Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1979-07-11 Minutes.01111,101 CITY OF MIAMI SSION. WUTES OF MEETING PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL RALPH G.. ONGIE CITY CLERK JULY 11 1979-REGULAR TIM NO. SUBJECT INANCE OR SowrION No, PAGE N0, 1 2 4 6 7 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 PERSONAL APPEARANCE: COL. MITCHELL`WOLFSON, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, OFF-STREET PARKING AUTHORITY TO DISCUSS SALE OF PARKING GARAGE ATLAPATTAH TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM -REPRESENTATIVES OF "ACCION" AND "IMPACT" PROGRAMS DISCUSSION ITEM: ORANGE BOWL LEASE AGREEMENTS, SCOKEBOPRD,ETC. DISCUSSION ITEM: LEASE AGREEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF`CONFEiENCE/CONVENTION CENTER. J1.,CuSSION:ITEM: 'STATUS OF STATE. INTERAMA PROPERTY SALE TO PLAQUES, CERTIFICATES OF APPRECIATION AND SPECIAL ITEms DISCUSSION ITEM: VELODROME ON VIRGINIA KEY. DISC:'SS'ON AND DEFERRAL OF SECOND READING OF PROFCSE'_' CHANGES TO CIVIL SERVICE RULES AND GE `*...TIONS TO SPECIAL MEETING ON . JULY 24, 1979 DISCUSSION ITEM:: YACHT CLUB LEASES UTILIZING CITY FrOPEETY. OiLICUSSION ; ITEM: STAFFING IN CITY COMMISSIONERS, OFFICES INSTRUCT CITY MANAGER TO COOPERATE IN DISTRIBUTION OF MATERIALS ETC. FOR EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION IN U.S. SAVINGS BONDS PROGRAM. REQUEST ACTUARIAL ANALYSIS OF PENSION ADJUSTMENTS FOR RETIREES PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF JEROME WOLFSON REPRESENTING HOMER LANIER REGARDING PROMOTION IN POLICE 'DEPARTMENT EMERGENCY ORDINANCE: AMEND SECTIONS 1 6 6 OF 8858 INCREASE GENERAL FUND FROM SALE OF CONFISCATED WEAPONS TO PURCHASE THREE MICROFILM READERS FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. ESTABLISH RATES FOR USE OF LITTLE HAVANA COMMUNITY CENTER. FIRST 6 SECOND READING ORDINANCE: ESTABLISH NEW TRUST 6 AGENCY FUND "LETS PLAY TO GROW". FIRST 6 SECOND READING ORDINANCE: ESTABLISH NEW TRUST 6 AGENCY FUND "RECREATION SUPPORT PROGRAM 1979". FIRST & SECOND READING ORDINANCE: ESTABLISH NEW TRUST 6 AGENCY FUND "SUMMER FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM FOR CHILDREN-1979" BRIEF DISCUSSION AND MOTION TO TABLE CONSIDERATION OF AMENDING CITY CODE CONCERNING REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETINGS. DISCUSSION'. DISCUSSION DISCUSSION PRESENTATION DISCUSSION. DISCUSSION DISCUSSION DISCUSSION DISCUSSION ORD. 8960 ORD, 8961 ORD. 8962 ORD. 8963 ORD. 8964 DISCUSSION 1-19 20-24 24-33 33-36 36-43 43 43-44 44-63 64-65 65-67 67-70 70-71 77 78-79 IAMI, FIDRIAA PAGE It 2 TEM 10, SUBJECT g INANCE 0 �oWTION o, PAGE NO. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 AMEND SECTIONS 5, 6, 7, 8 OF ORDINANCE 6145 - SUBSTITUTE NEW FEES FOR BUILDING, PLUMBING ELECTRICAL, BOILER. INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATE FEES. DEFERRAL OF SECOND READING ON PROPOSED CIVIL SERVICE RULE CHANGES TO SPECIAL MEETING OF JULY 24, 1979 MOTION TO DEFER CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE TO INCREASE INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE FUNDS MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT PLAN. PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF REV. H.W. KIRTLEY, AFFIRMATIVE ACTION BOARD TO APPEAR AT SPECIAL MEETING; HELD ON JULY 24, 1979 RATIFY ACTION OF CITY MANAGER: SUBMIT GRANT-IN-AID APPLICATION, PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS IN LITTLE HAVANA. URGE UNITED STATES CONGRESS TO ENACT: "THE CONDOMINIUM ACT OF 1979" RECOGNIZING RAIL -PASSENGER SERVICE IN BROWARD AND DADE COUNTIES AS MAKING MAJOR CONTRIBUTION TO MEETING TRANSPORTATION NEEDS OF THE TWO COUNTIES 'NAME AND DESIGNATE VISTA COURSE AT KENNEDY PARK "TED BLEIER VITA COURSE". CONSENT AGENDA: AUTHORIZECITY MANAGER. TO APPROVE EXTENSION OF CONTRACT: STATION AREA DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT PLANNING SERVICES: GRANT USE OF MIAMI BASEBALL STADIUM BY MIAMI- DADE COMMUNITY COLLEGE DOWNTOWN CAMPUS. ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK:MORNINGSIDE PARK -SWIMMING: POOL MODIFICATIONS. ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK:ALLAPATTAH,C.D. PAVING PROJECT -PHASE II-ALLAPATTAH SEWER MODIFICATIONS PHASE II. ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK: BUENA VISTA C.D. PAVING PROJECT GRANT MIAMI DADE WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY EASEMENTS FOR WATER MAINS -NEW WORLD BICENTENNIAL PARK. ACCEPT BID-DIXIE COMMUNITY PARK -PHASE II GRANTING APPROPRIATE EASEMENTS ADJACENT TO THE SOUTHERLY PROPETY LINE OF CITY OF MIAMI OWNED PROPERTY ABUTTING THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF N.W. 20 STREET AND 10TH AVENUE FIRST. READING DISCUSSION DISCUSSION DISCUSSION R-7.9-478 R-79-479` R-79-480 R-79-481`. R-79-482. -79-483 R-79-484, R-79-485 R-79-486 R-79-487 R-79-488 79 79 80 81 81 82 82 83 84 84 85 85 85 5 CI SSIARFFLORIDA PAGE 1l 3 i1F]"I A 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 &EJECT QRDINANCE OR KKEEsowT1 oN NO. PAGE NO. 37 38 39 40 ACCEPT BID-DIXIE COMMUNITY PARK -PHASE II ACCEPTING BID OF L.G.H. CONSTRUCTION CORP IN THE PROPOSED AMOUNT OF $1,476,900 FOR DIXIE COMMUNITY PARK,PHASE II. DISCUSSION AND TEMPORARY DEFERRAL OF FINANCIAL PLAN. FOR 100 SECTION "8" HOUSING UNITS IN MEDICAL CENTER. PROPOSED SALE OF BEER IN THE ORANGE BOWL STADIUM: GRANT RIGHT TO DOLPHINS TO END OF AGREEMENT: - ORDER PUBLIC BIDDING 1980-86-PRIORITIES ON SCORE- BOARD ADVERTISING, ETC. PERSONAL APPEARANCE: HERB LEVIN-PRESENTATION AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO HIRE APPRAISAL FIRMS TO DETERMINE VALUE OF AIR' RIGHTS OVER THE CONVENTION/ CONFERENCE CENTER APPROVE FINANCIAL PLAN FOR 100 SECTION 8 HOUSING UNITS: TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN THE MEDICAL CENTER DISCUSSION ITEM: YACHT CLUBS FINANCIAL PROPOSAL. TO THE CITY TO BE HEARD ON JULY 23, 1979 ALLOCATE $29,000 TO ACTION COMMUNITY CENTER (ACCION) FOR THE ALLAPATTAH TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM HOUSING IN THE CULMER AREA DISCUSSION BY`DENA: SPILLMAN ` AUTHORIZING MODIFICATIONS; IN CONSTRUCTION PLAN FOR VELODROME ON VIRGINIA KEY TO INCLUDE RESTROOMS AND TO PRESENT PLAN TO THE"METRO COMMISSION FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION DISCUSSION ITEM:.PERSONNEL`STAFFING :COMMISSIONERS OFFICES IN : CITY OFF-STREET PARKING CHARTER AMENDMENTS -TEMPORARILY DEFERRED PERSONAL APPEARANCE: DEVELOPERS OF CLAUGHTON ISLAND AND BRICKELL BISCAYNE CORP. TO DISCUSS IMPACT OF PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENTS -DISCUSSION AND ACTION TABLED TO MEETING OF JULY 23, 1979. PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT REGARDING LEASING OF CITY WATERFRONT PROPERTY -AND INSTRUCTING ALL BOARDS AND COMMITTEES TO EXEMPT WATSON ISLAND AND CONFERENCE/ CONVENTION CENTER FROM DELIBERATIONS ON SETBACK REQUIREMENTS R-79-489 DISCUSSION M-79-490• M-79-491 M-79-492 PRESENTATION M-79-493 R-79-494 M-79-495 R-79-496 DISCUSSION -79-497 DISCUSSION DISCUSSION DISCUSSION M-79-499 M-79-500' 85 86 86-95 96 96-9) 97-98 98-99 99-100 101 101-103 103-104 105-108 105-154 154-165 Itm( CIlYi��•1SSIQHFIAM1, Fl.DRIDA Tel ( SUBJECT Y� Rom': 41 BALLOTING PROCEDURES FOR APPOINTMENT OF PERSONS TO THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. BALLOTING ON: ACADEMIA -ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT -BANKING & FINANCE -INDUSTRIAL & MANUFACTURING -MEDIA - BALLOTING SERVICES -RETAIL -COMPLETED. AIRLINES - UTILITIES -REAL ESTATE & MISCELLANEOUS DEFERRED. y; PROPOSE'.) CHARTER AMENDMENT-$4,500 FOR PUBLIC WORK PROJECT SALE OF PROPERTY, ETC. PAGE # 4 DISCUSSION. PAGE NO. 166-178 178 MINUTES OF RscuLAR MEETING OF CITY ;CCVVIISSION OF MIAMI, FLARIDiA ON THE 11TH DAY OF DULY, 1979, THE CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA NET 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 9:00 O'CLOCK A.M. BY MAYOR MAURICE A. FERRE WITH THE FOLtt.'ING MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION FOUND TO BE PRESENT: ALSO PRESENT: Commissioner Rose Gordon CormLissioner Armando Lacasa Catmissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre Joseph R. Grassie, City Manager R. L. Fosmoen, Assistant City Manager George F. Knox, City Attorney Ralph G. Ongie, City Clerk Matty Hirai, Assistant City Clerk AN INVOCATION WAS DELIVERED BY REVEREND GIBSON WHO THEN LED THOSE PRESENT IN A PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. 1. PERSONAL APPEARANCE: COL. MITCHELL WOLFSON, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, OFF-STREET PARKING AUTHORITY TO DISCUSS SALE OF PARKING GARAGE Mayor Ferre: All right, ladies and gentlemen, we are on the regular City of Miami Commission meeting. Good morning to all of you. And we now have under the disucssion of the whole, don't we have to approve any previous minutes? Mayor Ferre: All right, the first item to come before us is item discussion of 'sale of the Off -Street parking Authority Garage. Father Gibson: Is Rose here? Mayor,Ferrer Well, she is in her office and she knows that we are starting,'.; at 9, so if she wants to be here, she can be here. Its perfectly..'.All right, Mr. Assistant City Manager, would you introduce the subject-, item a. Mr. Fosmoen: Mr. Mayor, it is my impression that this was requested to be placed on the agenda after several articles appeared in the newspaper concerning this item. It is my understanding, that this was requested to be placed on the agenda after several articles appeared concerning the sale, and there are representatives of the Off -Street Parking Authority here. Perhaps they could describe the process that they went through for the sale of that property. Mayor Ferre: Very good. A11 right, Col. Wolfson, it is always a pleasure to have you and your associates here, and the chair will recognize you at this point. 01. -JUL i11979 Col. Mitchell Wolfson: Mr. Mayor, distinguished City Commissioners, our board consisting of Ms. Dianne Smith...Ms. Smith could you just stand up for a minute? Mrs. Arnold Rubin, Vice Chairman. Mr. Gordon Wiley is in Washington, and couldn't be here this morning, Marx Cauthen are here today with our parking consultant, Mr. Howard May of Conrad Associates, of Chicago, Mr. Robert Wheel of Wainwright and Ramsey, Mr. John Reeves, our certified public accountant, Mr. Ronald Silver, State Representative, our attoreny, Mr. Sol Bennett and Mr. Harry Flemming, MIA appraisers and Mr. Richard La Baw, Director of the Off -Street Parking Authority to present you with the facts regarding our proposed sale of garage number 2 on Biscayne .Boulevard to Florida Atlantic Investments, Inc. owner of the 30 story New World Tower building, next door to the garage and also owner of the vacant lot in the rear and adjoining the city parking garage on the south. First, with your permission, I would like to dispell some of the misinformation that has been published in the Miami Herald, then I would like to furnish you with the facts, as to why it is good business to dispose of this mechanical garage and to replace it with a self service garage. This would better serve the public and increase the income of the Off -Street Pakring Authority so that we can sell additional revenue parking bonds to meet the future parking needs of the central business district of Miami. In the first place, this proposed sale was not done in secret. The negotiations have been going on for at least three months. When our Board finally decided that the terms were the best that could be received, we approved the sale in principle. The next thing we did, was to call John McMullen, editor of the Miami Herald, and David Kraslow, publisher of the Miami News to tell them about the proposed sale. Although, there is no legal requirement for us to do so, we wanted to notify the public, in advance, of the proposed sale so there would be a matter of public record for the community as well as for the City Commission and the City Manager. Mr. McMullen said, he was objecting to the sale because we did not take bids. In the business judgment of the board, the price was so favorable, as we will describe to you later, that it would be uneconomical for anyone else to even match that bid. And we were also concerned that the buyers might lower their bid offer. I also want to call your attention to the misinformation about the price. The price was to be $1,600,000 all cash, net. The brokerage commission of almost $100,000 was being paid by the buyers and we told these people that the City Commission...the City were not going to pay any commission, neither was the Off -Street Parking Authority. As a matter of fact, we even insisted that they pay for the stamps that go on the deed, and everything else that is debt note. The Miami headline on Friday, June the 29th was as follows, I quote, "Sale price won't pay off garage", end of quote. However, the article below the headline said, and I quote, "the garage was built in 1961...1961 for $1,800,000 including the land. It, was refinanced in 1964. Combined interest and principle payments between now and 1994, combined interest and principle between now and 1994, on those bonds total about $1,800,000" end of quote. The figure is incorrect. The total obligation, including interest to maturity, is actually $2,166,500 for both garage 1 and garage number 2. Mechanical Garage is valued at 54% of the cost of the 2 garages. The principle plus interest, if we paid interest and principle on garage 2, if we paid the interest until maturity, would only be a cost of a $1,169,910. Not the $1,800,000 in the Herald article. But of course, if you deduct the interest, which we would not be paying on these bonds, the figure would be less, since we would have a million 6 in cash to pay off the principle, if we so desired. By the way, you would be interested to know that $1,600,000 invested at 8% simple interest would amount to about $5,000,000 in 1994 which would be quite a bonanza for the City if we didn't have to use the money for construction of another garage. I just bring this to your attention to show you the misinformation that has been appearing in the Herald with regard to our operation of the Off -Street Parking Authority. The Herald has given us credit for doing a good job in building garages that are practical and have aesthetic beauty to help the progress of the downtown area. On the other hand, their major thrust has been that the City should turn over the Off -Street Parking Garage Authority to the County, the same as they would like to do with the Fire Department, the Police Department and the entire City. The Department of Off -Street Parking has a specialized job, and that is to provide parking in the central business district. That, is are only responsibility. Outside the designated central business district, private enterprise has 02 'JUL 1 1 1979 •to provide parking facilities. It is not in the best interest of the City of Miami to turn over the efficient and successful Off -Street Parking Authority to the County. This would completely dilute the ability of the Authority to fulfill its primary responsibility for the downtown business district. The reason the Off -Street Parking Authority favored selling the mechanical garage number 2, to Florida Atlantic Investments, is simple. They are the only people who can make this garage profitable, since as next door neighboors, they can increase the size of the garage from their vacant property without adding additional elevators and other mechanical facilities and personnel. Furthermore, they have agreed to a potential $100,000 penalty which could be paid to the Off -Street Parking Authority if they did not build additional parking facilities. And for every space they build less than 50, we would receive a credit of $2,000. So there is a real incentive for them to build the entire 50 spaces. Now, because of the mechanical nature of garage 2, it has lost over $1,080,000 since it was built in 1961. We will present you with certified figures by our CPA. We were also concerned that we would again lose money this year, in spite of a recent rate increase. If we didn't sell the garage, we were planning to raise the rates again, to try to break even just on operating expenses. Meanwhile, we will be losing the interest on the $1,600,000. You should also know, that we were advised that it would cost some $300,000 for improvements to maintain the garage which would certainly be an additional financial drain. Now, perinit me to introduce our consultants and I will ask Dick La Baw to pass these figures to you and give you their opinion as to why,the sale of the garage, as we have outlined, is a good deal for the Off -Street Parking Authority, the public, and the City. When we are all through with our presentation, please feel free to ask them, any member of our Board, our Attorney, our Director, our MIA appraisers, any question you might care to ask. I also have with me today the appraisals which were requested by Commissioner Gordon for this meeting. I think you will find these appraisers very respected MIA appraisers and that their work should certainly satisfy Commissioner Gordon, and the entire Commission. The sale,as originally conceived, is a good one and in the best interest of everyone concerned. For the pressing need of the central business district of Miami, we shoulc' proceed with the sale of this mechanical garage and go on with the constrLction of additional parking facilities which are also badly needed. Respectfully submitted, Mitchell Wolfson. Now, if I may have the time, I would like to read you a report from Wainwright, and Ramsey, Mr. Wheel is here today and this is re. the proposed sale of the garage that Mr. La Baw will hand you. Co..Wolfson:Gentlemen, as we are all aware, the consisten trend of operating deficits of garage number 2, has been a matter of pressing concern to the Department of Off -Street Parking, its consultant and the credit rating agencies. It is a fact of life that mechanical garages are less popular with patrons than self park facilities. And that the average cost of parking a ..vehicle is approximately 4 times higher than in the self -park facility. In any business, public or private, sound management practice dictates that one dispose of an unprofitable operation. We concur, with your plan to sell garage number 2 for the following reasons; number 1, the original cost of garage number 2 was $1,350,000 for the building and $506,000 for the land in 1960. The facility is now 18 years old and has a significant amount of deferred maintenance which could require a heavy capital investment. A net price of $1,600,000 impresses us as very advantageous to the Department. 2, you have imposed conditions at the time of the sale, which assure that the garage will continue to be operated and available to the public with expanded capacity, thus continuing your commitment to public service. Three, the sale of the garage will allow the Department to invest the proceeds in a new self -park garage facility, which will be far cheaper to operate thus enabling the Department to continue providing modern, clean, safe parking facilities to the public at lower rates. Four, deficits at garage number 4 have been such a matter of concerns at Moody's Investment Service •Incorporated and Standard and Poors Corporation that we have been apprehensive that both agencies might lower the Department's credit rating from A-1, which is presently the highest rating of parking revenue bonds secured solely by use of these anywhere in the nation. A lowered rating would raise, of course, the financing of new facilities. As you all know, we've got no tax money. The only way we pay off our bonds and operate is with the revenue that we get from the parkers. In summation, we believe that you have constructed the price, times, and conditions for the sale of garage number 2 in the 03 3ui 1 1 �e+a best interest of the public using parking facilities in the City of Miami. Additionally, as financial consultants to the Department of Off -Street Parking and responsible for advise to investers, we approved the sale of garage 2 with the proviso that the proceeds of the sale be used for additional parking facilities--garageto replace garage number 2. Very truly yours, Wainwright & Ramsey, Robert C. Wheel, President. Now, I'd also like your permission to read a letter here from Conrad and Associates who are our parking consultants. Mayor Ferre: Go right ahead. Col. Wolfson: Several times in the past, we have disucssed the need of additional preventive maintenance work at this facility. The principle areas of concern is the many metal parts, gate assemblies, elevator frames, cell angles, etc. etc. which have rusted to various degrees. While some of these elements were cleaned and painted a few years ago, some did not appear to have been painted since the facility first opened, have rusted to the point of pitting its surface. These elements which have been painted a few years ago are in need of cleaning and a new coat of paint. If you are going to continue to upgrade this facility, I believe that a rust removal and painting program should be started andmaintained because the extent of rust on some of the parts, particularly the gate assemblies, initial costs for rust removal and painting will be significant. I was pleased to note that the roller track is now being greased on a regular basis,however, the cleaning and painting of other areas is needed if you are going to keep the facility. Also there are cracks in the concrete which allowed the reinforcing steel to rust in another location. While there is not a structural problem, at present, if allowed to continue, significant damage could result in these areas. On a preliminary,; basis, it is my guesstimate that the cost to clean, paint, the rusted metal along with concrete repairs would probably be in the magnitude of $300,000. Sincerely, Conrad Associates, Howard May, President. Then, one more letter which I would like to read, with your permission. Gentlemen, As you know,I have been concerned about the fiscal aspects of this facility for some time. At the January 24th, 1978 meeting of the Off -Street Parking Board are mentioned several alternatives that the Board should consider. Now, this is January 1978. One, raise rates, significantly. Two, cease operation. Four, demolish the structure and use the land for surface parking. And four, sell the facility. Last year I recommended a substantial increase in rates for that structure. These rates were put into effect December 1, 1978. These new rates were the highest of any facility in your system, and were similar to the private parking rates in the neighboring area. In reviewing the financial report since the rate increase, I note there continues to be an operating loss. It should also be noted, that this loss is occurring even with the increase and use compared to last year. It is my opinion, that the continued operation of this facility is uneconomical. I think that even with the rates that would be increased each year, to stay similar to those of private facilities, the continuing increase in operating tots would result in this facility, at best, staying near the break even point for direct operating expenses. Now, that is just the direct operating expenses. That doesn't include the interest we are losing on the $1,600,000 which could be 5 million dollars in five years if we invested it. Thus it would not be able to pay its share of the cost of general operations, administration and debt service. I believe, it is in the best interest of the City, Off -Street Parking Authority, Miami, and the Bond holders to accept the offer to sell the facility for $1,600,000. Also, I believe, it is unlikely that a higher sale price could be obtained. The future value of the $1,600,000 cash which you were offered, if invested at 8 percent interest, as I've said before, would be worth over 5 million dollars to the Board and the City by 1994 when the last of the bonds are due. By maintaining this facility, not only would the money not be available, there would be a considerable loss over that period of time. Sincerely, Conrad and Associates. Now, I won't try to read the education background, membership, designation of experience of Mr. Harry Flemming, who is one of the best known, well known MIA people in the United States. Nor will I do so for Mr. Sol Bennett, but I have these backgrounds here if you gentlemen would like to see them. Who we asked, at Mrs. Gordon's request, to give us an appraisal on the building. Now, I would like to refer to that please. Request for a preliminary appraisal of the property referred to as garage number 2, legally described as follows, the parking garage together with the structural improvements built on the following described property. Then there is legal description which I won't read and we'll hand them to you together with all pertinent papers. We have inspected the property and reviewed the operating statement for the years 1962-1979 as well as reviewing the income and expense statements for the years 1976, 1977, and 1978 for the other 3 parking garage facilities operated by the Department of Off -Street Parking, City of Miami. The subject property is located on the west side of Biscayne, well you know that. Improvements consist of a 12 story structure with Bowser Systems Semi -Automatic, and so forth. Now, a review of the operating statement clearly indicate a loss in the operation since the inception of the structure. The appraiser is aware of the parking rates both for garage and for 8, presently secured for privately operated off street parking facilities. Most of the parking in the downtown central area, independently operated, are surface parking, except for 2 to 3 parking garages, most of the parking structures in this area are built in conjunction with office type structures. Like Biscayne number 1. A review of the operation of privately owned parking structures indicate that an operator for surface parking lots could not pay more than $200 to $250 net for parking stalls, which would reflect a net income to the fee owner of approximately $105,000. If capitalized at 8% it would reflect evaluation approximately of $1,320,000. And if capitilized at Q% it would reflect a value of $1,175,000 leasee to pay ad -valorem taxes. By the way, as you know, starting next year this property would also go on the City tax roll and the County tax roll, which it isn't now. The Executive Vice President of the National Parking Association in Washington D.C.; w.s contacted for knowledgeable operators. They submitted the names of lir. J. Layden, President, of All -Rite, in Houston, Texas. A publicly owned corporation and a Mr. Edwin Roth of Cleveland. The operator of the largest privately owned company under the name of Ap-Co, Incorporated. Telephone calls were made to both gentlemen by the appraisers and the discussion revolved around the possible interest in this facility. Namely garage 2. Neither of the operators were told the proposed purchase price but were asked whether they would be interested in purchasing such facility. Two, if interested, what would they consider a fair and reasonable purchase price. And three, a general disucssion regarding values and operating problems of this type of facility. Mr. Layden's comments were as follows, quote. "He would not touch it except as a steal and all they could pay under leasee arrangement would be approximately 50% of the gross income for ramp parking. When asked if an offer of $3,000 for car space would be secured, his immediate response was don't let him get away". End of quote. Mr. Roth's comments were that the Bowser unit was a poor and expensive operating system and parts were hard to get. He would only pay $500 to $600 per car space plus land value for a facility with this type of system. He also states that it was his opinion that a good operating parking system would only warrant $1,000 per car space. When asked what he thought of an offer of $3,000 per car space for the facility, he stated "grab it and run". By the way, they are paying us $4,000 per car space. Those gentlemen are familiar with the Greater Miami area and the present operated -facilities in Dade County. Ap-Co is the leasee of the parking facility at Miami International Airport. Both Mr. Layden and Mr. Roth were cooperative and. forthright in the discussion relating to this operation. It is the appraisers opinion that the land as unimproved would have a valuation between 700 and 8 hundred thousand dollars. It is our opinion that the facility including the land would have a market value of approximately $1,200,000 to the $1,250,000. Yours very truly, State Wide Appraisal Service, Harry D. Flemming, President. F. D. Bennett Appraisal Company, Sol Bennett President. 05 JUL1119r9 Now, gentlemen. Just one final thing, if you don't mind. We have here a certified public statement by our Certified Public Accountant, Mr. Robert Graham, and it shows here what I stated before, that the loss since we started operating this garage is $1,857,103. And someone will say, well why did you continue to take these losses. Well, we have always felt that :e had to render service to people. We weren't in the business of making money, we are in the business of providing parking for the downtown area. Arid we were trying our very best to provide parking facilities in that neighborhood, but its just come to a point now where we have to build a garage somewhere else and particularly since we have someone who is willing to pay us such a good price and increase the size of the garage. We thought it was the absolutely the best thing for us to do. Now one, two final things and I'll be out of your way. One, we notified the public through the newspapers that anyone who wanted to come in and bid anymore we would be glad to take their money. And we have had four inquiries. We talked to a Mr. George Goldbloom, who owns the Everglades Hotel. Mr. of our office called him. A Mr. Richard Dennis was sent to us by Commissioner Plummer, Mr. Sam Freidman of Oscar Dooley came over and Mr. Alan Scher came over and looked at the garage, and Mrs. Caroline Weiss came over. So, there were 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, people that talked about bidding but nobody ha; come up with a bid. Now, I'd like to call you attention to this fact, there is no requirement for the City of Miami, nor the Downtown Deve:opment Authority, nor the Off -Street Parking Authority, to advertise for bids in a situation like this. And I would like to propose, even .this was a most unusual case, and I'm sure it will never happen gain,` that you Commissioners today, pass a resolution making it mandatory, if the public so votes it, that in the future any bids of over $4,500 be publicly advertised and sent out for bids, both by the City and by the Downtown Devleopment Authority, and by the Off -Street Parking Authority, nut just the Off -Street Parking but by everybody. And Dick, if you'd pass t1'c resolution which was prepared by your... ay r Pe-r' We have copies of it,Colonel Wolfson Cci. Wolii,,nn You have copies, fine. Mayor keire: We all have it in our package. Cu1. Woilson:-'Well gentlemen, that is the story. I think I have lived lmre long enough and loved this community long enough where I'm more interested in doing what's good for the City rather than doing what's gaud for Mitchell Wolfson. Now, I could have turned tail and run, which Commissioner Plummer knows we don't do that in Key West, and called this deal off and advertise for bids. And Mitchell Wolfson, in the newspapers I guess, would have been a hero. But I would have lost the City and Off -Street Parking Authority some 2, 3, 4, 5 hundred thousand dollars, and 1'd'ratner be critized personally than have the City or the Off -Street Parking or any public institution that I am with lose money. And so tnerefore, I was willing to take whatever abuse was going to be handed out and so was our Board. We are all here today to take this offer, and we have a signed contract by them. Hopefully, there will nothing go wrong with it and we will make one of the best deals for the Off -Street Parking Authority, the City and for the public that could be made under the peculiar circumstances of this unfortunate garage, which was built in the wrong way. I might also just do a little bragging. This built by the first authority which I was the one...and it is the only time: 7. ever voted against anything, and I was out oted. I would have never built this garage. So, I feel no hesitancy in getting rid of it. Mayor Ferre: Thank you, very much, Col. Wolfson for your presentation. You are going to have some questions in a moment, and I'm going to recognize Mrs. Gordon that asked to be recognized. But before we do that, let me explain to you that this morning, we have a Committee of the Whole meeting. We have about 5 or 6 very hot subjects that are going to be discussed. Usually, as the Chairman, I run these meetings here in a loose fashion, so that people have freedom of movement of doing things anyway that they think is appropriate. On this occassion, however, as the Chair, I'm going to rule that the Committee of the Whole meeting which will be going on this morning, I will not accept any motions of any kind. And I... we will take up any motions dealing with Committee of the Whole matters, in the afternoon session. So, we will not take up anything...anything that 06 3UL t to". requires a vote. The purpose of the Committee of the Whole meetings is to, so that the Commission is informed, so that the Commission is educated as to what's going on and to ask questions on the part of the Commission. In the past, we have been very broad in the interpretations. We permitted input from members of the public and they become public hearings. However, that's a very time consuming way of doing things. As Chairman, I'm going to rule today, that today we stick to the Committee of the Whole pattern which is standard operation. So, we can talk about it, and I for one will thank you for your presence today. The proposed resolution which requires a Charter amendment which would in the future assure that property of the City of Miami, whether it is in the Off -Street, or the in DDA of the City proper, be put up for public bid, is something that we will then bring up for disucssion this afternoon. I'd like to ask the City Attorney, let me just ask one question, Rose, and then I'll recognize you,whether or not Col. Wolfson has told us that legally under the Charter, he is entitled, he I don't mean he personally, I mean the Off -Street Parking Authority, is able to do this and it's perfectly legal. And, on the record we just wanted to put that as the City Attorney's ruling. Mr. Knox: Yes, our. Charter provides the power to acquire and dispose of realproperty without setting out any requirements for the acquisition or sale. Mayor,Ferre: Where else, other than, the Off -Street, Parking Authority does the Charter have that provision? Mr. Knox: It also has that provision as it relates to the Downtown. Development Authority and as it relates to the City of Miami. Mayor .Ferre• Mr. Knox: Yes, And the City of Miami. sir. .Mayor Ferre: I see. Now, Col. Wolfson, your position is that your has..:voted`on"this and you wish to:proceed with the:sale; All right, thank you. Mr•s. Gordon. Mrs. Gordon: Mr..Wol contract, it is an offer. You haven't signed`it, nor Therefore it still... Col Wolfson: We have not signed it, yet. But they have signed it now. We finally go it in final form. They have signed it, and we haven't signed it yet. Wolfson, Board the contract you referred to is really not:a It's only unilaterally signed, is that correct? has the Off -Street Parking Authority. Mrs. Gordon: Then it is not a contract till you affix your signature or the signature of the Authority, so it's still an offer. Col. Wolfson: Mrs. Gordon: Yes mam,; Yes imam. .k. Second question.. in with a higher bid Col. Wolfson: We did that so if anyone came + take the higher bid. Mrs. Gordon: And you said, and we agreed, there isn't anything mandatory about the bid process for the Authority, at the present time, however, on.'! a voluntary basis there is nothing prohibiting that, is there? Col. Wolfson: That is right. Mrs. Gordon: And that the Authority chose not to take the voluntary procedure of bidding or asking for bids. Is that correct? we could' Col. Wolfson: Well, we announced it in the paper that it would be open for bid if anyone wanted to bid, and we had five people that looked at it but they didn't bid. Mrs. Gordon: to that. Mitchell, only since this controversy flared up not prior' 07 wit. 1 1 107n, Col. Wolfson: No. Mrs. Gordon: controversy. Col. Wolfson: With no bidding, public notice of..any sort prior to. the Mrs. Gordon: O.k., what is the current cost for construction of a car space: in your garages that are being...gOiflg up now? Col. Wolfson: We think it will be somewhere in the neighborhood of between $5,000, . 4 to $5,000. ` Is that about correct? (UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER Col. Wolfson: How muc Unidentified Speaker: Col. Wofson: $4,000. Unidentified Speaker: Mayor Ferre: Col. Wolfson: Mrs. Gordon: him. INAUDIBLE) h? $4,000. Inaudible That's Mr. Sol Bennett, Sol Bennett. can't see with Unidentified Speaker: Mrs. Mayor Fe:re: Soli Mrs. Mr. Gordon: Sol or the recor who said $4,000.. Ron' head in the way, whose sitting behind Howard Gary. Gordon: I didn't think that was Sol Bennett unless he changed... is' the man who answered. Would you stand up, , Sol Bennett Oh Sol I didn't see you back there. What was your answer, Sol? Bennett: $4,000 (INAUDIBLE) Mrs. Gordon: $4,000, today, plus land. That's what I thought. It would not be in the $2,000 range or $1,000 range, replacement of a facility. Of course, it would be more modern but it would range somewhere in the $4,000 to maybe $5,000 range, depending upon the bid. O.k. Col. Wolfson: That's right. Mrs. Gordon: All right, that clears that thing up. Col.` Wolfson: There paying us Mrs. Gordon: Col.; Wolfson: $4,000 for this ;. ea, understand but theyare not paying under No. No. Mrs. Gordon: Under what should, over what it mean. They are not paying over... Col. Wolfson:` Mrs. Gordon: the cost of replacement Co].. Wolfson: But` Mrs. Gor...Commis they are paying what nobody else would pay you the. people... Mrs. Gordon: We recognize the shortcoming to get some facts on the record. Co]. Wolfson: Yes mam. should be. That's what I really of a new facility. stoner. Gordon, what theyare paying, anything like that ...we read of the facility. j I ust want 08 JUl 1 1 19T9 Mrs. Gordon: O.k. The purchasers certainly are not going toinvest money into the purchase of, with the intention of losing money. It doesn make good sense, does it? Col. Wolfson: Like, like... Mrs. Gordon: The point of that...let me get to the Col. Wolfson: Like everyone in business, you're pretty optimistic and you always hope for the"best. Sometimes, it doesn't turn out quite. that .> way. Mrs. Gordon: True, but the point is that when they make an investment, they are certainly going to want, to expect some return on their investment. Col. Wolfson: I hope they do, I hope they build these additional 50 spaces and that Ihope they can operate it and make a profit. We always want to see people make a profit when they invest their money. It it certainly the private enterprise, American way of doing business. But, that is there problem. Mrs. Gordon: )k. Mitchell, the point, I'm trying to getto a point. point is, that they will be required, out of sheer economic necessity,. increase the mites. Col.. Just the same as we !lr.s. Gordon: Exactly. What I'm trying to bring out is the fact that the pub]ic is going have to pay. an increased rate whether or not the Authority keeps the. property, or the private developer purchases the property. Col. Wolfson: were . going ,t :1rc. Gordo;:: Well, I'm sure of that. I'm positive of that. That is an ecor:o-c `: There ore ' there is an intangible value that is above and boyoad *.ha ?rpraisers value of the approach, that you have probably ubt.ainei the best apprasier you can obtain from the standpoint of quality of. service.'.. But there is an intangible value here that is not a measurable value, in my opinion, and that is the value of the lowest possible rates to chat could be charged and certainly the Authority could afford to charge less than private enterprise could charge for that same facility. Col. Wolfson: Yes, because we wouldn't be paying taxes. They are going to have to pay City and County taxes. Mrc. Gordon: I understand, but there is a service in supplying the public with spaces that are badly needed in downtown, at the least possible cost. Even if in some cases, it needs to be subsidized by revenue from some other facility in the same Authority's jurisdiction Now, there is another consideration, that in the event you should ignore my plea, or anyone else's plea to retain the facility, in the Authority's ownership,then I would hope that you would include into the agreement, that you convey to the purchasers, a deed restriction and a reverter clause, that if in the event it is not kept available for public use as a parking garage, that it would therefore, in some way restrict them from shutting out the public. I think I have covered my thoughts in the issue so that you will understand where I am coming from. ol. Wolfson: Mrs. Gordon, could I just give you a couple of answers. We have 422 spaces there. We hope, and believe, that we will now, with the sale of this,and -with the issue of new bonds, that we will be able to provide some 1,150 new spaces for the central business district. Mrs. Gordon: You still would be providing some new spaces for business district. Col.': Wolfson: ' 14 hundred and some. Mrs. 09 3btA 1 WM Col. Wolfson: We hope to build two new garages downtown. We are drawing the plans right now for the first one. Mrs. Gordon: Mitchell, even if you build three of four new garages downtown, you wouldn't have enough garages downtown to accomodate all the vehicles that are going to be coming into downtown with all the new construction that's taking place. So therefore, I know that the Authority is trying hard to meet the need, but I don't see that selling this facility is going to help meet the need. It is going to, in my opinion, be a...it's going to hold back some of the current available spaces. Col. Wolfson: If we didn't sell this facility, we wouldn't be able to build an additional garage. And, and we are going to give the public a much better facility, a more convenient facility. If you have been there sometime, and wait for your car, sometimes 20-30 minutes, you get awful upset. This way here with the new type of garages we'd build, as other garages, you just walk in get your car and drive out. And believe me, I get it for my wife who has to park down there because she does her shopping, and she always comes back and complains. Mrs. Gordon: I've mentioned the deed restriction and the reverter in the event the public was not allowed to utilize that property for parking. What is your thought on that? Col. Wolfson: That is impractical. Mrs. Gordon: Pardon me. Mayor Ferre: Impractical`.;I think Mrs. Gordon: I know, but you see, then you are losing the public purpose. You are losing the land for the public's use. Mrs. Gordon: It's going to be shutout. The public will be shutout. The rates will be increased to such an enormous degree that they will not be ableto utilize the perking garage. Col. Wolfson: No, no. They will be able to use it because there will be 50 more spaces in addition to the ones we have. The mly difference I see is the rate will be higher, just as we would have to raise the rate. And they will also have to raise the rate sufficiently to pay the taxes to the City and the County. But to put a reverter in a deed, it would mean that we couldn't sell the garage, Commissioner Gordon. Just be impractical, giving you an honest answer. Mrs. Gordon: The private garages and the private parking lots downtown, the rates now are making it impractical for the average citizen to come downtown to do any kind of shopping. We are trying to encourage people to come downtown, to use downtown, and in my opinion, the best way you could help us to accomplish the goal of bringing more people to shop downtown is to not sell this garage. • Col. Wolfson: 0f course, I disagree with that and our board does for the reason that we are going to provide 14 hundred more spaces. And by the way, we have a clause, it isn't a reverter, that these people have to keep this garage operating for a minimum of three years. We just put that in to make sure that it's going to continue to be operated. But believe me, if they add these additional 50 spaces and the fact that they have the building next door, I'm as sure as I'm standing here today, that this will be a garage for a long time. Mayor Ferre: All right, other questions from members of the Commission? Mrs. Gordon: Just to wind up, Mr. Mayor, I don't want to take a long time. You all have questions, I'm sure. The 3 year condition, it would take them that long to redevelop, to develop and redevelop plans and arrange financing 10 °DI for new construction. There is a possibility that the garage could be removed, another office building could come in and it would be private parking. The public would be totally removed from any use of that facility... Col. Wolfson: As I understand your question, we hope that by a year from now we will have a second garage built with at least 780 spaces, the first one. That will be done within the year. And then, we hope, that within the three years we will have another one of 7 hundred and some spaces. Mrs. Gordon: How much... Col. Wolfson: 've been working on both garages for a long time to try.. Mrs. Gordon: How much... Col. Wolfson: to bring them about. Mrs. Gordon: How much financing is still remaining on this property? How much money do we still owe? Cola Wolfson: Mrs. Gordon:: Yea. Col. Wolfson: Well, garage number , as I remember right, was ..as saidir► my report there...was, let's see, let 'me give you the exact figure. 9 hundred and one thousand eight hundred dollars. 9-hundred... Mrs. Gordon: Col. Wolfson: 9 hundred and one thousand eight hundred dollars. That': the principle remaining due• on the garage. Mrs. Gordon: So therefore, when you sell it for. not going to have an equity of one million 6. Mayor Ferrel. by..: million and 6, you are To'freeze-your financing, the ability tofinance others Mrs. Gordon: Yes, but as I said before, if, he invested at what percent you said... the million 6 Col. Wolfson: But we are getting the 9 hundred thousand back plus the 7 hundred thousand, which is the million six, which money we are going to use to build another garage. Mrs. Gordon: Yea, you're saying you are getting the bonding power back for the 9 hundred thousand well, that's understandable but when you put up another facility, that facility will have to stand m its own two feet from the standpoint of revenue bonding. Col. Wolfson: It will. Mrs. Gordon: I believe, that if you wanted to raise some capital for the construction of the second building, you could probably refinance this structure to some degree and loosen up some of the equity you've got tied up in there. .I'm not sure that you can, but I wonder if you can. Col. Wolfson: As John Kennedy said, I'm sure you've heard me didn't understand what I said. Gordon: Perhaps. Col. Wolfson: What the bond rating services have told us, that they may lower our rating if we continue to keep this garageand lose this money. So, what we are doing is taking... 11 -JUL 1 i 19Ta Mrs. Gordon: You raise your rates, that's what you said, you would raise your rates, you wouldn't be losingyour money. Col.Wolfson: We would only break even on operating expenses but; we would be losing the interest we have to pay on the debt service. Mrs. Gordon: But Mitchell, you still have agreed that the private sector is. going to have to raise it and if they raise it it is going to be more than you viou1d raise it to meet your obligation. Col. Wolfson: They don't have to raise it to meet our obligation. Mrs. Gordon: investment.;' Col. Wolfson: o, sir they would raiseit to meet their own return on their That is right. Mrs. Gordon.: Butin your case you would be raising it to meet your obligation. and so then you would come out of the red and still, cover your interest, and so forth. Col. Wolfson: No if we raised it enough, Commissioner,' to pay off the $900,000 plus the interest we would have to maybe raise our rates so astronomically that it wouldn't 1e ableto attract any customers. Mrs. Gordon: But the private sector is going to do exactly that plus. Col. Wolfson: Well, but this gives us the money to build a second garage which is what,I think the City needs. Just as you've said, the downtown development ;s so great that this 1,400 cars is still not as much as we would like to have. But please keep this in mind, any time the City Commission wants to, which I'd `; opposed tc as a private citizen, to put a tax on all the people of Miami including the people in the outlying areas, the ethnic people whether they be Soanish.or black or whatever, with the little homes that are handicapped right now with taxes and with utility bills and high interest rates and so forth, to Fay for;`rar':ir.g in the downtown area I think would be a big mistake and the vr.; we've e ^ .':1e to structure this with your help and your consideration is *..'= the only jecrle that pay any money for these garages are the people that .h;: perking and, therefore, we have not had to go to the City and ask you tc ,.ivc us any tax supported subsidy to do this job and I know that that's your opinion, I know that's your desire and you don't want to raise taxes any - Mrs. Gordon: I don't. We're just debating it and I don't think there isany need to further debate it. {Mr. Lacasa:-- Mr. Wolfson, I really want to thank you and the members of the a.ifji-d on.bchslf of the City for your contribution. I believe that this is a very fortunate City to have members of an authority such as your's devoting the time to it. I for one feel that there has been a misunderstanding here and quite. frankly I had two questions and I don't have a question after having listened to your explanation about the reasoning of the Authority to go ahead with this sale. My question is basically the fact that the Commission was not informed - the Commission was not informed. I see that the Authority took the • time to call on the Miami Herald and the Miami News, however, the City Commis- sion which is ultimately responsible to the citizens of the City of Miami for whatever destiny the properties that the City has was not informed and I for one had to learn about this issue which became controversial afterwards through the paper. Thank God as you explained to us mis-information and the only infor- mation that I had was wrong information and that was because we were not in- formed. However, we have to answer to the public when a question of this nat- ure comes out. The second point is that I will endorse and move the resolution proposed to you as soon as the Mayor this afternoon this for discussion. And the third question is this, would it be advisable, and this is a question to you and the members of the Authority, that when a major piece of property be- longing to the City of Miami is out for sale or for disposition in any way that this piece of property, action on the piece of property requires the approval of the City Commission rather than an independent authority which is not elected directly by the people. Col. Wolfson: Can I answer that? We think we have done a great service not only to the public but to the City Commission. We've been the buffer between you and the special interests that want to do things for their private purpose. We've had many occasions on which people with a large voting power or a large influence have come to the City Commission, before you were on it and before many of these members were on it, and wanted to have a garage built which they should. have built themselves and the City Commission has said, "Well, we have an Authority, they're an independent authority, we have confidence in them, they've been given this authority and you have to go and see them" then we get our consultants, every one of them and we've surveyed the property carefully and if we find that it is not a proper place for the public to build a garage we turned it down on the basis of pure business reasons without being subject to the political pressures that you lady and you gentlemen are under and I think it would be a big mistake to have the City Commission get back into the parking business because you're going to be under terrific pressure to put garages where they shouldn't be put and this way here you have us as a buffer and as long as you have confidence in us you're much better off to operate that way and that was the original idea and it worked so well for over 25 years that i think it would be a mistake to change it. Now believe me when- ever we have some idea of doing something like we've had recently we've talked to the City Manager. We haven't come and talked to each one of you gentlemen or lady, you've got enough to do and we thought we were doing the job for you and if there was something that came up that we thought might make sense we talked to the City Manager and kept him informed and we think we ought to con- tinue to operate that way in the best interest of the Commission. Mr. Lacasa: Thank you very much, Mr. Wolfson. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Grassie, I think I have to ask the obvious question then, if you were informed why didn't you inform the Commission of the proceedings of this? Mr: Grassie: Col. Wolfson,'I guess at about the time they were handling the sale, called me and it was in the nature of a report, he was telling me what he was doing and that was all. I didn't make any comment on it one way or an- other. Mayor Ferrer I think the question is shouldn't the Commission also know what you know when Col. Wolfson calls and reports something like this. Col. Wolfson: Well, when I called the Manager there was nothing concrete, I was just telling him of the possible sale of the garage to just sort of keep the situation alive and we had another situation which I think Mr. Grassie will remember when wer were working on the Burdine property and I called him and told him we were working on this and if these people would give us the garage that we might consider taking the land I mean, taking the land, give us the land and let them have the air rights. That deal has not gone through but it is in the works. Mayor Ferre: Colonel, when it became concrete did you or did somebody or Mr. La Baw inform Mr. Grassie or anybody in the City that it had become a concrete matter? Col. Wolfson: No, the only time it became concrete was that day when we in- formed Mr. Mc Mullen and Mr. Kessler and we thought they would put it in the paper and everybody would be informed. 13 JUtii 1970 Mayor Ferre: All right, any further questions? Mr. Plummer: Well, Mr. Mayor, my only comments and my only concerns.... Mr. Mayor, I just want to make an observation. I too only have one problem, if you want to call it a problem, is that when the final came into play in the sale of the building the Commissioners should have been notified. But I'm sure the Colonel will remember well as will Dick La Baw that quite extensively I have gone into their budget for the past three years and I recommended to them strangely enough two years ago that you were losing sufficient funds in this operation that you get rid of the thing. I recommended that two years ago to you people. Col. Wolfson: Yes, sir, you did. Mr. Plummer: And it was my recommendation this year to you after extensive discussion in my office of which I was grateful for that you at least raise the rates to break even. And the only thing I can say, the only concern that Iexpress is more than adequately covered in this resolution. So I only say that it doesn't come as any surprise to me, it was my recommendation to you two years ago that you do this, it's an unfortunate situation and I want you to know that this all came about - you think your wife raised hell with you? My car got stuck in there four hours, Mr. La Baw will remember one day when the gate jammed. And that proved to me without question that that place was just not financially feasible. Colonel, I am more concerned today that this money be taken and that you do what you have said and that is to implement as quickly, as possible the building of new structures. The only thing that I beg you to do is to look into our Convention Center because there we're talking about $6,600 per parking space and you're doing it for 4. Now, the only thingI can say is if you've got some magic that you portrayed for this 25 years would you please extend that magic over to Southeast 2 and 2. Thank you. Rev. Gibson: - Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, two things. I want to thank all of the members of the Board who serve, I think you've done us a ser- vice in the past and you will continue to do us a service now and in the future. I trust your judgement. When the newspaper called me and asked me I made this comment, "The only regret I have was that I had to read it in the paper and as a public ofi..cial I should have been told." And I said to the people I would be very reluctant to criticize that Board because I trust the judgement of the Board. I happen to be one of the firm believers if you don't trust a board don't appoint it. If you don't trust those people, I don't care what it is, don't appoint them. And I trust you. But I would have lived much happier these two or three, four or five, six days if you had told me, not that you were ask- ing me, but that you told me "Hey man, we've got to get rid of this", you know you didn't have to go into the details. However, I'm satisfied in that you now have come up with a remedy to avoid this happening again so that I'm not caught by surprise. In other words when you say all of the City property for all agencies in order to sell it if it is more than $4,500 put it up to bid and everybody knows what everybody knows and then I'm not caught unaware. Now one other thing, this may not be good business but I'm not so sure I'm a good businessman anyway. I would, since you say you are going to build, have you decided where you're going to build? Or businesswise that's a secret not to tell, you know how that is, sometimes if you say you know everybody is going to buy up around. Okay. Col. Wolfson: No, we thought we had told you, we thought everybody knew but we'll tell you again if we haven't told you. First of all, I want to apologize for the Commission for not informing you more promptly and I can assure you that it will not happen again, and I speak for the whole board, we -probably should have notified you more formally and it will be done in the future with anything like this. Now we were very wise I must admit and even take a little credit for the board for it, by what they call land banking some land, by buy- ing some land a long time ago, and we bought this land for $4.00 a square foot even though today it's worth $20 or $30 a square foot and it's right on North- east Third Street that we own free and clear across from the Miami Community College and across from the New Federal Courthouse and right next to the present garage and we own the land, we don't have to pay anymore money for the land, it's all paid for and that is the first place where we're going to build. I might say this, because I'd like to review some history, before we made a move we wrote you gentlemen on the Commission, "Do you want us to build a garage that we can afford to build if we can raise the money for at the Convention Center? And if you do that would be our first obligation to take care of the City and you gentlemen told us that wasn't necessary so then we went to the second place. Now the second place was the Burdine property which is located across the street from Burdines and Miami Avenue there and we tried to work out a deal with them that they would give the City without any cost to the City 4 III/ 4 4 1070 Okay. for the land, and if they would give us the land and keep the air rights we would build a garage there and they would pay for the foundation strong enough to support anything above and that was the best and most needed location. They turned that down for the time being and told us they were sorry, they had some other deals cooking and so forth and so on so then the third choice was this site here. We've talked to some of the federal judges and they're so grateful to the City and the Off -Street Parking Authority that that garage is there now although it's filled up at 9:00 O'Clock every morning, that some of the jurors that come in from Pahokey and the outlying places are scared to come to down- town Miami and have a good safe place since Commissioner Plummer got us to move the benches there where the fellows used to sleep and lay around, and they are very very looking forward to another garage there which we need and which the Community Col]ege needs and which the business people need because they come there and they park there. There is where we're presently working with Mr. May who is in charge of drawing the plans for us to put the first garage. Now the second garage, we still hope maybe somebody like Burdines or somebody, Southeast Bank or whoever will give the City some very valuable land as a gift and that would be a wonderful thing for them because they could charge it off as a deduction to Uncle Sam and we could get the land for nothing and we'd build a garage there provided it's in the right location where it will serve the public and not any private person and that's one of the reasons we've been held up on that, it's a very interesting thing. In order to issue tax exempt bonds it has to e for a public purpose and we have never been able to agree with them that`w! will give so many spaces for a hotel or so many spaces for that, it has to :'e on a first come -first served basis and with that little problem we've begin delayed some but this land here we own and we're putting a garage right these>and the plans are being drawn right now and I suspect by a one of these days we'll have you gentlemen and lady come down fcJr groundbreaking. Mrs. Gordon: We] fson: How many spaces, Mitchell? 780. Mrs. Gordon: Only 780, and the rest you don't know where the rest of the you don't know where they'll be orwhen, spaces you spoke about beforewill be 'ol . Y;o] .`s : 1 The other 700 ; cars? No, tl-e money- en-1 ;ind a place to build it. Mrs. it's not until we sell this building, get Gordon:" And then you've got to find a place and you don't going to be. know where Ccl. Wolfson: Yes, and we're working on that all the time negotiating, you know, hopeiutly one of these days we can come up and say to you, "We've got this piece of land, we let you know this time, and apologize -for not having •:; done it the last time." Mrs. Gordon: Mitchell, so the record will reflect exactly where we are, if, in fact, this building, is not sold you're saying on the record that the new garage next to the present garase across from the Junior College could not and would not be built? Col. Wolfson: No, ma'am, I'm not saying that. That will positively absolute- ly be built, we've got the credit to do that one. But this is a second one we're worrying about. Mrs. Gordon Well, and that 's is a nebulous thing because you don't have a loca- tion yet or even know when or where or how. Col. Wolfson: That is right. Mrs Gordon: i4ayor Ferree All right, further questions from the Commission? If not, let me make a few comments on this. In the first place, Colonel, I think you've explained it very very succinctly and very clearly, anybody who can read the Er, lisp language can understand what your position is and I think you've done a good job of that. There are some basic philosophical questions that are in- volved in all these things, of course, this is not the time to address them but I do want to point out that times have changed. The idea of 10 or 15 years ago how to solve problems was to go to authorities. Now we've had occasions, let's say at the waterfront, to create another authority which wanted to be it 1 1 1979 mr patterned after the Off=Street Parking and this Commission in its majority anyway decided not to go in that direction and the reason is the accountabil- ity of things to the public, in other words through the elected officials and I think, I know that's a controversial thing but if, indeed, we believe in the Jeffersonian Democracy then we must elect people to be responsive to the needs of the community and if we give these people the responsibility then they must have the corresponding authority. For us to diverge ourselves of tat authority in effect is to give up the responsibility. Now, I'm not saying this in any way as a criticism to the Off -Street Parking Authority, that was created at another time and another age and certainly what has happened over the years is magnificent and what you've done is wonderful. I noticed that in your statement you mentioned the Herald, the News and John Mc Mullin nine times in a five page statement so let me add just one sentence to that. I sent to the members of the Commission and to Mr. Grassie copies of a letter which I wrote to the Herald which they probably won't print, I haven't seen the paper this morning so I don't know if it was printed but I rather doubt it. So let me share with you, I just want you to hear this for a second because I think this is very germain to a lot of the things we're going to be discussing. On Friday there was an editorial in the Miami Herald which the title was the City of Miami Flounders in a Comedy of Errors, One More Mistake and that kind of thing. The conclusion of that editorial was abolish the City of Miami. Now in that same page there was another editorial which talked about Metro. It said, Metro Hacks Hack Fares and it took to task some members of the Metro Com- mission. Now I want to point out to you the difference between those two edi- torials. The Herald editorial board is entitled to criticize Metro and the City of Miami Commission and I think that is appropriate but notice what their conclusions are. When it deals with Metro they point the finger and say you did wrong, you did wrong, you're a bad guy and you ought to change your mind. When it deals with the City of Miami they always invariably conclude abolish the City of Miami. Now, the moral of that story is that you and I should not be surprised when they take issue with a lot of different things because their main purpose in taking issue evidently is not to criticize the right or the wrong of the matter as they with Metro, and rightfully so, but rather to try to put one more nail in the coffin, in what they consider the coffin. Now they've been doing this for 26 years no matter who the editor is that has been a standard Herald editorial policy and I think when they do that what they do is they weaken the thrust of their argument because their credibility is lost because you never know when they're doing this because they believe in what they're saying or when they're doing it as a political attack to try to embarrass the City of Miami. So I just wanted to make that comment on the record. Now, with regards to this garage I happen to probably know more about this than most people other than, of course, yourself and the members of the Board. At one time when my family and I owned the building next door you and I talked about the possibility of our purchasing that garage. At that time I was not on the City of Miami Commission so there was no conflict. Now at that time when that was discussed as I told you subsequently, my father who was the one who decided to put up the building made a decision to put a 300,000 square foot building without a garage and everybody said he was crazy that it didn't make any sense. He said no, it will work out and it worked out because subsequent to that you all decided to put up a garage or actually you had put it up before, I beg your pardon, it was there before the building went up. Now the reason why we after studying it concluded not to buy that garage was what we did is we went out and we bought land behind the property instead because it was cheaper to buy sur- face parking property and hold it as a land bank operation and eventually if we had to put up a garage to put up a ramp garage and the reason for that, and I want to state this into the record, is that mechanical garages are absolutely ineffective. Now 15 years ago that was the raging thing, that was the new thing, that was the thing to do was to put up a mechanical parking garage but everybody has found out since that mechanical parking garages do not work. They break down, they cost a lot of money to repair, they cost a lot of money to maintain, with the cost of electricity and fuel they are prohibitive to oper- ate and you really don't get value out of them. As a consequence they only place you see mechanical garages being put up today in the United States is in small lots where there is absolutely no other choice. Wherever you have a choice you don't put up mechanical garages. Well then why, in answer to Mrs. Gordon's question which I don't think was completely addressed, why would the people who now own the building want to buy the parking garage? Well, I think the answer simply is that the other properties around that we owned are now purchased and they are precluded from buying that land and you cannot have a parking garage to serve a building more than a couple of hundred feet away and so, therefore, since they are the property owners of an empty lot next to the garage it makes sense if they expand the garage beyond 500 or up to 500, 492 units as you explained, and I think then they might have a chance of being able not only to break even or to make a small profit but more important, not �ryry to make money in the garage but to guarantee that the 300,000 square feet of office space which they have in that building now are guaranteed parking be- cause they were finding, and let me make this point very clear, is that now they are charging - I don't know what the going rate is - 9.50, $10.00 a square foot for office space but the people who want office apace won't buy rent that space unless you can give them guaranteed parking and since these people can not do that that is their interest. As a consequence, it is my personal opin- ion that the only people who have any logic in buying that garage are the people with the property next door. Now with regards to tearing it down, who is going to tear down a piece of property that sold for a million six and they're going to have to spend $300,000 to repair it and improve and another half a million dollars to increase it to the 500 space size and then tear it down, that land as the appraisers have said is worth as land maybe $700,000. Who would buy for a million six cash a $700,000 piece of property? So that doesn't make any sense. So I think if you go through the logic of this you come to a conclusion that what you're doing makes business sense, business sense. Now if you have something which the Miami Herald again has once in a while criticized which is a conservative 2 to 1 ratio on the money you borrow. In other words.... Col. Wolfson: One and a half to one. Mayor Ferre: One and a half, I'm sorry. Let me explain this in terms of what the public understands. That means that your debt service every year has got to be covered one and a half times so that if you have a debt service of a hundred thousand dollars you've got to make $150,000 every year. Now that is a conservative wise position to take. Now.... Col. Wolfson: Excuse me, Mr. Mayor, can 1 just interrupt? Believe me, we didn't put those terms in, we tried to get them quite different than that. They were forced on us by the people that bought our bonds Mayor Ferre: By the people who buy the bonds, I understand that and that's why you have the highest rating possible which is A-1 in your particular field. Now, since you have an A-1 rating you're able to borrow money cheaper which means you're able to build garages cheaper and charge less. Now what in effect you're doin.1 is you're getting rid of a lemon and you're taking that money whether oz`nct you pay debt with it or whatever, it is a million six which is applicable to your debt structure which then permits you to put up another building but this time you're going to do it right, you're not going to make the mistake you made 20 years ago. You're not going to put a mechanical gar- age, you're going to put a ramp garage. Now, where is this new garage? It is a block and a half away. So in effect what you're doing is you're trading 442 spaces for 780 spaces. Now the fact as to whether or not you can build that garage if you didn't have this money or not I don't think is germain for this very simple reason that you're going to keep on building garages until you reach your maximum, whatever that is and your maximum is being hurt by the fact that you're losing $100,000 a year in this thing. That means from a ratio point of view you've got to make up $150,000 of profit somewhere for the hun- dred thousand that you're losing here. So the impact yearly is $250,000 that if you did not have this garage you would be free to borrow money on to ser- vice and build other garages. So I think the logic is very very clear. My last two points are very simple. I agree with everything but two areas, Col- onel. One area is I think that since this is City of Miami property that it would be wiser if you had let, if you or Mr. La Baw or the members of the Board had let the City of Miami Commission know what you were doing. And the second thing that you and I talked about and that I feel strongly about is that it is still my opinion that you ought to put this out for public bid. Now, you told me, you gave me the reasons why that could not be done. I understand and I want to ask you just one last time for the record to make sure that you do not want to put this out for a public bid at this time. Col. Wolfson: If we do you'll lose 3 or $400,000 on the sale and as I said before I'd rather take all the criticism, whatever they might heap on me by the newspapers and make the public and the City and the Off -Street Parking Authority the proper deal and save them 3 or $400,000, that's more important to me, that's the reason why I take this job without any salary, that's why the Board members do the same thing and they work very hard, they're there at B:30 in the morning to do their job and they're more interested in doing what is right than there is in satisfying some of the writers at the Miami Herald. And Mr. Mayor, there was no requirement taht we take bids either by the City nor by the Downtown Development Authority nor by the Off -Street Parking Author- ity and we just never thought of it. But I have now that this criticism has come up of the City and ourselves have suggested to you that we be required in the future to take bids, aothough I can assure you we're not going to sell any more of our real estate that is so valuable and that we own. Mayor Ferre: Colonel, you see since you again mentioned the Miami Herald let me point out that a much larger garage than this called Apcoa at the Airport, I think it is close to 2,000, 1,800 parking spaces was given to Apcoa without going through a bid process. Now it was a negotiated deal and I want you to know that the Miami Herald Editorial Department never said word one about that - never. So that's another proof that the Miami Herald is duplicitous I guess is the word which means that they have two standards - one is the standard they apply to the City of Miami the other is the standard they apply to Metro. If they Miami Herald was on gung ho in criticizing leases and sale of property without a bid process why did they not complain about the Apcoa lease at the Airport that was extended to Apcoa without going through a bid process? I think the point is that because it has been made such an issue 1 think for public confidence it would be much better if you were to put this out for public bid and that's just my opinion. Rev. Gibson: Let me ask this, I don't know. But the likeliness that you go that route now you may lose your deal, isn't that a possibility? Col. Wolfson: We definitely will, we've been told that. would hope---- Well, you know what I'm thinking. Col. Wolfson:Y,•s. Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, let us be your buffer, let us take whatever criticism the Herald or the News or anyone else wants to give and let us do whet is right for the public and let us do what is right for the City i.n the 'ay of getting the top dollar for this property. Now this doesn't e:,zi.re ea :ion on your part but we're here today to bare our souls and tell you everything and we have all our people here, in case you wanted to ask them any questions as to why this was such a good deal for the City and, of cours€,`;ifyou want to pass a resolution approving it we'd appreciate it but if you don't want to do anything that's all right with us too. Mayor Ferre: Colonel, we're not going to pass any resolutions this morning, this afternoon we're going to take up the resolution to amend the Charter and 1'd like :to"ask your attorney.... 3y the way, let meassureyou this, whether you passthat reso- 11.1t5on to amAr!r_=the Charter or whether they City votes for it we will not take more sales of property without a public bid. Mayor Ferre Let me ask your very capable attorney this. Ron, is there, a L. _ change b LY:een the resolution that George Knox presented us and the one you presented us this morning? George? Mr. Knox: No, sir, there were one or two cosmetic changes that Ron Silver spoke to me about and we concurred in those changes, the resolution is essent- ially the same. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Knox: So the substance of it is agreeable, to you in the legal? es, sir. Mayor Ferre: you have any Mr. Grassier Now Mr. Manager, you've had an opportunity to look objections to that resolution? No, sir, none at all.. Mayor Ferre: Colonel, and you're the one that' have any problems with you I assume. at that, d proposing it, so_ we;:don 't Cv . Wolfson: No, sir. Gibson: Mr. Mayor, you ought to tell the Colonel that my prayer this ,nozniny was exactly what you said and maybe you need to tell the papers that I prayed for that we would do that which was right and best for this commun- ity, that you said, you reaffirmed that you were doing what was right and best for the community. See, so maybe it will be answered. Mayor Ferre: All right, thank you very much, Colonel Wolfson, for your.. Col. Wolfson Thank you. Gentlemen, we will go ahead and we thank you for giving,' us the opportunity to come here and explain the whole thing to you. Thank you very much, all of your Commissioners. 13/19 J U L 1 1 1979 See Resolution No. 79-501 passed and adopted later in the day. 2. ALCAPATTAH TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM - REPRESENTATIVES OF "ACCION" AND "IMPACT" PROGRAMS. Ms. Dena Spillman: Mayor and Commissioners, as you recall at your last meeting we had a discussion over transportation services in the Allapattah neighborhood. The staff recommendation at that time was that the Accion Program be granted the funds for that program, the Commission asked us to go back and bring back more information on the subject. In the meantime, we did extend funding for Impact through July 30th of this year so that residents of the neighborhoods are being served - this was done by Commission resolution. There is one point I would like to make at the beginning so that there is no misunderstanding. I think a lot of the people who are here are very concerned that they are not go- ing to be receiving transportation services in Allapattah. I think it is import- ant that we understand that no matter who provides the service these people will`, be served. It's not a question of shutting off a service to people, it is a question of who will provide the service to the people and I'm not sure that all the people in the audience understand that. Well, they will I hope by the time Ms. Spillman: The first time we brought this up there was some discussion back and forth with Impact's staff regarding problems that we had with the work pro- gram and what 1 would call communication problems. We have met with the Impact staff, we sat down for a couple hours, we have talked about the work program, they have agreed to change the work program in those instances where we did have. problems. I' think that what we're faced with today is two proposals to provide the same service in a neighborhood. To make it very brief, let me just review with you, I think you're all aware that Accion Community Center, Inc. is a neighbor based corporation which does receive extensive funds from the City of Miami. They received $30,500 from City CD and I think it's important to note here that they also received $10,000 from the County's CD program. Impact, from my knowledge, does not receive any County CD money, Accion does receive $10,000. Accion receives $44,500 in FRS money, $98,000 in CETA moneys and they have re- cently obtained a grant from State DOT for $53,000 for new buses. A few points I'd like to make with you, as I said, Impact has agreed to revise their work program. I do have, however, copies of letters which were sent from Impact to Action over the past year requesting Accion to pick up their clients to provide services to them. Accion is already serving people in Allapattah without addi- tional funding, they would serve more people if this funding were given to them. Another point that came up in our meeting with Impact was that Impact is sub- ject to all County personnel policies and for the first six months of the pro- gram there was a hiring freeze in the County, because of that they could not hire a bus driver and, therefore, their performance for the first six months of that program was not up to par. As you well know, private non-profit agenc- ies are not subject to any City or County personnel Civil Service requirements and, therefore, have more flexibility in hiring. You have a chart attached to your package which shows information about the two proposals, I think the im- portant thing to note on that is that the proposal we received from Accion pro- poses a lower cost per trip than the Impact program proposes so that we would be paying less money per trip with Accion. Just for your information, last year's proposal during our fourth year program based on proposed number of clients to be served Accion's cost per client was $4.98 and Impact's was $6.25. Our zecommendation remains the same, that Accion be funded for this program. If you have any questions I'd be happy to respond to them. Thereupon, the Commission heard from the following public speakers in favor of the two programs: Mrs. Fran Kraemer stated that the Impact Program received $30,000cin County CD Funds. She pointed out that Impact provides a demand service`` to the. frail elderly while Accion provides a fixed route service and said that that was the reason Accion was able to serve more people. The following speakers spoke in favor of Impact: Jorge Castillo Ralph Molins Pedro Poveda Mrs. Cruz Mrs. Gail Hillson Mr. Manuel Vasquez, Vice President of the Board of Directors of Accion appeared and said that based upon past performance he thought Accion should receive the funding for it's operation. Mr. Octavio Blanco stated in response to Mrs. Kraemer's statement that45% of Accion's trips were to take clients to doctor's offices, hospitals, etc.' not on a fixed route. Ms. Barbara Spurrier said that she had come here to speak in favor of retainingthe program but that she had been misledby persons who tole her the program was going to be abolished. Mayor Ferre: Dena, you heard the statements made on both sides, now wind it up and give us your recommendations and then I'll get to the questions. Ms. Spillman: Just two comments, Mrs. Kraemer indicated that Impact provides a system of services beyond transportation, we would certainly hope that no matter who provides transportation the County would continue to provide those same services that they're providing in that neighborhood which they should be doing. I don't know if Mr. Blanco made this clear, Accion does have a demand' response program. Mayor Ferre: Demand response, you mean door to door? Ms. Spillman: Yes, someone can call them up and say, "I need to go somewhere" and they can do that. One other point, just briefly, that the County should be providing certain social services in the City and I think sometimes it gets confusing as to what is being discussed here today, it's the transportation component. The other Impact programs provided by the County will continue to be provided, obviously both agencies cooperate and Accion will make sure people get to wherever they're supposed to get to get the right services and our recom- mendation remains the same. Mayor Ferre: all right, now questions. Mrs. Gordon? Mrs. Gordon: What can I say? It's a a circus. As far aS I'm concerned a foregoing conclusion, it's arguing with the inevitable. Mr. Plummer: Let's get the record straight so I'm confused.` this matter taken before the CD. group? Ms. Spillman:': Mr. Plummer: Ms. Spillman: It_ was taken to he All right, and it was their recommendation for the change? Mr. Plummer: (2) The documents you have given us say that the recommendation of the Accion would be for a lower per cost trip. Ms. Spillman:' That's the proposal, yes. Rev. Gibson: people?` rt it was taken before the Chairperson, what about the o‘ Ms. Spillman: There was no community meeting held, there was not time, all we asked, we asked for another proposal to have something to go by. Mrs. Gordon: Do you mean just one person, Dena, made the decision? Ms. Spillman: There's no decision, we asked for.... Mrs. Gordon: Or the recommendation? Ms. Spillman: All he recommended was that another proposal be received for competitive purposes to see what services could be provided. Mrs:. Gordon: Did he recommend the one that you're recommending? Ms. Spillman: Yes. Mrs. Gordon: All right person here? Mayor Ferre: Mrs. Gordon: Mayor Ferre: can I - well, I wish he was here. Is the gentleman s Mr. Urra here? Did you ask him to be here, Dena? He's" on vacation, is that right? He's out of town? INAUDIBLE COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE. Okay. Mayor Ferre: Did you threaten him last night? I see, so why don't you tell'.' us what your conversation was with Mr. Urra and what you said to him." UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: evening and he wasn't Maycr! Ferre: I` talked with Mr Urra out of the City, he was Will you UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: he didn't know. yesterday about 7 O'Clock in the. at his home. tell us what you told Mr. Urra on the telephone? I asked him if he wanted to come here and he said that Mayor Ferre: I see. Was there anything else that you told him that you would like to shre with this Commission and the public? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Well, what I told "him is that he knows that I belong to the personnelof the Impact Program and that we are going to fight for what we bslieve is our right to have, that's all. Mayor Ferre: That's all youtold him?. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That's all. Mrs. Gordon::. re you aware of anything else, Mr. Mayor? Mayor Ferre: I understand that there were some threats made to Mr. Urra and, of course,he'll have to speak for himself `since ;I was not present during the conversationbut he can discuss those publicly at a future meeting, I'm sure. Mrs. Gordon:; Urra? Mayor Well Mr. Mayor Ferre:> No, I" have not. may I ask you a question? Did you speak to Mr. Mrs. Gordon: Then it was relayed to you? Okay. Mayor Ferre: This was information that I received yesterday that Mr. Urra had been called and threatened and he can clarify that on his own. Mrs. Gordon: Certain allegations of that sort had come to me, I didn't choose to put them on the record but since you've made that, it came to me that the threats were made from the other side and the threats were that his political future might be in danger if, in fact, he didn't make the recommendation which he made. Now, that's as much in fact, I assume, as what you're making as a statement. Mayor Ferre: No, what I heard was that the people from the County had threat- ened to cut off his hot meal program he's trying to get if he didn't go along with the County people. 22 rt JUL ! I ieTO Mrs. Gordon: Well, I guess he had to choose between that and his political future I guess from what we both heard. Mayor Ferre: Did you talk to Mr. Urra? Mrs. Gordon: No, I don't talk to Mr. Urra, it came tome the same way it came to you. Mayor Ferre: 5o in other words that's also third hand information. Mrs. Gordon: It came from the grass roots, that's right. Mr. Howard Russell: Mr. Mayor, I'm the administrator of the Impact Program and I spoke before this Commission two weeks. I'm Howard Russell. And it was at that Commission Meeting when Dena spoke and gave the reason why they were recom- mending that they money be taken away that I for the very first time heard that the residents of Allapattah wished this transfer of the funding from us to Accion. So as a result of that information which Dena gave publicly I then with Mr. O'Toole and Jorge went to visit Mr. Urra and I said, "Is there something that we're doing that you're displeased with, is there something more that you want us to do? and he said, yes, there are two things that I would like. I would like the vehicles over night to be based in Allapattah and not across the Miami River at your senior center. He would also like the dispatcher, the person who receives the request from the elderly for transporation to be based'in the Alla- pattah Neighborhood Center which is a County Center and we said that that was no problem for us. We went and talked to the director of the center, Sarah Gomez, and Israel Milton, the County Director of the Neighborhood Services Cen- ter and they said that there is no problem with that. So Mr. Urra at that point told us that he would go back to Dena and recommend that the funding stay with the impact program because we had been giving good services and that the only thing he wanted really was that the vehicles and the dispatcher be physically located in Allapattah and not just across the river. A day later he told Jorge that he had to change his mind again because he was caught in the middle was what he told us. So there was no meeting of residents of Allapattah. Mr. Urra for whatever reasons had gone to Dena but the residents of Allapattah didn't know anything about this at the time of the Commission Meeting when Dena said that, it was really Mr. Urra for whatever reasons and then Mr. Urra told us, "Yes, the money can stay with you if the vehicles and the dispatcher remain in Allapattah." I would also like to say that the reason we do not have as many elderly people here as Accion, we're not in that kind of competition, we wanted to bring some representatives, is that the majority of the people that we trans- port are not well elderly, they're frail elderly. Mayor Ferre: All right, thank you. Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Mayor, I'm concerned. Beyond the fact of the funding of this program or that program, I'm concerned about the political implications that are being placed before us. I believe that this Commission to fulfill it's responsi- bility entirely to the people of the City should require Mr. Urra to come here and to make a personal statement under oath as to whether has received threats either from one side or the other side. And also, Dena, to you, you yourself have a staff who does most of the work for you in the early stages at least to the very last decision -making process which is bringing you to the microphone. I would like you to bring your staff, the three people that you have.... Ms. Spillman: My staff is here right now if you'd like to talk with them. Mrs. Gordon: Oh fine, but I would prefer that they be here at the same time that Mr. Urra is here so that the questions that are being addressed to him would be addressed in their presence. I would make that as a request of this Commission for the next Commission Meeting that Mr. Urra come here and be asked to take an oath. Mayor Ferre: Well, let me say that I complete agree that Mr. Urra should come here and under oath make.a statement. However, in my opinion we will not put,. off this decision today. This decision will be brought for a vote this after- noon and we will make a decision today. Mr.' Frank Castaneda appeared before the Commission and stated that he and Mr. Blanco had met with Mr. Urra some 10-12 days prior at which time Mr. Urra stated to them that he would not be present to support either Impact or Accion because he was requesting space in the Allapattah Community Center to operate a meals program and he felt his presence would jeopardize his chances of getting that. 23 5trl. Tin 1 • Mayor Ferre said he felt the City should favor City agencies when the level and quality of service were nearly equal but in this instance the City agency was in his opinion rendering superior service. He then cited statis- tics to support his view. After hearing from other speakers the City Commission took a five minute recess before returning to their deliberations. 3.. DISCUSSION ITEM: ORANGE BOWL LEASE AGREEMENTS, SCOREBOARD, ETC. Mayor Ferre: We are now on Item "B", Mr. Manager, the discussion of the lease agreement for the Orange Bowl. Mr. Grassie: The purpose of this item, Mr. Mayor and members of the City Com- rnission, is to seek authorization from the City Commission for a new, one more try to solve the leasing problem that we have with the Orange bowl. You remem- ber.in the, individual budget discussions that we've had with individual members of the, City Commission that we have projected the possibility of as much as $200,000 of revenue for the City in order to help finance next year's budget. If we're going to accomplish that we need to get this work started as quickly as possible. Now what we have on your agenda, and what we're seeking your author- ization to present, keeping in mind that it has not been presented so far to anyone, what we're seeking authorization on is basically a lease agreement which includes all of the provisions that the City Commission has already approved in your prior resolution of July of last year, in other words you have author- ized all of the terms that we include in this document with the following ex- ceptions: First, with regard to the scoreboard the terms are identical to what you have already approved. With regard to beer sales, we are talking about an agreement which would cover beer sales for one year, that is through July of 1980 at the rate recommended by the Wolfson Committee of 32%. It would provide for bidding at the end of the current concession term. The current concession runs out in July of 1980. Before that time we would anticipate that the City would go to bid and would offer this to anyone who wished to bid on it. This seems to be in general concurrence with the approach or the feeling of a major- ity of the City Commission. We would require a $100,000 bond bid to make sure that the 'bids that the City received were serious and we would place a minimum on that requirement so that no one could offer the City - and expect to have it accepted - no one can offer the City less than 31% on food or less than 35% on beer. Now that would be a minimum that would be acceptable. Of course, we would anticipate getting higher bids than that. We would also put in a clause that would provide that the current concessionaire would have the option of matching the highest bid offered the City and if the current concessionaire did not accept that offer, did make an offer to match the highest bid then what we would do is we would reimburse him for any expenses that we had agreed to in putting in a new beer system and the new concessionaire then would have to take up those expenses. Further, the last point, what this does is change the so- called three year and out clause to a four a four year clause generally follow- ing the desires of this Commission. What we would like to achieve today, Mr. Mayor and members of the City Commission, is authorization from you to present this kind of a package. I cannot tell you that it would be accepted but we are trying to get the process started again so that for this one year, the remain- ing year of the concession agreement which is a year during which you remember the court has said that the City must deal with the current concessionaire, dur- ing this one year that we get something moving and after that one year that we have the opportunity to go to bid as has been so widely discussed. Mayor Ferre: All right, I'll start off the discussion. On Item "B", as you presented this memorandum, Mr. Grassie, just on the record for discussion:pur- poses I want to say that I agree with everything but Item 2(c). I'll be very specific, "...The Miami Dolphins will install the new Orange Bowl Scoreboard System under the terms and conditions previously discussed." I've got some questions on that because it has been such a long time that I think we'd better make sure that we look at what we're voting on and understand it properly and the Item 2 which is the beer, I have no problems with terms and conditions prev- iously discussed and will be required to pay the City 32% for gross beer until July 1, 1980 and the following provisions have also been added to the beer docu- ment: That the Orange Bowl Concession operation will be offered for public bid- ding when the present concession contract expires on July 1, 1980. Okay. And shall have 30 days to match the highest bid, the Dolphins will. (b) The 24 '�u�si1919 documents promulgated in 80 to advertise the Orange Bowl Concession operation for public bidding will require that bidders post a bid bond of $100,000 and that bids of less than 35% gross less tax on beer sales and 31% of gross less tax on food, soft drinks and novelties will not be accepted, in other words that's the floor, we're putting a floor on it. Also, bidders will be advised that the present concessionaire will be given the opportunity to match the highest bid. Do you have paragraph 12 of the June 1977 contract? Mr. Grassie: Yes, I do, Mr. Mayor. Mayor. Terre: I'll get into that in a moment. Item (c), if the Miami Dolphins Limited do not choose to match the highest bid the City will reimburse them for their unamortized investment made to implement beer sales according to a schedule to ba agreed by the parties. And Item (d), the three year escape clause will be extended to four years. Now, I agree with everything there as I said but Item (c) and the reason, Mr. Manager, is that there is no system that is in operation in these United States which moves beer over a great dis- tance that is working effectively as of today. There is no system. Now, for the City of Miami to go spend $350,000, on something that we don't know whether it is aoi.ng to work or is not going to work and then Joe Robbie to have the ability next year to walk away from it and have somebody get stuck with it which might be the City of Miami, in a system that does not work is highly question- able. So what I would recommend is this: (1) That we agree on the scoreboard; (2) that we permit beer to be sold in the Orange Bowl this coming football sea- son but it has t) be dispensed by hand without any major expenditure. Now I know that that is an incovenient, inefficient way but the only say that it can be done as I see 't is for the vendors to be at ground level with the barrels and dispensing it into plastic glasses and for some vendors on a very limited to Le r.A„ving around the stadium with the cans - and I understand that they cannot carry more than 24 cans at one time, and with the ability to dispose of the can and pour the beer into the glass and pass it on to the customer and I 'know that that is an inefficient way but I don't think that the City of Miami at this time can go to that kind of an expenditure on a one year basis. Now, Cormissicner Plummer has I think completely justifiably, I understand his posi- tion, has insisted on a public bid process because of the fact that in Tampa there is a 42% return rather than a 35% return on both food and beer. Now, we will put that to the test very simply. I would like to have bid documents ap- provec: by t-iF Commission either September or October or November, have the mat- _r rna. cvt -ca. }-.ids over a 60-day period, take bids in December, January or ro}Y>;ar1, ,ra tho reason I want it done that early - this is my persona opinion - because if somebody is the successful bidder that person is going to have t: guarantee for six years that that beer will be installed and it will be served. cold :and .it thatrequires a system they're going to have to absorb the full ex- . r� of `iL and take their chances on it rather than the City taking any chances which is what Plummer has been saying all along.. Okay? z.'Plummer: Exactly what Tampa did. Mayor Ferre: Let them take the risk, not the City of Miami. Now, the reason �c!v 7 would like an early bid, by that I mean January or February, is because if a complicated system is going to be installed I think those people should ha"e nix months to do itin and, therefore, if they start in February they'll have it in time for the football season when it starts in September. Basically that's my position. I'll open it up for other comments. Mr. Grassie: We wouldn't have any difficulty with any of that, Mr. Mayor, I. don't think it is exactly true that there are no systems that work but that's. academic, you know if you prefer to put that off for a year that's fine. In fact.... Mayor Ferre: Well, what system that you know of works? . Grassie: Well, the Tampa Stadium has exactly the system that we're talking about and it does work. Mayor Ferre: Over very short distances, about one-fourth ofthe distances that we.'re going to go and it' is not working.° If Yon have checked recently `-Yon "will find out.... Mr. Grassie: it works. We have checked in the last two days, Mayor, and according to them Mayor. Ferre: In the last two days;, where I havechecked they are serving beer at 46 to 54 degrees and that is not an effective system rt 25 J. 1 1 Ig7g Mr. Grassie: What could I tell you, they must tell you differently than they tell Mr. Jennings who is sitting here and who checked with them. Mayor Ferre: That's called hot beer. Mr. Jennings, come up here and tell me that they're serving cold beer on the record. Mr. Jennings: Mr. Mayor, I talked to Mr. Chilupsky who is the Director of the Sports Authority in Tampa yesterday, asked him if his beer distribution; system was working satisfactorily at the stadium "and his answer was "Yes, it's working just fine", they're having no trouble with it. Mayor Ferre: Did you ask him, Mr. Jennings,' what distan from the beer keg to the distribution point? Mr. Jennings: No, sir, , I did not. es have to be traveled Mayor Ferrel,-;Well,,I did and do you know that we haveto go four times more? Now let me ask you another question. Did you ask them what the temperature of the beer was when it came out of the tap? Mr. Jennings: o, I did not. Mayor Ferrel, Well`I did, and let me tell you that beer comes out warm. Okay? the question was that the Mrs. Gordon: You're all getting back to the point I said in the beginning - there isn't the money you think there is in the serving of beer in the Orange Bowl and everything points to it exactly. People aren't goirig to buy the warm beer, therefore, you're not going to sell a whole a lot, there's not going to be a lot of profit, security is goingto be increased, if you're going to have cans as the mayor suggested you leave yourself open for. all kinds of problems. Mayor Ferre: No, the can is just to pour it. Mrs. Gordon: But you've got somebody carrying a garbage sick .on their back to.` get the cans. My';goodness, I think you all are justwhistling Dixie really.. Mr. Plummer :L Mr. Manager, may I inquire through you to the to Mr. Jennings? Mr. Grassie: Yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Jennings, how much is the system being proposed for the Orange Bowl presently, cost? Mr. Jennings: T Mr. Plummer: Mr. Jennings:. Mr. "'Plummer: ': Mr. Jennings: sir. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Jennings: e Perlic distribution system? o, what isbeing proposed in this.... $330,000 I believe was the number., And how is that cost split? $220,000 to the City and $110,000 to the Dolphins as I remembe lr. Jennings, what is the system in Tampa Stadium cost? It cost approximately $300,000, 300 and, some odd thousand. Mr. Plummer: The beer dispensing system? • Mr. Jennings: Well no, the Perlic. system itself. now not counting all the other, the racks that the vendors use, it was 137 wasn't it? Mr. Plummer: About 137,000, about a third or not quite a third less, 2/3 less than what is being proposed. Mr. Jennings: tional things Per? is Mr. Plummer: Mr. Jennings: Well keep in mind our system also provides for all these addi- I think that the two beer distribution systems themselves, the systems were very close. But they're serving 70,000 capacity in the stadium. 72 or so, yes. 26 rt JULii10Ta Mr. Plummer: Who pays that cost, Mr. Jennings? Mr. Jennings: In the Tampa Stadium? Mr. Plummer: Yes, sir. Mr. Jennings: The concessionaire. Mx. Plummer: And in the Orange Bowl the present percentage is 30.5% on food and soda. Mr. Jennings: Yes, sir. ,and it is being proposed at 32% for beer. Until 1980, yes, sir. tir. Plummer Mr. Jennings: Mr. Plummer: And it is my. understanding,that in Tampa that -the food and soda and beer are all proposed at the same percentage.; Mr. Jennings: Mr. Plummer: Mr. Jennings: Mr. es, sir. r'. what is that? 4:.1%. Plummer: 10% more than what we're' being offered? .i. Jennings: s. sir:. Mr. Plummer: Okay. I'll get back to the scoreboard later but let's just have xnt: understandings on this other stuff. Thank you. i•;�,'o FecreT Further questions? I'd like to just for the record point out because some people have asked me about whether or not the Dolphins have a r'.'rt to the extension of the contract on the concession and I want for the record just to put it in so we can settle that one. Mr. Knox the agreement `hat the>Cty of Miami signed on the 8th day of June, 1977 which I have before 1 3_ _,raph 2 or. page 2 that the City hereby grants the partnership exciusiv•.. use of the football concession through the regular football bebava`inc:ludi:g the year 1986. Now in paragraph 12 it says, and I'm going to read it;verbatim, (12)"Subject to a successful negotation of the provisions of a new concession agreement with partnership the City agrees that the term of u.e new-cocession agreement will coincide with the term of this agreement." Nh.w that means that this agreement goes through the football season of 1986, therefore, what I think this says in just plain English is that the Dolphins i^•e e rit+ht to negotiate the extension of the concession agreement through the football season of 1986. :roi:: Yes, sir. Mr. Plummer Wellexpand upon that. Mayor Ferre: It says, "Subject to a successful negotiation..." Now, the suc- cessful negotiation portion, the best way to prove the proper negotiating pro- ceedings since Mr. Dan Paul, the attorney for the Dolphins says that they will sue us and keep us from bidding it my argument with him is that if we put it out for bids and clearly outline paragraph 12 that any high bidder for the beer and food would be subject to the fact that the Dolphins would have priority that if somebody who was a bonafide company who put up a bid bond for $100,000 bid it at 40% or 42% that that in effect would be the watershed mark that we wau3a go on and we would negotiate with the Dolphins. If they refuse to accept that we, in fact, then successfully, I mean we had negotiated it and we had aiven them the opportunity to successfully negotiate. do you disagree with any of. that? Mr. Knox: No, sir, that's essentially what the provision provides. The Dol- phins have a first option, if you will, with respect to concessions. Now at :lewd*: one court has determined that concessions include the sale of beer. The contract does provide a quote termination date between the stadium lease and the concession agreement. It is our position that successful negotiations would contemplate an agreement. Based on the proposed agreement then the Dolphins pursuant to their existing right under the contract would have an opportunity to match, if you will, the highest bid that would be submitted competitively, the idea being, of course, that the maximum return to the City would have been 2'7 JULT119T9 accomplished and also the City would have accomplished its obligations under the existing contract. Mrs. Gordon: Well, how does that differ with what Mr. Ferre said? He said that, that's what he said► Mrs. Gordon: Oh, Mayor Ferre: All right, are there further questions on this? Well, I do have questionsabout the scoreboard, Joe. If' you will look in page 2 at Item C, it says that if the Dolphins give us the cancellation, we've gone out and spent some money to put up a scoreboard. Now they say Okay, we're leaving, we can- cel our agreement. That means Mr. Grassie: Excuse me, Mayor, it is a technicality but in both the beer sys- tem and the scoreboard the Dolphins put up all the front money, they spend the money. Mayor Ferre: Yes, but that's not what it says here. "...That if in the above revised. paragraph 2(b) of the agreement of June 8th is exercised by the Dolphins then this agreement should terminate immediately coincident with the date of service of notice of cancellation." So that if the Dolphins say Ok, we're leav- ing in 4 years the moment they give us notice this contract is cancelled. Now, is that in our interest? Mr. Grassie: Well, I don't believe so but I think that it was the general con- sensus as I understood the consensus unless I misinterpreted what you wanted I thought it was the consensus of the City Commission that that's what you wanted. Mayor Ferre: Well, it says the City shall subsequently reimburse the Dolphins for its unamortized investment.' So in other words they will then get the° bene- fit of any usage of that scoreboard even though for years we'll have to reim- burse them for the money. Mr. Grassie: No, that wouldn't be it, sir. Mayor Ferre: Well that's what I wanted you to explain. Mr. Grassie: What would happen would be this, as soon as they notified the City that they were going to cancel within four years we would immediately can- cel out their agreement on the scoreboard, we would have to pay them the unamort- ized cost of that scoreboard but they we would get 100% of the earnings off that scoreboard so that they would get no more benefit out of it. Now, we would also because the agreement now provides that they sell the advertising, and they get a 15% commission for selling it. We would have to go to an outside ad agency to sell the advertising. Mayor Ferre: Well, that was my question, they're not going to make any money off of it at that point are they? Mr. Grassie: No, at that point they would be cut out all together. Mayor Ferre: Now on Item C it says that the Dolphins shall retain title to the scoreboard if we don't meet all the things that we said in 1(c) above. In other, words what you're saying is that we'd have to pay them otherwise they would retain the title but if we pay them we retain title. Mr. Grassie: Yes. Mayor Ferre: Is that clear, George? Did the Law Department draft this contract? Mr. Knox: Mayor Ferre: o, sir, we did review it, however. We did review the contract. What, you didreview it? Mr. Knox: Yes Mr. Plummer: Who prepared; it? sir. Mr. Knox: Bob Jennings prepared it with the assistanceof somebody from the Law Department. rt 28 r_Li",1179 Mr. Grassie: Can I tell you what the purpose of that is? A private corporation has the ability to take tax benefit from an investment that they amortize. If they have title to the scoreboard, and keep in mind that they put up all the money to buy it to begin with, you know we don't put up a cent, they put up all the money. If they put up all the money they have the tax advantage of amortizing this expenditure over a period of the length of the lease. That is the only reason aside from the fact that they put up all the money for leaving title with them. It's a benefit that they can get which is not open to us. It does us no good so it might as well be available to them. Now, what we do is incur the obligation to repay half of it and, of course, we get 50% of the benefit from the advertising revenues. Mayor Ferre: They're putting up all the money and we get 50%? Mr. Plummer: Oh nol Mr. Grassie: Well, they are putting up all of the cash, we incur half of the obligation to repay which is in proportion to half of the benefit that we get of the profit. You know, we have half of the liability and we have half of the profit. Mr. Plummer: No, that's not true either. Mayor Ferrer All right, clear it up, Mr. Plummer. Mr. Plummer: Well excuse me, yes. In;your-terminology, Ok. We're obviously going to play semantics and I don't mind playing that game. Let's. look et the bottom line that I like to look at. How much is it proposed on your projections' that the Dolphins will make? Mr. Grassie: We're talking aboutthe scoreboard. Mr. Plummer: I thought we were. Mr. Grassie: They're going to make $56,000 which is exactly what we're going to make.. Mr. Plummer: Now _ -- to the top. vw much the bottom line, are ; they going to make? Mr. Grassie: r That is the bottom line. Mr. Plummer: It is? Mr. Grassie: Now what you're handling the advertising, the asking me is are they going to be paid 15% for answer is yes. Mr. Plummer: Is`that not moneythat they're going to get? Mr. Grassie: Commissioner, either they get paid for it or we pay 15% to an advertising agency. Mr. Plummer: Possibly, have you precluded that that could be sold almost im- mediately and locked up in ten year contracts without having an advertising agency? I know one firm that was willing to spend right away on a ten year plan $75,000, ready to sign on the dotted line. Mayor Ferrer We don't have a ten year plan, all we can talk about is six years. Mr. Plummer: The only reason we don't is because of the fact that:the present concessionaire chose not to give guarantee of product - that was his option. Okay? And he affected that option and because of that they backed off. The bottom line is, since I can't draw from Mr. Grassie the figures, is that the Dolphins immediately will make $80,000 a year as opposed to the City's $56,000. Now, Mr. Grassie, may I inquire.... Mr. Grassie: Commissioner, I'm sorry but that's not true. Mr. Plummer; Tell me where it is incorrect. Mr. Grassie: It is incorrect in that the way you get the $80,000 is by taking their $56,000 which is clear profit and the $24,000 which is an earned commis- sion for which they have to work. Now if you did the same thing for us you'd take our $56,000 which is our clear profit and you'd take our $18,000 which is 29 .JUL 1 1 1sr9 an earned payment that we get out of it and the $6,000 which is an earned operat- ing expense that we get and when you add'56 and 18 and $6,000 then that's what we get out of it. Mr. Plummer: Yes, but I'd like to•addthat 24 over into our column. Mr. Grassie: Well, Commissioner.. Mr. Plummer: Now, Mr. Grassie, either to you or through you, since I keep inter- jecting the Tampa situation, what did the scoreboard in the, Buccaneer Stadium, cost the City of Tampa? Mr. Grassie: I don't know what the Buccaneer stadium.. Mr. Plummer: That bothers me when you don't know. 3,000'employees, Commissioner,' is because of them knows - Mr. Jennings does know. Mr. Grassie: The reason why we have I don't know everything that everyone Mr. Plummer: . Yes, except it is your mendation and it is understood by me you do understand it. Mr. Grassie: Mr. Plummer: Mr. Grassie: Mr. Plummer: Mr. Grassie: responsibility as Manager to make a recom- that when you make a recommendation that ommissioner, it is in the report, by the way. understand, I know the answer but I want it on the record. Well, another part of the record is.. I would like to get back to my question, Yes. 'm looking for an answer.' Mr. Plummer:. My question once again is now much did it cost. the. City of Tampa or the Sports Authority for the scoreboard which is the important thing that. the public be served. Mr. Grassie: I'm sorry, I thought you were asking what the what it cost the authority. thing cost, not Mr. Plummer: I asked a question, I'll ask it again. What did the scoreboard in the ;`stadium .in'Tampa cost the City of Tampa, i.e.. the Sports Authority. Mr. Grassie: I'm sorry,I thought you were asking the cost of the hardware. It cost the Sports. Authority, nothing, the City did not pay for it. Mr. Plummer: So with no investment whatsoever what does the Sports Authority get in return for doing nothing? Mr. Grassie: About $25,000.'; Mr. Plummer: Without moving a finger. Mr. Grassie: Commissioner, if you remember, we have an offer that is now several years old for about a $2,000,000 scoreboard which costs the City noth- ing and which would produce about $17,000 free and clear. Those propositions are possible. What we have in front of you is what the City Commission has authorized. Last July by action of this City Commission you have authorized that we make this kind of an arrangement. What you're saying is that we want to rethink that, that's possible but we're not suggesting anything that you have not already authorized. Mr. Plummer: I agree with you, your statement is correct it just doesn't go far enough. By majority vote is what was authorized, there were dissenting votes. Mr. Jennings: Commissioner Plummer Mayor`Ferre: Go ahead. Mr. Jennings: If you'll notice the Tampa agreement, it takes 15 years though before the Authority.... may I` comment on the scoreboard issue t rJUL ! 1 1979 Mayor Ferre: What Tampa Agreement? This is the Tampa Agreement that I got. Mr. Plummer: Mayor Ferre: and here is' of the City' please. That was designated for Inc. Yes,; this is all I've got in my packet, is this. Here's my packet the Tampa agreement. I. don't mean to be criticizing the efficiency s staff but"Iwould `like to have a copy of the Tampa agreement, Mr. Jennings:. We11, my "point was merely going to be that in our case it only takes three years to amortize the board after which we begin to split'50-50 in the revenues. -In the case of Tampa it is 15 years before the board gets amortized and the`50-50 split begins to take place. So I guess you'd have to c1-5some`arithietic but I'm sure that after you've done the arithmetic you'd find that the numbers are not going to be too far off as regards the split of the dollars. Manor Ferre: Mr. Jennings, I have two questions. One is in Item 8 and again in'Item `3(a) it says that the City will maintain and operate, that's 3(a) and over, in 8 it says the City agrees to maintain the Orange Bowl and the score- board within the terms of this agreement in physical condition suitable for the Flaying of professional and collegiate football games. Now, I notice that there is no provision for maintenance or upgrading if there is any damage to the scoreboard. Ay question is this, we're splitting the profits 50-50, I think that's fair, I've got no problems with that. We're letting them get the 15% for advertising ccmmission, I've got no problems with that because we're going to have to pay that to that agency or another advertising agency so that doesn't bother me. I am concerned about the fact that is there a deduction allowable .7_ = the ' t, uir.t.:.iance of the scoreboard? Mx. Jennings: Yes, sir, that's that $6,000 that we're estimating, it says oper ting cost but that includes an estimation of what it will cost to maintain and operate Mayor Ferre: The point I'm trying to make is that that's not what Item 8 says and I'm not trying to say that Mr. Robbie's lawyers would put something by us but in English that's what that thing says. It says the City agrees to main- tain the scrreioe.rd and it says at it's own expense - no liability of any kind r'.a13 he Inc; In .d - and so on. So what I'm asking you is are you very sure th?t wel're able to deduct the 5 or $10,000 a year it's going to cost tra_u ain that facility or are you telling me that the City is going to ab- sL rb that cut: ofit's portion and it's got nothing to do with the 50-50 split? The figure is Mr. ,Tannings: $6,000. I'm sorry. Mr. Grassie: The figure is $6,000, Mayor, and it is specific and we the right to take it out. Mr. Jennings: Yes, in paragraph 5, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: All right. Now the other thing that I have a question is we're now going to the possibility of bidding beer and other concessions. In the event that Mr. Robbie and the Dolphins are not the high bidders and, therefore, and they turn down the high bid are we going to have a problem between the scoreboard and the concessionaire and is there any provision in this document that whoever has the concession has a priority on advertising? For example, if Pepsi -Cola is the soft beverage that is being sold in the stadium I don't think that they would be very happy to have Coca-Cola advertised while Pepsi Cola is being sold. That is not addressed in this document. Mr. Plummer: What you're saying is that the availability of the concessionaire holding right of guaranteed produce should be removed and I agree with that. Mayor Ferre: Well, what I'm saying is that if the concessionaire is different from the Dolphins you're going to have a problem as to what's being advertised if... You understand what I'm saying, Mr. Grassie. Mr. Grassie: Yes, I understand perfectly. That was the major stumbling block that the City had when they were talking about building a large scoreboard be- fore. In the last round of our discussions with Stewart -Warner, the people who would build the scoreboard they were willing to put up a scoreboard, and remember that we're talking now about the smaller scoreboard that had to be rt 31 JUL 1 1 1sr7. amortized on a three year basis because.... Mayor Ferre: Yes,this is not the scoreboard we originally wanted which would have cost $2,000,000. Mr. Grassier That's correct, but they were willing to guarantee building the smaller scoreboard without that provision that tied advertising to the product in the Orange Bowl. What they would simply do is sell advertising like air- lines and that sort of thing which did not have to do with a concession product. Mayor Ferre: Well, I guess what I'm trying to say, and I'll say it in English as simply as I can, is I, one out of five votes will not vote on a document which does not specifically state in it that we're not going to advertise a product on the scoreboard competitive to something that is being sold without giving the people who are selling that product a right of refusal or first crack at it. Now, if Pepsi -Cola doesn't want to advertise and Coca-Cola does that's their problem but I don't want for Pepsi -Cola to be sold in the stadium and Coca-Cola being advertised without giving the people who are selling their product the right of advertising it. Mr. Grassie: The City retains the right in the agreement to approve any adver tising that goes on the board so that we have control in sense of being able to veto anything that goes on that board. Mayor Ferrer I want it on the record, Mr. Grassie, because we have serious problems, you weren't here, it was Me. Reese and later Paul Andrews and we ended up with serious problems in this Commission because we were precluded from doing some of these things and that's why we don't have a scoreboard now because Joe Robbie went through this whole harangue how he would not let us advertise things that he didn't sell. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I see a danger in that same area that you're pursuing. We retain the right of approval of foremat of advertising if the advertising agent has the right to accept or deny and forward only to us that which he ac- cepts we would never know what he denied. We are not covered, Mr. Grassie, by the clause that says we retain the right to approve all advertising. What it really says is we retain the right to approve all advertising forwarded to us. There is a big difference. Someone could make application and be denied by the advertising agent prior to it getting to us for approval and we would never know about it or possibly so I don't think we're covered by that provision. Mr. Grassie: I think you're right but that is, of course, the same situation that we would be in with a commercial advertising firm, you would be in exact- ly the same position. Mr. Plummer:- Well, but you see, the hang up before, Mr. Grassie, was on the terminology of product accessibility in the Orange Bowl. It was not an exclus- ive franchise but it was of product availability as I recall the terminology. Mr. Grassie: Yes, but if we keep in mind the problem that the Mayor outlined the circumstance that we would have is that the Dolphins would have the score- board and the advertising and they would have to negotiate with the concession- aire if they did not choose to be the concessionaire, they would have to negot- iate with the concessionaire to put the product in the stands so the pressure would be on the Dolphins and not on the concessionaire. Now if the concession- aire is reasonable there would be no problems and I don't see any reason to think that he wouldn't be. Mr. Plummer: Well, hopefully if we're talking about a going to rewrite all of that out I would hope. Mayor Ferre: Okay, any further questions or discussion on this Yes, sir, go ahead, Ernie, make your statement. Mr. Ernie Fannatto: Honorable Mayor and members of the Commission, Ernie Fan- natto is my name, President of the Taxpayers League of Miami and Dade County. You know I hear all of this but you know you had the Wolfson Committee here and they said 32% is a fair and reasonable price. Well, I have had some exper- ience in food and beverages and when you get up to 42% this fellow is paying a lot of money for a stadium like ours' that's very much harder to pace than what he has got. So what is going to be the outcome? He's not going to be able to have as much help because it's going to be too costly. People can't sell as much. They go further, it's a unique stadium, you know what it is, the Dolphin Stadium. So you won't get the volume of business. You'll loose, you won't get. 32 JUL 1 1 19T9 as much for 42% as you would from Robbie with 32% and not only that, why don't you cooperate with the team that's given you millions and millions of dollars worth of publicity to this City. What are you trying to do, fight robbie? You know where you're going to wind up? In court, and you're not going to get the best of Robbie. I've got news for you, Robbie is going to get the best of you. I'm not saying you don't have a good City Attorney, but Dan Paul is the best prepared lawyer in Dade County and Dan Paul will have you in court, Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and you may not have any concession. You al- ready lost $300,000 last year didn't you? Suppose he doesn't agree to the con- cessions this year? You lose another 300, so the differences in percentages would take you about 15-20 years to make up. So what are you doing? Creat- ing bad will with a team that's one of the best teams in the country, and don't compare the other team with this team and don't compare the two stadiums to serve, it's impossible for him to pay that much. You just can't apy. Now what was the use of you folks getting the Wolfson Committee, and they told you what the 32%, and then you don't abide by it. You try to do something, a business that you don't know anything about. Mr. Wolfson is a pretty shrewed man and he is fair and businesslike but you folks are trying to get 42%, I've got news for you, you're going to lose hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars for this City when you get through. Mayor Ferre: All right, further discussion? • 4. DISCUSSION ITEM: LEASE AGREEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF CONFERENCE/CONVENTION CENTER. ,44 Mayor Ferre: We're on Item C, Mr. Manager. It's the lease agreement for the development of the Conference/Convention Center. Mr. Grassie: This is a progress report, Mr. Mayor and members of the City Commission, I'm going to ask Vince Grimm to introduce the subject. Yr. Vince Grimm: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, we had hoped to have on the agenda for today a final draft of the agreement between the City and the developer. We have not been able to meet that schedule. Unfortunately, the archiaic provisions in our State Constitution are giving us a great deal of difficulty. I guess historicaly about a hundred years ago the Constitu- tion had provisions in it to prevent the government from bailing out the rail- roads that were bankrupt at that time and as a consequence the Constitution today severely limits partnership arrangements between governments and private business and further prohibits governments from spending public funds for pri- vate benefit. So the wording of this agreement is very complex to avoid any challenge in either the Circuit Court of the Supreme Court when we got for validation of bonds. Now all of the representatives of the City, the devel- oper, the bond counsel, the underwriters, the money lenders are in town today,. they are working today, tomorrow, Friday and over the weekend if necessary so we can complete this for the second meeting in July. Mayor Ferre: And you'll bring it July 23rd. Mr. Grimm: Mayor Ferret Any questions? Mr. Plummer:Yes, Mr. Mayor, it's around about but it's on the point. Mr. Grimm, under the present contract are we, in fact, the developers or is Wor- sham? Mr. Grimm: In this sense it is a joint project, Commissioner. The City is building one portion, the developer is building another portion. Now there is a marriage between parts of it and: that's where our legal conflict....' Mr. plummer: What control does the City have over the developer? Mr. Grimm: That's part of what the agreement is resolving too. A specific example of that is that the City would exercise no control over the hotel as an example. Mr. Plummer: I'm talking about construction now. Mr. Grimm: rt Well design, we have design control. 33 .701. 1 1 19T9 OtN Mr. Plummer: What about actual building, competitive bidding? Mr. Grimm: No, his portion of competitive bids. the building, it will be built by him without Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, there'd a reason I'm gettingto this and I hope I'm` not misleading. the Commission. You made a statement to me in the area of the sales tax in reference to the Convention Center of:$400,000. Mr. Grimm: Yes. sir. Mr. Plummer: Did that pertain just to the City' Portion? Mr. Grimm: Just to the City' s portion. Mr. Plummer: All right, now under that provision who is the contractor o that? Mr. Grimm: Well, at the present time we are out for bid on six different bid packages, the City. Those bids are due in on the 17th of this Month. Now whether we will aware six bids or one bid or some combination in between we do not know yet until we review those bids and see who submits the lowest and best bid. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, the reason I bring this up, and I want the Commission to know, serving on the Tax Revision Commission it became very apparent that in the building of public buildings by a City we are paying sales tax which is absolutely ridiculous. Now, bringing that up before the Tax Revision Commis- sion it was stated that their greatest fear was the fact that contractors were buying for public but were using the materials for other purposes. Now, they said ifyou buy through a purchasing agent of the City it is without any ques- tion tax exempt. I have proposed a resolution before the Tax Revision Commis- sion in retrospect that the City would be reimbursed for any expenditures in sales tax for public buildings and I'm just bringing home to this group now that in one project alone the City of Miami is exempt from paying sales tax but, in fact, will be paying $400,000 on this one piece of construction and it is very important that we get this resolution whether it is paid exempt from the beginning or reimbursed to the City that is $400,000 we can save on that Convention Center alone. Mr. Grimm is developing for me a position paper be- cause if you take the amount of construction that this City is doing this year and we can get a rebate on that portion of sales tax which is paid for a pub- lic building it would be a sizeable amount of money for this money to save this year so I just bring that to your attention. Mr. Grimm: Commissioner, I'd like to remind you that you know this Commission already wenton record with the legislature and tried before they closed the session to get them to accomplish something comparable. Mr. Plummer: Well, that was that they exempt it from the beginning, I have put a resolution in that the City would go back and justify that which was spent so there can be no phantom in the sky that it was moneys and materials that were diverted elsewhere and that way, hopefully, it will fly and the City can get reimbursed. Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Grimm, I read your memorandum and I'm really terribly concerned about the fact that we're really in construction or started prelimin- ary portions and these issues which are legal issues relating to the contract and relating to the opinion of the bond counsel, it seems to me almost to be coming in at a very late point in this. Shouldn't this have been ironed out months and months ago? Mr. Grimm: Yes. Mrs. Gordon: Well, why wasn't it? I mean just like that variance on the design, I mean why wasn't that? It seems like it is a number of items that it seems to me have been either overlooked or neglected, I don't know which one. Mr. Grimm: Not overlooked or neglected, when you have as many different facets of a problem and as complex as this one is any change in one provision has a domino affect on the others and we have met and worked on this I can't tell you how many countless hours since I've been involved and how many before attempt- ing to resolve these problems to everyone's satisfaction. When we resolve them to one group's satisfaction it has an effect one on the other which isn't happy and we have tried to keep the business provisions of this agreement basically the same to satisfy the legal requirements of our State Constitution and to rt 34 'JUL 1 1 1919 satisfy the federal requirements for tax exempt bonds. Mr. he can testify that this has not been an easy problem, Mrs. Gordon. Mrs. Gordon: Oh, I know that, what I'm worried about.... Knox is here and Mr. Grimm: I wish the same thing you do, I wish that.... But you've got to keep in perspective that you know we applied and received a federal grant, that required grant required in order for us to get that four plus million dollars that we must go forward on construction, if we either turned that money down or took advantage of it, so some of the posture that we're in is, uncomfortable but none of us that are working on this project assume for one minute that we're not going to make it work in spite of these problems. Mrs. Gordon: That was the last question I was going to say, is there an area° in this 17 point document which might not be resolved? i mean some of them are very difficult points. Mr. Grimm: Yes, that possibility always exists that we won't come to, but somewhere along the line one of us has to give, that's all there is to it and our position right now is that we legally can't give. Mrs. Gordon: You can't give, absolutely cannot, I mean it's not a matter of choice. So therefore, if the developer is not willing to give is it possible, I hate to ever think about it, that this thing would die before it's born? I wish you wouldn't say it. Mr. Plummer: It's very simple, Rose just reroute the river. Mayor Ferre: Well, what we're talking about is a very complicated series of constitutional questions and we have got to have the stamp of approval of a prestigous firm like Brown, Wood, Ivey, Mitchell Petty which is who we're deal- ing with. They brought up, and I don't want to criticize them because Joe Guandolo is probably one of the most respected persons in Wall Street in these type of things but I want to say that they brought the whole series of ques- tions up et a very late date. These are not things that were brought up six months ago. Mr. Grimm, when did Joe Guandolo bring all of these things up? Mr. Grimm: Mr. Mayor, let me answer that question this way without being an advocate for Mr. Guandolo. Mr. Guandolo, the City's bond counsel - let me say it this way - is not responsible for the business terms of this agreement. Mayor:Ferres I know that. Mr. Grimm: Well, as a consequence now we could not place Mr. Guandolo in the provision of writing business proposals which would satisfy his legal require- ments, it's a chicken and egg circumstance. Mayor Ferre: What you're saying in effect is that previous to this we were not going in the direction of revenue bonds which were tax free and in effect what has happened is that since we have now said, Okay, we're going to do this thing in a very different way and that only happened two or three months ago.. Mr. Grimm: We started out at $9,000,000, Mr. Mayor, we're up to a $65,000,000 project now, it's a different ball game. Mayor Ferre: I understand, and what's happening here is that when we go to the public - because this is where we're going - with a revenue bond issue all the is have got to be crossed, all the is have got to be dotted and every- thing has to be perfect so that it will not be challenged in court and, there- fore, ruled either unconstitutional or illegal in some way. Mr. Grimm: A basic simple time frame, and Mrs. Gordon, this affects part of your question too, is without our bond attorney's written legal opinion that this is constitutional and tax exempt we would have to go to the Supreme Court of the State of Florida for the validation of the revenue bonds. That alone, if everything went clickety click in six months, we feel that with a firm posi- tive legal opinion by bond counsel that we can do it at the Circuit Court level without challenge and do that in 45 days. Now we have to be under con- struction in September or we're in deep trouble on a time schedule. Mayor Ferre: And that also ties into Item E which we'll be talking about in a moment. All right, are there any further questions on Item C? 35 r L •1 mg 5. DISCUSSION ITEM: STATUS OF INTERAMA PROPERTY SALE TO STATE. Mayor Ferre: We're now on Item E which is the review of the status of the Interama property sale to the State. Mr. Grassie. Mr. Grassie: This report, Mr. Mayor and members of the City Commission, again is an informational report, it is a discussion designed to have the City Com- mission give us some direction with regard to the $8,000,000 which the state is now proferring to us in exchange for the contractual agreements that we have with them with regard to the Interama property. Now I know that you know from your long experience with the Interama property that the basic agreement with the State did provide for a somewhat higher return to the City than what they are now offering. We have in front of us the reality of their offer of $8,000,000. If we are to move forward with this the step that we would take would be to talk with the representatives of FIU who have been delegated by the State to negotiate for the State, and when I say negotiate, really it is simply a question of drawing up the document which would recognize the prior document and would transfer our interest in the Interama property in exchange for $8,000,000. Now you do know, I'm sure, again because of your prior expos- ure to this question that in the initial agreement the City retained the right to develop the Interama Property although we were to be paid by the State $8,500,000. If we were to accept this $8,000,000 offer, we would have to ac- cording to the terms of the appropriation, the State legislation, we would have to give up all claim, all further claim that we would have in the Interama Property so that is the basic question in front of the City Commission - do you want the staff to go forward and draw up an agreement, a proposed agreement with the state which would make this money available to us and, of course, we would bring itback to you before anything further happens. Mayor Ferrer Let me ask you this question, Mr. Grassie, and Mr. Knox, both. From a legal point of view we have some time, that decision does not have to be made today, in other words the thing I'm trying to point out is that the legislature when they appropriated this money did not say that there is a limit of November 15th or August loth, they don't have a date of limitation. I think that we should be, I've got some very serious questions about this and I'm sure the rest of the Commission does too but we've got to be very careful as to how we proceed on it so that we don't kill it today. I don't think we should kill it today, I think we should ask the questions and come back and deliberate on this. There are a lot of questions that have to be answered. For example, I've got one to Mr. Knox, that is,is there a certain date by which we have to answer the legislature? The second question that I have which you can answer later on is as I recall the deal with the State we don't really have title to the property. The State has title to the property and we're owed some money so in effect I don't think we can sell, we're precluded of selling this prop- erty to let's say a private person, we cannot do that, it can only be used in certain ways. The third question I have of you, Mr. Knox is can the City of Miami sue the State? The fact is that the State has not paid us $1,800,000 that they owe us now that they're behind on and that they would have to pay us $300,000 every six months and can we sue them for non-performance, and if so what are our chances of collecting that money? Those are the general areas that 1 have. Mr. Lacasa: I have a question, Mr. ability,. the City's ability to use sees fit. I understand that there in the way that we could use those Grassie, and that is in relation to our the $8,000,000 in the way that the City is some limitations imposed by the State $8,000,000. Mr. Grassie: That's correct, Commissioner, the state legislation specifies that the money would be used for the purposes provided for and what they cite is the Florida Statute which provides for Tourist Development Councils so that the money would be restricted to the purposes which fall within the Tourist Development Council legislation. In other words basically tourist advertising, promotion and the support of physical facilities which are tourist oriented. Mayor Ferre: Could we, for example, help and put that money into the Conven- tion/Conference Center if it were needed? 36 :JUL 1 1 1979 Mr. Grassie: Yes, I think that would certainly be considered to be in that category. Mayor Ferrel Could we, for example, use it to build a in the downtown area if that were needed? Mr. Grassie: Yes, that is specifically provided for. Mayor Ferre: Could we, for example, use oriented in that direction? sports arena/auditorium it to buyland for a specific.. activity Mr. ; Grassie: Of the two examples that you've given, that direction yes, we could. Mayor Ferre: Well, for example, a park which would be tourist oriented? Mr. Grassie: Well, a general purpose park wouldbe a much more questionable thing unless it had some kind of a special development for tourist purposes. Mrs. qordc'n : Do you mean like the Watson Island deal, Mr. Grassie, is that what you're saying? Mayor Ferre: Yes, it definitely could be used for Watson Island, there's no question about tat, I'm thinking about Ball Point. Mr. Lacasa:`. But who decides which is an appropriate functionfor that money? Mr. Grassie: We:;l, the practical answer is that the City would take an action trier. ii someone challenged it they would challenge it in court under the provisions ofstate law. Mr. Plummer: Well, you know, ].et ine ask the gut question, nobody up here wants to ask it so; let's just put it on the record. Can any of thatmoney be used tc pay policemen who might be getting laid off in October 1 or firemen or other vital services? Mr Grassie: No. next question has to be did " the o^ what the State could use that property for? _`r. Grassie. Yes,. The City :'did? City place any; restrictions Mr. Grassie: Well, • the City insofar as it was a partner and a party to the initial" agreement that created"Interama and took the initiative in purchasing some of the original land, yes Did our legislative lobbyist fight that provision? Mr. Plummer: Mr, Grassie: I. have no idea. Mr. Plummer: Was anyone in the staff, your staff or the City's staff talked to about this provision prior to the vote of the legislature? Mr. Grassie: Mr. Plummer Mr. Grassie: No, this"' did not" come out of the City Out of staff? It;did not come out of the staff,;no. L'lummer:'• But in other words there, was no objection placed by staff or you and we were 1 guess, unawareI was unaware. as I` assume the other Commissioners dele, that ineffect letting us know this provision was included so we had the right to object or not to object. Mayor Ferre:: Let; me ask you this, didn't this come out, J. L., out of the Con-" fexence Committee? As'I recall, when the bill went in it didn't have any of these things and it came out of Conference Committee. Mr. Grassie: You know this is not a proposal that was initiated by the City... Mrs. Gordon: You mean the restriction on the use of the money?'` 37 'JUL 1 1 1979 Mr. Grassie: The whole question of appropriating $8,000,000. Mrs. Gordon: All right, I want to ask you a question. When we made that agreement originally, when we said Okay, we'll take $8,00,000 in that land and so forth, well at that time these kind of restrictions were never told to us George, do you have any information relating to the original agreement? Mr. Knox: No, ma'am, my only information is that for the past 21 years the City has been periodically making demands to cure it's default. Mrs. Gordon: Yes, but the restriction is what I'm discussion now, why are we getting, why are they taking the liberty of telling the City that they can have the money but they must have it with certain restrictions? Mr. Knox: This is only an opinion, Mrs. Gordon, but it may be that there had been a determination either in Committee or by the legislature that they could restrict the funds in this manner simply because of the question that the Mayor asked, it is difficult if not impossible for a constituent municipality to sue the State. As a matter of fact, for the same 2h years we've been trying to find a mechanism whereby that could be accomplished and have been unsuccessful. Mrs. Gordon: What I mean, George, is when we first agreed, and I don't remem- ber how many years ago it was when the Interama land was under discussion... Mayor Ferre: Mrs. Gordon: that we would Mayor Ferre: Mrs. Gordon: Yes, ;I'realize that. So what I'm trying to tract was there any stipulation that said when we got the be able to use it for what they tell us to do with it? Okay, and :$8,000,000;was established as the value of the property be entitled to that money..... Mr. Knox: There's Oh no. Mrs. Gordon: Well why do they think they can get away with that? Mr. Knox: Because the State may feel that it really has no, it may have a legal obligation and it may be a lawful debt which is due and owing which the. State has acknowledged but they may legitimately feel that there is no tribunal that will compel them to pay this debt. Mrs. Gordon: Oh, my. Listen how, if we take the money, what are you saying that we should do, not take the money now?I say let's take the money; and; put it in the bank and let it draw interest for us. Mayor Ferre: But Rose, see the point is simply this, you know, and that's why that third question was so important. Suppose we sue the State. Okay? Mrs. Gordon: Yes, but he says you can't. Mayor Ferre: Well, but I mean that's what I want to hear specifically. Do you mean to tell me that the State can sign a contract with the City of Miami, that we take it to the State court and say, "Hey, these people are in default, they owe us $1,800,000, they're not paying us $300,000 a year and you know, what is this?" and the City of Miami has a right to be protected because otherwise then what good is a contract with the State? Do you mean to say that since we're a creature of the State that they can contract with us and then they can violate. they agreed to do? Mr. Knox: Well, the principle of Sovereign Immunity runs just that way espec- ially from a constituent because to you use an analogy it's like a child suing a parent. Mrs. Gordon: I'd like to make an observation. In my opinion, and I don't know%'. whether you suggested that we not take the money now, Mayor, did you say that? Mayor Ferre: Well, what I'm saying is that I think before we agree to take the money I think we have to very seriously consider the alternatives and the other alternative, Rose, is suing for $1,800,000 that they owe us and getting $600,000 every year and that has no strings on it by the way. rt 33 & a 1 1 1 1979 Mrs. Gordon: Yes, but here's what I'd rather do, I'd rather do this. I'd rather take the money and we bank it and we start drawing interest and then at the same time we go back to the legislature next year and ask to lift that re- striction. Mayor Ferre: The problem with that is that until the legislature lifts that restriction we're stuck with that unless they lift it. Mrs. Gordon: Yes, but we at least have the money in our hands. Is it avail- able to us now, Mr. Grassie? Mr. Grassie: It would be as soon as we've worked out with FIU an agreement, yes. Mrs. Gordon: Okay, then I would suggest that we take the money, we start drawing interest on it, when the legislature meets in special session in Decem- ber, I believe, that they be requested to relieve us of this restriction and, therefore, we would have the best of two worlds. We also would be entitled to the rest of the money they owe us but at least we have something. Mayor Ferre: But see, that's another legal question Mrs. Gordon: Yes, but why not take what we can get and then have at least that? Mayor Ferre: Mr. Knox, I have a fourth legal question for you. Can we accept, they owe us in affect close to $14,000,000. When we accept the $8,000,000 - oh yes they do if you consider the fact that they have not paid.... How much does the State owe us? I may have read Clark Merrill's statement wrong but here's what he said. All right? He says, "The State which is now 6 payments in default agreed in 1973 to pay the City semi-annual payments of $300,000 each which include a 5% interest rate beginning in July. The total value of that agreement is 14.7 million dollars in principle and interest of which 1.8 million represents default payments." Now, does the 14.7, is at the end of the contract, Clark? I see. As of today how much do they owe us? Mrs. Gordon: I can't hear you Clark. !r. Grassie:;- 9.3 million, isn't it? 9.8 million. Mayor Ferre: 9.8. Well, my question to you, Mr. Knox, is a legal question. Can we accept the $8,000,000 and then go back and say, "Hey,you owe us a mil- lion eight", I mean legally can we do that, or by accepting that 8 are we then, therefore, wiping any possibility of going back and getting anymore money? Mr. Knox: It would have to be noted almost literally on the face of the check that the City accepts this in partial payment. There is an implication that if you accept less than the full amount and you casn the check or you dispose. of the funds that you are acquiescing that that amount will satisfy the debt unless there is a protest registered upon the record. Mrs. Gordon: And George, another legal question along the same lines, if we take the $8,000,000 and we start drawing interest on it and that amounts to something like what, a half a million dollars, can we use that for other pur- poses than the restriction that's on the $6,000,000? Mr. Knox: Well, on the other side of it attached to the appropriation is the condition and even if it is not made a part of a contractual agreement that you accept these funds subject to the conditions that are attached to them there is an implication if you look back to the source of the funds that that condition is attached. Mrs. Gordon. Okay, and what if we receive the funds and, you know, the condi- tions you say are attached to us receiving the money but you didn't answer me on the interest, does that also have an attachment? Mayor Ferre: Mrs. Gordon: You're saying yes, we can't use the interest? Mr. Knox: The interest only comes about by virtue of having the funds and your ability to use the funds even for drawing interest is conditioned upon at least your manifestation of intention to satisfy the conditions. rt 39 rju1 ! 