HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1979-06-25 MinutesCITY OF MIAMI
COMMISSION
MINUTES
REGULAR)`'
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY HALL
RALPH G.. ONGIE
CITY CLERK
1
ITEM NO.
2
3
4
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
CITYI i uJJ' iictIERAFORIDA
June 25, 1979 (REGULAR)
SUBJECT
AMEND ORD. 8719, SUMMARY GRANT APPROPRIATIONS ORD.,
CREATE'NEW TRUST'& AGENCY FUND "RECREATION PROGRAMS
FOR -MENTALLY RETARDED - 3rd YEAR".
AMEND ORD. 8719 - SUMMARY GRANT APPROPRIATIONS, NEW
TRUST & AGENCY FUND: "STAFF TRAINING FOR ADAPTED
RECREATION - 2ND YEAR".
PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF MR. JEFFREY COHEN REGARDING
TENANTS ON PIER 5 WHO WERE ASKED TO TEMPORARILY
VACATE SLIPS FOR "SUMMER BOAT SHOW".
PRESENTATION OF OFFICIAL FLAG OF BUENOS AIRES,
ARGENTINA, SISTER CITY TO THE CITY OF MIAMI"
DISCUSSION: LEASE AGREEMENTS IN THE ORANGE BOWL
STADIUM
DISCUSSION: REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR "MIAMI FASHION
DISTRICT" .
DISCUSSION: MIAMI RIVERFRONT SPECIALTY CENTER,
DEVELOPMENT
REPORT FROM APPRAISERS -AIR RIGHTS OVER PARKING
GARAGE AT CONVENTION/CONFERENCE CENTER; AUTHORIZE
MANAGER TO PAY COSTS AND DISCUSSION. OF AMENDMENT TO
AGREEMENT WITH HOTEL DEVELOPER.
POLICE DEPARTMENT RESPONSE TO COMPLAINS, INVOLVING::.
TWO :SEPARATE :INDICENT S:r`5650-B:N.E. 2 AVENUE AND
1 N N.W. 62ND < STREET
PROPOSED CIVILIAN REVIEW
PRESENTATION OF PLAQUES
ITEMS
PROCLAMATIONS AND SPECIAL
IIRPINANCE OR
SOLUTION MO,
PAGE NO.
ORD. 8944
ORD. 8945
DISCUSSION
PRESENTATION'
DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION.
DISCUSSION.:
M-79-417
DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION
PRESENTATION
PUBLIC HEARING - WATSON ISLAND U.D.A.G. APPLICATION. DISCUSSION
PUBLIC -HEARING: WORLD TRADE CENTER U.D.A.G. DISCUSSION
APPLICATION.
PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENTS: WATERFRONT SETBACKS
WATERFRONT LEASES
URGE DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD TO CONTINUE BILINGUAL
PROGRAM EVEN IF CONGRESS. CUTS FUNDING TO CUBAN
REFUGEE PROGRAM
URGE CONTINUATION OF CUBAN REFUGEE PROGRAM AND
DIRECT THE CITY CLERK TO FORWARD RESOLUTION TO
APPROPRIATE FEDERAL OFFICIALS
URGE DADE COUNTY COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY TO CONTINUE
FUNDING ALL SAINTS HEADSTART PROGRAM & HEADSTART
PROGRAMS IN THE CITY LIMITS
M-79-418
M-79-419
R-79-421
R-79-422
R-79-423
1-2
4-17
18-23
24
25
25-41
41-45.
46-70
70-71
71-72
72-77
n�
PERSIIDA
PAGE 012
I1EM ND.
SIB,I;CT
QRDINANCE 013
I SOWTION .
PAGE ND, _
18
19 ALLOCATE `$206,050C.D.,FUNDS - WASHINGTON HEIGHTS
OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - "WORK PROGRAM".
AUTHORIZE PAYMENT.TO:MIAMI/BAHAMAS GOOMBAY FESTIVAL
AS:ADDITIONAL:CONTRIBUTION - 3RD FESTIVAL HELD JUNE
9, 1979:
20
21
22
23
ORDERING RESOLUTION: WEST TRAILVIEW HIGHWAY
IMPROVEMENT H-4447
CONFIRM ASSESSMENT ROLL: SOUTH BAYSHORE"DRIVE
HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT H-4342
CONFIRM ASSESSMENT ROLL:.SOUTH BAYSHORE'DRIVE SIDE
WALK IMPROVEMENT SK-4281
PERSONAL APPEARANCE: ATTORNEY GUY BAILEY REGARDING
ENDING LITIGATION PENDING BEFORE THE UNITED STATES
SUPREME COURT REGARDING BALL POINT
24 PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF MR. F. WARREN 0,'REILLY,
CHOPIN FOUNDATION TO REQUEST SUPPORT FOR AMERICAN
NATIONAL QUINQUENNIAL CHOPIN COMPETITION
25 CONTINUED DISCUSSION - FORMAL ORDER TO ATTORNEY GUY
BAILEY? TO WITHDRAW PENDING APPEAL CONCERNING
BALL POINT PROPERTY '
26 PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF JEROME BAIN TO DISCUSS CODE
SECTION 30-28 - COIN OPERATED MACHINES AND LICENSE
FEES.
27 ALLOCATE $690,487 C.D. FUNDS TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
SOCIAL SERVICE PROGRAMS (EXCLUDING TRANSPORTATION
PROGRAMS).
28 DISCUSSION ITEM: WYNWOOD TARGET AREA C.D. ELECTIONS.
29 AMEND APPROPRIATIONS ORDINANCE, INCREASE
APPROPRIATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF SOLID WASTE
r
30 APPROPRIATE $25,000 FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE
FUNDS -PROPERTY MAINTENANCE -LABOR' COSTS FOR
CONTINUING CITY HALL RENOVATIONS.
311 " AMEND APPROPRIATIONS ORDINANCE -INCREASE APPROPRIATION
FOR DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM PROMOTION.
32 AMEND APPROPRIATIONS ORDINANCE -INCREASE
APPROPRIATION TO THE GENERAL FUND -CITIZEN. SERVICES
DEPT.
33 AMEND APPROPRIATIONS ORDINANCE -INCREASE
APPROPRIATION FOR SPECIAL PROGRAMS AND ACCOUNTS -
SOCIAL SERVICE PROGRAMS DADE CO. SCHOOL BOARD
COMMUNITY SCHOOLS & AFTER SCHOOL CARE.
34 ESTABLISH RENTAL RATES FOR USE OF MIAMI.BASEBALL
STADIUM, 10% CITY TAX ON ADMISSIONS.
35 FIRST 6 SECOND READING ORDINANCE: ESTABLISH NEW
TRUST 6 AGENCY FUND "CONSORTIUM LIAISON"`
R-79-424
R-79-425
R-79-426 .
R-79=427
R-79-428
DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION
M-79-429
DISCUSSION
R-79-430
DISCUSSION
ORD. 8946
ORD. 8947
ORD. 8948
ORD. 8949
ORD. 89.50
ORD. 8951
ROD. 8952
77
78
9
79
80
80-87
87-90
90-92
93-94
`95
96-98
99
100
100
101
102
103
IND
I
I1EJi N0,
SUBJECT
11:DINANCE0R
sourrI oN too. PAGE NO.
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
AMEND APPROPRIATIONS ORDINANCE BY INCREASING POLICE
DEPT. GENERAL FUND BY$51,392"RECEIVED FROM STATE
OF FLORIDA FOR OVERTIME EXPENSES.`;
ESTABLISH RENTAL RATES FOR USE OF CITY OF MIAMI_
LITTLE HAVANA COMMUNITY CENTER.
CLAIM SETTLEMENT -AUTHORIZE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE TO
PAY $60,487 TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SOCIAL SERVICE
PROGRAMS
AUTHORIZE ALLOCATION OF 37 NEW SINGLE FAMILY
HOUSING UNITS -COCONUT GROVE, KINGHEIGHTS, BUENA
VISTA, ALLAPATTAH AND WYNWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD AREAS.
BID ACCEPTANCE - SANDY'S SKATES, INC. - OPERATION
OF OUTDOOR ROLLER SKATING CONCESSION AT BICENTENNIAL
PARK. NONE
DISCUSSION: QUESTIONS ON CERTAIN ITEMS ON THE
CONSENT AGENDA.
GRANT ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF EMPLOYMENT HARRY
PEARLMAN, DEPARTMENT OF STADIUMS AND MARINAS`
AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO ISSUE PERMIT: C.L.M."
DEVELOPMENT CORP. FOR CONSTRUCTION & REPAIRS AT
SUNG HARBOR
REAPPOINT HENRY C. ALEXANDER, JR. STEPHEN DAVIS
JULIA FERNANDEZ, ANTHONY LAVARGNA, DAVID'SCULLY.
AND STEPHEN ZACK AS MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF`MIAMI`
ENVIROMENTAL PRESERVATION REVIEW BOARD
APPROVE ACTION OF CITY MANAGER -REFUND $24,401.24 TO
DOUGLAS GARDENS MIAMI JEWISH HOME & HOSPITAL FOR'.
THE AGED (CITY TAXES).
RATIFY ACTION OF MANAGER: ACCEPT GRANT. 'LET'S PLAY:
TO GROW" PROJECT.
AUTHORIZE'CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT GRANT AWARD
$49403 RECREATION SUPPORT PROGRAM
AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT GRANT APPLICATION
STATE OF FLORIDA AREA WIDE CRIME PREVENTIONPROJECT.
WAIVE:: REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE V, SECTION 2-102
TO PERMIT CECILIO DE AZA, PARKS DEPT. EMPLOYEE
TO PARTICIPATE IN CITY'S REHABILITATION LOAN
PROGRAM.
AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT. GRANT::'
$10,726,000 FOR PROPOSED 5TH'YEAR COMMUNITY:
DEVELOPMENT"PROGRAM .
AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH
BARBARA NEIJNA, INC. - SCULPTURE FOR HEAVY
EQUIPMENT FACILITY
R-79-443
110
ITEM NO,
SUBJECT
itDINANCE OR
SOLUTION NO.
PAGE NO,
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
�2
63
64.
65
66
67
68
69
AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH
ANTONIO MOLINA, CONCESSIONAIRE, MIAMI-COUNTRY
CLUB FOOD CONCESSION.
. AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO. AGREEMENT WITH
PUBLIC HEALTH TRUST OF DADE COUNTY FOR COORDINATION
OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES:
BID ACCEPTANCE-100 GUN LOCK RACKS
BID ACCEPTANCE ONE STORM SEWER PUMP AND MOTOR
BID ACCEPTANCE - UNIFORMS FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
BID ACCEPTANCE - 600 TONS OF RED CLAY FOR PARKS
DEPARTMENT.
BID'` ACCEPTANCE - 2 DISKETTE DRIVES & RELATED DATE '.
PROCESS EQUIPMENT FOR DEPARTMENT" OF MANAGEMENT
AND BUDGET
ORDERING RESOLUTION: ENGLEWOOD SANITARY SEWER
IMPROVEMENT SR-5461-S.
ORDERING RESOLUTION ,ENGLEWOOD'SANITARY SEWER
IMPROVEMENT SR-5461-C.
AUTHORIZE 10% RETAINAGE REDUCED TO 2/% FOR HEAVY
EQUIPMENT SERVICE FACILITY !1AINTENANCE BUILDING..
AUTHORIZE CITYCLERK TO PUBLISH NOTICE -PUBLIC
HEARING FOR OBJECTIONS TO COMPLETED WORK-COLUMBIA
SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT. SR-5420-C AND S,
BID "A".
AUTHORIZE INCREASE IN CONTRACT FOR DORSEY PARK
IMPROVEMENTS.
AUTHORIZE INCREASE IN CONTRACT - LITTLE HAVANA
COMMUNITY CENTER - $82,072.
ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK -SCOPE CONSTRUCTION INC.
FOR AFRICAN SQUARE PARK.
ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK OF T. & N. CONSTRUCTION
CO., INC. FOR CIILMER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PAVING PROJECT & SANITARY SEWER MODIFICATIONS.`.
ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK - ROADS STORM SEWER PROJECT -
1977, PERSANT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.
ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK OF "IRPCO PAVING CO., AND
RINKER MATERIALS CORP. FOR CHOPIN PLAZA STORM.
SEWER REPAIR.
ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK - DOMINO PARK RESTROOM -
ALGAB CO., INC. AND AMERICAN FIDELITY FIRE
INSURANCE.
R-79-444
R-79-445
R-79-446
R-79-447
R-79-448
R-79-449
R-79-450
R-79-451;'
R-79-452
R-79-453.
R-79-454
R-79-455
R-79-456
R-79-457
R-79-458
R-79-459
R-79-460
R-79-461
110
110
111
111
111
111
112
112
112
112
112
112
113
113
113
113
70
71
72
73
IIaX
SSIcIFEMEIAA
BID ACCEPTANCE - COCONUT GROVE C.D. PAVING PROJECT -
PHASE II -`T & N CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
BID ACCEPTANCE - FIRE STATION NO. 4 - BID "A"
DEMOLITION L.G.H.. CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION.
ISSUE WASTE COLLECTION LICENSES TO ANGEL FACUNDO
GENERAL HAULING SERVICE, INDUSTRIAL WASTE SERVICE,
INC., LAZAROS WASTE SERVICE, INC.
APPROVE & CONSENT TO ASSIGNMENT OF. RIGHTS ,;FLORIDA
GAS UTILITIES CO., TO PEOPLE GAS. SYSTEM, INC.
PAGE #5
INANCE
soLUTIoN No. PAGE NO.
OR
R-79-462 113
R-79-463 114
;.R-79-464 114
ORD..8954 114
On the 25th day of June, 1979, the City Commission of
Miami, Florida met at its regular meeting place in the City
Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida in regular session.
The meeting was called to order at 10:10 O'Clock A.M. by
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. with the following members of the
Commission found to be present:
Commissioner Armando Lacasa
Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
ALSO PRESENT:
Joseph R. Grassie, City Manager
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.
A motion to approve the minutes of April 19th and April 30,
1979 was introduced by Commissioner Lacasa, seconded by Commis-
sioner Gibson and was passed unanimously by those Commissioners
present.
NOTE: Commissioner Rose Gordon entered the Meeting at 10:12
O'Clock A.M.
1. AMEND ORD. 8719, SUMMARY GRANT APPROPRIATIONS ORD.,
CREATE NEW TRUST & AGENCY FUND "RECREATION PROGRAMS
FOR MENTALLY RETARDED - 3rd YEAR".
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1 OF ORDINANCE NO. 8719
ADOPTED OCTOBER 26, 1977, THE SUMMARY GRANT APPROPRIA-
TIONS 6RDINANCE, AS AMENDED, BY ESTABLISHING A NEW TRUST
AND AGENCY FUND ENTITLED:" RECREATION PROGRAMS FOR THE
MENTALLY RETARDED (3RD YEAR)", AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS
FOR THE OPERATION OF SAME IN THE AMOUNT OF $11,629; CON-
TAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of May 22, was
taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On
motion of Commissioner Gibson, seconded by Commissioner Lacasa, the
Ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title and;
passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Rose Gordon
Commissioner Armando Lacasa
Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Mayor, Maurice A. Ferre.
01
rt
SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 8944.
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and
announced that copies were available to the City Commission and to the
public.
2. AMEND ORD. 8719 - SUMMARY GRANT APPROPRIATIONS, NEW
TRUST 6 AGENCY FUND: "STAFF TRAINING FOR ADAPTED
RECREATION - 2ND YEAR".
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1 OF ORDINANCE NO. 8719,
ADOPTED OCTOBER 26, 1977, THE SUMMARY GRANT APPROPRIA-
TIONS ORDINANCE, BY ESTABLISHING A NEW TRUST AND AGENCY
FUND ENTITLED: "STAFF TRAINING FOR ADOPATED RECREATION
(2ND YEAR)" IN THE AMOUNT OF $66,735; AND APPROPRIATING
THERETO A GRANT AWARD OF $40,500 WITH A CITY CASH MATCH
OF $26,235 FOR THE OPERATION OF SAME; CONTAINING A RE-
PEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of May 22, was •
taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion o
Commissioner Gibson, seconded by Commissioner Lacasa, the Ordinance was
thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and adopted,`
by the followingvote:
AYES: Commissioner Rose Gordon
Commissioner Armando Lacasa
Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Mayor Maurice A. Ferre.
THE ORDINANCE. WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE
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.
NOTE: Mayor Maurice A. Ferre entered the meeting at 10:15 O'Clock A.M.
3. PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF MR. JEFFREY COHEN REGARDING
TENANTS ON PIER 5 WHO WERE ASKED TO TEMPORARILY
VACATE SLIPS FOR "SUMMER BOAT SHOW".
Mr. Jeffrey Cohen appeared representing some of the tenants of Pier V and
stated that the eviction of tenants from their slips on Pier V was a violation
of the tenants' long term leases with the City.
Mayor Ferre stated that the Commission's motion was for the tenants to be pro-
vided like space with like utilities in Dinner Key without interruption of
phone service and that if Mr. Logan could not provide like facilities that
the tenants would not have to move.
No action was taken on this matter and it was later resolved
rt
02
JTUN251979
4. PRESENTATION OF OFFICIAL FLAG OF BUENOS AIRES, ARGENTINA, SISTER
CITY TO THE CITY OF MIAMI.
Mr. Eduardo Colombo, Consul of Argentina presented an official flag of
Argentina to the City of Miami on behalf of the Mayor Buenos Aires, Sister
City to the City of Miami.
5. DISCUSSION: LEASE AGREEMENTS IN THE ORANGE BOWL
STADIUM.
Mayor Ferre requested that the Commission agree on a proposal that the
Commission could live with which would start the process into motion to get
the equipment installed in the Orange Bowl and permit the sale of beer during
the next football season.
Commissioner Plummer again requested a copy of the Tampa Stadium Conces-
sion Agreement. He further stated that the low bid for the Tampa concession
had been 42% and that the high bid was 46%.
Mr. Ernie Fannatto appeared in objection.
6. DISCUSSION: REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR "MIAMI FASHION
DISTRICT".
Commissioner Plummer moved to defer this item until members of the industry
could be notified in order that they might hear the presentation on this item
and so that the Commission might receive input from industry representatives.
Several members of the Commission expressed a desire to hear from the depart-
ment because they wanted information and also because they had some concerns
with regard to the proposed demolition of 329 housing units in the area.
Mr. Reid stated that the housing in the area was dilapidated substandard hous-
ing and that the department had been in contact with HUD. He said that im-
provements to the Garment Center had been included in the Miami Heighborhood
Comprehensive Plan and funding was included in the 4th and 5th Year Community
Development Programs. He said that security, access to the expressway and
the dilapidated substandard housing mixed into the manufacturing area were
among the concerns which were being addressed.
Commissioner Gibson expressed concern over the boundaries for housing in the
area and Commissioner Gordon suggested that the department consider expanding
the industrial use on the east side of 2nd Avenue and include that area in
the redevelopment area.
Mr. Reid indicated that the department is looking to provide access from I-95,,
into the area, street improvements, beautificationof 5th Street and additional
parking as part of the recommended improvements.
xy
7. DISCUSSION: MIAMMI RIVERFRONT SPECIALTY CENTER DEVELOPMENT.
The proposed Riverfront Specialty Center which would include the area
generally bounded by Flagler Street, 8th Avenue, the Expressway and N.W. 5th
Street was described as an in -town retail center with restaurants, boutiques
and shops on the Miami River.
Funding for the Specialty Center would cane from 4th and 5th year Com-
munity Development Funds for land acquisition. Suggested uses for these
funds are land acquisition, rehabilitatiori of deteriorated housing and Luninus
Park improvements.
Commissioner' Gordon objected to the acquisition of properties by public
entities and the redispersing of those lands in the Culmer area and recom-
mended that the department seek alternative means to revitalize the area with-
out taking it out of the hands of private ownership. Mr. Reid stated that
the plans for the Culmer area were not a part of this study area but that the
plans for that area did include the participation of the property owners in
the redevelopment process.
3. REPORT FROM APPRAISERS - AIR RIGHTS OVER PARKING GARAGE AT
CONVENTION/CONFERENCE CENTER; AUTHORIZE MANAGER TO PAY COSTS
AND DISCUSSION OF AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH HOTEL DEVELOPER.
Commissioner Plummer objected to not having been furnished the reports
of the two appraisers at an earlier date and moved to defer this item, however,
at the pursuasion of several of the other Commissioners he withdrew his motion.
Mrs. Gordon: Let me tell you that I read these reports and I have found them
so interesting and very informative and educational for me, but I want you to
know that the conclusions bear out what we ordered these appraisals for in the
first place and that was to find out whether we were dealing in the ball' park
figure on the rental that we were going to charge for the air rights. And
both of these very well done reports which back up the conclusion reiterate
yes, we are on target.
Mayor Ferre: Yes, but I have a real basic question on that, Rose. How come,
they both came up with a figure of $300,000 which is the figure that we're
using? I mean that's kind of strange, isn't it? I want you to explain that
to me. _ I'm sorry, I don't mean, usually I'm the guy who....
Mrs. Gordon: I would address the appraisers since these people up here all.
with the exception of%myself are not appraisers and don't know the procedures
of arriving at conclusions of value -I guess maybe that's a reasonable request.
(Mayor Ferre - Inaudible) That just happens to be a coincidence but it's
based upon a conclusion of findings that are working a number of formulas
let them explain it.
Mayor Ferre: That's like a jury coming in after
paper stories. All right, go ahead, Mr. Slack.
Mr. Theodore
just said,'a
Mr. Plummer:
you're with?
SO
they've read all the news-
W. Slack: That's a very good statement I think that Mrs. Gordon;
ball park figure.
For the record, sir, may I enjoy knowing who
I don't know you, sir.
you are and who
Mr. Slack: Oh, I'm sorry, I overrated my reputation. My name is Theodore W.
Slack. I: am' President of Slack, Slack and Roe Appraisers. I've been in the
real estate and appraisal business for 53 years.
rt
04
'SIN 2515'g
Mr. Slack: No, since 43 in Miami and prior to that in Hartford, Connecticut
for 15 years and prior to that in Boston since 1925 when I graduated from
college. I would really like to answer this question of what the Mayor has
said, how come the figure is $300,000. Insofar as my figure goes, I don't
know, I didn't know until this moment what Mr. Bisz's was althqugh we did co-
operate on getting the facts together. The methodology of approaching this
process is that I personally considered that the garage and the office build-
ing were complimentary or dependent, obviously the office building was absolute-
ly dependent on the proper garage being built. Now we were given some schematic
plans from Mr. Pei, the architect which were for a much smaller garage proj-
ect and a much different type of office building. My report necessarily be-
cause we had no plans nor specifications at all, the area of the floors, the
type of access, the type of construction, the only thing that I personally
felt was that we must assume certain premises in order to arrive at a figure.
