property owners still have a priority right to be a proposer. Mayor Ferre: Proprietary rights. Mr. Bailey: They have that right, Commissioner. In fact we submitted to them several months ago applications with all the information that would be required to exercise that right, and we still talked and worked with some property owners, but to date, we have not received from a single property owner in the Overtown area an expression, or desire to develop at all. It was mandated by the County that we do this. We had a resolution passed before this Commission. Procedures were passed by this Commission and the County Commission and we corresponded and met with those property owners on several occasions. We have not received any indication of any property owner that they wanted to develop. However, that still does not prevent them from becoming part of the redevelopment if they so desire. The redevelopment plans still permits them and requires that a developer allows a property owner to be equity investor if they so desire, after they have been awarded the bid for the redevelopment. sl 203 June 28, 1984 Wrw Mr. Brigham: Some of my clients have expressed that interest, but to commit to a development which we don't know what it is going to be yet, because you haven't even rezoned it -- you just now are making certain decisions, is not meaningful so that = things have to determine themselves far more critically. Mr. Bailey: That is not true. This proposed zoning has been in the works for 18 months. The R.F.P. has been worked on for 18 months and we have been working and meeting with all the property owners. This information is not new to the property owners. They have known this for quite some time. Mr. Brigham: Nothing has been decided as yet - it has all been conversation. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Brigham, I think it is pretty obvious. I understand your position, sir. I understand it to the extent that you are defending property owners that are trying to get the highest and best that they can for their property. Mr. Brigham: I am thinking of the future of this City for those four blocks. Mr. Plummer: This is not locking us in, sir. This is only step by step by step. I think it is correct that where you will make your real pitch (if that is the word, I don't guess a lawyer likes that) will be at the time that it comes before this Commission as it relates to the zoning. I think we have got to proceed, Mr. Mayor, I will move Item 37. I move 37. Mayor Ferre: All right, is there a second? Mr. Perez: Second. Mayor Ferre: Further discussion? Is there any other discussion on Item 37? All right, call the roll on 37. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: MOTION N0. 84-746 A MOTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (UDP) FOR THE OVERTOWN/PARK WEST PHASE I PROJECT, FOR RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL FACILITIES TO BE LOCATED ON NINE CITY BLOCKS, IRREGULARLY BOUNDED BY NORTHWEST 6TH STREET, NORTHWEST 7TH STREET, NORTHWEST LOTH STREET, NORTH MIAMI AVENUE, NORTHWEST 2ND AVENUE, AND NORTHWEST 3RD AVENUE. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Perez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner Joe Carollo Mr. Brigham: Thank you, for hearing me. sl 204 June 28, 1984 ------------------------------------------------------------ 91. DISCUSSION ITEM: PROPOSED PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR REVIEW OF U.D.P. PROPOSAL TO BE SUBMITTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE OVERTOWN/PARK WEST -- PHASE I PROJECT. ------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Item 59, Mr. Mayor, please. Mayor Ferre: What is Item 59? Mr. Gary: It is just the accountants telling how much they have spent, and for what purpose. Mayor Ferre: You have one vote. Mr. Plummer: You got two. - Mayor Ferre: You do? Well, you don't have my vote. We have already moved a motion in which we are appointing a committee ... - Mr. Gary: It has got nothing to do with accounting. Mayor Ferre: Oh yes. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: It is an accounting study. Mayor Ferre: Everything. That committee will be doing the selection of anything that has to do with going over the cable television company, and by the way, we put Mr. Cohen in who is the Managing partner of Touche, Ross. Mr. Plummer: What? Mayor Ferre: He is the managing partner. Mr. Gary: I am not going to put him in this conflicting role. 92. SELECT ACCOUNTING FIRM OF TOUCHE, ROSS TO ANALYZE U.D.P. PROPOSAL TO BE SUBMITTED IN CONNECTION WITH OVERTOWN/PARK WEST - PHASE I PROJECT. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Oh, wait a minute, Mr. Mayor, you have got to go back and select a committee and the accounting firm. Mr. Plummer: We are doing that today on Overtown. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes, what you just did with Park West/Overtown you authorized the issuance of the R.F.P., but now you have a list of people that the Manager has suggested for the composition of the committee and you have to select a CPA firm as well. Mayor Ferre: Do you want to select Touche, Ross? Mr. Bailey: I am sorry, Mr. Mayor. We are recommending the accounting firm of Touche, Ross, because they were on the City's recommended list and they were next in line. Mayor Ferre: They are next in line in a couple of things. Mr. Bailey: Well, that is our recommendation. We ... I think it is Coopers Lybrand; Touche, Ross; Arthur Anderson, sl 205 June 28, 1984 Mayor Ferre: You want Touche, Ross? Mr. Plummer: How much is the contract for? Mr. Bailey: I don't know, Commissioner. We have allocated in next year's budget $40,000 for fees for accounting. Mayor Ferre: Who is it you are recommending? Mr. Bailey: For accounting? We are recommending Touche, Ross. Mayor Ferre: Is there a motion? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: We are talking about Park West. Mayor Ferre: Plummer moves, Perez seconds. Further discussion =_ on the selection of Touche Ross who is doing the accounting for Park West, right? Mr. Bailey: Right. We also have ... Mayor Ferre: Do you want to vote on it, or not? Call the roll. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 84-747 A MOTION SELECTING THE FIRM OF TOUCHE, ROSS, CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS, FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO ANALYZE THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO U.D.P. PROCEDURES IN CONNECTION WITH THE OVERTOWN/PARK WEST PHASE I PROJECT. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Perez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner Joe Carollo ------------------------------------------------------------ 92.1 SELECTION OF REVIEW COMMITTEE FOR RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS OF R.F.P. PROPOSALS TO BE RECEIVED IN CONNECTION WITH THE OVERTOWN/PARK WEST PHASE I PROJECT. ------------------------------------------------------------ Mayor Ferre: Yes, what else? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: The composition of the selection of the recommendation committee, Mr. Mayor. You have a list of people suggest by the Manager. Mayor Ferre: Read the list. Mr. Bailey: The committee that we are recommending is represented by Rose Gordon, who is the Chairperson, Documentary Surtax Advisory Board; Hank Green, of Green Construction Corporation; Ralph Johnson, School of Technology Construction at sl 206 June 28, 1984 _ A FIU, Felipe Prestamo. School of Architecture, University of Miami, Garth Reeves, Editor of the Miami Times, Charlotte Gallogly, Director of Economic Development, Adrienne Macbeth, Assistant to City Manager. We are required to have one representative from the Overtown Advisory Board, one representative from the Park West Association, and two = representatives from Metro Dade. (INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS) Mr. Gary: You have got to have five. You have got to have one more. - Mr. Bailey: One more forfrom the private sector. Mr. Plummer: Yes, but wait a minute -how many members total? — Mr. Gary: Any number. Mayor Ferre: Are you telling us who you selected, or is this a = choice that we had to choose? Mr. Bailey: There is the recommendations that we ... - Mayor Ferre: How many do we have to choose? Mr. Plummer: How many do we have to have? That is what I am = asking. Mr. Gary: You have got You have to have one more. Mayor Ferre: How many do you need? I will tell you what. If I wink once, it is a yes. If I wink twice, it is no. (LAUGHTER) Start at the top and we will tell you who we are going to choose. Mr. Gary: We recommend, and you have to decide on what we recommend. Mr. Plummer: What? Mr. Gary: Exactly. That is what the law says. Now, let me explain to you. We are going to have eleven people. Mr. Plummer: I know how to play that game. Go ahead. Mr. Gary: Six from the private, and five from the public. Mayor Ferre: Well, don't waste any more time, because you will have to get another vote other than mine. You don't have my vote. There are a couple of people on that committee that I won't vote for. Mr. Plummer: We have got to go and select from names you proffer, right? Mayor Ferre: No. Mr. Gary: Right. Mayor Ferre, Oh, well that is different. Mr. Plummer: I have no problem with that. Who is the first name you choose? Mayor Ferre: Okay, go ahead, start reading the list. Mr. Bailey: First name was Rose Gordon. Mayor Ferre: Okay. sl 207 June 28, 1984 Mr. Plummer: That is fine. Mr. Bailey: Hank Green. Mr. Plummer: That is fine. Mayor Ferre: Okay. Mr. Bailey: Ralph Johnson. Mr. Plummer: Don't know him. Mayor Ferre: Ralph Johnson? Mr. Bailey: Ralph Johnson is an architect. Mr. Plummer: Next name. Mr. Bailey: Felipe Prestamo. Mayor Ferre: He is okay. _. Mr. Bailey: Garth Reeves. Mr. Plummer: So be it. Mayor Ferre: Okay. Mr. Bailey: That is four from the private side. Mayor Ferre: Go ahead. Mr. Plummer: Yes, that is right. Now, we need three from the public side. Mr. Bailey: Two more from the private side will be one representative from the Overtown Advisory Board, one -- representative from Park West Civic Association, that gives us Mayor Ferre: And the Manager is going to appoint the ones from the public sector. You got that, Plummer? Mr. Plummer: No, no. (INAUDIBLE COMMENT) Mr. Bailey: This is the list I am doing it from. Mr. Gary: You have got 6 and 5. _ Mr. Plummer: No, no, it is going to be 4 and 3. We have already got the 4 from the public sector. = Mayor Ferre: The Manager I think appoints the public sector people. Mr. Plummer: Hey, Howard, you are spinning your wheels! Start at the top again. Mayor Ferre: Start at the bottom! Mr. Plummer: No, no. Start at the top. Mr. Bailey, start at the top again, please. Mr. Bailey: Rose Gordon. Mr. Plummer: Vetoed. Mr. Bailey: Hank Green. sl 208 June 28, 1984 Mr. Plummer: Vetoed. Mr. Bailey: Ralph Johnson. Mr. Plummer: Vetoed. Mr. Bailey: Felipe ... Mr. Plummer: Vetoed. Mr. Bailey: Garth Reeves. Mr. Plummer: Vetoed. Mr. Bailey: Overtown Advisory Board. Mr. Plummer: Vetoed. Mr. Bailey: Park West. Mr. Plummer: Vetoed. Mr. Bailey: The City side - Charlotte Gallogly. Mr. Plummer: Vetoed. Mr. Bailey: Adrienne Macbeth. Mr. Plummer: Vetoed. Mr. Bailey: Sergio Peieria. Mr. Plummer: Vetoed. Mr. Bailey: And Herb Bailey. Mr. Plummer: Now you understand? We will see you on the 31st. Mayor Ferre: Who was the last one? Mr. Bailey: I was the last one! Mayor Ferre: You were the last one? We approve that. Mr. Plummer: You like him, I vetoed! (LAUGHTER) Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Well, Mr. Mayor, you need to continue the public hearing until whatever ... Mr. Plummer: That is fine, come back with more names. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: No, no, to a date certain - July 30, or 31st, for the selection of the names to be submitted five days in advance by the Manager. What do you want, 30th, or 31st? Mr. Bailey: The 30th, or let the Manager decide. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: No, no, but you have got to give them a date certain for continuation of the public hearing. Mr. Bailey: The 30th? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Okay. Mayor Ferre: I don't go along with that. No, there are no dates here. All right, this matter is continued until the 30th of July. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: At 10:00 A.M. sl 209 June 28, 1984 Mr. Ferre: Fine, we will continue it again, then, the way I see = it. ------------------------------------------------------------ 93. RESOLUTION SETTING FORTH COMPENSATION BENEFITS AND EMOLUMENTS TO BE RECEIVED BY HOWARD V. GARY, CITY MANAGER. ------------------------------------------------------------ Mayor Ferre: Anything else? Mr. Plummer: What about Mr. Gary's emoluments? Mayor Ferre: I am ready to vote for it. INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I move you that the emoluments as presented to this Commission by the City Attorney be approved in relation to Mr. Gary, subject to any member of this Commission holding veto power within the next 48 hours. If not, they are approved. Mayor Ferre: Only if they are notified of such ... Mr. Plummer: 48 hours from the time they notify. Mayor Ferre: In other words, they have to be notified. Why don't you say two working days, J. L., which is tomorrow and Monday by 5:00 P.M., and just make sure, Mr. Clerk, that ... here is the resolution. Mr. Plummer: In fact, the Clerk's office is delivering them tomorrow morning and informing them of the motion made tonight. Mayor Ferre: Those that did not receive it tonight. All right, Plummer moves. Demetrio, are you seconding? Mr. Perez: Yes. Mayor Ferre: All right, further discussion? Call the roll. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 84-748 A RESOLUTION SETTING FORTH THE COMPENSATION BENEFITS AND EMOLUMENTS TO BE RECEIVED BY HOWARD V. GARY AS CITY MANAGER OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Perez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner Joe Carollo sl 210 June 28, 1984 11 El ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the City Commission, on motion duly made and seconded, the meeting was adjourned at 10:02 P.M. ATTEST: MATTY HIRAI Assistant City Clerk MAURICE A. FERRE Mayor 01fiz sl 211 June 28, 1984 G t c RETRIEVAL DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION I O TI©NONAiD CODE NO. —_ A RESOLUTION ALLOCATING AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $93,000 FROM THE SPECIAL PROGRAMS AND ACCOUNTS CONTINGENT FUND, IN SUPPORT OF THE PROGRAM OF THE' LATIN CIIArIBER OF COMMERCE 01' THE UNITED STATES (CAIdACOL) FOR FUNDING OF THE PERMANENT SECRETARIAT OF THE HEMISPHERIC CONGRESS OF LATIN CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY; SAID ALLOCATION BEING CONDITIONED UPON SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE [dITH CITY 01' MIAMI ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY NO. APMl-84, DATED JANUARY 24,1984; SAID ALLOCATION I3EING FURTHER CONDITIONED UPON THE SUBSTANTIAL RESOIUTION OF THE OUTSTANDING AUDIT FINDING CITED 13Y THE CITY OF MIAMI IN MAY 29,1984 AUDIT REPORT OF THE 1982-83 PERNANI-NT SECRETARIAT PROGRAM; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREELIIENT, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE _ TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, WTTll SAID ORGANIZATION. A RESOLUTION ALLOCATING AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $ 37 , 000 FRO." THE SPECIAL PROGRAMS AND ACCOUNTS CONTINGENT FUND, IN SUPPORT OF THE PROGRAM OF THE LATIN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES ( CAIACOL ) FOR PREPARATION, COORDINATION AND SUPERVISION OF THE FIFTH HEMISPHERIC CONGRESS OF LATIN CIIAIIBERS OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY TO 131E HELD SEPTEMBER 5-8,1984 IN MIAMI ,FLORIDA-.SAID ALLOCATION BEING CONDITIONED UPON SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF MIAMI ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY NO. APM-1-84, DATED JANUARY 24, 1984; SAID ALLOCATION BEING FURTHER CONDITIONED UPON THE SUBSTANTIAL RESOLUTION OF THE OUTSTANDING AUDIT FINDINGS IDENTIFIED BY THE CITY IN AN AUDIT OF THE FOURTH HEMISPHERIC CONGRESS PROGRAM; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, WITH SAID ORGANIZATION. R-84-692 R-84-693 mom: P yS r �Sf.T' ... � M�'.f: DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION A RESOLUTION ALLOCATING AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $10,000 FROM SPECIAL PROGRAMS AND ACCOUNTS, CONTINGENT FOUND, TO THE MIAMI BAHAMAS GOOMBAY FESTIVAL, , INC. A RESOLUTION ALLOCATING AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $10,000 FROM SPECIAL PROGRAMS AND