1 1979 •� - svr aietilte 0 Mayor Ferre: The point is that the $800,000 we would make on that or the $600,000, Rose, could not be used for anything but what we accepted the money for. Now, let me answer you as far as your statement about going to the legis- lature asking for a waiver. The person who put that in is none other than Sen- ator Jack Gordon who also happens to be the Chairman of the Appropriations Com- mittee. Now, do you really think, unless you can convince him otherwise, that that is going to change? The Chairman of the Appropriations Committee? Mrs. Gordon: Yes, but it won't be his decision any longer, it would then be the entire legislature that would have the option of voting on it.. Mayor Ferre: You must not know how. the legislature works,; Rose. Mrs. Gordon: Well, I'll tell you, they're only politicians like the rest o the people and they respond to the proper arguments. Mayor Ferre: It goes to Committee, bylaw, by the rules of the Senate that matter will have, tobe referred to the appropriate committee, that dealt with it. s Committee anymore. Mayor Ferre: Of course it would. The Appropriations Committee that put that condition on, therefore, for you to take it off, I served in the legislature and I'll tell you the way this thing works. Since it was the Appropriations Committee`' who put that condition on it would have to go back to that very same committee for them to take it off and I ask you from a practical point of view if they're the ones who instituted and put that in as a specific condition and his logic as he explained it to me when I saw him and I talked to him was that he wants us to help FIU build something in downtown Miami. That's what he's after. Mr Gordon: Well, we'd have to agree to that wouldn't we? Mayor Ferre: Of course we would, in shape for us to agree. Mr. Plummer: thing million: Mr. Grassie: Mr. Plummer: Mr. Grassie:`' but he's restricting us so that you. know it' Mr. Grassie, we, have the payment from the County dollars for the Convention Center? That's correct. of 5 point some All right, where la that money presently? Mostf it is spent, mostof it was spent for land Mrs. Gordon What money. are you talking about,`J. L.? acquisition.. Mr. Plummer: The money'that the County paid us, five point something. Where is .. proposed that the rest f these moneys are coming from, for the Conven- tion Center? Mr. Grassie: From a bond issue which would be supported by, the project. Mayor Ferre,:` Which is.a $40,000,000 bond issue. Mr. pluinzner: But those bond moneys could be, in fact, the acquisition of the property? Mr. Grassie: No, if I` understand... usedto backwards for Mr. Plummer: In other words you know where I'm coming from. If.we took that. $8,000,000 and put it towards the Convention Center could we free up`,$8,000,000 of commitment and bring it back in the General Fund? insofar as we have General Fund commitment that's a possi Mr. Grassie: Well, bility. mr. Plummer: Well, I'm saying do we have that flexibility? We might be argu- ing about nothing. Mayor Ferre: Yes, I think the answer to that, I think you're going to have to research, that's your 5th legal question, Mr. Knox. The fifth legal question is, do you follow what Plummer is doing? He's saying all right, we take the rt 40 PJUL 1 : upg $8,000,000, we accept it, put it into the Convention Center in payment of prev- ious moneys that we had, free up $8,000,000 we've already put into the project and that goes to the General Fund. Now is that legally doable? My guess is yes, that's a guess. Mr. Plummer: So we might be talking about nothing. The final question, Mr. Know, if you would answer for me in this all -encompassing memorandum that you will be forwarding to us tomorrow, now that the State is in default what options does the City have the right to exercise since they are in default. Mayor Ferre: Well, that was my question, I've already asked that. My question was can the City of Miami sue the State for their default of $1,800,000. Mr. Plummer: Well, I'm not so much interested, Mr. Mayor, in suing...' Mayor Ferre: Well, how else are you going to get it? Mr. Plummer: That we take the property back and utilize it for another reason. Mayor Ferre: Can't do that. Mr. Plummer: I'm not too sure of that. Mayor Ferre: If that the City of is to be used.` you look at the 1973 contract, Mr. Knox, I think you will find Miami has forfeited the right of determining how that property Mr. Plummer: Based upon the premise that they would pay us, now they haven't paid us so that contract in effect if I know contracts is null and void. One of the principles of a contract is consideration and they've not made such. Mr. Knox: Well, the problem is you see that's a judicial determination and the question is whether we can get into court against the State. Mr. Plummer: No, that's not the point in my estimation. If in effect they don't make their payments they have broken the contract and as such, I would assume we have a reverter that the property comes back to us. Except I don't think that's the case because 1970 previous to that Mr. Mel Reese and the Com- mission recommended and it was accepted because it was pushed by Miami Herald editorials and everybody else, the Chamber of Commerce and what have you and we virtually gave up all of our rights except that we didn't give up the cer- tain amount of money that was owed to us. You're going to have to go back to the 1970 contract when we gave up the right for all that land because the 73 contract was after Interama failed and what rights we had left were negotiated for this but our position was weakened because in effect in 70 we had given everything up anyway. Now, so you'll have to research all of that. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Knox, I would like or prefer that when you answer the ques- tion about the diverting of the funds by using that $8,000,000 for something and loosening up $8,000,000 other that your answer not be restricted to just the Convention Center because as I have heard Mr. Ferre say, it could apply to parks, it could apply, for example, the Latin Park, we're going to be spend- ing an awful lot of money there, we could take part of that $8,000,000 and free. up the money that we were going to spend for that. Mayor Ferre: Well that was why I asked the question, I didn't make a statement. Mr. Plummer: Well, but I don't want it limited just to the Convention Center. We do a lot of things that could be considered tourist promotion and, we could use that $8,000,000 for that and free up that which is committed to the other. Mrs. Gordon: Could it be used for the Water Transportation System that we d cussed here on a number of different occasions? Mr. Grassie: Yes, it could but the only extent to which it would accomplish Commissioner Plummer's purpose is the extent to which you had General Fund money in Water Transportation. Mrs. Gordon: Yes, but we're also talking about practical uses that would im- prove our economy and that would improve our economy if we could put the Water Transportation System into play as soon as possible. And if we get that money and we begin to work it we can probably multiply it a number of times. rt 41 3u L •1 1 1979 Mr. Plummer: Don't we have money in escrow at the present time for the acquisi- : tion of the FEC property on the north side of 5th Street? Mr. Grassie: Yes. Mr. Plummer: "How much do we have in trust, restricted?, Mr. Grassie: 14.3 or 4 million. Mr. Plummer: But that was from bonds. Mr. Grassie: Yes. Mr. Plummer: And those bonds would be restrictive. Mr. Grassie: :Yes, Parks for People Bonds. That's correct. ive me the budget, I'll find you Mr. Plummer: Okay, so we can't do that. You q $8,000,000 in the budget. Mayor Ferre: Let me make another statement. . Gordon... Mrs. Gordon: You've got about $4,000,000 tied up on Watson Island from the Franchise dollars, you could free those dollars'up. Mayor Ferre: Mrs. Gordon, you asked a question when you were making a state- ment that there was nothing in the bill that referred that to FIU. The way that you can see that very clearly is if you notice what the legislature did is it didn't give the City of Miami the money it gave the money to FIU, it appropriated the money to FIU. It appropriated the money to FIU and then it said, FIU, you can only use this money to purchase this land at Interama. Now there's a double purpose in that, first of all because it's FIU who wants to buy the land and secondly because it was the intention of the people who are doing this to have FIU use that as a leverage with us and Dr. Wolf has already been around to see how they can successfully convince us to spend that money jointly with them in something that would help FIU in the downtown area. Mr. Plummer: T think we need to invite them to lunch. Mrs. Gordon: Well, all of this is a round robin but let's simply take the money as soon as we can and put it where it's going to bring us some interest and I'm in favor of that. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Knox, can you be ready on the 23rd to give the legal questions that have been asked? Mr. Knox: Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: A11 right, Mr. Grassie, could you begin negotiations with FIU on a preliminary basis so that without making any commitments you can come back here with an outline of more.or less what it is that we're talking about since you have to negotiate this as I understand it with FIU before it is final- ized? I think the Commission should then be aware of what exactly FIU has in mind, if anything, and then we both the legal questions and the practical as- pects of it. Mr. Grassie: We can do that, Mayor. Mayor Ferre: All right, any further questions? Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I would hope, if I understand your directions to the. Manager that he would also prepare a paper stating where that $8,000,000 could be possibly used that is now restricted funds and freeing up that amount of money for.... Mayor Ferre: That was one of your questions. All right, any further questions or statements or comments? Thereupon the City Commission recessed from 1:15 O'Clock P.M. and recon- vened at 2:15 O'Clock P.M. 42 JUL ! I t9T9 6. PLAQUES, CERTIFICATES OF APPRECIATION AND SPECIAL ITEMS. A. Presentation of a Certificate of Appreciation to Bill Long, former Post Commander of Harvey Seeds Post, American Legion No. 29. 3. Presentation of a Certificate of Appreciation to Mr. Masud Quaraishy for his presentation of a mural to the City of Miami. C. Presentation of a Proclamation designating July 25th as "Puerto Rico Day" in Miami to Mr. Ralph Borras and Mrs. Alicia Baro. D. Presentation of a Proclamation designating July 17 as "Asociacion Interamericana de Hombres de Empress" Day to Mr. Herb Levin. .... .. ... 4...• .a ,,. 7. DISCUSSION ITEM: VELODROME ON VIRGINIA KEY. Mr. R. L. Fosmoen, Assistant City Manager informed the Commission that the City's application for a Velodrome on Virginia had been denied by the County. Mr. Grassie stated that there were four areas to which the County objected to _.. connection with the Velodrome project and sought guidance from the City Com- mission. Ee asked whether the administration should try to cure the objections possible, :whether they should abandon the project, whether a new site should be so.zght, et-. He cited the County's objections, to be as follows: the uitficulty of access to facilities on Virginia Key and Key Biscayne the ioss of some of the existing parking as the result of Velodrome` construction the lack of restroom facilities within 200'(it was proposed that the Velodrome users would use the Marine Stadium restroom facilities 700' away). and the question ofwhether the Velodrome represented a "marine or allied • use" as specified in the deed conveying properties to the City of Miami on which the Marine Stadium had been constructed. He suggested that possibly the rowing clubs could be housed in connection with• the Velodrome_ project to eliminate the fourth objection. CommissionerGibson saidhe was somewhat pleased with the tone of the letter from the County and he had hope that the problems with the project could be. worked "out. Mayer Ferre said that since the County staff was in favor of the project and one of the County Commissioners was absent when this item was considered he hoped that the item could be brought up for reconsideration with the hope that • f the Commissioners would change their vote, thus permitting the project to go forward. He suggested that since Mayor Clark's objection to the project • tag, to the lack of restroom facilities in the immediate area that restroom _facilities be added to the plans and that the County be requested to reconsider the amended application. Commissioner Plummer inquired as to the cost of this project due to inflation and the cost of adding restroom facilities. The City Manager said he estimated that the project would now be in the neigh- borhood of $220,000 at this time and if restrooms were added that an additional 30 to $40,000 would be required. rt rJUL111979 Mayor Ferre said that the Velodrome would be a great tourist attraction and an asset to the City by bringing international bicycling competition to the Miami area. SEE LATER MOTION NO. 79-497. 8. DISCUSSION AND DEFERRAL OF SECOND READING OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO CIVIL SERVICE RULES AND REGULATIONS TO SPECIAL MEETING ON JULY 24, 1979. Mrs. Gordon: I want to say what I think we should be doing with this item, it is a very lengthy item but I think I'd want to go over it line by line and I'd like to see us set a meeting up maybe for the early part of next week and go over this on a line by line basis so we can fully understand what we're about. Mayor Ferre: I've got no objections to that at all. Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor, I have some concerns. I would rather be educated, that's what this Committee of the Whole is all about. I would rather hear the staff's side and only hear you all now and then as indicated in the agenda leave off the afternoon section. Do you follow? Then leave that whole item off, Item 15, leave that off and then make that the special thing so that you could.. Mayor Ferre: Rose, is that acceptable to you? Mrs. Gordon: Well, I'd personally like to do it all, you know ask questions. It's a quarter of three now, we have a pretty heavy agenda we haven't even begun to look at, this is a very important item, it needs to have consideration and discussion and we'll be discussing this until 6 O'Clock. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Bond, we have a difference of opinion now, let me ask so we can cut through here. How long in your opinion would it take for you to make your presentation if you're not interrupted and no questions are asked? Mr. Bond: Twelve minutes, forty-two seconds. Mayor, Ferre: Well, you're being facetious. Mr. Bonds I'm being exact, sir, I have it prepared. Mayor Ferre: Well all right, will 15 minutes do it? Mr. Bond: :It will do my part and Mr. Krause has about 8 or 10 minutes and that will be it. Mayor Ferre: All right, that's 23 minutes. Now this is as Father is request- ing just for educational purpose, no discussion and we're going to get into the line by line discussion at another meeting. Okay? Let them get it off their ,. chest, that gives you an advantage because that way you can take all this down. Rev. Gibson: Right. Mr. Robert Klausner: So long as it is our understanding that there is no vote to be taken, today. Rev. Gibson: Mayor. Ferre: All right, now go ahead then, Mr. Bond, make your presentation, I'll set aside half an hour for everything, fifteen minutes for you and ten minutes for Bob. Mr. Jack Bond: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, I'd like to introduce discussion of the pending Civil Service Ordinance by speaking to three points which really need clarification. The first point is that one called "Power Grab". At a recent public meeting the opponents to Civil Service Rules mis- labeled those changes as representing a power grab by the Director of Human Resources which really has the effect of taking a major issue of public policy and making it seem like the trivial interest of a single person. Quite the contrary, various provisions of the proposed Civil Service Rules state that the Director of Human Resources shall perform certain functions and may exercise rt 44 nut ! , fen judgement in the performance of other functions. This is the normal termin- ology by which responsibility is fixed upon a specific person. It is the way in which the State Law, the City Charters, ordinances and rules identify the person who can be held accountable. It may be significant to note that in most public agencies the chief personnel officer has greater responsibility than the pending ordinance proposes for•the Director of Human Resources and gives this department director only as much authority as is needed to effect- ively manage the activities of the department. This department director will have no more authority than any director in the City including the Police Chief and Fire Chief and there is no autonomy as we know, all are responsible to the City Manager who is ultimately responsible to you, the City Commission. All of you know the history of Miami better than I and you know the traditions of discrimination that led a group of black police officers to sue the City. You know that in 73 the City entered into a Consent Decree that was designed to eliminate discrimination in the hiring and promotion of police officers. The City has paid a half million dollars in five years to the University of Chicago alone in order to comply with that decree. And what have been the results? Your agenda today includes an appearance, many years later, by an attorney representing a black police officer who alleges the City still has no blacks it, i.i,e ranxs of police lieutenant and police captain. You have received a re- port issued by the Department of Human Resources very recently stating that black employment in the Police Dapartment has declined in the last four years in absolute figtces and in percentage figures and that the increase of the Latin officers his been so slow that at the current rate it will take approx- imately 50 years to achieve parity with the City's labor market which is our goal. These are serious problems for the City, they will not be solved by claims that the volutions represent a power grab. The problems in the Police Department ar.e not unique to Miami, in 75 under the authority of General Revenue Snaring and other federal statutes the United States brought suit against the City alleging -discrimination against Latins, blacks and women in all the City's employment practices. Again, the City voluntarily entered into a Consent De- cree to protect it's federal funds and to correct it's discriminatory employ- mktnt practices. The Consent Decree was signed in 1977, the City agreed to cast _: hiring and promotion goals, establishing as its long term goal parity with the Miami labor market in all departments and at all levels of _•?cymer.'.; t the City agreed to much more than mere numbers, it agreed to change a w:ol series of employment practices that involved recruitment, test- `nc! ^ir.irn-uclificatirns, time -in -grade requirements, transfers, job assign - and practices that have been governed by Civil Service Rules that w_re aaoptec 4:0 years ago. The City even hired the national consulting firm of Booz Allen and Hamilton to analyze its employement problems. Booze Allen recommended a new Department of Human Resources which the Commission created by ordinance in 76. The Department was still being formed and staffed when t.Ye Consent. Decree was signed in March of 77. A year later the U.S. Depart - rent ofJ_ctice wrote the City a very strong letter stating that the City was not fulfilling it's commitment made in the Consent Decree. The Justice Depart - pointed out very specific changes that should made in the Civil Service Rules. Both the Mayor and the City Manager responded that they would take steps to comply. They both instructed the Department of Human Resources to prepare rules amendments. Amendments were drafted and submited to the Civil Service Board. The board held a public hearing and approved the amendments. The board recognized the amendments as necessary for compliance with the Con- sent Decree. Not only did the Civil Service Board approve these amendments, the City's Affirmative Action Advisory Board has approved them. The Dade County Community Relations Board has endorsed them, many citizens groups and community leaders have supported these necessary changes. The amendments re- sult from open discussion from public meetings, established Charter require- ments and obvious need to correct discrimination in the City's employment prac- tices not only because it is the right thing to do but also because $40,000,000 in federal funds depend on the actions we're deliberating over. Secondly, there have been statements that proposed amendments are not needed and that _'r_'blems could be resolved by giving adequate staff to the Civil Service Board and this idea confronts or flies in the face of the City's history over rest ten years. During that period the City's employment practices have been under constant challenge. The Civil Service Board and it's staff tried to adapt but they failed. The City's own consulting firm, Booz Allen con- cluded again that the City needed a Department of Human Resources, both con- sent decrees concluded that major changes in rules and procedures were required. the U.S. Justice Department has pointed out very clearly that revised rules and procedures are absolutely necessary. Now this is not unique to Miami, cities and states across the country have been reforming their Civil Service systems to provide new procedures for equal employment opportunity and Affirmat- ive Action. National professional organizations and citizens groups have been recommending Civil Service reforms. The federal courts have mandated corrections to the traditional discrimination of Civil Service Systems. Even the U. S. Government itself has abolished its Civil Service Commission, in its place establishing a new office of personnel management. There are two basic reasons why these changes are required in Miami. First, personnel administration ac- cross the country has become more professional and more demanding in this era of equal opportunity. The psychological profession has been developing new techniques of job analysis, performance evaluation, test validation, etc. At the same time the federal government has pre-empted the rights of states and local governments by enacting new laws and regulations. Title VII in the Civil Rights Amendments of 72 are the primary federal legislative efforts. In addi- tion, however, federal grant laws contain new requirements for fair employment practices under such programs as revenue sharing, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, CETA, Community Development Block Grant funds and many other grant programs. Then there is the separate legislation on age discrimination and employment of the handicapped. On top of this, federal agencies issue in- creasingly detailed and professional regulations on employment. The most sig- nificant for our purposes are the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Pro- cedures, the merit system standards and the specific regulations applicable to each grant program. In phrases used by the Justice Department in its communi- cation to us it is clear that "...compliance cannot be achieved by the efforts of lay people", that "...in an earlier age issues of this kind could be deter- mined by local policy" and "...qualified professionals are now needed to meet the requirements of complying with the Consent Decree and other federal regu- lations". Second, the City's present Civil Service Rules impose such difficult obstacles that the selection process for an average job normally takes two to three months. This is poor management practice but it is much more than that, it is inherently discriminatory. An analysis of our standard practices shows that recruitment produces large numbers of minority applicants frequently rang- ing from 70 to 90%, that the process takes so long that we lose high percent- ages of these minorities before they even take the exams and that the ratio for minorities gaining access to eligible registers is 14 to 12 the rate for other candidates and since the federal government defines adverse impact as any rate less than 80% it is clear that the City's present procedures do dis- criminate against minorities really long before the tests were even given. It is clear that the advocates of more staff for the Civil Service Board have not really made an effort to understand the real problem. The real problem is that a system designed 40 years ago has not provided fair treatment to the in- creasing black, Latin and working female population of this City. The last point, it has been stated that the Civil Service Office used to spend $250,000 per year to do the same work that now costs the Human Resources Department $1,000, 000. Mr. Bond: $1,000,000, sir. That statement really needs a little clarification because Human Resources is one of the departments that I directly supervise, I would notwish anyone to believe that I could even tolerate such waste with- out challenging that kind of a statement. I submit the cost to you Under Consent Decree costs, $88,000, a special account to pay for the University of Chicago Consent Decree. This is for this year alone. $100,000, a special back pay fund for city-wide payments required by the second Consent Decree. $41,000 covers the cost of the Affirmative Action Office agreed upon in Consent Decree negotiations. $50,000 covers the cost of test validation required by the Consent Decree and $64,000 covers the cost of the administrative staff that was created to monitor compliance with the decree and prepare reports required by the Justice Department for a total of $343,000. Other non -Civil Service costs total $315,000 - $159,000 employee health clinic, $32,000 for a safety program and $125,000 departmental administration, coordination of Consent Decree activities and the administration of the CETA program. These two categories of budget cost a total of $658,000 leaving $267,000 for opera- tion of normal personnel functions of the City, $267,000, not a million. This is the cost of the Personnel Services Division and the Department of Human Resources which is the unit most nearly comparable to the Civil Service Office as it existed previously. Perhaps the most accurate comparison can be found in the fact that the Personnel Services Division and HRD now has nine budgeted positions compared to 17 previously included under Civil Service. So as you can see, the cost of personnel administration really only reflects normally expected increases over the same functions provided earlier. In brief conclusion, there may be alternatives to the adoption of the pending Civil Service ordinance but those alternatives run the risk of non-compliance with the Consent Decree and federal grant programs. Equally serious, they run the risk of perpetuating discriminatory employment practices which the City has pledged itself to correct. Let it be understood by all that my criticisms are directed not at individuals but at a system that has not kept up with the changing times. That's 12 minutes and 59 seconds. rt 46 FJUL111979 Mayor Ferre: You're right. Mr. Bond: I think it's appropriate for Mr. Krause to make a few comments, sir. Mayor: Ferret I'll recognize him in a moment, but that statement obviously took an awful lot of work on your part and I think it's such a succinct and clear statement and it's so well expressed that I would like to have, I think each one of us should have a copy of it and you might want to make it available to anyone else that wants a copy of that. Would you have some copies made, please? Mr. Plummer: It's now a public record. Mayor Ferre: It is a public record. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I, would like it established on the record that that is, of course, the feelings of Mr. Bond and it does not represent the feelings of the City. Mayor Ferre: Of course, it does not represent the feelings of all of the City Commissioners but if it is put to a vote and there are sufficient votes to back it then I would say that then it would represent the feelings of the City as expressed by the majority of the Commission should it pass. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, thepoint that I'm making is there was a great deal of editorializing in there and I'm assuming it is on the behalf of Mr. Bond and I want that to be on the record, that's all. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Grassie. I think Mr. Bond is talkingfor the administration, isn't he? That's correct. Mr. Plummer: Well,.I find it very difficult for Mr. Bond or anyone else to be in violation of the Charter in which that statement implies. He made the state- ment within that that the Justice Department sent a very strongly - his termin- ology I'm sure - worded letter and that the Manager and Mayor would see to it that there v;ould be compliance. Now that was the terminology. Mayor Ferrc What he said is that the Manager who was then Paul Andrews. Mr. Plummer: Am I correct, Mr. Bond? Would you refer back to your notes? Mayor Ferre: He was talking about Paul Andrews and myself and when I was writ- ten a letter from the Justice Department and after I went up there with Paul Andrews and with our City Attorney who was John Lloyd, I wrote them back a let- ter where.I said that I would do all that I could within.... Mr. Plummer: That's a different terminology and that I accept which is correct. Mayor Ferre: Well, obviously I can't speak for five members of this Commission. Mrs. Gordon: I would just like to ask you, Mr. Mayor, through you, in what way, 1 couldn't get it clearly, are we presently under the present system violating the Consent Decree. Mr. Bond: Gordon. Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Bond: Mrs. Gordo. e're not implementing any real Affirmative Action Program, Mrs. e we in violation of the Consent Decree? By not doing so. yes. Z:, We are in violation of the Consent Decree? Mr. Bond: That you might want to ask your attorney. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Knox? Mr. Knox: Violation in its precisely technical context would probably mean that the City committeed some overt act which violated the terms of the Consent Decree.; At the same time the Consent Decree has not been implemented by virtue of our, continued adherence to those provisions of th Civil Service Rules and Regulations which make it impossible to comply with the Consent Decree. Mrs. Gordon Then you're saying that the present system - you're talking 47 FrUL111979 around in circles. Is it or is it not a violation of the Consent Decree? Are we now operating in a manner that is in violation of the Consent Decree and if so, how? Mr. Knox: To the extent that promotions or appointments are made based on scores which have been obtained on an examination which has not properly been validated there is a precise violation of the Consent Decree to give one exam- ple. To the extent that there are promotions made from registers going by the numbers, if you will, without consideration of minority individuals who may otherwise be qualified for promotional positions there is an overt violation of the Consent Decree. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Bond, do you want to add anything to that? Mr. Plummer: Well can I ask a question? Mayor Ferre: Well wait a moment, I want to see if he wants to add something because if not I want to add something. What I want to add simply is this; that we all lived through the experience in the Cohen Case when in front of Paul Andrews there was some very strong language about the fact that Affirmat- ive Action was not functioning and Mr. Paul Andrews right there on that micro- phone said, Well, you know there's absolutely nothing that I can do about it and you can't blame me - somebody had blamed him - because the Civil Service Rules and the Civil Service Board is the one you have to look to. And Jesse Mc Creary said yes, but the Consent Decree, the Cohen Consent Decree specific- ally charges the City Manager. And he said, well the Consent Decree may charge me but I am precluded from doing anything. Then the Civil Service Chairman came up and the Civil Service Board you know put the blame somewhere else so it was never clear to me or to anybody. who looked at it I think as to who was to blame.'.Was it the Commission? Was it the Manager? Was it the Civil Ser- vice Board? And around and around and around we went, the problem was never solved, there was no Affirmative Action and there was nobody to• blame. Now when the Justice Department looked at that the Justice Department put it very speci- fically and I think it is called institutionalized discrimination - there is.. no culprit, you can't put a finger on anybody but the fact is that blacks, minorities and women don't progress very much. Now it is easy to point fingers and say the Manager is to blame you know like we did with Paul Andrews but the fact is that we've. been through three Managers that I've seen and we haven't changed very, much and the fact is that the justice Department keeps pointing out to us thilt the reason we cannot comply is because the Civil Service Rules of the City ;of Miami which are 40 years old and obsolete don't allow us to comply and I think that what we've got to do is address that simple fact and until we'do that the rest of it is just a lot of talk. Mrs. Gordon: Yes, but nobody still has said how the present rules, how do they violate the,Consent Decree, how do they absolutely violate the Consent Decree. Mayor Ferre: In two ways that I know of, the first way is that with the rules that we presently have unless minorities make it to the top three which is very very rare - and women - we never can select them and the second way is that nobody is responsible. So what happens is between one thing or another we keep going around in cirlces as to who is responsible and until we can pin responsibility on one specific individual and hold him or her accountable and until we have these rules changes I think we will be in violation. Mr. Bond: For promotional purposes it is the top one, for outside selection it is the top three so we're even further constrained. Mayor Ferre: And that will specifically address those two pointsand to me those are the two basic issues. Now tell me if I'm wrong, Mr. Bond, I think, the heart of everything we're talking about is (1) who do we hold accountable, and (2) how do we get minorities into the system. Mrs. Gordon: Well, is there a violation now of the Consent; Decree? answer that yes or no. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Knox? Mr. Bond: cuffed... That's a legal question, Mayor Ferree Just s. Gordon. The administrtion is hand Excuse me, Jack, since it is a legal question let's let Mr. Knox.`. 48 ITUL ! i Nye foi Mr. Knox: There have been violations of the Consent Decree by virtue of again, promotions that have been made off of registers which were established based on unvalidated examinations. There have been a number, and we have that precise number. Mrs. Gordon: A number of violations of the Consent Decree? Mr. Knox: Yes. And there has been very much litigation any time there has been a promotion pursuant to the Consent Decree and again that's a tangential problem, but you see every time there is an attempt to adhere to the provi- aions of the Consent Decree there is a lawsuit filed alleging among other things that the Civil Service Rules and Regulations are being violated by vir- tue of these promotions. Mrs. Gordon: George, didn't Judge Eaton say that if•there is a violation of the Consent Decree it belongs before him? Mr. tnox court? No, I don't think that's what the judge said. Cf there is a violation isn't itsupposed to go back to the Mrs. Gordon: The: judge has jurisdictiori over implementation of the Consent Decree. Mrs. Gordon: Yes well that's. what I just said to youand you say there are violations. Have you taken them then to the judge, the violations? Yes or Mr. Knox: Ireally don't understand the nature Mayor Ferre: Well, you understand the intent. of your question, I.ncox: 7cs, I understand' the intent perfectly. Gard gin: GoYao.�, Mayor You refuse to answer the question, Ok. o, 1 said I.•isn't understand the nature of your question, Fer.e: Are you finished with this, Rose Mrs. Gordon: Yes, he can't answer the question,`I'm finished." Gordon. Mayor Ferre: Mrs. Gordon says that you cannot answer the question, I don't qui .e see it that way but you speak for yourself. Mr. Knox: I will repeat my statement. ea s . Gordon: ou don't need to. Mr. Knox: Okay. Mayor. Ferre: Mr. Bond, I apologize for cuttingyou off but I thought it was important that the City Attorney first give an answer then you can address it if you wish. Mr. Bond: The only thing that I can add to that is that we're completely hand- cuffed in trying to do something administratively because every step that we make is faced with litigation. r1.'i er: Can I say something? Here again, everybody is editorializing. Mr Bond, do Civil Service Rules regulate unclassified service? Mr. Bond:Yes. Mr. Plummer: They do? Mr. Bondi Unclassified service? Mr. Plummer: Ah, you understood my question. I understand it now, I didn't focus, yes. Mr. Bond: rt 49 fful ! ! 1979 Mr. Plummer: All right, I couldn't make it any briefer. is to the Consent Decree? Mr. Bond: No. Mr. Grassie: The unclassified also Yes, the unclassified is covered by the Consent Decree, sure. Mr. Plummer: No wonder we've got problems. an answer? Will you two agree so Mr. Grassie: Commissioner, 'I'think we do agree. Mr. Plummer: You and I agree, there seems to be some other problem here. guess I don't have a guayabera so I'm out of place. can have Mr. Grassie: That's true. The answer is, Commissioner, that the Consent Decree does cover all City employment. Mr. Plummer: Fine. Okay, you know Father Gibson says, "See that? It' ain't hard to judge." It ain't hard to judge. Now tell me where the handcuffs are on the unclassified service - you ain't complied. Mrs. Gordon: Hooray for you, J. L. Mr. Plummer: Show me the handcuffs. Mr. Grassie: Let's separate the question from your answer to it, Commissioner, you know let's get the right answer. Mr. Plummer: Well, you do it howeveryou want with you. Go ahead. Mayor Ferret Mr. Plummer:' Mr. Grassie: You know let unclassified Mr. Plummer:' Mr. Grassie: Mr. Plummer:; Oh, it is? Two wrongs don't make a right. agree. and I'll go back and play sematics Well, let's, first decide whether there is a wrong in that instance. 's reviewwhat, in fact, the standard of the Consent. Decree is for positions and then let's taik about performance.~ that standard different than classified? Mr. Grassie: Yes. Mr. Plummer: In your estimation and your opinion, you're entitled to and I likewise. Mr. Grassie: No, Commissioner, I'm`talking about what the Consent Mr. Plummer: Mr. Grassie, I'm not going to pick on any particular office, all right, sir? It's not my point to do such. What I'm saying to you, I feel and I see that there is a lack of minority representation in the unclassified service. Now that's not too hard to determine. Now, you know.... Mr. Grassie: And I can understand that, Commissioner, because you know when you consider the unclassified service which has been around for a long time, when I came to this City three years ago the unclassified service had zero minor- ity representation. Mr. Plummer: No, you're wrong. Mr. Grassie: You're, right, Mr. Mr. Plummer: There ain't much: more now. Grassie: Well, Commissioner, you really, need to get the facts. Mr. Flummer: I hope you will come forth with the facts. Mr. Grassie: And one of the facts that you need to get is that the performance 711n. 1 1 1979 50 rt record in recent years has been that 60% of all new hires in the unclassi- fied service are minorities. Now that's a simple fact of life. Mrs. Gordon: Not in the upper level. Mayor Ferre: Now that's being challenged. Mt. Grassie: Well, the only cure for that kind of challenge that I can suggest to you is that we go down the list of every appointment in the unclassified service that has been made in the last year, two years, something which, by the way, has beer, provided to you. M'or Ferre: Well, but we don't read all the material we get, you know that, and anyway, don't bother us with the facts. Mr. Grassie: You have a full report on this which has been given to you within the last month. :ordeal: :`We've;had '' it, we don't need to hear it 'again, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Plummer: o, if he thinks it is pertinent I don't mind listening to Mrs. Gordon:' It doesn't change the fact, J. L., there's not any women on board and women are sl.d between the cracks of what is supposed to be minorities and women and Mr. Gr. ssie never did consider women as an important part of the imple- mentation of thai facet of the hiring prctices. Mrs. Gordon: Rose, please, you are entitled to your comments, I'm, of course, entitled to mine. ;:Father Gibson has always said, and I have concurred and I will continue.' to concur - things are not going to change around here until you glean up your own back yard and the example is set by the heads. Okay? bar• .. Grac,e:•:: report.. Mr . P1ui mer Mr. Plummer: Mr. Grassie:` That's right, Commissioner, and I think that if you look at the :. -Ay I finish? though you had. ou wish I had. ou may be right, Commissioner. Mr. Plummer: The thing is very simple to me, if I look around this City I know of ao female serving either in as a department head or assistant department head. ":^.ow,of o::1y one black that is serving in the capacity, that traditional black, that being Sanitation. I don't know how you would classify Mr. Salman. Knox Mr. Gary. Mr. Plummer: Well,but is he a department head? Mr. Grassie: Mx. Plummer: such. Mayor Ferre: not true! No,;but Commissioner..... Is Mr. Gary a department head? If it is, I don't consider it Hey look, why don't you just tellhim like it is it is simply Mr. Grassie: ; It's simply, you know, your facts are not true and you're making too many mis-statements, Commissioner, for me to remember them all. Now look, yn+� hid::R presentation>this morning from a female department head, Dena Spill- man. whom you've known for four or five years. She is the Director of Citizens S�r.icea: Mrs. Gordon: Only for a short time, Mr. Grassie, don't make it sound like she's beer, therefor four or five years. She's been on board the City's payroll for that period of time but not as a department head. Mr. Grassie: I said that he had known her. Now, in addition to that she has a female assistant department head, as a matter of fact she has two female, 51 QUL 1 1 1979 elk assistant department heads. We have two black department directors. We have another two assistant department directors who are black, not to speak of an Assistant City Manager and that's just to speak to the issues that you have brought up and that is in the last three years, Commissioner, starting from zero. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Grassie, I will accept correction in the area of Dena Spill- man. I would, of course, take exception, and a dear friend, Mr. Howard Gary, that he is a department head. Okay? Now I take exception to that because that in my estimation has always traditionally been a part of your office. Okay? So he's really, in fact, not in my estimation a department head. For the pur- poses of bookkeeping maybe it is but yet when I find 72% of that department is CETA or it was, I understand it's in the process of being corrected, you know what are we saying? The point is I will stand quiet and take your figures and we'll come apart with them. You know we'll just go down the line line by line by line. Mayor Ferre: Well, I'm just not satisfied personally, and I want you if you've documented it ten times before I am now asking you to document it the eleventh time. I don't want a fifty page memorandum where this is sandwiched in, I want a one page simple memorandum: Since you have been City Manager in nonclassi- fied positions how many appointments have there been(1) and I want to know how many blacks, how many Latins, how many women and I want the total of that fig- ure and I want the percentage - just that simple, and I want it on the record. Now, if you've got that information just please give it to us now. Mr. Grassie: I have it in my hand it was distributed to you on June 13th and I will be happy to have it copied and we can have it.... Mayor Ferre: Just read it into the record, the conclusion of it: How many` people have we hiredsince whatever date you got there to whatever date. Mr. Grassie: The record, by the way, includes the name, date of appointment, position for every person that's concerned. Mayor Ferre: We will look into thatand you'll send us each another copy of it, it's probably lost in the myriad of papers that we have waiting to be read. Mr. Bonds The attachment three that this memorandum refers to represents all of the key appointments made directly by the present City Manager between the period of August 1, 1976 and May 31, 1977. :<These include appointments at salar- ies of $16,000 and above, the names shown do not include individuals who termin- ated prior to May 31, 1979, thus the names represent only those individuals who were still on the payroll as of May 31, 1979.. Mayor Ferre: Give us the totals, Mr. Bond. Mr. Bond: Twenty-four executive appointments were made, five were black males, for a percentage of 20.8%; Six were Latin males for a percentage of 25%; One was an Asian male - that's other minority - representing 4.2%; one was a Latin female 4.2% thus the total appointments of minorities and females in executibe service represents 54.2% of all appointments made by the present City Manager. This compared to the goal established in the Consent Decree of 20% for officials and administrators. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Bond, how many department heads are there? Mayor Ferre: Well wait a minute, Ithink `the point in all of that is do you want us to go fire people to put women and. minorities? Mr. Plummer: Not at all, but I want the rules to apply both ways.= many department heads are there? Mr. Bond: I believe there are 17, sir. Mr. Plummer:` Mr. Bond: Mr. Plummer Mr. Bond: Seventeen department heads? Do you have a breakdown there? Not with me; no." Mr. Plummer: I'd like it.' rt 52 CUl 1 1 1979 404 Mr. Grassie: But the direct answer to your question, Commissioner, is you asked about the Consent Decree, the standard established in the Consent Decree for these positions is, in fact, different than it is for other positions rec- ognizing that entry level positions are easier to comply with where you have a high number of entry level people. The standards in the Consent Decree for these positions is 20% and we are operating with a performance record in the neighborhood of 60%. Now that was the point that you asked about and that's the answer. Mayor Ferree Fifty-three I think is what he said. Mr. Knox: Mr. Mayor, I would like I think number one in order to advise the Commission of the status of minority employment in the Law Department and num- ber to highlight the classic problem as presented by the Civil Service Rules and Regulations I'd like to advise you of what's happening in the Law Depart- ment. There are 13 attorneys in the Law Department, four are black males, two are Latin males, two are females and five are Anglo males so that eight our of the thirteen are members of the so-called protected class, eight out of the thirteen attorneys in the Law Department. There's one Anglo male investigator, two Latin Male investigators and one black male investigator - that represents 75% of the investigators who are minorities in the Law Department. Now as to the investigators and the attorneys the appointments are not subject to compet- itive examinations and the traditional Civil Service. Among the legal secretar- ies' in the Law Department who must take a competitive examination and score in the best of three there are 13 legal secretaries of which one is a Latin female and there are no black legal secretaries in the Law Department so that the im- pact, I think, is made dramatic by virtue of the composition for those persons where the department director can make appointments and those positions which are subject to the competitive requirements of Civil Service. Mr. Bond: Mr. Mayor, I gave you figures a moment ago that were somewhat incom- plete. On appointments by the present City Manager since August of 76 I'd like to give you very briefly promotions in that same officials and administrators category. One was a black male, 7.1%; two Latin males 14.3%; one Asian male, 7.1%; two Anglo females 14.3%, representing 42.8% of all promotions made by the present City Manager. Mayor Fer.rt: Well how many promotions have been made in total? Mr. Bond: A total of.... Mayor Ferre: That would make six so that allyou've promoted, 13 people? Mr. Bond: 14. Mr. Grassie: Yes, in'the we're talking about.. you're talking about 13 promotions; class of director and assistant director, you know Mayor Ferre: In other words what you're saying to us as I understood it, out of 24 new hires 15 have been the affected class and out of 14 promotions 6 have been the affected class. So on one case you're over 40% and in the other case you're over 50%. Mr. Bond: And the established goal by the Consent Decree is 20%, sir. Mayor Ferre: Well, I'll tell you:I would be very satisfied if you could obtain similar records, Mr. Grassie, in the Fire Department, the Police Department and other departments. So let's get back to the main subject here. Now, you wanted to be recognized. Mr. Bond: Mr. Krause has the other end of mine, sir. Mayor Ferre: Oh,;i'm sorry, do you want to do it nowor do you want Mr. Krause to make it? Mr. Don Teems: Don Teems, President of the Miami Association of Fire Fighters. In relation to the question about violations of the Consent Decree, Mr. Mayor, I'd like to inform you that, in fact, Judge Eaton said that that is all he wanted to see before his court were violations of the Consent Decree, that if you did have violations of the Consent Decree he wanted to see them, he would hear them so I submit to you that there aren't any. In fact, the Miami Assoc- iation of Fire Fighters have signed a Consent Decree, are signatories to the Consent Decree and if there were violations of the Consent Decree we would be willing to go with you to Judge Eaton. So as far as that goes that's where it is. Now, since the Consent Decree in the Fire Department the Fire Department 53 rt Put 1 1 1979 has never yet failed to meet its goals. Now, the goals in hiring in the Fire Department is 56% not 20% - never yet failed to meet its goals under hiring or promotion and I want that to go on the record. Mayor Ferre: Is that true of all the other departments? Mr. Teems: You'd have to ask those, Mr. Mayor, I don't know that. Mayor Ferre: All right, sir. I wish all the departinents were as good as the Fire Department. Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Knox, now that you've heard the comments of Mr. Teems now will you answer what I said before with regard to the so-called violations that you said there are. Have you taken them to Judge Eaton? Mr. Knox: I` will repeat that I do not understand the nature of that question. The question would relate to whether or not the City has responsibility to take itself before Judge Eaton if there is a violation of the Consent Decree. Now, if I have a transcript of the hearing before Judge Eaton and I will examine it and invite anybody else to examine it to see what Judge Eaton said. Mr. Teems: Mr. Mayor, I am not a member of the City of Miami as far as the City representing itself and if the City can show me some violations of the Con- sent Decree I'll take it for them. Mayor Ferre: Is there anything else? All right, Mr. Krause. Mr. Robert Krause: Mr. Mayor and members of the City. Commission a prepared paper which I` will make as brief as possible. Mayor Ferre: After, you have given the statement, would you have copies made and also distribute?` also have Mr. Krause: Yes, sir,;I will. We've been dealing with the subject of Civil Service Rules now for more than a year. I've prepared a substantial amount of detail for the City Commission during that time. Some of the recent mater- ial was provided specifically in response to questions of the Commissioners at the Meeting 7f May 24th. I think it may be more confusing than helpful to try to review all of the details at this time. For that reason I would like to put this subject in a perspective that may help to summarize our discussions, reports and correspondence of the past 15 months. The pending Civil Service ordinance developed from a letter sent to the Mayor and the City Manager by the United States Justice Deparment on April 17, 1978. The letter said in part, and this is a quote, a series of quotes:" We are concerned that the City has not made the type of substantive and institutional changes that are required by the Consent Decree to make minorities and females an integral part of the Miami classified service." The letter went on to detail specific provisions of the Consent Decree by which the City had committed itself to amend Civil Service requirements on written exams, job descriptions, job announcements, educational requirements, job assignments, time -in -grade requirements for promotions and referral procedures for applicants on eligible lists for both hiring and promo- tion. The letter went on to say that "These specific suggestions are not intend- ed as a comprehensive list of the institutional changes that may be necessary for the City of Miami to achieve compliance with the full scope of the Consent Decree." I might stop at that point and indicate that as I read that letter from the Justice Department they are saying the City is in violation of the Consent Decree because it has not fulfilled the promises made on behalf of the City. The letter concluded by stating that the City under it's CETA contract is also, again quote, "...obliged to make substantially greater efforts in mod- ernizing it's Civil Service system and institutionalizing the programs and pro- cedures required by the Consent Decree." It may be reasonable to consider why the Justice Department attaches such great importance to the issue of Civil Service Reform, there has been a growing realization during the last two decades that many Civil Service Systems have become a major impediment not only to good government but to fair employment practices. Perhaps the beginning of this real- ization dates from the 1960 report of the prestigious Municipal Manpower Commis- sion. This was an independent citizen group that was funded by a grant from the Ford Foundation. The Commission concluded that city governements across the country would be unable to meet the growing service needs of their residents unless they took steps to remove what they called the dead hand of Civil Service from their employment programs. Beginning in the mid 1960's the United States Congress came to accept this view and begin to include requirements for a Civil Service Reform in many of its grant programs particularly those dealing with rt 54 OUL 1 119n9 employment and training such as the Manpower Development and Training Act of 1964 and the Emergency Employment Act of 1971. This trend has continued and expanded to encompass most of the current grant programs with which we deal. Meanwhile 1970 was another landmark year. the National Civil Service League which had created the concept of Civil Service a hundred years earlier pro- posed a new model law calling for major Civil Service Reform including aboli- tion of Civil Service Boards and Commissions and development of new programs to employ women and minorities. During the 1970's states and local govern- ments across the country engaged in a massive effort to reform and modernize their Civil Service systems. In 1978 the United States government itself went all the way and abolished its own Civil Service Commission which had been established in 1883 and had served as a model for most of the other Civil Ser- vice Boards and Commissions that had been created in state and local govern- ments. In its place the Congress established an Office of Personnel Manage- ment reporting directly to the President and a merit system protection board that was limited to hearing employee appeals. Reports from a variety of organ- izations during the past 18 months indicate that Civil Service reform is accel- erating across the country. Reports from such diverse groups as the National Urban Policey Round Table, the American Society for Public Administration, the publishing firm of Prentice Hall, Inc., International Personnel Manage- ment Association and the National Civil Service League have either called at- tention to the reed for a reform or have reported its broad sweep across the country. The mcst recent docuement that I have was received in our office last week. It's title is "The Impact of Affirmative Action and Civil Service on American Poli:e Personnel Systems". This is a research project that was funded by the Federal Law Enforcement Assistance Administration and was con- 1.:-ted by Public Administration Service which is a non-profit public service agency. < I would like to quote two very brief paragraphs from that report, one reads as follows: "In brief, the idea of an elitist moralistic principle of public service has a longer and more pervasive history than most of its advo- cates acknowledge or than the present debate recognizes. While elitism is not an intrinsically negative notion regarding the public service it does cast a somewhat different coloration on the merit issue particularly with regard to the problem of equal employment opportunity. To put the matter directly, ad- v:,ui.tes of the merit principle should take considerable care to see their mis- givings .aotr. its viability in the face of Affirmative Action efforts are not .nterpretec ?• nn ass'.um_tion that public service employment is a calling for a select secme,-it'of the populace to which minorities do not belong. "That's the end of the first quote and the second one says, "According to the Rand corp. which did a survey or minority recruitment in New York City in the early 1970's the Civil Service was so slow that many qualified candidates dropped out of " -urnin ." That's the end of that quote. Our recruiting staff has pre- pared a table showing the time it takes to hire new employees under the pres- ot Civil Service System. The table uses three specific cases and shows the loss ratio for minority applicants. The table shows, for example, that from the first request to fill a vacancy until the referral of applicants for inter- views it took 81 days for Stock Clerk II and 82 days for Secretary II, it took 5) days for Engineering Technician I. The main results of these efforts may be summarized as follows: First, we had excellent success in recruiting qual- ified minorities. The applicant pool shows 69% minorities for Secretary, 84% for Engineering Technician and 85% for Stock Clerk, 86%, I'm sorry. Secondly, the process took so long that we show the same type of drop out problem that was observed by the Rand Corporation in its study of the New York City's Civil Service. 0f 17 drop outs for Stock Clerk 15 were minorities which is 88% of the total. Of 19 drop outs for Engineering Technician,17 were minorities which is 89% of the total and of 14 drop outs for Secretary, 10 were minorities or 71% of the total. Third, the Federal Government has established a formula for computing what is called adverse impact in the selection process. The formula is intended to indicate the degree of discrimination. Any rate for minorities that is less than 80% of the appointment rate for other applicants �.: required to be shown as a business necessity that can be justified under the uniform guidelines on employee selection procedures. In our three cases rate for minorities falls well below 80%, it is 42% for Engineering Tech- nician, 33% for Secretary and only 24% for Stock Clerk. These cases demonstrate the continuing discriminatory impact of Civil Service selection procedures. The impact is worse because of the long delays then because of the tests them- s:ves. Even if we validate all of our exams and eliminate all of the cultural bias our procedures will still show a severe adverse impact unless we can mod- ernize and expedite the Civil Service requirements. I have copies of these tables if members of the Commission would like to see them. Mayor Ferre: Yes. 55 UL i ! 1979 1 Mr. Krause: Okay, I'll distribute those in a second. The final comment is this, I would like to note that I promised to provide certain data in response to questions that were raised by Commissioners at the Meeting of May 24th, I did provide that data in the memo that I sent the City Manager on June 13, Mr. Grassie has forwarded copies to the Commission, I had intended earlier today just to read certain excerpts from it but i believe in the interest of time I will not do that unless members of the Commission wish, and I will give you copies of this table. Mayor Ferre: The portion you're talking about dated June 13th, I don't have that memorandum. Gordon: I don't either, I need another copy of that. Mayor Ferre: Well, would you besides providing additional copies also give` us copies of your statement? All right, are there any further statements to be made at this time? Mr. Plummer: Mr. Krause, may I ask a question of you not pertaining to your presentation directly? Is there a way of determining how many permanent em- ployees have been hired in the last 12 months in the classified service permanent? Regular employees as referred to. Mr. Krause: Yes, there would be a way. Mayor,Ferre: Well, we've asked for that information before, you know that I have. Mr. Plummer: Yes. Have you ever determined such or are you prepared at this time to give a ball park figure? Mr. Krause: I'd hesitateto do that without looking at it in more detail. One of the problems that we have with providing current information to the Commission as I'm sure you're aware is the fact that we have difficulty get- ting up to date data out of the computer. Mr. Plummer: Well, of course, I'm well aware that in last year's budget as I recall there was a 21 million dollar anticipated salary savings and every indication is that has been met and that would give certain indications. Would you say - well, I hate to put you on the spot - Mr. Grassie, would it be safe to say that we have filled 100, 200 permanent positions in the last 12 months? Mr. Grassie: Yes, -at least that. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Grassie: No. I'm using rules of thumb with regard to turnover. Do you think it would be double that? Mr. Plummer: I understand, I'm not holding you to any specific number. The point I'm trying to make, Mr. Krause, is this. The Mayor made a comment the other day, we have what, around 4,000 permanent employees? How many? Mayor Ferre: 3,000. Mr. Krause: Maybe 3,500. Mr. Plummer: Okay, just for a hypothetical run through with me, and you know let's go this route. If we have 3,000 - and I'll use that figure - if we hired 300 permanent employees, if everyone of those that were hired was a minority we would only be addressing 10%, is that correct? Mr. Krause: Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: Per year, after three or fouryears it would be 30%., Mr. Plummer: Well, if every one, Mr. Mayor, were a minority.. Mayor Ferre: You can't do that obviously. Mr. Plummer: Please, I understand that. The point I'm trying to make, when these, and I sat on this Commission when this Consent Decree came down the path, these at the time were fully recognized because we spent hours on the word "goal", what is the goal. Okay? Now, the point I'm trying to make, the Consent Decree has been in what now, three years? rt. i6 JUL 1 11919 Mr. Krause: A little over two. Mr. Plummer: All right, three years since everything is in threes. Had you had the opportunity to 100% hire nothing but minorities in the three years 30% is where we would be. Now, it cannot address the problem - excuse me, the representation in the Consent Decree of 60% minorities and it's more than that. If we're talking about as I recall 52% Latin and 27% black or in that general neighborhood, let's say 50 and 25 to come up with an even 75 how can anybody say that this City is not at least headed in the right direction? There is no way. I don't think there was anybody sitting here at the time that this Commission agreed to the Consent Decree, and I voted for it, I want to say that very quickly, that they could obtain those goals. If you weren't able to have 100% minority hiring you couldn't obtain it - there's no way. Mr. Krause: There are two kinds of goals in the Consent Decree, there arean- nual goals which we measure, monitored on an annual basis. They differ accord- ing to the type of occupation. Except the Consent Decree, Mr. Krause, spoke to a five year pla. about annual goals over the.... Mr. Plummer:; Nr., sir, I'm not. The Consent Decree itself spoke toa five year plan and those Coals of percentages which are set forth in that Consent Decree are for the fivE year plan that hopefully at the end of five years you would have been able t ) obtain these goals. Mr. Krause:' If I may correct you, sir. Plummer: If I'm wrong, please do. Mr.:Krause:, That is a mistaken recollection of what the Consent Decree says. It'establishes annual hiring goals for six categories of employment. Those --r.'ua3 -i-:main the same for each of five years. The Consent Decree also establishes a procedure by which we calculate a promotional goal for each de- -•-.r`ment c^- veer for each of the five years and the way the formula works, tha prootioral.goal gets higher each year. The Consent Decree additionally :ays that 'zc.. C ty estai lishes as its long term goal parity with the City of labur ne..,et at all levels and all occupations within the City work force, _�me languacee almost verbatim. Now that I interpret to continue beyond the five years of the Consent Decree but each year the Justice Department expects us'to report as of the close of business on June 30th whether we have met the promotional goals in each department and whether we have met the hiring goals each.of the categories that are specified in the Consent Decree and they are, for example, 20% for officials and administrators, 30% for professionals, aIrxoxiznately 40% I believe for paraprofessionals, 56% for public safety and £pecal categories of 35% non -black in certain laboring occupations and there are a couple of other categories that are established. ti.. Plummer: I accept what you say. All right, sir? Now, using that as a criteria, using the fact in the general ball park that you only have a 10% turn over how in God's name will you ever attain that which you are trying to blame on Civil Service? I say if you had the opportunity to hire 100% minor- ities you're only talking about at best 10% on your annual reporting, am I right or am I wrong? Mr. Grassie: Well, you're wrong in this sense, Commissioner, there are two kinds of goals. One is a percentage of hires and there in case of the Police Department, for example, you may be talking about 56% of new recruits. The other percentage that you're talking about is percentage of total work force and terms of the percentage of total work force you're absolutely right and t'l=t is that if you have a 10% turn over there is no way that you're going to in less than 10 years reconstitute the work force. You're entirely right. nnA if you are hiring at the rate of 50% of all your new hirees being minorit- ies and you have a 10% turn over then obviously after 5 years which is our Con- sc:nt Decree, the maximum impact that we could have is 25% of the work force. There is no question about that. The only thing that I believe we are bring- ing to your attention is that since the problem is that difficult inherently and by nature it is unreasonable for the City to continue regulations which make it that much more difficult to achieve a result. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Grassie, this City has paid an awful lot of money to the University of Chicago, they have redone the testing; they have redone the hir- ing practices; they have redone the recruiting practices - none of it is in, as I see it, handcuffed by these Civil Service Rules as it relates to the Police Department. I don't see anything here that relates to in -hiring in the Police rt 57 JUL i 1 147q • Department yet we find a negative, so-called negative increase, you know we have spent a half a million dollars with the University of Chicago to get worse percentages. And these proposed Civil Service Rules that are proposed here today doesn't address the Police Department. Mr. Krause: They do., yes. Mr. Grassie: They really do, Commissioner. Mr. Krause: AS a matter of fact, the University of Chicago deals solely with the testing process and the Cohen Consent Decree which was signed in 1973 was based on selection guidelines established by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission three years earlier in 1970. Since that time last year EEOC and three other federal agencies including the Justice Department issued a new set of selection guidelines which makes the use of the Miami Civil Service referral procedure inconsistent with the selection guidelines. It makes the whole sel- ection process as conducted by the University of Chicago inconsistent with the requirements of federal selection requirements and there is a police case in Mobile, Alabama which says that you may not use a valid examination to promote police sergeants if it has adverse impact against minorities unless you follow the new provisions of the Federal Selection Guidelines which require you to seek alternative uses of the test results meaning that in Mobile, Alabama, a federal court said they could not certify from the top of an eligible register they had to certify all names on an eligible register and allow the Mobile Po- lice Chief to appoint anybody who passed the test. Mr. Plummer: I hope that I didn't hear you say that all the money we spent for the University of Chicago is now inconsistent with the new rules. I didn't, did I hear you say that? Mr. Krause: Yes, you did and that is correct. The testing by the University is better than the testing that the City was doing in the past but the guide- lines for use of the test results have changed since the Cohen Decree was signed. Mr. Plummer• Mayor Ferre: Rev. Gibson: you through, Mr. Krause: sir? A half a million dollars. Well, but that's the way things happen in this country, you know. Mr. Mayor, may I. ask a question? Yes, :sir. 0 that we can keep faith, are Rev. Gibson: We said that we were going to have the administration make its presentation as a means,: a method::of enlightening, educating. If we did noth- ing else we got the manuscript from Mr. Bond and one from you, Mr. Krause. Mayor Ferre: We haven't gotten his yet. Rev. Gibson: Well, his is going to be given I'm sure. I would hope that in light of changes that you all are advocating that the unions will have an oppor- tunity to respond. One thing I learned, I may not agree with what you say but I ought to at least know your reasons. And if the members of the union can come forth reasonably so and convince me they don't have to worry. I am not going to change now as I have not changed. How long have I been up here? Miss Summers, you'd better tell me. I'm going on my seventh year, is that right? Something like that. Okay, I don't plan to change now it's too late. I would want to see us do what Rose wanted, that is deal with these issues, these changes one by one and let the union tell us what is good about it and what is bad about it. I think that's fair. I promised the other gentleman sitting beside you, when he came I said well we would want you to have participation and so on and we would want to know, that is at least I would want to know how would these changes affect you adversely or not and I would hope, Mr. Mayor, you would ask all of us before we leave here, leave this issue right now to look at our calendars and agree upon a day and a time. And I would hope, Mr. Mayor, my charge would be that we would be here if we say 9:00 be here at 9:00 O'Clock ready to begin and if we say 1:00 we'll be here at 1:00 because obviously since I have to pray for the souls I have to have ample time to pray for them. They have to be cared for. Mayor Ferre: All right, let's start looking at our calendars and would you start telling me what days you're not available. rt 58 'JUL ! ! 19f9 • zn toe cem;,»�wm• 4 Mrs. Gordon: While we all decide what dates are available, I just asked for some information and I received it and I'd like you to hear this Mayor. The class that's now in training for the Police Department has 18 members, it started I believe in the middle of June, 18 members, 18 are minorities - 18 out of 18, how can you beat that with the new rule changes? Mr. Krause: That's inaccurate, it's close but it's inaccurate, it's not 100%. Mrs. Gordon: How close, 17 out of 18? Mr Krause:_ No, it's about 13 out of 18, something like that. Mrs. Gordon:`. Now want to know? how can you beat that with the rule changes, that's all ''I Mayor Ferre: Why; don't you explain how that happened? eating for the Commissioner to know. Mr. Krause: Essentially tha happens because of recruitment procedures that we'. negotiated with the Justice Department including restricting recruitment to the boundary lines of the City of Miami;doing joint recruitment with the Police Department, allowing applicants to apply either at Police Headquarters or at the Department of Human Resources. We recruited something approximating 90% women and minority applicants for the total applicant pool and we wound up with an eligible register exceeding 450 people of which approximately 90% were minorities. Mayor Ferre: Was this the first time that the Human Resource Department has participated in this way? Mr. Mayor Ferre: Do you think that has anything to do with what the results were? Mr. Krause: I believe it has a great deal to dowith it. Mrs. Gordon: The rules right now. accurate with all cannot do this or point is you still have, you're operating under a set of Arent"you? Now whatI don't understand, it's not exactly this being said that`,because the -rules are what they are we that when the' -`facts belie that, here are the facts - 18 out of 18 and the rules are exactly the sameas theyhave been, or are you saying that we bent the rules? Which are you saying? Mayor Ferre:Mrs. Gordon, you and Commissi oner Plummer I understand, you've made it perfectly clear, do not feel that we need any changes for compliance. Mr. Plummer:' Oh no! I disagree with your statement about Commissioner Plummer,, Commissioner Plummer thinks there's a lotof these rules that have got to change and I want them changed. Mrs. Gordon: Yes. Mayor Ferre: Then I stand corrected. the date that we're going, to meet? Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Krause, could:I ask you a question 'while we're still looking and nobody has decided yet? Are there any departnents in the City in the City that have failed to meet their requirements? Mr. Krause:. At the present time there are several departments who are not meet- ing their goals for the current year. Mrs. Gordon: Which ones are they, Mr Krause? Mayor Ferre: I'm sorry, you're out of order. Please, we're trying to settle on a date, let's stick to that then you can get intothis thing about the departments. After further discussion the City Commission decided to hear this matter again on July 24th at 9:00 O'Clock. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I would like if it is possible two things, that when we come back or have in our hands prior to the 24th, and I don't know that the rest of the Commission will agree with this but I personally would like to have rt 59 DD U. 1 1 1979 • it developed by staff. Number one, as I recollect there are 48 times in this proposed document before us in which the terminology "transfer of power to the Human Resources Department". It has been and is my contention that there should be two sets of governing rules, one governing Civil Service (2) separate a set of rules governing Human Resources and I would like to see that set up into two separate sets of rules. Number two, I think that it is most imperative that in conjunction with these rule changes as proposed accepted or not accepted that on the same time we deal with the accusation that the Affirmative Action Board has no clout, that we discuss that matter and have the Affirmative Action here, that this Commission might want to take and give the Affirmative Action Board the necessary vehicle or tools to have the clout and to do the job that needs to be done. I will conclude by only saying this: when everything else is finished the final responsibility lies with this Com- mission. The judge and all others in power look to this Commission for the final determination if it is right or wrong not to Mr. Bond not to Mr. Krause, really not even to Mr. Grassie - this Commission. And I want to tell you in my estimation that person who is going to be in charge in my estimation is going to be answerable to this Commission on whose responsibility the final determination is made. Mayor Ferre: Mr. 'Plummer: you may have to change the Charter for that too. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Knox, would you by the 24th of July have for this Commission; an analysis of in those 42 cases that Mr. `Plummer is inentioning in the written document before us entitled "Civil Service Rule Changes" if at any time any of those can be transferred directly to the Commission directly or indirectly with- out violating the Charter? Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I don't know what you're talking about because that isn't what I was talking about. Now let me repeat it and I hope that Mr. Knox understood it. I said there shall be a rule book which is published around here for employees of Civil Service Rules. In those areas where the terminol- ogy "This responsibility transferred to Human Resources" there be a second set of rules, those rules applying to Human Resources. Now, yes, you might be right that we cannot imply this Commission's overt action towards them but we can set policy and this is the policy that Human Resources shall operate under. That's easy enough, that's simple. Mr. Mayor, as you're well aware there are many boards that operate around this City that are answerable directly to this Commission.' Mayor Ferre: But they do not have the authority to hire, fire or set rules for employees." Mr. Plummer:;' Would you say that is the rule of th havethe right to fire employees. Mayor Ferre: And precisely that is why it is covered in the Charter with those specific changes. Mr. Plummer: And they are answerable directly to this Commission. That's all I'm saying. I would like to see such a document' prepared and I'm giving staff the latitude of preparing the document. Mayor Ferre: Okay, I mean we all understand where we are. Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor, Commissioner Plummer referred to the Affirmative Action, I see on here #4. Now that we've heard what Civil Service says and all that, the Rev. H. W. Kirtley, is he here? Well, maybe we would want to hear him and follow him up, Mr. Mayor, because I think they're talking about Affirmative Action. Mayor Ferre: Rev. Kirtley, I'm going to recognize you in a second so you can step up if you will but let me say that we have`. two letters, and I'm not going to read them into the record, one is from Dr. Herbert H. Greene, Chairman of the CAA Administering Board in support of the proposed Civil Service and the other one is from Rev. Thedford Johnson, President of the Ministers' Layman Voter Registration Committee, also in support of the Civil Service changes. Mayor Ferre: Okay. I will submit these into the record. And Now, Mr. Krause and Mr. Bond, are you through with your presentations at this tizne? rt 60 :WC 1 1 1979 Mr. Bond: Yes. Mayor Ferre: All right, Reverend, the Chair recognizes you. Rev. H. W. Kirtley: Mr. Mayor, ladies and gentlemen, I don't have a prepared statement, I'd prefer not to have one because that kind of hamstrings me. But after listening to what y'all have said today I personally as Chairman of the Affirmative Action Advisory Board feel about as useful as side pockets on a pig. 1x. Plummer: You did not hear my comments just now. Re7. Kirtley: No, sir, I was trying to find out how I could get some use. Mr. Plummer: All right, my comments were that on the 24th when we reconvened to handle this matter and this matter alone, that this item of the Affirmative Action Board who cries have been made that they have no clout, that they be given the same notice to be here and the same staff developed where we could give you that clout. Mr. those statements. Rev. Kirtley: Clay. Now I'm not here to speak for the Civil Service revisions l•ut you have already had before you our recommendation for the adoption of the revisions. I. don't need to talk about that. We are concerned in the 7%f''i.rme.ti-'e 'action Advisory Board that we are not getting the kind of informa- tion that we need to work with. Now this is an administrative problem and we can't make the decisions that we need to make unless we get that information. Now Mr. Krause has been very helpful to us, I think he's a marvelous man, he's doing a good job, but we need more data to work with and we need to get to you to find out how we get that data. Okay, now Bob has already said I'm with you a.,:: w.'i1 su ly that for you. We have some problems of lines of communica- tion`and this is what we hope we'll be able to address on the 24th. We are at resent zepciting to the Department of Human Resources. Your original ordin- ance that naniated us, I think it was 8725, had us reporting to the City Com- ris:icn. 10w that was Clanged without my even being aware that it was changed and suddenly we found out that we were reporting to the Department of Human Resources and through the Department of Human Resources to the City Manager's Office. £verymember of the Affirmative Action Advisory Board objected to this, when our City Manager met with us we said we didn't like it, we deplored it, we y.,-,-not henw with it, we were informed that's the way it was it was just as svre as the sun rises in the east, that was the way it was going to be. Mayor Ferre: When`. did this happen? Rev. Kirtley:. This happened, a new ordinance No. 8725 is the new ordinance, the old one was something else. Mayor Ferre Did we vote on that? Rev. Kirtley: Y'all voted and changed the ordinance after, we were originally mandated. The new ordinance is 8725, effective 10-14-77. Mayor Ferre: Rev. Kirtley: M. Plummer: :n' 77 we voted for this? You apparently did. Which one created you? h_ Kirtley: I think it was 8519, am is that good, 8519. :it. right? That amazes me that my memory Plummer: Which one do you say changed these rules? Kirtl 8725. Rev. ey Mr. Plummer: Mr. Clerk, may I have a copy of both of those? Mayor Ferre: And furthermore, I'd like to know how, who passed, you know the vote was and who made the motion and how it came about what rt 61 (JUL 1 1 1979 Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor, let me make this comment. My Reverend brother, lis- ten to this. When we were setting up the Affirmative Action Board there was one hell of an argument up here and I made the recommendation and the observa- tion that the only way the Affirmative Action Board could be of any consequence is that they must report directly to the Commission. There was one huge argu- ment and I want to say this, I don't think anybody was misled. They finally changed it to do exactly what they're doing. I'm glad, I didn't know you were coming for that purpose, but I said and I continue to say if you don't need these boards and you don't want them don't appoint them. And I said that the only way we the Commission will ever know the real story is when that board reports back to us because if you report as you are now doing when they don't want us to hear it we never know about it. I said that then, read the record, and I am going to be a prophet before I leave this Commission. Rev. Kirtley: Okay, that's supposed to be part of your job Mr. Plummer: Let me ask this question, reverend. Reverend, time that it was brought before your board that it was being Commission that the understanding of this Commission of your ly to us was to change? anyhow as a priest. was there ever a proposed to this reporting" direct- ,- Rev. Kirtley: I'm going to answer"that question sounding like either the City Attorney or the City Manager andsay "I'm "pot sure because I -could have missed a meeting but it never happened while I was there. Mr. Plummer: Well, I think a lot of us missed a meeting. Rev. Kirtley: Okay, "but "I wasnot aware that that was happening until it was done. I did not even know that we had the new ordinance until about three. months ago. Mr. Plummer: Rev. Kirtley: You most certainly can Mayor Ferre r All right, reverend, do you have anything else you want to add? Rev. Kirtley: Yes, I'm not through blowing my top. I want to do several things if I may, and I'll not take long to do it. We have a communication problem, we want to have periodic dialogue with the City Commission to whom we feel responsible. Now we have that but we have to go through certain ad- ministrative channels to get that done. We want to be able to give you a prog- ress report. We have been mandated to see that Affirmative Action happens, to make recommendations, to make suggestions to the Civil Service Commission, we want to make that dialogue back to you and say ok, this is the progress we're making. Mayor Ferre: Reverend, would you be prepared to do that by the 24th? you ask me to and it Rev. Kirtley: Yes, I'll be prepared to do it any day may involve me changing my vacation time too. Mayor Ferre: That would give you two weeks to do it, to get ready. If that's inconvenient we could do it in September. Rev. Kirtley: I'll have to ask. Yvonne, can we, put together? Do we have any problems? All right, I'In depending on Yvonne to see that we get it together. Okay. Mayor Ferre: The 24th. So we will, after' we talk`. Rules then we will get into your subject. Rev. Kirtley: Okay, do you want me to hold the restof my report until then? Mayor Ferre: I'll leave that up to you, 1 think it might be appropriate if we concentrate on that one subject all at one tizne but if you want to make your reportnow that's your decision. Rev. Kirtley: Well, grievances.' m not prepared,, to make a report, I'm really airing some Mayor Ferre: ""Well, I'll leave that u rt 62 nut 1 1 ty'3 Mr. Plummer: Reverend, may I ask in this ordinance whre does it say you shall report to the Human Resources? Rev. Kirtley: If you'll read back in the middle part underline it but.... ummer: But it's not in the title. I did not specifically: Rev. Kirtley: No, it's underlined in there further back. Ladies and gentle- men, we also want to ask you to give some consideration to some funding because in order for our Affirmative Action Office to do it's job we need to see that our Affirmative Action Officer has access to certain workshops, we need to also ses that thore are some opportunities provided for the Affirmative Action Advis- ory Board to also attend those.... Mayor Ferre: May I recommend that we take all of that up on the 24th? I think that's a good time to do it. Rev. Kirtley: Okay, I'll be very happy to do that. I'm not sure that I can get all of our members back that are here today but I would like for you to known' that Hazel; Grant is here, Hines Breeden, Linda Eades who is our Vice - Chair and Roderick Silva, all members of the Affirmative Action Board are here. They're here to tell you that we are working for Affirmative Action, we want your support. .Iinda, do you want to say anything or shall we wait? (INAUD- IBLE RESPONSE) then we'll wait until the 24th and we thank you for that oppor- tunity. Plummer: I heard the key word "Budgetary Problems", may I suggest if you have such a document prepared that you supply it to us prior to the 24th so that we can review it and be on the same level in discussion with you on the 24th. nn•� • Kirt1s7s That's very good. Thank you, for giving us the time. Mayor Ferre: Reverend, my guess is that we'll take at least three hours on (.ivi] Servica Pules on the 24th, we're starting at 9:00. I would recommend that we e i th .r . k:eet at noon or that . _at we -do it at=2.: 00 0' Clock in the - afternoon. .'otl d vc A =Y do it at 2:00? !`: s . Gordon.,Continue right through the morning and `get out of here. Mayor Ferrer C.ia- .2.4 L... Okay, my guess is at noon. We'll get to you around 12:00 O'Clock`° Rev. Kirtley: On the 24th of July? Mayor Ferre: Yes, sir, is that all right with you? It will louse up my vacation too. Yes, I'll be here. All right, thank you, Reverend. R'v. Kirtley:. Mayor Ferre: 63 rJUL 1 1 1979 9. DISCUSSION ITEM: YACHT CLUB LEASES UTILIZING CITY PROPERTY. Mayor Ferre: We're now, ladies and gentlemen, on Item H which is Mrs. Gordon's request. Rose? Mrs. Gordon: I'm going to ask the Manager to furnish this Commission with a proposal at the next Commission Meeting which is the 23rd that we can go along with to begin charging these clubs a fee to bring some money into our budget because our budget certainly is looking for new funds and $1.00 a year is ab- solutely incredible and nobody can understand how we could put up with it for so long. So in light of that and with the understanding that without fail this will be on the agenda, that your staff will now have two more weeks to be able to prepare this information for us that you will bring us a proposal that will be fair to the City and will not be inequitable to the people in the clubs. Again, reminding you that it was my suggestion that we charge a fee to those members who are non-residents of the City and at the rate of $100 per person per member that it would bring to our budget $130,000 that we could well use as new revenue and that will only be for the non-residents in the 3 clubs, 1,300 people. Mayor Ferre: Let me say that I: think in principle I support the idea and I. would like, Mr. Grassie, that you would also come back with alternatives if. you feel that there are some that need to be presented for discussion. Mrs. Gordon:: money, you're Mr. Grassie: looking for, signer? Not :just for discussion but for action because you need the budgeting now. Just so we come back to the City Commission with what you're do 1 understand what you want is a legislative proposal. Commis - Mrs. Gordon: Yes. Mr. Grassie: What I have just passed out to you is a memorandum, and we've only had a couple of days to do this because you know we've done it since you and I talked about putting this on the agenda but basically what this says is that if you establish, if it is your intent to establish a proportion be- tween what taxpayers pay and what non-residents ought to pay for this kind of facility that you would have a result rounded off to $112 per non-resident yacht club member as a goal that you would be shooting for. We also have shown you how much that turns out to be in money, in the case of the Coconut Grove Sailing Club which is represented here that's about $50,000, $59,000 in the case of Miami Yacht Club and so on. Mrs. Gordon: That's a reasonable approach and we can have a chance to study it between now and then. Mr. Grassie: All right, now if this is late this into a piece of legislation. Mrs. Gordon. : Mr. Grassie: Is that what you're looking for? Mrs. Gordon: That's my request, yes. what you're looking for we can trans - Mr. Plummer: Well, let me ask this question. It was my understanding, Mr.;, Grassie, that last time this matter was referredto you to negotiate somewhat based on the guidelines set forth in the Coral Reef negotiations. Mr. Grassie: Yes, and we have done that. As a matter of fact, those negotiat- ing sessions are detailed for you on this memorandum we just distributed., There is a great deal of concern on the part of the clubs with regard to that approach. That's an understatement. Mayor Ferre: I. understand. Mr. Grassie, I think it, is appropriate then that once you come up with this that you inform all of these clubs as to when this matter is coming up on the 23rd since it affects them. All right, is there anything else on that, Rose? rt 64 11 T 'roTo Mrs. Gordon: No, I just wanted to cut through it quickly so we can take action on the 23rd. 10. DISCUSSION ITEM: STAFFING IN CITY COMMISSIONERS OFFICES. The next item is Item I, Commissioner Lacasa. Mr. Lacasa: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, the discussion on this item is centered on the situation that I have in my particular office. As you know, about 55% of the population of the City of Miami is Spanish speaking. The problem that I am facing is one of manpower. I only have one person in my office and the result is that the tremendous amount of telephone calls, personal visits, correspondence that I have is totally disproportionate to the ability that our office has to handle them. Furthermore, from a physical loca- tion my office is located outside the shall we say compound of the other three City Commissioners, consequently, I do not have the advantage of having access to the shall we call it pool of secretaries that you have at your disposal. So basically my request is that I be allocated, and the Manager be instructed to allocate one clerical person to my office to help the assistant that I al- ready have there. Mayor Ferre: All right, any other comments by members of the Commission? Mrs. Gordon: I'd just like to point out to the Commissioner who just spoke the fact that I serve on 19 committees for the Commission and I have 19, and I have the services of one-fourth of an assistant besides my regular person. It is incredible, the load that I carry and this does not include any services other than Commission appointed services. I serve in other capacities that are not even discussing but I just want you to know that if Commissioner Lacasa feels that he's being unfairly burdened with calls from the public we get the same amount of calls from public and we serve on 19 committees. Plummer? Father? Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor, I want to make sure everybody hears me. I don't have anybody but the person you gave me. I advocated, I've begged, I've pleaded that we have a standard budget for the Commission. And you know what's very strange? Nobody wants to face it - nobody wants to face it. Everybody wants a budget of his own. Now I find it incredible that we, the Commission, and this is not for you, Mr. Lacasa, I think all of us ought to face up with this business. You know we're talking about tightening our belts, we're talking about laying off all these other people. You know what I mean? And you know, I venture to say if we wanted to tell the truth one person in each of our of- fices if we really wanted to put them to work would do that work. I just heard on the news last night Mr. Wilson is going to finally have his way. Do you know Mr. Wilson is, Mr. Grassie? Mr. Wilson is the man who wants to deal with Proposition 13 come September. And you know, I hope we get the message. Now I want to say this, you know I'm not going to be so holy and righteous, you know if you all need two I need two too. I ain't got no problem with that. Mrs. Gordon: Father, don't misunderstand me, I just wanted to point out the work load that I'm carrying. I know J. L. Plummer carries a similar load to mine and I know you do too. Rev. Gibson: Rose, I have more needs than you all have you know, my folk are the bottom rung of the ladder so I get all the calls about everything conceiv- able. Okay? And note, I'm not complaining but if you give one I want youto give all. Okay, 1 just want to make sure everybody understands. ' Plummer, do you want to add your two cents worth? Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, this matter has been discussed before and I just want to make the same comment I made before. I have a second person in my office presently, maybe the best thing the Manager could do is take it away because the minute you do I want you to know you've got nine immediate resignations of matters that I have been assigned by this Commission for which I was not elected and as far as I'm concerned you all can be the judge. Now you know I guess maybe you can find fault with me that I didn't know how to say no when the Com- mission said take one more committee, take one committee, take one more committee rt 65 ;JUL 1 1 1379 take one more committee, take one more committee. Maybe I'm guilty for that but I also know you might be doing me a favor by taking me out of those nine major committees which will give me some more time to spend with my family. So it's up to the Commission, it's up to the Manager, you're not going to hurt try feelings really either way. Mayor Ferre: I'm not affected so let me make a statement. I personally think that times have changed. There was a time - I served four years as a Commis- sioner here before I served as Mayor and we used to all sit in one little of- fice. That had a wonderful advantage, it kept us all out of City Hall because we had to share, four of us were stacked into one little office and Miriam Glowacki God bless her used to sit outside and how that woman was able to keep up with the four of us.... Mrs. Gordon:Nobody did anything at City Hall. Mayor Ferre: That's right. Mr. Plummer:` And your budget was under $20,000,000.' Mayor Ferre: What happened was that none of the Commissioners or me ever did. very much in those days. We came to meetings and Mel Reese pretty well ran things and he used to the Mayor who was Steve Clark once in a while, they'd come to, an agreement and you very seldom found any kind of a dissention. Now there are those, and I call them cynics, who might think that that was really a better way to function. We certainly got through meetings a little quicker and there was certainly not as much talk. Let me tell you what has happened since. I think we have an activist Commission. I wouldn't want J. L. Plummer to resign his nine commissions, I wouldn't want Rose Gordon to resign her nine- teen commissions and successively. We have a Cuban population which is super active which wasn't active ten years ago. You know who gets the brunt of that, it isn't Plummer and it isn't Rose and it isn't even me. I get a little bit of it but not much. The guy that gets all of that is this guy right here. He must get 500 calls a month or a week asking for this and doing that and doing what have you. Everybody in the black community, you know where they end up.; They're, not going to call you or me, they call Gibson. Mrs. Gordon: Don't kid yourself, you're making assumptions. I get a lot of calls from, the Latin people and I get a lot of calls from the black people, I a` lot of calls from other people. I wouldn't make assumptions as to who's getting calls from whom, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: Well, I would judge that by the voting patterns of the past. Mrs. Gordon:` That's dangerous. Mr. Plummer: I didn't understand the question. Mayor Ferre: "I think the point is that obviously with all due respects to my colleague that I would assume that most people who have a problem in the Cuban community would rather deal with one of their own and I think that is true of the black community with all due respects. And that doesn't mean that we don't all get calls from different segments of the community but there is a burden upon us and an activist Commission. However, I want to put on the record the fact that as far as the Mayor is concerned that the Mayor has the same number of people that the previous mayor had and I have not gone up one single person. I still have three secretaries, I don't have a driver. There used to be a driver that drove the mayor around before and used to make about $25,000, everything included and now I don't have anybody driving me around because I stopped that six years ago and instead of that I have an extra assistant but the Mayor's staff has not increased. It was one assistant and three secretaries when I got there and a driver, there were five people and it's exactly what I have now. I'm not saying that in any derogatory sense, I think that I can handle the work we have with five people but I understand your request and I sympathize with your problem. Mr. Lacasa: Thank you. I'd like to add to this that the situation in my parti- cular case worsened because when Reboso was on the City Commission he had an assistant in addition to his secretary and that was a CETA position. Unfortun- ately by the time that I came to the Commission that position was already vac- ant and now I cannot refill that position with a CETA position because it is contrary to the new regulations of labor which is not the situation, for ins- tance, Rose, that you have where you have an assistant who is a CETA.... 66 !JUL 1 1 1979 Mrs. Gordon: I don't, I have no assistant, it is a floating secretary for Gibson"and for you and for anybody. She doesn't belong to. me. I only have one-fourth of her services, that's all. Mayor Ferre: Well, you ought to tell her pretation.... Mrs. Gordon: And another, thing I want to tell you, she speaks Spanish, she's a Spanish girl, she's a Cuban girl and, therefore, she's able to interpret in those calls that we receive from the Latin people where we need to. have inter - Mr. Lacasa: Then I find it very appropriate that you have her and I do believe that she wi:l.3. be extremely helpful to you and I have no questions about it and I do feel that you need her. My only problem is not what you havemy problem is what 'I need. Mrs. Gordon: She sits in that room. I wish'I had her, you don't understand me I wish I had her but I don't. Also,. she fills in out here in the lobby for the girl for an hour and a half when the girl out here leaves. We have very little out of that girl' so don't feel envious of us who sit in the other room. Rev. Gibson: Well, the easy to solve it, just give us all another somebody. I have no problem with that, no problem at all. If you find the money find the money, man a-d I will start right now recruiting. I'll pick up the phone. . I just toll you what my problem was. I spent all afternoon and evening yesterday lookin4 over problems and I came near crying. I understand. That ne _ .r._ _oing much easier. Beautiful. I have no problems. 11. INSTRUCT CITY MANAGER TO COOPERATE IN DISTRIBUTION OF MATERIALS ETC. FOR EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION IN ...3. SAVINGS BONDS PROGRAM. 1ayor Fe-rt 'x. Carl Elake, Mr. Blake, our apologies for making you wait two Hours, you are hereby recognized. Mr. Carl Blake: _I'm here speaking for the Department of the Treasury, United States Savings Bonds Division. I'd just like to take a couple of minutes to ewrl.ain •.,01;7 in regard to the bond program that I wanted to speak to you people oiay. I wanted to mention a few figures to you that are probably fresh in your mind, I` know I received last March and you probably read it in the paper about the United States Government running into the ceiling of our national neot, S798,000,000,000 and at that time Congress seemed to take a few days if you recall to make an extension of this national debt of $32,000,000,000. So the Treasury was having a few problems meeting some of its obligations and I'm sure being in City government you run into that problem once in a while. Well, what happened, a few people didn't receive their Social Security checks and some people that had returns coming from IRS, they didn't receive them. But after April 4th when they extended this National Debt by $32,000,000,000 and now we owe $830,000,000,000 why these obligations were to be met. The point I want to put across is at the present time $81,000,000,000 is outstand- ing in United States Savings Bonds. The average life of these bonds is 61 yeas and it pays 612%. Now that's the cheapest possible way the Treasury can finance its debt and it's just as important to finance this debt as it is to 'continually increase it. Now you can imagine how expensive this is for you an0 I as taxpayers to go to the Federal reserve which you read in the paper and buy S10,000 notes at 9.4, 9.5%, maybe now they're down to 8.9% but espec- 1 .1 being in government like you are I'm sure you're well aware of how ex- pensive it is to continually refinance and this is just what the United States :3sury Department has to constantly do. Now with Savings Bonds with an aver- age life of 61 years let me tell you it is a great breathing spell to the United States Government. It's not only beneficial to them it's beneficial to the City of Miami, the community here and to every employee that you have with the City of Miami and I can guarantee you, and if there is anyone sitting here that can tell me of a better savings program for a city employee at W% with the tax advantages I'd like to know about them because I can tell you that an em- ployee with a little financial security, your personnel manager will tell you that there is less absenteeism and I know he can do you a better job without having this financial problem and that financial problem on his mind. 67 J U L 1 1 1979 Mayor Ferre: Mr. Blake, I agree with everything you've said, what can we do for your sir. Mr. Blake: All right, I met in front of this Commission when Mr. Reese was the City Manager, I remember Judge Balaban was on the Commission and they endorsed this Savings Bond Program. We had a terrific program. In 1976 we had 1,233 people on the program. In 1977 I contacted the City Manager's Office and was unable to have a bond program. In 1978 we even sent out over 5,000 pieces of material and we haven't found that yet. In 1978 we have now 896, I mean at that time and I would doubt in 1979 we haven't had the program, we're down about 600 employees on the program. The State of Florida has a program every year, you can see the governor, Dade County has it, the City of Coral Gables have it, everyone has it. What we would like to do is have a campaign amongst your City employees to let them know that the interest rate has gone from 6% to 61% because every employee wants to save but they need a little help. Mayor Ferre: Have you got any problems with any of this, Mr. Grassie? Mr. Grassie: Mr. Mayor, our position on this program is very straight forward and simple. We last year as I understand it made a complete distribution to every employee of the literature on Savings Bonds and we think it is a fine program. What we have tried to do is to maintain the line that the City does not get in the business of promoting good causes because there is no end to the number of good causes that we are asked to promote and you know we try not to get into fund raising programs. We do distribute their literature and we feel that that is a prudent response to the kind of requests that we have been getting from them. We have no problem with that, if they want us to go beyond that then we have the question of equity with other organizations that want us to get into fund raising for them. Do you want to address yourself to that, Mr. Blake? Mr. Blake: Yes, I'd like to answer that. Of course, there are many many com- panies that only have two programs, that's the Savings Bond Program and the United Way but afterall, when you and I elect people to go to the United States Government and those people spend the money and they spend more than we take in it has to be financed and I know this is very advantageous to the City of Miami and afterall, it is an advantage to some of your employees. So I just don't think maybe that you quite figure the importance of the Savings Bond Program. I just explained to you how important it is to finance the national debt. Now maybe you figure every employee you have has $10,000 and goes down and earns 9.4% interest but I can tell you that there is no employee that can get a better program than the Savings bond Program but he's not selfish, he's not helping himself he's helping the City government, the Federal Government and everv_emplovee that works here. What I would like is permission from the Commis- sion to have the City Manager appoint a chairman that we can present this pro- gram to your employees. Mayor Ferre: Can you do that? Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Grassie, I'd like to see you do that. I think you do too, don't you Father? Rev. Gibson: Mr. Grassie, I heard what you said but when you tell me United States Savings Bonds is the same as any other good cause that bothers me. I'm really troubled over that because I cannot see it that way. I believe - you may not agree with me - I believe that the heads of all these departments ought to be confronted. You know, I think people have to get a new concept of America, man and we've got to start getting some loyalties in America. I really am of that opinion. Again I want to repeat this: Having gone to Ger- many the other day I came back with a different concept. Many, my God, America is great! And you know what? I don't think a lot of us really appreciate that and I don't see why we have to go tongue and cheek about Savings Bonds and these people are making doggone good salaries and they ought to make sure and start a savings program, all of them who do business, who are on the City's payroll ought to really be confronted. And I know how you feel, you don't want to be the agent, I understand that but I think this Commission ought to say that every department head ought to, this man ought to be given the permission to talk with those department heads and present that program. Mr. Grassie: Commissioner, you need to know that our practice now is to pro- vide payroll check -off which is really the single most important thing that the City can do in my estimation. We provide payroll check -off for two rJuL s 119tn rt 68 • activities. One is United Way and the other is U.S. Savings Bonds, nothing else. So we have already placed this program in a privileged position in rela- tion to every other program whether it is Multiple Sclerosis or the Cancer Drive or whatever it is. They're already in a privileged position. The only limit- ation that we have, and we also distribute their literature in the paycheck for every employee. Now the only thing that we have said is that if they want to make presentations to the employees it should be voluntary with the employee and it should be not on City payroll time. Okay? And you know if they want to do it on that basis that's fine but don't ask us to get into the business of providing the audience and forcing people to go, that's the only thing. But we do distribute their literature, we do provide check -off for them.... Rev. Gibson: All right, sends out those checks? Mr. Grassie: Well, they. by the computer actually. Rev. Gibson: Okay, when any of his material in i let me ask you this. Who makes up the payroll, who come out of the Finance. Department you put those t Mr. Gunderson: The last two years we have, yes. Mr. Grassie: Yes, we have. Mr. Blake: Well, I don't know where you got the material because I didn't deliver it to you in the last two years. I delivered it to you in 1977 and talked to you in your office with my state director, you didn't even know where te material was and then finally you told me - and you know how many people you signed up that year? Nine new employees - nine employees. Rev. Gibson: We could solve that. Let me ask you, Mr. Manager. Mr. Manager, I'd like to make a motion that you, sir, as you send those checks out be in- structed - be. instructed. Sir, you bring the material, leave them there and I'm going to make, sure and inquire whether or not some of these envelopes have your material in it. That's a motion, Mayor Ferre: All right, there .is'-a'motion is there a second? Mrs. Gordon: Second. Mayor. Ferre: Seconded by Mr to that? Mr. Grassie: Mayor Ferre: Mr. Blake: . Gordon. Further discussion? Are you opposed No, that's fine, sir. All right, further discussion? May I just say one thing, sir? Mayor Ferre: Yes, sir. Mr. Blake: Our material right now says 6%, June 1 we just went up to 61% so that's why it would require a letter either from the Mayor or the City Manager, we have sample letters and that's what all the other companies are doing, letting te employee know instead of 6 it's 61% and telling them all about the new ad- vantages of the Savings Bond Program. The only way that can be done is the way we've always done it in the City of Miami right here in this room, we have a meeting with the department head and whoever he appoints to run this program and then they in turn explain it to each employee or otherwise it's the same as before, we passed out over 5,000 pieces of 3 different kinds of people and we signed up 9 employees. Now that isn't the way we signed up over 1200 before. We know how a program should be run, if it isn't run that way,it's just throw- ing material away. Rev. Gibson: Mr. Manager, it would appear to me, I don't know about the rest of them but I have some very strong feelings about people who ought to become loyal. And you know, to tell me that you're loyal to America and don't want to spend none of your money you know is just like the guy who is hungry, you know? And I would hope that the Manager would put his heart and soul and mind in this thing and have those department heads meet this man, have the depart- mnt heads sign somebody up and try to proceed expeditiously and show our loyal- ty - this is a great country and they need the money. Other people are getting it and throwing it away so I think we ought to cooperate. rt 69 'JU L 1 1 1979 The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Gibson who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 79-476 A MOTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO COOPER- ATE IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF PROMOTIONAL MATERIALS TO ENCOURAGE PARTICIPATION BY CITY EMPLOYEES IN THE U.S. SAVINGS BOND PRO- GRAM. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gordon, the motion was passed and" adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson -`Vice-Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: Mayor Ferre: Thank you very'. much, Mr. Blake and thank you for your patience. Mr. Blake: Do I take it that I'm to contact the City Manager? Mayor Ferre: You are, you are indeed. Mr. Blake: All right, thank you very much. 12.REQUEST ACTUARIAL ANALYSIS OF PENSION ADJUSTMENTS FOR RETIREES. Mayor Ferre: All right, Mr. Wilcox. Mr. Tony Wilcox: Chief Howard will speak for the retirees. Mr. H. G. Howard: My name is Glenn Howard, I'm the Director of the Retirees Association. We are back here to move an invitation, when we were here last year we were told return and ask for one-half of one percent on the first $300 on retirement and I think Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I discussed this issue with Mr. Wilcox and with all of the parties and I think we're all in concurrence that the present actuarial. study that was used for determination last year needs to be updated for the current costs and that we, the Commission or they know the full impact at this time. I think what we're really looking at is that the half a percent as refer- red to last year, that we immediately ask for an actuarial study of what it would cost for the first $200 and the first $300 or $400 of the monthly bene- fit and then I think we can all talk on the same basis. I would move at this time, Mr. Mayor, that that be done as quickly as possible and report back to this Commission. Mayor Ferre: A11 right, it has been seconded by Commissioner Lacasa, further discussion? Mr. Grimm: Mr. Mayor, as, a point of privilege now that the motion has been seconded I would; like to suggest that maybe the Commission since two of the members are chairmen of the respective boards refer to this to their boards where this would be reviewed and possibly these actuarial studies conducted at that level before the Commission. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Plummer, Mr. Plummer:` Mr. 'Grimm, .I love you dearly but I., want it done by the City's actuarial board not the Pension Boards to whose charge it would be. I think the City should rightfully pay for this and not the pension boards. Mayor Ferre: All right, is that consistent with out past policy? Is; that consistent, now, Plummer, ---- Mr. Plummer: That complies, Mr. Mayor, with the State. Statute that says before any additional benefit can be considered it must be actuarially sound. rtt 70 '�UL i i 1979 Mayor Ferre: Yes, but we turned over all these things to the Pension Board, why shouldn't the Pension Board carry the burden of all this? s. Gordon:They'll:: review it but .the charge has to be done... Mr. Plummer: The other problem is that you might find if this City Commission grants such relief as requested that it would be from the General Fund rather than from the Pension Fund. Mayor Ferre: Okay, any problems Mr. Gunderson: Only the historical precedent. Mr. Grassie: Yes, we have a hundred problems with it, they're all money but you know one of the assumptions, I think it is fair that we get the answer for you with regard to what the costs are. Now you should know that there is not a City actuary which is different than the Plan or System actuaries. with that, Mr. Gunderson? Mr. Gunderson: They're the same one. Mrs. Gordon: The charge is what J. L. is saying, the charge for receiving this information is information the City requires from the standpoint it is going to have to fund it. Mayor. Ferre: Well, the pension boards are, really in much better financial shape to pay for that thari we are aren't they? Mr. Gunderson: Mr. Wilcox: It ruling on?it. Not only that, but, it's the logical place. 's been handled the last ten years this way with the Commission' Mr. Gunderson: The Commission has authorized it but heretofore the payments have all come out of the Pension program. Mayor Ferre: How much are we talking about, how much is this going to cost? Mr. Gunderson: I'm guessing because`I can't remember the last one, I would say about $2,500 each for Alexander and Alexander and for our new -A. Friend; and The following motion was introduced by Commissioner its adoption: MOTION NO. 79-477 A MOTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO RE- QUEST AN ACTUARIAL STUDY OF THE IMPACT OF A .5% (ONE HALF OF ONE PERCENT) INCREASE FOR EACH FULL YEAR SINCE RETIRE- MENT FOR ALL RETIRED EMPLOYEES WITH PERCENTAGE LIMITED TO THE FIRST $200, $300 OR $400 OF PRESENT MONTHLY BENEFITS AND TO REPORT HIS FINDINGS TO THE CITY COMMISSION. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Lacasa, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre. NOES: None. Mayor. Ferre: All right,, thank you, Tony. 71 J U L 1 1 191g 13. PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF JEROME WOLFSON REPRESENTING HOMER LANIER REGARDING PROMOTION IN POLICE DEPARTMENT. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Wilson, our apologies for making you wait 21 hours. As you realize, it's 5:00 O'Clock and we've got a whole bunch of other things. You asked for a half an hour. Mr. J. Wolfson: I don't need a half hour. Mayor Ferre: I wish you'd make it as short as you possibly can.. Mr. Wolfson: I'll get right to it and I'll get out of here. I've been before this Commission before in the matter of Homer Lanier and I think the name might be familiar to many of this Commisssion. There are no black lieutenants or captains on the City of Miami Police Department. I brought the problem to this board before and although I felt there was a lot of sympathy from this board the Commission was not empowered to really do anything. We filed a lawsuit and the jest of our lawsuit was that there was a violation of the Consent Dec- ree. Now I wish that I could have got out of turn and said, "Yes, I know the violations of the Consent Decree" because I have a letter here signed by Squire Padgett. Are you familiar with that, Mr. Mayor, the letter dated June 20th, 1979? Mayor Ferre: No, I. haven't seen: that. Mr. Wolfson:;' There'sa letter dated June:20, ed to Squire Padgett and Mr. Drew S. Davis. Mayor, Ferre This is from Mr. Wolfson: No, sir, this is signed by Squire Padgett and it's to Mr. Knox and Mr. Krause. And I contend that this is, and we had a hearing in front of Judge Eaton. Mr. Knox, when was it, a couple weeks ago, two, three weeks ago? And there's a transcript around, I didn't bring my transcript with me but Squire Padgett supports my position, he feels Homer Lanier should be a lieutenant, he says in this letter than a golden opportunity was missed to make Sergeant Lanier a lieutenant and I tried to negotiate this matter with the City but it seems that there is such a division of powers at this point that I have nowhere to go and it's a question, I feel that I'm going to win my case and I think that Judge Eaton indicated that I'm doing pretty good in the case at this point. What's so funny? Nothing to do with me? Ok. 1979 from Squire Padgett address Mayor Ferre: Mr. Grassie, do you want to address this point and perhaps get Mr. Knox? Mr. Wolfson:" and laugh? Mayor Ferre: Mr. Wolfson: Mayor Ferre: I'd like some response to it, are they just going to sit there .'Wolfson, Idon't think you heard whatI just asked for. Yes, sir. Do you want a copy of the letter, sir? I've got it right here. Mr. Grassie and Mr. Knox. Mr. Grassie: 1 'in not sure whether you're looking for a comment or whether, there i§ a specific question being raised, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: Well, I think what he's saying is very simply this, that he presents to you a letter signed by Squire Padgett dated the 20th day of June addressed to Knox and Krause, Krause works for you and it specifically talks about the Lanier Case and the Police Chief and the opportunity. He wants to know if you're going to take the opportunity to do this and if not if you want to answer it fine and I'll ask Knox what the legalposition is and then that s the end of it. Mr. Grassie: I have not yet discussed this with the City Attorney, Mr. Mayor, I would think that the City would need to make some kind of an evaluation of Mr. Wolfson's comment that both the Justice Department and also the federal judge have some sympathy for his argument. I don't think that the City has rt 72 WS ever been in the position of doing something which, or at least not consciously doing something which was out of tune with the Federal Government in this case. Now if his interpretation is correct and if our City Attorney confirms that after I have a chance to discuss it with him I think that would have a material bearing on my conclusion but I simply haven't had a chance to have that discus- sion yet. Mayor Ferre: Well, this letter specifically says, "We feel compelled to re- spond to what we view as possible", it doesn't say they're actual, possible 'violations of the decree in the resultant failure to promote a well qualified minority officer to an upper level since the opportunities are few. We would hope that the City would seek to rectify this situation and provide us with a response to the question and the concerns we raised", which are in the letter. Now the question is have you responded to this letter dated June 20th? If not would you look into it, would you talk to the City Attorney, would you schedule it back on the Commission Meeting of July 23rd? We'll see you then. Mr. Wolfson: I'm leaving town, I won't be here. Mayor Ferree Well we can answer you today, that's for sure. for. the Manager, he's got to answerfor himself. can't answer Mr. Wolfson: He'shad the letter'for a long time. Mayor Ferre: June`20th but July llth the way things happen in is not a long time. this City Mr. Wolfson: You know what's going to complicate things more than ever is that the new eligibility list is going to come out and if the Chieftakes a black officer off of that list and makes him a lieutenant when there isa possible violation here there's going to be another lawsuit. The way I understand the Cnarter,-this is the only gentleman here that has the power to act at this Grassie: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Wolfson represents that I have had this for some time, in fact, you know he sent me a letter, attention: Selma Schwartz and `.h_ s vei t to `'y agenda Eecretary and I have not seen it until it name up on the package,ar,. since then I have not had a chance to talk with the City Attor- ney about it. Now you know all he says in his letter to me is "Please put me on the agenda", he's not raising a question with me. Mr. Wolfson: But I do believe he has had it in his posession since longer. Ali an : that. Am I : correct? Mayor Ferre:` M+:. Wolfson: than that. I think he got you on a technicality. Okay? Well, he's had it longer than thatI know he's had it. longer Mayor Ferre: Well, but do you want to cross examine him and put himon the witness stand and make him swear and all of that? Mr. Grassie on, the record, have you seen this letter before? I saw it when I prepared the agenda, Mr. Mayor, which is five Mr. Grassie: days ago. Mayor Ferre: Well, so the question is in the last five days you could have discussed it with Mr. Knox. Grassie: I could but I have not. Mayor Ferre: Now what else do you want to say? Mr. `1r. Wolfson:; Nothing, I'm going to be out of town in put it back on the agenda for..... July. re you going ;;to Mayor Ferre: Do you want us to put it in the September meeting or do you want it July `23rd? Mr. Wolfson:. Is :there an August agenda? Mayor Ferre: for us?: o, there's no August meeting. Can you have a July 23rd answer Mr. Grassie: Yes, of course. 73 rt 'JUL i i 1979 Mayor Ferre: It will be on the July 23rd, send your associate down. 14. EMERGENCY ORDINANCE: AMEND SECTIONS 1 6 6 OF 8858, INCREASE GENERAL FUND FROM SALE OF CONFISCATED WEAPONS TO PURCHASE THREE MICROFILM READERS FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 1 AND 6 OF ORDI- NANCE NO. 8858, ADOPTED SEPTEMBER 28, 1978, THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS ORDINANCE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEP- TEMBER 30, 1979, AS AMENDED; BY INCREASING THE APPROPRI- ATION FOR THE GENERAL FUND, POLICE DEPARTMENT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $24,390; FOR THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASING 3 MICRO- FILM READERS AND SMITH AND WESSON HANDGUNS; INCREASING ANTICIPATED REVENUES, SOURCES OTHER THAN AD VALOREM TAX, IN THE SAME AMOUNT FROM THE SALE OF CONFISCATED HANDGUNS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. Was introduced by Commissioner Gordon and seconded by Commissioner Lacasa, for adoption as an emergency measure and dispensing with the requirement of read- ing same on two separate days, which was agreed to by the following vote - AYES: Mrs. Gordon, Mr. Lacasa, Rev. Gibson, Mr. Plummer and Mayor Ferre. NOES: ' None. Whereupon the Commission on motion of Commissioner Gordon and seconded by Commissioner Lacasa, adopted said ordinance by the following vote - AYES: Mr. Lacasa, Mrs. Gordon, Mr. Plummer and Mayor Ferre. NOES: None. ABSENT: Rev. Gibson. SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 8960. The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and to the public. 15. ESTABLISH RATES FOR USE OF LITTLE HAVANA COMMUNITY CENTER. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING RATES FOR THE USE OF DESIGNATED AREAS AT THE CITY OF MIAMI LITTLE HAVANA COMMUNITY CENTER; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of June 25, was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Lacasa, seconded by Commissioner Gordon, the. Ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Mr. Lacasa, Mr. Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Ferre. NOES: None. ABSENT: Rev. Gibson. THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 8961 The City ATtorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Com- mission and to the public. 74 J U L 1 ! 107$ 16. FIRST 6 SECOND READING ORDINANCE: ESTABLISH NEW TRUST 6 AGENCY FUND "LETS PLAY TO GROW". AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1 OF ORDINANCE NO. 8719 ADOPTED ON OCTOBER 26, 1977, THE SUMMARY GRANT APPROPRIATIONS ORDINANCE, AS AMENDED: BY ESTABLISHING A NEW TRUST AND AGENCY FUND ENTITLED; "LET'S PLAY TO GROW", AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE OPERATION OF SAME IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,000; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND DISPENSING WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF READING THE SAME ON TWO SEPARATE DAYS BY A VOTE OF NOT LESS THAN FOUR -FIFTHS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. Was introduced by Commissioner Gordon and seconded by Commissioner Plummer for adoption pursuant to Section 4, Paragraph (f) of the City Charter, dis- pensing with the requirement of reading same on two separate days by a vote of not less than four -fifths of the members of the Commission - AYES: NOES: None. Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre Whereupon the Commission, on motion of Commissioner Gordon and seconded by Commissioner `°Plummer, adopted said ordinance by the following vote: AYES Commissioner. Rose Gordon Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, •„ Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. SAID, ORDINANCE; WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 8962. The City Attorney read the ordinance into the, public record and announced that copies were available to the inexngers of the City Commission and copies were available to the public. riui 1 1 1979 17. FIRST & SECOND READING ORDINANCE: ESTABLISH NEW TRUST & AGENCY FUND "RECREATION SUPPORT PROGRAM - 1979". AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1 OF ORDINANCE NO. 8719, ADOPTED ON OCTOBER 26, 1977, THE SUMMARY GRANT APPROPRIATIONS ORDINANCE, AS AMENDED, BY ESTABLISHING A NEW TRUST AND AGENCY FUND ENTITLED: "RECREATION SUPPORT PROGRAM - 1979", AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE OPERATION OF SAME IN THE AMOUNT OF $49,403; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND DISPENSING WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF READING THE SAME ON TWO SEPARATE DAYS BY A VOTE OF NOT LESS THAN FOUR -FIFTHS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. Was introduced by Commissioner Gordon and seconded by Commissioner Plummer for adoption pursuant to Section 4, Paragraph (f) of the City Charter, dis- pensing with the requirement of reading same on two separate days by a vote of not less than four -fifths of the members of the Commission - AYES: Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre Whereupon the Commission,on motion of Commissioner Gordon and seconded by Commissioner Plummer, adopted said ordinance by the following vote: AYES: NOES: None. Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 8963. The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced. that copies were available to the memgers of the City Commission and copies were available to the public. 76 'J U L 1 ! 19f9 18. FIRST 6 SECOND READING ORDINANCE: ESTABLISH NEW TRUST 6 AGENCY FUND "SUMMER FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM FOR CHILDREN - 1979". AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1 OF ORDINANCE NO. 8719, ADOPTED OCTOBER 26, 1977, THE. SUMMARY GRANT APPROPRIATIONS ORDINANCE, AS AMENDED; BY ESTABLISHING A NEW TRUST AND AGENCY FUND ENTITLED: "SUMMER FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM FOR CHILDREN - 1979", AND APPRO- PRIATING FUNDS FOR THE OPERATION OF SAME IN THE AMOUNT OF $154,880; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND DISPENSING WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF READING THE SAME ON TWO SEPARATE DAYS BY A VOTE OF NOT LESS THAN FOUR -FIFTHS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. Was introduced by Commissioner Gordon and seconded by Commissioner Plummer.=' for adoption pursuant to Section 4, Paragraph (f) of the City Charter, dis- pensing with the requirement of reading same on two separate days by a vote of not less than four -fifths of the members of the Commission - AYES: NOES: Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre None. Whereupon the Commission,on motion of Commissioner Gordon and seconded by Commissioner Plummer, adopted said ordinance by the following vote:,., AYES: NOES: None. Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 8964. The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the memgers of the City Commission and copies were available to the public. 'JUL i 1 1979 a 19. BRIEF DISCUSSION AND MOTION TO TABLE CONSIDERATION OF AMENDING CITY CODE CONCERNING REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETINGS. Mayor Ferre: Let me ask you, why are we standardizing the fourth Thursday at 7:00 P.M.? Mr. Grassie, the question is addressed to you, sir. Item 13, why are we going to the fourth Thursday at 7:pp P.M.? Mr. Grassie: The attempt, Mr.' Mayor, is to get on a regular schedule which meets the convenience of theCity,Commission. Mayor Ferre: Well, have you asked the. City Commission whether that' of this Co!nmission? Mr. Grassie: That's what you have been your pattern. Mayor Ferre: I'm not asking you that. Now we've done that for the last three months." Did you poll' this Coininission and find out if thatwas the will of the majority?" Mr. Grassie: No, as a matter of fact I didn't even prepare this, "Mr.Mayor. , What this attempts to do is standardize your process. If you don't like it or you want some other date just say so, you: know. Mayor Ferre: That's not my question. Mr. Grassie: The ordinance also includes a prepared draft which, says that the City Commission has the right at any time to change the date. Mayor Ferre: All right, my question again for the third time, Mr. is how dd this get on this agenda? Who is recommending this? N's. Grassie: The cover letter out of hisshop. Mr. Plummer: Mayor Ferre:. move to defer. Grassie, is from the City Attorney,:I guess it came still want the answer to my question, please. Mr. Grassie: Apparently Bob Clark initiated it, Mayor, just as a matter of trying to clean :up Your ordinances so that what we're doing is in conformance, with the ordinance. It is a technical thing, he's trying to do the right thing. If you don't like it we'll change it, all you have to do is say so. Mayor Ferre: Nobody said we don't like it, Mr. Grassie, let's stop being so defensive. I'm just trying to find out how it got on the Commission ---- but you know if you would have told me that in the beginning we would have avoided three minutes of questions. Bob Clark thought that he was doing the right thing. Fine, now we know how itgoton the agenda. Now, Mr. Clark, since you're the author of this, did you go around and poll the Commission and see if that was their will? Mr. Clark: What I did was find out how you got to a situation where you had a separate Planning and Zoning Meeting for Planning and Zoning matters. Now that was, done by resolution. That was done for 2:00:O'Clock in the after- noon, 'I got the minutesof the meeting and at that meeting Mrs. Gordon sug- gested that you make it at 7:00 O'Clock if you're going, to have it on the same day that you have your regular Commission Meeting. Mayor Ferre Yes, that was for one meeting. Mr. Clark: And for three months you followed it and then you started depart- ing from that routinely and in order to put you back in line with the ordin- ance we prepared this amendment and all we did was send it, we distributed. it to each and every member of the Commission pointing out that this was what has been going on. Mayor Ferre: Okay, what's the will of this. Commission? I8 'JUL 1 1 1979 Mr. Plummer: Table it. Plummer and The preceding motion to table was introduced by Commissioner passed and adopted by a unanimous vote. Mayor Ferre: Now let me tell you when you table a motion under our procedures it comes automaticallyup at the next meeting. Mr. Plummer: No. Mr. Knox: No, sir, that's a deferral. from the table by a motion.` If you table it it has to be Mr. Plummer: That's right. I vote for Knox for Mayor. Mayor Ferre.: meetings? removed Mr. Clark, what does the ordinance say at this time as to our Mr. Clark: The second and fourth Thursdays period. It doesn't say anything about a Planning and Zoning and this was just an effort to legitimize or just crystalize what you've been doing right along. Mayor Ferre: All right, well, evidently the Commission doesn't want it crys- tallized so we're on Item 14... 20. AMEND SECTIONS 5, 6, 7, 8 of Ord. 6145 - SUBSTITUTE NEW FEES FOR BUILDING, PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL, BOILER INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATE FEES. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5 OF ORDINANCE NO. 6145, ADOPTED MARCH 19, 1958, AS AMENDED, WHICH PROVIDES FEES FOR BUILDING, PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL (INCLUD- ING BOILER AND ELEVATOR) INSPECTION, PERMIT AND CERTI- FICATE FEES, BY SUBSTITUTING NEW FEE SCHEDULES IN SAID SECTION 5 TO COVER THE INCREASED OPERATIONAL COST PRIMAR- ILY FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE SOUTH FLORIDA BUILDING CODE; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Was introduced by Mayor Ferre and seconded by Commissioner Lacasa and; passed on its first reading by title by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner Armando Lacasa Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice . Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson. The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that co.ies were available to the members of the cit commission and to the public. 21. DEFERRAL OF SECOND READING ON PROPOSED CIVIL SERVICE RULE CHANGES TO SPECIAL MEETING OF JULY 24, 1979. ti; A motion to defer Item #15 to the Special Meeting of October 24, 1979 was introduced by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Plummer and passed and adopted by a unanimous vote of the Commissioners present. ABSENT: Commis- sioner Gibson. 79 "bt! j ion • Mayor Ferre: Would Mr. Grassie: No, all. 4 22. MOTION TO DEFER CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE TO INCREASE INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE FUNDS -MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT PLAN. Mayor Ferre: Take up 16. Mrs. Gordon: I'd like some more discussion on that one, could we defer that one? Mayor Ferre: All right, Mr. Manager, before we defer it, do you want to speak to it very briefly? Mr. Grassie: This is simply cleaning up the budget, Mr. Mayor, what it does is take funds from the reserves of that, particular intervogernxnental fund and makes them available to implement the data processing plan which has been re- viewed and approved by this City Commission:, Mayor Ferree Mr. Grassie: meet. [s this under Gunderson or is this under ---- It's under Bill Smith in the Computers and Communications Depart - Mayor Ferre: So what you're doing is transferring funds from one side to the other. Mr. Grassie: Really, it is last pose, making them available this ing for the computer. year's funds appropriated for the same pur- year to pay for software to pay for prograaan- it cause you great harm to wait until the 23rd?.-;: simply that we have to put it back on the agenda, that's Mayor Ferree: All right, Rose Mrs. Gordon: Yes, just let.me look it over more, I haven't really looked at it. Defer it. Mayor Ferrer Okay. Now there's please, in the future, look over a certain amount of that that we can do but your agenda.... Mrs Gordon: It's not that, it's just there are questions that are needed and the time is running late. I don't feel, that it is appropriate for me to start asking a lot of questions now on this issue,we can do it then. Mayor Ferre: All right, Mr. Grassie, would you have Mr. Srnith visit with Mr, Gordon to try to answer... Mrs. Gordon: ..That's not necessary, we can do it at the public, meeting.` Okay? Upon motion of Mrs. Gordon, seconded by Mr. Plummer, the preceding item was deferred until the. Commission Meeting of July 23rd by a unanimous. vote. 80 Tut ! i 1979 23. PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF REV. H.W. KIRTLEY,.AFFIRMATIVE ACTION BOARD TO APPEAR AT SPECIAL MEETING HELD ON JULY 24, 1979. Mrs. Gordon: Would want to take, you asked for these ordinances relative to the Affirmative Action Advisory Board to be given to us which they were, relat- ing to the change from the Affirmative Action Advisory Board answering to the Commission to the Affirmative Action Board being responsible to the Human Re- source Director. Is there anything further you want to take,up on it? Mayor Ferre: What, what item is this? Mrs. Gordon: These two ordinances that you asked for, you aske5 the Clerk to provide you with those. Mr. Plummer: All right, Mr. Mayor, I would like a copy of this which I have been presented to Reverend Kirtley. Let me read just an excerpt from this in which at the time that the motion to re -do those ordinances, the first one, let me read to you: Mrs. Gordon asked the question, "Is it changing the con- cept in any at all from what it was?" The answer of Mr. Grassie, "Simply strengthening and expanding it from their point of view." Mayor Ferre, "Does this come with their recommendation, Mr. Manager?" Mr. Grassie, "Yes, sir." Yet we find that the chairman is stating before this Commission that he was totally unaware of these changes and I would like a copy of this to be for- warded to each member and ask them for their discussion on the 24th. Mr. Clerk, would you forward this to them? Because obviously as commonly referred to around here somewhere there is a lack of communication. 24. RATIFY ACTION OF CITY MANAGER: SUBMIT GRANT-IN-AID APPLICATION, PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS IN LITTLE HAVANA. r*' The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 79-478 A RESOLUTION RATIFYING AND AFFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE CITY MANAGER IN SUBMITTING A GRANT-IN-AID APPLICATION TO THE UNITED STATES COMMERCE DEPARTMENT, RECOMMENDING DEVELOP- MENT ADMINISTRATION DATED JUNE 22ND, 1979 FOR CERTAIN PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS IN THE LITTLE HAVANA AREA. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Lacasa, the resolution was passed and adopted`. by the following vote - AYES: NOES: Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre 81 'JUL i I i9T9 25. URGE UNITED STATES CONGRESS TO ENACT: "THE CONDOMINIUM ACT OF 1979". • The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 79-479 A RESOLUTION URGING THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS TO ENACT "THE CONDOMINIUM ACT OF 1979", ALSO REFERRED TO AS S.612 AND H.R.2792, ENTITLED "A BILL TO ENCOURAGE BROADER UTILIZ- ATION OF THE CONDOMINIUM FORM OF HOMEOWNERSHIP, TO PROVIDE MINIMUM NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR DISCLOSURE AND CONSUMER PROTECTION FOR CONDOMINIUM PURCHASERS AND OWNERS AND TENANTS IN CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS, TO ENCOURAGE STATES TO ESTAB- LISH SIMILAR STANDARDS, TO CORRECT ABUSIVE USE OF LONG- TERM LEASING OF RECREATION AND OTHER CONDOMINIUM -RELATED FACIL"TIES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES"; AND DIRECTING THE CITY ,'LERK TO FORWARD COPIES OF THE HEREIN RESOLUTION TO THE HONORABLE ROBERT BYRD, MAJORITY LEADER, UNITED STATES SENATI, AND TO THE HONORABLE THOMAS O'NEILL, SPEAKER, tPITEI: STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AND TO EACH MEMBER OF THE FLORIDA CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on in the Office of the City Clerk.) Urcn 11&ng seconded by Commissioner adopted by the following vote - Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre 1UES: tore. 26. RECOGNIZING RAIL -PASSENGER SERVICE IN BROWARD AND DADE COUNTIES AS MAKING MAJOR CONTRIBUTION TO MEETING TRANSPORTATION NEEDS OF THE TWO COUNTIES. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 79-480 A RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING RAIL -PASSENGER SERVICE IN BROWARD AND DADE COUNTIES ALONG THE SEABOARD COASTLINE RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY AS MAKING A MAJOR CONTRIBUTION TOWARD MEETING THE TRANSPORTATION NEEDS OF THE RESIDENTS OF THESE 2 COUNTIES; FURTHER URGING THE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS OF THE SAID COUNTIES TO APPOINT A JOINT OPERATING AGENCY TO PROMOTE AND IMPLEMENT THE SAID RAIL -PASSENGER SERVICE WITH FUNDING THEREFOR TO BE JOINTLY PROVIDED BY THE DADE AND BROWARD COUNTY COMMISSIONS, WITH AN APPROPRIATE SHARE OF THE AGENCY COSTS TO BE CONTRIBUTED BY THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DIVISION OF MASS TRANSPORTATION; FURTHER DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO FORWARD COPIES OF THE HEREIN RESOLUTION TO THE METRO- POLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION OF BROWARD AND DADE COUNTIES AND TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DIVISION OF MASS TRANSPORTATION. • (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) 82 riot. 11 Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gibson, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: NOES: None. Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre 27. NAME AND DESIGNATE VITA COURSE AT KENNEDY PARK "TED BLEIER VITA COURSE". Mayor Ferre: Who moves 26? Mr. Plummer: Well, we were supposed to have a report. Mayor Ferre: Well the report is in your packet and the report is that Mr. Ted Bleier who worked for umpteen years with the School Board is a highly recognized man in the whole field of recreation and sports with children and what have you. It is recommended by the Memorial Committee and it seems to have the strong sup- port of everybody on the School Board and everybody else. Rev Gibson: The question last time was couldn't we find something else that stands out. But I'll go with it only because they recommended it but I wish they'd found something better. Mayor Ferre: Well, it's Mayor: our best Vita Course and since this guy was a health... Rev. Gibson: I move it, I;` knew the man, knew him well. Ferree It was his family's request, that was their request. Rev. Gibson:, Oh, fine, beautiful. I knew him, he was a very fine man. I just wanted him to have something more. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gibson, w its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 79-481 A RESOLUTION NAMING AND DESIGNATING THE VITA COURSE AT DAVID T. KENNEDY PARK AS THE TED BLEIER VITA COURSEIN HONOR OF THE LATE THEODORE J. (TED) BLEIER. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Lacasa, the resolution waspassed adopted by the following vote �o moved AYES: NOES: Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre Mayor Ferre: Mr. Manager, would you have the appropriate department head schedule an event for that, invite the members of the Theodore Bleier family and the members ~of the School Board and those other, friends of Mr. Bleier, evidently, he had many, be invitedfor the ceremony and we ought to do a nice thing. and 1iuL i i 1979 83 rp 4 Item #35 was removed from the Consent Agenda at the request of Commis- sioner Gordon for discussion. Unless a member of the City Commission wishes to remove specific, items from this portion of the agenda, Items 17-34 constitute the Consent Agenda. These resolutions are self-explanatory and are not expected to require addi- tional review or discussion. Each item will be recorded as individually num- bered resolutions, adopted unanimously by the following motion: ...that the Consent Agenda, comprised of Items 27-34 be adopted." Mayor Ferre: "Before the vote on adopting items included in the Consent Agenda is taken, is there anyone present who is an objector or proponent that wishes to speak on any item in the Consent Agenda? Hearing none, thevote on the adoption of the Consent. Agenda will now be taken." The following resolutions were introduced by Commissioner Plummer, seconded by Commissioner Lacasa and passed and adopted by the following vote: Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre 28.1 AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO APPROVE EXTENSION OF CONTRACT: STATION AREA DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT PLANNING SERVICES. 28.2 28. RESOLUTION NO. 79-482 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN EXTENSION IN THE PERFORMANCE PERIOD OF THE CONTRACT(FL-09-0038) BETWEEN DADE COUNTY AND THE CITY OF -MIAMI FOR STATION AREA DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT PLANNING SERVICES. RANT USE OF MIAMI BASEBALL STADIUM BY MIAMI-DADE COMMUNITY COLLEGE DOWNTOWN 'CAMPUS. RESOLUTION NO. 79-483 A RESOLUTION GRANTING USE OF THE MIAMI BASEBALL STADIUM BY MIAMI DADE COMMUNITY COLLEGE, DOWN- TOWN CAMPUS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONDUCTING ITS BASEBALL PRACTICE SESSIONS FROM SEPTEMBER 1, 1979 THROUGH FEBRUARY 1, 1980 SUBJECT TO AVAILABILITY OF THE STADIUM ON CERTAIN DATES; AND FURTHER SUB- JECT TO ADVANCE PAYMENT FOR EVENT PERSONNEL, IN- SURANCE AND OTHER DIRECT COSTS BORNE BY THE CITY, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT WITH MIAMI DADE COMMUNITY COLLEGE, DOWNTOWN CAMPUS, FOR SAID USE. ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK: MORNINGSIDE PARK - SWIMMING` POOL MODIFICATIONS RESOLUTION NO. 79-484 A>RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE COMPLETED WORK PER- FORMED BY ASSOCIATES CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION AT A TOTAL COST OF $90,824.62 FOR THE CURTIS AND MORNINGSIDE PARKS - SWIMMING POOL MODIFICATIONS 1978; AND AUTHORIZING A FINAL PAYMENT OF $9,816.52. 84 FJUL11 1979 28.4 ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK: ALLAPATTAH C.D. PAVING PROJECT - PHASE II; ALLAPATTAH SEWER MODIFICATIONS - PHASE II. RESOLUTION NO. 79-485 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE COMPLETED WORK PER- FORMED BY GASTON LANDSCAPING CO., INC. AT A TOTAL COST OF $48,525.00 FOR THE ALLAPATTAH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PAVING PROJECT - PHASE II AND ALLAPATTAH SANITARY SEWER MODIFICATIONS - PHASE II - 1977 (BID "C" - LANDSCAPING); AND AUTHORIZING A FINAL PAYMENT OF $2,872.50. 28.5ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK: BUENA VISTA C. D. PAVING PROJECT. RESOLUTION NO. 79-486 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE COMPLETED WORK PER- FORMED BY T & N CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. AT A TOTAL COST OF $339,116.69 FOR THE BUENA VISTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PAVING PROJECT (BID "A" HIGHWAYS); AND AUTHORIZING A FINAL PAYMENT OF $30,682.50. 28.6 GRANT MIAMI-DADE WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY EASEMENTS MAINS - NEW WORLD BICENTENNIAL PARK. 28.7 RESOLUTION NO. 79-487 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE GRANTING OF APPRO- PRIATE EASEMENTS TO THE MIAMI-DADE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY FOR THE INSPECTION AND MAINTEN- ANCE OF 12-INCH AND 8-INCH WATER MAINS ACROSS AND UNDER NEW WORLD CENTER BICENTENNIAL PARK; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE APPROPRIATE DOCU- MENTS THEREFOR. 4GRANT°APPROPRIATE EASEMENTS AID;N.W.'14 AVENUE. N.W. 20 STREET BETWEEN N.U. 10 AVENUE RESOLUTION NO. 79-488 A RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROPRIATE EASEMENTS ADJACENT TO THE SOUTHERLY PROPERTY LINE OF CITY OF MIAMI OWNED PROPERTY ABUTTING THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF N.W. 20 STREET BETWEEN N.W. 10 AVENUE AND N.W. 14 AVENUE, TO THE MIAMI-DADE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY, FOR SEWER PURPOSES; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER AND THE CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTS THEREFOR. 