Now let me tell you in the first place if I thought that the rent for the air
rights should be $100,000 that is what I would have said. If I thought it was
$500,000 that's what I would have said. However, in the absence of plans,
specifications, timing, financing information and a great deal of other things
we had to make these assumptions so I tackled it, perhaps, backwards. What
would the garage earn provided that a proper amount of monthly parking was ,
allocated to.the 30 story building? If you do not allocate enough monthly
parking to the office building it will not be a success in my not so humble
opinion.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Slack, may I interrupt,
is my understanding, sir, or Ithought it
tion to be proffered to you in effect had
property, what was in effect a reasonable
piece of property.
because I'm having difficulty? It
was my understanding that the ques-`
no"bearing on what was going on the
return for a 90 year lease on a
Mr. Slack: No, sir, that's not my understanding at all.
Mr. Plummer: Well, then you see that's where we fall apart. What I asked and
what I think we re being asked is to allow a structure to go on top of a park-
ing garage, which is a benefit to the building because they don't have to build
their own parking, in affect what is a fair return to this City who owns the
property for an air lease of a 90 year mortgage? Now what does a building
and the floor space and anything else have to do with it7 We asked for an
appraisal based on that criteria. I was, if you wish, Peck's Bad Boy feeling
that $300,000 was not adequate and because of my contention is where you and
someone else I think was hired. Now you see, Mr. Mayor, you laughed at me
before when I said that the question that this Commission wanted answered,
that this Commission should proffer the question and I was laughed at - That
was tantamount to telling the appraiser what to come up with.
Mayor Ferre:
Mayor Ferre:
Mr. Plummer: Okay, the point is, Mr. Slack, we have a piece of property that
is being proposed to be developed on top of our garage for the private sector
and I merely asked the question "What is a fair return to this City for allow-
ing that private concern to utilize our property for 90 years? Is $300,000 a
fair figure or an unfair figure, and if unfair what is the fair figure?
Mayor Ferre:
Well he's answered that.
Mr. Plummer: No, he hasn't, he said'he,didn
Did I understand you to say that,' sir?
Mr.
t even address that question..
Slack: Let me tell you what I was instructed to do.
Mr. Plummer:
By who?
Mr. Slack: The Project Director, Mx. Connolly gave me a copy of what the
proposal was for the garage and office building with a purchase price of`
$37,500,000 for a 30-story office building to be built on top of a garage
which nobody knew exactly what size it would be or what would be necessary.
Now, if you were building a 10-story building on top of the garage you would
get an entirely different value for the leasehold than if you were building
'JtlN 2 5 1979
a 30-story building. I'm quite familiar with that because I was Vice -Presi-
dent of the National Association of Real Estate Boards when John Gabray built
the 30 stories on top of the U.S. Steel Building for the Aluminum Company of
America. Unless you know, and particularly unless the City knows what is go-
ing to be built on top of there there is nobody in God's world that can tell
you what the air rights are worth. You have to narrow it down to economics.
So my approach was what would the garage earn, what would the office building
earn and what could the office building, the bank who has the most unusual
proposition of buying all cash for a building. I might say that in my report
you'll find that I think the estimates to the building cost too much for the
office building. I might say that in my analysis I made a premise that the
building would have not less than an 80% efficiency ratio. What I saw in the
preliminary sketches were something like a 67% ratio. Now, if the building
is not built properly those air rights are probably worthless, the whole deal
will fall apart. Nobody, the bank, myself or any other investor is going to
build a 30 story office building, pay too much for it, get a very inefficient
deal. You've simply got to have a viable project to work with. Now, what I
worked out was that in the final analysis my summary is that the 30 story
building with an 80% efficiency which really should be 83 or 84, that's stand-
ard for good honest office building construction - I know that, I've been in
this business a long time, managed office buildings, sold them, rented them,
insured and mortgaged them. I'm a Director of the Royal Trust Company, I set
up their building and I know what I'm talking about. You cannot make a viable
proposition for a bank or for any other investor unless the building is effic-
ient. Now,.ba3ed on an efficient building and based on comparable rents that
will be available in two years and based on standard operating costs which
incidentally from my figuring you'll find $3.94 a square foot per annum is
what it costs, and I've itemized them all, and based on this I've found that
the lessee of that building could recover his investment in 30 years through
a sinking fund at 6% and receive on the minimum guarantee 10.5% and still pay
$300,000 a year. Now:if he could have paid 350,000 I would have said so, if
he could pay 250,000 I would have said so and I feel that on the rather sketchy
information that we have my preliminary figure is reasonably accurate. I did
the same thing with the garage. The garage and the office building are insepar-
able. I don't think the bank or anybody else is going to take a building with-
out properly monthly parking. You're going to have tremendous competition
from all these things that are announced every day, there is a new building
going up or some kind of a project on the drawing boards and this must be a
viable proposition at reasonable rates, efficiently built with the garage
available. Now, complicating this issue is the fact that it will cost 212 mil-
lion dollars to build the foundations for the upper floors of a 30-story build-
ing. Now, if you are going to build 10-stories on top of that garage you
wouldn't have to have foundations that would cost 21 million dollars so how
in heaven's name can you appraise what the air rights are unless you know how
big the building is you're going to build, what are the foundations going to
be, how many cars will be allocated to the office building and what is the net
income? Now, insofar as the net income to the garage I've found that based on
the rates which are comparable to City rates now used and supplied to me by
the Parking Authority and my own investigation because we keep track of these
things all the time, I found that the garage should earn $325,000 a year net
profit after all expenses paying the bond principle and interest over the 23
year period and a sliding scale of income and if you have $325,000 per annum
from the garage and $300,000 from the air rights you're making a net profit
of $625,000. I took into account that private industry would have to pay 11,
12, 1212% for interest where the City was going to pay 7.8, 7.5 I think it was
and I took into account losses for the first few years until such time as the
whole proposition got going. I felt basically the idea is sound, that a fine
investment for the City, that $625,000 a year from the garage and their air
rights on a 30 story building was practical and viable and I felt that if I
just said, "Well, the air rights are worth $300,000" there is no way in heaven'
name from an appraising standpoint in my opinion of coming to that conclusion.
Mrs. Gordon: Another thing, J. L., we need to recognize that there will be
an income to the City from the taxes that the office building will be paying
to the City and just exactly how much that is I'm not sure but there would
definitely be ad valorem tax.
Mr. Plummer: Rose, I' have no grind with anything that's been said. My grind
is with the fact that I don't think the consideration of the garage, the profit
therein, we're going to build that anyhow and that belongs to us so I don't
think it's a bearing on this. Whether we go today or later on a World Trade
Center is immaterial, we're building the garage and the income is going to be
the City's whether or not that building ever exists. Now, it was my under-
standing I thought that what we were asking you as an appraiser, and at that
06
0,05 Mg
time we didn't know who the appraiser was, is not to say whether this propo-
sition in its entirety was fair or equitable or reasonable, we asked I thought
for an appraisal of what a private company who went downtown in a like piece
of property would pay on a ground lease for 90 years and that's still my ques-
tion which has not been answered. I would say to you if I were fortunate
enough to own a piece of property the size that is being proposed and a company
came to me and said, "I would like to lease your property for 90 years to build
a building", taking into consideration the cost of the land, taping into con-
sideration 99 years, what would be a fair return to the City? And I think that
is only what we should be considering. Now, taking out of context I would like
to ask you, you mentioned the figure of $3.94.
Mr. Slack: Operating costs for the office building to start with.
Mr. Plummer: All right. Did you in anywhere along your appraisal estimate
what is a fair value for a piece of property, a like piece of property for a
99 year lease? Did you at any place make that appraisal? Because if you
didn't I don't know what the hell we accomplished.
Mr. Slack: Did I mention another 90 year lease of some property that was.:.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Slack, let me reverse it.
Mr. Slack: I don't quite understand your question.
Mr. Plummer: All right, there has been a proffering by a private concern to
this Commission to allow them to build a structure above our parking garage
for a 90 year lease. They have profferred to this Commission a formula which
would show a minimum of 300,000 a year return. Then the question has to be
if they were not dealingwith the City, if they were dealing with a private
concern for the amount of property in the same area for a 90 year lease is.
300,000 return fair to the land owner? That's the question.
Mr. Slack That's an almost impossible question to answer (1) there is no
such thing in existence....
Mr. Slack:>. Not in this area because it's built on top o
to pay 21 million dollars: for their foundation.
. Slack, excuse me,
Mr. Slack: Well, I submit that it has, sir, we disagree thoroughly.
Mr. Plummer: I submit to you, sir, that there is a basic piece of land
presently - it's a vacant piece of land for all practical purposes. There
are some structures but we're going to acquire it and it's going to be vacant.,.
Now based upon that premise the value of the land, just the broad value of the
land for a 99 year lease, what is the fair return for that lease?
Mr. Slack Well, you're talking about oranges and apples, sir. The land was.
appraisedby myself at $3,600,000, that's $60 a square foot. I'll try to
answer your theoretical question. Now then, if that land were leased for 99
years and if I'm correct that the value of the land is in the $3,600,000 which
is substantially more than the acquisition cost because of the attrition since
you've got to end the plotage, perhaps it would be a 10% return on the land,
8%, 9%, 10% so that if the land was worth $3,600,000 and you got 10% that's
$360,000 a year net. Does that answer your question?
Mr. Plummer: Yes, sir, I think as fair as you ----
Mr. Slack: But the air rights depend on how much of the air you can use.
You're going to use 11floors for your garage, you're going to have not, to
build any foundations, it's on top of something which is tied in inseparably`
with the whole proposition.
Mr. Plummer: And if, in fact, that foundation were to be put to accomodate_
te building that, in fact, would appreciate the figure wouldn't it above the
3 million six? That raises it considerably.
Mr. Slack: In my figure, in my analysis the $2,500,000 is paid for by the
City, that's the estimate, that's your Conrad estimate and at this moment
that's as good a figure as any other.
017
FlUp2519T9
Mr. Plummer: But it would be reasonable to believe that the City making;
that expenditure has the right to recover it's cost?
Mr. Slack: Well, perhaps I can ball park it this way, Commissioner Plummer,
I think we're beginning to get a little understanding of what this process
is, I hope so. If the land rent with no garage and nothing else ---
Mx.. Plummer: That's what we're getting to.
Mr. Slack: ---was worth 10% on $3,600,000 or 8% or 9% and maybe a sliding
scale adjustment as a horse trade or something of that sort then the whole
air rights are worth $360,000 a year. Now when you have air rights which
only start at the llth floor or let's say it was started on top of a one-
story garage the air rights would be worth more. You cannot ignore the gar-
age.
Mr. Plummer: Sir, you are hitting right on the nail what I'm saying, that a
minimum reasonable return would be $360,000 based on 10% plus;
Mr. Slack: Of the land if you had full use of the land, but you do no
You don't have full use of the land.
Mr. Slack: The lessee. The 90 year lessee cannot build a 40 story office
building or a five story or a 10 story. bui].ding, the City is going to build
that and he starts up 11 floors by my estimate, maybe 12.
Mr. Plummer: Isn't it advantageous to the proposed lessee that we are putting_.
out all of the money for parking which he would have to put out if we didn't?
Mr. Slack: Of course, there's no question about that and I've taken that
into account because I have run a complete economic - I think when you read
the appraisal - on the office building that shows they will be able to pay
about $300,000 a year, recover their capital and make a fair return. They
cannot pay more than that in my estimation, they should not pay less.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Slack, you see I appreciate your comments, sir, but that
in my estimation is not what you were asked to do. I think that is putting
the cart before the horse. We are the owners of a piece of property, we the
City. We have a proposal from private enterprise to utilize above that which.
wewill be doing. I don't know that we asked you, at least I didn't and I
thought I made the motion, we asked that you tell us what was a fair return,
not that it was equitable, not that it was a reasonable return.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Plummer, we're not going to take any actions today, and,
we're going to listen to Mr. Bisz in a moment, but I wanted to just make sure.
we understand. I' think, you've had some valid questions and I think you've
had ;some ;valid objections. This Commission went on record voting four to
one in favor ofthis project as amended.
Mrs.; Gordon:
Who was the one that didn't vote?
Mr. Plummer: I voted -against it..
Mayor Ferre: We voted to accomodate, the two things that Plummer wanted was
that we go up to 1500 parking spaces and that we get these appraisals. That's
been done, he still has the right to vote against it, nobody's saying that,
but'I have heard you say in the past that you make your point, you stress
your position and once the majority of the Commission rules on it that that's
it and you go along with it. Now, somewhere along the line I would hope that
that philosophy would come into play, I don't know whether it's today or the
next meeting, we're not going to be acting on this today but we have now done
what you requested or at least what we thought you had requested. As far as
I'm concerned Mr. Theodore Slack of Slack, Slack and Roe and Mr. Leonard A.
Bisz MAI have come with two reports which in my opinion more than satisfy
what the value is of those air rights. Now, and it's got to be apples to
apples or oranges to oranges. I think....
Mr. Leonard A. Bisz: Mr. Mayor, may I interrupt you?
Mayor Ferre: You may interrupt me and that's all right.
08
rt
• ..JUN 2 5 1979
Mr. Bisz: My name is Leonard A. Bisz, I am one of the appraisers that you
requested In my evaluations, summary and conclusions there is the
first item of fair market value of the land, $3,700,000 - it's right after
the letter of transmittal, sir - the fair market value of the land at
$3,750,000, the highest and best use of the property - high rise office build-
ing with municipal garage in lower levels. The fair rental value with munici-
pal parking garage at lower levels per year $300,000, I have also estimated
the fair market value of the air rights 31 million to $3,750,000. You will
find that $300,000 is an 8% return of ground rental on $3,750,000 or if you
want to use the $3,500,000 it's 81% return. If you proceed to go into the
evaluation process in the interior of the report you'll find under Appraiser's
Estimated Projected Income office tower building, an economic approach to the
building which we are principly concerned with and the net before allowance
is $4,105,375 which estimate is based on an assumption of estimated real estate
taxes on the building of $695,500 which may well be 2 or $300,000 more than
that. That would make a difference in the air rights lease rental and the
net return for investment to where it would be under 10% on his money. The
$300,000 which I have allowed from the $4,105,375 leaves $3,805,375 for a
return on the investment which is approximately 10%. This is without a dis-
count for the lowering and the loss of income for the first four or five years
in the operation of the building and any increase in the real estate taxes
from a 65% basis which I think is very very low, if it would be up around,75%
that would lower the return on the building to less than maybe 9, 91% and I
think that... I think this return of $300,000 is a fair rental value for the
City.
Mayor Ferre:
and that you
it be on the
ment on your
Mr..Bisz, for the record I, assume this was done independently
and Mr. Slack did 'not .:confer`; and: all that, it',s important that
record. Didyou.end M.r. Slack discuss this or come to' an agree -
Mr. Bisz: We attended.meetings.together with the Downtown Development Author-
_
er. We are, of course,. members of the. institute
and have their books and appraisa]. process and we've talked to people'concern-
ed about it. We-'did_notwork out our figures together. We are entirely separ-
ate.
Mayor Ferre: I` knew that there are standards of ethics to guide appraisers
and "I know you wel]. enough and I know Mr. Slack well enough to know that you..
would be guided by;that. So my question isin noway meant to, offend you or
anybody else, it's important that this be on the record. Youcame to this
conclusion completely separate from Mr. Slack, is that correct?
Mr.
Bisz: Yes, sir, that is right.
Mayor Ferre: And the factthat you come: outwith this figure of $300,000 and
Mr. Si.ack came up with $300,000 and the deve].oper is offering $300,000 is
totally coincidental, is that correct?
Mr. Bisz: I canonly speak for myself but this is an independent analysis.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Slack, would you
same question for the record?
get up to the microphone and answer
the
Mr. Slack:. Yes, sir,. I. think I. did state that if;I thought it was less:I
would have said so or inore I would have said so. I didn't know Mr. Bisz's;.
figure until he said it on the loud speaker right now.
Mayor Ferre:-o this is your independent conclusion.:
Mr. Slack:.
Absolutely.
Mayor Ferre: All right, thank you..
Mr. Bisz: This building or this property is not the easiest to appraise but
we have arrived at the fair land value and what a rental should be. The
architecture is only in the preliminary stages and it does not appear quite
feasible in it's present operation. If this building is adopted I think the
developer or the purchaser of the property would not be warranted in paying
$37,500,000 for it nor $300,000 per year.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Bisz, sir, on your page here called evaluation summary and
conclusion would you expound on *6?
I IIIIIIIIIIIIIUIIIIIIIIuIIIIIIIIIIIIII4
rt
J U N 2 5 1979
Mr. Bisz: Fair market value of air rights 3h million to $3,750,000, that's
right.
Mr. -Plummer:
Is that per year?
Mr. Bisz: No, that's the value of the air rights, sir.
Mr. Plummer: For 90 years?
Mr. Bisz: That is for the purchase of the air rights.
that is the value of the air rights.
f he were to purchase
Mr. Plummer: Well how would that be paid under normal circumstances
Mr. Bisz: You could pay; it outright or
a lease here.
Mr. Plummer: So we don't mix apples and oranges,
this is a fee separate from the annual payment?
Mr. Bisz:
Mr. Plummer:
come about?
Mr. Bisz:
be worth.
Then
don't understand the
with a lease
but we're concerned with
am I reasonable in assuming
million dollars,
That is the value of it if you'd want to pay. for
Mr. Grassie: If you were to buy the air rights instead
missioner, if you would buy them you'd pay that.
Mrs. Gordon: J. L., if you got it in a lump sum that'
Mayor Ferre:
Mr. Plummer:
Mrs.
No yearly payments, we say we want a
how does that
what it would
of. leasing them, ;Com
what it would be.
one time cash payment.
That is regardless for how long the lease.
Gordon: There would be no lease, you'd buy it outright.
Mayor Ferre:
This is instead of.
Mr. Plummer: Infinitum..
Mr. Bisz:
Yes.
Mayor Ferre: Instead of, in other words, if I'm going to buy a car I can pay
$10,000 for the car or Ican lease it for$500 a month for three years with a
purchase price at the end, you know that kind of a thing.
Mr. Plummer: I understand now. Now, Mr. Bisz, you made reference in your
presentation, sir, as to part of the income that the City would derive and I
think you referred to taxes as if your inference is that because it's above
City property they have the right to consider that as income to the City for
part of the air rights value.
Mr. Bisz: No, I estimated the, full real estate taxes on a building, the build-
ing being estimated at $30,000,000 instead of $37,500,000 and also based on a
lowerpercentage than is probably accustomed but I.think 65% or two-thirds in
that area would be al]. right.
Mr. Plummer: The point, Mr. Bisz that I'm making is that whether they were
with the City or somewhere else they would still be paying taxes to the City.
Mr. Bisz: Well you've got your percentage, however, I can give you the. mill
Mr. Plummer: Well yes, sir, but what I'm saying is it should not be an advant-
•
age to the proposerto count taxesas part, of the income of the value of the
air rights and I: think I heard you say that.
Mr. Bisz: = Yes, the reason I,; did ,this, .because
on it in valuation of the property, the $12.50
what the owner of the building paying the real
you'd have to add that back on to your income.
of the income and expense data
per square foot was based on
estate and the taxes and so
This $12.50 was excluded in.
rt
1.0
t' ►l 5 1979
Mr. Plummer: But the
taxes: have no bearing on this particular.
Mr. Bisz: No, sir, but in my evaluation if the taxes were higher then the
evaluation of the lease for the lease rights in total or per year would be
lower.
Mr. Plummer: Yes, now another question. Knowing what you know! and this is
to both of you and Mr. Slack, did you at anywhere take up the other question
that I asked and that was on a per square foot basis if a person were to build
in the downtown area what of the per square foot rental cost would be dedi-
cated to recovery on land cost. Did you take that into consideration, sir?
Mr. Bisz: No.
Mr. Plummer: In other words let me ask it in reverse again since I guess
maybe I'm backwards. It is proposed at the present time that the bank which
is the proposer would pay us a dollar and a half per square foot per year for
property value and that the remainder would pay fifty cents per square foot
per year. Do you consider that....
Mr. Bisz: No, I don't understand that
Mr. Plummer: All right, let me try to justify or try to tell you. The pro-
posal shows that we would be paid $300,000 a year. The main tenant would be
utilizing, as I recall, a third of the building to the equivalent of $1.50
per square foot per year. The remaining two-thirds of the building paying
the remainder of the amount would be paying us .50 per square foot per year.
Is that in your estimation --
Mr. Bisz: I have to go through these mechanics slower.
Mr. Plummer: All right, let me try to take, you through it very quickly.
They are proposing to, pay $300,000 to the City 'a year of which the main ten-
ant would pay $150,000 of that. They are using one-third of the building
which equates itself to $1.50 per square foot per year for land costs.
Mr. Bisz: I don't know abo
ut out land costs, you're talking about :a"building
which occupying.'...,
Mr. Plummer: Air rights, land costs, real estate costs. Okay?
Mr. Bisz: , No, this is a building designed,
one fourth the area of the air rights.
Mr. Plummer: I' understand that, sir, and noone put alimit on how high or
how low -this building -wouldbe. except, the proposer.": Al].' right? Now, the
remaining ,$150,000,guarantee to ,the City per year: is based on the remaining
two-thirds of the building -which equates itselfout to .50 per square foot
per year. Do you or did you consider this, in your appraisal and: if so is it:
Mr. Plummer: You see, and that one
and it was never addressed.
Mr. Grassie: Commissioner, if I may, Mr. Bisz and Mr. Slack answered exactly
the question that was asked of them. The question that was asked of them was
exactly the motion of the City Commission as it appears in the official record
of the City Clerk. They were asked exactly what you passed in your motion, they
answered exactly what you asked them to answer.
Mr. Plummer: And were they also furnished with a full. copy o
of the concerns raised by the Commission?'
Mr. Plummer: Why?
11
JUN251979
rt
Mr. Grassie: Operating on your schedule and the schedule that you imposed
in terms of getting this done, there was no that they could have that
available to them, it simply is not produced that fast, Commissioner.
Mr. Bisz: If given time I'd be glad to consider it.
Mr. Plummer: Well look, let me back up. Mr. Bisz, Mr. Slack, fir. Fine, and
I'm sure there is a representative of the company, I'm all in favor of a World
Trade Center contrary to what it might sound like but my first duty as a com-
missioner is to protect the people of this City and their rights. I do not
feel and have not felt that that which they are proffering nor the return to
the City is fair. That's all I'm asking is what is fair in a return to this
City for the use of that property which the taxpayers of this City own. That's
all I'm asking. Well Marty, look....