ACCOUNTS CONTINGENT FUND AS A CONTRIBUTION TO THE CUBAN ASSOCIATION OF ACCOUNTANTS IN EXILE IN CONNECTION WITH TTS XVI INTERAMERICAN ACCOUNTING CONFERENCE TO BE HELD IN MIAMI DURING AUGUST 1985. A RESOLUTION ALLOCATING AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $0,200 FROM SPECIAL PROGRAMS AND ACCOUNTS, QUALITY OF LIFE FOUND, IN SUPPORT OF "PUERTO RICO DAY". A RESOLUTION STRONGLY URGING GOVERNOR ROBERT D. GRAHAM TO CONVENE THE LEGIS- LATURE IN SPECIAL SESSION IMMEDIATILY FOR THE PURPOSEOF AMENDING IF NOT RE- PEALING THE 1983 UNITARY TAX LAW WHICH PRESENTLY REQUIRES A COMBIVED REPORT OF RELATED CORPORATIONS TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF "BUSINESS INCOME". A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE TO PAY HERBERT STETTIN. AS ATTORNEY FOR BI.SCAYNE RECREATION DEVE- LOPMENT COMPANY A FLORIDA CORPORATION, IN TRUST, PENDING RECEIPT OF SETTLEMENT DOCUMENTS, THE SUM OF EIGHTY THOUSAND ( $80,000.00 ) DOLLARS. A RESOLUTION APPROVING IN CONCEPT THE ESTABLISHMiENT OF RESTAURANT ARCADES ALONG DOWNTOWN STREETS, SPECIFICALLY, FLAGLER STREET ; FORMALLY REQUESTING THAT FLACLER STREET NO LONGER BE DESIGNATED AS A STATE HIGHWAY. A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED HIGHLAND PARK DRIVE SECTIO 2 ( MORE PARTICULARY DESCRIBED HEREIN ), A SUB- DIVISION IN THE CITY OF MIAMI ; ACCEPTING THE DEDICATIONS SHOWN ON SAID PLAT. R-84-698 R-84-70.4 R-84-705 R-84-708 R-84-709 R-84-710 R-84-713 2 DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION A RESOLUTION ELECTING AND APPOINTING LUCIA ALLEN DOUGHERTY AS CITY ATTORNEY OF THE. CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, EFFECTIVE AUGUST 1, 1984. A RESOLUTION STRONGLY URGING THE OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF ALL FOREIGN -FLAG PASSENGER VESSELS WHICH CALL AT FLORIDA PORTS. A RESOLUTION RATIFYING, CONFIRMING, AND APPRO- VING, BY A FOUR -FIFTHS AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF THE CITY COMMISSION,THE ACTIONS OF TILE CITY MANAGER IN WAIVING COMPETITIVE I3ID REQUIREMENTS AND IN AUTHORIZING THE EMERGENCY PURCHASE ON THE OPEN MARKET OF MODULAR OPEN -OFFICE WORK UNITS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCITED $20,000 WITH FUNDS -THEREFORE ALLOCATED FRO1111 THE 1983-84 OPERATING BUDGET OF THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. A RESOLUTION REQUESTIN0 THE CITY MANAGER TO INTRUCT THE BUILDING AND ZONING DIVISION OF THE FIRE,RESCUES AND INSPECTIONS SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO ISSUE A FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR THE SIXTH FLOOR ADDITION TO THE MIAMI HERALD B TIA)ING. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTETH17 ATTACHED STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT CONCERNING CASE NO.84-0550-Civ-SMA, A LAWSUIT FILED BY KENNETH 1. HARMS AGAINST THE CITY OF MIAMI AND CERTAIN CITY OFFICIALS. A RESOLUTION CLOSING, VACATING, ABANDONING AND DISCONTINUING TIIE PUBLIC USE OF THAT PORTION OF NORTH1,1EST 11TH TERRACE BETWEEN THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF NORTHWEST 7TH AVENUE AND THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF NORTIM'EST 6TH. A RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING BOARD GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM ORDI- NANCE NO. 9500, ARTICLE XX, SECTION 2003.4, SECTION 2016.3 AND SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT RE- GULATIONS, PAGE 4 OF 6, TRANSITIONAI. USES, STRUCTURES AND REQUIREMENTS, CR (COMMERCIAL - RESIDENTIAL (GENERALLY)l.a. OF ORDINANCE 9500.AS AMENDED, TO PERMIT THE ERECTION OF TWO (2) DISH ANTENNAS AND ONE BROADCASTING ANTENNA AT 2501 N.W. 7TH STREET, APPROXIMA- TELY 704-742 NORTHWEST 25TH AVENUE AND 741-743 NORTHWEST 26TH AVENUE. R-84-714 R-84-715 R-84-716 R-84-718 R-84-719 R-84-•72Q R-84-721 r �Y �4 n , 4^ 7 l KE DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED C—SAIL SUBDIVISION, A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF MIAMI AND ACCEPTING THE DEDICATIONS SHOWN ON SAID PLAT. A RESOLUTION ISSUING A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT, ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT "A" AND INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, THE 1221. BRICKELL AVENUE PROJECT, PROPOSED BY THE, AMERISWISS ASSOCIATES,FOR 1221 BRICKELL AVENUE. A RESOLUTION ISSUING A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT, ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT "A" AND INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, THE 13AYSIDE PROJECT. A RESOLUTION PERMITTING THE APPLICANT FOR THE COMMODORE BAY PROJECT, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 3471 MAIN HIGHWAY, TO PROCEED TO FILE A FINAL APPLICATION FOR MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATIONS TO ESTABLISH THE RENTAL RATE FOR THE MIAMI OUTBOARD CLUB AT WATSON ISLAND IN THE AMOUNT OF $13,120.00 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESTONALSERVICES AGREEMENT, IN AFORM ACCEPTABLI' TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, WITH THE URBAN STUDIES INSTITUTE, INC. AT BARRY UNIVERSITY TO PROVIDE OVERALL. CONSUL— TANT SERVICES TO REVIEId CURRENT POLICE TRAINING. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESIONAL. SERVICES AGREEMENT, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, WITH FLORIDA MEMORIAL. COLLEGE TO PROVIDE HUMAN RE— LATIONS TRAINING FOR THE MIAMI POLICE DEPART— MENT WITH FUNDS THEREFOR ALLOCATED IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $73,000 FROM FISCAL YEAR 1983-84 BUDGETED POLICE DEPARTMENT FUNDS. R-84-722 R-84-723. R-84-724 R-84-725 R-84-728 R-84-729 R-84-730 VOCLN NT IDENTIFICATION A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, WITH VALLE-AXELBERD AND ASSOCIATES, INC. TO PROVI- DE OVERALL CONSULTANT SERVICES. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF FI- NANCE TO PAY MARINE STADIUM NETER.PRISES, INC. THE SUM OF $35,821.00 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY TO THE $1,300.00 REVOL- VING LOAN FUND AND $120,000 ADMINISTRATIVE CONTRACT BETWEEN MIAMI CAPITAL DEVELPOMENT, INC. AND THE CITY OF MIAMI. A RESOLUTION CLOSING, VACATING, ABANDONING AND DISCONTINUING THE PUBLIC USE OF THE NORTH/SOUTH ALLEY AND THE EAST/WEST ALLEY LOCATED IN THE BLOCK BOUNDED BY 25th AND 27 AVENUES AND SOUTHWEST 22ND STREET AND SOUTHWEST 22ND TERRACE. A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PROPOSAL OF THE KURFEST COMPANY AND SLACK, SLACK & ROE, INC., M.A.I. APPRAIRSERS FOR FEES OF $6,650 AND $12,000, BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI AND BAYSIDE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. A RESOLUTION'AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT A RENTAL REHABILITATION PROGRAM GRANT FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ( HUD ) FOR $696,800 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT, IN A FOR14 ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, WITH METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY IN REFERENCE TO THE COM1,11UNITY DEVELOP- MENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY RAJ1GER TO ENTER INTO Al, AGREI-EMEN'I' WITH SI�r�FiT3EIt, SliEl-mN, SHAPO & HEILB RONNER, PROFESSIONAL ASSOC., FOR THE SERVICES OF AR`I'HUR L. `PEELE, JR. ESQUIRE OF COUNSEL,'T`0 SERVE AS 1_1,E7JRESEN` LTI VE WV'D RE PRESENTAN'T' THE CITY BEFORE THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, HOUSING AND UIU3AI, DEVELOPMENT TRANSPORTATION & OTHER APROPRIATE FEDERAL AGENCIES . i R-84-731 R-84-733 R-84-734 R-84-735 R-84-736 R-84-738 R-84-739 R-84-742 Y r r - DOC U m �3J h R A RESOLUTION CALLING AND PROVIDING FOR A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON SEPTEMBER 4, 1984, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUB- MITTING TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI FOR THEIR APPROVAL OR DISA- PROVAL, A MEASURE KNOWN AS " CHARTER AMEND- MENT NO. 1 ". A RESOLUTION RATIFYING, APPROVING AND CON- FIRMING THE CITY MANAGER'S ACCEPTANCE OF A $40,240.00 FRANT FROM METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY TO PROVIDE CHILD DAY CARE SERVICE TO CHILDREN FROM LOW-INCOME FAMILIES. A RESOLUTION SETTING FORTH THE COMPENSATION BENEFITS AND EMOLUMENTS TO BE RECEIVED BY HOWARD V. GARY AS CITY MANAGER OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA. at. 1MISa 9N__ ♦rTTnm A R-84-743 R-84-744 R-84-748