28.8 ACCEPT BID: AmXIF rtimtLNITV PARK - P!ACF TT RESOLUTION NO. 79-489 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE BID OF L.G.H. CONSTRUCTION CORP. IN THE PROPOSED AMOUNT OF $1,476,900 FOR DIXIE COMMUNITY PARK, PHASE II: WITH FUNDS ALLOCATED FROM THE 1ST YEAR FEDERAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUND IN THE AMOUNT OF $75,000, $581,463 FROM PARKS FOR PEOPLE BOND FUND, $611,000 FROM 4TH YEAR FEDERAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUND, AND $281,448 FROM 5TH YEAR FEDERAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUND TO COVER THE CONTRACT COST; ALLOCATING FROM SAID FUNDS THE AMOUNT OF $70,475 TO COVER THE COST OF PROJECT EXPENSE; ALLOCATING FROM SAID FUNDS THE AMOUNT OF $1,536 TO COVER THE COST OF SUCH ITEMS AS ADVERTISING, TESTING LABORATOREIS, AND TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH SAID FIRM 85 'JUL 1 1' 1$71 29. DISCUSSION AND TEMPORARY DEFERRAL OF FINANCIAL PLAN FOR 100 SECTION "8" HOUSING UNITS IN MEDICAL CENTER. Mayor Ferre: All right, Mrs. Gordon on Item 35. Mrs. Gordon: Just to let me know why this was removed originally from the proposal and now it is back on the agenda. Ms. Spillman: The reason is that the numbers changed on the project, on the financial plan and Little HUD asked that we remove it from`. the last agenda, they've reworked the numbers in the financial plan and so we're bringing it back so they can proceed with it. Mrs. Gordon: What are the differences in the numbers, Dena? I mean not the dollar differences but what was the major difference in the numbers? What kind of numbers, difference basically are we talking about? Ms. Spillman: can't answer the question. Mrs. Gordon: More or less, or what is it? Ms. Spillman: Well I can't answer the question. Mrs. Gordon: Well, can you look up something in the meantime if we hold aside for a little while? Ms. Spillman: I'll try. Mrs. Gordon: Okay. She's going to look it up and then give me answers. Mayor Ferre: Okay. SEE LATER RESOLUTION NO. 79-494. 30. PROPOSED SALE OF BEER IN THE ORANGE BOWL STADIUM: GRANT RIGHT TO DOLPHINS TO END OF AGREEMENT: - ORDER PUBLIC BIDDING 1980-86 - PRIORITIES ON SCORE- BOARD ADVERTISING, ETC. Mayor Ferre: We're now on Item B which is discussion of lease agreements for the Orange Bowl and I will pass the gavel to the Vice -Mayor. I would like to make a motion that reads as follows; I move that the City of Miami give the operations lease... How do you describe it? ... the Dolphins the opportunity to well beer at the Orange Bowl until his lease expires in July of 1980 provided, however, that no expense be incurred by the City of Miami in so serving, that's Item 1. Item 2.... Mrs. Gordon: 19, what was the date you said? Mayor Ferre: I think it is June, I've got it right here. I'll give you the exact date. July 1, 1980. The second part is that the City Manager be in- structed_to immediately draft the guidelines and the legal language to be put out on a bid for the concessions at the orange Bowl from July of 1980 through July, 1986 and that he come back to the Commission for final approval on the wording. (3) Subsequent to approval on the wording that the Manager be in- structed to advertise as quickly as possible for that concession, the thought being that it be done by the early part, that the bid be taken by no later than the early part of 1980 so that whoever is the successful bidder will have sufficient time to install whatever needs to be installed provided, how- ever, that in that bid document the expense of the equipment be borne complete- ly by the concessionaire and that the minimums to be bid be 31% for food and 35% for beer, that a $100,000 bid bond be posted and--- I'm missing something, Plummer. III IIIIIIIIIIIIUI IIII 1111•1 86 4 Mr. Plummer: That basically what it was that Robbie agrees to the public bidding. Mayor Ferre: Oh yes, all right. And that according to the contract signed between the Dolphins and the City of Miami in the 8th day of June, 1977, para- graph 12 that the way for us to comply with that would be to give Mr. Robbie 30 days to accept or reject the high bid for the concession and that if he accepts it that he would obviously under contract have the right of prefer- ence but that if he rejects it that that would be defacto considered as proper negotiations and that is my motion. Mr.Plummer: What about the escape clause, Mr. Mayor? Mayor Ferre: Oh yes, thank you. And that instead of three years that upon being the successful recipient the only condition is that Mr. Robbie change the three year escape clause to a four year escape clause if he is the success- ful bidder, if he's not obviously we can't require that of him. Yes, Mr. Lacasa points out that in Item 411 I forgot to put that he has to pay us this year if he sells beer 32%. Have I forgotten anything else? Are there any other amend- ments? That's my motion. s'there a second? Mr. Plummer: Is there a second? I Mr. Lacasa: I second. Mr. Plummer:' Motion made and seconded, is there any discussion? Father Gibson. Rev. Gibson: Mr. Vice -Mayor, I want to raise a question. The last time we had a discussion or we had litigation something like this went on: Because Mr. Robbie now has the lease on the stadium and because Mr. Robbie is now sell- ing food in the stadium that gives him preferential priority treatment. I want to make sure that it is worded counsel, I want you to answer this so that if wecan't tango I want the thing so worded, worked, that if Mr. Robbie isn't willing to tango with us about that beer because he is doing business selling food doesn't give him any preferential priority treatment or let me put it the other way. Let's be doggone sure we write this because he sold it this year doesn't give him no right next year. You know Mr. Robbie will do that to you, not Mr. Robbie, Dan Paul who is his lawyer. And while I'm not going to be the lawyer I'd hope we'd be just as doggone smart to make sure that we don't let him sell beer one year and then get locked to him for the rest of our life even though he doesn't want to do what's right. Mayor Ferre: I accept all right, Mr. Knox? both of those statements as part Mr. Knox: Yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: Any further discussion? Mr. Grassie. of my motion, is that Mr. Grassie: Under discussion, just for clarification, Mr. Mayor. The sug- gest that we had first made to the City Commission was that we present to the Dolphins the package that we talked about. Now as I understand the intent of your motion` it is to do this unilaterally without necessarily having their con- currence, am I accurate in that or not? Mayor Ferre: Well, since under the law we went to court and we lost, in effect,. and we haven't gone to appeal yet, in effect what it says is that we can't sell beer this year anyway. So all we're really doing is selling beer by hand for this next season if Mr. Robbie wants to do it and if he chooses not to do it there's not a darned thing we can do about it anyway but then that's his decision not our's. We can't force him to sell beer. Mr. Grassie: All right. Let's carry that one step forward then. If the City, goes out for competitive bids without having gone through the process of para- graph 12 that you read this morning we are subject, I'm not saying that he would do it, but we are subject to another court challenge that we have vio- lated his existing contract. Now you know that we are still in court on the first argument of that type, that's on appeal. Mayor Ferre: Yes, but you see the point I'm trying to say in all of this is that we're confident and we're hoping that our City Attorney is going to be able to couch the bid process in such a way that obviously it has to address paragraph 12. The bidders for the beer are going to have to obviously be aware of the fact that we have given Mr. Robbie paragraph 12 and they are sub- ject to that. If Mr. Robbie comes in and somebody bids 39% and meets that then 87 rJUL 1 1 1979 there is nothing else cnat we can do about it but to gi'e it to Mr. Robbie. However, should somebody come up and say we are willing and bonafide, here's a $100,000, we are willing to bid 39% and Mr. Robbie says, "I refuse to pay anything over 35%" I think that that would be considered as bonafide negotia- tions since we do have a willing person to do that and I don't think any court would throw us out. Am I wrong, George? Mr. Knox: That's essentially correct, Mr. Mayor. It is my understanding that the agreement terminates anyway in 1980 so that from 1984 it would be as you just described it. Mayor Ferre: Yes, but see paragraph 12 which we always end up going back to specifically says, that the Dolphins have a right, let me read that again so we can be very very specific on it, "...Subject to a successful negotiation of the provisions of a new concession agreement with partnership the City agrees that the term of the new concession agreement will coincide with the term of this agreement. Now all we're doing is we're stating the guidelines of how we're going to negotiate. That's all we're doing. Rev. Gibson: And, Mr. Mayor, again I want to make sure that this is encouched, that we don't get hooked nor tied in the position because Mr. Robbie is sell- ing food that you know the following year he automatically can inhibit us from that beer business. Now I believe somehow the language has to be, "Hey look, Joe, you could s111 beer and food but we want X number of dollars and if you can't give us X :umber of dollars you're not going to sell food and you're not going to sell be(r." That's what I'm talking about. Now I don't know how you do that in the legal language that's why Marty Fine and George Knox and all of those are paid big salaries. But it doesn't make sense for us because Mr. nc-bie is rc.'irLg food then he says, "Well, you know I don't want to give you ?5S .for beer and that's it." I want to make sure we understand that. Mr. Knox: Yes, sir, and I can point out that the contracts now, beer is not a separate concession item, it's a part of the beverage, the food and beverage concession that's held by the Dolphins now which expires in 1980 so that food d,d beef cied together in the concession arrangement. Gii)scr, : AJ.1 right, just make sure - look, I'm not a lawyer - I just want to make sul:e :hat when you come back I don't hear the discussion about beer n6 I don't h+-..r the dis^ussion about food. I want the discussion about con- Andlike Plummer said, if Tampa_ is giving us cessions meaning beer and food. 47)% across the board I want that percentage across the board and if he feels .like he needs to make more money selling beer that's his baby not mine. t'r P: ur n r • ' T. s the motion understood? Call to s . Gordon: No, lets hear the motion as the Ir. Plumber Read the motion. the roll. Clerks have it down. Mr. Ongie: The motion is that the City of Miami would give the operator/lease- holder Miami Dolphins the opportunity to sell beer at the Orange Bowl until the expiration of their present lease, July 1, 1980 provided, however, that no expense be incurred by the City of Miami in connection with the sale of such beer, further instructing the City Manager to immediately draft guidelines and legal language to put the concessions at the Orange Bowl out for public bid for the period beginning July of 1980 through July of 1986 and come back to the City Commission for their approval of the exact wording of the bid, fur- ther that the City Manager be instructed to advise as quickly as possible to facilitate the bids as quickly as possible in early 1980 so that installation of any needed equipment can be done; further providing that all expenses in connection with the installation of this equipment be borne by the concession- aire. The minimums to be bid are to be 31% for food, 35% for beer. Section amended later to require the payment to the City of 32% if beer is sold in the stadium this year, further providing that a $100,000 bid bond be posted Lr.at further according to the contract signed between the Dolphins and the ,itl of Miami in 1977, paragraph 12 we give Mr. Robbie 30 days to accept or reject the highest bid. If he accepts he would have the right to be the con- cessionaire and if he accepts the bid that he would change his escape clause. fr.=i 3 to 4 years. Mayor Ferre: And there's one addition, I'm sorry. And that if he refuses in the 30 day period that that be considered the negotiation as outlined in para- graph 12 and that since it would not be properly concluded we could then go and give it to the highest bidder. 1 Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, a matter of clarification. The first sentence, Ralph, there was a reference that no expense be incurred, that means on opposing parties. What I'm trying to forestall, that Mr. Robbie doesn't spend $200,000 and then try to amortize it. Mayor Ferre: No, I don't care what Mr. Robbie spends, the. City of Miami will not incur any direct expense. Mr. Plummer: But Mr.' Mayor, a tremendous expense would be a defendable item in court that he needed time to amortize. I think what you spoke to this morn-. .ng. Mayor Ferre: No, J. L., the motion speaks very specifically that this is for one season. It is not for anything more than one season. That's all he is entitled to as of right now. Mrs Gordon: A clarification, Maurice, your statement was that if he does not accept in 30 days this would have been his opportunity and then you go to Pub- lic bids in general, what did you say? Mayor Ferre: No, we're going to public bids Mrs. Gordon: Yes, but that's in 1980. what was that? Mayor Ferre: Al higher than 35%. all ;right? What are you taiking about 30 days right, after we get to public bids suppose somebody bids. You -mean next year. That's correct, well, Mrs. Gordon: Mayor Ferze: Mrs. Gorton: :Okay. .4"17$ to prr-iTt this. fo, I'm' talking it. might be November, December, about now,' you're not giving Robbie 30 e,: r•e : Nc, it has nothing to do with .this. Mrs. C,orior A.1.1' right, fine.. January. £.iyor Ferre: After the bids come in he would have 30 days if somebody. bids nigher than.35% and he either accepts that figure or he rejects it. "If he re- jects it then that's a bonafide negotation as far as we're concerned.' M.S. Gordon: Would you consider separating your motion into two; parts? I have no objection to Mr Robbie, having afirst refusal':or the bidding: process. ta..ing place in 1980 but I. object to the beer portion and I would vote against an,9:I'would not want to vote against everything. Mayor Ferre: I will separate it into two motions don't you read that again, Section 1? Mr. Ungie: Section 1 would be City of Miami give the operator/leaseholder, the Miami Dolphins, the opportunity to sell beer, at the Orange Bowl Stadium until the expiration of their current lease, July 1, 1980 provided, however, that no expense be incurred by the City of Miami in connection with the sale of such beer. part one as you read. Why l+irs. Gordon: That would be the first one, Okay. Mr. Ongie: I guess included in the,first,one would also be further providing that if he does sell beer in the Orange Bowl Stadium.this year that 32% would hn n =id to the City. MaI„rr Ferre: Yes. MI. Ongie: Is that part 1? Mrs. Gordon:.' That's part 1. Mayor Ferre: All right, now move that and Lacasa, you second? Okay. 89 J if l 1 1 igrg 47 The following motion was introduced by Mayor Ferre, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 79-490 A MOTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO GIVE THE MIAMI DOLPHINS THE OPPORTUNITY TO SELL BEER IN THE ORANGE BOWL STADIUM UNTIL THE EXPIRATION OF THEIR PRESENT LEASE (JULY 1, 1980) CONDITIONED UPON NO EXPENSE WHATSOEVER BEING INCURRED BY THE CITY OF MIAMI IN CONNECTION WITH SAID BEER SALE; FURTHER CONDITIONED UPON THE PAYMENT OF 32% ON BEER SALES TO THE CITY OF MIAMI IF BEER IS SOLD IN THE ORANGE BOWL STADIUM THIS YEAR. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Lacasa, the motion adopted by the following vote: AYES: Mayor Ferre, Mr. Lacasa and Rev. Gibson. NOES: Mrs. Gordon and Vice -Mayor Plummer. ON ROLL CALL: Mr. Lacasa: I am going to explain my vote for the record. I am voting yes because the question of beer being sold at the Orange Bowl was put to the vote and uas approved by the citizens of the City of Miami. So far we have not been able to implement the will of the citizens of the City of Miami and I see no other alternative from the legal standpoint of view if we are to have beer sold in the Orange Bowl in 1979 but to go this route. Furthermore, I don't want to see the City of Miami losing the anticipated revenues that the 32% that the Dolphins are to reimburse the City of Miami are going to suppose. We hope that in 1980 we get a more equitable deal than the one that is being offered now by the Dolphins. Furthermore, I'm also basing my vote on the fact that the City of Miami will not be liable for any expenses into which concessionaire, the Dolphins, might incur in the selling of beer so I vote Mrs. Gordon: Okay, and now to explain my vote, and the vote is negative. There are several factors involved that have not even been discussed. One of the factors are that there will be additional expense for security and we had that problem last year when this discussion came up. We have to face the fact that t„ere will be costs involved. Secondly, the vote that Commissioner Lacasa referred to which had over 26,000 people voting, 26 votes separated the yeses and the noes and it was a straw vote and to me that was no mandate to put beer in the Orange Bowl. I have never felt that that was a mandate, I still do not feel it is a mandate, 13 people were the entire difference between the affirmatives and the negatives one way or the other. So with the fact that beer is not a money making factor, it has not been proved to be money making, that it is going to be expensive to add the additional police security that we need I vote no. Mayor Ferre: Now, Mr. Vice -Mayor, I move you the second part, sir. Mr. Plummer:' Re -read the motion. Mayor Ferre: Wel wait a minute, wait until you see, if there is a second. Mr. Lacasa: I second. Mr. Plummer: Re -read the motion. Mr. Ongie: The second portion would be that the City Manager be instructed to immediately draft guidelines and legal language to put the concessions at the Orange Bowl out for public bid for the period beginning July 1980 and ending July 1986 and come back to the City Commission for approval on the exact wording of the bid. Further instructing the City Manager to advertise these bids as quickly as possible so that any installation of necessary equip- ment can be accomplished and further providing that the entire expense of such installation be borne by the concessionaire; further providing that the mini- mum bids be 31% for food and 35% for beer, requiring the posting of a $100,000 bid bond and further providing that according to a contract signed signed be- tween the Dolphins and the City of Miami, paragraph 12 of such contract in 1977 the City of Miami will give Mr. Robbie 30 days to accept or reject the high bid. If he accepts the bid he will have to change the escape clause in the present contract from three to four years, further providing that if he refuses within the 30 day period the City would then award the bid to the highest bidder. 90 Mrs. Gordon: Maurice, in what area do you want to touch on the scoreboard or are you going to touch on it? Mayor Ferre: Well, that a separate motion. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, may I suggest or you consider that Father Gibson's fears might be alleviated, I don't think it is unrealistic in what we have seen that you couple food and, beverage and beer at a minimum of 35%. Mayor Ferre: No, sir, =I'm not going to do that in go, by the Wolfson Committee's recommendation and I the way it is and you know you're entitled to vote motion stands. As I recall, the Wolfson Committee beer. that is correct, sir. my motion. I am going to stick to that and that's for or against it but the was 32 for food and 35 for Rev. Gibson: Hey wait a minute, let's make' sure if we're going out to bid we're going to ignore the figures-.1980. This man,, look, you're letting this man go free, man, in 1980 he isn't giving us what the market is. Father, what the motion says is that that will be Rev. Gibson: Sir, I want to go you something.... Mayor Ferre: Suppose somebody bids 30% for beer, that's not right. Mr. Plummer: That's the highest bid. Mayor Ferre: Well, but you know what is going to happen, see, I'm going to give 'you ny practical approach to what I think is going to happen. You're not going to have any bidders and, therefore, what is going to happen is that RObbie'is r.oing to have the ability to come in and bid 30% and we will have boxed ourselinto that position. Now, what I'm saying is if you put a min- imum, a float on it then he knows he's got to go to 32 and 35%. But if you don't and there are no other bidders he will come in and bid 30% and then you've got problems. Rev. Gibson: Let me ask you what is his bid now for food? Mayor Ferre: 31%. Mr. Plummer: No, his bid, now is 30.5%. Mayor Ferre: I'm sorry, 30.5%, I stand corrected. The Wolfson Committee, recommended 32% for food and 35% for beer and I want to put that in as a min- imum so that we can avoid any potential problems. Rev. Gibson: Mayor Ferre: they made it, You're saying that 35 is the minimum for everything? No, sir. I'm following the Wolfson recommendation exactly 32% for food, 35% for beer. Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor, you know Plummer tells us that the people in Tampa are getting 42%. I want the public to hear this. Mr. Plummer: 42.1%. Rev. Gibson: Mayor Ferre: Rev. Gibson: Listen to this. If we can get that kind of a bid in 1979 are. you telling me. that in 1980, 81 we can't get at least 35% across the board? Mayor Terre: I:'m not, telling you that at,all, ;I agree with 100% of what you're saying, I agree with that and a].1 I'm tryingto say is I hope we get 41, 42, 43%. 91 ■ Rev. Gibson: I'll vote for your motion if the minimum across the board is 35%." Mayor Ferree For beery Rev.Gibson: 35% across the board. Listen, you can't separate, you all just told me My brother, listen, when people go out and work - now listen, I'm going along with them in that I'm letting them sell it for one year at their price and I think that Mr. Robbie has to understand that I've got some price too. Now one thing I promise you, I'm not going to go to the people and ask them to vote for me and then let all the other people run that thing for me, I'm going to have some opinions. I want across the board 35%. If you could get it in Tampa in 1979 across the board 42%, 35% can't be too bad two years from now. Mayor Ferre: All right, I accept that as an amendment to the motion, for food and beer across the board 35%. Rev. Gibson: Right. Mrs. Gordon: No, if you'reincluding -beer, you. know I'll. vote against it. You're not putting it in this motion, that was inthe previous motion, the Mayor Ferre: No, ma'am, I'm sorry I want it very clear to be understood that I want food and beer on this motion as well as on the other. Mr. Plummer: Motion understood? Call the roll. The .following ;motion was introduced by Mayor Ferre, who moved its'. MOTION NO. 79-491 A MOTION INSTRUCTING THE CITY MANAGER TO IMMEDIATELY DRAFT GUIDELINES AND LEGAL LANGUAGE TO PUT OUT FOR PUBLIC BID THE CONCESSION AT THE ORANGE BOWL STADIUM FOR THE PERIOD BEGINN- JULY 1980 THROUGH JULY, 1986 AND TO COME BACK TO THE CITY COMMISSION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE EXACT WORDING OF SUCH BIDS; FURTHER INSTRUCTING THE CITY MANAGER TO AFFECT THE ADVERTISING OF THESE BIDS AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE (EARLY 1980) SO THAT INSTALLATION OF ANY NEEDED EQUIPMENT MAY BE ACCOM- PLISHED; FURTHER PROVIDING THAT THE EXPENSE OF SUCH INSTALL- ATION SHALL BE BORNE ENTIRELY BY THE CONCESSIONAIRE; PROVIDING THAT MINIMUM BIDS FOR FOOD, BEVERAGE AND BEER BE A MINIMUM OF 35%; FURTHER PROVIDING FOR POSTING OF A $100,000 BID BOND AND FURTHER PROVIDING THAT ACCORDING TO A CONTRACT SIGNED IN 1977 BETWEEN THE MIAMI DOLPHINS AND THE CITY OF MIAMI, PARA- GRAPH 12, THAT THE CITY SHALL GIVE MR. ROBBIE 30 DAYS TO ACCEPT OR REJECT THE HIGHEST BID TENDERED; FURTHER PROVIDING THAT IF MR. ROBBIE ELECTS TO ACCEPT THE HIGH BID THAT THE ESCAPE CLAUSE PRESENTLY CONTAINED IN HIS CONTRACT BE CHANGED FROM 3 YEARS TO 4 YEARS; FURTHER PROVIDING THAT IF MR. ROBBIE REJECTS SUCH BID PROPOSAL WITHIN THE 30 DAY PERIOD PURSUANT TO PARA- GRAPH 12, THE CITY OF MIAMI SHALL THEN AWARD THE CONCESSION TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Lacasa, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Mayor Ferre, Rev. Gibson and Mr. Lacasa NOES: Mrs. Gordon and Vice -Mayor Plummer. Mayor Ferre: Now, Mr. Plummer, -I move you, sir, that the motion as presented in the packet that was delivered to us five, days ago, Item B that is called Orange Bowl Scoreboard Agreement, I move that as a motion.' Gordon: Second. Mr. Plummer: Are you withdrawing in your discussion this morning that portion related to guarantee of product availability? Mayor Ferre: No, with the amendment as under the discussion this morning, as I recall the only amendment that we ended up making was that question of prod- uct availability and the concessionaire has priority in the product that he selling in the Orange Bowl. 92 'JUL 1 1 1979 rt Mr. Grassie: Just for clarification, Mr. Mayor, this lease is for the score- board, of course, it could not control the concessionaire, that is a separate person. The problem is different. Mayor Ferre: No, the only thing I am amending in the motion here that Plummer is pointing out is that I want the concessionaire whoever he or she may be to have a'priority on advertising in the scoreboard. I do not want, as I said this morning, for the concessionaire to be selling Coca Cola and for the score- board advertiser to be advertising Pepsi Cola. I think that is unfair and un- reasonable and I am, therefore, amending everything. I am going with this thing with that amendment. You have to put that specific clause in there leg- ally. Mr. Grassie: Well, I agree with what you're trying to accomplish, Mr. Mayor, but I think that we're, I don't want you to be deceived that you are accomplish- ing it because the advertising is placed with national Coca Cola. The conces- sionaire only has control over whether he buys as a wholesaler, whether he buys from Coke or from Pepsi. That's the only thing he can control. Now he can't control the advertising. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Grassie, I don't think you're understanding, I don't think you understand what I'm saying. Let me be very specific. I want it in legal specific language in this contract that Mr. Robbie cannot advertise and will not advertise on this scoreboard at any time in the future any product that is a competitive product to what is being sold in the Orange Bowl. Now I couldn't be more specific than that. Now, if he cannot acquire the advertis- ing of the product then he is not to advertise any competitive product period. If he is selling Coca Cola he cannot advertise 7-Up. If he is selling Schaefer Beer he cannot advertise Budweiser Beer. The point is that he may not be the concessionaire, Mayor. Mayor Ferre: And what I'm trying to say is that since precisely he will not be or may not be the concessionaire I don't want the concessionaire and Mr. Robbie fighting and, therefore, to avoid that fight I am specifically putting into this contract a clause that will absolutely preclude him from advertising something that is not being sold or that is a competitive item to what is being sold in the stadium. Mr. Grassie: My only point that I think you need to understand is that the board is financed based on at least a three, probably a five year advertising agreement with a national company, let's say Coca Cola. The concessionaire can change his mind with regard to the product that he sells in the stands every six weeks. Now the effect of your motion is that if the concessionaire changes his mind with regard to carrying Coke and decides to carry Pepsi that Robbie or the Dolphins will be in violation with regard to the five year con- tract on advertising, that is what you're saying. Mayor Ferre: That is correct, that is exactly what I have in mind, you're' .absolutely correct. Well what's the point? Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor, I would think that there is wisdom in what the Manager is pointing out. What we ought to do is to make sure in our document that who ever is the concessionaire or whatever he sells, if he's selling Pepsi -Cola that we ought to stipulate that Pepsi -Cola be given an opportunity to sell first just like you did about that other because if Mr. Robbie and the other people don't get along you know you're in trouble. So we don't want it to be said that we doncone his fight because if anybody knows anything at all you know that he will have 10,000 fights. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Grassie, I would accept that it be on a primary right for a limited period of time in which that concessionaire's product would have that right to advertise. If they don't do it beyond a certain point at a reason- able price then they could go on to something else. I would accept that. You work on the language and come back, you understand the intention. Mr. Grassie: Yes. I know that we can accomplish your intention if we put the language in the concession agreement. The difficulty is putting it in the scoreboard agreement. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Grassie, you will have the right as was just passed three two to, put that in the document that you will submit to the Commission as a bid document when you go out to bids. Now if Robbie, Mr. Grassie, is the 'JUL 11 1979 On rt successful bidder for one reason or another then there is no problem is there? The only problem exists if somebody else bids it and wins the contract and then Robbie and the concessionaire do not get along and what I am trying to do is knowing that Mr. Robbie is prone to fight with everybody from Don Shula on down, I'm trying to foresee and preclude that from happening here. Mr. Grassie: Okay, if you give us a little latitude with how we accomplish it we can accomplish your purpose. Rev. Gibson: Please, because you know I want to make sure that because Mr. Robbie has the concession on Pepsi -Cola you know he can't exclude Coca-Cola because he can't make Coca-Cola tango., Do you understand? But I would want Pepsi -cola to be given the right, the first right of refusal. Do you under- stan: I hope I'm clear. Msyor Ferre: Yes, that's exactly the intention. Me. Lacasa: 'I have another question. In the agreement we have a 15% commis- sion on the sale of the advertising of the scoreboard from Mr. Robbie. I » uici like to know why can't our own staff do the selling of the advertising ani, therefore, save the 15% for us? Mr. Grassie: I 'think that the City employees, Commissioner, would probably not want to be n the position of going around to private businesses asking them for advertising. It puts us in a very awkward position really. Mayor Ferre: We're not qualified to do that, we don't have the staff. Either w give it to RoY.;bie which is in my opinion what makes the most sense or we go out and give it to an advertising agency who is qualified to set that up. T've got no objections to letting Robbie make that $24,000, I think he is well entitled to it if he can get the proper advertising. Mz. Lacasa: My problem is not Robbie making the $24,000, my problem is if the r:.ty can 710.T the $24,000, if we have a staff that can do the selling, and I bet that this type of advertising will sell very fast and very quickly, we'll • mcrc a,or.lcants to put their ads on the scoreboard than we can handle. I don't se3'czy reason why this couldn't be explored if we are going to save .`-24.000 fo~ t"e City especially when we are considering a budget reduction c .iL year. further discussion? M. Lacasa: 'I'd'like to have an answer from Mr. Grassie on this, if there a very definite reason, a very solid reason why we cannot do it. Mr. Gressie: The basic reason, Commissioner, is that I feel that it puts J.,:e:rnment in a very precarious position to be going out asking private indus- try for a business sale. In other words, for us to go out to Coca Cola and ask them to advertise in our facility puts government in a position I don't think you want government in. We should not be in that posture with regard to private industry and we certainly should not be in that posture with some of our major industries like Eastern Airlines, for example, or National. You know we don't want to be in the position of going out and knocking on their door asking them for advertising money. That is the basic reason, aside from that I think that we could do it. Mr. Plummer: Further discussion? Mayor Ferre: Yes, I have one other thing. I'don't think this contract has one thing that's:; specifically clear. The maintenance of that billboard is an'. expense, that's not clear here. M.r. Grassie: All right. Mayor Ferre: Would you tighten that up? Yes, we will expand the operating statement to include.... Mayor Ferre: I'm talking about paragraph 8 on page 7 on line 2, "... the City agrees to maintain the Orange Bowl and the scoreboard." Now I want to make sure that that does not preclude that, that that does not mean that that's at our expense, that's from the joint account expense. Do you follow me? Rev. Gibson: That they pay for it jointly, since he is going to get half and we're going to get half that half of the expense from us and half from him.' You won't get no free ticket no more. 94 'JUL 1 1 11179 Mr. Grassie: Yes, that's different than it's written, but I see what your pointing out. Mayor Ferre: Yea, what I'm pointing out is that you have a conflicting language, which I think in law is called ambiguity. It is ambiguous. It says one thing in one part and says another. Then it says the City agrees to maintain the Orange Bowl and the scoreboard. Well, we agree to maintain the scoreboard, then you can't deduct it as an operating expense. What :I'm saying is that the maintenance of that scoreboard is an operating expense period. Mr. Grassie: We do have the obligation, and we understand that we have the obligation, Mayor, but we also have a budget for it that is provided specifically, and that's the 6 thousand dollars that we talked about. Mayor Ferre: That is exactly why it is ambiguous in nature, because one part ot.:this" agreement says one thing and the next paragraph that I just read says another. Ok. It needs to be tightened up and I would ask Mr. Knox to personally look into this and make sure that that is very, very abundantaly;clear in legal language. Father. Gibson That out of our profit and out of his profit they maitain the "scoreboard. 11 Mayor Ferro.: I call the question, Mr. Plummer. Mr. Plummer: Any further discussion? Hearing none call the roll. The following motion was introduced by Mayor Ferre, who moved, its adoption: MOTION NO. 79-492 1�OTION TO ACCEPT THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION (PACKETT "TE^i E) CONCERNING THE ORANGE BOWL SCOREBOARD AND L.STRUCTING THE CITY MANAGER TO AMEND THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT, GIVING PRIORITY TO THE CONCESSIONAIRE FOR THE ADVERTISING ON THE ORANGE BOWL SCOREBOARD GRANTING A PRIMARY RIGHT FOR USE OF THE SCOREBOARD TO INSURE THAT COMPETITIVE PRODUCTS NOT SOLD BY THE ORANGE BOWL CONCESSIONAIRE WILL NOT BE ADVERTISED ON THE SCOREBOARD; FURTHER DIRECTING THAT THE CITY MANAGER CLEAR UP THE RESPONSIBILITY OF MAINTENANCE OF SAID SCOREBOARD PRIOR TO PRESENTING THIS RESOLUTION AND AGREEMENT TO THE CITY COMMISSION FOR FINAL RATIFICATION Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gordon, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: Mayor Maurice A. Ferre Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson Commissioner Rose, Gordon Commissioner Armando LaCasa NOES: *Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. ;. .:SLNT• None C:.t•NT. S ON THE . ABOVE: xMr. Plummer: This item has not been put up for public bidding, Mayor Ferre: That's a good line. I vote no. 95 ist "JUL 1 1 1979 PERSONAL APPEARANCE: HERB LEVIN-PERSENTATION • Presentation of a Proclamation designating July 17th as "Asociacion Interamericana de Hombres de Empresa" Day to Mr. Herb Levin. 04 AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO HIRE APPRAISAL FIRMS TO 31. DETERMINE VALUE OF AIR RIGHTS OVER THE CONVENTION/CONFERENCE CENTER Mayor Ferre: All right, we are now on item...there's nothing to do on item C,is that right, Mr. Manager? Mr. Grassie: No, there is one thing that we would like to ask the City Commission to do. It's come out of the discussions that the City, the developer for the Conference Center, and Mr. Guandolo are having today. We would; like authorization from the City Commission to engage appraisers who would give us air rights appraisals for the Conference Center similar to those that we had on the World Trade Center. Mrs. Gordon: I would so move. Mayor Ferre: All right, Mrs. Gordon moves. Mr. LaCasa: Second. Mayor FerreCommissioner LaCasa seconds that the Manager be authorized to hire appraisers. Two? Mrs. Gordon: You have to have two. Mayor Ferre: Two appraisersfor, the, purposes of setting a value of the air rights over the Convention/Conference Center. Further discussion? Call the roll. The following motion was introduced who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 79-493 by Commissioner Gordon, A MOTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENGAGE THE SERVICES OF TWO APPRAISAL FIRMS TO ESTABLISH THE VALUE OF AIR RIGHTS OVER THE JAMES L.KNIGHT UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI/CITY OF MIAMI CONFERENCE/CONVENTION CENTER Uponbeing seconded by Commissioner LaCasa, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES:. NONE Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner Armando LaCasa Mayor Maurice A. Ferre. 96 *JULii 197O Ma. ABSENT ON ROLL CALL: Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. COMMENTS ON ROLL CALL: Mayor Ferre: What is this you are passing? Mr. Grassier This is item .D,Mr.Mayor. Mrs. Gordon: Maurice been keeping her. Dena Spillman has the information and we have Mr. Grassie: Resolution on the Action Program. Mayor Ferre: Wait,wait, wait. Are we through with this item now, which is item C? Is there anything else on item C Mr. Grassie: Not from us, sir.. Mrs.''Gordon: 35 is`the'one that I asked Dena for some information. She has the information. 32. APPROVE FINANCIAL PLAN FOR 100 SECTION C HOUSING UNITS TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN THE MEDICAL CENTER Mayor Ferre: Dena. Ms. Spillman: If you...you have the financial plan, I believe, in your... if you look on page 3, the reason that it was taken off the agenda and put back on, is that due to inflation, construction costs on the project went up. Little HUD had to go back to Federal HUD and get increased revenue, so on page 2(e), the assistance figure went up to support the additional construction costs. Mrs. Gordon: How much dollars is that? Ms. Spillman: The increase? Mrs. Gordon: Yes. Spillman: I, I didn't get that information. Mrs. Gordon: All right, I won't bother you, o.k. Let it go, I'll look it up myself later. Ms. Spillman: I can provide it for you. Mrs. Gordon: Yes, I'll move it. O.k. Mayor Ferre: Mrs. Gordon moves 35. Commissioner LaCasa: Second. Mayor Ferre: .Commissioner LaCasa seconds 3 Call the roll on item 35. The foliowing resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gordon, who moved its adoption: 97 'JULiit9Ta RESOLUTION NO. 79-494 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINANCIAL PLAN FOR 100 SECTION 8 HOUSING UNITS LOCATED .IN MEDICAL CENTER, SUBJECT TO THE CITY OF MIAMI HAVING INPUT AND PARTICIPATION AS TO USE OF FUNDS, DESIGNATION OF TRUSTEE, ETC., SUCH APPROVAL BEING CONSISTENT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AGREEMENT FOR FINANCING HOUSING IN THE CITY OF MIAMI BY AND BETWEEN DADE COUNTY AND THE CITY OF MIAMI DATED', JULY19, 1976 (Here follows body. of resolution,. omitted here and on file in the Office of the. City Clerk). Upon being seconded by Comxnissioner LaCasa, the resolution passed and adopted 'by the following vote: NOES: ABSENT ON ROLL CALL: Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. 33. Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner Armando LaCasa Mayor Maurice A. Ferre DISCUSSION ITEM: YACHT CLUBS FINANCIAL PROPOSALS TO THE CITY TO BE HEARD ON JULY 23, 1979 Mayor Ferre: We have to wait for the rest of the Commission on these other items. Is there anything that we have to take up on the Velodrome, Virginia Key? Mr. LaCasa: I move, continue... Mayor Ferrer Mr.',Grassie: Commission on Mayor Ferre: now? That's Mrs. Gordon: Mayor Ferre: Mrs. Gordon: move that the City Manager be instructed to We'd better wait till you have a Commission Yea, we should get a motion of intent from the City that, Mr. Mayor Rose, do you want to make your motion on the yacht clubs item H. That was.. that s,was.. 're now on motions on That was the one that we Mayor Ferre: Yea, snake your motion. spoke of before as being a subject of discussion on the Mrs. Gordon: 23rd... these things in the, morning. Mayor Ferre: Make your motion. Mrs. Gordon: And, I so iove that theinformation that has been given 9B IJ U 1 1 1 197$ to Us by the: Manager, prepared[ by the staff," be sent to the yacht clubs, and that they be advised that we.vill be hearing this item on the 23rd, and that there vill be legislation prepared for us to be able to take action on it. Mr. LaCasa: I' second. Mayor Ferre: All right,, there outlined. Call roll. s a motion and a second on item H,;as The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Gordon moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 79-495 A MOTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE YACHT CLUBS UTILIZING CITY PROPERTY TO INFORM THEM TO HAVE THEIR FINANCIAL PROPOSALS READY FOR PRESENTATION TO THE CITY COMMISSION FOR FINAL ACTION ON JULY 23, 1979 Upon being seconded by Commissioner LaCasa, the motion was and adopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Rose Gordon • Commissioner Armando LaCasa Mayor Maurice Ferre Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer,Jr. passed ALLOCATE $29,000 TO ACTION COM,1UNITY CENTER(ACCION) FOR 34. THE ALLAPATTAH TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM Mayor Ferre: On item D, the Allapattah Transportation Program, is there a motion? Mr. LaCasa: I move that the recommendation by the staff be adopted and the... Mayor Ferre: We have a specific...here it is. A resolution allocating Action Community Center $29,000 of Community Development funds previously appropriated by Ordinance 8943, adopted June 4, 1979, to previously approved social service programs, for a period commencing August 1, 79, and ending June 30th, 80. Said funding is to provide transportation progtam to the Allapattah area of the City of Miami. Further authorizing the City Manager to enter into an agreement said approved social service programs. Is that what you are moving? Mr. LaCasa: Move. Mayor Ferre: Is there a second? Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I'm trying to find my papers. motion. No, the document we had this morning and... Mayor Ferre: D. Here's my whole package. Mr. Plummer: Here's my package. It's D. No, I underlined mine, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I seconded this motion based upon staff recommendation in our memo dated the 5th of July, which states that the recommendation for the transportation program be awarded to Action Center, Incorporated. Based upon the fact that this was recommended by the Community Development people, and also it states in the memo that ACCION has the support of the community and' very importantly, the fact that the per trip basis is much cheaper using this organization. Based upon that, I second the motion. Mayor Ferre: Further discussion. Call the roll. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 79-496 A-R:SOLUTION ALLOCATING ACTION COMMUNITY CENTER $29 000 OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUNDS PREVIOUSLY APP:OPRIATED BY ORDINANCE NO. 8943 ADOPTED JUNE 4, :,979, TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SOCIAL SERVICE PROC=RAMS FOR THE PERIOD COMMENCING AUGUST 1, 1979 rL:D ENDING JUNE 30, 1980; SAID FUNDING IS TO PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM TO THE ALLAPATTAH AREA OF THE CITY OF MIAMI; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENT WITH SAID APPROVED SOCIAL SERVICE PROGRAM Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the, resolution passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES. CommissionerArmando LaCasa *Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson Commissioner Rose Gordon Vice-Mayor.J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre v^r itiE\T .0 ROLL CALL: Father Gibson: Let me explain my vote. I'm going to vote with the staff. Ms. Spillman, I know this shocks you. I just..I heard some things ;here this morning that kinda bothered me, and I want to say I,could-.really get under the temperment and mood of what I saw this mnrnir.g, I couldn't really get the true picture. I'm sorry Mr...the gentleman wasn't here to answer for himself. But in light of the fact that the staff did the study, and this is what the staff said, I didn't do the study, I couldn't do it, I didn't have time', I going to vote with. Yes, sir. HOUSING IN THE CULMER AREA - DISCUSSION BY DENA SPILLMAN 35. Mrs. Gordon: Dena, while I have you at the microphone, may I ask you a question relative to the housing in Culmer? Ms..Spillman: Yes. Mrs.,Gordon: Could you clarify the situation because that property was, eliminated from -the allocation and a lot of people are concerned about Culmer. And I am one --of them. 'JUL 1 1 1279 boo Ms. Spillman: O.k. There's a two block property on 5th Street in Culmer that was purchased with City and County Community Development funds about 2 years ago. It was proposed as one of our projects under the Housing Bond issue, and as we discussed at the last meeting, the financial plan didn't work out. And, I think there's two options here. One, is the proposal that the Commission approved to HUD where we get our special allocation of units, and we should be hearing on that in August. Now, that's one option that can be done through the Dade County Department of Housing and Urban Development. The other option is, I have had several developers in contact with my office who are interested in purchasing the property and applying directly to Jacksonville HUD, for Section 8, Family Housing. So, that's another option we can recommend to Dade County if we chose to take that. Mrs. Gordon: Wouldyou give me a written memorandum to give me all this information relative to the Culmersituation? Ms. Spillman: Yes`, I'll provide it to all the Commissioners. Mrs. Gordon: Mayor Ferre: Thank you, that's what I mean. O.k. Did we vote onD, Mr. Clerk? Mr.' Ongie: Yes, sir.` Mayor Ferre: Now, we, are on E. than what was done this Horning. Mr. Grassie: I don't believe so, themselves clearly. s there anything to be done on E Do you need a motion on that? I think the Commission expressed other 36. AUTHORIZING MODIFICATIONS IN CONSTRUCTION PLAN FOR VELODROME ON VIRGINIA KEY TO INCLUDE RESTROOIIS AND TO PRESENT PLAN TO THE METRO COMMISSION FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION Mayor Ferre: development. Mr. LaCasa: Mayor Ferre: All right, with regards to the Virgina Key and Velodrome I'd like to move. All right. Mr. LaCasa: I'd like to move that the' City Manager be instructed to, pursue the question of the Velodromewith the County Commission.'and.try to obtain the permits so the City can build the Velodrome. Mrs. Gordon: That's already been through there. Mr. Plummer: My only question... . LaCasa: And that we expand the project to include the restrooms Mayor Ferre: I think the conclusion was as. follows,, that we expand: the Velodrome to include;restrooms, not -.to cost more than $40,000 and that the total project would now not cost more than 200 hundred and 65 thousand dollars... 265? Mr. LaCasa: Mayor Ferre: Yes. And that we then go back to the County Commission, specifically to Steve Clark, and ask any of the 5 members on the prevailing side, to reconsider their vote. Is that correct? Did I catch it all? Mrs. Gordon: Close enough. Mr. LaCasa: That's correct. 101 �J U L 1 i 197S Mayor Ferre: Is there a motion? r. LaCasa: I move it.`' Mayor Ferre: o seconds it? Father Gibson: Second. ayor Ferre: Gibson seconds. Mr. Plunnner: Mr. Mayor, my onlypoint of discussion, is what. it was this morning, at that is where, the Manager is, going to get the additional 80 thousand dollars. Something's gotta suffer... Mrs. Gordon 40 thousand, Mr. Plummer:." please... o, Rose. No , from 186 upto 275. Am I wrong, if I'am, Mrs. Gordon: fir. Grassie, what will those restroom facilities cost? 'pproximately 40 thousand dollars. Mr. Grassie: Mr. Pllnrrer: What is the say...what is the total increase, in your estimation, of the project? Mr. .Grassie: Between inflation, and the restroomswe are talking about an `increase of approximately 60 thousand` dollars..'.65 thousand dollars. I'1u.riwt.0 : Well, Mr. Grassie, I'm not going but ';186 to 265 is 79. Cra:si, :: 1ttrle o-quibble on pennies, The186 does not include some of the design cost, so it r budget is a little higher. Mr, Plummer: Here again, Mr. Grassie, I'm all in favor of the Velodrome, I'm all in favor of going back to the County. But I do feel this Commission should be aware of something having to suffer to get this additional r'.n�3icg to the Velodrome and I want to know what's got to suffer. N.;:. Grassie: Well, couldn't we do this? Since we will not take this to the County without, or at least I would like to show you the design before we take it to the County, why don't we bring you both of those things at the same time. The design and the impact on the Parks for People Program. Mr. Plummer: Do you have that amount of time? For the right of... to reconsideration? Mr. Grassie: At this point they have put us off for a year, so we are going to have to ask for an exception toget back on their calender in less than a year. Mr.,Plummer: 'Oh, I thought the right of reconsideration had to be at the next meeting. Mr. Grassie: "I don't believe so. ivdyur Ferre: All right. We've got to move along because we have a whole bunch, of people here at 6:30, on this waterfront question. So, is there further discussion'? All right, call the roll. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner LaCasa, who moved its adoption:,. 102 'JUL 1 1 1979 MOTION NO. 79-497 A MOTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXPAND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A VELODROME AT VIRGINIA KEY TO INCLUDE THE CONSTRUCTION OF RESTROOMS WITH TOTAL COSTS NOT TO EXCEED $265,000 AND FURTHER INSTRUCTING THE ADMINISTRATION TO RESUBMIT SUCH PROPOSAL TO THE METRO COMMISSION TO REQUEST RECONSIDERATION Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gibson, the and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Armando LaCasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None ABSENT ON ROLL CALL: Mayor Ferre: There is no vote on the Civil Service. Have we made the motion to put that on the agenda on the 24th. Yes. Mr. Grassie: Yes. DISCUSSION ITEM: PERSONNEL STAFFING IN CITY 37. COMMISSIONERS OFFICES Mayor Ferre: All right, now, Commissioner LaCasa, the only item we have left is item I. Father Gibson: What Mayor Ferre: Item I staff. was that? which is the question of expanding Commission Father Gibson: And that means all of us? Mayor Ferre: I would imagine so. Father Gibson: All right. Let's just make sure that means all of us. M. Manager, you hear. All right. Mr.•LaCasa: Yes. Definitely so. Definitely so. I move that the City Manager be instructed to provide every Commissioner with an. additional staff member to the secretaries they already have. Mayor Ferre: Well, that includes the Mayor, too. Mr. LaCasa: I don't want to discriminate you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Plummer:' I second the motion. Mayor Ferre: There is a motion and a second. Further discussion? Mir. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, this is a burning issue that I feel should have all five votes. ME EM 103� `JUL i 1 1979` 'Mayor Ferre: C call'=the roll. r. 'Plummer:`. Mr. Plummer:. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Plummer: ..it's going to have all 5 votes. All r ht The burning part is the Manager. Oh, I would like to have the very profound comments.. We will have everybody voting. Of my collegues. Mayor Ferre: All right, Mrs. Gordon and Father Gibson, would; you come in for a vote and then you can go...then we can have a few minutes, break. Mr. Plummer: Well, we still have item 23 to do, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: Is Mrs. Gordon out there. are on I. Bill, did :you ''see Mrs. Cordon out there? I hear her running. not Mrs. Gordon Mr. Plummer: Mayor Ferre: for a vote. u're She'snot even wearinga rose. Well, we'll have to wait until we have a full Commission O.k. Call'; the roll, call the roll, please. Mrs. Gordon: What are you calling the roll on Mayor Ferre: Mayor 're calling the roll on the two... Father Gibson: What' the motion?' Mayor ,e re: .,The motion; was made by"LaCasaand seconded by Plummer •• that each member of the. Commission` have:` two staffs for...two`persons per staff.• "In other words, one additional personnbe added::: each staff . Mr.s'..Gordon: Where's the money going to come from?. Mayor Ferre: Obviously; from the .General, from the General,"I'm voting against"it, in case you... - Mrs. Gordon: So`am"I. Mayor Ferre: Want know. Call the roll. Father Gibson:. Read the motion. Mr. Ongie: The motion would be that the City Manager would be instructed to provide an additional staff person, in addition to the secretary already assigned to each member of the City Commission. Mrs. Gordon: Are you talking...may I ask a point of information, Mr. Lacasa, since you made the motion. Is it you intention to increase the budget beyond what your normal budget would be, in order to cover the extra personnel. Mr.LaCasa: Mr. Grassie, do you feel that you could secure the services of additional personnel for the Commission. And, actually, what we are talking about here will be basically, two persons, because Mrs. Gordon already has one person there, and Mr. Plummer also has another person. Mrs. Gordon: No, no, no. Mr. LaCasa. Make the records correct. Gordon does not have an extra person there. 104 JUL 1 1 1979 Mr. LaCasa: O.k. There are already 2 additional persons. There are already two additional persons. So, we are talking basically as far as the Commission is concerned, of two more and one for the Mayor. So, my question is, if that personnel could be secured from some other departments, or some kind of arrangements can be made so it doesn't cost any additional money to the City. Mr. Grassie: Commissioner, I think that what you are talking about is 5 positions, not 3 because -Commissioner Plummer's position is on loan from a department that is going over to the County, and as you know, we have the Labor Department ruling problem with the person that is... Mrs. Gordon: The CETA person is going to be removed, she is a floating secretary. She serves all the Commissioners, and her position has to be removed because she is a CETA person. The reason for my question, Mr. LaCasa, is this. If, you or any other Commissioner may have an overage in your budget because you don't travel, because you don't spend money on other items which are in your budget now, and you want to reallocate your own funds to cover yourself, that would seem not unreasonable. However, if you're asking to increase the Commissioner's budget, Iwould' object because I don't intend to increase mybudget. I think everybody has got to tighten their belts, including us. Mr. LaCasa: My; problem, Rose, is one of services. As I explained before, by virtue of being the Spanish speaking member of the Commission, aside from the Mayor, and by virtue of having 55% of the population of the City of Miami of Spanish speaking extraction, I am bombarded with a number of telephone calls, correspondence, requests, that I cannot handle with just one person. My secretary is totally, and completely unable to handle the situation that I have in my office. So, my situation is very simple. I either provide the services to this constituency orI don't. If I can't, I will explain the situation to the media and I will have to proceed to take other measures, even if those include closing my office, my operation here, because I am unable to perform it from here, and I will have to seek alternative situations. It's as simple' as that. I cannot handle what I have with the personnel that:I have at this point. Either the City provides me with the ability to serve the 55% of the population that is coming to me, in this City of Miami, or I have to explain that I cannot, because I don't have the ability to do it. And that is as simple of that. The Manager is there, the Manager knows my problem. I have been dwelling on this for the last 5 months with Mr. Grassie. He is very familiar with the situation. So, if he could find an alternative solution, I am more than pleased to accept any kind of solution, whatsoever. CETA personnel, non-CETA personnel, whatever. As long as I am able to keep my office open and provide the services. I have to close this office continuously because, as I explained before, the physical realities differs froms yours. You three have, are in the same space. Mine is outside. Consequently, I don't have the facilities to change, to alternate with your own pool of, secretaries. Mrs. Gordon: Yea, but you know, she answers your phone when your secretary takes her lunch break. You get the coverage as much as we the coverage. Where she sits is unimportant. Mr. LaCasa:" The answering, Rose, the answering of the phone does not,' is not limited to say that the secretary of Commissioner LaCasa is not here, or that the Commissioner is not here. This means more. This means services This means information that a simple telephone operator is not going to give. And, when I get to my office, every day, I see correspondence that is not being attended to, I see telephone calls that are not being answered, request for information and services that are not being followed -up. We don't have the ability to do it and we either do it correctly or we don't do it at all. I am going to tell this Commission, with all due respect, that if I can not do it well, I am not going to do it at all. [05 Mrs. Gordon: Well, I think you are probably a little new in the job then, because those of us who have been here for a long time have. adjusted ourselves to being able to handle the load. We handle..I handle 19 committees. I serve as Chairman, of the Pension Board of Trustees, I serve as Chairman of the Retirement Board and 17 other positons for the City, besides handling the work that the constituency gives me to handle. The garbage pickups, and the rest of this things that have to be done as Commissioners. I still say that it's nice to have a lot of staff. I'd love to have a full time, 2 or 3, I'd love to have that. It'would be great. But, we are asking the police to cut down on their budgets, we're asking the firemen to cut down on their budgets. Everybody is tightening a belt, and we are going to expand to two full time people? Why, you know, that's kind of ridiculous. Unless we cut down on our travel expense. On our other expenses that we have in our budget, and we can do without and we don't travel, or we travel on our own money. Things like that. Mayor Ferre: Continue the roll all, please. THEREUPON THE:FOREGOI MOTION was introduced by Commissioner LaCasa and seconded by Commissioner Plummer and defeated by the following. vote: AYES: NOES ABSENT: None Commissioner Armando LaCasa. Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.,.. Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson Cornmissioner Rose Gordon *Mayor Maurice A. Ferre COMMENTS ON THE ABOVE ROLL CALL: Father Gibson: Am I to understand that all of us are going to get the same treatment?' Mr. Ongie: Yes, sir. Mr. ,Plummer: All of the Commissioners. *Father Gibson: I'm going to vote no, man. I just believe...I can't in good conscience tell the Manager to reduce fire and police. And you know what nobody said, Sanitation.And we are talking about keeping the City clean. Mrs. Gordon: That's right. Father Gibson: We are going to get rid of 59 people. Isn't that right. Somewhere..no... r. Grassie: 29. Father Gibson: 29, you admit 29. going to do that. No. .k.' You know,` no man, ; I'm not *Mayor Ferre: I vote no. And, furthermore,<;I wish to announce that it is my intention, as .Isaid a .month and a half ago,' to reduce my budget in the Mayor's Office, 104 for this coming year. 106 JUL!l1679 • OFF-STREET PARKING CHARTER AMENDMENTS - TEMPORARILY 38. DEFERRED Mayor Ferre: All right, the next item to come before us is item A, which is the Off -Street Parking Authority Garage. Mr. Paul, have you had time to read that. We were waiting for your arrival here, to see if there was any objection to the lease hold to the City of Miami... Mr. Paul? Putting lease holds on bid if we are going to go out and bid these things: Mr. Dan Paul:Well, I think there is a problem unless you add to that section that nothing in this section shall be construed to waive the special requirements for leases and contracts of waterfront property, provided elsewhere by the Charter and ordinances in the City of Miami. And, I underlined it in the placeI thought Mayor Ferre: Mr. Knox, do you have any objections to that? Mrs.' Gordon: That would protect the waterfront? Mr. Paul: Right. Mrs. Gordon: Because Mr. Knox's comment to me earlier before your arriva was that it will include, this should include, and; would include the waterfront and I objected to it. . Plummer: there any parking garages on the waterfront. Mr. Paul: NO, no. It's notparking garages. As I understand the sense of the Commission,.` that this requires competitive bidding for any contracts orleases involving City property. And all that sentence that I put in, was the addition that there are additional restrictions on leases and contracts on City property, waterfront property, that relate to the standard, that I' understand that you aregoing to come up with. Mrs. Gordo Mr. _.Pau l: n: o.k. Then that provides... It just makes the two things fit together, that' Right, Mr. Knox: The answer is yes.. Mrs. Gordon: Then `we'11 go with that: all. Mr. Knox: and there is no problemwith the additional language that' been suggested. Mrs. Gordon: In that case, I'll move it, with the amendment. Father Gibson: ;So, what is the language. now. Read it. Mr. Ongie: I' don' even have it, sir. Father Gibson: Oh well, lets all get it now. Mrs. Gordon: The attorney has it. Mayor Ferre: All right, is there any further objections to the language? Father Gibson: I;want...I don't have it. Mrs. Gordon: We don't have the amendment as amended." We don't have it as amended. 107 'JUL l i 1972 Father Gibson: I want to know what I'm voting on. Give it to me let me read. Mayor Ferre: Well, we'll have to come back to it. then, I'm sorry because we have item A=still pending. Mr. Plummer, you wanted to go to item 23, you say? Mr. Plummer: No, sir. item 3 is dragging. r. Mayor, I just brought to your attention' Well there are people here on it. Mayor Ferre: Well, we can wait on that? 0n item 23? Whose here on item 23. Plese-raise your hand. Can you wait. Cause, I'll tell you there's some people that have to leave. 39. PERSONAL APPEARANCE: DEVELOPERS OF CLAUGHTON ISLAND AND BRICKELL BISCAYNE CORP. TO DISCUSS IMPACT OF PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENTS - DISCUSSION AND ACTION TABLED TO MEETING OF JULY 23, 1979 •�S M. Mayor Ferre: We are not on items 18, 19, 20 and 21. Now, ladies and gentlemen, there are some of you who have passed me notes that you have to leave by 6:30 so on. And, I recognize that you've got a meeting? How many are there that have to leave at 6:30. That must leave at 6:30. Is that you? Mr. P1immer: You're not gonna quite make it. Mayor Ferre: Anybody else that has to leave immediately. All right,.. Mr. Traurig,are you the only one. Because we have several union representatives and lawyers who have to speak then have to leave by 6:30. Your re the only one then. Mr. Kenzie? Mr.,`Plummer: and 21. What does union representatives got Mayor,Fevre: Well,: there are here to speak on it, obviously.; All`right,,Mr. Traury, go ahead and we'll recognize you to speak since you have to leave . Mr.;Traurig: Mr.Mayor, I didn't really want be taken out of -turn. You asked for a; show: of hands and;I gave you a show of` hands. I` do have to be at the County Commission' at 7:00 o'clock and I can.wait'until 10 minutes to.`7 to leave ;here. Mayor Ferre: You may as well go ahead and say what you have then we'll get into the other. Mr.Traurig: I'd like to address this Commission with regard to 2 situations. Ong,, relates to Claughton Island, and Mr. Claughton is here today. And, I'd like to introduce other people who are very interested in the effect of this ordinance on Claughton Island. I would also like to speak very briefly with regard to the.) project which this Commission recently approved for Brickell Biscayne, Corp. Which we think, as a result of land planning which sets the building 300 feet back from Brickell Avenue, and which we think that asa result of the present line aside from Brickell Avenue which doesn't even permit you to see Biscayne Bay from there. Also, that if a setback were provided at the bay front it would have no value whatsoever, to the general public, except the boating public, and we already have a 150 feet,more-or-less, area which we had no intention to fill, which will create that vista for those people. We think that all of the R-5A property along Brickell Avenue which has already been developed, violates the spirit and intent of this ordinance and to visit the kind of penalties on one or two parcels of property along Brickell Avenue, would be very unfair because I don't think that the scrivener L08 J U L 1 1 19T9 of these ordinances and proposals really had taken that into consideration. I think it was more the central business district area that was within the purview of the scrivener. I do believe, that where a site plan has previously been approved as a result of a PAD hearing, or some other hearing where a site plan has specifically been reviewed by the Urban Development Review Board, the Environmental Preservation Board and by the Zoning Board of the PAB and this Commission, that you ought to at least consider grandfather provision, which would legitimize those projects and exempt them from the operation of this ordinance, no matter what form the ordinance takes. We think that to create, what amounts to a moratorium, when plans and specifications are ready and millions of dollars have already been expended in architectural and engineering work, and other work is the kind of a sanction which this Commission ought not to levy against those people,who in good faith, were relying upon the provisions of the existing ordinances and the kind of review that had already taken place by all of our boards and by this Commission. So, we urge you with regard to the R-5A along Brickell Avenue, to take those matters into consideration. I'm telling you that I cannot see Biscayne Bay from Brickell Avenue at any point right now, and that these buildings, no matter what their form, will not have any greater obstruction of vision than presently exists without any building, just based upon the natural contour of the land. With regardto the SBD-1 district, which is the Claughton Island district, obviously, Mr. Claughton is here to make a presentation to you. I also would like you to have the opportunity to hear from Mr. Charles Cheezam President of Cheezam Investment Corporation, one of the joint venture partners of Brickell Key, together with the soir entity. And also, and this would be an indepth presentation to you from Mr. Charles Lamb. A senior partner in the Lamb Planning Association, which has developed a detailed land plan for the island. It's the RTKL Associates, Incorporated, out of Baltimore. They have done work throughout the United States. They have received a number of land planning awards and they believe that for you to impose the language that is presently in the ordinance, and presently in the proposal which will go to the public i.uNovember,would be a great sanction upon them after they went through a DRI review, after they have been before this Commission, and the boards of this City numbers of times. And, after they have in good faith spent 17 million dollars for the purchase of this island within the last few ;months, based upon assurances in letters, from the City that there would be no violation of any City ordinances if they developed in accordance with what was previously proposed and approved. So, we urge you to take those two parcels into consideration and generally to be circumpsect about what you are doing . I think, that when your Zoning Board meets on Monday, and your Planning Advisory Board meets next Wednesday, and you get information from your Urban Development Review Board from its meeting next Tuesday, you will have a basis for consideration. And, I think, that to take action prior to getting all of that information from all of your duly constituted boards, at this point in time, would be premature, and not in the best interest of the City. Thank You. Mayor Ferre: All right, Mr. Knox. W. Knox: Mr. Mayor, yes, sir. I just wanted to advise the Commission I was not aware of what Mr. Traurig was going to say but we were prepared to advise you that any...you would not be authorized to take any action this evening. And, you are not authorized to take any action at all until the proposed ordinances have been reviewed by the Planning Advisory Board, based upon your own code of ordinances and based upon the state statutes of the State of Florida Mayor Ferre: All right. Let me ask if there is an alternate way. Could we place a moratorium on any waterfront...on any waterfront property, any building permits for waterfront property until this matter is passed. Father Gibson: Mr. Mayor... Mayor Ferre: Let...excuse me Father. That was a legal question that I'm asking the City Attorney. W. Knox: Our research has not revealed any cases in the State of. Florida. I can, therefore, tell you what cases from other jurisdictions have indicated and what similar cases in Florida have indicated. That is, to IJUL i ! 1919 109 have a moratorium or a manner of regulation which would effectively deprive individuals of an opportunity to beneficially use their property. is also a zoning matter, and therefore, recommendation regarding a moratorium would also have to come from the Planning Advisory Board or the Zoning Board whichever would be appropriate under the circumstance. Mayor Ferre: So, what you are telling us, is for us to pass an ordinance today, on first reading, would require it first to go before the Planning Board? Mr. Knox: Planning Advisory Board, a public hearing.. Mayor Ferre: And the same thing would be true of a`mnoratorium.., Mr. Knox: Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: All right, Father Gibson. Father Gibson: Mr. Mayor, I sometime am misunderstood and a lot of people don't understand me. And, I hope, I'm going to prove that I wasn't so far wrong, right now. When all this matter came before the Commission, I was unalterably opposed. I was opposed to the 50 foot setback, I was oppossed to putting it on the ballot. And my reason then, and is now, number one, I believe if you are going to people you ought to give people intelligent, well thought out, reason and information. I could not understand, how on a day like this, we would just arbitrarily say, you must set back 50 feet from the water when we had not made a study of how many pieces of land are affected. For instance, we should have made a study, I said this before, and I want to reiteriate it again, how m any pieces of land would conform to setting back 25 feet, 30 feet, 40 feet, 50 feet. I said, to this Commission then, and I say now, to ask the people to vote on a 50 foot set back under the emotional fervor that we have in this matter is not fair, doesn't show good sense, nor is it good judgment. If I had a piece of land, I would be made as all get -out, if you tried to deny me the use of my land at the llth hour. Not only that, I said this, that the City should have asked the Building Department how many people have applied for building permits to use the waterfront, as of now. It would have made more sense, it would have been more acceptable, I think, if you had said to everbody, all right, if I don't have your plans, I'm not going to accept them. And, have a cutoff date, and say to people don't bring anymore. If I had spent my money, if I had spent my hard cold cash, getting plans knowing I could build within X number of feet, and you told me afterward. I tell you what, I would be just as determined as those who want that 50 foot setback. I'll have m ore to lose, and I'll have more to gain. I'd go straight to court. And, I wouldn't feel bad if the people took us to court, because I don't see making the right of somebody else, a privilege of mine. And I hope, I hope this Commission, would not do by the people who may be helpless what they, what we would not want done to us. To do that to the public, or to the people who are affected, it is not right, it's not fair and I hope you won't do it. Let me deal with the...is that Claughton Island? I should never forget all that hell we raised around here about Claughton Island, you know. I thought we had all our ducks in a row. Now, in the midst of it, we want to say, well, I made that man give up some land for public use. Isn't that right? Sir, I want to defend you to the very end. You, without hesitation, came across. I want to put it on record now, I am unalterably opposed to, I am unalterably opposed. No study has been made. I cannot be intelligent, and you know, then let me make the last comment. The City will look bad as quote, hell. End of quotation. To be building the Convention Center and you know, you are going to the people and you are going to be in violation of the very thing you are asking the people to do. So, it says to me, you might well get off that emotional kick and start doing that which is reasonable, and sensible, for the best interest of this community. I pray practically everytime one prayer, Lord help us to do that which is right and for the best interest of this Community. I just cannot buy it and I want to serve notice right now. I am going to vote against number 1, the 50 foot set back, I'm going to vote against putting it on the ballot because there has been no intelligent, no intelligentinformation acquired, developed for the people of this community to go by. 110 That's what it says. Mayor Ferret Well, putting it on the ballot is not before. passed 3-2 at the last... Father Gibson: All right, let me do it the other way, I will be opposed to any moratorium. You, you knew when you were passing it that there were people who had plans, and had already reviewed the plans. And, what was so ridiculous is we went that way on Tuesday, Monday? Anyway, we went the ordinance route prohibiting and inhibiting on one day, and came back the next day and voted a project. Now, we want to say, lets put a moratorium. My brothers, those of you that have that project out there,. you know right now, Theodore Gibson is dead with you. Mayor Ferre: All right. Anybody else who has to leave here on an emergency basis. If not, Mr. Reid, I'm going to ask you to...you've had some time to think about all this, and you'be got a memorandum prepared and all kinds of stuff. Why don't you share your thoughts with us. Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and members of the City Commission. I would like to before beginning my comments, sort of re-echo the point just made by Commissioner Gibson. The purpose of my memorandum, the purpose of my comments this evening, are really to present a status report to you, in terms of where we are on researching a very complex subject. And, we have asked the Planning Advisory Service, in Chicago, to look into this and to help us in terms of how other cities have treated this issue. We are in contact with Seattle, and San Francisco, who face this problem, and we have also talked to consultants who worked in Norfolk, and Hawaii, on these similar types of provisions, how they are trying to gather intelligence on this issue. We have scheduled 4 meetings. We are meeting right now, staff, with the Waterfront Board, with the Zoning Board on the 16th, the Environmental Board on the 17th and the P1annin¢ Advisory Board on the 18th. And, all of these meetings are to better understand a very complex subject. We do feel, that the, and as you..as the City Attorney has indicated, the property place for this ordinance, if you enact an ordinance, is to amend the Environmental Control Section of the existing Zoning Ordinance. And, we have taken the step of advertising the ordinance for the Planning Advisory Board meeting of the 18th. Should the Commission wish to act in an initial form on the 23rd, there would be a recommendation from the Planning Advisory Board enabling them to do that. I'd like to break my comments into addressing the two primary sections of the ordinance. We feel that the setback provision as it is presently written which specifies that on the smaller lots there would be a 25% of depth requirement. Which provides the option of a 25 foot average depth in terms of setback, and in presumably construction of a riverwalk. We feel that basically is an important and a good idea. We do feel, that several modifications ought to be though about with respect to this provision. For example, the way it is currently applied, we favor the 200 foot as the minimum for setting the 25%. And, 200 foot coincides with 25% of 20 feet being 50 feet. What this means is, that if you keep it at 150 feet, if my lot is 150 foot deep, I have to setback from the bay 371 feet. If my lot is 151 feet deep or 152 feet deep, I have to setback 50 feet. So, we feel that the sliding percentage ought to go all the way up to 200 and then be maintained at that level. Mayor Ferre: That's what is says. Mr. Reid: And, we have a chart... Mayor Ferre: Mr. Reid. Mr. Reid: Yes. Mayor Ferre: Mr., Reid: No. Mayor Ferre: Which is not set back at least 50 feet from the seawall except... Mr. Reid: Let me,' let me say something because some comments have been s 1979 made'to me that as now written. have not seen. comments are on .nlyor Fette Well, this is about the 5th or 6th time that we have written this, so I"don't ..I mean in defense of him, I don't blame the poor man for notknowing what we have written. I want to clarify. We are commenting on the ordinance O.K. I cannot comment on a revised petition that I So, I want to be clear to Mr. Paul and others, our the 'ordinance as written. We will be glad to comment on... IJNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He is commenting on some ordinance your City Attorney as drawn up. Mayor Ferre: No, no. We are. commenting; on the ordinance that was passed. out which was the fourth or the'fifth'draft of this thing. rIDC:1':trinD SPEAKER: Mr. Reid, Mr. Reid has known in conversations that it is 200 feet. He was told today it was. So what he is commenting "on, he knows better. Mr. Reid: Wt t 1 am commenting, Mr. Mayor, to be very clear and that,: Mr. Paul and have talked about the 200 feet that now appears in his amendment: and t.have made the suggestion to him that it be there. . I am commenting on the ordinance, I am not commenting on the proposed, charter amends;ent because it has been...it is in the process of refinement. And, t can't comment on a version I haven't seen. Mayor -Ferre: Mr. Reid, nobody, including I am sure, Mr. Paul, is questioning any...th.e'fact ;is that you are addressing yourself to item number 18 which is...is filet right or is it 19? Mr. Reis'!' I, am addressingmyself to item number 18 and 19. I think one •21.t,2; `.hc Charter .amendment and the other relates to an ordinance... I'm so:•ry, number 19... ..r. t.d1G Inat incorporates the same feature Mayor Ferre: which is an ordinance. t•fr- : The tnumber. 1.9. language is the same. 'm addressing myself specifically Which is in our packet and is specifically written, and nobody expects you to do anything other than that. We understand. ar.?Reidy O.K. The second thing, is we feel that the boundary line for the setback provision ought to be extended to the northwest 5th street bridge. In your presence ordinance, it is recommended that the boundary. stop at the South Miami Bridge. We feel that this is in line with the Miami Riverfront Development Study. As, as redevelopment occurs... Mayor Ferre: Which is the Northwest 5th Street Bridge. Mr. Reid: It's just above Lummus Park as you are going up the Miami' River. Mayor Ferre: So, you would extend beyond then. .In other words you want to go deeper into the river. Mr. Reid: That..we want to go deeper into the, river for the purpose. -4Aeveloping a meaningful river walk. O.k. We hops that some day as redevelopment occurs along the Miami River, as was suggested in the illami Riverfront Study, that there be a river waik the entire length... Mayor Ferre: You are addressing yourself to both the 50 foot setback provision and the 75%. Mr. Reid: All of my comments at the present time are addressed simply to the setback provision. O.k. 112 'JUL1 1979 Mayor Ferre: So, you are not addressing yourself to the 25% see -through on the river. O.k. Mr. Reid: No, I'm not. Mr. Mayor, my first four comments, and I've discussed two of them, are addressed to the setback provision. Number three, I believe, the waterfront industrial properties that are now presently in this area, should be allowed to function in terms of use of the waterfront yard. So, that some language would have to make it clear that boat slips, boat ramps, pump out stations, whatever, would be permitted within this area as waterfront industrial property are embraced When you stop at the South Miami Avenue bridge, I don't believe you affected any waterfront industrial property. So, if you do accept the principle of extending it further up the Miami River, we do have to deal with waterfront properties. And, finally, we feel that in residential zones, as the heights of structures increase, a greater setback is required from the waterfront than the present 50 feet suggests in the ordinance. So, we should make it clear that if other provisions of our ordinance, because of height restrictions are more restrictive, that they should be applied in terms of the setback from the waterfront. O.k. Now, for the comments on the view corridor provision of the ordinance. We feel, that in terms of their• geographic coverage, that they cover too much of the City. That in terms of public purpose, that there are other public purposes that could be achieved in terms of access to the bay that we think rate a higher priority. And that, in terms of administration of the view corridor ordinance, it is going to be very difficult to administer and we'd be prepared to illustrate that specifically on the 23rd and can talk about it tonight. It should be, and Father Gibson was asking... Mayor Ferre: Wait, wait a minute, because I, I didn't...I think that's a very important statement you just made, and I want to make sure I understand it. Why don't you want to talk about it tonight? Mr. Reid: Well, I'll be glad to talk about it verbally, but I,would like to have :some drawings of sites and some actual parcels.. Mayor Ferre: Are, are you talking about, still item number 1 which is the 50 foot setback? Mr. Reid: NO 1`>finished talking about the setback. O.k. Mayor Ferre: 'All right. Now, what you are saying is, I didn't catch your fourth one. The third one was your w...waterfront industrial... Mr. Reid: Let me summarize the setback recommendations. Number one, that the ..it would be 200 feet in terms of the 25% rather than the 150. Number two, extend to the Northwest 5th Street bridge with respect: to the ;river walk. Mayor Ferre: That's done. Mr. Reid: Number three, as you make that extension, protect the rights of waterfront industrial to continue. Mayor Ferre:. That's not in there. Mr. Reid: Number four... Mayor Ferre: Excuse -me, where is Dan? Onyour Mr. Paul: That's in there now, where it exempts of 500 square feet, relating to docks. Mayor Ferre: Well, O.k. It's not in there. Mr. Reid: Finally, the fourthpoint is, that where, our'present zoning restrictions, with respect to setbacks, are more restrictive,-they"should structures not in excess 113 !JUL111979 apply and we should make clear that they do apply, and that is true as the heights, of buildings go up. So, that finishes the commeent, a this time, on the setback requirements. Now, turning tor_theview., corridor, we feel that it is too extensive with respect to its geographic coverage of waterfront property... Mayor Ferre: All right, you have to go slower. I'm sorry. This is on item 2, you have...tell me that again. Mr. Reid: View corridor. We think its too extensive with respect to its geographic coverage. It covers too much of the City's waterfront, if you will. Number one, we feel that other public purposes, in terms of waterfront access, should rate higher priority than a view corridor, and I'm prepared to explain that. Is that a second item?' That's a second comment. Mayor Ferre: All right, would you repeat that again? Mr. Reid: That other public purposes, we believe should take priority over a view corridor and we are prepared to explain that. And, wealso feel that the ordinance, in its present form, would be difficult to. interpret and administer and I can give verbal comment... Mayor Ferre: Wait, wait, that's a third thing. Mr. Reid:. Yea, third thing is, that the ordinance would be difficult to interpret and administer and we are prepared to make some commentswith respect to that. Mayor F. re: All right, proceed. Mr. Reid: In terms of the first item, in geographic coverage, it should be noted for the record, and in terms of our calculations, looking at bayfront land, which we feel is the most important with respect to the view; corridor, that at the present time, over 25% of the bayfront land is in public ownership, or public right of way. And, there are 20,000, 20% of the bayfront land, in terms of linear feet of frontage is in PR - zoning and 5% of it is in public right of way. So, right now, in terms of. public... Ferre: Put them up against the seats. Mr. Reid: In terms of public access to the bay, we currently own, and can provide access to about 25% of the bay frontage. This includes many fine parks such as Morningside, Pace, Legion, Kennedy, Coconut Grove, Wainwright and Brickell, and includes some presently under utilized parks, like Bayfront and Bicenntenial. One of our major concerns is to get public use of the waterfront land that is now available. O.k. Number two, of the current waterfront zoning, 36% of the land abutting the water is zoned R-1 and R-2, relatively low density. And, we feel that the City basically has a good mix with respect to the...having high density development of the water, having open space, having City owned property, having commercial development, and soforth. And we feel, that as a legislative policy we ought to think about mandating that we should seek to preserve half or more of the City's waterfront in low density development and in public ownership. So, that community fears and developer aspirations are, if you will, circumscribed by the policy that we intend to maintain a City that has low density along the waterfront. I think that this policy would be especially applicable in the upper northeast areas of the City above 36th Street and in the Coconut Grove area. We feel that residential zones, basically, should be exempted from the ordinance, and that's residential zones R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5, RPD and RC. As a general matter, in terms of the side yard requirements of our zoning ordinance, whenever you get above 10 stories, our side yard requirements are much more restrictive than the view corridor setback, if you will. L14 rjUL 1 i 1979 And, for example, on a lot that's 400 feet wide and the building which has a height of 300 feet, the view corridor covers 100 of those feet. The side yard requirements under the ordinance covers 311 feet in terms of pinching a building in. And, we feel that there should be a policy of encouraging this development that sits perpendicular to the bay and we also feel that in terms of the present view corridor,as its proposed, could create problems with effect to the constructions of walls, the growing of hedges, landscaping to screen parking lots, the provisions of site amenities, such as gazebos, and soforth. And there are questions, major questions, in terms of how all these things are handled with respect to a view. For example, a property owner in a single family dwelling, and I guess Mr. Paul is amending this, could be required to have 25% of his 8 foot wall in front of his property that he might want to put in as a wall 75% and 25% as a chain link fence to maintain the view corridor required for his property. In the case of multi -family structures, large parking lots could be prevented from being screened by landscaping and residential areas would lose some of their privacy and perhaps security. We believe, that in some areas of the City, nearby residents of lower density areas prefer to be screened from a bayfront highrise rather than partake of the distant view of the bay. And, we do feel that in terms of variances with respect to the side yard setback, that perhaps the City Commission as well as the Zoning Board should consider these variances on the waterfront so that we would have two steps of control, and make it more difficult to get variances from the side yard setback. Just a couple of more points and I'll wrap this up. We feel, that the view corridor could usefully be replaced by what we call a bay access corridor. And basically, this means that it is more important form our perspective the views of the bay are important and we own 25% of the waterfront to permit such views, but pedestrians access in areas where people work and shop, is also very important. And, we would like to see a provision which would require developers to dedicate a 25 foot easement, if no public rights of way exist to get in front of their property and commercial areas where people now work and shop, or will work there in the future. And, that a walkway be constructed in the front of these properties as part of the zoning ordinance, so that we provide pedestrian walkup and sea access to the bay. We think that's very important. And of course, this access would also, this bay walk as we call it, would also provide a view corridor. We think, that there are problems in calculating the frontage under the existing ordinance, in terms of the shape of properties. That you are either shaped like a pyramid, or an invert pyramid, in terms of the properties that are bounded by two sides, such as Elk, rather by the bay, south and Ball Point. Do you calculate the frontage in terms of total water frontage? In which case Ball Points frontage would be in excess of 14 feet, 1400 feet. Do you calculate it as a straight line between Chopin Plaza and Biscayne Boulevard? In which case they would have 998 foot of frontage. 0r do you calculate it in terms of the width of the property as viewed from Biscayne Boulevard, in which case they would have something in excess of 600 feet of frontage in terms of a view corridor. So, there are calculation problems in terms of how you administer this. 0n an island, how would you do it? If you took the total frontage of Claughton Island, for example, the perimeter is something like 6,000 feet. Whereas, a line drawn from...parallel from Brickell Avenue drawn from the northern boundary of the island to the southern tip of the island, is something in excess of 2,000 feet. So, which one do you constitute for purpose of measurement, or do you use neither? We feel, that in the particular case of Claughton, that it should be exempted from the view ordinance. We feel that the DRI require- ment which were accepted by this Commission and established 8 view corridors with a minimum of 64 feet are the important consideration with respect to island development. These were done as a result of the DRI requirement and urban design studies. And, we do feel also, that the waterfront recreational and public recreational zoning district are accessible to the public and these might well be exclude with the caveat, if there is extensive activities on Watson Island and Virginia Key, that those would also be good candidates for urban design studies and view corridors to preserve a view on those particular properties. And, I'd like to say that this is the...we have some tables 115 with respect to waterfront setback that illustrates the problem that I talked about at the beginning and some tables with respect to the view. corridors and side yard requirements that illustrates several of the,. points I've been making. But, I would like to indicate that this is a preliminary analysis, we are continuing to work on this, and we would hope by the Commission meeting on the 23rd that we would be much more definitive and will have learned from the process of additional analysis and additional consultation with people who are familiar with the subject. Mayor Ferre: All right, is there anybody else from the administration that wants to say anything. All right, Mr. Roy Kenzie, from the Downtown Development Authority, and then we'll hear....All right the, Planning Advisory meeting, those of you that are hear for that is being held in this room over here. Is there anybody here for the Planning Advisory Board meeting? Mam, you have to go around. Would you show her. There are signs to show where it is. Anybody here for the PAB meeting. All right, Mr. Kenzie. Mr. Roy Kenzie: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, and members of the City Commission, over the last 5 to 10 years the City Commission and the administration, and the private sector have been forging an alliance and a working relationship to improve the image of Miami in the eyes of large institutional investors and development consortiums. And, this is especially true in the case of downtown. The City has created parks, provided zoning variances, established convention/ conference centers, world trade centers, worked with the County to develop government centers develop rapid transit, and downtown people movers systems, as catalyst for large scale private investment in the downtown area. These activities are extremely important, for a number of reasons, including the provision of increased tax income to provide the basic services, while holding the line on residential tax assessment within the City. Downtowns, as you know, are the single most efficient tax producers in the City, while occupying only 2% of the City's land area, it now produces over 18% of the total tax take of the City, and of course, does not demand back that 18% in services, and consequently pays for services for the entire City of Miami. Helping to hold, again, the line on residential taxes and tax base. While present City tax caps and the potential loss of CETA funding and attendant fiscal problems of the City point to the need for increased tax revenues, Downtown Development has been moving to provide those revenues through increased development activity. In the 1960's, downtown produced roughly one quarter, or almost 25% of the total tax take of the City. With the decline of downtown after that point in time, this dropped to a low of 12% in 1974. Mayor Ferre: O.k. give me the years again. Mr. Kenzie: O.k. I'm saying in the 60's, through the 60's, downtown provided almost one quarter of the total tax take of the City. When we got into the 70's, by 74 we dropped to about 12% of downtown providing 12% of the total tax take of the City. Father Gibson:' Sir. Mr. Kenzie: Yes, sir. Father. Gibson: Since the Mayor did that, I was going to wait, but I want to make sure we don't get that wrong. You said, that you provide 18%... Mr. Kenzie: Presently. Father Gibson: Yes. But read that again. Mr.'Kenzie: O.k. In the 60's, running through the 60's• Father Gibson: No, no, no.' Mayor Ferre: Previous to that. 'JUL 1979 116 Mr. Kenzie: 0.k. Ptiously, I was saying that down represents... Father Gibson: No, read it because it's in the record and I want to make sure it's made right. Go ahead. • Mr, Kenzie: O.k. I said, while occupying, roughly 2% of the City's land area, downtwon presently produces approximately 18% of the total tax base for the City. That's in assessment, net assessment, for land and improvements. That's excluding other taxes. Father Gibson: All right, now read the other part you said. 1ft. Kenzie: 0.1c. I'm saying in the 60's.... Father Gibson: No, no, no, no. Continue right there. Mayor Ferre: Father Gibson thinks that You were making a statement right after that that it was costing more than 18%... Mr. Kenzie: No, o.k. Right after that I said, while downtown pays 18% of the total tax take of the City, it does not demand back that total in services. Father Gibson: Read what you said before because you gave me the impression, at least what you said was, as if you all pay the tax bill. That is not the case, you get, you pay more than a proportionate share, you get less service than what you pay for, and I want that cleared up. Because if I let you go on with what you said, you would not think that I know better. Read, read the statement. Go right on, read it like you said. Mr. Kenzie: Which part. Father Gibson: You heard me. Mr. Kenzie: No, the argument... •Father Gibson: That 3% going to start with. You know the "thing You just :zot through reading. Mr. Kenzie: O.k. The argument is this... Mayor Ferre: Roy, it'll take less time, if you just read that...start where it says 3%, 18. Just read it over. Father Gibson: Right. Mr. Kenzie: O.k. While occupying only 2% of the City's area it produces now, over 18% of the tax base of the City. And, I said, of course, downtown does not get all of that 18% back, and as a consequence it pays for services for the entire City. Father Gibson: That's what I wanted. See, you can't tell me that. Now, the English I studied, you can't say that to me. Mayor Ferre: That's an ambiguous statement. Father Gibson: You act as if 18% pays for the whole deal. If you say, if you go on to say that you, you pay more than your proportionate share and receive less than your proportionate share of the service, buy Mr. Kenzie: O.k. Father Gibson: But, I want... Mr. Kenzie: I'll agree with that. Father Gibson: You know, I want the record to reflect, because if you, you know, we usually ask, give us a manuscript. So, I want you to correct it now, so that, you know. Mr. Kenzie: O.k. I'll agree with that statement. And, I was saying, in the 60's, I'll go to that point. Downtown was producing about a quarter of the tax take of the City. In the 70's, that dropped to a low in 1974 of 12%. And, since that time, we've been working to try to push that back up. At the present time, we're back up to the 17 or 187. level. As a matter of comparison, downtown Miami, represents 2% FAH s 117 Mr Kenzie: ... of the total area of the City and produces now eighteen percent of the taxes. In the City of Atlanta, downtown Atlanta represents three percent of the land area and produces fifty percent of the tax take of the City. And that's as I was saying earlier downtowns are very efficient tax producers for the amount of area they occupy and increased development in that area produces taxes without gobbling up a lot of land. Downtown growth in this period in the late seventies is contributed to a number of things. One, to the City's tax base... as Father Gibson said in unproportioned share to it's land area. Secondly, It has provided new jobs, this development. It has provided other taxes. It has redeveloped the vast areas of decline and areas within the Downtown has provided new housing. And what does this statement have to do with the Charter Amendment and proposed ordinance? It has this to say "we have spent a considerable amount of time and a considerable amount of money in an cffort to bring large investors and developers into Miami". If this Ordinance passes as written presently, this will serve to turn off those very investors we spent our time trying to bring here. It will in effect in some cases break faith with them in terms of our desire to see them go ahead and continue and complete their projects. For example, when we have issued development orders and then we turn around and make it impossible to develop through other action, that crates problems with the investors, the institutional investors who have put the money behind those developments and which we spend a considerable amcsnt of time trying to get into Downtown to help us develop the Downtown area. The ordinance and Charter Amendment impacts on the following 1)nwntovm rrr' Downtown related projects and these are large scale projects; Bell Point Phase II, Claughton Island, Plaza Venetia Phase II, Brickell Place ?base II, Watson Island, the Forte Property below, General Development, the Hermitage, the Peter's Property on the Miami River, Brickell Point, the Dick and Thatcher Property on the Miami River, Flagship Bank Phase II as a number of large projects. And these projects represent an excess of five hundred w.i.liun dollars of investment in Miami presently on the way or presently in planning that would be affected by any cessation of building permitting or c;:.upancy c"i'... ability to occupy structures. And thousands of construction jcbs and thoisands of permanent jobs that are affected by that. Further, if it wLs rui ,d 'thJt the City would have to compensate property owners for scenic easements or taking of property, the City would then be obligated to come up witn hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation to those property owners who's property would be affected by said ordinances or Charter Amendments. Beyond' affecting Downtown Development and other large scale projects. The rrrinance a.nd proposed Charter Amendment also affects over four hundred s:.ng].e family property owners in the City who stand to lose up to one third to one half of the value of their land and will be unable to build walls, plant screens or build garages if they obscure more than one quarter of their iionLage, depending on how you define the scenic easements and how Mr. Reid earlier presented the difficulties in trying to do that. If we look at the City's bay edge as Jim pointed out, we can see that eighty-five percent of the bay's edge is either in residential use now or in park use and twenty... Mayor Ferre: How much? Mr. Kenzie: Eighty-five percent is either in residential use or presently. Mayor Ferre: Jim? n park use That's not the figures that you..._that 'Jim Reid. 'where i UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: - He said public use Mr. Mayor. ,T,;,. GROUND' COMMENTS OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD) Kenzie: I'm talking about all our zones, ok? If we talk just about single family residential that's thirty-six percent and if we talk about parks that's twenty percent and right-of-way that's five percent, so that's thirty- six percent plus twenty-five percent is either in single family or in parks or. right-of-way of the present bay frontage. Now, R-3 is twenty-five percent and then we get into highrise residential developments. Downtown... excuse me, commercial development on the bay represents 6.8 percent of the total bay frontage. So what I'm saying is this Charter Amendment and proposed ordinances affects great private home owners, property owners along the bay, over four hundred and fifty of them presently and their ability to build walls in front of their property, build hedges, plant screen, park their cars perhaps in gl 118 'JUL1i 1979 4gt‘ their drive -way, whatever, that would block this proposed scenic quarters through their property. The provision of an... Another point to consider generally is the issue of building permits. It is an interesting argument from this point and I haven't seen this answered yet and that is in terms of major renovations of buildings that are presently within the confines of the ordinance. For example, the Miami Herald Building is a good example. If the Miami Herald decided to have a major renovation of their structure, they would not be able to get a building permit, because by the ordinance that building presently is too close to the water, number one, it's not within fifty feet. In fact, not within twenty feet of the water. Secondly, it has no public access to the water and thirdly, it covers more of the site than seventy-five percent. Mayor Ferre: Excuse me, Roy, but I have got to interrupt. You could look at it the other way. You say it's too close to the water and may be the other way is that it's not close enough. Mr. Kenzie: But sways it causes the problem for any building that's within the confines of the ordinance or affected by the ordinance presently if it was to go in for major renovation and needed a building permit. We would have a dilemma in what to do with that unless we exempted all of those. To sum up the arguments that I presented and add a couple of more, is first of all in doing this we lose the development momentum we spent years and years trying to create. Secondly, we create a lack of confidence in the large institutional lenders and developers who have spent a considerable amount of time and money in involvement with the Commission to this day trying to push their projects ahead only to now reach further difficulties which in some cases and in projects right now create difficulties in closing to be able to move ahead. Third, it creates a loss of jobs if we cut down on the development momentum and cut down development time Downtown, we are losing both construction jobs and we are losing permanent jobs and this we are doing at a time of recession presently. Next we lose potential services for the City because of the lack of taxes or loss of taxes which this development represents. And we have not too many abilities to raise additional taxes unless we have development because of present caps. It creates a loss of value on p-operty for single family property owners who's property is affected along the bay. It also impedes major renovation activities within the confines of the scope of the ordinance. There are some additional questions to ask and I would like to leave you with this. First of all, is that I think the property owners, the private property owners especially in residential units along the bay should be given the same courtesy that people are given through the normal zoning change process and that is to be given public notice of the in the case of zoning ordinances, zoning ordinances which affect their property. Many of the private property owners along the bay have no knowledge of what this ordinance means to them personally and their property. They see it mainly as applying to large scale development Downtown, but that's not true. The ordinance applies to the entire frontage along the City and affects a tremendous number of individual, single family property owners along the bay. Secondly, is a question to the process whereby we are going through trying to achieve what we are trying to achieve. We are going through in an ordinance process when it would be more advisable and the City Attorney has recommended we go through amendments to the zoning ordinance, which would then provide public notice and provide public input in a orderly process towards change. Third item is the... just the process of the Charter Amendment versus the Zoning Amendment. This Charter Amendment is really a zoning ordinance, amendment or change and should more likely go through that process. The fourth item is the questionable constitutionality of certain portions of the Charter Amendment Ordinance as proposed in terms of public taking and scenic corridors and the rights of the property owner' compensation for taking of property. In either case for scenic corridors or for public right-of-way through private property. If that could not be resolved the legal issues involved in the court cases and arguments could take such a long period of time over years that would hold up significant development in the Downtown anyways. That summarizes the majority of the points I wanted to make. There is a representative, I believe... a representative still here from one of the unions. There were others here earlier who wanted to speak on the subject, but had to leave prior to 6:30, so one remained. And I'm just mentioning that because he would like to speak before he has to leave. Mayor Ferre: Ok. And then after that. Dan, I will recognize you... Mr. Washington: Walt Washington, President of the Lathers Local 345. Mayor Ferre: Alright, excuse me. Is there anybody here that is present for the Planning Advisory Board Meeting? (EXPLAINS IN SPANISH). Alright, proceed. Mr. Washington: Walt Washington, President of the Lathers Local 345. Mayor Ferre: What local is that Walt? Mr. Washington: Lathers Local 345, 1655 Northwest`17th Avenue is our location. My apologies for several representatives that could not make it tonight, like Wednesday night, it's very busy for union meetings. Two things that come to our mind that was very significant. One, they speak of moratorium. We remember the recession we had here several years ago and how it cut back on construction and this word traveled very fast among the trades. I am a man that works with his hands, have to serve as President of his union as well. But the concern of our organization and labor itself becomes very dear when we find out that may be things could take a reverse. This gentleman previously... that spoke to you said that things could be tied up in litigation over rights along the water. This we know. And where as we are talking in hundreds of millions of dollars in construction in the very heart of our City and this concerns the individual that works for a living. It concerns those that are involved with them and then when it comes to us over the word that passed through labor today it made us concerned about this program and you will hear more about it later. The point that I want to put to this, the nation is talking recession, we are talking something in growth here in our City that shines out all over the world and I think we should be made very concerned if we want to grow and we can see ourselves growing that we shouldn't take steps back when we want to go forward. To talk on, on this would be just repetitious from my part, but I just want to make you concerned of how we feel about it. Mayor Ferre: Thank you, very much. Walt do you represent your union here, or are you here for the trade unions or what? Mr. Washington: Well, speak in bF'la1f of my the City too as well. trades tomorrow. Mayor Ferre: Who /;r. Washington: M Mayor Ferree Ok. speaking in behalf of those that were not here. I, union and as a.citizenthat livesright in the -heart of But I>will get -back to the President of "the.building,_`= the President of the building trades now. . Shears. Mr. Washington: And I havehim... later on. Thank you, 'very much. e will probably get in touch with you Mayor Ferre: Thank you. Alright, do you want to present your position a this point and then we will get into this? (BACKGROUND COMMENT OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD) Mayor Ferre: What's the brown bag? Are you brown bagging it again, (BACKGROUND COMMENT OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD) Paul? Mr. Paul: Mr. Mayor, the hour is late and I don't know that a great deal of use would be spent in debating back and forth on some of the points that Mr. Reid raised. If he will read the Charter Amendment, I think he will find that almost all of them are already answered, but there is one thing that does interest me. When I listen to all these people up here carping and trying to pick this thing apart. I want to just ask a question. Where was the Miami Planning Department when the public was being raped along the waterfront? Where was the Downtown Development Authority when the public was being raped along the waterfront? Where was the Chamber of Commerce? We haven't heard one peep from anyone of these people until this amendment was proposed and now the same old turn dirt crowd, the same people who want to build now and repent at leisure are up here telling you that "let the developers do what they want". In fact, I listened to one Lawyer stand up here and argue for several people saying that because all of these people had started to plan to do these things gl 120 JUL 1 1 1679. that we shouldn't in any time suggest now that we should have setbacks. That's the reason we have to have them. That argument reminds me of the old argument that used to apply in Florida in rape cases. It used to be a defense in a rape case that the female was not a previously chased young lady. Well, that has now been passed and out. And the fact that all this has gone on in the past is certainly no excuse for grandfathering it in, in the future. There is a demand in this community to preserve what we have of waterfront and when I sit here and listen to what Mr. Reid tells you, that he recommends exempting residential areas, but he does... residential zones and he doesn't tell you that all of those great big highrises along Brickell that, that is a residential use by his definition. What's the difference whether you block the waterfront out with a hotel or an office building or a highrise condominium? By Mr. Reids definition, there is nothing wrong with Collins Avenue because that great concrete wall along their majority of them are highrise condominiums that are walling it out. Obviously,... I begin to wonder really whether there is any desire to do anything at all and nobody is arguing that the amendment as drafted is perfect in every respect, it was put out to get as much input as possible. But the time is now running out, obviously this week we will have to put this petition on the streets so that we can guarantee that we will have something on the ballot. Because if these people have such great concern as I said "where were they when all of these things... we didn't hear a peep from Mr. Kenzie and his Downtown Development Authority when all of these buildings were being built. Not one peep have we heard. Even before he came here that authority has been into existence. The Planning Department has been here it's their job to try and protect the City from these particular things. Now, I think that the Amendment in the first place in the amending process as provided by the Metropolitan Home Rule Charter, once the petitions are circulated the Commission still has the opportunity to make corrections and make changes if there are any wording changes or errors in the ballot before it's submitted to the public. But these petitions have got to be submitted not less than sixty days prior to November 6th, then obviously to collect the sum twelve thousand signatures we have got to put them on the street. I think that Commissioner Gordon has certainly made a good faith effort to come up with a workable proposal and I think the Mayor has made a good faith effort to come up with a workable proposal, but I think at that point it stops honest with you. I don't think that there is a desire to find something that will save the public's waterfront and to provide a reasonable setback and to provide some reasonable view corridors. Sure, I wouldn't at all suspect that this matter may not be litigated. It's been litigated many, many times, but if we don't start somewhere we are not going to have anything when we finish. And the time has come, we can't be grandfathering in anymore projects, we can't be attemping to provide anymore variances. That's the problem in trying to deal with this thing in terms of zones. Most of the worse things that have happened along the waterfront have been the result of variances. There were protections in the Zoning Code, but they didn't hold and that's why we need a Charter Amendment to put a final floor under this particular rape of the waterfront in shutting out of the public from any view, any where along the Bayfront. I'm open to any reasonable suggestions in the drafting of this petition. Every suggestion that I have been able to get from Mr. Reid until he stopped cooperating here about a week ago. We have attempted to incorporate in this particular amendment and I'm still willing to listen to him. A11 I want is the best possible proposal. All of these other people who are out here representing developers are here because their clients have paid them to come here. I'm not paid by anybody to come here. I'm looking only for the best proposal that we can get to save the waterfront, but this matter... I don't think that anything short of a Charter Amendment is going to do this job and going to control zoning variances that have been granted by various boards of the City or days passed by the City Commission. It's certainly not ideal. I would like to see much higher requirements than we have in this particular amendment, but at least this will put a floor on it and will preserve something before everything is lost. And I hope that the Commission will put the amendment or as I gather you have already put at least one version of the amendment already on the ballot and I hope that as the amendment is refined, that the amendments and the revisions will get put on the ballot. But I think the principle is basically sound of a fifty foot setback except where the lot is less than two hundred feet, that it ought to be twenty-five and that there ought to be a twenty-five, seventy-five ratio from the point of view of open space along the waterfront and if Mr. Reid will read the amendment he will see that in the cases of the irregular pieces of property or Claughton Island which already has a fine view corridor laid out through it that, that within the City Administration's discretion to administer those. Obviously, you have to have special provisions when you have islands or when you have irregular pieces of land and I don't have any quarrel with the view corridors that are going to be provided on Claughton Island. But if we are all working in a good faith effort to save the waterfront, I think that we need to go ahead with this proposal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I will be happy to answer any questions anybody has. Mayor Ferre: Alright, Ken do you want to address the issue? And then we will be hearing from the other side. Mr. Treister: My name is Kenneth Treister, I'm a architect in the City and Mr. Mayor and City Commissioners I have made some comments to Dan Paul that were included in this new petition and I only wanted... I don't want to address the political or all the other consideration, but I would like to bring out some architectual points of view for the preservation of the waterfront. Number one, I'm for highrise and high density. I'm against suburban sprawl and I'm a developer and an architect and I am for development. And I think the City of Miami has a great future in front of it because for all the reasons of the energy crisis and the hours wasted on long lines on expressways, we have to start bringing people back to the center city and I think that we have to do it with high density. At the same time I'm for the preservation of the bay. I lived on Miami Beach, I grew up on Miami Beach and I saw Miami Beach change from a very beautiful City to one that is in a decline now. So I think it would be a mistake to ignore the preservation of the bay and I think the solution isn't black and white. We shouldn't have bumper stickers that say highrises are bad. We should say bad highrises are bad. Good design is good, bad design is bad and there isn't any black and white characterization in architecture. Number one, in going over this just architectually, I think the point is made and I think it should be reinforced in the wording here, that single family and... Mayor Ferre: Excuse me, Ken. Mr. Reid, I don't mean to be rude to you, but I think this is important that you listen to this. I know. But I'm sorry to do that to you, but I think it's important that you follow this. Mr. Treister: Thank you. In this latest draft and we are talking draftmanship now. It: says single family residences should have walls. I think we should encourage townhouse development and I think that includes may be duplex or other type of townhouse or rowhouse development and that's a minor change, but I think that would encourage Hermitage and that type of development which I think is compatible with low profile along the waterfront. Sometimes you get great density in midrise or lowrise buildings and we should encourage that as well as the highrise buildings. An auxilliary... someone mentioned a gazebo. I happen to like gazebos. So I think walls, gazebos or auxilliary structures to low profile residential developments should be allowed. Mayor Ferre: But that doesn't say so here Ken, that's why you've got to... you see, you and I talked on the phone today and you really have a moral responsibility to work on this along with all of us. Mr. Treister: Yes, and I... Right. And that's one thing we just saw... I just saw this tonight, I would like to work on. Secondly, I would like to talk about the bonus provision on the second paragraph which I think is very important. Number one, to encourage proper development we have to give bonuses Bonuses are meaningful when they are increasing the floor area ratio and the height that might be limited. Number one, this provides and I think it's a good idea. If someone has greater side setbacks and that's required by the law or by this amendment that they be given some bonuses. Now, there is a fundamental planning concept that I would like to bring to your attention which is in here. Highrises that are perpendicular to the bay are good in general and those that are parallel to the bay are generally bad. Miami Beach as one continuous concrete wall parallel to the bay. So you don't get the breeze, you don't get the view, you don't get the vista, you don't get the relief from that concrete wall. If as in Brickell Bay they are perpendicular to the bay, you get a thin silhouette of a building and a large space between adjoining highrises, that generally is good. So I think... and it says in here "that the City should try to encourage highrise perpendicular to the bay and oppose it parallel to the bay. Secondly, from the occupants point of view in a highrise building if it's parallel to the bay, half face the bay and half do not see the water. If it's perpendicular to the bay all on either side can see the bay at the angle. So there is a dual purpose in this, one for the community and one for the tenants. Now, some review boards review these buildings and I got a hunch that some of them let some buildings go by that are bad, may be because they didn't have proper guidelines. So I don't know gl 122 places where you can't have underground below the bay level and below Bayshore Drive, now it's expensive and I'm ,not suggesting 1 be mandatory, but what I'm suggesting if somebody in their good will and ma; be good business judgement does it, they should be awarded some bonus, eliminating surface parking, encouraging underground parking. Another thing Mr. Mayor, would be if you have multi -level parking garages and you eliminate the first level and allow that to be opened to the view and -tothe.breeze'and to the openness and park on the second or third level plus underground, again that's encouraging. So this is worded by saying "we will give a.bonus if they eliminate surface parking" which is basic. I hate to say ugly carsaren't ugly, but it isn't as attractive as a landscaped area. thxt idea is something that Ley did before we ever thought of.: the procedure, but the guideline should be established so the review boards know the intent of the people and the intent of the Commission and if you agree with that concept which is stated in here that "buildings should be perpendicular rather than parallel to the bay" that should be communicated to the various boards so they know that they are not rubber stamping a development, but they have some prerogatives to make it better. The next thing that I think is in here which is good, is giving bonuses if you eliminate surface parking. Now, it's very expensive to have base underground parking, but it can be done s.nd if you caa just excuse my pride, Office in the Grove has underground parking, Yacht Harbor has underground parking and Mayfair has underground parking. Now, it's expensive, but eliminates that ugly asphalt paving.., Mayor Ferre: Underground parking? Treister: Underground parking. Mayor Ferre: But Ken, there are some rir. 'Preister: Yes, but let me say this... Well, I don't know of any that your can't- but it's 'eery expensive. In Yacht Harbor where underground parking it in .Villa Marseilles in Marseilles.He decided that building-highrise &3L ld he on stilts. And if you build them on stilts and allow the oprnress on tle first level the landscape, whether it be urban landscape or 'ub'irran or x'rel landscape continues through the first level. So we should b_;E a.,DO4L., a developer who dedicates the open space on the pedestrian i vel or c:iicre cars sees through it to the public.He doesn't give to the puhiic, but he allows them to see through it. He raised the building on stilts. He has a small lobby with an elevator and stair landings that come down. He does that, he has given us really a public park almost. And if it's a commercial building people can walk in and can shop and can go to the lobby and *hey fee] the freedom of that open space. So this says that"if we support th• building on stilts with a minimum structure, we give them a bonus". And ', :: rouse, think that's important. So just in general, I think what this now says and I will keep working on trying to improve it, is that we want to encourage proper development, we want to encourage highrise development, but wt. should try to bring in some architectual features that make it more pleasant for the community and better for the community, so we don't have the. problems that other communities have had. Thank you. Maycr Ferre: Ken, I will tell you before you go. One of the problems that I see-- trying to be constructive on this-- is that in the Downtown area there are no restrictions now. Now, the stuff that is being proposed by the department and by everybody has a seventeen floor area ratio. Now, a seventeen FAR is basically what Henry Gutierrez had in that one Biscayne Building. That's a hell of a lot of space. Now, how much bonus can you really give somebody who has that much of a bonus anyway? 1'r. Tr.plster: You make a good point and may be we are making a mistake in. only talking about floor area ratio bonuses. There is many other bonuses that a 44P•"eloper would like. I mean, I can list... May ur Ferre: Like what? Mr. Treister: Well, number one, if there is adjoining off-street parking that should... and it's under developed, under used. For instance, he should be able to use that may be for required parking, number one. Number two, if he donates may be some of his open spaces as pedestrian area, may be a bonus should be that he doesn't need certain setbacks that aren't meaningful. Setbacks are arbitrary. We did a house in Gainesville by Frank Lloyd Wright a fraternity house, who has never built. The setback was I think twenty feet. Frank Lloyd Wright made a eighty foot setback, but in one place because of the angle of the lot violated the twenty foot setback. The City said "oh, we have to it 81 123 have the twenty" and he said " that's ridiculous". So what I'm saying is based on may be a review you can give variance as a setback if they end up with an average setback that's greater.. Mayor Ferre: Well, that's what we tried to do on this average of this thing that ,we were working on. You see, the averaging of the... Mr. Meister: But there is many. I can just tell you as a developer there is. many things you would love the City to do. May be off-street utilities could be done by the City. May be a park... Mayor' Ferre: The what? Mr. Treister: May be off-street utilities. I mean, maybe off -site utilities would help a developer of the City wanted to do that pay'. for some, of the off street -.hookups and other things. Mayor Ferre: Look, Ken, that I know of the main things the developers are worried about are setbacks, floor area ratio, lot coverage and height. Mr. Treister: Yes, but there is parking requirements. Mayor Ferre: And parking. Ok, those are the basic five things that you are dealing with,and:here are others, but those are the basic things... you know, your,buiiding envelope, your so-called building envelope and that's it. It's ce hack ;reg1.iirements, it's floor area ratio, it's lot coverage, height restrictions and then parking. Now, Whipple are you around? What have I missed?_ Those are the five big things that we deal with in everyone of these... Now, when you;are talking about bonuses, what is it that you are going to give when there is no parking requirement in Downtown? Now, let's talk about. the Gould' Property just to be one specific, also known as Ball Point. There i io paiNi..b,requirement in Downtown as of right now. Alright, now there are no height requirements, so there is no bonuses to give... (BACKGROUNL C(`MMFNT OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD) Mayor Ferre: 1s he going to exceed three hundred feet? (BACKGROUND COMMENT OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD) �-�•,�r Ferre: Speak to the microphone, please. Mr. Roy Kenzie for the record. G0 ' ahead. Mr. Kenzie: The City gave a variance and a height for the project, the overall i.ioor area ratio Downtown could be based on the three hundred foot height limitation which is required by the ordinance. Which is approximately, you can convert that to about thirty FAR which would allow the development on the site, depending on the restrictions, three hundred feet high the total coverage of the site with no parking under the present ordinance. The proposed ordinance which you alluded to when you said seventeen FAR is equivalent to One Biscayne Tower. Mayor Ferre: Well, ok. But you get my point as to... Mr. Treister: Yes. There is very few major bonuses. There are many little bonuses because there is many variances that a developer doesn't even ask for that he would like, but they are minor. You are right, you have hit the major ones. :Li . Terre: Now, the other thing that concerns me here is that I think, you know, somehow this is a little bit too loose. Look, the City is in the _'.g Code "may grant floor area ratios and height bonuses for observing cucli or greater property occupancy limits eliminates surface parking and raising the structure above ground level so only supporting columns, minimum lobby and elevators is required. Stair enclosures are built at ground level. Try City Shall encourage highrise". You know, "shall encourage highrise" doesn't mean anything. You know, it a... Mr. Treister: These are very loose, right. These are not mandatory.. Mayor Ferre: It's a very loose thing. 81 JUL 1 1 ,1979 Mr. Treister: That's right. Mayor Ferre: And then look at what this says. "In administering the requirement the City shall attempt-- attempt, shall attempt-- to preserve open spaces for light". You know, who decides whether we really attempted and... you know, it's awfully ambiguous language... Mr. Treister: Mr. Mayor, you really should require some of these things, but` that's what... Mayor Ferre: Well, yes, but that's my point. Look, "which your ground level occupys more than seventy-five percent of the waterfrontage of each lot or tract on which the structure is to be built", fine, that's very specific. "The total waterfrontage shall be computed by a straight line calculation measured at the waterfront". Now, let's take Ball Point, that's sixteen hundred feet. "except that in the cases of irregular shape-- that's not irregular property --- the island or island or single family residence, the City shall determine the method of measurement." The City shall determine it. Well, how is it going to determine it? What is it going... you know, suppose the City then determines that, you know, we only have a hundred feet? Mr. Treister: The basic problem is you can't legislate or draft proper architecture for a specific sites. Mayor Ferre: Why not? Why not? It can be done. You see, I think what you are getting into here is a can of worms that you are never going to get out of and I think we have got to be a lot more specific for this thing to hold water. And I tell you, I... and I will... I think what is being attempted here is valid and reasonable and I think it should be done. And I think we've got to figure out the way of doing it so that it's not knocked out in a court proceeding somewhere for vagueness and that it has impact rather than the "City shall encourage highrise this and that and the City may grant floor ratios, bonuses and blah, blah that doesn't mean anything". Mr. Treister: Mr. Mayor, there was one thing that was left out of here. I just want :o mention it so that it doesn't get left out. In my comments is that one of the exceptions to the setback laws now is the parking structures can exceed the setbacks. So what you have because of the great need of parking is huge monoliths four or five or six or seven stories high for parking and then the very thin tower. And those four or five stories monoliths defeat the whole concept of the original setback and that's something that isn't addressed here and should be considered by the City to so how correct that problem. Thank you. Mayor Ferre: Ken, let me make a graphic explanation to show you how I could punch one hole through this thing and... This think says, alright, the new one I'm talking about the new one. The total waterfront... the waterfrontage shall be computed by a straight line calculation measured at the waterfront, except that in the case of a regular shaped... This is Ball Point, ok. The distance between here that wraps around to this point is sixteen hundred feet, ok. Twenty-five percent of that is four hundred feet, is that correct? Mr. Treister: Right. Mayor Ferre: Alright now follow... let me show you what I'm going to do, here is four hundred feet and I marked it out for you, ok. Alright. Now, I put up a building like this... do you follow me? Everything here is a building down to this point. Now, technically that complys with this requirement. (BACKGROUND COMMENT OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD) Mayor Ferre: This is not an irregular shaped piece of property. (BACKGROUND COMMENT OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD) Mayor Ferre: Who says that's an irregular shaped piece? That's not an irregular shaped piece. Then, alright, let's say that it is irregular. Let's go on with it "that in case of irregular shaped piece of property or island or a single family residence, the City shall determine the method shall determine the method-- so that in the Ball Point, then how are we going to determine it? It doesn't say how we are going to determine it. gl 125 (BACKGROUND COMMENT OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD) Mayor Ferre: No, not yet. You will have plenty of time. Mr. Treister: Well, Mr. Mayor, I do agree. This was done, you know, with a good intent, but probably without "as...'you know, enough I"think factual and real clear enforcement. Mayor Ferre: Well, we need to get more than good intentions cm this. We need to get something that's tight. Because otherwise, I think we are just going to be spinning our wheels on it. Mr. Treister: Right. It's really intent, really more than actual law. Mayor Ferre: Well, would you help in drafting just something that... you know... Mr. Treister: I would, be very happy to. Mayor Ferre: Alright. (BACKGROUND COMMENT OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD something that is more than the microphone so that we can have that Mayor Ferre: Dan, woui.d you address on the record? Mr. Paul: I said you are going to have to leave whatever amendments you draw and put in our Charter as far as the actual determination of visual site lines and actual property line measurements'you are going to have to leave for determination by ordinance and by your Planning Department. You cannot cover every single piece of property in the Charter Amendment, but that's no reason for giving up the effort in saying that you can't do it. Everybody knows what the intent is and that is to try and keep twenty-five percent of the waterfront open so the public can see it and to provide fifty foot setbacks and you are going to have to adjust that. If you got a piece of property like Ball Point, "ou didn't draw it correctly, it's totally irregular because it, you know, it curves all around. It isn't even... I don't even know what kind of figure you would call Bali Point. It's got a curved end on one side and it's square on two sides. I think may be there is a name for that kind of figure. I don't remember my geometry. But in any case it's obvious that pieces of property of that type and you have another one on the other side of the river, you are going to have to put in effects... Mayor Ferre: What are you saying, that this isn't applicable to Ball Point? Mr. Paul: No, I'm saying it is applicable to Ball Point, but I'm saying that the actual measurement to determine where the twenty-five percent setback would be, would be something to be determined by your Planning Department pursuant to whatever standards are set up if the amendment is adopted. I'm not saying that... all I'm saying is you can't put it in this particular amendment. All you can do is say that the Planning Department is to come up with a plan that keeps twenty-five percent of that waterfront open. Mayor Ferre: Alright, Father Gibson? Rev. Gibson: I heard what you said. What... if we are not careful then we', run the risk of not being fair by all, you know. That bothers me. And that' why I was... Mr. Paul: That's the risk when you pass any ordinance. Rev. Gibson: Well, some risks we don't have to have. You know, I wasconcerned and I"still am, that a thorough study should: have been:made-and"I still believe, for instances you are getting some input right now that we didn't have and I just... Mayor Ferre: You see, there problem is one of timing Father. There is an election coming up in Novemberand they want to get this on as a... and I understand the logic of all of that. So... Mr. Paul: It's not just the election that's coming up. There won waterfront left to save if you sit around and study it. Mr. Plummer: May I make a comment? I have been quiet. I just want to make a t be any • gl 126 'JUL 1 i 197$ broad overview. Mr. Mayor, I want to.remind you as Father has that I was, I am still committed to placing on the November 6th ballot something for the electorate to decide in reference to the waterfront setbacks, because I think for us to do it unilaterally would be wrong. I said then and I will say again, I will not operate under a theory that says do something even if it's wrong. I'm not going to operate under that theory. We have roughly another six may be seven weeks to put input into this proposed draft which will be submitted to the voters. (BACKGROUND COMMENT OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD) Mr. Plummer: That's exactly right. I voted against that which was proposed before us. It has now five times proven me right and I think that I heard your terminology. Let me tell you something. I'm not an expert and I never profess to be, but if I was the developers with selfish interest, by God, I hope you go with this petition. One little decimal point is right now the possible jeopardy of Metropolitan Dade County. One little decimal point and the people who took up the petition admitted that they didn't intend for it to be that way. But because those nasty Metro boys forced their hand, they are going to force it as the petition was taken up. And that's what they are going to do because you cannot substantially change a petition that was presented to the people. Mr. Mayor and Mrs. Gordon, my dear friend Mr. Paul, I still say to you I am committed to placing something on the November 6th ballot. But I plead with you to take advantage of this next six weeks, if that's the time frame and let's put something on there that is good for this community, for all of this community, but when we put it on, let's put it on right, that nobody is going to be shooting holes into, nobody is going to say I didn't have the right to speak my piece. And all I say to you is for the good of this community let's put something on the ballot that makes sense and is good for the' community,but more so is right. Mr. Paul: Let me just correct two things, Mr. Plummer, that you are in error about the procedure. First isto the Metro:. Mayor Ferre: After this Dan, we have got to let some other, people speak, because Mr. Claughton has been trying to say something for a while. And Earl Powell as been trying to say something, but... Mr. Plummer: answering me. Well, I`would appreciate Mr. Paul speaking because he was Mayor Ferre: Yes, I willlet him do that. I just want to make sure that we understand that there are other people who want to... go ahead Dan and answer the... Mr. Paul: I just wanted to point out that first on your Metro thing there is a provision in the Metro Charter for correcting axactly the kind of error that is in the Metro tax petition. It specifically provides that the Metro Commission shall revise the amendment to put it on in accordance with the intent of the framers and the people that signed it. So it's very simple to correct that little typographical error of where the decimal is placed if anybody really wants to correct it. Secondly, on this... Mr. Plummer: I hope you are right, but from what I read in the paper this morning, it doesn't seem to be the case. Mr. Paul: That's because the Metro Commission turned down the request of the circulators of the petition to correct the typographical error thinking they would go for broke. If they continue to take that arrogant attitude I think somebody will send a message to the Dade County Courthouse that they will never forget. Secondly, as far as this particular petition goes, the procedure provided in Section 503 of the Home Rule Charter is that after the petition is circulated and the signatures are collected, that the City Commission may provide a method for revising the proposal which has been circulated among the voters and making any corrections that they want to make in it before it's submitted to the public. But in view of the timing there isn't any longer... time is running out, these petitions have obviously got to go on the street this week. I'm anxious to get all the input we can get to make it as nearly correct as we can make it before we put them on the street, gl 1.27 'Jut 1 1179 but it will assure that something will go on the ballot come November 6th and the Commission and by whatever procedure it may determine will have an opportunity. It's essential for another reason too, because all building permits and estoppel under building permits is based on lack of knowledge and reliance. And once this Commission adopted that resolution back here in June that you were going to put a setback, an occupancy coverage requirement on the ballot... I don't care... the last paragraph so provides. I don't care what building permits frankly, are cut between now and then. If the amendment passes they won't be able to get a certificate of occupancy because they won't have been able to rely. They have had clear notice now from the City by adoption of that resolution and by statements of every member of this City Commission, that you intend to put something on the ballot come November. So they act at their peril. That's in place already. Mr. Claughton: Could I ask one question Dan before you... Mayor Ferre: Go ahead. Mr. Claughton: Dan, one question. In the wording of your ordinance would you agree with some of the remarks that have been made and some.that you have made, that a property such as Claughton Island that has already metall the test of what this ordinance is trying to do, that say special island district should be exempted in your wording... Mr. Paul: Well, I think that the wording does provide for that, islands... Claughton: I mean , -specifically. Mr. Paul:... and as I said, I think -the view corridors that are provided in Claughton Island are the appropriate view°corridors where you look all the way through the island instead,of ,sitting up here and listening to somebody who was carping earlier that you wouldn't be' able to see Claughton Island from Brickell Avenue. That was a total non -sequitur. Obviously, what you are interested in on Claughton Island are the long range view corridors which you have already provided... or exempting Mr. Claughton: So that the specific language in reworking it that you mentioned would probably exempt something like special island district. Mr. Paul: It would leave it up... it specifically exempts it from these:` requirements and puts it back in the lap of the City Planning Board to decide; whether thoses are the proper view corridors. And I have heard them say and I think so too, that they are the proper view corridors. Mr. Claughton: But we have already passed them and now we are up before something else, Father Gibson's point. And what I'm asking you in public and on the record is do you feel that some properties such as special island districts should specifically be exempted because we have... Mr. Paul: No, I don't feel they should specifically be exempted. I think they should have specific requirements that apply to them. Obviously, Claughton Island is a special situation unlike any other piece of Downtown waterfront property without any question. And it would be totally inappropriate to apply view corridors from Brickell Avenue to Claughton Island. The important thing are the long going through areas that you have already provided on Claughton Island. Those are the ones that you want. But that's not for the amendment to determine Ed, that is... the amendment specifically exempts those requirements as to islands and puts it back in the hands of the City. Mr. Lacasa: Mr. Paul, I have a question here. In this application that you are proposing in this last paragraph where you are talking about "any structure that was issued a permit after June 26th". You mean that we are going to make this retroactive? In other words, that if the people of the City of Miami faced with this petition decides to vote for it and impose these limitations this will be retroactive to June 26th? Mr. Paul: I think that's the effect of the resolution that you adopted on June 26th, that you put anybody on notice who got a building permit thereafter that new regulations were about to be imposed and that they will not be able to rely and the City will not be estopped. gl 128 rjuL Mayor Ferre: Well, now you better expand that and explain how it happened n-Cocoplum and how that's legal.. -Mr. Paul: Well, in Cocoplum as you know Cocoplum got all of their zoning and then a petition was circulated and there was vote and the vote reversed or revoked the zoning after they had already acted on the zoning and the case went all the way to the Florida Supreme Court and the Court held that the public always have got the right to take back that zoning provided they have had notice that these things were in the wind before the actually... what actually... that's you right under a building permit is when you start to turn dirt under the building permit without any notice that there is any kind of impediment. But all the cases that I'm familiar with on vested rights on building permits are based on estoppel and reliance and obviously, if the City has already told you before you get your building permit, that we are going to have certain setbacks and occupancy requirements and we are not going to issue certificates of occupancy for buildings that don't meet those particular requirements, you will never in my opinion be able to meet the estoppel a►td the reliance requirements in order to vest any rights under a building permit. Now, that's a legal matter and I'm sure there are lawyers that would probably disagree and the matter can very probably be litigated, but I don't thir'c any of them will--- any lawyer will disagree that building permit estoppel '_s based on reliance and lack of knowledge. And all I'm saying is as of ,'une 26th you don't have that and I put that in there on purpose because don't want to see the waterfront destroyed by a rush to permitting between now and November 6th and that's exactly what we could be in the problem r oi. Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor, again, again I want to warn the Commission, I made the observationthatif we had said-- and Mr. Paul, now I'm not a lawyer-- to"the public we will accept no more plans, we serve notice on everybody, then what is that saying "beware of the Athenians bearing wreaths. I don'tBecause r�,i-,k.•a� f-�1 in good conscience go to court and defend our position. either position is not defensible. We have not been fair to the people and obligation. Now, if ... suppose the... let me raise the other practical. Suppose that we go to the public and the public turns us down? SuFpose we gc to the public say "we want the fifty foot setback" and the public tc other tliaa heaven" what would we do? Where would we be? I'm Ist talking• about the practical... What happens to the businessman who has invested>his•money and all of us money is tied up? My brethren I hear what you say, but.l think that just common reason and fair play ought to dictate to the' contrary ,to what you are advocating and asking. Mr. �avl: No, it's not a question of... I'm not Giuson because I don't think that any reasonable .ire is going to attempt to build something in these requirements because I don't think you can is assured of getting a certificate of occupancy 'So I think it will be self-executing. I'm concerned about it Father developer with competent legal the interim that will violate get a legal opinion that he in view of the notice he now not really concerned about it. Mayor Ferre: Alright, Mr. Powell? Excuse me, Earl. If there is anybody here for the Planning Advisory Board Meeting and I see that there might be some people that have walked in... the Planning Advisory Board Meeting is meeting right next door, ok. This is not the PAB Meeting, this is a City of Miami Commission extended meeting. Mr. Earl Powell? Mr. Powell: Mr. Mayor, I represent the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce, at least I thought I did, but now I have been described as a dirt turner. It's our position and one that hasn't changed since the last time we were here, that this is a matter that requires a tremendous amount of study. Mr. Paul T. think, attempting to place something on a ballot for a public referendum that is entirely his right. And I think that the voters of the City of Miami e right and an obligation to look at that petition once he gets the signatures and decide whether or not they want to accept such an amendment to the City Charter. My guess is if the representatives of the union are any indication and with over seventy-five percent of the population of the City of Miami being either Black or Latin and people that work with their hands, that such a resolution that may have the impact of halting a half a billion dollars in construction which considering even a small multiplier effect could take out 1.5 billion dollars or more from our economy over the next few years that, that resolution may not do too well at the polls, but between now and then, I think it's certainly incumbent upon you to at least assign this proposed amendment to a study committee that can air this matter in the gl '129 J U L 1 1 1979 having to do it in the Commission Chambers. Mayor Ferre: Les r t' b ing that point to a head, because George Knox made. a statement Dan;- now, excuse me, but I want Mr. Paul to hear this-- that we. cannot vote upon this because this has to go before the Planning Board. Now, what... do you have any... Mr. Paul: ',think what Mr. Knox was referring to was your ordinance. Is tie shaking his head? There is nothing you can certainly vote on putting,a Charter Amendment on the ballot. No, we have done that. We were referring to the ordinances... Ordinances only. I don't have any quarrel with that opinion. 