Rev. Gibson: Raise that question again, Plummer, I didn't hear you.
Mr. Plummer: Father, all I've said is I'm all in favor of the, Trade Center.
okay? The only thing I'm asking in behalf of the people who own that property
which are the taxpayers of this City, that they get a fair return on their
investment. That's all I'm asking.
Rev. Gibson: Let me ask this because business is not my line so let me ask
you two men this question. This is the only question I'm going to ask you
and then I'm going to hush my big mouth. Gentlemen, that land belongs to the
City, you know what's going on there. If what you're telling me, can I live
with that in pride and honor in this community regardless, is that what you're
telling me?
Rev. Gibson: All right, 'that's"all I want to hear", that's all I wantto hear.:
Let me"tell you'I.don't know how"to go about that"figuring the way you're'do-
ing, I" really don't and..:..
Mr. ,.Bisz: Both Mr. Slack and myself feel.`a tremendous job has been done in
piecing 'this together, it is a novel way of financing and it's a beautiful
project. Now you talk about cost or the benefit of return to the City, the
City could not sell this land I don't think for a return which they are getting
on it. The acquisition cost is, of course, much less but this building is not
on a principle thoroughfare, it's on a side street yet you're going up as high
for the elevations for the parking, even higher than that on two Biscayne Tower,
it needs a balance, an architectural balance. S.E. 2nd Street is a 50 right-
of-way, zoned 50 foot, it's actually only 40 and you're putting up a thing
which should be on a boulevard.....
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Bisz, sir, I'm not here to argue but how, in God's name can
you say that this is not, on a mainthoroughfare knowing fully well what is
proposed for that entire thing?
Mr. Bisz:
rific....
Yes, it's
a winding street underneath the expressway and it's ter -
Mr. Plummer: But it's in conjunction, do you think;; for one minute that any-
body wouldwant to build above that garage unless it happened to be the most
prime realestate in Dade County? And you say it is on a side street - my God:
Mr. Bisz:. It
are located.
Mr. Plummer:
isn't Biscayne Boulevard or Flagler Street where prime buildings
And it won't be until that, thing puts together.
Mr. Bisz: I'm all infavor of the project. I believe it's fine,
thing which your men have done for. you.
Mr. Plummer: Sir, I'm all in favor I'm merely asking for a fair return to
this City.
Mr. Bisz: You will get it.
Mr. Lacasa: Mr. Bisz, I have two questions here. I'm reading from the re-
port on the part of the land value and in the fourth paragraph we have closer
to the subject property sale number ten and this one went for $92.73 per square
rt
12
JUN 2 5 1979
foot on November, 1978. Our's is evaluated at $62.50 to $65.00.one year
afterwards. What is the reason for this?
Mr. Bisz: First, this is right close to Flagler Street, it's a little small
piece about 55 feet in depth of which the front 50 feet of a commercial lot
is worth a whole lot more per unit value than the average of the whole hundred
foot depth. That is one thing, another thing is that we are south by about a
block and a half from Flagler Street, more distance from this prgperty.
Mr. Lacasa: Okay. Now, the second question I have is the relation with the
estimated value of this. We are projecting here for a 90 year lease, the in-
crease according to the same statements here land values in the downtown Miami
area have increased steadily in the past three years then later on it says
also that the rent for lease space has also been increasing. So how can we
establish a flat value at this point? What would be your recommendation, in
other words, for the long term lease, what kind of costs should we include to
assure the City that as the price of the land goes up in the future and con-
sequently the price....
Mr. Bisz: That's inherent in your lease on a Consumer's Price Index elevation
Mr. Lacasa:
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Ferre may. I make a motion to receive these
authorize the Manager to make payment for them?
Mayor Ferre: All right, there is a motion by Mrs. Gordon that these two.
appraisal reports be received by the Commission and that they, be paid; for.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Gordon.` who moved
its adoption:
MOTION NO. 79-417
A MOTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION ACCEPTING THE REPORTS ON
VALUE OF AIR RIGHTS OVER THE PARKING GARAGE AT THE CITY OF
MIAMI/UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI JAMES L. KNIGHT INTERNATIONAL
CONFERENCE/CONVENTION CENTER PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION
ON THIS DATE BY MESSRS. THEODORE W. SLACK AND LEONARD BISZ,
APPRAISERS AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO PAY THE COST
OF SUCH APPRAISALS.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, 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
Mayor Ferre: All right, Mr. Connolly, you're on, sir. We've now take the
fourth item of Item C, you've got 1, 2 and 3 to cover.
Mr. Grassie: Mr. Mayor, to start this discussion rather than ask Jim to init-
iate it I'm going to ask Vince Grimm to try and summarize for you for discus-
sion purposes the direction in which the revision, the agreement between the
City and the developer are moving. Keep in mind that like all the other items
that you've had on your agenda today this is not here to ask you to vote on
anything. This is attempting to keep you abreast of.what is happening, we
want you to see it, to hear about it before it is a final document, that is
the purpose of the discussion today.
Mrs. Gordon: And in line with that just a question so you may consider the
answer to us; the letter we received on May 25th from Paul & Thompson has a
number of items included in it. Have all of those items which number 14 of
them been addressed in your revision?
Mr. Grimm: They will either be addressed in the revision or they will be ad-
dressed to Mr. Paul as not being necessary. Some of those are....
Mrs. Gordon; Well, would you inform us and me specifically which ones you
feel are not necessary and which ones are included?
III11IIIIIII111R I 11m
rt
13
J U N 2 5 1979
411
Mr. Grimm: We are in the process of writing a letter to Mr. Paul. which answers
his questions point -by point.
Mr. Grimm: As the Commission may be aware, the primary reason for the revision
tothe agreement stems from the fact that when our bond counsel and Smith Bar-
ney, the legal counsel reviewed the agreement they raised both state consti-
tutional questions and IRS tax exemption questions. As a result of those ques-
tions it was necessary that we rewrite the agreement. In rewriting the agree-
ment some of the business conditions of the agreement also were subject to
change. It has been to resolve these differences to keep it legal constitu-
tionally and tax exempt that has been our job. The City has received now a
preliminary document which takes all of these changes and combines it into
one, it's in the hands of our City Attorney, it's in the hands of our bond
counsel, it's in the hands of Smith Barney and it's in the Manager's hands.
We hoped to have that agreement distributed to you by the end of this week so
that you can act on it on July llth. Now, representatives of Laventhol and
Horwath are here today to discuss where they are on thc+ir study. Mr. Burns
will not be discussed today because part of his report is dependent on the
finalization of Laventhol and Horwath's report as well as the finalization of
this agreement. So we thought we would be able to meet that schedule today
but that was just too optimistic on our part. So until we have adequate in-
formation to supply him he's not in a position to give you good answers.
Mayor Ferrer All right, any other statements or questions with regards to.
that particular point?
Mr. Jim Connolly:
time we'd like to
have been doing a
to the City. I'd
of the Management
is basically that
Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, I think at this
bring forward the partner from Laventhol and Horwath who
feasibility study verifying the projections of the revenue
like to introduce Maurice Byrd who is the National Director
Advisory Services Department of Laventhol and Horwath which
group that does feasibility studies.
Mayor Ferre: We know him well, we're happy to see you again, thank you for
your time
Mr. Maurice Byrd: Mr. Mayor, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to ask my
associate Leslie Lear if he could stand here with me because he did a great
deal of the detail work involved here. Let me just read you a letter which I,
think summarizes where we stand right now. This letter we presented to Mr.
Connolly as director of the project. You have the letter in front of you, I,
don't think there is any point in me reading it. This as it says is the, money
that we have determined would be available to retire the debt on this project.
I would be glad to entertain any questions you have on it.
Mr. Grassie: To attempt to put this in perspective for you, Mr. Mayor and
members of the City Commission, remember that what was asked for here was a
verification of previous income projections on the part of the staff. Once
the agreement is put in final form that will determine the size of the lease
revenue notes that would be underwritten by Smith Barney, we will then have an
estimation from Smith Barney of the probable interest rate which would be paid
on those lease revenue notes and with those factors which condition the outgo
if you wish, that balanced against these figures which are the income would
provide you with a good balance sheet analysis of how this project is project-
ed to work out. That's what we're looking for for the next meeting, what this
represents is a verification of the income projections that you have been pro
vided with in prior reports.
Mr. Byrd: I don't know what else you'd like us to do at this point. I could
just say this, that the projections that we have determined in the long run
are not appreciably different from those that were prepared by the City's
staff.
Mayor Ferre: I want tomakesure we all heard that because. that's a very im-
portant statement. He said that the projections that have beenpresented' here
are not materially different - is that the word you used? - from what was proj-
ected previously.
4
rt
!I N 2 5 1979
Mr. Byrd: Correct.
Mrs. Gordon: How much difference if any is there?
Mr. Byrd: It depinds on the years because it varies.
Mayor Ferre: I guess what she's asking is what do you mean by materially dif-
ferent.
Mr. Leslie Lear: Let me just quickly recap what these numbers represent.
The projected income to the City indicated in the schedule on page one of our
letter is comprised of income from three areas. Number one is performance
rent paid by the 608 room Hyatt Regency Hotel planned as part of the Knight
Center Complex. The net operating revenue from the 988 space parking garage
and net operating income or in the instance of year one a net operating loss
which is projected for the City's Convention Center facilities. Income from
those three areas in total is what is represented here and that is income
which is available or would be available, projected income which would be
available to repay any debt service raised through the issuance of lease
revenue notes. Now these projections compared to those prepared earlier by
the City's staff are as follows: Projections we received from the Project.
Director's Office indicated in the first year a projected income of $1,319,000.
Our projections of $1,157,000 are $162,000 lower than the City's projections
and that difference remains the first two years and then decreases to a low
of $13,000 in the difference between our projections and the city's projec-
tions.
Mrs. Gordon: In the third year did you say?
Mr. Lear: 1986, we're projecting a $13,000 difference and then again we move
up on an increasing scale of a difference from 54,000 in a. difference, that
is the City's are lower than our's.
Mrs. Gordon:
Mr. Lear:
You're saying an overage, now and the City a lower figure.
The City has a higher figure.
Mrs. Gordon: All along the, way
Mr. Lear: That's correct.
Mr. Plummer: It was my understanding that one of the proposals that you were
to encompass in your study and as I recall also one of Mr. Dan Paul's concerns
was that the return from the hotel possibly was not going to be sufficient nor
was it fair, to .the City. Did you address that question specifically?
Mr. Lear: We did not, specifically address that question in terms of what
fair to the City. We, have a projection of the total....
Mr. Plummer: And why didn't you?
Mr. Lear:
We were notasked to determine what was
Mr. Plummer: You
Mayor
see..,..
fair to the City.
Ferre: Wait a minute, ask him what their charge was.
Mr. Plummer: No, as the item just before this,
to say it again....
said it before,
s
m going
Mayor Ferre: Plummer, you can't ask the preacher toalso be the undertaker.
You know? People have different jobs. These people were not requested to do,
that's not their role.
Mr. Plummer: Do you recall as;I recall choosing thisparticularfirm because
they do the work for Hyatt Regency House? I recall that.
Mayor Ferre:
Mr. Plummer:
Mr. Grassie: Commissioner, this firm has not been asked to make a judgement
with regard to the fairness of the business terms. Now you have hired a
15
separate individual specifically to look at the fairness of the business terms
and that's Mr. Burns.
Mayor; Ferre: You're confusing Burns and purposes.
Mr. Plummer: I then apologize for. this City getting so damned many consultants
that I can't keep up with them, maybe that's my fault. Okay..
Mr. Grassie:
(INAUDIBLE, NOT USING MICROPHONE)
Mr. Plummer: No, it's not true, that's not true at all that two-thirds are
my requests. Look, all I'm saying is:. -.I'm not going to say anymore. It's
not what you say it's how it's being asked and these people who are the profes-
sionals are responding to the question not tothe overall situation. It is
piecemealing, it is slicing this thing up and coming at from to me an unfair
position. That's all.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Plummer, let's make sure we're all singing from the same
hymn book. Now let me tell you what the hymn book says. Okay? The purpose
of getting Laventhol Horwath to give us their study is not to satisfy you, me,
Grassie or Dan Paul. The purpose why they have been asked to do this is be-
cause somebody is going to have to spend millions and millions of dollars and
that somebody wants to know that we're not out half cocked going down some
cockamamie idea of some member of this Commission or the Mayor in something
that doesn't make any business sense. Okay? And so, therefore, before Mass.
Mutual comes up and says, "All right fellows, here's $26,000,000" and before
the partners and the other people get further involved they need to get some-
body who they respect to objectively say what is or is not the possibility
of the return on this project period. That's all they were asked to do. That's
all that we intended for them to do. They're not involved in this, they're
not architects, they're not here to design the building, they're not in here
to tell us whether it is a good deal for us or a bad deal for us, they're not
hotel experts in this particular sense, I mean they're obviously hotel experts,
they're one of the best in the world but they're not retained here to satisfy
us as to whether or not the hotel project makes sense. They're not hired to
tell us whether or not the contract with Hyatt House makes any sense. Those
are all separate questions that Laventhol and Horwath were not retained to
do. They were retained to do one thing and that is to tell Mass. Mutual and
the other lenders, "Gentlemen and ladies, this project will give you this kind
of a return." Upon this study will rest eventually the executive committee's
decision at the lending institution as to whether they will fund this project
and that is the purpose of this study and nothing more. Now, have_I said any-
thing wrong?
Mr. Plummer: Not a thing, but you haven't said enough. Who in the hell is
going to make those decisions? Which of our so-called experts are going to
come before this Coxnmission and say, "Commission, it is fair to the City"?
,„-
Mayor Terre: Mr. Plummer, this project has been before us now a dozen times-.
We have had all kinds of presentations. The Chaniber of Commerce has been asked
to look into this and recommend - they have.
Mr. Plummer: I hope you read that into the record.
Mayor Ferre: And I have every time. Every time we come to a decision point
where we vote I request the members of the Chamber of Commerce that are here
representing this to stand up and say did the Chamber recommend this project.
The answer is yes, and that goes into the record. We have cut this up one side
and down the other, bisected it 20 times, gone through the whole process. The
only place we haven't had criticism where we always have criticism and we
haven't had it on this one is from the Miami Herald and the Miami Herald hasn't
said word one on this for whatever reasons. Now other than the Miami Herald
we've had every other critic and every other person asking a question. Now
the fact is that this Commission has the final responsibility for deciding
whether or not it makes sense for the City. We have made that decision not
once but on several occasions. Now, what Laventhol Horwath is here to do is
not to confirm that we made the right decision even though that happens to be
the side benefit of it, they're telling us in their opinion in the year 1982
projected income to the City .is 1,157,000 and that keeps going up until 1991
where it is 3,924,000 and this is their estimate. That makes me feel very
good. That tells me, "Ferre, the decision that you made originally when you
sat down originally with Mr. Greenberg, when we got the land when the Commis-
sion first went on this, when we negotiated to get the Metro funds, when we
rt
J U N 2 5 1979
went up and got a UDAG application, when we put it out to bid, when we sel-
ected Worsham, when Worsham selected Hyatt, when Metropolitan came here and
changed the contract, about the dozen times that we've had an opportunity to
vote on this those were good votes, we made the right decision in this partic-
ular project and I'm very happy. I thank you, Mr. Byrd, you're a highly recog-
nized name in the hotel industry and, of course, in certified public accounting
world and I'm glad that you were involved in this, my congratulations for how
quickly you did this and I'm glad that as you stated into the record this does
not substantially change the original conclusions that the Cityof Miami came
to. Thank you, sir. Is there anything else on Item C?
Mr. Plummer: I would just in this particular reference, Mr. Mayor, read the
last paragraph into the record which I think is most important from their let-
ter. ".... Because our conclusions and financial projections are based on
estimates and assumptions which we are inherently subjected to uncertainty we
cannot express an opinion that the projected results will necessarily be
achieved." I hope everybody read that paragraph
Mrs. Gordon: J. L., that's., a disclaimer, you know nobody can with certainty
project tomorrow that it is going to rain or shine not with certainty anyway.
Rev. Gibson: And even though I'm in that business I would not certify.
Mr. Plummer: The definition of an expert: He who guesses right three times.
Mayor Ferre: Let me tell you, I got an education this weekend, the last two
or three days. My sister-in-law is very ill. She came up from Venezuela for.
the doctors to see her here and after they spent a week examining her, biopsies
and everything else the doctor sat down with her on Friday - listen to this,
to give her the diagnosis. He said, "Your options are 1, 2 and 3" and they
wouldn't recommend. She was stunned. She said, "How can a doctor not tell me`
what I've got to do in something as important as this?" And you know what the
answer is? These doctors are so scared of malpractice suits that what they'll
do is they'll give you odds and they'll tell you where you are and then you've
got to make the decision yourself. She called her doctor back in Venezuela
and he said that's completely unheard of, that is completely irresponsible,
it's against the Hypocratean thing or whatever it is that doctors swear to,
that doctor has got to tell you whether you should be operated yes or no. The
doctor won't do it, he'll, give you the odds. Why? Well, because in this mod-
ern world of lawsuits that we live in,everything is a lawsuit and I understand
that Levanthol Horwath can not write letters the way they used to ten years
ago to say that "in accordance with our best judgement these figures are accur-
ate and this will happen the way we say", unfortunately today's lawsuits don't
permit them so they've got to put these disclaimers that are written up by
highfalutin lawyers in New York and Washington to protect them from being sued.
Mr. Lear: We dropped the money back guarantee back about 1969.
Mayor Ferre: Are You an attorney?
Mr. Lear: No.
Mayor Ferre: Okay. Anything else?
Mr. Plummer: Well let me tell you something, they've got a disclaimer but this
Commission doesn't. Let me ask one further question. I understand what the
Mayor is saying, I've: understood it all along that what your report really ad-
dresses is to adequacy - is what the projections are, are they adequate to
cover revenue bonds. Are you willing to give a horseback opinion as to whether.
it is fair to the City, what is being proposed?
Mr. Byrd: No, there is a full report being prepared on this, you're not just
receiving the letter.
Mayor Ferre: Look, but the question is very simple. We don't want you to put
your neck in the noose but would you put an arm in, see that's what Plummer is
saying. And the answer is that you can't expect professional people today to
operate that way, they just won't do it and any statements they're going to
make they're not going to make them on that microphone, lawyers are going to
write them for them and that's the kind of world we live in unfortunately I
think. Okay? Any further questions? All right, thank you, sir.
rt
JUN 2 5 1979
9. POLICE DEPARTMENT RESPONSE TO COMPLAINS INVOLVING
TWO SEPARATE INCIDENTS: 5650 B N.E. 2 Avenue and
1 N.W. 62nd STREET.
Mayor Ferre:
discussed.
Father Gibson would like to have Item E answered before D is
Mr. Grassie: We'll be happy to deal with that, we can reverse the order of
those and ask Police Chief Harms to address the two questions on Item E first.
Chief Kenneth I. Harms: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, Father Gibson,
on June 19th 1 forwarded a copy of a report tc the City Manager relating to
two situations you addressed at the May 22nd Commission Meeting. The two cases
that were particularly captioned on that date dealt with the burglary, break-
ing and entering of a market and the second situation dealt with an accident
or an alleged accident wherein a party ran into a building with a vehicle.
The first situation, the property was recovered shortly after the break in
itself, an apprehension was not made and a report was made by the police of-
ficer on the scene. The report was forwarded up to the Burglary Detail and
the screening officer elected not to assign that case for additional follow-
up. Now based on the inquiry we did review the case itself and it has subse-
quently been assigned for investigation. Now as we decrease manpower we de-
crease the number of cases that we investigate and that one was a borderline
case and initially was not earmarked for further or future investigation. The
complaintant has been contacted and a follow-up is being made on that case.
On the second situation, the one involving the accident, it was alleged by
certain people on the scene or very close to the scene one day after the acci--
dent itself that it was not, in fact, an accident but it was an intentional
and deliberate act. The officers that investigated that, however, did not fol-
low or forward the information to the officer that investigated the initial
incident and as a result there is a lack of communication between the original
reporting officer and the officers that provided the follow-up. We went back
on review and requestioned all the people that were associated or thought that
they had knowledge on- that sitLation and stand by the initial decision that it
was, in fact, an -accident and we have uncovered nothing further to date indi-
cating thatit was anything of a more serious nature. So in terms of the first
situation we are providing a follow-up, in terms of the second the original
report .stands as indicated.
Rev. Gibson: L4.t me ask you, Chief, evidence shouldn't have been too difficult
to find in the second instance where you had somebody hit a building and all
of that. You know if`I go out and hit a building all they have to do is take
my license tag number,' you know, and right away they find out who that guy is.
Chief Harms: They know the registered owner of
Rev. Gibson: Why hasn't some action been taken prior to now?>
the vehicle.
Chief Harms: Let me have one of my other supervisc.rs that has first hand know-
ledge of it come forward on it. Major Breslow initiated the investigation
based on the request on the 22nd of May.
Major Breslow: Mr. Commissioner, in this case it happened on private property.
The States Attorney will not prosecute accidents that occur on private property
unless they 'Involve an injury to someone and leaving the scene. This involved
a leaving of the scene, our officer went to the suspect's house on several
occasions, did not find the vehicle but did find the suspect's vehicle. We
have....
Major Breslow: Found the suspect has a car and she was driving someone else'
car when the accident occurred. According to the witnesses she and a male
were having an argument when the accident occurred. She got out of the car,
walked away, the man who owned the car drove the car away. The officer who
1
investigated the case knew her. He tried to locate her, she had moved several
times since. Since this time we have notified the State Financial Responsibil-
ity Division to see what action could be taken to get her license taken away.
The States Attorney's Office will not take a warrant out in reference to this
case because it occurred on private property.
Rev. Gibson: Well, that is unfortunate. I would think that if you're driving
a car and if you're that irresponsible what ought to happen right there and
then, you know I'm not going to accuse the department I'm just going to say
that you know I think the department ought to be a little more alert, and that's
being very nice. Do you understand what I'm saying? I think the department
ought to be more alert and I'm being very nice to you. Now, let's take the
second one. You know I'm only going by the story you give me. See those peo-
ple out there, they know far more about it than I know. Let's take the second
one, you saw the man, you know I don't understand how you have police dogs
and all that kind of jazz and then you let.a guy that you see, know he's the
suspect and then you let him go. You know I get a little worried. Are you
as diligent in one area as you are in the other or others? Do you know what
I mean by that? That's being very polite. I've learned how to be polite and
not really tell you what's in my mind. And I don't understand when I call
you and say here's a break-in, you come on the scene and you see the man.
The German people say (German expression) That's the object, you know. and then
you let the object go, get away. Now anything that I'm not saying, see four
people sitting back there? They'll get up and tell this Commission. But be-
fore I stop and let them say, you know, Mr. Mayor and members of the Commis-
sion, let me read this - as Chief Kenneth Harms, City of Miami Police.
Department, 400 N.W. 2nd Avenue, Miami, 33126. Dear Sir, on behalf of the
Haitian. Community, we, are requesting a meeting with you, at your earliest con-
venience, concerning matter of great importance to the Haitian community of
greater Miami.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Very truly yours, and it's
signed by a roan, George Daniels, Chairman. This is November 1, 1978. These
incidents that I called your attention to took place February 15, 19791 March, April,
May, April 4 and April 15. 1979. Now are we interested in talking with the people of
these communities? Now note this, note the sequence.
Mayor Ferre: Father,
are you saying that. the Chief never
Rev. Gibson: I'm going to let the Chief tell you. These people asked for a
meetin:c, November 1, 1978, Mr. Manager. The Chief doesn'twork forme, he
works fox you. Okay? These incidents took place February 15, 1979, April 15,
Mr. Plummer:, Wait a minute, I'm losing something, Father. This letter, oh,
I see, in other words that letter of request had nothing to do with these two
incidents.
Rev. Gibson: Right. And what I'm saying, I hope you get the message. The
message is crystal clear even though told indirecily and obtrusively that the
department wasn't too concerned about dealing with the problems of thse peo-
ple so that when in February and April Olen: they really had these incidents
that took place that's why I presume: they were treated in the manner in which
they were treated. I could make that assertion, assertions are never factual,
you understand I could understand that. And you know I'm not going to say
anymore than that because in my craw are two other incidents. I don't want
to surface them no., I''m going to surface them when you talk about that other
item on this agenda. Okay? Let that gentleman talk.
Mr. Arthur Papillon: r'y name is Arthur Papillon. I'm a businessman at 5615'
N.E. 2pd Avenue. I'm also the co-owner of the shopping center. I invest.my
money there as a poor man in order to work. Whenever we have a protleri we -
call on the Police Department, it's a big joke with us. We don't know exactly
what is the reason. For example, one day I find my store open. I call up the'
Police Department. They waited for one hour to send a police officer to me.
Suppose for one moment I had somebody in the store, suppose one moment I had
something in the store to kill me, who is care about that? Now, the thing is
I am one of the persons who signed this letter. '.e sent the letter to the
Chief in order to meet him to discuss some Haitian. problems because the Police
Department doesn't care about our community. Now we'd like to know exactly
if we are not taxpayers what we should do to keep our backs safe. Thank you.
Mayor Ferre: All right, does anybody else want to address the Commission on -
this? All right, sir.
rt
JUN 2 5 1979
Mr. Rulx Cayard: • My name is Rulx Cayard. I'm the number one on the
day, 1 N.W. 62nd Street. I'd like to know the reason why in the poor neigh-
borhood especially where the black poor are living we have a lack of police-
men coming and helping the people. I'd like to know the reason why when some-
body goes over 30 miles in Coral Gables or some other expensive area they stop
them for some stupid reason and we can't get any help or whatever or if you,
the police organization want us to get our guns and rifles and start shooting
the people who are bugging us. I'd like to get an answer for that.
Mayor Ferre: Chief, oh I'm sorry, another speaker. Okay. Then it's all
your's. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Lillian Coligny: My name is Lillian Coligny, I'm the owner of the beauty
parlor where the woman went with her car through my beauty parlor. That night,
I have a burglar alarm in my business so the police called me and told me there
is something happening in the beauty parlor and my husband went first. All
the witnesses who were there, and they talked to the police before I came and
they gave them all the information about it. The same night they give him the
name of the woman and they have the registration plate number and I asked my-
self to the police when I get there what could you give me to prove that the
accident happened or she did it on purpose and everybody tell you about it,
what could you give me as proof. He told me that he is doing his job for 18
years, he know what he's doing, I don't have to worry about it. So I know
that I was protected when I called, the police came in that situation. So I
had to wait a month before they gave me a report. I went from the police sta-
tion at N.W. 2nd Avenue to the Highway Patrol, I've been going for one month,
finally they give me an accident report and the police knew that it wasn't an
accident, why did they give me the accident report? That's what I want to
find out. It wasn't an accident, the woman did it on purpose and she said so
and that night they went to her house, she was in there, her car was in front
of her house, nobody do anything about it. This is why I would like to know
why I can't have any protection from the police. Thank you.
Mayor Ferre: All right, thank you. Chief, would you or Major ----
Chief Harms: Yes, the Major will address the last issue and then I'll pick.
up the, first two issues that were raised.
Major Breslow: Basically an accident report was made at the time this was
reported to the Police by Officer Payne. Officer Payne knew the suspect, went
by the suspect's house, the suspect's vehicle was there but the suspect was
not home. He identified the location of the other vehicle, it was not at that
location where it was registered to. He continued to try to locate both sus-
pects during the course of his tour of duty and turned in his report at the
end. I do not know why she was unable to get a report, she should have been
able to get a report within two days of the incident at the Records Bureau.
Mayor Ferre: Would you make sure then that she does, does she have a copy of
the report now?
Rev. Gibson:. She now has one after about 30 some'odd days.
Mayor Ferre: Well why, wouldn't she be able to get a copy of the report
Major Breslow: She should, after 72 hours she should have been able to have
gotten a copy from our Records Unit after 72 hours.
Mayor Ferre:
Major Breslow:
address.
She
then?
says that she tried and she was unable to get that report.
She went to the Highway Patrol and that wouldbe the wrong.
Mr. Cayard: They sent her to the Highway Patrol, she, did go, she went to the
Miami Police Department, they sent her to the Highway Patrol. They tried to
turn her around.
Major Breslow:
rol.
Mr. Cayard:
can't understand why they would send her. to the Highway` Pat -
Well,..
can't understand that either.`
Mayor Ferre: Well, it's either one of two things, either it was done with.
malice or it was done through ignorance and negligence. I hope it wasn't done
out of malice.
3UN 2 5 1979
Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor, let me add this. It couldn't be ignorance if you've
been on the Police force for 18 years because we know we don't have no ignor-
ant policemen on the force for 18 years so I want to eliminate that.
Major Breslow: May I ask who sent her----
Rev. Gibson: I know one thing, if you preach in the church I'm`,n part of and
you're that ignorant for 18 years let me tell you six months after you're;.;
there you're gone. I could promise you that. You could tell them that the
Holy Ghost won't save you in the Episcopal Church.
Major Breslow: May I ask who sent her to the Highway Patrol?
Mr. Cayard: The police sent her to the Highway Patrol._
Mayor Terre:
there?
Rev. Gibson::
Do you have the man's name or the woman's name?
The policeman, do you have his?
Mayor Ferree Who sent you to the Highway Patrol, did you
name? Did you ask?
Do you have
it
get that person's
Mrs. Coligny: I went to N.E. 2nd Avenue and 4th Street and I went to Ask
for a report at a desk where they give the reports. The woman there tell me
that she didn't have no record of that, which car came to the accident that
night. She asked me the color of the car. I say I can't remember. She said
she didn't have anything here for me, I have to go to Highway Patrol. I went
over there to the Highway Patrol. One of the officers there called to the
Miami Police Station then he asked them over there and she told me to go back.
He told me to go ask for the Investigation. So I went back there and finally
they find this and gave me a photo copy of this here. They tell me to pay
$8.00 to get this, I pay $8.00 and I get this piece of paper.
Mr. Plummer: Can I ask you a question? How soon after the accident did you'.
go to the City of Miami Police Station? How soon?
Mrs.: Coligny:
Three days later.
Mr. Plummer: And that's when you
Mrs. Coligny: No, I
went back again.
Mr.
were told...
was told that they
don't have any report about it and I
Plummer: What was the first time you went to. the. Miami Police Department?
Mrs ' Coligny:
Three days after the accident occurred.=
Mr. Plummer: And that's when they told you to go to the Highway....
Mrs. Coligny: They don't have any report. And I went back again so I didn't
go for a couple of weeks, I mean two weeks and then I returned again and I
asked them because the insurance company asked me for this so I went to get
it. Finally they gave it to me a month later because when I went there I
asked them how come they can't give it to me. They tell me they don't have
any report of it, go to Highway Patrol maybe they have it there. I went there
too. So I returned to them the last day I get this one. I went there three
times, the first time I didn't have it, the second time and the third time I
have this.
Mr. Plummer:
City of Miami
Mrs.
Mr.' Plummer:
Mrs. Coligny:
But what you're saying is the first time that you went to the
Police Department was 72 hours after the incident.
You didn't
Mr. Cayard: One thing, she has been calling the Police Department asking
what is going on because we know at this time when the accident occurred. The
police ... She keep calling the Police Department asking what's going on,
what's going on then they said to her wait, wait until now.
21
!UN251919
Mrs. Coligny: I even asked them if the witnesses took the plate registration.
I asked them how come they can't find out who is the owner of that car. Nobody
give me no answer. I asked that question. I say Tallahassee, I can call my-
self but if the Police Department wants to find out who is the owner of that
stationwagon that went through my business they could find out in one minute
but I have no answer up to now and the woman did it, she didn't do it in her
car she did it in somebody else's car. But I think that they couldn't find
out who is the owner and the woman, if they wanted to find the woman they would
have found her. I couldn't find her myself but the police couldn't find it,
couldn't find her you know. And she's around everywhere, she don't hide no-
where, she's in the streets.
Mayor Ferre: Chief, I think the point is that obviously this lady was entitled
to a report and she wasn't able to get it during the 72 hours, she got a run-
around, she was sent to the Highway patrol then they charged her $8.00 for a
photostatic copy of a report. Now I think all those things, this may be one
isolated incident but if something like that reoccurs a great deal then what
happens I guess, and you and I spent a long time talking about that the other
day, is a question of confidence in the community in the objectivity of the
Police Department and it's ability to render a valuable and an acceptable ser-
vice. Now I think these are questions that really need answers.
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Ferre, may I ask a question?
Mayor Ferre: Yes, Mrs'. Gordon.
Mrs. Gordon: Chief, the $8.00 fee, that
her, is that a standard fee that wish to
isn't a fee that
have a report?
charged t
Chief Harms:' That's correct, that's a standard fee that was approved by•the
Commission sometime back and it's a part of a standard package, if you would,
of charges for various types of reports at the Police Department.
Mrs. Gordon: And isn't it true that the reason that the fees are being charged,
is to help cover a budget that is under funded? And how many police officers
do you have now as compared to the police officers you had let's say three or
four years ago? Do you have the 'name`amount of officers in place now or not?
Chief Harms: No, we don't, we're down approximately 107 positions in the last
three years. And to answer the first question second, the fees were established
some time back but there is consideration being given to ask for an increase in
those in certain areas in order to help fund the deficit you were referring to.
Mrs. Gordon: Yes, part of the problem, Commissioners and Mayor, that I see in
this whole situation that's being pointed out to us today, part of the problem
is besides the budget we have to fund our Police Department. The problem is
that we're trying to operate at top efficiency with a percentage of 15% less
personnel than we had three or four years ago.
Mrs. Gordon: No,_I want to hear from you, I. really do but I just want every-
body here to know that we're not trying, I'm not, I hope the Mayor and nobody
is trying to demoralize our Police. I mean I believe that we need to make
the problem clear to Our people that all of us are facing the same problem
it's budget and a cut down of staff that we have today. I have a letter here
which I received over the weekend from another area of the City which the per-
son thatwrote this letter to me is trying to run a business and he's totally
up a creek because he doesn't know how to handle a situation and I don't feel
it's our Police, I feel the City's revenue is deficient to give the number of
personnel that we need to cover our whole City. You know we seem sometimes,
you know the old expression about the squeaky wheel, you know. Now you know
how many times people have come here from the northeast section and demanded
police coverage for the prostitutes on Biscayne Boulevard and let me tell you,
they get some coverage there. That helps you get less coverage. Okay.
Rev. Gibson: Rose, let me answer this since I brought this issue up. I don't,
want anybody out here to think that anybody wants to demoralize the Police
Department because that's not the way it is. That's not the way it is. The,
woman paid $8.00 anyhow. Isn't that what the testimony is? She paid $8.o0
anyway. That's what you were charging. The fact remains she did not get the
information. Why didn't she get it?
rt
JUN 2 5 1979
oak
Chief Harms= Father Gibson, I don't know but I would suspect it is because
of someone's inefficiency.
Rev. Gibson: Well, that's why you're the Police Chief and I'm not. If I were
the Police Chief somebody would have to tell me why she didn't get it.
Chief Harms: They certainly will.
Rev. Gibson: I hope,
me a letter to answer
convince me. Now, if
paid the $8.00 within
Chief Harms:
and I want you to tell me
the request, Mr. Manager,
she paid $8.00 after more
3 days.
what they told you. You write
I want an answer. You can't
than 30 days she would have
I don't think the price is the issue.
Rev. Gibson: So Rose, that is not to demoralize the Police force and I under-
stand, one thing I may not understand all that high financing but that school
I went.to taught me how to add one and one to make two. And you see, you're
telling me you don't have the personnel and all that, you have them out there,
you know if you've got it - I'm not going to buy that because I happen to know,
Rose, you don't know this, I know of another incident. The Chief knows what
I'm inferring. And you know, I just believe, Chief, you ought to go and tighten
up that shop - tightenup that shop. I'm not going to get anymore into it
than that because I don't want you nor nobody else to accuse me of demoraliz-
ing the Police force because Man, in my book you either work for your money
or you get fired.
Mr. Cayard: Commissioner, one thing is not the shortage but people are very
impatient, I'm taiking about now the policemen. When they receive calls from,-,
the black neighborhood they feel like they will not use all the patience they
have. Why not send theblack policemen then they can take care of our own.
business? (2) I would like to know exactly when the Chief will answer our
letter. Thank you.
Mayor Ferre: All right, the questions have been asked by Father Gibson for
the Chief, is there anything else you want to addto that, Father?
Rev. Gibson: I just want the Chief to deal with the letter. I want the Chief
to deal with this letter that if these people ask for a meeting, you know I
hear all this jargon up here, Mr. Manager, you need to hear this about lack
of communication. I don't know what that means because the only way before
we found out that word for an excuse word we used to say, "Why don't you come
talk with the people?". And look, these people asked the Chief to come and
eAk sit down and talk with them November 1, 1976 and they're still waiting. Come
November of 79 it will be a year. I just want to make sure that I'm counting
right.
Chief Harms: Father, I don't recall specifically that letter but there is
not a
Rev. Gibson: There you are, you don't have to have no memory, absolute mem-
ory. They taught me lapsus lingual, you know, lapse, of memory, there is the
letter.
Chief Harms: I don't remember the first group in this community asking for
a meeting with me that I've turned down that has to do with the crime or the
problems associated with the Police Department and I assure you that we will
follow through on this and conduct that meeting.
Rev. Gibson: Please let me know when you're going to have the meeting.
Chief Harms: I certainly will.
Mayor Ferre:
D then.
All right, is there anything else on Item E? We're now on Item
JUN2519T9
10. PROPOSED CIVILIAN REVIEW.
Mayor Ferre: We're now on Item D.
Mr. Grassie: At the request of the City Commission, Mr. Mayor, we have placed
on your agenda a report from the Police Chief on the question of both internal
and external reviews of the Police Department's activities and I would like,.
for the Police Chief to introduce this subject with some brief comments
Mayor Ferre: Chief, before you get going on this, with regards:to the ques
tion of internal review of the Police Department, this is something that the
Chief and I have been talking about for two years now, a year and a half and
there have been some memorandums going back and forth. I had requested that
this item be put on the agenda for discussion purposes. Now I assume that we
are not at a point where the Chief or better put, the administration is ready
to make any specific recommendations. So I asked the Manager when he told me::
this on Thursday that I would hope that for the July Meeting, either the llth
or the 23rd as the case may be that this item would be rescheduled on the
agenda, and Mr. Manager, and I have to look to you really rather than the
Chief because the Chief doesn't work for the City Commission, you do. And I
would personally like a response from you with a specific recommendation and'
at that point I think we really need to have a public hearing on this.
Mr. Grassie: I think that we can meet that: schedule, Mr..Mayor, we're looking
at July 23rd'as the date when we would expect to have that.
Mayor Ferre: l'11 make a motion lateron°that it be on the basis of a public
hearing so that your recommendation may be discussed in the form of a public
hearing and the reason 'for that is that I would imagine that there would be
resolutions passed at that:time for whatever action is that should be taken.
and if'we're going to do it 'properly that's the way to do it. Now, I don't:
mean to bypass or::cut any discussion at this time if the Chief wants to make
any statement or if any members of the`Commission want to make a statement`.."
Mrs. Gordon: I think;I'd like to hear from the Chief, he's standing here and
has been waiting quite sometime.
Chief Harms: The June 19th memorandum that I sent to the City Manager dealt :.
with the issue of Civilian Review and my comments today were going to parallel
the recommendation that I made within that memorandum and I think they were
fairly straight forward and reflected that I felt that a committee should be
appointed to deal with several issues that were not resolved at the recent
Criminal Justice Council Hearing wherein they referred five separate proposals
to the County Commission for resolution. If you prefer to get into it now we
can if not, then my position should remain basically unchanged as it has for
some time over that issue. It reflects a willingness to discuss the need for
greater community input and makes some specific recommendations that I think
are very important. This is an extremely important issue that should be dealt
with by more than just an individual recommendation from myself without any
input from the other elements of the community.
Mrs. Gordon: I heard you Chief, thank you.
11. PRESENTATION OF PLAQUES, PROCLAMATIONS AND SPECIAL
ITEMS.
A. Presentation of Proclamation to Walter Jureski, Regional Manager of
Delta Airlines designating June 17th as "Delta Airlines Day" in honor
of their 50th Anniversary.
B.
Presentationof a Certificate of Appreciation to Commander Eugene Woods
of the American Legion Harvey Seeds Post #29.
Presentation of a Commendation to Yolanda Cruz, a cerebral palsy victim,
who has overcome her handicap to graduate from F.I.U. with a degree in
Social Work. Ms. Cruz is also a volunteer with Cerebral Palsy, Inc.,
has written and published a book of poetry, is a notary public and a
bookkeeper and has been awarded the "Gran Orden del Merito Martiano" and
the "Gran Orden del Bicentenario" by "El Liceum Cubano".
D. Presentation to the City Commission of a Certificate of Appreciation
from Action Community Melrose, Inc. through Mr. Gerardo Lopez.
12. PUBLIC HEARING - WATSON ISLAND U.D.A.G. APPLICATION.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Manager, we're now on the public hearing and the Item before
us is Watson. There are a lot of people here that have been waiting patiently
for that so let's move along.
Mr. Grassie: Mr. Gilchrist will briefly introduce the public hearing, Mr.
Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Gilchrist, there is a question - and I don't know where Dan
Paul went - there is a letter in here somewhere between Dan Paul and Rose Gor-
don - they seem to be writing each other letters an awfully lot these days
there is one in here about the question of the legality of the public' hearing
and what have you. Would you please, Mr. Grassie, clarify the legality, or
Mr. Knox. I mean is this legal, is this public hearing, why didn't we have
it before, etc.?
Mr. Grassie: Well, I can comment but I would really want the City
to give you a definitive comment on that, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Grassie, anything that has to do with law is the City Attor-
ney's responsibility, I recognize that but what; I'm asking you is since the
administration was involved I want the administration's side.
Mr. Grassie: I'm trying to answer you, sir. As part of the process of sub-
mitting a U.D.A.G. Application to the federal government we secured from the
City Attorney's Office an opinion with reagard to the requirements that we
had to fulfill and that opinion was that they had been met. Now, in addition
to that we want to be particularly sure that we give every opportunity poss-
ible for public input on this and any other project that we have and as a con-
sequence we have scheduled this additional public hearing process which really
goes beyond all of the discussion the City Commission has already had. It is
in front of you but you may wish to have the City Attorney comment on that
also.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. City Attorney.
Mr. Knox: As part of the application process it was necessary for the City
Attorney to indicate to the Department of Housing and Urgan Development that
all of the requirements as set forth in the HUD regulations regarding the UDAG
Grant had been satisfied. Of course, it was our opinion that it had and any
rt
►+1979
deviation from that is further our opinion would be a determination to be
made by the department.
Mayor Ferre: So we are within the bounds of what we must do here to have
this public hearing at this point, is that correct?
Mr. Grassie: Yes, but also the process that we have followed iswithin the
bounds of those requirements;` set bythe parties, in this case theparty hap-
pened to be the federal govern!nent and the City of Miami.
Mayor Ferre: All right, any questions on that? Mr. Plummer? Do you have a
question on that, Mr. Paul? Do you have a question on that particular point?
Mr. Dan Paul: Yes, I do have a question on that point. The UDAG regulations
clearly require that the public hearing be held before the application is
filed and the reason is very obvious and it says so in the regulations and
that is to give the people in the disadvantaged areas a chance to comment as
to whether they thought that federal money ought to be used for this project
as opposed to some other project, should it be used for Culmer. And that was
the whole purpose, it obviously serves no purpose to hold this hearing today
after you have already made the decision and filed the application. So the
regulations are as clear as they can be on their face, I'm sure the City At-
torney has them there, it says prior to the public hearing. Secondly, where
is the notice for today's public hearing? How many people from the disadvant-
aged areas even know you're having a public hearing today, you published no
notice for the public hearing, it's a total nullity.
Mrs. Gordon: Everybody of this Commission has been furnished a copy of the
letter which I received from you, Mr. Paul, and I agree, I totally agree that
this hearing is out of order and I would move that this hearing be deferred
and that proper public notice be issued via advertisement to the people of
the City of Miami.
Mayor Ferrer But before you make that motion don't you want to hear any .com-
ments that want to be made` here by the members of the City Commission?
Mrs. Gordon: Oh yes, but that's a motion,
sion on the motion if you get a second.
Mayor Ferre: All right, there is a motion, is there a second? Is there a
second? Isthere a second to Mrs. Gordon's motion? Hearing none, the motion
dies for the lack ofa second.
Mr. Plummer: May I inquire? Mr. City Attorney, you are paid by us - excuse
me - by the taxpayers to advise us in legal matters and whether you're right
or wrong you're still my legal adviser and what sayeth thou as to the legality
of this hearing?