117;or Terre: Well, in other words, in effect what we can request now is for therPlanning Board to deliberate on this. Their meeting is on the 18th, today is the filth which is... so that meeting comes up in one week exactly, ok. And they will then be deliberating. I would imagine that once they then it can come back before the City of Miami Commission. , tat mea it will come before the Commission on the 23rd, ok. That doesn't leave you much time. Mr. Powell: .Well, it doesn't leave you much time. would like to hear what the proposals are of the... the... excuse me, Dan,.I thought you had your say. Mr Paul: .i_ Powell: lit. Paul. I was asked to answer a question. Itwould be interesting before you sit; down if you tell us what your proposals are for saving the waterfront. Mr. Powell: Well, I don't know where... you were asking where the Planning nepartment wa. uhen.everything was built. You know, I don't know that you ,,:cu13 hat la., here if they hadn't decided to build Ball Point, so... and I }:iul iu. t i_•.es are just a suspect as anyone else is. The fact of the matter i5 ell. Mayor, that you can't deal with this kind of a situation that's this complex and you have heard the people that are professionals, like Mr. Kenzie and Mr. Reid and others tell you, you can't deal with this kind of an issue. r.Nen Mr. lreister, I think, would agree with that in a space of time of two weeks or three weeks or perhaps even in two months or three months. So I would' just ask you to try to turn this item over to a study group that can er.c'd' ects and planners and zoning specialists and lawyers deal with the subject in a quite responsible fashion as opposed to having this come before the City Commission at every meeting so that we have to prepare all of these :1Li:alous arguments. It can be done in a very rational way and there may be some great merit to the proposals that Dan Paul is making, at least in some substance and that's the Chamber's position. Thank you, very much. Mayor Ferre: Are there any questions to Mr. Powell from members of the Commission from the statement he just made? Alright. Mr. Claughton: For the record Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, my name is Ed Claughton and I'm only going to take a couple of minutes. We have an awful lot of people here that want to speak. Some have been brought in from out onof the town. I want to particularly address those that voted for the putting have ballot of this proposed change, because I think that you may find youthat tuo d rode a mistake and I bkeliouewould voteare tonight, ifcourageous p possible andthat may be they you have made a mistake y can. to repeal that. *firs. Crcdon: Well, Mr. Lacasa moved it, Mr. Ferre seconded and I voted with them. That's your vote, the other two voted "no". Mr. Claughton: Those that voted for it may want to repeal it when they realize what Father Gibson has said and Mr. Reid and Mr. Kenzie everyone has said t I to point out it mean antfortthe middles of my. sentence tot come some things... didn't right in thebeginningof yours Mr. Mayor. gi 130 Mayor Ferret Well, that's alright. Mr. Claughton I can't address the Commission if we are going Mayor Ferret Well, I think, you got a valid point, wewill 'take recess. a " five minute (AT_THIS TIME THE commusio TOOK A FIVE MINUTE RECESS) Mr. Plummer: Coupled with last evening the FBI crimes statistics particularly relating to Miami. We find a decrease in Policemen in the City of Miami and I would like to see may be that we have some kind of a report from the Manager as to the situation existing presently. I would just like to have that addressed, Mr. Fosmoen. Mayor Ferre: Alright, Ed go ahead. Mr. Claughton:" Mr. Mayor and the five Honorable City Commissioners because I":have been out of town for a few days and I didn't realize Paulhad been elected to this Commission. At 5:15... Mayor Ferre: He is not even in here to enjoy your joke. I say five thatDanny Where is he? Mr. Claughton: Yes, but I think he should be. I think he should ""be. `<He is misleading you all and I think it's completely unfair. At 5:15"you said "I want to wait for Danny Paul to come because we want to get started with this by. Mayor Ferre: Well he is the Father of all of this. Mr. Claughton: He is not the Father of #19 I" don't, believe, is he? Mayor Ferre: Yes, he sure is the Father of #19... 18, 19, 20 and 21. There is the Father right there. Mr. Claughton: And at 7 o'clockhour on somethinghalf thatlater we were toldgiven atthe o'clock privilege of addressing the Commission would be up in a few minutes. This is only from an administration standpoint that I pass this on to you. We called at 4:15 and he said they are on item... your people said "they are on item 15, 17 has been withdrawn and you better get down there in a hurry" and we came in a hurry. We were told after we got here that they didn't mean 15 on the evening agenda, they meant 15 on the morning agenda, which is wrong because there isn't any 15 on the morning agenda, it's all in alphabets. "A" thru "I". Now, I think... Mr. Plummer: Which is further wrong because we don't have a night agenda. Mr. Claughton: I know it. I am ashamed of our City. I am embarrassed. I think the integrity of our City is at stake now more than anything I... any other time I have ever seen. I would just want to appeal to you for a couple of minutes. What Father Gibson said made more sense to me than anything else. It's sort of like playing a ball game and in the second quarter I'm told that I've got to punt a baseball instead of a football, because we came into the game according to your rules and we abided by them and we have been before you and I have been before you and your predecessors for twenty-three years. And I have to admit been treated very... Mayor Ferre: And you have done pretty well too, I might say. Mr. Claughton: ... and treated very fairly. And my friends say that when I build this I better put the slanted sidewalks in so that my wheelchair will be able to take me across the island because I will be that old before I ever see it developed. Twenty-three years. Now, I'm going to address specifically,. why I think the three that voted for it should move... one of you should move for the repeal of it for all the reasons that have been said plus a couple that haven't been told to you. What they are trying to do here may or may not be good, but needs more study. But we have already done it and Danny Paul in reply to my question said that it shouldn't be specifically exempted. These buildings and these lot coverages that you are going to see in just a minute, they cover may be sixteen percent, not seventy-five. If you are going to change the rules on us and say setback fifty feet when you all told us to setback twenty because you wanted it to go all the way around the island, do MM ME Mff gl 131 !JUL i t 110 you:remember that one? We have a -twenty foot all the way around. But the people that are on the up land that you want to have them setback twenty or twenty-five or thirty or fifty, they are only setting back on one side. They are not surrounded by water, this is an island. There is water on all sides. If you setback fifty on one side you are getting closer to the water on the other. :ors. Gordon: Ed, could I remind everybody of something? I think it was about five years ago that wemoved for special island districts because islands do have unique situations which do not apply to other upland areas. Mr. Claughton: Right. Mrs. Gordon: So I... you know I am agreeing with you. Mr. Claughton:Right. Mrs. Gordon: You are unique and different than any other situation. Mx. Claughton: T knew, you would feel that way... Mrs. Gordon: at it fiveyears ago_ Whip? Do you remember how many years ago it was? . Claughton: Tes, yes Ma'am. Mrs. Gordon: Whipple? Was it five years ago we, did that island special' island district? (;.ACKCROUNt COMMENT OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD) 1 - Coracr. About five years?• Ar.,Claughton: That's my point Rose and if. I` can point out to you, we are not exQrpting thin Danny said we were or we should be or something like that anc,w I coui'1n't follow "him exactly. But number one on this petition re] ates th!s fi:ty foot setba.^k and doesn't mention islands. I know, but there is amendments that have to be made. Gordon: ies Mr. Claughtun: Ok, plenty of them and one of them that should be made tonight is;an amendment existing to exempt all special island districts. That's one cling that should be done before you pursue the bigger picture which Father Gibson is pointing out that you better study the whole thing because it's rid,aed with problems. Your Planning Department has already told you about percent of them why it's bad. Now, we did what the City said to do and then we went to the South Florida Regional Planning Council and we did what they said. Now, if you pass this do we build under, let's call it the ;rany Paul Ordinance. Do we build under the Danny Paul Ordinance and get to build seventy-five percent? We will go for that in a minute. Let us build scventy-five percent. The volume will only be four times what the plan is. But you can't do it both ways to us. You can't say "well, we are going to have you develop according to the plan that we passed and that you agreed to and that everybody else that has massaged this for twenty-three years has said to do. You can't tell us to build under that, except for a couple of little things we want to change. You can't do that, that's not fair. That's not equitable, it's not the American way. If you are going to change it a couple of ways, then we will build under this one. We will build seventy-five percent lot coverage instead of thirty-five or whatever, if you follow my reasoning. Special island districts should be exempted specifically, should be exempted from the a.menr'ment going to the public and in any ordinance. Mrc. Gordon: Another reason, if you recall, those that don't recall that the special, island district is treated as a unit development which means that the er,t::e thing has to be laid out with a plan. Mr. Claughton: Exactly, Rose. Exactly. Mrs. Gordon:; So it isn't just an at random development, it's a development' that is planned to be... Mr."Claughton: Planned unit development.. PUD or whatever... Mrs. Gordon:. Exactly gl that's the whole idea behind it. 132 Uti31979 Mr. Claughton: And every single point that Danny Paul wants to address has already been addressed on this particular island. Mrs. Gordon: I'm sure it's Danny's... Mr. Claughton: Setbacks, see through... we got see through hery8 corridors, wehggot he double see through corridors, we have small density, we the bay is the island wants. Now, then just think for a minute what p blocking from the public? I think the public ought to be able to see the view. Heck, I think they should be able to see the view from Biscayne Boulevard. We got a beautiful Bicentennial Park and somebody thought of building a berm, so the public can't see one bit of the water from Biscayne Boulevard in the largest single tract of land in the City of Miami. I can't believe it. Mayor Ferre: By public you mean the people that ride in automobiles pass it, you mean? Mr. Claughton: Yes, because if you are talking about any other public, then I need know what public you are talking about because if you are going to put them up in buildings and let them look at the water, then you don't need these ground level see through vistas, you see. Mayor Ferre: Have you ever tried to see the water as you drive down Biscayne Boulevard and Bayfront Park where there are no berms? Mr. Claughton: No... yes, Mayor Ferre: Well, you better becarefulbecause you might have an accident if you try doing: that, because it's dangerous. Mr. Claughton: Yes, but my point is you can't see it. .I don't know why Danny Paul is preoccupied with trying to show the water to the public. The public isn't asking for this. You know, when tnm you untnaluzet thisltis here Roseis Gordon, single... you know, the best analogy... said that when you did the beer deal twenty-six thousand people voted on it and only twenty-six of them... only a difference of twenty-six votes and that's coming not a mandate. I don't think it is either. And I don't think one guy g up here and saying he doesn't want to have his view blocked from his law office by some building that might be built in Downtown Miami constitutes a mandate. We can't legislate by crisis. We can't legislate bytman acocoming daup up and saying if you don't pass this, I'm going to pass a peit get everybody to sign it. Now, you all know better than that. We all know better than that. I'm going to pause in just a minute and interrupt a pro that knows something about this, because I admit that I don't. Except I know what fair play is and this isn't right. I don't think the ordinance is good yououtif Y ou excluded the island, but I do think that decency and honesty cry to amend whatever you have done and to make sure that the wordage is put in there so that special island districts are exempted because we have already complied with what you are saying... expressly overtly saying that you want to accomplish by this thing. I would like to also ask if there is anyone that feels thatnance at may be more planning is necessary, that a motion be made to repeal and give your Planning Department and give your experts a chance, because I think you have been inundated tonight with evidence of how bad this is single families, how bad it is on the development, how bad it is on the town, how bad it is on the taxpayer and further study is not going to do anything except may be not allow you to get on the ballot by November and I don't believe anything would be lost by that. Good laws sometime oietake more d time Squthan Gust as a couple of weeks. As you know, an organization purchased seventy-five percent. A large segment of the island. We spent a million dollars building a bridge. I tried for years, you know, to get you all to do it, that is your predecessors and they wouldn't go for that. We spent a million dollars to build a bridge and turned around a couple of months ago and gave it to you. Based upon the vested right that we have in that plan right there. We have a right to rely on our City officials, I think. We spent another million in film, bulkhead and plans and everything.incUtilities. We have a right... in the law it's called a vested right. You the ball game, you can't change the rules in the middle of a ball game. You just can't do it. We have join together... the Claughtons have and witthd w the e nave Squire-Cheezam people who are wonderful people by the way what we think to be the finest land planners in the Country. It's a firm called RTKL out of Baltimore. One of their senior partners is flown down here to present to you all what I think you at least are caused to be concerned and that's my point, you can't see the water. gl UL 6 with by the introduction to this, something called see through corridors and< setbacks. And I would like to introduce at this time and let him feel any questions you may have, Mr. Charles Lamb from Baltimore. Mr. Lamb: Thank you, Ed. Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, I feel very fortunate to be here tonight representing two very fine clients on the same island. It's a unique situation, I don't know of any comparable situation in the United States today and I appreciate the fact that we are serving two clients on adjacent properties. What we have shown here in front of you today are just excerpts from approximately two dozen planning documents that will in a matter of days be presented through the process for approval in your City. This is a combination of five intensive months of work by my firm. These excerpts as well as the other two dozen documents that comply in every respect to the existing ordinance that governs the development of this island. I am apprehensive though that the amendment that you have before you is not well conceived. I am apprehensive that it may and we have not had time to assess it's impact on our island. I know that we hope to be under construction in just a matter of weeks. I'm apprehensive that we will be held up. A moratorium would be a disaster for our team and our aspirations for the island. I reviewed the amendments and all of it's copies and as presently drafted, I don't believe that isappropriate for the City of Miami. Now, I'm going to take off my hat for a minute and speak to you as an urban planner because it may. be that the island is exempted. But in the five months that I have been flying down here weekly to Miami, I have grown very fun of this City and I can say that coming in last night from the airport and seeing that full moon rise over Biscayne Bay it really did something inside. You really felt charged up. The goals behind your ordinance amendments are all fine and I believe in them and I believe in vistas and view. I believe in setbacks. But it's a question of how those are applied in terms of the numbers. It's a very complicated and complexed issue and I urge you to take the time to think this matter through. Take the suggestions of your Planning Department, take the suggestions of others who have spoken here tonight and conceive this amendment if you proceed at all in this amendment, as doing good things for the City of Miami. The City of Miami is shortly going to be very much on the map as a major American City taking it's place with major urban components, transit, possibly people mover systems, ur. ara parks and plazas, very exciting mixtures, programs. You have an opportunity and you should take advantage of that opportunity right now. Don't cut it off by an ill-conceived amendment. Putting on that hat as an urban planner again, and you should conceive of your City as a lot of interrelated parts. The base planes of those parts are very important, levels one, two and three are especially important. The interrelationship of land uses, retail, restaurants, boutiques, the movement of people, second level walkway systems, where you move to a people mover system ultimately and so forth. These interrelationship of parts are served by the base planes. If you devise an amendment that isolates each one of your components in Downtown Miami into distinct and discreet parts you lose that integration. It's almost as if you were conceiving an amendment for a suburban office park or an industrial park where you have discreet components. I urge you not to do that. However, your objectives and goals behind it I'm not quarreling with, but you should look at each area of your city individually. Each one has a kind of unique character and opportunity vistas and views, whether they be at grade level, whether they be at second level or third level. Whether the roads are at the first level or the second level. Whether the people mover is at the second or third or the fourth. All of these components should be taken into account. The bay and the ocean are our primary resource and you should not turn away from it, you should incorporate that into these views and vistas. My firm as a response to the specific design of Claughton Island has been to recognize it's unique setting. There is not another setting of a major island of forty-four acres next to an urban setting in this entire United States. I don't know of anything like it comparably internationally. The opportunity as listed here is literally spell binding and it's an opportunity not only for the developers of Claughton Island, it's an opportunity for the City of Miami. Our plan as I've briefly stated meets all the open space requirements. This green plan that you see here, the darker green color is the thirty-five percent open space met both by the Squire-Cheezam Development portion and the Claughtor. portion. The lighter green area is the landscaped plazas. These are pedestrian areas that are landscaped. They do not buy the DRI criteria meet open space requirements by definition. However, they are in effect, the same. They are public open space, green space for the residents living there. The small model that you see down here illustrates view corridors. The ones that have the red dots on them specifically respond to the requirements of the DRI criteria. 134 .There are other view corridors too, that don't specifically. respond, but they should be listed and shown in context. of theisland. We believe this meets the intent of the DIR ordinance. However, if.you put a moratorium on all development including Claughton Island, we can't go ahead. We have at the present time twenty-seven people working on the various phase of development to this island. If we stopped it's going to be a catastrophic situation for-. -our entire development team. - Mr. Plummer: Sir, may I stop you fora minute? Mr. Lamb: Yes. Mr. Plummer: Because you keep referring it is not what exists today? Mayor Ferre: No, of course, not. (BACKGROUND COMMENTS INAUDIBLE) o this model. This model which is... Mr. Plummer: The point I'm trying to:.make is that, that which you are using as your, model here does not. in anyway. give a true picture of,what exists. And if you are using that as your reference, then something is obviously, radically wrong. (BACKGROUND COMMENT INAUDIBLE) Mr. Plummer: Yes, but Ed, look... Mayor Ferre: Plummer: what he is saying is this is what it could look like, it isn't what it is now. Mr. Lacasa This is a mixture... Is this a mixtureof whatexist plus what it. could be projected for the future? ThAt's understandable. (BACKGROUND COMMENT INAUDIBLE) Mayor Ferre: Let me ask .you. . when you say view corridor, do you mean from the ground view? (BACKGROUND COMMENT INAUDIBLE) Mayor Ferre: Well, which are which? Are you going to be able to stand on the ground at anyone of these points and see it that way along the street? Anyone of those green areas... in other words, my question is, is aren't there any parking garages anywhere there? (BACKROUND COMMENT INAUDIBLE)' Mayor Ferre: That would preclude the view. So you see what Mr. Paul... I don't know where he is now, I guess he is gone. (BACKGROUND COMMENT INAUDIBLE). Mayor Ferre: I'm just trying to get to the point, you know. According to what this thing was originally intended to do as drafted by Dan Paul and Rose. (BACKGROUND COMMENT INAUDIBLE) Mayor Ferre: Well, ok, but Mr. McMullen and Dan.Paul when they drafted this thing and after further discussion... McMullen was involved in the drafting of it, there is no question about it and Dan Paul specifically told that to me,' that this corridor... the idea was,... you know, it included parking garages, so my question to you is are there any parking garages 9 (BACKGROUND COMMENT INAUDIBLE) Mayor Ferre: Which is ground level? The green? (BACKGROUND COMMENT INAUDIBLE) Mayor Ferre: Ok. JUL .1 1 1979 gl (BACKGROUND COMMENT INAUDIBLE) Mr. Lacasa: What is this structure here? No, on the, west side othe`island. The one next to the... that's the one. (BACKGROUND'COMMENT INAUDIBLE) Mayor Ferre: In effect then, within that structure... ;wouldyou put your marker right in the middle? That's it, right there. From that point there you cannot see any water anywhere. It will be like Hialeah. (BACKGROUND 'COMMENT INAUDIBLE) Mt. Lacasa: Which are the highrises? (BACKGROUND COMMENTS INAUDIBLE) Mr. Plummer: Ed, almost anywhere, ok. (BACKGROUND COMMENT INAUDIBLE) Mr. Plummer T egreer (BACKGROUND :COMME 'T INAUDIBLE) . Mr. Plummer: Sure. Ed, you don't have the first tree on there now. Mr. Claughton: Yes, we do. We got lots, of,.trees... If You .stand sight here right now you can seethe bay, because that's the bay. :,If "You want to` -see this bey You are going to have to get up -,on a ladder... because the island'`is seven feet high, and you are 'only; six feet. iiayor Ferrel ies, but that's true of the River too. "t'iunmer: vista views.. But the point ,I Claughtoi': You all are. rying to make, you are talking about so-called Ir. Plummer: No, no, now, let's just calm down a little bit. Since the point that I'm trying to get back to you is, you made a big point about the berms nn. er.±en^i41. Now, the point I'm trying to come to, this is not realistically being able to be called a vista view. Mr. Claughton: Do you know who it's called vista view by? A11 the governments that we have been before, the State, the South Florida Regional, everybody. And this is lined up so that you can see all the way through and this is lined vn so that you can see all the way through. You can stand on any point in the island and see the water.. Now, if you want to get up here on Brickell Avenue, you can't see the water now. (BACKGROUND COMMENTS INAUDIBLE) Mr. Plummer: Below ground level? (BACKGROUND COMMENT INAUDIBLE) Mr. Lamb: I would like to introduce just for a moment Mr. Charles Cheezam, �y neighbor and I would lovingly call him my partner, but he is really just Rry neighbor and a wonderful guy. Charlie? Mr. Cheezam: Thank you, Ed. Thank you, for the privilege of speaking. I'm ;:i sorry that Mr. Paul didn't stay to cross examine us on all of this because ‘:e have sincerely tried to meet not only with your criteria, but that of the Southwest Regional Planning Council and the other agencies of your government that we have tried to make these plans conform with. We are not asking for any variance, nor did we ever intend to come to ask you for any variance. We brought this property in good faith. We have depended upon the DRI and your approval of it and subject to governmental approvals. And we basically.. I'm just going to go through this very quickly because it's been said before, but I can tell you from the bottom of my heart that when you talk of moratoriums and when you talk of holding patterns and these sort of things you make it impossible for not only us, but every other developer. And those that have in good faith taken out permits since the 26th of June, their financial 136 riUl 1 1474 institutions are in much worse position perhaps, than our. Because I can tell you we are looking at a thirty million dollar loan and until this matter is cleared up, we are not going to be able to proceed, not that one minute. And we have made our plans. We expect to have our permit for the foundation on our first building into your City on Monday. We have literally spent over a million dollars getting ready to do this. We have sent out invitations and I promise you we didn't send out theseinvitations for ground breaking and sales ceremonies, because we knew of this ordinance or the possibility that you would take the action that you are taking. But it has made a very,very devastating situation out of one that we have proceeded in good faith to pursue. We did this and inspite of what Mr. Paul said it was at the insistence and the sell of the Downtown Development Authority which I think that every Miamian should be extremely proud of because there is no other development authority in this Country that I know of, that's not envious of the job that has been done here in Miami both by the Chamber of Commerce, both by the Downtown Development Authority and I could tell you as an outside developer who has been in your midst for five years, that there is no other municipality in Florida that welcomes and treats as fairly as Miami does. In our other project at Brickell Place both phase I and phase II, we have never been down here to ask you for any variance. We take your rules and your regulations and we live by them to the letter. As a matter of fact, here at Brickell Key and Claughton Island and Brickell Place, we are not asking for it nor did we base our plans on the maximum densities or the minimum vista view corridors. You are getting more corridor space, more open space, more landscaping and more views than you have bargained for with us in good faith. Now, we did this-- I hate to say selfishly, but we want a successful project just as much as you do. This that's been pointed out and correctly so is a veryunique opportunity. It's a unique responsibility and we certainly want to come away from this project and tell everyone in the world of our participation in it. Getting back to your Downtown Development Authority, our company was not in a position to buy this property. We were able to do this with seventeen million dollars in cash, which is not an easy thing to raise in today's scheme of things. And we went through our friends in Hong Kong, who incidentially our own Governor Askew talked to these people in Hong Kong and encouraged them on coming to Florida and specifically on coming to South Florida. We brought them over here, we took them through the Downtown Development Authority's presentation and within two weeks they made a commitment to buy this island. And there is no one, I don't believe, in this room would ever say and I believe that there are several here that are aware of the circumstances-- no one could ever say that any outside international investor acted that quickly, with that much money to bring into your midst. And why did they do it? They did it because they were relying upon the reputation that is permeated from the work that you people have done through your Planning Department, Zoning and fair play and as presented by your Downtown Development Authority. The international banking community all over the world is looking at Miami. And if you put a moratorium on this thing at a time when everybody who knows anything knows economy is going down three consecutive months, you are talking about stopping literally millions of dollars of work putting thousands of people out of jobs, because frankly, even at Brickell we have about six hundred people employed there, we've got the roof on both of those buildings. We would like to move those same people at Claughton Island, but if you stop this thing for six months the momentum could never get back in place for another six months. What you are doing to us, is putting us out of business for one year and this is just a small segment of the thirty-five or so major projects that you have spent thousands and millions of thousands of hours, millions of dollars to get ready to present to the world and here you are telling them. And the financial community is just like a sewing circle, you do one of these things to us and a thirty million dollar loan is a pretty big significant thing. You don't have too many of them here, but they have... whisper goes out so fast you wouldn't believe it. It's like a bad insurance risk. The insurance companies tell each other tonight what happened today and the financial community is the same way. If you treat us this one and if you treat these other developers this way, the word is going to be on the street and all of this that you have put forth to bring and to make Miami the most outstanding international City in the United States, the most progressive, the... really on the verge of becoming the most modern if just about half the things that you have made possible to happen, happens Miami will become truly a great city. And it just kills me to think that at this time you can consider doing this and I along with my good friend Mr. Claughton, would certainly echoe the thing that you ought to reconsider this moratorium... and no matter how you call it this is a moratorium. If this ordinance... Mayor Ferre: There is no moratorium as of now. What we have... the only thing that's passed upiuntil now, Mr. Cheezam is that we have voted to put 137 on the ballot on November 6th something which obviously needs amendment. Mr. Cheezam: I think as it's drafted, I would have to agree with Mr. Paul and I would have to refer it to my attorneys, but I know that our financiers will not close our loan on this construction with a possibility that we would have a non-comforming... They are going to say "you are going to have to wait to see what that is". We are not going to close that loan and I guarantee you we are not going to move forward until they do it. And nobody else can do that either. Mayor Ferre: Is there any harm done to your project or to any of these projects, in your opinion, if this thing is deliberated on by the Planning Board on the 18th and brought to the Commission on the 23rd? Mr. Cheezam: I really think that the ordinance as it has now... as it has boen passed... Mayor Ferre: There is no ordinance, it hasn't been passed. vr C1-,eez"--1• Alright let tne say this and I'm not a legal technician by any stretch -• - • - •-••••.•-- , ' • of imaginatiot. If indeed the facts are that you :ave put everyone on notice legally al d effectively, that any proceeding now is one at their own risk. The mortgk ge company They will not allow us to start building and we... isnot going to go on the line for this mortgage. mP7or ver-r, But you are not going to start building by the 23rd of July, is Tin, question to you? Mr. Cheezam: Well, I would have... Mayor Ferre: Today is the llth, the 23rd is twelve days rom now. Mr. Cheezark: I say to you, we will be in here Monday if ' Mr. V.A. Lee comes .:ugh with his plans and I believe he will for our building permit for the fot ndation on bui.lding. And how long it will take to process in fair tin Is '11.12 d 'e o: we.eks. may or we may not be in there, that hopefully would De t.'nere. I do say to you that the critical thing would be the finsnring institution, if we can convince them to close our loan, we could proceed. I don't believe we could do that. I would have to ask our attorney 1,,,hat his position is going to be. Garson: My name is Matt Garson, I'm with Mr. Traurig's office at 1401 Bricl.ell Avenue. I would submit to you at this point we are prepared to Stibitlit our final development plans to the Planning Department. That our concept plans were approved under the SPD-1 Zoning Ordinance four years ago when there was no further need at this time for any public review and we were prepared to commence construction in the next two weeks. Mayor Ferre: The next what? • Mr. Garsort: Within the next two to three weeks depending on the approval of the Planning Department of our final development plan. Mayor Ferre: Well, but you know just as well as I do, that a plan of the magnitude of what you are going to present on Monday is not going to be approved within the first week. That takes at least two weeks as you know. Mr. Carson: Yes, that's what I'm saying, but we are prepared to submit it within the next week and subject to review. • Yayor Ferre: Ok, if you submit it on Monday it will not be approved, I can nee you no matter what happens, by the 23rd of July. Mr. Gerson: I also advise that we are only going in on a phase development for our first phase which consists of two buildings and not the entire island. Mr. Lacasa: Mr. Mayor, I would like to make some comments at this point, becaus I believe that we have two different situations here and those could be resolved nay be tonight. Let's go back to June 26th. What we voted on June 26th was to place on the November ballot an amendment to the existing zoning regulations for the waterfront properties. On that particular resolution by the City Commis there was no mention at all of any moratorium either expressed or implied. The gl 133 e sion On't 1 en question of the moratorium came today to discussion because there has been this second amendment... Mayor Ferre: No, this is about the fifth one. Mr. Lacasa: Whatever. It says #2 here. This... I'm going to call it like it is in this paper. Amendment #2 presented by Mr. Paul, which includes in the last paragraph a moratorium. A defacto moratorium. Because I understand that no one could go on and start building, getting into financing and so I wforth with the possibility of what you do today might be reversed tomorrow. on the majority when I voted to place it on the ballot. Not because I believed in this, but because I believe in the right of the citizens to express their views in what I think is a major issue in the City of Miami. And that is the access to the waterfront, how should it be regulated, so forth. torThe as question and I speak for myself, of this last paragraph far as I'm concerned is totally and completely out of the question. Let me explain to you why. I cannot think of anything more detrimental tostthe lit credibility of an institution being public or private, that the possibility of a reversion of this nature. The retroactivity of laws and regulations that affects those that has gone into a situation in good faith on reliance of the existing regulations is to me sacred. I do agree with you and I do agree with the gentleman that has spoke on behalf of the unions, that we are now here in the City of Miami at a critical point. We are trying to develop pathe City, we are trying to do it with the help not only of those local, eut with those out of the City, like in your particular case. There is no way that we can proceed with a substantial development of the City of Miami unless we live up to the expectations of those that have credibility on our systetonight From that standpoint of view you can rest assured that I am going that we clear this question of the moratorium once and difor all. There butIis too much at stake here and by that I don't mean only your an the future of the City of Miami. So it is very important for me that you lt of understand, hassiblte at amnendmentexist nplacedas ton theuballotafor rtherconsiderationresolution is just a po the voters in November, which... Mayor. Ferre: Wait a minute... Mr. Lacasa: Let me finish. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Let's get a copy of it. Lacasa: I would like to finish Mr. Mayor Ferre: was passed. Mr. Ongie: MT. Mayor, it was passed in motion form. tonightin resolution form as Item 18. Mayor Ferre: No, sir that's been changed. Mrs. Gordon No, what you passed was a motion. Mr. Ongie: What we passed was a motion on Tuesday, the 26th. Mr. Lacasa: So to finalize my comments, I will like to put yourself at ease as far as the situation that we have tonight here. We are not talking at the present time of a moratorium of any kind. What we are talking here is... because this is a proposition that is not and has not been approved by this City Commission. What we are talking here is of the possibility of placing in the ballot that something that if approved on November 6th will be in effect there on, but uation.retroactively for what I voted forleast onthis Juneis my 26 h andunderstanding not off this sit intend to change my voting tonight or thereafter. Mrs. Gordon: Would the clerk furnish us with the motion that was passed? Mayor Ferre: I have it right here. I will read it for you. (READS MOTION RECORD)... You all have this in your package as Item 1118...(CONTINUES).. Mr. Lacasa: Mr. Mayor, let me emphasize one point in this resolution that we were talking about. On the first paragraph Section 1, it says...(READS FROM SECTION 1 OF THE of N)... and there is no mention whatsoever of any retroactivity any Would you get a copy, is all`I wanted to say.`. Please, of what 139 It is on your agenda JUL 111979 gl �rssa.�semva+r •.»+ry«r�av:+:•�r�=�c:.�lv�:r�tie'�^usffio: Mr. Garson: May I point one thing out that several hours ago, Mr. Paul pointed to a case which he referred to as the Cocoplum case and the fact that we were put on notice that this was coming before the electorate and that o we werefertacting at our peril. And that was the type of case and that's the type Mr. Cheezam is talking about, that he is concerned that his lenders are going to come to us and whichour thisCommissionon. The prev previory usly askedrforion which he that someone ised publicly and get started on Claughton Island. Mr. Claughton: Let me sum up because I think we finished... I want to point out to Mr. Lacasa one thing in summing up. You are right about the moratorium and they way you feel about it, but the unfortunate thing which Charlie there is trying to get over to all of the Commissioners is that the very Sefact sthat you ely have voted it without specifically excepting that island, zoned, without exempting it from your passage puts a cloud over it so that no lender is going to operate. It is exactly as if you had passed a moratorium. He will not be able to get his loan because of what Matt has just said. So you got a kind of a double barrel there. Mr. Lacasa: But let me tell you what the problem that we all are facing here: is. It goes beyond this, because the problem that you have is that there is a petition... (BACKGROUND COMMENTS INAUDIBLE) Mr. Lacasa: Mrs. Gordon:There is no petition on this issue. Mr. Lacasa: Excuse me. It was annouced today by Mr. Dan Paul, here in, front of everybody here that he intendsto have this petition drive starting next week, if I heard correctly. Mr. Claughton: That's what I understood. have it on the record. It should be on the record. i where we will have Mr. Lacasa: And you might a a petition So whar.;you are facing is this type of situation, drive. Mrs. Gordon, publicly has stated so d h is'sponsoring 'that petition drive. Mr. Paul... Mayor Terre: Mr. Lacasa: is endorsing Mayor:Ferre:' Mr. Lacasa: And the Miami News. And probably some other members of the media. So let's be realistic about this, ok. We have here �agn example of the kind of petition that these ladies and gentlemen are Mr. Claughton: And what I was trying to tell Danny is that he ought to specifically exempt special island districts because we have already complied with what they are after. bnleksyou fallsminto thatmotion categoryhtunlessexempt exempt and anything else that you thin that piece he can't move ahead. He cannot move ahead. Mr. Lacasa: But it's very easy... what we are discussing here is not what we can do. What we are discussing here... Mr. Claughton: You can amend that... you can amend and say this part of the Zoning Ordinance: that'' has to do with island-- I don't know how many islands you've got, but everything that's a special island district, that's what you gave us, that what you passed, you see. Now, you can exempt that because nothing in that ordinaflCe applies to it. Rose, will tell you that. an she They had a public hearing on the.5th a Excuse me. Mr. Paul, this petition drive. today here and the -Miami Herald Mrs. Gordon: There are onlytwo islands that could even begin to fall into this and the only one that would be affected is the one that you have. Mr. Claughton: Right. Mrs. Gordon: And I find it a reasonable amendment to make to it and I would so move that the islands district be not included in the proposal. Because the 'JUL 1 1 14VO 140 gl island district is already a controlled instrument by it's own regulations. It is a instrument which regulates tie placement of buildings, the amount of buildings and everything else there is to do with the development. And for that reason it's already a controlled vehicle that we can use to buy whatever we need. Mayor Ferrer I will recognize you for the purposes of a motion after everybody has had an opportunity to have their say. Mrs. Gordon: Well, the motion is already on the table Mayor and if it gets a second Mayor Ferre: I did not recognize you for thepurposes of a motion and technically therefore, it is not on the table and the Chair does not recognize that motion. Now, who else wants to speak? Mr. Claughton: I thinkwe have concluded, unless... that's the only point I wanted to make is thatwe have already complied and... Mayor Ferre: Ed, under discussion so I... I want you to understand. I'm not trying to... God knows that I'm not trying to create a habit in the construction industry nor put a stop to all of these things. I want you to understand that I think that theory as I have told Dan from the very beginning...that in theory I think what he is attempting to do makes sense. What he is trying to do is. trying to prevent a repetition of what happened in Miami Beach. Nobody likes that. I don't think you like it. When you drive down Collins Avenue you are a hundred yards away from the Atlantic Ocean and no where can you see the ocean. It's unreal. You can go for literally four miles along Miami Beach, you could throw a stone over a building and hit the ocean and yet you don't see the ocean. Now, I think... I completely agree with what we are trying to achieve here. The problem we are having here is struggling and trying to achieve it. Now, you say we are going to exempt irregular lots. Well, now let me ask you this, if you were Ted Hollo, ok... now he happens to have a square lot. I`wouid imagine that his is not irregular, ok. Now, why should we penalize Ted Hollo because his l.ot happens to be square, when all of the sudden you heard tonight Dan Paul say that "there is no question that Ball Point is an irregular lot",`you "see. So now we are going to except Ball Point and we are excepting Mr. Gould and we excepting the...now, I assume if Ball Point is irregular, then of course, obviously the Elks Point is irregular and if that is irregular and you know you go right down the line to all these irregular lots, then what in effect... who are we applying this to? One or two properties? Three properties? Mr. Claughton: My answer is that's why it needs further study, but being very specific on the island, you have already reviewed it. Your City Commission and your Planning Department has already said these are the setbacks from thewater and these are the see through corridors and we said "ok, that's what we will plan". We are talking about the same ball game, you see. Mayor Ferre: Yes. I could play games with this because I think that the original intention of this whole thing as discussed between Dan and John McMullen was to stop Ball Point and to stop Watson Island. Now, obviously if I go along with Rose's motion in a little while, in effect, we brought Watson Island out of it. So one of them has been solved because of it's irregular shape and the other one because it's an island. So in effect the original intention of all of this is therefore, diluted to nothing. Mr. Claughton: I didn't say exempt islands. I said exempt special island districts which is a legal term in your own law. Mrs. Gordon District, that's a different thing than Watson Island.' Mr. Mrs. You pass one ordinance and it's called a SPD-1... Gordon: Right. Mr. Claughton: ... and it has already been purposes that the goals which we agree with don't make us do again what we have already there that has already conformed to the law all I'm saying. And that's only one SPD. massaged over and over you on. So all we are done. Exempt that one that you are trying to s'right.. fo.r the same saying is entity right pass. That's Mayor Ferre: And all I'm saying is that what we are trying to achieve in this gl 'dui ! et Tara. whole process if we are dealing in good faith, is an open area for all properties, for all properties. And that includes for example, the Miami Convention Conference Hall. I don't see any reason why all of the sudden that should be exempted. I`>;don't see any reason why anything should be exempted because it's irregular in shape or otherwise. Mr. Claughton: I'm just going to sum up by saying.. I'm not saying exempted because it's irregular. I say the law is bad because it's got that terminology in it. Like you, I agree with you. I'm saying exempted because we have already complied with what goes hereafter in the ordinance and not to exclude us puts. the whole world and the lenders on notice and we are absolutely scuttled here tonight. Mrs. Gordon: May I clarify the zoning intent, since I happen to have a little experience in the zoning line, Mr. Mayor. I explained before and I repeated it several times, that the island district has it's own regulations which control what you can put on there and you cannot do as you can on an upland area and design whatever you want with just setback restrictions. Claughton Island was designed to fit the lot, to fit the shape of the island, it has restrictions on it and it did go through the DRI. It went through the whole process and it went under this concept of a planned island development. It was created. The whole ordinance of planned island development was created, I believe speci`ically for Claughton Island. Because it was known that if it didn't have :ertain specific control could have become a monstrosity, but it is not a mon.trosity because it was designed to fit the particular situation of this urban it -land. It's an urban island close to Downtown. It is separated by water... Mayor. Ferre: Just like Watson Island. Mrs. Gordon:. No, Watson Island is a public piece of land and you are dealing with apples and oranges. Now, let's talk just about the apples and there is aly.Ohe. apple and that is Claughton Island. There is no other, it's it. P1ur,n:er orr That's what I heard Mr. Jaffer say, it's keeps growing and growing.. Elw about Fair Isle, are they. involved? Nr. Plummer: Yes Mr. Grassier I believe they are Piayor Ferre: They are what? MI. Grassie: I: believe that they want to do.` Mayor; Ferre: to move along. recognize Rose Mr. Rice: because they are not fully developed permanent already, "Mayor. they are permenant for the amount o development For the whole. project. Alright, '_let 's... it's 9:30, we've -.got So let's see if we . can get the , for that motion. . Mayor, excuse me, please. I'm next speakers and: then I will Mayor Ferrer Mr. Fine has been raising his hands want .to have an argument betweenthe two of you. for a long time and I don't Mr. Rice: I just wanted to say, I'm double dipping here tonight and I'm right now in another meeting and I think this will: be my last chance, if you will give me just a minute. Yn„rr Ferre: Ok, Mr. Rice. M. Rice: I am John Rice, my company is Interra and we are planning the development of three hundred feet on Brickell Avenue, just South of Visccaya North rgntial apartments. 4e lie between two blinders it you will, the lowers .,ui its to the South and Viscaya North to the North of us. Your Commission, you have just approved a project that's being developed on the academy of the assumption and they will be building out, something like I believe twenty-six feet to their property line. We saw no reason to stand in opposition to that project because we were already blinded by Viscaya North and they rea:ly couldn't do anything more to us. Our property line actually goes all the way out to the bulkhead line, which lines up directly with the existing bulkhead line at Viscaya North and at the CTA or UTD Towers Building. So if we sit back twenty gl 142 tact ! wr POSI feet or twenty-five feet now, we are already back two hundred twenty-five feet from the site line along that outer bulkhead line and the two properties to the North and the South of us. We have some seven hundred forty feet of depth from Brickell Avenue all the way to the Bay. Ideally we would like to build our building as close to that water line as possible because we do not plan to fill in or apply to fill in the property in the bay bottom which we own. I submit to you that there is two sides to this issue. There is the front and the back. And the people coming along Brickell Avenue between 25th Road and 15th road have no opportunity to see the water in any event. It's so far removed from there. What they do have an opportunity to see is the ambience of Brickell Avenue, particularly in the area that we are located. The beautiful trees and planting. And if you take a building and require it to be removed further... fifty feet from the rear property line, it's going to move fifty feet closer than it otherwise would to Brickell Avenue. And you are going to be destroying something which really has something of value to the people who daily travel along Brickell Avenue. On the water side of Brickell Avenue where we are located, you are not really in Navigable water ways. We are far removed from the the intercoastal, we are in very shallow waters three to four feet at low tide and there is no one there to see it. There is no public access to that waterfront from 25th Road, the Brickell Townhouse, all the way to Viscaya North Apartments. So there is nothing to be gained here at all for the public if this ordinance or this ordinance as proposed would be adopted by the City Commission. I submit that what we need in this effort is some wisdom and less emotion and I believe you are going to get that if you follow the orderly processes which are provided in your ordinances to take this before the Planning Board, have the public hearings where you can get the input, not just of us who are involved in it, but the professional who can counsel you and you will come up with peramaters. that I submit that the public will be gained much more than by that which is proposed. And I think Mr. Cheezam, it's going to be in your interest that this take place, because as it's been suggested some kind of petition is going to be going around this town and it may be a real lousy one. And I submit that if something comes out of the City Commission, that also is on the agenda next November, that the constituency of this City will vote rationally and everybody will be happy. Thank you. Mayor Ferre: Precisely my point. Thank you, very much Mr. Rice. I think you. said it much: better than I have been trying to say.Thank you. Mr. Fine: For the record my name is Martin Fine and I'm representing Miami Center Associates who is the developer of the proposed Hyatt House Hotel on top of the Conference Center and Convention Center built by the University. Very briefly, I'm very confused because we have so many documents floating. around. Mr. Paul was kind enough to furnish me with a copy of amendment #2 that Mr. Lacasa quoted... Mayor Ferre: Well, let me correct you, I'm sorry. That isn't... I don't know whether it's amendment one or two. It's about the fifth or the six draft. The first draft was passed out at a Downtown Development Authority... I'm sorry Chamber of Commerce Meeting. I Have got them all numbered. I will be happy to give you copies of all of them and Dan Paul at that meeting who saying that Rose Gordon was proposing that the following day at a Tigerbay luncheon which was a Wednesday of about two or three weeks ago. And since that time this thing has been amended at least four times, this is the fifth amendment, so... and I'm sure it will be amended again. Mr. Fine: Let me say this, the amendment that I have before me specifically exempts the Miami Convention Center for the reason that the City has already drawn a partial permit for it. Mayor Ferre: That wasn't what was passed at the last meeting. Mr. Fine: I know and my concern is, that in my opinion what was passed at the last meeting should be amended tonight much as I think you have been asked to do for Claughton Island, because unless you amend it, in my opinion, you jeopardize the City's Convention Center and the proposed Hyatt House Hotel. Because you have passed, at least on first reading and I don't know Mr. Knox, if it has to be on the second reading, but you have passed something which in my opinion would prevent any financial institution from financing this or a bond house from selling bonds with an ordinance that says that this building can't possibly be in compliance with as I understand it. Now, with all these folk from the City here if someone has a different idea, that's fine. My opinion is at this point in time, that unless you specifically exempt the Miami Convention Center from the terms of the ordinance that you previously gl 143 idyl 1 2 1979 passed and .the basis for doing that is that actually. construction has started and is on going at the present time and permits are being taken at various stages, I think you place that center and any proposed improvement there in serious jeopardy. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Fine, God knows that I don't want to see that center jeopardized. The newspapers in this town have been totally irresponsible in their editorial policies on this issue and I think that until we get some clarification and we go through a proper process of going through the Zoning Board and having input and have Jim Reid and everybody who is involved in this discuss this thoroughly and come out with something that we can live with. The reality of the situation ‘.;l:ether it's Dan Paul or Rose Gordon and now she wants to deny this whole thing, you know or whoever it is that's going to get this on a petition, this matter is going to be used as a political sledgehammer. They are going to get the twelve thousand eight hundred signatures, there is nothing to that. We can do that very easily. And I think that what we need to do is to come back with something that is reasonable, well reasoned, not a cockamamy thing that's been •!o^ig ed, ever designed, gone up and down, side ways , round and back and forth and Ken Treister was working on it desperately all day today. I talked to him several times and Dan Paul has admitted that John McMullen had something to do with the drafting of the original one, because he gave me some very valid points that he, 1)an Pau accepted and changed in the second draft. Now, the point I'm trying to male to you is, that the best way for us to deal reasonably with this is not to elempt anybody, but to have this thing go before the Planning Board and that's ;here all these things should be dealt with and then we finally should deal with them on the 23rd of this month. Mr. Fine: Mr. Mayor, I just want to share with you my grave concern both for my client and for the City of Miami and this Convention Center. Under the re ent;cliiate I am of the opinion that no responsible lender will lend money tc any public or private project in an area that's involved here nor will any t..apater. responsible attorney render an opinion to that lending institution that they can in good conscience proceed with any permit issued after June ?Ate And chile none of you probably intended to do that, you have in my opinion inadv_rten:ly created a very serious cloud on any project in this area. yc,c fc.: : n furthermore, I think... you see, now we have... Claughton - Mr. Ct.eeza... -wants an exemption. Fine: They are on the same island. 1;.;or Terre: I know, but they are two separate property owners.'' wants an exemption... M•. Fin n, the City wants an exemption.;: Mayor Ferre: Oh, I see. Alright. litre:ior your client? Mr. Fine: Right. Mayor Ferre: You want a property on Brickell are we going to give. Ball Point, ok. Let's all at time. But no you don't represent the City, you an exemption? Alright, now we have Mr. Rice who has Avenue, he wants an exemption. Now, how many exemptions You want an exemption too? Now, who do you represent? hear Ball Point's exemption, Imean, we can take them Mr. Fine: Mr. Mayor, my responsibility really, is to point out what I think is a problem. I have done that and you all deal with it in a manner you think i& best. Mrs. ;Gordon: r+a`•c r, Ferre: '. Mr Mayor would you letsomeone else have a word? Mrs. Gordon; Oh, thank you. Mayor Ferre: Always have, never have problems with that. Mrs. Gordon: Thank you, very much. Now, let's go back and tell everything like it really is, ok. First of all, it's true someone did show you something the day before I spoke at Tigerbay and you said "that's a great idea, I think I will capitalize on that one" consequently you figured that was a good u said little ok, let political thing and you would like to have some applause,y pvi.1 t,� gl 144 1 me have it and you and Mr. Lacasa were the ones who moved it. 1 only went along with you to give you a third vote. Look, I'm finishing and then you can... Mayor Per": Mrs° Gordon, you know that, that speech you "ade on Wednesday you came out with this proposal ePeeifioally. I will show you the copy of the speech. mrs. Gordon: Ok, well, would you let me finish and then I will listen to you, ok? Ok. Thank you. Consequently when we got to the City Commission level and I asked to have discussion relative to perspective Charter Amendments, I would like you to know ladies and gentlemen my interest is in the public land that has been leased out and is being considered to be leased out to private interest. That is what I am all about and that is this petition that I am taking to the public, petition that I'm taking to the public is available here for you to see. The petition that's being talked about is a nebulous thing, has never been developed, it is not on the street, nobody is carrying it, it cannot be carried in it's present form. There is no one that you could possibly imagine that would want to sign something as lengthy as that. At least I don't know anybody that would. So therefore,... I mean what the Mayor is trying to stew is a political ploy and I resent it and I think all the people here resent it, because you would like to have Mr. Paul's goodwill and you would like these people to be on your side too and you cannot play two sides of the game, Mr. Mayor. And therefore, you have to realize that this is the intent to continue this petition drive to protect the public land from private leases. And anyone here interested in protecting the public lands that's the park lands and the other public lands, that's Watson Island and all the rest of them, please come up here and sign this. I have no other petition to offer you. Mayor Ferre: Are you through? Alright, Mrs. Gordon, you and Dan Paul on at least three separate occasions that he has stated discussed this particular issue. Furthermore, there is correspondence between Dan Paul and yourself to this particular regard. Furthermore, you voted for this item when it was moved previously. Now, for you to back paddle now for whatever reasons you may have is completely obvious and conspicuous and unacceptable. You may try to hide, but there is no way that you can hide from the reality of your vote. Mrs. Gordon: I admitted I voted, but I didn't move it. Lacasa moved it and you seconded it, that's very funny that's all. Mayor Ferre: The matter... the record will reflect that Mrs. Gordon was desperately trying to move it and could not get a second. And the records will so reflect and I will have the Clerk bring up the records to show the many times that Mrs. Gordon was trying to move this item and the reason... and finally it was Mr. Lacasa who on the second day, because the matter did not pass. It shows her total and complete hippocracy. Mrs. Gordon: You moved it the first day Maurice. I think it's ridiculous for us to continue this. I think that the important thing that we need to do tonight is to get this agenda completed, so we can all go home. We have been here since 9 o'clock this morning and I don't think anybody else needs to listen to anymore of this kind of political, you know... Mayor Ferre: I agree with that. Mrs. Gordon: I don't think it's worth anybody's time or effort. Mayor Ferre: My Position is that there will be no changes on this thing, that it go before the Planning Board, follow a natural course and then come before us on the 23rd for final disposition one way or the other. Mr. Jaffer: Mr. Mayor, my name is Joel Jaffer, I live at 3268 Mary Street. I've got a lot of ground to cover because contrary to popular belief, it's not just Mr. Paul who is in favor of this ordinance. I'm in favor it, there are a lot of other people in favor of it. And I want to preface my remarks first of all by saying that I don't have any friends in the City of Miami. I'm not employed by the Miami Herald, I don't have law offices at 1401 Brickell Avenue. I don't have any interest. It's important that the Commission realign it's perspectives because they somehow got very maladjusted by listening to hours and hours of this talk. The thing that is putting this thing before the voters is a very concerned... very justified concern of thousands upon thousands of citizens of the City of Miami. The crisis element that is working here is all gl 145 'JUL t iST; these developers who don't even have enough ground to stand on, that you all can decide something one day and all their lenders start turning their backs on them. You know it... and where are the priorities. The thing that... well, that's well said. I also want to tell the developers first of all that I didn't consider this amendment very serious when it passed the Commission. And it's only upon listening to you all say how it's going to shut everything down, that I'm getting interested in it. Furthermore, this is doing you a favor it's giving you a basis for variances which you get all the time illegally, but at least it's giving you a basis just for giving a few feet on the waterfront which you time and time again give on the street sides for street widening and dedications to the City. I don't hear you all complaining when the City ask you to give ten feet of their... of the street side of your property for street widening. Why are you complaining now when the City wants you to give fifty feet for the bay, it's the same thing. Ok, about Claughton Island. I don't feel sorry for Mr. Claughton. He has told you himself that for twenty-three years he can't get this thing off the ground. You know, so... he didn't buy this property sold on developing it. It's just some, you know, little hankering he has had that he is trying to force on the citizens of the City of Miami for twenty-three years. He hasn't been able to do it this time. I don't feel sorry for him, alright. He says he has massaged it, he has massaged it alright. He has built this island up, illegally dredged it, sea walled it, built a bridge to it. Nobody wants him to do this. No one asked him to do it. We have a case in Coral Gables where they are dredging up the Cocoplum properties illegally, Fair Isle was dredged to a large extent illegally. Who are we kidding here? This is a... these are flimsy shams put on the City of Miami to try and get New York City move down South and I can't go for it. Now, there has been some talk about the law here. I've done a lot of research on cases like this and I would like to add also that nothing would make me more happier than to see this thing litigated at length in the courts... but... no matter who does it... Mayor Ferree Mr. Jaffer, I have only got Grassie..give you that bow tie? one question out of you. Did Joe Mr. Jaffe.: Ok, now, there is also one way of doing business that is done constantly in the City and that's the kind of business that's done by Wonder Bread. Vonter Bread you remember, they got taken to court also. They bleached their bread to death at every stage of the process. They bleach the wheat... they put chemicals in the wheat before it grows. They bleach the wheat, you know they insert chemicals in the bread after it's cooked and the public says you know, we don't like wonder bread. It's just not bread and they say "well, what's missing and the public says well there is no vitamin A, no Vitamin D, so that they destroy the bread and put back about a few... about twelve vitamins to put back in and then they claim, that this makes a good bread and this was strucked down in court and it's... Well, it's unnatural, but more than that, it's not a good way of doing business. You can't say that the only thing wrong with Miami Beach is that you can't see the bay. There are a zillion things wrong with Miami Beach that is producing this gut feeling that makes the people of Miami want to sign these petitions and make them not want to work for developers and you know leave the City of Miami all together. And that gut feeling you know, you can... it expresses itself, you can't see the bay, you know, there is too much traffic, there is too much density, but it's really a basic problem of development and the only answer and the only thing that will make people want to sign this is the idea that they can actually stop it all together and have their bread whole and have their city free from this kind of development. I would like to speak to Mr. Gibson's remarks and a few others. That is about the boards and about the review. You know, there were two very serious breaches of faith by this Commission in the last month or so and the first one struck me for about two days, I couldn't get over it. And that was Mr. John Aurell coming up here and saying we will not build our Ball Point unless you dismiss your petition and you all went right ahead and dismissed it. You know, how... why go on, you know? What did you have to lose, you gave away something that you couldn't never have again and you gave it away just for some spector of some future development, you know, no basis or anything and it's... I think a lot of people went away from that meeting very morally a lot less than they had when they got into the meeting. Also about Claughton Island, the fact that it's protected by zoning ordinances already, that's what we are trying to do by this ordinance is to make these protections a lot stronger and more stringent than the present zoning ordinances. Also, so more on the legal thing. There were some cases in Florida here despite what Mr. Knox says. One was Mr. Sokolski versus the City of coral Gables where he took out a permit to do some subbasement... where the foundations. and then he claimed that, that was in good faith for him to get the rest of his gi 146 1UL'! '! im permit. And the main thing in deciding that case was that he was served with a.civil summon after the Appeals Court had already taken jurisdiction. So I, you know, say right now if it's necessary I will be very happy to file some kind of suit against Claughton Island and the Convention Center if necessary and anyone else to give them fair notice. You know, just so there is no doubts that they have good notice. Also after reading the Charter-- the home rule Charter, all that you all need to do right now is express your intent and I think you have done that very well. And you all say you like the intent but not the particulars. But that's what we need right now is the intent and that's what we got. So thanks very much for listening. Mayor Ferre: Alright are there any other speakers at this time? Mr. Plummer: I thought Ball Point was one. Mayor Ferre: Ball Point doesn't want to be excepted? Mr. Adams: My name is William Adams and I represent Ball Point and the reason why ve didn't speak is because we sort of got thefeeling that you were going to send us back as you had suggested. And while we do feel that Ball Point is in the same category as Claughton Island, that while the zoning... Mayor Ferre: Well, explain that to us would you please, because that's not an island. Mr. Adams: Well, while the zoning classification may not be quite as stringent the process of having to go through the DRI and getting a development order, going through five separate hearings, negotiating before each one of these people ending up with a development order that contains twenty-three separate conditions to development. We have made concessions which result in our commitments to spend three and a half million dollars more than the law requires for the very purposes designed by this partic--- that would be served by this Charter and by the Charter Amendment and by the Ordinance. And we now have a development order. We are in the same precise position and my suggestion is, for what it's worth at this point, that if the Commission really wants to be fair abouc this and to avoid the kinds of problems that have been discussed, that an exception should be made in the ordinance that would except anything which has a finally development order entered. And that's my suggestion at this point. Mayor Ferre: How about those people like, let's take Ted Hollo who is working on a development order, but won't be ready until August or September? Mr. Adams: Well, obviously, there has to be some point at which a line is drawn. I personally believe that and we have done considerable research in this area... I believe you are going to have an unconstitutional taking... Would you like to answer the question? My suggestion was that we have done some research in this area and we think you are going to have an unconstitutional taking that's going to risk City funds in the way that has already been described if you go through with it. Mayor Ferre: Well, I think that's a very important point and we have... I have written down here that I want the City Attorney... Mr. Knox? There are three areas that I want you to address legally for us by the 23rd. One is the question of retroactivity as discussed by Commissioner Lacasa and as defined specifically in proposition before us entitled "Amendment #2, protect our waterfront amendments petition" and you have a copy of it. I think I gave one to you. So there is the last paragraph which begins "The City nor any of it's agencies and ends with the 79 ballot which addresses that point of retroactivity. And would you tell us about the legality of that? Secondly, there was a gentleman here and I think he was representing, I think Mr. Cheezam. We talked about vested rights. No, I'm sorry it was Ed. It was Ed Claughton and he was talking about vested rights. Would you therefore address the legal point on vested rights? And thirdly, is the question of constitutionality which we are just now beginning to address. And you think that this item as presented and I wish you would look at this new one as been presented as unconstitutional. Mr. Plummer: Alright, does that end this issue? Mr. Adams: The question you asked me is how you deal with the other people who's processes are half way along. At some point you have to draw the line. My answer was that in our judgement wherever you draw the line you are going have with this particular thing an unconstonal taking, but if you are gl 3UL •! 11!» going to do it, then you should draw the line at a point where it is definite. And that is where the development order has become final. Mayor Ferre: Alright, further.. Mr. Plummer: Yes, but you see, the one thing you better petition is not under our control. fir. Adams: We understand that. Mr. Plummer: And under this petition there we don't have any control. over. We understand that, Mr. Adams: understand sir this are proposed retroactivity that but we can only fight one battle at a time. Mr. Plummer: Yes,; but when you start fighting that battle make sure you know who your opponent is. Mr. Adams: I thinkwe know that. Mayor Ferre: Rev. Gibson: Mayor Ferre: Alright,.'.. Ma: or? YeE, sir? Father Gibson. re.. Gibsor: Sir, you were going to ask you were going to say something,... Mayor Ferre: Roy Kenzie. Rev. Gibson Mr. Kenzie? want to ask.. Mr. no,no,;no Mr. Kenzie: I'm just going to make one remark to something that Dan Paul .24 earlier': which I can't let drop because it bothers me and it was in rei,ards to Do mtown in relationship of that to this ordinance and proposed C iar ter tme+dr. ,nc And chat was that the development authority had not backed it in anyway to save this poor Waterfront Downtown since it's inception. And I think if you look at the Downtown on that map, that you will see starting et the very top of Downtown and running down, you will see first of all a park at the top above 17th Street and then you will see a women's club property which y Tar von along the water right now, then you see Plaza Venetia phase I and I1 and the City has required a setback and public access and river walk along chat and SO we can go by that. Then we reach the Venetian Causeway, then the eo next thing we come to is a barbed wire fence in front of the Miami Herald. you can't walk in front of the Miami Herald, they have no access there. Then what do you hit? You hit a park and you hit a park that the City has spent a tremendous amount of money buying and still buying to do exactly what we are trying to do with this ordinance, protect the waterfront in front of the City. And we have for the entire length of the Downtown core to Ball Point we have a park. Then what do you hit? You hit Ball Point. And the City Commission has required that the Ball Point developer give public access and easement aad give that to the City which he has done. Then you come to a little piece on the end of Biscayne Boulevard. What's happened there? Rose Gordon, Commissioner, asked that... when the development order went through, that the developer give that land to the City which the developer did. And so that's now a park and has public access to it. Then you come to Dupont Plaza Hotel. You can walk along the docks there now, but it's not necessarily public access and that you could consider a blockage. What do you hit after that? The Convention Center which has a river walk in front it, public access in front -ui :i.. Bauder Fashion College we required it have a river walk and have public access in front that. Then you come into two pieces owned by Thatcher and a :.�.. tror.: Atlanta, those are not developed yet are parking lots presently and that's it. That's the entire edge of Downtown. The good majority, about eighty percent now is park or has public access and the only blockages on it are the Miami Herald and the Dupont Plaza Hotel and a potential development on a parking lot. And where did that river walk come from that we all, you know, have along the river now? It came through the development authority for the City of Miami. And we have... if everyone else in the City followed the example of the Downtown, we wouldn't be sitting here. And Downtown is certainly is not what I think that it's been painted to be in terms of eating up all it's bayfront and creating a Miami Beach. spent a lot of money putting a park there to get out of that problem. We gl 148 -JUL 1 i 11171 i Mayor Ferre: Don't tell me, go tell Alvah Chapman and John McMullen. Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor, may I ask a question? Where are we now? I wish somebody will enlighten me. Mayor Ferre: Well, Father, here where we are. I wanted to let everybody have an opportunity to say whatever they wanted which has happened now, I think. Now, after that I'm going to recognize Mrs. Gordon who wanted to be recognized about an hour ago to make a motion, I think on Claughton. And then after that I think somebody around here, if not I will, will make a motion that all this be properly referred as far as the ordinance is concerned, which is Item #119 to the proper Board as told to us by the City Attorney and that is the Planning Board. And then since they have it on schedule on the 18th it will come back to us, hopefully on the 23rd on an emergency basis at which time we will deliberate on all this. At this point that will give Mr. Dan Paul enough time along with his other friends and people who are interested in this to properly get this thing worded so that it doesn't completely devastate and destroy the City and the waterfront and something that people can live with and yet accomplishes, hopefully, some of the intentions of what we had in the beginning. And that's where we are at. Now, Mrs. Gordon, I recognize you for the purposes of a motion. Mrs. Gordon: Ok. Previously stated that the island district has restrictions that governs the type of development that takes place on it. Therefore, for, that reason should be excepted from the proposal that was passed on June 26th... What was the date, June what? Mr. Ongie: 26th. Mrs. Gordon: June 26th meeting. The specific action was a motion resolution to place the proposed Charter Amendment on the November ballot. Mayor Ferre Mrs. Gordon: Mayor Ferre: Mrs. Gordon:. --add an amendment to the motion that was passed on June 26th exceptingthe island development: and not a 6th election That's correct. There is now a motion' that... This is a motion to amend that or to.,. o amend that motion.; Mayor Ferre Alright. Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to second the motion not because this is what`I want, but I don't want these people to be put the predicament they are in. I think it's unfortunate. And if this is the only way I could get the relief that I think they ought to have, I'm going this way, but I have a motion of my own I want to make later on. So I want to second it. Mayor Ferre: Alright, there is a second, is there further discussion on the motion? Mr. Plummer: Yes, I happened to go back to my point. Anybody answered the question of how many islands are involved? Mayor Ferre: Mr. Plummer One. (BACKGROUND COMMENT OFF THE PUBLIC) Mr. Plummer: Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Plummer What about Watson Island? Mrs. Gordon: That is a public land not classified Mr. Plummer I got a problem, because that which I' what 'I`approved four years ago. Right Ed? it's not the same thing.notthe same thing. m looking et there is not gl 1.49 rJUL1.1 t97 (BACKGROUND COMMENT OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD) Mr. Plummer: Well, but I'm saying it's not what I approved. (BACKGROUND COMMENT OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD) Mt, Plummer: From what I have heard I'm glad for, ok. I'm glad for. But this Commission had supposedly site control over that island. Well... wait a minute Rose. And this Commission voted a certain set of criteria which has been out of our hands completely altered. Nov, I don't know whether that within itself is legal. What did we give, a variance? Or what did we give? Mrs. Gordon: No, no, that was a planned island development. It's a planned d evelopment . Mr. /p e CYCpnt. T?1 .COMMENT OFF THE PUBLIC,; RECORD) Mr. Plummer: I prefer them Ed, on the record. (BACKGROUND COWITT OFF THE .PUBLIC RECORD) Mr. Plummer:,We.1, how long is that"which we approved Forever, Mr. JiM,Reidl, No, there is a requirement that before the building Permit is issued that a final development plan be prepared. At this stage what we°have is an approved concept plan and the initial building that is part of that concept plan was consistent with the overall area development plan that was suggested to you. But what they are bringing here for a building' 1.-.rmit a final development plan to be reviewed by the department and in subject;to our approval. Mr. Flutnmer: WAat about the Commission. i,n } In terms of the terns of the ordinances as I understand ;i,.the... unless the development plan represents a substantial deviation from the original proposal if it's not brought back for review. i'itimoez: Well, fifty percent deletion, isn't that a substantial change? Mr. ,Tim Reid: Well, if that is the case then, of course, when the development plan is filed we will deal with that issue. Mr. Plummer: Now, Mr. Mayor, you know, I'm going to adopt a basic philosophy. I don't want to act on anything without proper public hearing, regular research. Ed Claughton knows how I feel about that island. It was the greatest disappointment in the world when we didn't break ground in 1976. I'm all in favor of it. I don't want to make anything here tonight where we are finding ourselves with the fifth proposal before us. We got to come back with five more proposals. Can't we just wait and do this rational? Mayor Ferre: Mr. Plummer, I pass you the gavel, sir and I move... Mrs. Gordon: There is a motion on the table. Mayor Ferre: that this matterbe tabled and that takes precedence. I; moved that it be tabled, 1 don't need a second for that and it goes without. discussion for vote. Mrs. Gordon: Mayor Ferre: Mr. Plummer:, A motion to table does not need ..a°second? Does not need a second. I move to table. Call the roll. Mr. Mayor, before we vote, a motion...: Mrs. Gordon: Be tabled until. when? Rev. Gibson: gl 150 rJuL i 1 1! AYES: NOES: Rev. Gibson: Wait. I think I know, but I want to ask for the record. A motion to table Mr. Vice -Mayor means what? Mr. Plummer: A motion to table means that,, it is put aside until another motion is made to bring it back up. It takes another motion to bring it back up, is my understanding. Mrs. Gordon: Or it could be tabled to a time certain, J. L. Mayor Ferre: Ok, tabled until the 23rd of July. I amend my motion.. anything else? 'Ok, call the roll. Mr. Plummer: The following motion was introduced by Mayor adoption. Ferre, who moved its MOTION NO. 79-498 A MOTION TO TABLE ANY CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENTS CONCERNING THE WATERFRONT UNTIL THE MEETING OF JULY 23, 1979. Whereupon the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: Mr. Lacasa, Vice -Mayor Plummer and Mayor Ferre. Mrs. Gordon and Rev. Gibson. ABSENT: None. Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor, may I ask a question? You know, I trust I understand. I heard... don't leave. Don't you leave, don't you leave. I heard two men e make, may be three men make a reasonable, plausible admonition to us. Wher is that gentleman... That gentleman there and this gentleman here and Martin Fine. I hope we... oh, yes and the fourth gentleman, that gentleman there. I hope we are not putting ourselves in the position where we get to be known as a community that people cannot depend upon carrying out promises and commitments. I can only tell you this, if my members promise me a certain sum of money, I expect them to produce it. I expect them to give it. I go and I plan the business of the church based on promises and commitments You need to know that about me. That's why when you come here and you make a promise to me, I expect you to keep your word. Now, what really bothers me is I do not really understand where we are ite lmewherewe are the legal posture. 1 wish he I could understand it. Mr. City Attorney, you referendum, all this other business, you tell me. Tell me, I don't understand it. Mr. Knox: Yes. The only operative action that has been taken by the City Commission has been the passage of a motion of intention to place on the ballot in November a proposed Charter change which is worded as your motiIteon is 18 is worded, which has not been adopted by the City Commission. an informal expression of the will or opinion of the City Commission and does not have the force and affect of law nor is it considered to be an official action of the City of Miami Commission. Mr. Plummer: And as such does not affect Mr. Claughton today. What we... even what is being... Rev. Gibson: Nor anybody else who is involved. Mr. Plummer: What is being proposed does not affect Mr. Claughton, it doesn't affect Ball Point, it doesn't affect any;. of these. Mr. Paul's most recent. petition could affect. Rev. Gibson: Providing Mr. Plummer: That's right. Rev. Gibson: Providing it passes, let's make sure we get that straight. gl 151 NUL 1 I tin Mr. Plummer: By a motion here this evening Father, as I understand it, we are trying to exempt Mr. Claughton from something that doesn't exist. We can't exempt him from this petition, only the voters can by rejection. We `cannot exempt him because he hasn't been spoken to. Rev. Gibson: But if the man has... what I don't understand, if you already have a law which places that island in a special category which automatically excludes.it, why are we dealing with it now? Mr. Plummer: We shouldn't be. Rev. Gibson: Mr. Lacasa: He is free. Mr. Plummer: He is free... Mr. Lacasa: That is the whole thing that I have been talking about before. He is free as far as we are concerned. The legal status of this situation is as it is today with the existing zoning regulations, nothing more, nothing less. There is a petition drive over which this City Commission has no control whatsoever. And there is on first reading a resolution proposing to the voters of the City of Miami an amendment to the existing zoning regulations to take effect on November 6th of 1979 with no retroactive effect. So that's all there is to it. As far as anybody is concerned the existing zoning regulations of today are the ones to be applied to this project and to anyone like that. There is nothing else. Rev. Gibson: He is shaking his head. Mr. Fosmoen: The one point that has been missed is that while the design may have to conform to the zoning ordinance, there are several hundreds of millions of dollars of financing that is in the process and any underwriter or any lending institution is not going to commit itself to finance a project that is in jeopardy based on a motion of intent of this Commission to pass this ordinance. Mayor Ferre: And that will all be clarified hopefully, by the 23rd. Mrs. Gordon: Well, what was the reason for delaying it until the 21st? What are you going to gain? Mayor Ferre: Because we want this matter to go by the proper procedure of going as an ordinance through the Planning Board to see what they come up with. Also, to give people like Ken Treister and Dan Paul the opportunity to get this thing in proper language where may be all of you may support this, ok. And at that point we will deal with Watson Island, this island, Claughton Island, the Convention Conference Center, Tibor Hollo, the other people who have irregular properties, Gould, which is Ball Point and all the other people that want to be exempted. And that will be the proper time to deal with all these islands. Ok. Do we have anything else on this particular item? Mr. Lacasa, I think you as I recall, told me you wanted to make a motion to send this to the Planning Board. Mr. Lacasa: Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Lacasa: Mayor Ferre: Mr. Lacasa: Mayor Ferre: Mr. Lacasa: of the ° 20th. Mayor Ferre: (BACKGROUND gl Alright, tell me what your motion is. My motion 'is to refer this matter to the Planning Board. With regards to the'ordinance, that is. With regard to the ordinance. That's Item #119. And discuss the question again in public hearing on the meeting That's fine. Ok, is there a second COMMENT OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD) 152. o that motion? MIL ! 111171 Mayor Ferre: • Has that been done? I think you are ri It was because it was tabled. ht. Mayor Ferre: No, no, it wasn't tabled. What I tabled was the motion that Mrs. Gordon moved and Father seconded, that wasn't... Mrs. Gordon: That was to eliminate the islands from the proposal. Now, your Planning Board Maurice doesn't know that you want the islands eliminated because you have... they don't know. Mayor Ferre: them all the what the pur. the law says. Mr. Lacasa: Mayor Ferre: Alright,... Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Lacasa: That's why I want them to go before the Planning Board and give arguments, that's what we have Planning. Boards for. That's exactly... .. that's what the law says, is that right Mt Knox? That's what Well, then the motion is in order. You say the law doesn't. make any sense, fine go change the law. The law makes sense, but somebody else doesn't. The motion is in order J."L. Mayor Ferre: Is that the law Mr. Knox? Mr. Knox: The law is that zoning matters have to be referred first to the Planning Advisory Board or the Zoning Board, which ever is appropriate under the circumstances. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Plummer: Mayor Ferre: Mr. Plummer: Mr. Knox: Mr. Lacasa moves. Plummer? Did 18 go through that Mr. Knox? Shouldn't 18 be included then 18 and 20... Mr. Plummer: As well as 19... Mr. Knox: ... are not required to go through that process because they involve Charter changes and of course, any zoning ordinances are subject to the Charter. Now, if the City Commission would choose as a matter of policy based on all... n. • Mayor Ferre: I would accept that. I wouldn't change my vote on the previous one, but I think that both 18 and 19 should be referred to the Planning Board. Alright, that's the way the motion reads. Is there a second? Mr. Plummer: Are you speaking... let me try to understand. Are you speaking;. now to 18 and 20? Or to 19 and... Mr. Lacasa: 18 and 19. Mayor Ferre: We are talking now strictly about the area with regards to the setback and the see through provisions that we previously passed a motion and put on the ballot for November 6th. And what we are doing is referring it to the Planning Board so that the ordinance... they will deal with the ordinance, but since the resolution is similar, out of courtesy to them, let them deliberate on that. Mr. Plummer: May I read to you a motion from the last meeting? Meyer Ferre: Alright. Mr. Plummer: (BEGINS TO READ MOTION INTO RECORD Mayor Ferre: This isnot a motion, this is a (BACKGROUND COMMENT OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD) gl 153 �1UL�i Z 197""� Mayor Ferre: Oh, I 50 it's a motion. I beg your pam,n. Mr. Plummer: (READS MOTION INTO THE RECORD). Mayor Ferre: That was with regards to zoning. I mean, I'm sorry, that was in regards to the leases. Mr. Plummer: No, sir, that says #1 and #2. Mr. Lacasa: Where is that? Mayor Ferre: Alright, well, then in other words, what he is saying is that we don't need a motion, that's already being done. That's on Item 18 and 19. So, is there anybody else who wants to speak to 18 and 19? If not we are on Items 20 and 21 with regards to the leases... Mr. Jaffer: I would like to say one thing about 18 and 19, just in regard to Mr. Knox's comment. I don't think it's a zoning matter. I just want to get that on the record. 40. PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT REGARDING LEASING OF CITY WATERFRONT PROPERTY- AND INSTRUCTING -ALL BOARDS AND COMMITTEES TO EXEMPT WATSON ISLAND AND CONFERENCE/CONVENTION CENTER FROM DELIBERATIONS ON SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. Mayor Ferre: Alright, thank you. Alright, now on 1120 and #21 which regards to the probation of leases on any City property along Biscayne, Government Cut, Miami River, Rickenbacker, Watson Island or Virginia Key. Mr. Knox: Mr. Mayor, I think that the Clerk's records will reflect that there was a motion of intention to send these matters to the Waterfront Board specifica''- Mayor: Ferre Mr. Grimm: Mayor Ferre: Mr. Grimm: Mayor Ferre: That's correct. That is, correct. And it's been done. And it's been done. So that therefore, the... Mrs. Gordon: Maurice didn't -you instruct that item to be on your own instructions? Mayor Ferre: Yes, for the purposes of passing an ordinance. I have since been told by the City Attorney, that we cannot pass this because it must by law go to the... since it is a zoning matter, it must go to the Planning Board. Mrs. Gordon: This is not a zoning matter, however.' public land. This is not a zoning matter._. Mayor Ferre: Well, that's right. Mrs. Gordon: It has no zoning involved in it whatsoever and you asked for it to be on the agenda and it's on it. Mr. Grimm: Mr. Mayor, if I may refresh you at least the way I remember it is you referred it to the Waterfront Advisory Board for the purpose of their conducting public hearings and to come back to this Commission on the 23rd with their recommendations. Now, that's the way... Mrs. Gordon: That is not in the minutes by any instruction to put this on tonight's agenda was and personal instructions to the Law Department remember who took the instruction from him, but it. motions whatsoever. The by the Mayor's individual or to Mr. Grassie. I don't. he is the one that instructed Mayor Ferre: I think she is right. I think what the intention of this was that until the Board finished their deliberation, the intention was that no leases be signed until this whole process is finished. Now, I don't see... I still feel that way. I don't see anything wrong with that. Yes, sir? gl 154 Mr. Pine: For the record my name is Martin Fine and I'm here representing Miami Center Associates and I would like to raise a question and perhaps your City Attorney and you all could react to it. In April of 1978 the City entered into a long-term lease agreement with Miami Center Associates to lease certain land and other rights in connection with the hotel to be built over the Miami Convention Center. And on the face of it that would not be affected by Items 20 and 21. However, for reasons of both the City and the developer that is presently being amended and I would like to specifically point that out to you and therefore specifically request that if you take any action on these two items tonight or at any time in the future, that you specifically except the Miami Convention Center Property because that lease not only probably be amended in the next week or two, but thereafter to meet the requirements of Bond Council, to meet the requirements of certain technicalities of Florida Law and to meet the requirements of lenders and so forth and so on. And so a tremendous amount of money has been spent both by the City and the Developers in that regard and I would specifically request that you exempt that from Items 20 and 21, if in fact you are going to take any action on it tonight. Mrs. Gordon: Morty will you repeat your... Mayor Ferre: No Morty is over there, that's Martin. Mrs. Gordon: Someone was talking would like to hear. Mayor would the Clerk read back the statement? Mr. Fine:No, I'm`alright. I have been here since 5 o'clock waiting on it but now I remember` it well, I think. In April of 1978 the City entered into a contractual lease agreement with Miami Center Associates and I am saying that, that lease is of necessity for reasons by City Council and for a Council for lending institutions being amended. And I believe that you should except this specifically in here so we have no problem in terms of the financing and the construction of it. And I would hope, I haven't seen any proposed Charter Amendment you have, but if you have anything in your Charter Amendment about leasing property you certainly want to consider excepting the Convention Center from it or in my opinion, you will seriously jeopardize it. Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Fine: Mrs. Mr. Fine: Well, unless you excepted it, I will be happy to read it. Mrs Gordon: You are an attorney, come and read it. Mr. Fine: I would say the language here Mrs. Gordon, in reply to your question, it would specifically prevent what is presently attempting to be done and that is this language says that without first submitting such lease or contract to the voters of the City for approval or rejection and any such existing lease or contract shall --and this is a terrible language, pardon me it is inappropriate language, unless you except Convention Center-- shall not be modified or extended by the City without first submitting such modification or extension of the voters of the City of Miami". Now, I want to be very clear on this in my opinion and I assure you that nothing I have here to say tonight expresses the opinion of the City, I'm talking on behalf of my client, I think and do not in any manner mean to have any political overtones. The mere fact that this would circulate in my opinion and possibly have twelve thousand signatures on it would prevent the Convention Center from going ahead. I don't think any Bond Counse].would ever render an opinion on'it. don't think any lending institution would ever lend on it. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Fine? Mr. Fine: Mr. Plummer:: Excuse me. You know, That is not within our purview. We circulating that petition. You've' that. Mr. Fine: Mr. Plummer, I was just doing that. Mrs. Gordon asked me'a here again I keep getting back to didn't draw up that petition: We got to speak to the people who are gl 155 the point are not doing IuL.1 t 1972 and I was responding to her question. Now, I consider her to,be a very responsible Commissioner and a very responsible person and I can't believe. that Rose Gordon would want to place that project in jeopardy. Mayor Ferre: The Queen of the petition, Mrs. Gordon: Oh, Maurice, you are so funny. You know, let me tell you how. funny you are, you are so funny that you seconded the motion and we didn't get a third on that issue. Mayor Ferre: I beg your pardon. I wantto tell you on the record that if you will look upon the record you will find out that I did. not, not only not second it. I was strongly opposed to it as I am now. Mrs. Gordon: Yes, but you sent it, to the Law Department and said for them to make an ordinance. I think this is getting quite ridiculous and it's 10:30 at night and I think we should all go home. Mayor Ferre: And I am perfectly willing to v Mr. Fine: Did I answer your question, Rose? vote that ordinance. Did I answer your question... (BACKGROUND COMMENT OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD) Mayor Ferre: Anybody else want to,sreak on this? Mr.,Plummer, I>Pass over to you the gavel and make the followingmotion as an ordinance. (READS ORDINANCE INTO THE RECORD). Now, I don't know... Mr. Knox?. Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute you can't discuss a motion.. Mayor Ferre: No, wait a minute, I haveto make... Mr. Plummer: I s that your motion? Mayor Ferre: No, because I have to make sure that my motion is. what I think I'm doing here. Mr. Knox, my intention in the motion for the ordinance is that all 1eaes be prohibited from being signed by the City of Miami Commission until we have gone to the public hearings and put' this matter on the ballot and has been voted upon by the people either for or against on November 6th. Mr. Fine: I didn't say a word. Mrs. Gordon: Did you say 1979... question for clarification. Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute. Rose, wait just a moment. Is there to the motion? Mayor Ferre: I need an answer from Mr. Knox. Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute, now. Is there a second to the motion? For the third and final time, is there a second to the motion? Hearing none the motion dies. Mayor Ferre: Well, let me make another motion. Mr. Knox, before I make the motion as I read this thing I don't think this motion really speaks to the intention of what we were trying to do. What we are trying to do is to preclude the signing of any leases until this matter has been before the Committee, the 'Waterfront Board Commiittee, the Zoning Board and we had one other Board and I forgot. The what? Mr. Plummer: You forgot the Editorial Board. Mayor Ferre No, no, there was a third... Mr. Knox: Was it the Planning Advisory Board? Mayor Ferre: And then we would put that word... oh, yes, I remember now. Armando and J. L. and Father, the intention of this is to stop any lease from being signed between now and the time those Boards deliberate. And when those Boards give us their report then this motion would cease to exist an. ordinance and we would vote upon that. That was the intention. gl '.56 2 P'1; Mr.. Plummer: Mr. Knox, would you word such a motion to try to accomplish what the Mayor, is seeking? Mr. Knox: I think that the ordinance that objective. Mayor Ferre: Well, how can that be when September 30th, why September 30th?' Mrs. Gordon: It's not intended for 1979, that's before you essentially accomplishes you don't have... first of all you have it's intended for some future year. Ferre: No, no, further limiting both for prohibition by earlier' the intention is this year. Mrs. Gordon: Who drafted this. Mr. Clark, what was your intention in putting Ole September 30th,'19 in here? What was your intention? MT "lark In Mrs. order to "have a date certain. ordon: For what? 21r. Clark: To k ow when, this ordinance will no longer be effective you have. to... you can ist leave it in limbo. Mrs. Gordon: We:`_, were you, going to do it before election? u could have 1985. Mayor Ferre: Of course,.preclselY we are going "ru are &a'n right, because that's what's going ;.nt,nnt..: cr. Y.r. Fine: to do it before the'election. to go on'the`bellot., That was Vice -Mayor and Mayor, whoever' I'm supposed to... Mr. Flur.rne.-: Sleek Mr. Fine, give us the wisdom. r .. 7 I had is to give you, I,would say your Counsel Mr. Joe 3�1. y`prestigious New York. Law Firm that you all pay rather . s: tti.l {eta to, well earned I'm sure, to give you advice will tell you "A" :�.is coming Tuesday you are going to be receiving bids for the construction`"of this entire facility. On the 23rd you are going to be asked, r.osically accept the bid and authorize the City Manager when iurds are available through the sale of bonds to award that contract. You :re Rlso`hopefully going to be asked to approve a lease in which lawyers have wcrkIng;around the clock for about a week in various cities in this Country; trying to put it together and get it approved. I am literally begging you to understand that in my opinion unless you specifically exempt the '•..r,r^tio.' Center from anything you have done or doing or consider doing, that project`is in'serious jeopardy. If it has to wait until November 6th we 0;�?1 nothave a problem in my humble opinion, you will not have a project. Mayor Ferre I accept that.• Alright, let me try again. I move, Mr. Plummer, tnat an ordinance be passed by this Commission prohibiting all leases from ho.+lg:signet that affect the waterfront by the City of Miami between now and November 6th except the James L. Knight Convention Conference Center. I so Move:: Mr. Knox::, Re said between now and November 6th? Ferre: . Fine:. . , P11i ner: That's correct of 1979. r. Mayor, may I. suggest to you that you might want to consider... Wait a minute, excuse me; is there a second? Mayor Ferre: I would expect that Rose Gordon is doing this in good faith. Mr. Plummer: Don't lobby. Is there a second? Third and final time, is there a second? Hearing none the motion dies. Alright, now. Mr. gl Knox: Mr. Mayor?. 157 'Jut 3 -t tsy9 Mayor Ferre: I accused Mrs. Gordon of acting in bad faith and being duplicitous. If it's her intention to stop any leases, then she would have seconded the motion as made. Since she did not I think... Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Mayor, you made a logical move and you certainly would have had my support, but you have been a little bit incoherent in the last five minutes with the motions and the half motions and the intense emotion and all the other things you have done. Mayor Ferre A very simple motion. Mrs. Gordon: So I wouldsuggest that you have someone write something down that I can understand what your intentions are and perhaps you would have my support. Mayor Ferre: It's a very simple motion. The motion is to stop all leases other than the James L. Knight Convention Conference Center, from being signed between now and November 6th and let the voters decide on November 6th after we have put something on the ballot. Mrs. Gordon: Alright, have we yet put anything on Mayor Ferrer We are going to. Mrs. Gordon: Well, let's put something down on the ballot, then we will decide: what we'are going to do. Mayor Ferrer We are not going to do it arbitrarily until it goes, through the proper course and we think this out very carefully. In the meantime this is the... the intention of this if you are honest about it is to stop any leases from being signed. Now, if you don't want to go for that, that's your problem It's alright with me. Mrs. Gordon: That's not my problem, that's your problem Maurice. Mayor Ferree Oh? I think you will find that it's not exactly limited to. me. Mrs. Gordon: You have an ordinance here before you which, if you have the intentions of doing this in a logical way, you will pass it and you will exclude the Government Center and then you will have a logical movement. are you talking about? to put on the agenda. Mayor Ferre: What ordinance Mrs. Gordon: The one you asked Mayor Ferre: Well, I moved that motion and nobody seconded. Mrs. That motion is an ordinance. Mayor Ferre: I moved the ordinance. I read it. Mrs. Gordon: This ordinance has to be read... Gordon: Mayor Ferrer Mrs. Gordon read it. ... in it's entirety and it hasto, be read... Mayor Ferre: I read it in it's entirety... Mrs. Gordon: Excuse me, Mr. Mayor, would you let me finish speaking. I would appreciate it. But that ordinance has to have inserted in it`excluding the Government Center, then it would".be.a proper ordinance and I would then second it. Mr. Knox, do you have it there,and can you insert the exception of the Government. Center? Mr. Knox: Yes, Ma'am. 81 Mrs. Gordon: The September 30th date has no meaning, because by the time this would be implemented it would be out of date, because it would take a first reading and a second reading and a certain number of days afterwards, so it would be in effect for less than or may be a full month. I believe that you need to have it up until the day of election. Because if something is going to be on the ballot... Mayor Ferre: I agree with that. I accept that. Go ahead Mrs. Gordon, since... Mrs. Gordon: No, Mr. Knox has to read the ordinance. Mayor Ferre: Mr`. Knox: Read the ordinance. (READS ORDINANCE INTO THE RECORD)`. Mayor Ferre: No, you don't need that November 6th... Mrs. Gordon: Mayor Ferre: that. you don't need' art "B" because Ok,I will second it. Wait a minute. I have made a notion and Mrs Gordon seconded Mr. Plummer:: There is a motion Made and seconded a minute, now, Commissioners take prefer... under discussion. Wait Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Fine, what; is your comments? Mr. Plummer: Well wait a minute, Rose. Wait a minute now,; if anybody of the Commission wants to speak, if they. don'tI'm. going to recognize Mr. Fine, but give the Ith rivilege to Commissioners °first "to speak. Mrs hearf him because he made the suggestion for the. amendment. .Gordon:� Yes, but I have tofrom Mr. Plummer: r.r. Fine. Mr. Fine: Thank you. I"would most respectfully suggest that you amend the language to say enter, into modify... and or amend in reference to the James L. Knight 'Center. Youhave already entered into-- and Mr. Knox can use whatever language is... Alright sincethe other Commissioners want to speak, you speak Mrs. Gordon: Well, you used two languages... Mayor Ferre: I accept.that. As the maker of the motion I And I"will take it for the second. Mrs Gordon: Mr. Fine: Thank you. Mr. Grassier Under discussionsMr Mayor? Mr. Plummer: Under discussion, Mr. Grassie. Mr. Grassier The City Commission knows that we have been in the process of trying to secure a UDAG application for Claughton Island. That application process will no doubt require that we make further modifications in the agreement that we have with the proposed developer. Now, as I understand what is in front of you, we would be prohibited from making any of those modifications and bringing them to the City Commission until after the 6th o November. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Manager, as you know I am for the Watson Island Project. Now, let me tell you that in my opinion, now this will not affect that project; because in the first place, we have been rolled back until the September 30th deadline, right? Mr. Fosmoen: 30th. Mr. Fosmoen: The decision period would be the last week in September, Mr. Mayor for this current round of funding. The funding round runs from... Mayor Terre: W1.11 we be affected by this? Mr. Fosmoen: Yes, sir. Yes. Mayor Ferre: Well, tell me how we will be affected? Mr. Fosmoen: First of all Mr. Mayor, the UDAG people, in my opinion, are not going to waste their time on the application if they are faced with a Charter Amendment or this ordinance which is in place until that Charter Amendment takes place on November 6th. Secondly, that contract will require modification for UDAG purposes. I have no doubt about that. I have been in conversation with the UDAG people. Mayor Ferre: Can we bring that up for discussion and action at that particular time? Mr. Fosmoen: To change this ordinance? Mayor Terre: Yes, of course. Mr. Fosmoen: To exclude Watson Island? Mayor Ferre: Yes. Mr. Flu:rimer: What about the World Trade Center in which you also... Mr. Fosmoen: It's not... (BACKGROUND COMMENT OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD) Mr. Pluramer: It's a lease. Mayor Ferre: It's not on the water. Mrs. Gordon: Waterfront land is all that's in consideration. Mayor Ferre: Well, / will tell you even though I know Rose isn't going to second it, but then I Mr. Plummer: Isn't this a lease as I understand this thing, a ].ease for over three years? Mr. Grassi.e: The only waterfront leases as we understand it, Connissioner... Mr. Fosmoen: This only covers the waterfront property. Mayor Ferre: We've got a problem Rose, because I'm not going to do something to kill Watson Island. Mr. . Plutturter: OkSince it's one complex... Since it' s . Mrs. Gordon: Listen, may I remind you this is a first reading. You have a second reading that has to come up. Mayor Ferre: I'm not going to go for something that will kill Watson Island, no, absolutely... Mrs. Gordon: This is a firstreading. Mayor Ferre: Yes, but that includes Watson Island in it and then I w1.1l vote with you... Mrs. Gordon: Oh, no, I would not accept Watson Island by any stretch of imagination. Mayor Terre: Well, then you can withdraw your second, because I am now amending my motion. Mrs. Gordon: I didn't withdraw, you are now making another amendtnent? gl 1t30 JUL 1 1 197O But there is a motion and there was a second. Now, we should... Mayor Ferre: I withdraw my motion. Now, I will make a new motion which reads the same as the previous one, except that it also includes Watson Island. Mr. Plummer: Is there a motion dies. Mr. Jaffer: Mr. Mayor, can I just get an informational point cleared up? Mr. Plummer: Mr. Jaffer: the concrete sent out for Mr. Plummer: second? Is there a second? Is there a second? Sure, why not. To my understanding all the City didwas to send out bids .for ground work for the Convention. I" didn't remember any bids being the whole thing. No, sir, that's already in place. They are already doing Mrs. Gordon: Maurice Mayor Ferre: Mrs. Gordon: Mayor Ferre: Mrs. Gordon: why do you flip flop so much? I'm not flip flopping, Rose. es, you are. You flip, you flop. that. You are back, you are forth. Thepoint is that I don't want to kill Watson Island. It's hard to keep up with you, you change your position so much. Mayor Ferre: Let me make my statement without interrupting me. All I'm trying to do is protect Watson Island. Obviously, you know this only has two votes,' yours and mine. You want me to prove it to you? Alright,,l will make the motion exactly as it was only .exempting you, ok? Now, you want to second that motion? Mrs. Gordon: You are speaking of the ordinance that was read a few minutes ago which included the exclusion of the Government Center... Mayor Ferre: That's right, that's correct. That you seconded. Mrs. Gordon: Certainly I will second that. Mayor Ferre: Alright, I"wake the motion. Call the question. Mr. Plummer: No, for clarification, is that an ordinanceor a motion? There is no ordinance before us. Mrs. Gordon: Yes, there is. (BACKGROUND COMMENTS OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD) Mr. Knox:I read the ordinance. --` Mrs. Gordon: It is an ordinance, it's Mayor Ferre: Mr. Knox: Mayor Ferre: Mr. Plummer:. the roll. on the agenda. Read it again. READS` ORDINANCE': INTO THE RECORD AGAIN). Call the question. Mr.'Chairman, you want tocall the roll? Any further discussion, hearing none Motion understood? Mayor Ferre: Does that make my point? Mr. Plummer: No. Mrs. Gordon:. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Ongie: Mayor Ferre: gl You didn't call your vote. Are you voting? I voted called him first.. Does that make my point clear to' you? Alright, now, 161 call s there JUL 1 1 1979 anything else? I take the Chair back... Mr. Plummer: Let me try a motion on you. I make a motion at this time that the Conference/Convention Center be exempted from any and all consideration as it relates to the proposal before us. Mrs. Gordon: There is no proposal J. L. Mr. Plummer: The ordinance before us. Anything relating to the Amendment... Mrs. Gordon: Honey, there is nothing... it's all over. • Mr. Plummer: No, no. What I am saying is Father, is I will exempt tnat... the way Maurice made the motion, I've got to include all of the rest, jte one item, exempt that Convention /Conference Center. ust h exempt Mr. Knox: That's what I just read. Mr. Plummer: No, you did not. You are asking me in that motion to enforce... ,put into effect all of the other exempting that. r am saying exempt just that and I will vote for it. Mrs. Gordon: Yes, but from what? You have nothing to exempt it from. Mr. Lacasa: I understand your intention, but there is nothing that you can exempt them from. There is nothing. Mrs. Gordon: Nothing to exempt it from. . -. -:, • -• - . . , , . , • , -„,.,.. ,, , , ,,, ,...., . ,, Mr. Plummer:.,I 'ain';scared are you.right. . • . , . ' .' - - - - ' •---- - - • . - , ' -- .--- .. - ., ,- _ . , - _,-. -- - - .>.,,...,,,,, r. ,. Mayor - Ferre: The way westand:-On . this thing .„ now .'is.-.itiat,. thie. Trotter .on the,,.-,,•-,-;-,, question .1 of f b 1 lt. on ', the ..1)aOt onNeilbet ll.-',ov• fith'.6: before the Water : Board, -.• : . • _., „., .,, ... ,..._......-,, ... . , ... .-..._.,,... ,._. _ the Zoning Bo'ard and what's the s. :- Board? -- -- '-- --, - ••••''-',•..,„:--'„---,-,-.,:. •,- .--' ''. .'.-.• - - .--- .. - • - ,.. other . _ ..... . . .,, . „ . ,. ..,.. Mr. Plummer: . It's EnvirOnmenta 1. - . ' .' '' ' ..- ..'- - :-• -, ,.. ,,,:c . -., ,,.. ,... • ' - . . - - ---- ,-. -- - , • -,,, -,„ .. ... ,, . ,, , .,. _ ,.. „ _ , , • . ...., _. , . . , . Mayor Terre: -.Environmental. .. , . ....,,,,, .. ' , • , , , , „ ,, ,' - -_--. ,,- , • , • . -- .- - . ..:- - „ ' ..,-::- , -..,- - - „i , . ,: - , ..,- • -, - -- ::_,--, ,-,-..,•.•, _ -_----_-, , .- -. , , ..,,,, _ ,,.., - . . . .. . ,. Mr. Knox:;-•.Acti.ially the •.•znotiOn,, Mr. ..„Mayor provides only for.. consideration of ; -:',.•,.' the Waterfront- Board. • - --, • - ,• ,--- ,, - " , ' '- , ,` , ' ' , , • . _,. ... ,-....,,,,,,,..... , ,,, ,, . , --,,,:_...,-., .., :-. ....-,- ..• '-- ,-,__-,,..-...., -,,,,..-,-,..,,,,-....,,...„--.,--,-.: .. , .,... ,,L, .,- ,. ,-- .. ,-, ., _ .. ,,,, , , . -.., , . , - ----• '._.„ ,,,-,,-, , ..,,,,,,..-.--. ,.. , -,.- .. .-: ..-,- .2 -.,•.,,,.• ..-,..,,,,, ,,,,, - Mayor Ferre: -Waterfront- Board. Mr. Knox: '-,' Yes, the'-m(READS NOTION ,reads-,,,-MOTION'INTO.THE,,RECORD). - --,,,•••, -..,„,..,,,..,, - - - , -,,, „,•-•:,,,,,,,,,, , . ,•„;,,,,-_--, -,, ,.. ,, ., ., , ..„..,, „._ -., . . • . ,..... .- , . - . , „. ..,..., ...,„ .. , - , --......., f-,' ,- ...` .... - - , ' ...-;._ , .."" -, : : ; .., , . , , Mayor :Teirei:-•• Gic,....'..now,.let'ne.'-aSkl-the'',--Adinini.Strati.on.•-; /s-ille:,aterIBOard....;,,..,,,,, deliberating :on'..ithiS-,:item.. at this point? i-i•-...i',-• - .--. ,,,,- - . ,.. .. .•,,,,,, -,,:,.. . ,,,,., _ .:. ., ,,..:, ,.,,,.,,,, „ , .,., ., , , ,, ' - - • -- -------------..--,--,- --.-....._ Mr. . Grassier' : It',hSs':been.._.'Sent. ''fo-.1,:theM•-..and' ..I ,Understand that they are going • to be--dealingwith'-it„--tOnlorrow,, Mr. Mayor. ''.• .,_ ,.,._.: .._.,.,.., , :,...,. ., _ .,,,,,,,, , .,,,,,__: ,,,_ „. ' ' • - ' '-' '•, --,, :, :- • .,-. -.. , ..,'.• , ... ,. Mayor Ferre: Oh, I see. Ok. So, hopefully we will have something by the twenty third. Mr. Grassie: Well, we can't assure you that they will come to a conclusion, but at least they will have talked about it. Mr. Plummer: Well, let me understand something to see if we understand each other correctly because you know, it's getting late... It is my understanding Morty, that if nothing is done, you are not in trouble? Mayor Ferre: What he is saying is that he is in trouble because there is a cloud over it. Mr. Fine: I am absolutel.y saying atld I want to make it clear as the Mayor Pointe in major trouble. Mr. Plummer: Yes. But Morty, what I'm .saying is if we don't pass twenty or twenty-one this evening you are not in trouble. gl d out before, not only is my client in trouble, but I think the City is 0,4-1 .104 JUL 1 1 1979 Mr. Fine: Well, I would say this. I would say I would suggest to you that you seriously consider passing anything that your City Attorney and you think is appropriate whereby you would specifically exempt... Mayor Ferre: I think I have it, if I may. Mr. Chair again? Mr. Plummer: I would rather have the gavel. Plummer Mr. Knox: Mr. Mayor, let me correct the record, pleases What I just read to is the motion; that you adopted on the 25th. On the 26th you adopted a motion Which provides as follows. (READS MOTION INTO THE RECORD). M.vor Ferre: That's right. That's the way it i M:. Plummer:. I, move you, sir that we instruct allthose boards that in their deliberations that the James L. Knight. Convention Conference Center is exempted. Mr. Lacasa: Mr. Plummer: Mr. Jaf f er fens. Mr. Plummer: I s.teond that motion. Dot that do it? Why ..on't you let Mr. Paul do that? o ahead. Is that .a.compliment? ,� wait a minute Ed. What? '.t,:vcr .Fetr-: o Or. Fine: .I think 'it's a step inthe right direction and I think the other ;•n;, has to 1^e taken after this and I will be glad to suggest it after you al.:. vote o1 -e : ot. Yr. right, .that 'a motion and it's been seconded. I:call the •,:, irman. N. Plu nr r Call the . roll. ::u.Llowing motion: was introduced by Commissioner Ferre adoption: MOTION NO. 79-499 who moved :its A MOTION AMENDING MOTION 79-468 PASSED AND ADOPTED JUNE 26, 1979 INSTRUCTING ALL BOARDS AND PARTIES NAMED IN SAID MOTION TO EXEMPT THE JAMES L. KNIGHT CONFERENCE/CONVENTION CENTER FROM THEIR DELIBERATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENTS CONCERNING THE WATERFRONT. Upon ,being seconded by Commissioner Lacasa, the motion was passed an adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore.R. Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre Gibson 1Vone. LOLL CALL: `Mr. Mayor, I would... Mr. Plummer: , we are still in a roll call. I' haven't casted my 1'31:oL. George my problem is can we the Commission instruct Boards? Mr. Knox: You can establish perimeters for their deliberations. also indicate your will or opinion as a matter of policy. Mr. Plummer: 81 I' vote 8" . 163 You can 'jut t t 1979 Mayor Ferre: No, no, you still have the Chair. I move you now that we also exempt Watson Island. Mr. Lacasa: Second. `. Mayor Ferre: And the reason is that we presently have a which this will severely. effect. I call the question. Mr. Plummer: Motion made and seconded,:.. that is that would then in fact be emotion, right? It would have to be brought back before us? Mayor Ferre: It's a inotion to the Board that in their deliberations, that they have two exemptions and the reason is that four out of five members of the Commission have voted that, that is an on going project. Mr. Plummer: Call the roll. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Ferre, who moved i adoption: MOTION NO. 79-500 A MOTION AMENDING MOTION NO. 79-468 PASSED AND ADOPTED JUNE 26, 1979 INSTRUCTING ALL BOARDS AND PARTIES NAMED IN SAID MOTION TO EXEMPT WATSON ISLAND FROM THEIR DELIBERATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENTS CONCERNING THE WATERFRONT. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Lacasa, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: .Mr. Lacasa, Rev. Gibson, Vice -Mayor Plummer and Mayor Ferre. NOES: Mrs. Gordon. ABSENT: None. Mr. Fine: Mr. Mayor, I'm not sure or Vice -Mayor, if this is appropriate, but in response to Mrs. Gordon's question and in response to any questions you may have regarding any proposed amendment that you are going to put on the ballot. I would specifically suggest... I better wait a minute. Rose, you. asked me a question before. Mrs. Gordon: I'm listening to you. Mr. Fine: I would hope that in anything you are circulating you, might consider or anyone else might consider exempting the James;L. Knight Center from that. Otherwise, we are going to have a cloud over this which in my, opinion would prevent financing. Mr. Jaffer: Can I answer that? In the Dade County Metro Home Rule Charter it makes a provision that several different amendments can be proposed to the Charter at the same time and I would hope that at least one of those alternates would be a non-hippocratical, non -exemption... Mrs. Gordon: I will try my best to do something, but I would have to recapture an awful lot of them that have already gone out. I will try. g1 `JUL I 1 1979 NI 41. BALLOTING PROCEDURES FOR APPOINTMENT OF PERSONS TO THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BALLOTING ON: ACADEMIA -ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT -BANKING & FINANCE -INDUST- RIAL & MANUFACTURING - MEDIA - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - RETAIL - COMPLETED. AIRLINES - UTILITIES- REALESTATE & MISCELLANEOUS DEFERRED. Mayor Ferre: Alright, is there anything else to come up before this Commission? We have Item 23 still to go through. So if you will take up Item 23. You have a... on the second page a sheet. My recommendation it that you each write a name down and we submit our choices and then we will then discuss the choices and vote on each one, ok. Mr. Lacasa: Well, why don't we...there is fifteen names, here until dooms day. Mayor Ferre: Well, the reason why we can't do that is because there are different categories. One is Academia, the other one is... Mr Lacasa: Well, but we don't have to adhere to the categories... Mayor Ferre: Alright, we have some nominations further on these Committees. Now, Mr. City Attorney, there are some further additions that Mr. Lacasa wants to make and I don't know whether anybody else wants to makes. Mr. Lacasa, the Chair recognizes you for that purpose, now. Mr. Lacasa: I would like to nominate... Mrs. Gordon: You mean, we could still add names now? Mayor Ferre: Yes, he wants to add some names. Mr. Lacasa: Mayor Ferrel Mrs. Gordon: Mayor Ferre: would like to addsome names., Alright. I "didn't 'know we could add names now Can we add names or not?' Mrs. Gordon: We didn't make it up to add names now. Mr. Arturo : Excuse me, sir. My name is Arturo and the Assistant. Director of the Office of Trade and Commerce Development. This particular list was put together as a recommendation from the private sector to you and in no way and no means does it limit your choice of the you know, members to this particular list. Add whatever you want. Mayor Ferre: Alright, we could add names. I understand. Alright. Mrs. Gordon: Why weren't we told that, that was the procedure prior to now? Mayor Ferre: we are going to be We were told that... Mrs., Gordon:. Wewere not told. We were told it was cut off, this was it, you know. Mayor Ferre: I don't think we were ever told that, that I can remember. We were spectfically told... Mr. Lacasa, last time said that he wanted to add some names and I told him that he couldn't do it at that meeting, but that... then somebody asked for this thing to be deferred so that the people could... Rev. Gibson: Now, what is the first one? Academia? Mayor Ferre: Academia? Does anybody want to add any academic people onto this list? Any academic people? Alright, I:will go on to the next category. Any Banking and Finance people? Any additions? Alright, I will go to the next one. Economic Development and Labor people? Mr. Lacasa: -Here I want to add the name of Reinaldo Cruz. 1 14ayor Terre: Alright, #17 on this was Mr. Reinaldo, Uhat? Mr. Lacasa: Cruz. Mayor Ferre: Now, would you tell us who he is? Mr. Lacasa: I would like to pass the resume. Mayor Ferre: And what is his title? Mr. Lacasa:Reinaldo Cruz is the (COMMENT INAUDIBLE). Mayor Ferre: He is a former President? Mr. Lacasa : Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: Ok. Mr. Lacasa: Well-known businessman in our community. Mayor Ferre: Yes, I know him, he is a very fine man. Any other additions? Alright, Industrial and Manufactui-i.rag, any additions to that? Any Industrial and Manufacturing? Alright, the next one is Media. Are there any additions to the Media list? Mrs. Gordon: Yes. Mayor Ferre: Alright, Mrs. Gordon? Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Aure13. RaTflOS. Mayor Ferre: Mr. who? Mrs. Gordon? Mr. Aure11 Ramos. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Aurell Ramos, alright. Mrs. Gordon: Yes, from Diarios Las Americas. Mayor Ferre: Alright, any other additions? Be is well-knOWn under Aurell Ramos Diarios Las Americas, so you will identify t. Mrs. Gordon: He is the one that covers us and does such a good job. Mayor Ferre: Alright, then we have Professional Services. Anybody in Professional Services? Mr. Lacasa: Eduardo Calil. Mayor Ferre: Alright, what is his title as 1122? Mr. Lacasa: He is an architect. Mayor Ferre: Eduardo Calil. C -a -1 -i -1, architect. Alright, any other additions in that category of Professionals. The next one is Retail. Are there any additions to the Retail? The next one is Airlines. Are there any additions to Airlines? Next one is Utilities. Any additions to Utilities? Alright, Realestate? Anybody in Realestate? Alright, Miscellaneous? Mr. Lacasa: I would like to add the name of Jose Correa. Mayor Ferre: Jose Ricki Correa. Alright, we all know who he is. Are there any other additions. Alright, is there a motion that nominations be closed? Mr. Lacasa: I so :Dove. Mrs. Gordon: Well, wait a minute. You are moving what? Mayor Ferre: That nominations be closed and then we: are going to vote. Mrs. Gordon: Oh, no, here is another one. gl 166 gut. Mayor Ferre.: Mrs. Gordon::: Alright, give me another one. Put Arturo Hevia on... Mayor Ferre: Miscellaneous. Mrs. Gordon: ... Miscellaneous, yes. Mayor Ferre: I think that Arturo Hevia would also... no, I guess he is not... Mrs. Gordon: What did say? Mayor Ferre: Is he a Professional? He is with Mida, isn't he? Where does he work? Mr. Lacasa He works for and he is a tsetn1)er of the Bureau of the Census. Mrs. Gordon: Of what? Mr. Lacasa: Of the Bureau of the Census. He is on the Advisory Board of the Bureau of the Census at the National level. At the National level... Mayor Ferre: Alright, Arturo Hevia would be in 141.scellaneous. Alright, anybody else? Alright, is there a motion that nominati.orts be closed? Mr. Lacasa: I so move. Mayor Ferre: Is there a second? So we can get on with the voting. Rev. Gibson: Second. Mayor Ferre: Alright, seconded, further discussion that nominations be closed, call the roll on that. A MOTION THAT NOMINATIONS BE CLOSED WAS MOVED AND SECONDED AND WAS PASSED BY A UNANIMOUS VOTE. Mayor Ferre: Alright, now, if you will then take that first sheet and write the people you have... on this sheet and just write down the people and I'm sure that... Mrs. Gordon: How many people do you want us to write? Mayor Ferre: One one each one and let's see if anybody gets... it will take us ten hours to do otherwise, Plummer. Mrs. Gordon: Oh, comeon, everybody write three, you have got fi.f teen. Mr. Plutnmer: That's it. Mayor Ferre: Everybody write three? Mr. Pltumner: Definitely. Mr. Lacasta: Yes, definitely so. Mrs. Gordon: Everybody pick three and that's it. Rev. Gibson: Everybody picks three? Mrs. Gordon: Yes and then you got... we got fifteen and that's what we need. You get three and I get three... Mayor Ferre: I don't agree with that of everybody getting three because we are talking about Academia, Banking all different kinds of categories and I don't... Mrs. Gordon: There is no other way you are ever going to get it all squared away. Mayor Ferre: I don't agree with it. Now, if you want to make a motion that it be done that way, then you move it. 3UCI 1. 1979 167 gl Mt. Grassie: Mr. Mayor? Mrs Gordon: You will be sitting here for two hours any other way. Mrassie: Mr. Mayor, I'm really sorry to bring it up because it is so late, but'when you discussed this the first time you remember that one of the things that you wanted to accomplish was to make sure that you ended up with at balance Board and you want representation from each of the sectors. Mayor Ferre: I agree with you. Mr. Grassie: Now, the only way that I: think that, you are going to achieve that is that you are going to have to follow the procedure that you find on`the first page memorandum, which is that individually you nominate a person from each sector. Mayor Ferre: I agree with that, Mr. Grassie. Alright,, the Chair is open for nominations for the first one which is Academia. You have eight candidates. Is there a motion? Rev. Gibson:And how many are you going Roosevelt Thomas. Mr. Lacasa• Mayor Ferrer Alright, we have other nominations?o nominations. e have a etherenaMunoz notherd Roosevelt Thomas, are there any nominations? Let's go through the nominations of the whole thing so that we will know what we are limited to and then we can come back and vote and that way balance it. (BACKGROUND COMMENT OFF THE`PUBLIC RECORD) Mayor Ferre: There are two nominees, Roosevelt Thomas Alright, we will come back and vote in a moment. Mayor Ferre: Munoz is nominated by Lacasa, Banking and Finance who are the nominees? Mrs. Gordon: Well, let me ask you a question for clarification? Each o us nominate on every page? Mayor Ferre: Yes and then we will come back and vote on the nominees one by one and that way we will be able to balance it between Blacks, Latins and women' and do it intelligently. Alright, we are down to the next category which is Banking and Finance. Mrs. Gordon: I want a clarification again, Maurice, because it doesn't seem like a fair and reasonable thing for us to be doing. We each should take three, that's it. Take three first and see if we cover every category. Otherwise, I.` will nominate somebody from every page and that's ridiculous. Mayor Ferre: Fine, then do that. Mrs. Gordon: No, that's ridiculous. Mayor Ferre: No. Well, you do what you want to. The Chair is ruling.. that we go each and nominate in each page and then go back and vote on them and that way we can do it one by one and do it logically and balance it. Now, we are on Banking and Finance. Mrs. Gordon: Alright, then. Mayor Ferre: Mrs. Gordon: Mayor Ferre: Cyrus... gl want to pick Cyrus Jollivette from Academia. 168 Mrs. Gordon: Jollivette. Mayor Ferre: Jollivette,. Alright, so there are three nominees there. Alright, let's go to the next page. Banking and Finance, who are the nominees? Bellamy. Rev. Gibson: Jean Mayor Ferre: Jean Bellamy is one, alright. Any other nominees? Are there any other nominees on this... Mrs. Gordon: Doris Steele. Mayor Ferre: Who? Mrs. Gordon: DorisSteele. Mayor Ferre: Doris Steele. Alright, any other nominees? Alright, then we inove on to the...,I"would like to nominate Charles antor, so that's three. Mr. t:acasa: Charles? Mayor Ferre:Cai tor, which is number one onthat list. Development. Whc are the nominees?" Lacasa: Here in Economic Development I nominate Reinaldo Cruz. Dve?.opment. Mrs. Gordon:' r,�.•. Gib.5or.. Mayor Ferre:. 11r. Lacasa: Mayn't- Ferre Mr. Plummer: .fright, Reinaldo Cruz. Next page Economic Are there other nominees? Economic Oh, is that what was just asked? Janet Reid. Alright, Father Gibson nominates Janet Reid. Alright,.. du,n't see her here. q. ;is #16. Yes, on the back side. .ui, see. (BACKGROUND COMMENT INAUDIBLE) Rev. Gibson: Yes. Mayor Ferre: Mrs. Gordon: I will nominate Norma Hunt Mayor Ferre: Alright, there is a"nominee for Norma Hunt. Any other. nominations? Rev. Gibson: Mayor Ferre: Mrs. Gordon: Don' Yes, T. Willard Fair. Alright, T. willard Fair. I will nominate Russ Marchner. i•;a,orFerre: Well, I think each one of us should nominate o do I. s. Gordon:. Well Gibson has two inthat, you want to nominate Russ Marchner Plummer? Maurice? Norma Hunt. Any other nominations? ust one person. Mayor Ferre: Who. does Gibson have other than... Mrs. Gordon: Janet Reid and Willard Fair. and -Fair" so that's one nominee per person.` Further Mayor:Ferri: I said Will, nominees? Alright, Industrial and Manufacturing? Mr. Plummer: gl . Sam Kantor. 169 "fit I 1 1979 1 EM Mayor Ferrer Mr. Sam Kantor. Armando Aleyandre. Alright, Rev. Gibson: Mayor Ferre: Alejandre. Mrs. Gordon: Mayor Ferre: Mrs. Gordon:. Mayor Ferre: Rev. Gibson:. Mayor Ferre: Rev. Gibson: Mayor Ferre: Mrs. anybody else? Anybody else? Rod Overholt.• Rod Overholt. Anybody else? O,k ,Who said .Armando? Armando Alejandre. I did.• In Media. Garth Reeves. next? Alright, Gibson nominates Garth Reeves. Gordon: I do. Aurell Ramos Mayor Ferree. Mr. Aurell Ramos. s there, anybody else? I. nominate Gustavo Godoy. Mayor Ferre:GusGodoy. ;�Yy bod else? Going once. I nominate Sylvan : � Meyer. Anybody else from Media? Alright, professional Services? Anybody else? Lacasa: Mrs. Gordon: Was only three in Media? Mayor Ferre: In Media were the following, Reeves and Aurell Ramos. Sylvan Meyer,. Gus Godoy, Garth Mr. Lacasa:; I withdraw my nomination' of Gus Godoy in view has been nominated. Mayor Ferre: Services... Mrs. Alright, ok, then there is only three. that :Aurell Ramos e arenow in Professional Gordon: There, was only two then, is that correct? No Ma'am there is three. They are Sylvan Meyers, Garth Reeves Mayor Ferre: � and Aurell Ramos. Rev. Gibson: :I nominate Ricardo Fernandez. Mayor Ferre: Alright, Father Gibson nominates Ricardo Fernandez. Mr. Lacasa: I -nominate Mayor Ferre: Mr. Plummer: On which one now. Mr. Lacasa: Professional. Mr. Plummer: Well, wait a minute now, I hope you got mine of Homer Marlowe. Mayor Ferre: If you say so, Where is that? Homer Marlowe is #16. Mrs. Gordon: Who nominated him? Mr. Plummer: :I did. Mr. Lacasa: Mayor Ferre: Mayor Ferre:. gl I will get Homer Marlowe at this point. Plummer nominated Homer Marlowe. 170 "JUl 1 1 1979 Mrs, Gordon: And what other ones were nominated? Mayor Ferre: Lacasa nominated Eduardo Calil who is #22. He was added previously. Rev. Gibson: And I nominated Ricardo Fernandez. Mayor Ferre: Ricardo Fernandez. We now have three nomi.nees. Are there• any other nominees? Mrs. Gordon: Just a minute and I will tell you. Robert Jones. Mayor Ferre: Alright, we have Mr. Robert Jones. Nov in this one we have four. I will nominate Hr. David Pincher.. Alright, anybody else? There is five, we are full on that one. Alright, next one? Mr. Lacasa: I nominate Willie Gart. Mayor Ferre: Alright, we have .Willie Gart. It's #4, Willie Gart. Rev. Gibson: McEwen. Mayor Ferre: Tell me again. Rev. Gibson: McEwen. Richard McEwen. Mayor Ferre: Alright, that's two. Any other nominates? Mrs. Gordon: Tony Alonzo. Mayor Ferre Tony Alonzo is three. P3.ununer? I nominate Ri.z OW , that's four. Mr. Lacasa: Who. Mayor Ferre: Rizikow. The next one, Airlines. Any... Mr. pluunner: Ricon. Mayor Ferre: Who? Mr. Plummer: Ricon. Mayor Ferre: Ricon. Alright, Plummer nominates Ricon. Rev. Gibson: Louis. Mayor Ferre: Who? Rev. Gibson: Who did you nominate, Pli.unmer? Mayor Ferre: Ricon. Mr. Pltimlner: #2, Mr. Louis Albert Ricon of Avianca Airlines. Rev. Gibson: That's alright. Mayor Ferre: Anybody else want to nominate anybody? I will norni.nate Eli Tinioner. Eli #1. Eli Timoner. Utilities? Rev. Gibson: I noininate W. R. Ellis. Mayor Ferre: Mr. W. R. Ellis. Any other nominations? Alright, I will nominate Mr. Sanchez. We are now on Realestate. Are there any other nominations there? Mr. Lacasa: I nominate Sonny Wright. Mrs. Gordon: Ted Pappas. Mayor Ferre: Sonny Wright is #1, Ted Pappas 118. Anybody else? Rev. Gibson: What about Casey Cousins? Mayor Ferre: Alright, Casey Cousins. Anybody else, there is three? Three. gl ,171 1ri`rf '974 Anybody else? Alright, we are now on Miscellaneous. Mr. Lacasa: I nominate Jose Correa. Mayor Ferre: Jose Correa. Mrs. Gordon nominates Arturo Hevia. Anybody else? We have two. I will nominate Maurice Alpert and that make it three. Jose Ricki Correa, Arturo Hevia which you submitted and Maurice Alpert. That makes three. We are now complete. Now, let us go over and start from the heginning and if you will take a piece of paper and vote we will select... We have three nominees in the first one. They are Roosevelt Thomas, Munoz and Jollivette. Mr. Plummer: Give it to me again. Who are the three? Mayor Ferre: Roosevelt Thomas, Ramon Munoz or Cyrus Jollivette. Mrs. Gordon: May I ask you to see whether you have fifteen categories this wAY? Mayor Ferre: Yes, we have fifteen categories. Mr. Lacasa: No, .;e have less, but there are some which we have to... Mr. Grassie: Thee are eleven categories, Commissioner. Four of the categories have two individut is from each of the four categories. Ferle; you tell us which one has two? Mr. Grassie: Yes, sir. The first one that has two is Banking and Finance. mevor Ferret Well, Academia only has one. Mr. Grassie: Academia has one. >rs Gordon: One? terc i'F• Gordou: Mayor Ferre: So if you Fill Put your Candidate. on this one. How many do ve in Pru:essional?, Mrs. Gordon:. How about .Banking .and. Finance, are Fe ready for Mr. Grassie: Banking and .Finance has: two Mr. Mayor. Msv.)r Ferre:' Banking has two. ' • . . Mr. Grassie: Industrial and Manufacturing has two. Mayor Ferre: Yes. Mr. Grassie: Retail has two. Mayor Ferre: Yes. Mr. Grassie: And Realestate has two. All of the others are one. Mrr-. Gordon: So we write two on the same ballot? Mayor Ferre: Well, this one you only have one. Tni-s. Gordon: No, we are on Banking and Finance... MaYot. oarFerre: Na' we are on Academia' We are an 01. We are starting at the fr Mrs. Gordon: Are you still on #1? Mayor Ferre: Yes. Alright, has everybody... I will tell you I don't mind reading it out because it's all public record anyway. Well, ok, pass the ba13.ot. Pass your ballot on the first one down, please. Plummer, you forgot your ballot. jut I i9711 gi 1.72 Mr. Plummer: Mayor Ferrel Not really. Well, hurry up and vote, will you, so we can get out of here. (BACKGROUND COMMENTS OFF 'THE PUBLIC RECORD) Mayor Ferre:.: ow many people do we have in Retail? Mr. Grassie: We Mr. Lacasa: Mayor Ferre: Mr. Lacasa: Mayor Ferre: to everybody have two on Retail, Mayor. I want. to .change Calil from Professional Services to Retail. Is he a retailer? Yes, he has a jewelry store.. Oh, that's, right. He has a jewelry shop. Now,'is that acceptable because I don't want to start doing these things unless we... Mrs. Gordon: Where are you taking him from? Mayor Ferre:, He had Put him down under Professional Services and he wants to remove him from that and put him down where there is less people which is in Retail. Do you follow me? Because he owns a jewelry shop. Mrs. Gordon:' Well, look, if we are going to start moving a whole bunch of things, around, Maurice, all of us can find a reason why we should do them. Mayor Ferre: I will let you do the same thing, Rose. We are not going to be tight on this. We will do anything that's reasonable you want to do. And if you object with the people we have and you tell me who you want to change and we will try to comply with this as best we can. Alright, has everybody voted on the first one which is Academia? Would you read the results? FIRST BALLOT: Mr. Ongie: The results of the Roosevelt Thomas Dr. German Munoz Cyrus Jollivette Mayor Ferre: Mr. Grassie:. person vote Mayor Ferre: Mr. Grassie: Mayor Ferre: votes... the Alright first In this case Mr. Mayor for two individuals. Is this... Banking and ballot: you are .going to instruct that each, Finance are two items Yes, sir. Alright, vote for two and who ever gets, you know, the majority two; high... Rev. Gibson: You only have two people nominated. Mayor Ferre: If you nominate two, the two high vote getters willbe the guys. So you just put two names down. The people are-Kandor, Bellamy and Steele. You need two. Mr. Plummer: Oh, Mayor Ferre: Two. Charles Kantor. Mrs. Gordon: How many on Economic Mr. Grassie: Economic Development Mrs Gordon: Only one. Mayor Ferre: gl wait a minute, I'm sorry. Two? You have got three choices, Doris Steele, Jean Bellamy and Development and Labor? and Labor is only one, Commissioner. Alright, Economic Development 1'73 how many do we get? 1V1. T : 1979 Mr. Grassie One, sir. Mrs. Gordon: Maurice? Mayor `Ferre: Mrs. Yes, go ahead. Gordon: You said we could change. Mayor Ferre: Mrs. Yes, you can. Gordon: I would like to put Laura O'Brien O'Brien. Mayor Ferre: We have also included Laura Laura O'Brien is also on this list. Alright. SECOND BALLOT: The results of the second ballot: Mr. Ongie: Doris Steele Jeanne Bellamy Charles Kantor Mayor Ferre: Alright, we are now Is that correct? Mr. Grassier_ Economic Mayor Ferre:' What? on mind here. if you want to reconsider on. Item C, which is` Economic Development.; Development andLabor, sir," is one person. Mr. Grassier One person. Mr. Lacasa:;. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Plummer: Mayor Ferre:; we have got Mr. Plummer: e already voted on that. No, we haven't. Oh,I'm .sorry ,-I beg your pardon.- We are now on Industrial.. Development. We: have done Economic No, wait a moment. Call the vote on Economic Development to balance these things. He did. Mr. Ongie I haven't totalled that yet, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: He hasn't totalled it yet, Plummer. All we have totalled now is Roosevelt Thomas in category "A"and we have Bellamy and Kantor in category "B". Now, so far we have got one Black male and we have one female and one White male. Go ahead. We don't have any Latins yet. It's only five votes can't you total quicker than that? Mr. Ongie: Sir, he is trying to count them. Mayor Ferre: Just read them out. because THIRD BALLOT: Mr. Ongie: The results of the third bailot: Reinaldo'Cruz' Janet Reid Laura O'Brien Mayor Terre: woman and one Mrs. Gordon: Mayor Ferre: Alejandre and g1 Alright, we have now one Latin male, White man. one Black male, one White What are you talking about now? Alright, the next one we have got three, Rod Overholt. 174 Samuel Kantor, Armando 'got t R7 Mr. Grassier And this is a category with two persons, Mr. Mayor,to.be selected. Two persons to,be,selected. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Plummer: Mayor Ferre: Mr. Plummer: Mayor Ferre: Two persons, ok. And please don't get confused that there are two Kantors. This is Samuel 'Kantor. Samuel Kantor is the man that I I got it. nominated. Mrs. Gordon: You nominated Samuel Kantor• ?` Yes, the owner of Mayor Ferre And I nominated Armando Alejandre who..., Mr. Jaffer: I don't think the Industrial' category needs two members. This isn't an industrial ciy. Mr. Plummer: Mayor Ferre: Sit down, this is not a -public hearing. (BACKGROUND COMMEdTS OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD) Mayor Ferre: Alright, so far we've got Roosevelt Thomas, Bellamy, Kantor Cruz. Now, we are on Item "D", would you read the totals? Industrial; and Manufacturing, Rose, out of three people, would you vote for one of those. You have got Sam Kantor Armando Alejandre and Rod Overholt. Mr. Plummer Ferreiiav Have you vo iitt1e:bit? You have to have two of Yes, you vote for two. LJo, yes, vote for two. tec' Rose? Call the answer FOIJRTH BALLOT: Mr,. Ongie: Samuel',Kantor (4):;- Armanda Alejandre (5) Rod Overholt (1) them... and Vote for any of themwhat'is the difference? , would you. And can we speed this up' -a The results of the fourth ballot: Mayor Ferre: Alright, so we have Alejandre and Samuel Kantor, that's spelled S. Kantor. Alright, Alejandre is a Latin male, we now have two Latin males. and two White males. Alright, the next category, I think is Media. Is that correct? Mr. 'Grassie: Mayor Ferre: Ramos. Rev. Gibson: Mr. Plummer: Mayor Ferre: Mr. Plummer: Mayor Ferre: That's correct, sir, one person. ow, the nominees are Sylvan Meyer, Garth Reeves and Aurell How many on Professional Services? One. That's going to be a rough one. Which one? The.next one is going to be a rough one. Well, we are on Media now. Have we all voted on Media? Read it. J1�! 3 i 1979 Mr. Ongie: FIFTH BALLOT: Mr. Ongie: The results of the fifth ballot: Garth Reeves (4) Aurell•Ramos (2) Mr. Plummer: How do you do that? Mayor Ferre: How could anybody get six votes? Mr. Lacasa: Have to be three. There must have been a single charting. Mayor Ferre: How could you have six votes? Mrs. Gordon: Mayor Ferre: I voted for two. Oh, you did. Did you vote for two? Mrs. Gordon: Yes. Mayor Ferre Mr. Ongie: Mayor Ferre: Well, four if Mrs. ;Gordon voted for Wait a minute, there was four and three? Four and two. Not everybody voted for two. and two. Obviously, the guy who got four wins, even both... Mr. Ongie: Right. Reeves, got four. Mayor Ferre: . it would be three to one, so Reeves won anyway you look a it. (BACKGROUND COIIMENTS OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD) Mayor Ferre: Alright, the nominees in Professional are e Robert Jones,u Rictardow o Fernandez, Homer Marlow and David Fincher. Now, lethave two Black males, we don't have any Black females. We have, one White female and that's all, we only have one woman so far. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor,.I want to make a strong pitch for Mr. Marlow' who has expressed an interest in being a member of this thing. He is an attorney... Mrs. Mayo Mr. possible. Mayor Ferre: Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Plummer: Gordon: Who? rFerre: Homer Marlow. Plummer: Homer Marlow an attorney. And I would like to lobby if that's You can do that. If I let you lobby me, can I lobby you the next time. What's next time? Mayor Ferre: There ain't no nexttime, do you read that tally? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Who were the nominees on that last category? Mayor Ferre: The nominees are Robert Jones,. Ricardo Fernandez, Homer. Marlowe and David Pincher. We have one choice. Is that correct? Mr. Grassie: Mayor. Ferre: gl That's correct Please vote. sir. n't you know that. Alright , would SIXTH BALLOT: Mr. Ongie: The ,results of the sixth ballot: Homer Marlow (3) David Pincher (1) Ricardo Fernandez (1.) Mayor Ferre: The next group are Mauricio Rizikow, Tony Alonzo, Willie Gort, Richard McEwen and Eduardo Calil. Mr. Grassie: You 'have two to choose in this group Mr. Mayor. Mrs. Gordon: We have two in this... Mr. Pl.wmner: Mr. tiayor, may I ask a question? I want to vote for... one of the people I want to vote for is Willie Gort, is there any conflict with hian being on the Planning Board and being on this Board'? I'm just asking. Mr. Knox: I don't think go. Mr.Plummer: Alright, fine. Mrs. Gordon: Where did we have Laura O'Brien? What was she in? What category did we have her in? Laura O'Brien. Mayor Ferre: 1. think you had her in Realestate. Mrs. Gordon.• Economic Development. Well, Laura is in a retail business, she sells cosmetics. Mayor Terre: Well, put her on there. Mrs. Gordon. Yes. So why can't we move her to retail, so we could vote her. for Mayor Ferre: You can. Go ahead. Mrs. Gordon: Ok, I have moved Laura O'Brien over here to Retail. Did you hear me, so you can vote for her. (BACKGROUND COVERTS OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD) Mrs. Gordon: Where are you going to put her? You can't put her in Realestate. Mayor Ferre: Well, we will balance it out... Mrs. Gordon: You can't put her in utilities. Mayor Ferre: Where are we? (BACKGROUND COMMENT INAUDIBLE) Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, sorry, I have to leave the meeting. Some of you are well aware of mother, I think is dying and I have to leave. I would like... I'm sorry. (MR. PL1JMMER LEAVES THE MEETING AT THIS TIME) Mayor Ferre: J. L., voted on that Airline category, so we can put that in. Would you give us the last tabulation? SEVENTH BALLOT: Mr. Ongie: The results of the seventh ballot: Willie Gort (3) Eduardo Calil (3) Richard McEwen (2) Laura O'Brien (1) Tony Alonzo (1) Mayor Ferre: Well, I tell you what, we are going to have to wait then until gl 177 JUL 1 t " Plummer gets back. So what... Mrs. Gordon: I don't think we should do anymore now, Maurice. Can't we just stop this now? 42. PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT - $4,500 FOR PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS, sale of property etc. Mayor Ferre: Alright, we... wait a minute... Rose, before we leave we do have a resolution setting forth a proposed Charter Amendment. This is as amended by izr. Paul this morning with regards to Mitch Wilson's garage... everybody is in agreement with it, so... Mr. Lacasa: Move. Mayor Ferre: Movcd by Lacasa, seconded by Gibson, further discussion roll. call the :'he'following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Lacasa, who moved irs Rdortim! RESOLUTION NO. 79-501 A RESOLUTION SETTING FORTH A PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT AMENDING SECTION 53 OF THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO ri.VViDE FOR AN INCREASE IN THE CONTRACT PRICE FROM $1,000 TO $4,500 FOR ANY PUBLIC WORK OR IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT BEFORE REQJCiaNG PUBLIC ADVERTISEMENT AND COMPETITIVE BIDDING; FURTHER PRJVIDIi1G FOR THE REQUIREMENT OF PUBLIC ADVERTISEMENT AND OPEN- 001:75F.711tVE BIDDING BEFORE THE SALE, CONVEYANCE, OR DISPOSITION OF ANY REAL PROPERTY, INCLUDING LEASEHOLD INTEREST THEREIN, OWNED BY THE CITY OF MIAMI, THE DEPARTMENT OF OFF-STREET PARKING OF THE CITY OF MIAMI AND THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE 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 Gibson, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Gordon, Mr. Lacasa, Rev. Gibson and Mayor Ferre. NOES: None. ABSENT:. Mr. Plummer. Mayor Terre: Alright, ladies and gentlemen... Mr. Manager, if you will tabulate what's been done up until now, we will resume this whole process next time.. We stand adjourned. AD1OURNNENT" i'ece being no further business to come before the City Commission, onmotion duly made and seconded, the meeting was adjourned at 11:35 P.M. ATTEST: MATTY RIRAI,_ Assistant City Clerk 11 178 MAURICE A. FERRE Mayor DOCUMENT MEETING DATE: INDEX July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�14 AVENUEE,ETOT BTHE MIAMIEN WAND. 10 AVENUE DADE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY. 14 ACCEPTING THE BID OF L.G.H. CONSTRUCTION CORP. IN THE PROPOSED AMOUNT OF$1,476.900 FOR DIXIE COMMUNITY PARK. 15 APPROVING THE FINANCIAL PLAN FOR 100 SECTION 8 HOUSING UNITS LOCATED IN MEDICAL CENTER 16 ALLOCATING ACTION COMMUNITY CENTER $29,000 OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUNDS PREVIOUSLY APPRO- PRIATED BY ORDINANCE NO. 8943 ADOPTED JUNE 4, 1979 17 SETTING FORTH A PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT AMENDING SECTION 53 OF THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, TO PROVIDE FOR AN INCREASE IN THE CONTRACT PRICE FORM $1,000 TO $4,500 FOR ANY PUBLIC WORK OR IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT BEFORE REQUIRING PUBLIC ADVERTISEMENT AND COMPETITIVE BIDDING 1 m R-79-488 79-488