Mr. Knox: Well, in as much as I don't know whether this hearing, and maybe
the Management can answer that, I don't know whether this hearing is purport-
ing to satisfy the public hearing requirements of the Department of Housing.
and Urban Development. We have already filed an application and among the
questions that were asked by the department of Housing and Urban Development
was whether or not all of it's rules and regulations had been followed to in-
clude requirements concerning public hearings. Upon the representation by
the Assistant City Manager, Mr. Fosmoen and the concurrence of the City At-
torney that there had been sufficient public hearings again the City Attorney
represented to the Department of Housing and Urban Development that all of its
regulations have been complied with and this statement accompanied the UDAG
application at the time it was filed in April. And again, a question as to
whether or not the rules and regulations have been complied with we would
submit would be a question to be answered by the Department of Housing and
Urban Development as they review the application.
Mr. Plummer: Are you then in substance saying that in your estimation that
today's public hearing is superfulous and not needed?
Mr. Knox: I'm suggesting that it's not necessarily, there's no need to hold
it in light of the City's representation that sufficient public hearings had
been already held which would allow the requesite input as required by the
regulations. Now again, I don't know, the City Manager has indicated that
this is an additional opportunity for members of the public to provide their
input. But he did say that this was an additional opportunity and our
41C I II N 0 1979
presentation to HUD in April was that all requesite public hearings had been
held.
Mr. Planner: That was your interpretation, not what was told to you by the
administration?
Mr. Knox: That's right, based on the information they gave me that was the
conclusion I reached.
Mayor Ferre: All right, now you know at this point you've heard the consensi.is
on .this Commission. The only thing I have not heard answered, is was this a
legally published as a public hearing the way the law requires? Who?
Mr. Knox: The Clerk.
Mayor Ferre: All right, then the question is to you.
Mr. Ongie:
I don't publish these kind of hearings, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ferree. Why not?
Mr..Ongie: Because the Manager does that, "it's an administrative thing,
think Bob Homan did but I'm not positive.
Mayor Ferre:
ow could it be a public hearing if,nobody knows" about it?
Mr. Grassie: I think maybe we're running into some definition problems, Mr.
Mayor and members of the City Commission. We have.public hearings which have-
a number of legal requirements around them and these are particularly those
set by state law. Now, there are other public hearings which are basically
for the information and edification of the City Commission which follow an
administrative process which involves reasonable due notice and a lot of the
things that we call public hearings are not public hearings in the sense that
they follow a long set of state law requirements, they are public hearings
in the sense that we attempt to advise those people who would be interested:
that they should come out to a public hearing of this type.
Mayor Ferre:
Mr. Grassie: Yes. Well, it has been on the agenda which obviously that is
available to the news media and we have sent out notices of this sort.
Mr. Plummer: Well, would it help any of you since obviously nobody around
here reads a newspaper that I read the notice in`'the'.'piper I think on Saturday::
or Sunday, is that what you're looking for?`
Mayor Ferre: Yes, that's what I'm ].00king for.
Mr. Plummer: Well, I read it in the paper, both the Maurice Ferre Public
Relations Firm in the morning and the Daily News in the afternoon, it was
either in Saturday's edition or Sunday's. Well, if it was Sunday there is
only one. I read the notice in there in the paper, I think it wasin the
classified portion of the paper that this meeting was being held for that pur-
pose. Anybody got a Saturday paper or Sunday paper? It was in one of the
two.
Mayor Ferre: I accept your word. Is there further discussion then as to that
point? If not, you're recognized, Mr. Gilchrist.
Mr. Gilchrist: I'm sorry, I intended to make the statements that have already
been made here, Mayor, that previous Commission hearings have completely re-
viewed and approved all current aspects of the Watson Island Project from the
management agreement to the concept and to the UDAG application. There are
a number of resolutions this Commission has passed starting in February of
1977 when it was advertised for developer proposals and carrying through June
and July of 1977 when the Management Agreement was approved, a resolution in
April of 1978 approving the concept and economic reports from ERA and June
the 4th just past in 79 the revised or amended agreement with Diplomat World
Enterprises as well as a reaffirmation of the City's intention to sell bonds
and make application for a UDAG Grant. In addition to those Commission hear-
ings and approvals there were a number of public meetings in January and Feb-
ruary and in April, 1978 the start off of those, as an example, was a joint
meeting held by the Greater Miami Chamber Commerce Downtown Action Committee
and the Citizens Committee for the Development of Watson Island and the Marine
Council held at Dade Junior College in downtown. We held during those months
numerous meetings, everything from Lions and Kiwanis Clubs, everything I
could do within the community down to highschools.
Mayor Ferre: Let me interrupt you and submit into the record the following
information and if this hasn't been discussed publicly I don't know what has
in the City of Miami. The first one that I want to put into the record is
June 21, 1977 which authorizes the City Manager to negotiate an agreement for
the development of Watson Island, resolution to that 77-550 moved by Ferre
and seconded by Reboso. That motion passed unanimously. The second one was
on July 28, 1977. This authorized the City Manager to negotiate with Diplomat
World Enterprises for the development of Watson Island. That motion number
is 77-616. That motion was made by Commissioner Gordon and seconded by Com-
missioner Gibson. That passed unanimously. The third one was July 28, 1977
confirming resolution authorizing the City Manager to effect a contract with
the DWE, which I guess is Diplomat World Enterprises. That resolution is
77-671. That was moved by Plummer and seconded by Gibson, that passed unanim-
ously. The fourth is October 26, 1977, amendments to the agreement, Motion
77-831 moved by Ferre seconded by Plummer, that passed unanimously. On April
27 of 78 the Planned Concepts and Economics, Motion 78-159 moved by Plummer,
seconded by Reboso, that passed unanimously. On April 28, 1978, confirming
resolution, resolution 78-302 moved by Plummer, seconded by Reboso, that
passed unanimously. On June 4, 1979 authorizing the City Manager to execute
amendment to agreement between the City and Diplomat World Enterprise Limited
dated November 11, 1977, Resolution 79-410 moved by Ferre, seconded by Lacasa,
Mrs. Gordon voted no, Father Gibson was absent, that was the first time we
did not have a unanimous vote on Diplomat World Enterprise of the Watson Is-
land project. Now I might point out that this matter has been discussed open
ly on and on and on and I'm sure there is no question that the public has.
been more than informed.
Rev. Gibson: And Mr. Mayor, if I was here I was going to vote too, I mean
wasn't going to duck the issue then either. I just want to make sure every-
body understands me.
Mrs. Gordon: Also, isn't it true that none of those resolutions, that you're
referring to, not one of them was a public hearing dealing with a UDAG appli-
cation or the possibility of receiving or having UDAG moneys?
Mayor Ferre: And precisely that's why to make sure that we're triply sure
of this is that we're having this session right now.
Mr. Gilchrist: The originalagreement with DWE, Commissioner,; did state that
the City would use its best efforts to attain additional funding from other
agencies, governmental agencies and so on move this project forward 50 in
essence....
Mrs., Gordon: But nothing
regulations....
Mr. Gilchrist:
agencies."
specifically relating or reciting UDAG which the
It did not specifically say UDAG, it said other. governmental;
Mrs. Gordon: Yes, but the regulations spell out in no uncertain terms the
requirements and I don't think that we have or this Commission has lived up
to the written requirements to even submit an application for the UDAG Grant
and this application is out of order.
Mayor Ferre: Well, that's something, Mrs. Gordon, that you can attest this
in court and I'm sure you and your associates will and that's fine but in the
meantime we're going to continue with the progress of the City of Miami and
this is an official public hearing and after you finish your statement we
will proceed. Your motion that you made did not get a second so we're going
to keep on going. Go ahead.
Mr. Gilchrist: That's really all I had to say about it.
Mayor Ferre: All right, then we'llhear now from
Ladies and gentlemen? Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Florence Shubin: Mr. Mayor and members of the City Commission, I'm
Florence`Shubin, President of Save Watson Island, Inc. I am not here to argue
with you, I am here for the record, your record and to the point, the HUD
record. You know our opposition to the proposed amusement park for Watson
rt
28
JUN2s19T!
Island. You like to play it up as a Tivoli Gardens. Tivoli Gardens has no
parking lot to attract 3,000 cars daily. The capacity plan for your paved
parking lot after you have raped tiny beautify Watson Island of its acres of
lawns, hundreds of orchid trees, tabebuia trees, black olive trees, sea grape
trees, ficus trees, podacarpus trees. This is the island you publicly describe
as barren, Mr. Ferre. The bay around it is just as precious as well as the
wild Osprey or Bald Eagle I see over there at least two times a week. HUD
has some requirements on environmental studies to be submitted with the appli-
cation, I am sure these studies are not to be personal evaluations or those
of local political cronies. Have you been before the Southeast Florida Reg-
ional Planning Council, the Florida Department of Natural Resources, the Depart-
ment of Environmental Regulation, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers? Has the
DRI or Development of Regional Impact been made? And every time you tell us,
Mr. Plummer, that Watson Island is of no concern to the people that live on
the islands surrounding it I tell you that thank God we have state and federal
laws that protect us from people like you that would do their neighbors dirt
if they could get away with it. Noise, traffic congestion, gas fumes, destruc-
tion of trees, bay pollution, drainage problems, navigation are all environ-
mental.problems. If you haven't informed HUD of all these problems consider
them informed as of now. When the State of Florida entrusted Watson Island
to the care of the City of Miami it was not intended for the exclusive use of
the residents of the City of Miami. We of Palm, Hibiscus and Star Islands
are the closest neighbors to Watson Island and have by definition as much right
as anyone else to enjoy its use. You have been made aware of the fact that in
order to apply for a UDAG Grant two public hearings must be made prior to the
application. In spite of what your City Attorney and City Manager say, this
has not been done and I have the rules and regulations right here and it might
be well for you to read them. However, HUD also requires that these hearings
are to be scheduled at times and locations convenient to all citizens. Tues-
day of this week we all knew that a gasoline crisis was coming upon us. I
fail to see how this hearing qualifies in any sense of the word as convenient.
In fact, you couldn't have arranged a more inconvenient time. This hardly
qualifies as a public hearing. There are many distressed areas in Miami and
Dade County that need UDAG Grants and I believe that this money should be
used for those purposes rather than risky business schemes. In closing, I
don't mind being repetitious since I have said this many times but I do think
the City of Miami should reconsider its previous action and abandon this Wat-
son Island. Project once and for all.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, since my name was usedin her presentation, it would
be my hope and desire that this lady would present to this Coxnxnission some:
factual information where I made, such, a comment, ma'am...+
Mrs. Shubin: You madethat comment the last time that we appeared before you
and you said that the people on the islands were not citizens of the City of
Miami.;
Mr. Plummer: I, ma'am, repeat that statement. Now it is far different from,.
what you just said before the microphone and I hope that you will correct and.
apologize for your statement. I never said to you or anyone that it shouldn't
be of your concern, I made a factual statement that you did not reside in the
City of Miami, I still stand by that statement but in no way did I ever say or
or infer that it should be of no concern.
Mrs. Shubin: (INAUDIBLE, NOT USING. MICROPHONE)
Mr. Plummer: Well, ma'am, you can read between anybody's lines but when you
make a statement of fact before a record I would hope you would be correct.
Mayor:Ferre:
Mr. Ernie Fannatto:.
payer's League.=
Ernie Fannatto is my name, and I'm President of the Tax -
Mayor Ferre Ernie, just as a matter of curiousity, do you live in the City
of Miami?
Mr. Fannatto: I sure do, yes. Ernie Fannatto is my name and I live at 145
N.W. 9th Avenue, Miami, Florida and I'm President of the Taxpayers' League
of Miami and Dade County. Here is the question that I want to have answered
correctly: How much ad valorem tax money are the taxpayers and the home-
owners of this City of Miami going to be responsible for for this projector
is it so written up where there is no limit to what they're going to be re-
sponsible for or not? That's the question. Mr. City Manager and Mr. City
Attorney, I would like to know.
2E)
JUN 2 5 19T9
Mr. Knox:
Mr. Grassie: Mr. Mayor, as members of the City Commission know, the Watson
Island Project does not call for any direct investment by the City but rather
calls for the pledging of City resources if the project should not have the
income which has been projected for it. You need to keep in mind that there
will be very substantial private investment which will be even more at risk
than is the public investment and in my estimation that private investment is
never going to occur if there is any possibility the project is not going to
be successful.
Mr. Fannatto: Well, that's just a partial answer. I want to know if there is.',
any limit as to the resources of the taxpayers' money that they can stop at
collecting if this is a failure.
Mayor Ferre: Yes, Dena, you can answer that.
Mr. Fannatto: No, I'd like to have the City Attorney this time,
ask the same question of the City Attorney.
Mayor Ferre: Ok, Mr. City Attorney. The contract is, and the legal documents
that have been signed, what is the total exposure that you think the City of
Miami legally has?
All right, as far as ad valorem revenues are concerned....
Mrs. Gordon:That's not the question. Ad valorem is not the question, sir.
Mayor Ferre Mr. Knox, you are at freedom, sir, to say anything you want into
the record and then if you don't answer the question it will be asked again.
0.41111
Proceed:
Mr. Knox: Ad valorem revenues are prohibited from being used to finance the
project, that is the first part of the answer. The second part of the answer
is that there has been a $20,000,000 fund set up in the event of some default
of some phase of the project and to my knowledge the creditors are limited to
those funds that have been made available and that again the ad valorem revenues
are not encumbered in any way by any of the activities which are contemplated`
by the development of Watson Island.
Mr. Fannatto: Well how are, you going to get the revenues,
to get the deficiency if the project is a failure?
Mayor Ferre: The total deficiency would be $20,000,000 and that
the franchise tax from the Florida Power and Light.
how are you going
comes from,
Mr. Fannatto: Well, you know I'm going -to aswer that in this manner the:.
Franchise Tax money has been. divertedto somany;other projects that I don't
know how you can use that three or four times. And I do want this *said, I.
think if you fellows are going to continue to undertake this project let's put
it on the ballot and see if the taxpayers want to underwrite it.
run, for Commissioner,
Mrs. Gordon: Want to
ing to be up here.
Mr. Fannatto: No, Rose,
tings done right..
Ernie? There's a vacant seat go -
don't want to run for Commission but. I ',like to see
Mrs. Gordon: I°find it commendable that a citizen has the courage to say,
"Let's' put it on the ballot" when this Commission does not.
Mayor. Ferree He always has that kind of courage to say whatever he wants and
when he gets on the Commission he'll be able to vote here. In the meantime,
the elected officials of this Commission are the ones that so far decide these
things.
Mr. Fannatto: Let's get one thing straight, Ernie Fannatto is not going to
run on the Commission. I'm here to offer constructive recommendations or con-
structive criticism when it is due and that's what I'm doing right now.
•
Mr. Joel Jaffer: My name is Joel Jaffer, I live at 3268 Mary Street in the
City of Miami. I've been likened by the Mayor to Mr. Fannatto on some occas-
ions. First of all, I'd like'to say there have been some questions raised
about my insolvency in the courts and I would just want to direct to the Com-
mission that I'm just following their example, they can't even raise....
rt 30
J u N 2 5 t9T9
Mayor Ferre: Well, what does that have to do with any of this?
Mr. Jaffer: I'm saying you can't even raise the money, this is supposedly a
development that is going to bring money into the City of Miami and this mass-
ive money can't even build this stupid development, how is it going to bring
money into the City of Miami? But people have already spoken about the pro-
ject, I would just like to say, Mr. Mayor, that / object to your pawning off
things on the court system of the County because we have to do all your work
and it's really getting tiresome.
Mayor Ferre: Well, you'll have an opportunity in November to change that.
Mr. Jaffer: It's just my complaint about the operation of the City that you
know this is a political item here today I think and your idea of getting
political activism is to thrust some disaster onto people to scare them into
doing something about it and it's just really not the best way to bring about
political activity or constructive political change in this City, it should be
done truthfully, openly and I think that's why we're having problems in this
City is because people are threatened with these things. Thank you.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Jaffer, in response to that since you addressed that to me,
I submit myself to the will of the people every two years and you will have
ample opportunity, and I'm sure you will avail yourself, of trying to change
the direction that the City has had in the past six years this November. That
is the way this country works. Now I have no regrets and I have no apologies
to make on a record that I think I'm very proud of as to what this City has
achieved and you know you'll have ample opportunity to oppose me and I hope
You take full advantage of that.
Mr.Jaffer: Yes, but in a sense you're taking advantage of that electoral
Process
Mayor Ferre: That's the WAY the democratic system works. I will submit my
neck to the chopping block and if the people of this community want to chop it
off they can on November 6th. You know? And fine, those of you who feel very
strongly about this thing, as strongly as I feel, I don't think that I am in
any way threatening or that that is a way for me to coerce anybody. If any-
thing, I think all I'm saying is that I've got the courage of my convictions.
I'm willing to say, "Hey, judge me on this" and I'm going to say that. You'll
have the opportunity to vote.
Mr. Jaffer: You're doing it at the expense of the political processes of this
City and you know you should have some honor regardless of the politics of the
situation.
Mayor Ferre: Honor? Oh I see, regardless of the democratic process, 1 see.
Well, I just don't happen to believe that. You know, now there are some people
in Nicaragua that have that very same theory but you know regardless of the
politics it is quite a strong statement and I want to tell you that regardless
of your statement I will submit my name again for consideration this coming
November and let the people be the judge of that. Next speaker.
Mr. Andrew Hall: Mayor Ferre, my name is Andrew Hall. We have talked about
this subject before but it has always been my understanding that at a public
hearing one should have an open mind. We started the public hearing by announc-
ing to the public that.this project has been reviewed and voted on six or seven
times over two years, that is not an open mind, sir. If we start with the
premise of the funds for this UDAG application that have been committed to this
project regardless of the interest of all other projects in this particular
City that is not an open mind. Because there is not an open mind, I choose
not to say more.
Mayor Ferre: All right, the next speaker.
Mrs. Joanne Holzhouser: I'm Joanne Holzhouser, I live at 4230 Ingraham High-
way and that is in the City of Miami and it's also within what is popularly
known as Coconut Grove. I don't think anybody but Gilbert and Sullivan could
do justice to what is going on down here now. I sit back here and I think of
all the cliches I have ever heard and by God, they all fit. But it is like
Nero fiddles while Rome burns. What are you all going to do, hire the Phil-
harmonic to play? The City of Miami is in grave financial trouble right down
the line and I don't think any of you sitting up there, any of you can deny
that.
31
Holzhouser: Great, then deny it to all the employees who are wondering
happens to their pensions, deny it to allthe people whose programs have
cut, and .Imean people who can't afford to go outland get private care.
Mayor Ferre:- Mrs. Holzhouser, that's your opinion,
express it and you're welcome to express it.
Mrs. Holzhouser: I am expressing it to the limit of my three minutes. I come
down here time after time because some of us have to be able to stand up and
talk and because more and more I see that those of you who get paid to do this
and/or who have the private funds or the backups to do it get the time to do
it in front of the microphone and in front of the press. There are people out
there who deserve money like this, who deserve developers being told, "If you
want to make money in the City of Miami do it by taking care of the human needs
of human beings." There are poor people in this town, there are black people,
Latin people and white people, all of us have needs, all of us in the City of
Miami are getting cheated one way or the other when you all, all of you in
other words - that's not southern - it's all of you perpetrate this kind of
comedy, this farce on the City of Miami on the voters to stand up and tell us
that this is a public hearing. This is no public hearing that the poor people
can come to. You all are running this little rig, the unsophisticated of the
City of Miami can't be down here speaking, they've only got me and a few of
the fools like me who are willing to comedownand talk to you all while you
all either sneer or debate with us or talk on the phone or consult with your
minions behind the scenes but the point is there are a lot of people out there
who are getting pretty damned sick of what is going on in the City. They don't
have places to eat, they don't have places to sleep, they don't have cars to
drive because of the gas and because they can't afford cars or insurance and
now they don't have gas. They're in a bad way and this kind of development
doesn't do anything to alleviate their suffering. I think the first attraction
at your marvelous Tivoli Gardens thing should be the "Let them eat cake booth"
for all the people of the City of Miami who don't get a fair shake. These
people pay taxes too. Okay, so maybe some of them don't vote but you know a
lot of these people don't vote because they haven't had a chance to grow up
and learn how the political process works and a lot of them don't vote because
frankly they've given up. They feel like in the City of Miami who cares any-
more. It doesn't really matter because we've got blocks with money that are
going to come up and do such a snow job on us between now and election that
yes, you're going to turn out some people in block vote. What's going on in
the City of Miami is still - I told you all this a while ago and it's still
it's a stench in the nostrils of decent citizens for you all to sit up here
and talk about spending money on an amusement park and I'm saying it again. You've
got developers who want to make money? Build housing and schools and nursing
homes for people who need them. You have people who want to make money, let
them make it, let the City cooperate, get grants and do it but take care of
the people in this town who deserve being taken care of. It's time that the
poor middle income people got heard and it's time the lower income people did
too because I repeat, all of them pay taxes and I hope to God all of them vote
this fall and I hope some of them have enough sense to vote a bunch of people
out.
f
Mayor Ferre: Next speaker.
Mr. Dan Paul: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, before I begin I want
to congratulate the Mayor on his birthday. It was not until I saw the Delta
50th Anniversary Plaque presented that I realized that perhaps you had reached
that milestone also on your birthday.
Mayor Ferre: Very funny, Dan.
Mr. Paul: In any case, what I want to say relates again to this HUD applica-
tion. Obviously any hearings which you held in the past before you filed the
HUD application or even considered filing it have nothing to do with what the
requirements of the regulations of HUD require and as I said before the pur-
pose is specific, it is to give the people in the disadvantaged areas for !9
whom this particular pot of money is available their opportunity to tell you
whether they think you ought to apply for this money for a ferris wheel on
Watson Island or whether you ought to apply for it for Culmer, for the dis-
advantaged areas of Coconut Grove and for any number of other areas in the >F
rt
32
u N 2 5 1979
41.aiLhv'Qb bEEGR�.4'ea.N_.�.� ysgwwresu.;uw-.
City and I submit you have not complied with that requirement. You have
not given the citizens of the City of Miami the opportunity to tell you for-
get Watson Island and what's going on it, to evaluate the relative merit of
whether they think the federal money should be applied for for the Watson Is-
land Project or whether it should be applied for for some other more pressing
project of the City of Miami. I realize politicians are in the business of
fudging the issues but that's an issue it seems to me that cannot be fudged
because this is a question of priority and that's what the HUD regulations
require you to do and you have certainly not complied by filing that applica-
tion and asking for that federal money before you gave the people in the dis-
advantaged areas the opportunity to tell you where they would prefer you to
apply for that money for and I think you should withdraw your application,
you should hold a proper hearing. The City Manager should give you a report
of all the priorities in the City of Miami which would qualify for the HUD
money and then the public should have the opportunity to meaningfuly comment
as to where they think they that money ought to be spent. Thank you.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Paul, before you sit down, and I don't mean to in any way
be offensive to you or anybody else but I think a lot of people don't under-
stand what the UDAG application, you know, and from the comments that you made
and your predecessor who was on the microphone talking about the social ser-
vices and the housing that's needed, if a UDAG application for social services
or housing were to be put in it would be thrown out within two minutes after
it were received. The UDAG application is very clear, it is for the purposes,
of inducing money making ventures for the private sector to spend their money,
in the inner city, that means of any urban area, the County can apply for it
too. Now (2), there is no priority requirements in the UDAG format, you can
apply for 10, 15 applications. You can apply for 1, you can apply for 2, as
a matter of fact what is being considered today and tomorrow in Washington by
UDAG, there are 2 Miami applications being considered simultaneously. I have
asked on several occasions for Mr. Cordish and other people involved at UDAG
as to whether or not it is practical to assume that one city could get two
applications at the same time and the answer is not only is it practical, it
happens every time. There are numerous cases where cities that have good ap-
plications are funded for two projects and other cities are not funded for
projects, the reason being the UDAG format is completely different. This is
not a social service or a poverty type of program. The purpose for UDAG is
very very clear, it is to induce private dollars to be invested in private
projects that are money making. They are to make a profit for the people that
are involved otherwise they would not. Now, if you have an argument with that
then please argue with congress and please argue with the administration who
pushed for this program. It seems to be working successfully. For example,
the one project that is not criticized anywhere around here is the James L.
Knight Convention/Conference Center. I might point out that had it not been
for a UDAG application for $5,000,000 we would not have the James L. Knight
Convention/Conference Center. That was the essential element. Now, the govern-
ment accepted that as a UDAG application. We have two applications,as I said
previously, being discussed here. Now we have discussed this going back to
when Mr. Pritzker was here. I want to put on the record that the Miami Herald
went on record on an editorial saying that they were for the development of
Watson Island in a Tivoli Gardens type project. They said that. Then they
said that the only thing that they objected to is they didn't like Mr. Pritzker,
they insinuated that, and then they said that this thing should be put up to
a public bid. Well, we went ahead and put it out to a public bid and after
we put it out for a public bid and that went through a public process and there
was a low bidder selected who was done after a public process, and most of the
people that are here objecting today were here then objecting and the record
so states, that was then passed and adopted and we had after a bid procedure
the selection and we selected Diplomat World. That was voted on unanimously
as I previously said. Then we went into the whole question of negotiations
and again up until the last vote they were all unanimous votes. Now, the point
that I'm trying to make simply in all of this is that this is in keeping I
think with the public purpose. You yourself on various occasions have told
me that you are in favor of the development of a Tivoli type project on Watson
Island. Recently you have told me that the only thing that you were concerned
with was the transportation aspect of this and the question as to whether or
not the bridge that goes up, and that you've seen the backing up when the Bis-
cayne Kennel Club goes out, but other than that that you really had no other
basic objections to a first class well designed beautifully landscaped type
of a project on that location. So frankly, I recognize that you have some
doubts about this but I think we ought to address them fairly and we ought to
address them in the context of this UDAG application which is what we're here
to discuss today.
rt
r3m
ti
JUN 2 5 19?0.
Mr. Paul: I agree with you, the UDAG application is what we're here to dis-
cuss and i don't want to take your time to tell you what my objections to the
Watson Island Project are, but your honor is in error as to what the purpose
is of the UDAG applications are for and I'm going to read it to you directly
from the regulations for Community Block Grants. They're for three purposes,
and I'm going to read them. (1) Projects that are designed primarily to re-'
store deteriorated neighborhoods. That does not fit Watson Island. (2) Pro-
jects to reclaim for industrial purposes under utilized real property. Watson
Island is not industrial purpose, that does not fit Watson Island. (3) To re-
new commercial employment centers. Watson Island has never been a commercial
employment center so there is nothing to renew. Now you tell me, Mr. Mayor,
which of those three criteria, and they're laid out just as specifically as
they can be and I'm reading you directly from Regulation 570.457 of the Depart-
ment of Housing and Urban Development Community Block Grants, Urban Develop-
ment Action Grants, it appears at page 1607 of the federal register.
Mayor Ferre:
John.
All right, I see you shaking your head so I'm talking
Mr. Gilchrist: I;; wasn't
have that before me.
to you,
sure he was reading from UDAG Regulations, I don't`
Mr. Paul: Here they are, if you haven't read them I would suggest, Mr. Gil-
christ, that you ought to read them before you make the application. You ap-
parently didn't because it says prior to the submission of it you should have
held this hearing. But there are three criteria, Mr. Mayor, and I agree with
you that is the purpose of this hearing. Now you tell me, it is not I who is
in error as to what the criteria are, those are the three criteria and maybe
somebody in the City can tell you how. And where is the recommendation of your
Advisory Committee on this application? You had an advisory committee, I'm`
told them haven't even met on the UDAG application let alone make a recommenda
tion. Are these people just stuffing and window dressing that are appointed?
They were asked to come down here and tell the Commission today that the advis-
ory committee approved it and they refused to do it because they hadn't even
met on it.
Mayor Ferre: Are you one of the boys?
Mr. Ronald Fine: Mr Mayor, let me suggest that learned counsel does'not
the proper UDAG section in order to make these type of representations to
Commission. Notwithstanding that, Mr. Mayor....
Mayor Ferre: You'd better identify yourself for the record.
Mr. Fine: Ronald Fine, Diplomat World Enterprises.
representation of the wrong sections....
Mayor
Ferree Not misrepresentation,
I'm
have
the
Notwithstanding the mis-
sure it was an honest....
Mr. Paul: Then let's have the right section, this was furnished to me, this
particular set of regulations was furnished to me by the man you're dealing
with in Washington handling this application who sent it to me in the mail
when I asked him to give me the regulations and itsays on it's face what it'S
for. Now maybe Mr. Fine will read the correct one then.
Mr. Fine: This is not.a Community Block Grant, it is a separate program. But
forgetting that, the benefits of the project are that they create 1,500 new
employments in the urban core area of first entry minority jobs, that they
create an additional three to four thousand jobs within the urban core area
in related industry and that it injects $200,000,000 worth of new dollars into
the central business district and related area. So it meets all of the criteria
of all of the programs. I'd like to suggest too that the UDAG, the part of
Housing and Urban Development has made a thorough and complete analysis of all
of the aspects of this project, of all of the legal configurations of the proj-
ect, of all of the requirements of the project and if the project meets that
criteria and ranks well nationally because it contributes to this community
and to its tourism base and to its immediate employment of minority unemployed
youth then it will be approved by UDAG. The other problems that are raised
here insofar as traffic, insofar as any other legal questions, we have the DRI
process to go through and we have the court validation of the bonds to go
through and there are other qualified governmental structures under our system
that will make these decisions not withstanding the fact as to whether or not
UDAG makes a commitment to the City of Miami or not.
rt
JUN 2 5 1979
Mr. Paul: I'm still waiting for the regulation to be read that says that UDAG
grants are available for projects to promote tourism or to promote employment
among minorities. There are three specific purposes for this kind of grant and
what you have applied for doesn't come within any of them so come up with the
regulation.
Mayor Ferre: Well, the purpose of this is to discuss these type of things
even though.I think it is a moot question, Dan, for the very simple....
Mr. Paul:. well yes, because you've already filed the application beforeyou
held the public hearing so that's the reason it is moot.
Mayor Ferre: And it's also moot because obviously if it doesn't
then the people in Washington will say....
comply legally
Mr. Paul: No, but I was responding to you, Mr. Mayor, who said;I didn't under-
stand what UDAG grants were for and I` wanted to give you what the three criteria
were and I'll repeat them: Projects that are designed primarilyto restore
deteriorated neighborhoods....
Mayor Ferre: No, Dan,.I heard and therecord is very clear on it but the point
is that the statement' has been madehere that contradicts that is that, you're
reading from Block Grant Categories andnot from the applicable section that
deals with the UDAG application.
That's what you filed for, it was a block grant.
Mr. Fine I would suggest that Mr. Paul familiarize himself with regulation
.95013 HDRRF-116 as published 7/17/78 on page 31, Section (f) and with that
he'll have a better understanding of what the UDAG applications.....
Mayor Ferre: Okay, that's very impressive legzlly, now just tell us what"it
says.
Mr. Fine It says basically that the criteria of UDAG relates to the impact
of the proposed project on the special problems of lower income persons and
minorities giving employment and entrepreneurial opportunities, the nature
and extent, the financial participation by private parties, the leverage ratio
of private to federal funds, the extent of financial assistance made available
by the state and other public agencies, to the impact of the proposed project
on the fiscal or economic deterioration of the total central business area or
community and the improvement of the applicant's tax base by creating new sales
dollars, creating new employment, generating and assisting new development and
the extent to which the project represents a special or a unique opportunity
to meet local needs. And this project meets every point of selection criteria.
established by the Department of Urban Development.
Mr. Paul: Those are all subsections to the three general criteria that, if
you first fit the three general criteria then you look at it from those three
points of view.
Mayor-Ferre: But Dan, again, the problem is with Mr. Cordish and the legal
counsel for UDAG and I think if you haven't, I'm sure knowing you that you
will point this out to them and if it doesn't comply with the law I'm sure
we're not going to get it. Now I think the point simply is this, and I think
it is very essential that we understand where we are. We have been debating
about Watson Island and about a Tivoli Gardens type theme park for the last
four years and this thing has been going on and on. I want to say, and I
see that Lester Freeman is here, that as of now the Chamber of Commerce stands
on record in favor of the development of Watson Island as a theme park. Now
I want to say that with regards to our most severe critic which is the Miami
Herald, I want to reiterate that the Herald was at one time for the develop-
ment of Watson Island but wanted public bids. After the public bid process
they reversed that posture and said they were against it. I want to remind
you that within this month the editor of the Miami Herald published in the
Sunday an article which stated, which stated very clearly that if the project
were done on the FEC property in Biscayne Bay then I guess he would be in
favor of it and I'm very grateful for that because in effect what he's saying
is he's not against the theme park he's against the location of the theme
park and he's entitled to that opinion, I respect that very much. But I want
to remind you, Mr. Paul, that at one time you were the individual that led
the troops and fortunately so, to stop any construction behind the library
for a convention conference center and if I'm not mistaken you were very very
strongly in favor that all of the land that would be acquired by the City
along the bayshore on Biscayne Bay should be kept as open green areas.
i‘i.,r.19Tg
rt
That is still my position.
Mayor Ferrel All right, now, I'm not saying that you and the Herald are the
same but I'm saying that here the editorial, at least John Mac Mullen keeps
reminding me of that all the time and I believe him and I believe you too.
Now, the fact is that here the Herald, the severest critic of this whole proj-
ect is saying that they're willing to put a Tivoli Garden type project on the
FEC property on Bayfront Park and I would say that there are those who would
think, including I guess yourself, that that would be as much of a disaster
if not more so than Watson Island. So opinions will vary. The fact is that
the majority of the elected officials, and it was unanimous up until recently
you know, when the political season comes in - that we were all unanimous in
moving ahead with Watson Island. What can I tell you?
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Ferre, I can tell you where you're wrong. Where you're
wrong is what you just said. What you said was "until recently" as if every-
thing had not changed. A very major criteria had changed and that was a risk
factor as it involves the City of Miami's money and Mr. Fannatto was very ob-
servant when he noted that $20,000,000 of those dollars were going to have to
be taken from non -ad valorem taxes which is not a complete change but it is a
change to the degree that the developer no longer bears any of the risk in-
volved because the developer now has a guarantee of a large sum of money over
the first five years and also a guarantee of a considerable sum for the super-
vision of the construction. This is not the same deal that had been discussed
and all those numerous resolutions that you read a little while ago, it took
you five or ten minutes to renumerate. So, therefore, you know it is not a
political season, it is any season where the City's interest is not being
served and this is the season, it is not being served.
Mayor Ferre: All right, let me very briefly tell you that the $20,000,000,
Mrs. Gordon, that is guaranteeing is the Florida Power and Light Franchise,
was there every single time you voted for it and it's still there. Secondly,`
with regards to the guarantees, the guarantee now is 4.3 million dollars the
first year and 3 point something the second, a total of $12,000,000 if the
developer stays managing the project for a five year period. Previous to that
the guarantee was over $30,000,000. So in other words you didn't object to
$30,000,000 but now you object to $12,000,000. Now with regards to the feasi-
bility, since now you say that you don't want the $20,000,000 of the peoples'
money that comes in from the Florida' Power and Light Franchise Tax risked and
the license fees, other than that if we can find a solution for that other
than that would you accept the location? Because I may have a surprise for
Mrs. Gordon: Maurice, in 1977 the economy was certainly not faced with the
problem of the gasoline crunch it is faced with today. Today the risk factor
has been increased tremendously in this project and,: therefore, the $20,000,000
which you referred to is in greater jeopardy of being utilized now than, it was
when this project came to the table in 1977.
Mayor Ferre: That wasn't my question. I am going to find a solution for that
where the $20,000,000 won't be in jeopardy. Now, would you accept the location?
Mrs. Gordon: Then let me answer you another answer to your question. In 1977
this City was embarking upon what looked like a ten year proposition for con-
demnation for property on Biscayne Boulevard, namely the FEC property. If I
had my choice, and irrespective of what Danny Paul's feelings are, if I have
a choice of developing a theme park either on Watson Island or on the FEC
there is no question in my mind that the feasibility is far superior on Bis-
cayne Boulevard on the FEC property because you are then removing a great
problem of traffic (1), (2) you will have a people mover within a very short
distance, you will stimulate the rebuilding of downtown because it will direct-
ly benefit those people who will be living and who will be visiting downtown
Miami, that is a 1979 position as relates to an old-fashioned 1977 position
with an update based on many factors and one of those factors is the economy
of the community today as compared to the economy of the community then and
the relationship between the availability of transportation today and the
availability then.
Mayor Ferre: And how many more times do you think you'll change
between now and November as new realities come into play?
Mrs. Gordon:
whatsoever.
rt
As to location? I have no expectation of changing my position
JUN251979
Oft
Mayor Ferre: I see, so in other wordsjust one change is sufficient
that it? Are You now telling me that you are therefore, opposed. to Watson;.
Island' with or without the twenty million dollars being risked?
Mrs. Gordon: I think I have stated clearly..
Mayor Ferre: I understood i
Mrs. Gordon: everything I had to say regarding the issue. feel feel` that --
and this has no bearing on who the developer is-- but to guarantee twelve
million dollars to anyone and no guarantee to the City of any profit whatsoever.
is foolhardy. I know I wouldn't want to deal with my own property in that
manner. Would you?
Mayor Ferre: Well, but you did with the Clty's property when you voted for
this contract that would guarantee this developer here thirty trillion dollars.
You had no objection...
Mrs. Gordon: If the City received a like sum.`
Mayor Ferre; And if the City receives a like sum we end up getting... he
gets twelve million dollars only if the City makes a like sum, because otherwise,
we can kick him out for a cause.
Mrs. Gordon: Then
who is going :to operate, you?
Mayor Ferre: Well, but I -see what's valid... what was valid inone
all of the sudden becomes invalid in another contract.
Mrs. Gordon: No, sir, there, is no comparison and you can'-t
that even if you tried.
Mayor Ferre: Well, you can't twist ideas even if you_try and the fact is
that the contract speak for themselves and the fact remains that you can `see
patently clear that the facts have nothing to do with the decision that --you.
have just taken. Because you are willing to do along with John McMullin,
what you say you won't accept in one location. However, you now will accept
in another location.
contract
Mrs. Gordon: I would not accept the terms of this contract in any location,
not in another location. The terms of this agreement that you are accepting.
is a bad business deal and I don't go for bad business deals. And this is
a bad business deal for the citizens of the City of Miami.
Mayor Ferre: Mrs. Gordon, you accepted on one occasion, the Ball Point ,matter
and then you voted against it on one and then you went back and voted for it
again.
Mrs. Gordon: I never... awe, Maurice,;stop playing your cute little games,,.
because when you play your cute little games, you know I'm going to nail you
down a few cute ones of your own. '
Mayor Ferre: On Monty Trainer you voted against
you change your mind half way through.
you voted for and nowthen
Mrs. Gordon: Put some more in the record Maurice so
later on. Ok, put some more in the record.
gl.
JUN25197Q
Mrs. Gordon: Well, so you want me to put some Bayshore Property vote on
May 19, 1978, Motion 78-346 moved by Mrs. Gordon and seconded by Plummer,
authorizing the Administration to renegotiate payment schedules unanimously
passed, that's Monty Trainer. On June 22, 1978, authorizing the Manager to
amend lease between the City and Bayshore Properties, everybody voted for it
but Plummer.
Mrs. Gordon: So what did you bring out?
Mayor Ferre: Well, the
Mrs. Gordon: Again,
your mouth.
Mayor FerreThe inconsistences
one day and then you are...
Mrs. Gordon:
I wasn't Mr.
point ;is
you know,...
Mr. Ferre, you are really talking out of both sides of
of your votes
That, you are for one thing
Plummer, on any occasion that I can remember.:
Mayor Ferre: Well, the point simply`is, that you-were.for Watson. Island very
conveniently until just a few months -Ago. Alright, anything else?
Mrs. Gordon: Ok, Mr. Ferre, your point is well taken, that you couldn't find
the facts you were hoping to find. Thank you.
Mayor Ferre: I have submitted them into the record very clearly, that you
vote one way oneday and another the other day.You voted against Gould.
Mrs. Gordon: Maurice, if you want to continue this circus the people, will
come here in droves, but they won't even have to pay an admission. So let's
get on with the City's business.
Mr. Fine: Mr. Mayor, can I address one thing?
Mayor Ferre: You certainly inay.
Mr. Plummer: I don't know why you should get, theopportunity,I haven'
had the opportunity.
Mr. Fine: Commissioner Gordon, has repeated an'.editorial statement that'is
factually incorrect and I think that it needs clarification for the record to
preserve everybody's integrity. One is that there is no guarantee of twelve.
million dollars in the amended contract.. Number two is the fee that is
provided for to the developer is some where in'the neighborhood of two
thousand dollars a day for which...
Mayor Ferre: Don't bother her with the facts, she doesn't want to listen.
She is not going to listen to anything you are going to say. Those are facts,
you don't want to bother her with that.
Mr. Fine: ... for which the devolper has to provide the total administrative
staff of the Watson Island project and to parrot the incorrect and false
statement that this contract provides a guarantee is total fallacious. The
onlyway that this developer or this operator can stay into this project, is
by paying all of the bills, paying all of the debt service and providing -.a
profit in the project.
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Fine, what you are saying is not incorrect, but still if
you were. removed from the:project, who do you think would be put in there to
run that project? And if you couldn't run that project, who do you think
could?
Mr. Fine: I believe the project is going to be extremely successful. I<think
it's going to be built and I don't, think that I'm going to be removed from
the project.
Mrs. Gordon: Well, again, you know, 1 see you have made a lot of assumptions
and we have to hope and pray for the best if the majority on this Commission
prevails. Because I'm with the rest of the people of the City who are going
to be put in jeopardy, you know.
Mayor Ferre: Well, you didn't seem
JUN2519e
gl.
3!
Mrs.; Gordon: We may not get any Police coverage and we may get less fire
protection. You know, we may not get our garbage picked up, but that's ok,
becasuse we really don't care about these essential things. We need an
amusement park more than we need that.
Mr. Fine:. Let me tell you Mrs. Gordon. Mrs. Gordon? Mrs. Gordon, I pay as
much taxes in the City of Miami, as you are anybody else that's supporting
you. So you don't have to tell me about the risk of taxes in the City of
Miami. And that's true whether the property is in Coconut Grove or Downtown
Miami. So nobody has to tell me about the responsibility of taxes.
Mrs. Gordon: Well, I don't want to malign you, because I really don't. I
respect you as a person and as a businessman. And if this thing has to go
forward, then I have confidence that if anybody can do it you will do it. But,
I have very little confidence in the success of this program with the outlook
as we have to many things that have changed. And the very big thing that has
changed is the availability of fuel and the possibility of great numbers of
people staying away because they can't get here, whether they come by plane or
not. I have had two flights cancelled in the pass month, because the planes
had been cancelled... the flights had been cancelled because the airlines
could not get fuel to take those particular flights out.
Mayor Ferre: Alright Mr. Fine, anything else?
Mrs. Gordon: I also want to make note thatwith regard to this morning's
conversation on Police protection, I was informed and I have this information.
here, that the City is now operating with a hundred twenty-nine less Policemen
than they had in 1975. Let me tell you something, if I'm going to have to
spend that twenty million dollars I much rather spend it and give people the
Police protection they require. This morning we heard people up there in the
Northeast 2nd Avenue 54th Street section, feel like they are in Vietnam or
another section to this City, of businessmen are saying that if they don't get
the protection they need, they are going to have to take the law in their
own hands. And here we are piddling around and risking the dollars that we
need for these essential services. This is foolish..
Mayor Ferre: Alright, Mr. Fine, anything else you want to add? Yes,
Mr. Turkell: My name is Leonard Turkell and I apologize Mr. Plummer, I live
on Palm Island and I have lived there for many years. However, I am also
President and Chief Stockholder of the Orange Bowl Corporation and we are on
17th Street off Biscayne Boulevard. We have preserved some old Miami buildings
there. We do pay taxes to the City of Miami and that might give me some
extra privilege here to address you, sir.
Mr. Plummer: Sir, you have to apologize none for living on Palm Island. I
think you should be grateful that you do. My only concern in my statement'
was that I never said that you shouldn't be concerned. I: did say that you
don't live in the City. That's the only comment that I made, alright, sir?
And while I'n on that I would like to apologize to this lady for the tone of
my voice, not what I said, but the tone of my voice and I apologize for it.
Mr. Turkell: I really want to address the matter of the HUD application and
that the fact of it's existence and the necessity to go to UDAG for additional
funds. I think really has to do with the unsound quality of the contract
that has been recently passed here. And I don't believe that there is any
businessman in the City of Miami, that could come before you and say that they
would either enter into that kind of a contract on their own or that could go
before their boards, if they are Corporate Officers and suggest that kind of
a contract to their boards. Mr. Mayor, you suggested that the Downtown Chamber
still stands behind this project, so the Downtown Chamber has not as yet
reconsidered the new contract and their Subcommittee has not met to reconsider
the new contract. And what the new contract says simply stated in terms
is that the City puts up the land and the City puts up the money and the City
puts up the employees and the City puts up a series of all other services
required that the City is now doing. The developer puts up no investment, he
does not share in the losses and he has no experience in this business. Now,
I want to know who there is out there who would go into a venture where his
partner has no experience, no investment and does not share in the losses.
And I tell you that when the Downtown Chamber does reconsider this matter and
this new contract, that those businessmen Downtown will not agree that, that
kind of a business arrangement is one that they could live with in their own
gl.
"." N 2 5 1979
business life. And I think there is one other point that I have to make.
And that deals with the use of Watson Island at present. The developers
have stated and called Watson Island ugly and I believe, the Mayor called
Watson Island ugly just a few weeks ago.
(BACKGROUND COMMENT OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Mr. Turkell: I think the term was ugly, but we could check to see. Now, let
me tell you about Watson Island, you know about the uses that are there presently
but I don't think you know that on weekend after weekend there are hundreds
of cars there, people using Watson Island free, paying nothing for it, people
from all over the County and all over who knows where, who can park their
cars and picnic and watch the water or watch the cruise ships, but use that
free land. The people of this community use it free and there are thousands
of them each weekend who use Watson Island. And when you do this regardless
of where you get your financing from, regardless of how much you pay the
developers, regardless of all the rest of it, you will be denying admission
to all of the people in this City who cannot go to Watson Island on a short
drive and have the pleasure of that open space without charge, free of charge
and that's what you are taking away from the City.
Mrs. Gordon: May I ask Lester Freeman a question Mr. Ferre?
Mayor Ferre: Yes.
Mrs. Gordon: Lester, you have heard the statements that Mr. Turkell has made
regarding the Chamber analysis of the new contract. The Mayor freely uses
the Chamber as support of his discussions very regularly. I mean, you are
really almost, you know, apart of this Commission Meeting even when you are
not here. I want to ask you whether or not that is a fact that your
Subcommittee has not analyzed the new contract?
Mr. Freeman: They are both correct. Mr. Turkell is correct and the Mayor is
correct. We are still very much in favor of an amusement facility,a Tivoli
Gardens type facility at that location. We have not, did not and probably
will not look at the new contract because it's my understanding it's done.
We are here today however, to say we would like for this UDAG application,
which I believe is what's before you today to be advanced to the Federal
authorities. My opinion is, they won't approve it, but I think we should move
forward with that. Let me say one thing for Mr. Paul too, in the UDAG process
the Chamber sponsored with the Downtown Development Authority, with Metro,
with the United States Department of Transportation and with representatives
of the UDAG organization from Washington last December a work shop on UDAG
applications. We invited every developer in this area, plus those from out
of town trying to promote these kinds of applications on the UDAG proposal.
We were disappointed in the reaction to that conference, but there has been
a public all day work shop on this subject seven months ago.
Mrs. Gordon: What bothers me is because you are consulted on almost everything,
you meaning the Chamber. Why weren't you given a copy of the new contract?
Mrs. Gordon: Was it because it was Such a bad deal
"hey, look, it ain't so good anymore?"
Mr. Freeman: I don't know that we weren't. We at the present time do not
have a standing Committee on Watson Island. We have some individuals who
have been following it, but the contract that was before you was pretty much:
completed before we got into it. Now, if you are saying to us, you would
like for us to comment on it, we would be glad to, but I didn't know that
opportunity was still available, frankly.
Mrs. Gordon: Well, I'm saying to you, that since your name has been used in,
support... and a lot of people have the indication now that your support was
based on a review of the new contract and apparently has not, I would say that
you for your own benefit ought to have that look and comment.
May I ask you a question?
Mrs Gordon: Yes.
2 5 1979.
gl.
Mr. Freeman: Is the subject available for review by the Commission?
Mayor Ferre: Always is. Look, let me put it to you this way, Lester. Every
single person, except those that of course, that are predisposed against this,
every single person that's looked at this contract, says this is a vastly
superior contract to the other one. I have absolutely no question that it
will stand the scrutiny of your test and I would welcome that. And I think...
I don't know... Mr. Gilchrist, you indicated to me that the Chamber did have
a copy of all of this.
Mr. Gilchrist: I'm sure we did Mayor, I'm not saying we didn't.
Mayor Ferre:, Yes. So, I think... I would like to ask for you to tell,if you
would, Alva A. Chapman and Ray Boode to reconvene that thing and have'a look at it.
I would like... I think. their input... It may be a mood question because, you
know...
Mr. Gilchrist: I would be glad to. I simply didn't understand that was the
issue before the Commission today.
Mayor Ferre: The reasonwhy ladies aarintgentlemen, UDAG applicationtisrbecauseed to ake
this point here... The reason why wee
the contract changed. And the contract changed in a way that is less favorable
to the person or the Corporation Diplomat World that will be operating this
project. And therefore, for us to be able to make... you see, what everybody
keeps forgetting isn't the inhabitants of Palm Island or the Chamber of Commerce
or Mr. McMullin and the Herald Editorial Board or the objectors to this or
the proponents of it. Somebody out there in that wonderful place called Wall
Street is going to have to put fifty-five million dollars on top of the table
for this project to get through and the fact is that the odds are completely
against that happening for many reasons. So that's where the problem is going
to be, it isn't any where around here, I don't think.
Mr. Gilchrist: We've always felt that was going to be the final test.
Mayor Ferre: Yes. And I think that if somebody in Wall Street puts fifty-
five million dollars into this project they are going to be absolutely certain
that it doesn't fail. Alright, anything else on this public hearing with
regards to the first Item, which is Watson Island. If not, thank you, very
much ladies and gentleman.
13. PUBLIC HEARING: WORLD TRADE CENTER U. D. A. G. APPLICATION.
Mayor Ferre: We are now on the World Trade Center UDAG application. Mr.
Connolly? Or I guess we better hear both of them and then we can vote on
them again. Is that what we need to do here?
Mr. Grassie: No, sir:This is a public hearing, it does not require a vote
by the City Commission.
Mayor Ferre: Alright
(BACKGROUND COMMENT OFF THE PUBLIC
Mayor.Ferre: Nothing,. we, don't have to;vote on this. The position -of this,
City, Commission is already: clearly oh the record. So this is Jost �a public,
hearing so that -.the public would have the opportunity -to...
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, may I; put some comments on the
proper?
Mayor Ferre:
Watson Island?
Mr. Plummer: Well, yes, sir. And it will also,to'the other one and I can
more or less just say ditto. First of all... and these are just co 97�ts
Jtlt, 2 5
Sure,, absolutely. With regards t
gl.
41
that I have made all the way along. You know, I'm the first one on this
Commission who always screams "what's the worst that can happen to us?" and
once that is satisfied, then I go about the business. All day we have heard
and gone-- even though against my vote-- on the advice of experts of why we
should proceed on the World Trade Center. I haven't heard for an awfully
long time from a very reputable firm of ERA, who did the financial analysis
on Watson Island, who in fact, projected that this City would be,receiving
monies to it's general fund from the operation of Watson Island. And I just
think in all fairness that we have brought up all of the negative, that may be
somewhere along the line somebody should remember the positive, that there is
a good chance that this City will receive revenue, which in fact, in my
estimation is a sideline,first and foremost is to have a tourist activity
here. Second of all, I think that we failed to realize or somebody does,
that this Commission approving or disapproving is only one step of the way.
The people who buy bonds are not dumb and they are not stupid and they are
not poor. And they are not poor because they are not stupid. The point is,
those people before they invest those dollars are going to take some long
serious look at the financial feasibility of this project. Another, if you wish,
safeguard and I think everyone has said that basically this will not fly without
the UDAG grant and I think there again, is another safeguard that is built into
it. I happen to be in favor of the new revised agreement and was so much so
because this City could not in fact, be out the fifteen million dollars that
is purported. But it gave us an out on an annual basis, where in fact, if we
wished we could for whatever reason without cause by the management contract
for, I think, 3.2 million dollars. Now, I think really the bottom line is
that we may be spinning our wheels, because I have to tell you sitting
on the Southern,Growth Policy Board, I like Lester Freeman will be extremely
surprised if this is forthcoming. Because history tells us that of the
eleven southern cities, excuse me, eleven southern states, not one UDAG grant.
has ever been received.
Mayor Ferre: That's not true...
Mr. Plummer: Who?
Mayor
Ferre: The James L. Knight Convention Center...
Mr. Plummer: Not UDAG. Mr. Mayor, accordingto the Manager. Not one UDAG
granthas been favored upon one of the eleven southern states. That is the
reason...
(BACKGROUND COENT OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Mrs. Gordon: The Convention Center had a UDAG.
Mr. Plummer: Well, I'm told by the Manager, if you know something different
than the Manager... the Manager tells me we never got one.
Mrs. Gordon:
Center.
Well, that's not true.
got five million for the Convention
Mr. Plummer: The Manager tells we it was not UDAG.
Mrs. Gordon: Well,what do you call; it then?
Mr. Grassie: It was an EDA grant, emergency public works, Commissioner.,.
Mrs. Gordon: Oh, that's right ,< it was a public works grant. That's right.
Mr. Plummer:
Rose, in the Southern Growth Policy Board.
Ms. Spillman: We.got one UDAG, the City of Miami got a million dollar grant
fora second mortgage housing program on the first round, if you will recall.
Mr. Plummer: Alright, then I stand corrected there, but the sole reason for
the creation of the Southern Growth Policy Board is the fact that two hundred
and twenty million dollars a year has been made available and not one of the
eleven southern states, the information given to us has been able to get one
of those grants.
Mrs. Gordon: How many did we apply for Dena? Dena, how many did we apply
for? UDAG?
gl
JUNE 25, 1979
Ms. Spillman: Discluding the ones you are discussing today. We applied
for one on the Shell City site in conjunction with Mr. Pincher...
Gordon: Was that turned down?
Ms. Spillman: ,It
for that site.
was rejected. But we are still working on another proposa
Mrs. Gordon: Qh. .And that was the only one we applied for, besides these tw
Yes.
Ms. Spillman:
Mrs. Gordon: L
except once.
Mr. Plummer: How long is the UDAG grants being
Ms. Spillman: No, a year, not two.
Oh,
well, then really J.
. , then we haven't > had "`a turn down
given? Two years?
Mr. Plummer: Ok. Rose, let me tell you I have sent, forwarded to each and
everyone of you all of the papers from the Southern Growth Policy Board. I
do not sit there as your representative. I sit there by virtue of being
President of the Florida League of Cities. It's basically, you know, by
invitation. And I want to tell you that the eleven-- the State of Florida
in particular who is showing a growth of twenty-four percent. Not one of the
eleven southern states has received a UDAG grant. The Northeast has got
eighty percent of it and the Midwest has got about the other twenty. Every
time the eleven southern cities start to change and try to apply, the rules
change.
Rev. Gibson: Well, J. L. I would blame you all.
Mr. Plummer: Don't blame
us we are trying to fight'it.
Rev. Gibson: Look, let me put this in the right...
(BACKGROUND COMMENT OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Rev. Gibson: J. L., let me put this in the record. May be this might be
one way they could save space and stopdiscriminating against us Southerns.
I would like that to take place for a change.
Mayor Ferre: I.
Mrs. Gordon:
that? We..
sure hope so. Alright, weare now on the...
r. Ferre, could we go back to the morning's agenda and complete
Mayor FerreNo, Ma'am, we may;not because we are right in the middle, of a
public hearing and we are now on the World Trade Center UDAG application.
You are recognized Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Connolly: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, in order to establish
the hearings I would just like to point out one thing. As you know we had, had
hearings at the Commission level and in the community since 1975 and we have
been before the Commission, I would say an average of every two months since
then. However, in order to answer directly to Danny Pauls concerns. Number
one, there was a work shop session in early December that was sponsored by
DDA, the City, the County and the Chamber of Commerce. All of the working
Subcommittees of the Chamber actively invited people from their particular
section of the community to respond. The response really wasn't very good.
There were twenty-one people who attended the workshop. Shortly after that
meeting a presentation was made to the City Commission on the World Trade
Center in December asking for permission to proceed with the UDAG application
on the World Trade Center. Based upon that approval of the Commission in
January of 1979, a formal application was made for a five million dollar grant
for the World Trade Center in order to develop the air rights for the World
Trade Center building on top of the Convention garage. We have met since then
with the UDAG people and when Dade Federal Savings participation in the project
came along, it increased the level of development in the private sector by
50%. We tried to increase the grant correspondently from five to seven and a
half million dollars and were told by UDAG that, that would not be very favorably
received, but five million dollars would. And that's bringing you up to date
gl
JUNE 25, 1979
4-3
Mayor Ferre: Alright, are there any members of the public that ;wish ,to
express themselves on this. Alright, go ahead.
Mr. Joel Jaffer appeared in opposition to this issue
standard objections to Highrises.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, another speakers against or
Center UDAG application?
Mr. Ernie Fannotto appeared in favor of this issue on the grounds of it being
good for Downtown business, but questions the City reaching 78% capacity.
Mr Connolly: Ernie, the first thing, the subject of this hearing is World Trade
Center, but in direct response to your question let me point out that Omni
which is in business now two years, is doing a year round average occupancy of
ninety-four percent. We had projected in our studies that our occupancy woul
not exceed eighty. The consultants Laventhol and Horvath who handled, I would
say at•least sixty percent of all the hotel evaluation in this Country said
that instead of doing eighty percent, we should be doing eighty-five percent
by the fifth year.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, to the attorney Mr. Knox, for the record the same
question that applied previously? Do you feel comfortable, you personally,
that all the requirements were met in the application of this UDAG grant?.
Mr.
Mr.
Plummer:; Thank you.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, anybody else?
Mrs. Gordon: I would like to suggest Mr. Ferre, that we have another public
hearing just to protect the application of this UDAG grant for the World Trade
Center on July llth. And that it be an advertised hearing, so that if there '.
is a question that comes down it won't interfere with the development which
appears to be one that will be very beneficial to the City economically.
Mayor Ferre: Is there a problem with that?
Mr. Grassie: No, there is no particularproblem in having any number of
additionalhearings Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: Well, why is there a need to have anymore public hearings?
Mr. Grassie: The only reason would be it would give somebody a
comfort that they wouldn't have otherwise.
Mayor Ferre: Well, I'` will tell you, we have had..
sense o
Mrs. Gordon: Well, there is a question here whether it was advertised, it
wasn't and whether it's a legitimate public hearing and it might not be. And
I think from that stand point we should do that.
(BACKGROUND COMMENT OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Mr. Plummer: You know, I... Mr. Mayor, I have personally sat here today. I
am glad there was no vote taken because I as I said or annouced previously,
as far as I was concerned, we met the criteria prior to the filing of the
application. And as far as I was concerned "yes" in fact, our minds were made
up by filing that. Yes, we did meet all the criteria as said by the City
Attorney and no further action was needed. Now, I sat here for an hour and
listened...
Mayor Ferre: Well, what we are going to do... I mean, you know, obviously
that I'm going to insist that if we do that for the World Trade Center, we
do the same thing for Watson Island. And all we are going to go through is
the same thing by the same people, because I don't care how much anybody says.
The fact is that everytime we have one of these things what we end up with is
Joel Jaffer and the people from Palm Island. And with all due respects and
now recently Dan has joined that crusade, but other than that, we really have
not had that many people. I mean, there has never in the two years of this
Watson Island project, I have never seen a room full of people. You know,
where there is any major objection and most of them don't even live in the
gl
JUNE 25, 1979
City of Miami. Andthere are people that are affected because they live in
Palm Island or Star Island or what have you. Now, as far as I'm concerned
if we are going to have one for the World Trade Center, I'm going to insist
that we do the same thing for the Watson Island project.
Mrs. Gordon: Well, I'm not insisting on that, but if you wish to have it, that's.
alright. But I am insisting that we do have this one for the World Trade Center
and I would so move.
Mayor Ferre: There is a motion on the floor? I don't... Well,
there is a second and then I will...
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, you know,
Mrs. Gordon: Alright, I will include both and I will make you all feel better.
I am including both.
Mr. Plummer: No, it's...` Rose, it's... let me put it this way, you know,' I'm
twixt and between. I have no objections to sitting here listening to it, but
I think it's purposeless, so I guess I' must vote against it. You know, I
thought so today, Rose...
Mrs. Gordon: Well, you are making a legal determination and you may find somewhere
down the road that you will be sorry that you did that.
Mr. Plummer: But after the fact... assuming Mr. City Attorney that you are
wrong, if you can do that, two hearings after the fact, would that accomplish
anything?
Mayor Ferre: It will be
by UDAGby July the llth
Mr. Plummer:
Mayor Ferre:
legal.
Mr. Plummer:
the middle
a mood question by that because it will be 'decided
anyway.
I didn't know we paid you to be. the City Attorney.
No, but I'm just giving you the practical aspect of it, not the
City Attorney or M
—Mayor...
.
Well, that end, this end and in
Mr. Knox: Again, it will probably be up to the Department of Housing and
Urban Development of what weight or accreditable value they would give a
public hearing that's reported to them` subsequent to the time that they
are considering the application.
Mayor Ferre: Ok, is there a second to the motion? Is there a second for the
third time? Hearing no second, the motion dies for lack of a second.
Mr. Fine, we have got to move along because Dan Paul is getting paid by the
hour on this and it's getting to be expensive.
Mr. Fine: Very briefly for the record, my name is Martin Fine and I represent
the developer of the World Trade Center Mr. Earl Worsham and his associates and
were just here with a representative of_Dade Federal, Mr. Ronald Lipton and
Howard Ward to assure you of the continuing and intent commitment of the
developer to go forward with the process. And we think it's a very exciting
development, a very good application and one which we hope would be approved
approved by HUD in it's round that it is considering now. There is a lot more
we can say, but it's getting too late for that. Mr. Lipton would like to
make a brief comment I believe?
Mayor Ferre: Alright, Mr. Lipman, we are always happy to have you here.
am sorry we have had to make you wait three hours, four hours.
Mr. Lipton: Just a short comment. We were involved in the successful:UDAG
application that the City has gotten, so I hope that we will be involved in
this successful one and that the building will be built. Thank you
Mayor Ferre: Wonderful.. thank vou. Alright, anything else? If not this
public hearing, the two public hearings are now over.
gl
µ5
JUNE 25, 1979
14. PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENTS: WATERFRONT SETBACKS
WATERFRONT LEASES
Mayor Ferre: We are now back to the morning session which is discussion of
a Charter Amendment to be proposed by Mrs. Gordon. And the Chair recognizes
Mrs. Gordon and then...
Mrs. Gordon: Thank you, Mr. Ferre. The item that you have before you is the
proposal for two Charter Amendments which I would ask this Commission to
approve, to be placed on the ballot on November 6th. You have copies of the
amendment...
Mr. Plummer:
o, " I don't.
Mrs. Gordon: Well, everybody was
copy ifyou need it.
Mr. Plummer:
furnished copies.
will furnish you another
Are you talking Rose, about the petition?.
Mrs. Gordon:' No, -the amendments themselves..
Mr. Plummer: I don
Mrs.
have it.
Gordon: Well, it was sent out.
Mr. Plummer: Oh, well, now-1 just
passed out the petition to me.
got this, I haven't read it, but you just
Mrs. Gordon: Ok, well, it's in the petition and I also have them in a
separate form, but you might follow me with it in the petition. The first
amendment which is listed in detail in the petition deals with the preservation
of the natural scenic beauty of the waterfront and it is setup to guarantee
that there will be open space for light, air and significant visual access
to protect the ecology of the waterfront and Biscayne Bay and the Miami River.
And it sets up guidelines for development which would permit developers to
be able to obtain additional bonuses by giving additional amenities to the
area.
Mr. Plummer: I don't have any of that.
Mrs. Gordon: I'm not just reading, I'm speaking to you now. The total outline
of it-- alright, Mr. Paul is furnishing you a copy-- is there and... so that
there will be no misunderstanding, I will read it. (READS THE PROPOSAL).
The action in which I would ask this Commission to take today would be a
resolution to place this amendment on the ballot on November 6th. In conjunction
with another petition, amendment which reads as follows (READS THE PROPOSAL).
That's the second amendment. Both of these amendments Commissioners and Mayor
deal with the protection of the natural waterfront of our beautiful City and
there is a limited amount of these amenities available for us. It is imperative
to do whatever we can to insure that our children and their children will have
the benefit of the kind of community that we would want them to have.
Mayor Ferre: Go head...
Mrs. Gordon: Ok, the first action I would move you then, would be that we
have...
Mayor, Ferre:
Mrs. Gordon: Oh,
mean that.
Mayor Ferre: No, I said you can continue... I do mean it, you can continue
reading your statement, I'm sure, but you don't want to cut Mr. Dan Paul and
the other members of the Commission from saying something on it.
Mrs. Gordon: Ok, Mr. Mayor, if you don't mind. I don't want to cut you off
I thought you said proceed. Oh,' I'm sorry, if you didn'
gl.
46
wow
JUNE 25, 1979
•
on what you are trying to say to me or anybody else, but you said go ahead
and I'm going a head. Ok, I'm very willing to hear from everybody and I'm
very willing to wait until everybody has spoken before I proceed. Thank you.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, Mr. Paul? I think since you have been waiting here
for four hours or three hours, let's hear from you and them we will getinto
the discussion of this by members of the Commission.
Mr. Paul: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, I think that the two
petitions pretty well speak for themselves as to what they would do. They are
similar to a proposal that I finally got adopted by the State Legislature in
1971 that provided a fifty foot setback along the water along the Atlantic
Ocean side and I think that has had a very beneficial affect from the point of
view of preventing future buildings from being built too close and shutting
off the public's viewpoint. We also passed in the City of Miami Beach a
Charter Amendment in 1971 to protect the Bay from the Miami Beach side to
prevent further filling. For example, in the Bay and I think the time has come
to pass such a Charter Amendment for the City of Miami to protect what remaining
waterfront we have. I frankly don't think that if private developers will stop
and take a look at it, that they will have that much objection because the
height and floor aerial ratio bonuses that they are able to get if they setback
or if they are willing to dedicate a public walkway along the River would be
sufficient, I think to offset any possible loss that they might have. I think
that what we should attempt to be creating in Miami is a green strip along the
water without buildings being built directly up and our whole waterfront
experience ought to be a joyful experience instead of making the kind of In
mistake that Miami Beach made on Collins Avenue. And I submit that rather than
having to go out and gather the signatures to get these petitions, I don't have
any doubt that it can be done, but it would seem to me that these are important
subjects and the public ought of have an opportunity to vote on them to protect
their waterfront and I would urge you to put them on the ballot in November.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, Mr. Freeman you wanted to say something.
Mr. Freeman: Thank you, Mayor I have no comment on the merits of the proposal.
I haven't had an opportunity to really study them, but I would like to comment
on the process. A Charter Amendment is tantamount to what we all understand
as Constitutional Amendments. It's a very, very important process in
government. As a matter of fact, there is nothing in the process of government
that requires more meticulous or more tedious study than fooling around with
the Charter or the Constitution of any jurisdiction. One of the ways to
change that Charter and one is becoming more popular is through initiative
by a petition and apparently that process is under way from the forms that
were passed out today. Therefore, I think the Commission itself in dealing
with these kinds of proposes really has to make sure that there has been a
very comprehensive process of discussion, input, drawing out all of the interest
in the community, legal and otherwise to make sure that the Charter is affected
in a proper manner. Therefore, you have a duly constituted Charter Review
Commission or Charter Review Committee over the year, then I would suggest
you refer it to them.
Rev. Gibson: It's a Charter Review Board.
Mrs. Gordon: I would ;like to also add Mr. Mayor, that the City in the interim
period of time before it gets on the ballot should, we should... I would like
to ask you to have the attorney prepare two ordinances for first reading on
July llth and for second reading on July 23rd dealing with the same waterfront
protective controls that I have read to you from the petition. It is my hope
that we could do this and we would not have to go to a petition drive. Very
frankly, I hope that this Commission would be willing to do both. To enact
the ordinance--- the ordinances dealing with these protective clauses and also,
to allow the boaters to have the right to the Charter change in November.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, are there any other members of the public that wish
to say something at this time with regards to this. Alright, hearing none..
OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Mayor Ferre: I was wondering where you were.
Mr. Jaffer: My name is Joel Jaffer, 3268 Mary Street and I'm the, Chairman
of the Bayshore Alert Yes Committee, which first coin the phrase "Save the
Bayshore". I think these Charter Amendments need a lot of work, because if
gl.
47
JUNE 25, 1979.
these things aren't done right it will be opening up the City to wholesale
destruction in the Bayshore rather than piecemeal destruction in the Bayshore.
I feel the 75% figure isn't very significant or not significant enough to
keep the publics view. And I think that there should be some penalty clauses
in there because in my experience building permits and enforcement on those
aren't very affective in doing anything. I just want to repeat to you some
things that I wrote in a letter to the Miami Herald. I don't know whether or
not it was printed, but in the City of Chicago a similar thing was done, but
what in the end happened was land filling took place in order to provide the
amenities that people wanted, but couldn't get through normal governmental
processes. And eventually a highway was put in. So I just want to caution
you all... it may seem like you are doing a very righteous thing, but if it
isn't done right it could turn very sour in the future. I also just want to
speak at this time that the idea of getting amenities and somehow absolving
you conscience in order to justify a highrise building, I don't think is
justifiable. There is a landscaped parking lot that's really no better than a
unlandscaped parking lot. And you know, all these protections, adequate
landscaping, you know, beautiful buildings, these things are summarily
disregarded and without meaning. You know, when it comes down to the
actual permits and the government approvals and so forth. And I'd... you
know, if you all are really in the mood to get a Charter Amendment going, I:
think it should be a lot more powerful than this and I would... you know, I
think it needs a lot of work. But I'm happy to see that you all are in this
mood, if you are.
Mrs. Gordon: Ok, were you speaking for or against or in anyway... including
the public lands and the leases that I had in the second petition?
Mr. Jaffer: Oh, yes, that I like, but the first
work.
Mrs. Gordon:
Rev. Gibson:
Mayor Ferre:
Ok, I just wantedto make. sure Igot your point of view.
Mr. Mayor?
Alright, thank you. Yes, Father?
Rev. Gibson: Are we through with the public...
Mayor Ferre: Is there anybody else in the public who
this at this point? You do? Alright, sir.
(BACKGROUND COMMENT OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Mayor Ferre: Yes,; you may..
Mr. Crockett: I:would be lost at stake, except that I'm in the process of
negotiating for an apartment in Miami and will become a citizen and can speak
on this. 'I will leave, but I want to speak on this as a student of government.
Mr.` Ongie: Your name and address, please?
Mr. Crockett: My name is Bob Crockett, 7840 Southwest 134th Street. I have
watched the City of Miami and most of the people that know me here know that
I am a political animal and I like to observe politics and government. And
I see something in the•.City of Miami, that at times distresses me and that's
the desire of people who refuse to place themselves up for public election
to want to run the affairs of the City of Miami, either by Boards, Trusts,
developments, whatever. And I see sometimes in all the whole area of Dade
County in Municipal Governments the desire to abandon responsibility by
passing these off to Boards and to referendum and so forth. This is a
Republic primarily and all of our government is fashioned primarily as a
Republic. We elect our City officials, our State officials and our Federal
officials to make decision and to accept responsibility. And I think that
the tendency is often to pass the buck by referrine things to referendum. And
I think this is unfair, particularly in a community where the ability to
get a message out is severely limited because it is primarily a one newspaper
town as many cities are today and so often the views of the public officials,
even though they may be opposed to something are very difficult to get across
to the people. And so I urge you to think closely about the fact that this is
a Republican form of government, that you were elected for the responsibility
of making decisions for the public. We are not in Switzerland and we don't
hold town meetings in which decisions are made. Thank you.
Mayor Ferre: Thank you. Any other members of the public that wish to say
something at this time? If not Father Gibson.
gl
48
JUNE 25, 1979
Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor, it seems to me that if we have a Charter Review Board
that either we get rid of the Board or we use the Board. I am opposed... my
living is by government, not this kind of government, but by laws and we don't
call them laws, we call them cannons, that would mean the same thing to you,
but in my living, where I make my real living. We live by cannons which is
the same as you call laws or whatever you call it here. If you don't need that
Charter Review Board I want to urge you right now to scrap it, right now,on
the spot. If you think there is any merit in that Charter Review Board, out
fo fairness to them you ought to give them this issue, so that they may hopefully
look at this matter from all points of view and see if there are conflicts. If
you go to the public right now, the public because of their emotional involvement
will undo what they ought to do and they would cross up what... we would have
one grand mess eventually if you do other things this way. The reason for the
Charter Review Board is plain to me that you trust, hopefully. We appointed
on that Review Board people who are knowledgeable, people who are resourceful,
people who if they don't have the knowledge they have enough sense I trust, to
go and ask for the knowledge. I urge this City because Theodore Gibson finds
himselfcontinually getting up tight. Every time, you know, I come here man
and I just don't understand, I just don't understand. We want to pass the buck,
like I said to a member of mine yesterday. I said "you know, if you don't
need the priest, then you ought to get another priest, if you don't need the
vestry, you ought to get another vestry. It is just that simple. And I want
to serve notice right now that I am for putting a motion on the floorr to
refer this matter and I'm not trying to cut off discussion, I just want to
serve everybody now. I am for... and I'm going to put you on the spot. I'm
going to offer a motion after general discussion and I may not win, that this
matter would be referred to. the Charter Review. Board and I'm going to find it
difficult to understand how you are going to have those people on that board
and then you are going to deal with this thing and by pass them, ok.
Mrs. Gordon: I had a question to you Father Gibson, may I
Rev. Gibson: You
don't mind °that.
three Rose, you know
I know you and.I have no problems with each other.
Mrs Gordon: Father Gibson, you are taking a position with regard to the
Charter change. I'm asking you now... I would ask the City Attorney to
prepare two ordinances relating to the subject matter for first reading on
July llth and July.23rd, you are not taking any exception to that procedure
are you?
Mayor Ferre:
Mrs. Gordon:
You have that right to-do that even if he takes exception.,
I'm asking him' a question, Maurice let him, answer.
Rev. Gibson: Let me say this. Rose, I believe that the first step and that's
why you had the Charter Review Board. The first step is you have them to
tell you whether or not what you are advocating makes sense or reason. After
you would have done that, then ... after they would have answered you, then
you have the right to either accept that judgement or not accept it, but if
you say that on such and such a day you are going to have a first reading, on
such and such a day you are going to have another, then you have up staged them.
Mrs. Gordon: Yes, but you are dealing now with the subject of whether the
Charter should be changed or not according your request of a Charter Review
Board. And an ordinance you don't have a Board to tell you what a good
ordinance is or is not. I'm asking you if I have these ordinances placed
on the agenda on July llth, certainly the Charter Review Board has no
jurisdiction over your decision of that and that's what I'm asking you.
Rev. Gibson: Rose, I want to hold what you asked, I want to hold any and all
questions... I'm going to serve notice on all of my fellow Commissioners, I
want to reserve that right at the time you make the motion.
Mayor Ferre:.
Mrs. Gordon:
gl.
Alright, now...
Ok, my motion...
49
JUNE 25, 1979
Mayor Ferre: Now, Mrs. Gordon, I'm going to... I promise you I will not
take this play away from you, ok. Now, I have refrained from doing that
and I think you have to admit that I have been pretty fair about it up
until now. Now, I will recognize you so that you can make your motion in
a little while, I think we are still discussing this thing openly. Now,
I would like... Now, we have heard from you, we have heard from Commissioner
Gibson and I would like to see if Commissioner Plummer or Lacasa have anything.
that they want to add at this time.
Mr. Plummer: This time I want to hear all of the discussion.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Lacasa? Alright, now I would like to, since I have not said
anything, I would like to make... I would like to make... I would like to...
let me make a statement in which I released to the newspapers yesterday
evening and I spent from about 11 o'clock yesterday morning until 6 o'clock
working on this. And I went to see Dan Paul and we were on the phone on
several occasions. Let me read the statement that I released yesterday and then
I want to give you some of the logic and the reasoning behind it. (READS
PREPARED STATEMENT INTO THE RECORD). Now, when Dan Paul gave me a copy of
these proposed Charter changes last Tuesday the 19th of June at the Downtown
Development Authority meeting and I read them and he asked me for my reactions.
I said to him "Dan, we have got to avoid and be very careful of knee jerk
reactions that don't really cover the problem". Now, after talking to him
I understood what his intentions were. I said "I understand your intentions,
but we cannot go around doing things in this fashion unless we really think
carefully of what we are doing". For example, as we later on discussed. The
proposal that he had on Tuesday, which was later also, used in a speak that
Mrs. Gordon at Tigerbay and later released in effect would kill the Miami
Convention Conference Center. It would also completely emasculate all waterfront
activities for boating. It would create all kinds of habit and a whole series
of... for example, do you know that there are about three hundred properties
in Miami that are a hundred fifty feet or less and that if you take a seventy-
five foot property and you force them to setback fifty feet, don't you see that
in effect that's really confiscation. That's taking of that property without
due compensation, without due process. So after a series of discussion, you
know, these things are not done simply you know, that way. There are all kinds
of ramifications that involve thousands of people and hundreds of properties
and millions of dollars and you just can't go around knee jerking things for
whatever reasons people may have. Now, there are some improvements that I
think have been made in this and I'm very happy that these changes that have
been made now and the ones that were made between Tuesday and Wednesday were
the product of my conversations with Dan. And I'm glad that you have accepted
all of these and adopted all of these things that make it a lot more reasonable,
I think for something like this to be adopted. Now, there are two portions
of this. The first one, I think, deals with a fifty foot setback. If you will
notice, it differently from the original proposal takes into account properties
that are a hundred fifty feet or less, so that the requirement is not over
bearing on somebody who has a seventy-five foot property or a fifty foot
property, they want have to obviously, dedicate all of it. Secondly, it permits
for a way out of the fifty foot setback by somebody dedicating a twenty-five
foot average depth and no less than twenty feet in width and a dedication of
that property with acceptable landscaping and maintenance for that right-of-way.
So I think that this is a much more... this is something that I think most of
the developers can live with. Now, I've taken the trouble, of course, of calling
the two large developers that are affected by this that we know of right now.
One is Ted Gould and the other one is Ted 'Hollo. Plaza Venetia and the Ball
Point Project. There is... They don't have any problem with number one, because
I think they can all live within the guidelines of that and that's a reasonable
thing to request. As a matter of fact, the Ball Point Project does fit within
that number one, category. Now, we get to number two. What number two in effect
does, is that it gives a view from the water, but the question of how it was to
be computed was a very nebulous thing, it was just too hastily thought out
and I'm not too sure that this is the answer, but certainly I think this answers
a tremendous amount of the ambiguity that existed in the proposal before. And
it says "the frontage shall be computed by a straight line calculation
measured from the major public right-of-way" and that answers, I think the
majority of the problems and lawsuits that I'm sure would have arisen because
of ambiguity. Now, the other addition that Dan agreed to put on last Tuesday,
which is still here, which is "the City in it's Zoning Code may grant floor
area ratio and height bonuses for observing such property occupancy limits.
Now, the reason for that is because I think otherwise, you might have legal
problems when it's challenged and this gives you a tic for tac type of a
thing. A trading where we give people certain things that are better off. Now,
the only problem Dan, that I have with this thing is I just am opposed as a matter
gl.
t�J
JUNE 25, 1979
of philosophy in Charter... the Charter as Bob pointed out is our constitution.
I'm opposed to making exceptions. I think we've got to figure out ways in which
these exceptions are covered. We have no jurisdiction, I don't think, over the
port and that's a Metro matter. And obviously, a port has to be next to the
water. I mean, you can't set it back since you have to service the ships. But
I think with regards to the Convention Center, just because, you know, it's the
Convention Center and we are all for the project, we are not going to specifically
accept it in a major Charter. What's sauce for goose has got'to be sauce
for the gander. If it's good for the Gould Project or the Hollow Project or the
project on the Elks property or what's going to happen on the island there,
Claughton Island, then I think that the Convention Center should live by that.
And therefore, I think we have got to figure out a way if we are going to except
them. I think it has to be done in a general way so that they are covered
properly. I would commend to you that we go back... if eighty percent isn't
the figure what we were talking about when I left you yesterday at 5:30 on the
phone when we were talking last, I told you that the way that... in my opinion,
the way to solve that is to say that eighty percent, if eighty percent isn't
it, then may be it ought to be ninety percent, don't you see? Or ninety-five
percent. But because I think the amount that the Convention Center goes over
the fifty feet is very small. So I think we ought to figure out a way... instead
of eighty percent, why don't we look at ninety-five percent and that I think,.
relieves you of the fears that you had about, you know, twenty percent of it
being a major piece that could go up to the waterfront. Do you follow me?
Mr. Paul: Well,
problem.
there'is an easy way to take care of the Convention Center'
Mayor Ferre: Without namingit?
Mr. Paul: No, without naming them.
Mayor. Ferrel: Right.
Mr. Paul:. But it seems tome that's just being... sort of giving artistic
verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative, because the
Convention Center... you could easily by one phase just say where the public
right-of-way for the River Walk has been provided publicly and that's just
hiding it. But frankly,'I think that the architect for the Convention
Center ought to be told he had designed a project forgetting this, that doesn't
even comply with your own Zoning Code. They are going to have to come down
here and seek variances from the City of Miami now, because they are within
the twenty foot setback line. So you are going to have to make your minds up
whether you are going to make the Convention Center live up to the requirements
for everybody else or whether you are going to make them comply and I have
misgivings about it too because the project should have never been designed
so that it didn't comply, but all I can tell you is, that it has been designed.
It actually overhangs the River Walkway. You don't even have the twenty foot
River Walkway the way it's designed. It goes right up to the River in one
area. They are going to have to come down here and ask for a variance and ask
for a public hearing to do it. But the only reason that I put it in there, it
seems to me that if you are going to grant this variance for the Convention
Center at these particular hearings, that you might as well get it right out
on top of the table and not try and hide it by sticking it in the amendment
by saying that if the public walkway has been publicly provided that they have
an exception from these requirements. I don't see any reason why the Convention.
Center shouldn't be setback fifty feet from the River. That's a very critical
area and it needs to be... the area needs to be there, but frankly it isn't.
It's right jammed up to the line of the River.
Mayor Ferre: That's not so. As you know from the design
piece of the...
Mr. Paul: No, there
there
s just a little
Mayor Ferre: No. No, sir.
Mt. Paul: Both the hotel•.andthe Convention Center encroached into the right-o
way.
Mayor Ferre: No, there is one corner Of the hotel which doesn't go more than" '>
eight or nine feet, as 1 understand it, into that fifty feet' that you are talking
about. Now, I don't know.. Mr. Whipple?`
gl.
51
JUNE 25, 1979
Mr. Paul: Yes, but that's... it doesn't make any difference if it's just
the corner. If you are talking about trying to create a continuous green
band along the River, if you put a wall that's only one foot thick out into
that area, you have broken the public's view and access and spoiled the whole
effect of the process. So I don't think it makes any difference that it's
just a little point that goes out.
Mayor Ferre: Well, whatever. I just don't think that we should -in something,
as serious as a Charter change just name, so that it will be in the Charter,
the name of a project and accept them. I think that's just not the way to' do-
things. I think...
Mr. Paul: I have no objection to taking the Convention Center out, but the
Convention Center has gone fairly far along and has a foundation in and the only
thing that disturbs me is that the architect would have even gone this far
without first coming down here and asking you for these variances. The plan
that they have cannot be built, forgetting this amendment, without getting
variances from the City of Miami.
Mayor Ferre: I would therefore, Dan, just propose that the only change to this
is --we talked about yesterday is in point number one, which is not setback at`___'"
least fifty feet from the bulkhead line or sea wall, which ever is greater or
ninety percent of the frontage on the water is setback fifty feet or more..
Mr. Paul: No, that won't work, because that will totally ruin-- and you talk
to Mr. Reid, your Planning Director--- that will totally ruin the effect of
creating a continuous strip along the water if you do that. You spoil the
whole idea.
Mayor Ferre:
Mr.
:Rail' what:, I'm saying is that what we would require as a
fifty foot. setback, ok,,other than when there is a dedicated public right-of-
way which would be twenty feet, an ,average of twenty-five feet, but no less'.
than twenty feet, except that, that can be broken in as long as ninety percent
of the project is at least fifty, feet back. ' Now,that would allow a corner
what we are talking about at the Conference Center to protrude.
Mr. Paul: It would
exclude the public.
Mayor Ferre: Well, but it would not allow a wall all the way down to the water.
Mr. Reid: What you are talking about it seems to me is two issues. One is the
width of the River Walk and the distance from the Convention Center from the
base of the building at ground level to the water and that varies all the way
from twenty-three feet in one place to a hundred five foot in another and a
hundred eighty-seven foot in another. But if you applied the same provision
that is applied to private developers in terms of the construction of a River
Walk in front of the Convention Center with a twenty foot mandatory setback
and twenty-five foot average depth, then the Convention Center would fall within
the purview of the Charter Amendment as recommended. The problem arises in
that a portion of the building is built out, is designed out over the River walk';
and that would require some sort of variance or air rights use or whatever,
we are not sure, to allow the building in an encroachment into the twenty foot
plain extended upward. But that is difference in the ground level River Walk
thing which I think youcan take care of by putting language in the Charter
Amendment or the Ordinance that applies the same criteria in terms of River
Walk setbacks that are applied to private developers.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, but you see Jim, I think you are going to have to address
that. I just tell you,_I am opposed. I don't care what Dan's fancy language
says to specifically naming in a Charter revision...
Mr. Reid: Well, I'm not speaking to that issue.
Mr. Paul: But your fancy language would do the same thing by talking about
ninety percent, that's just a short hand way to mislead the public that you are
excluding the Convention Center. Why not get it out on the table, if you...
I don't object to excluding the Convention Center because of the extent to
which it has gone. But I do object to excluding it in some indirect kind of
way which would then open a gap as wide as the Grand Canyon for other developers'
to come at the ends of their projects and shut the public off.
ONO
81.
JUNE 25, 1979
•
Mayor Ferre: Well, but why should the Convention/Conference Center have
the right to do what somebody else can't do?
Mr.,Paul: I don't think that they should :have.
Mayor Ferre: Well, then let's not let them do it, it's just; that simply,
Mr. Paul: Alright, fine, then you just have to tell the architect to redesign
it.
Mayor Ferre: Well, you know... I'm just saying what's sauce for the goose
sauce for the gander.
Mr. Paul: I tried to say that.
Mayor Ferre:
That's it.
Mrs. Gordon: You know,
Mr. Paul: I think the architect....
Mrs. Gordon: ;I hope we are not doing just delaying tactics you know, that we
just figure one way or another will kill this thing.
Mr. Paul:. Well, it can't be any delaying tactics, because if the Commission
doesn't agree to put it on the ballot, then obviously the petitions will hit
the street. It will be as simple as that. So it's not a question of delaying
tactics that... I` mean, we have arrived at the point of no return. And if you
don't want to put the petitions on the ballot, then obviously, the petitions
will hit the street and will collect twelve thousand signatures. It's as simple
as that.
Mayor Ferre: My position has been very clear, Dan and it's there and I'm willing
to vote for this thing today and I'm willing to move along today. Now, I don't
you know, as far as I'm concerned with that reservation, that I don't think
we should make any exceptions or that we should provide that ninety percent or
whatever have you, so that there is no question as to what the intention is of
this. Now, with regards to the item which is the question of leases. If this
is complicated, that is tenfold complicated. Now, that one as far as I'm
concerned as I said to you and as I made the statement. I'm perfectly... I'm
willing to- as the Herald recommended in their editorial yesterday, that the
Water Board come back with recommendations. I think it's a very appropriate
way of doing it and then we will put it on the ballot. We have until... 45
days before November 6th, that puts it into September. We are now in the end
of June, we've got July and August and the first two weeks of September to do.
this. That's plenty of time for them. I don't... I am totally opposed to
these nebulous things that until you, shall and may be and all this stuff.
And there is no reason why we can't design the regulations as I told you
yesterday and we will put it on the ballot.
Mr. Paul: I understand, but Mr. Mayor, that doesn't permit us to then
circulate the petitions because there wouldn't be time if you didn't and I have
seen these things get delayed. I understand that the standards are very complicated.
And all this amendment says is until you actually promulgate the standards
that you shall not issue any more waterfront leases or contracts without
public approval.
Mayor Ferre: Well, I'm perfectly willing to do that and vote for it on the
basis of passing an ordinance. Now, I'm perfectly willing to vote and place
an ordinance and vote for an ordinance that will stop that until the people
will have the opportunity to vote on something that is very specific that we
have deliberated on and not hastily. You know, because hast like this is the.
worst kind of government to do these things on knee jerk reaction type of things.
These are things that have to be carefully thought out. Now,... and I think
certainly that shows positive. intentions.
Mr. Plummer: I assume at this point the two proponents have put forth their
views. Mr. Mayor and the. Commission, it pains me to say that I agree with
Lester Freeman. It pains.me to no end. I want to say to you that for one,
these two proposals unfortunately, were delivered in that packet that I received
this morning at 9:58. Lester made a comment that I think is very good and should
be considered. And that is that all good intentions of changing a Charter
without a thorough investigation could have far reaching effects to other parts
gl. JUNE 25, 1979.
of the Charter which might in fact, be detrimental. I don't want to rush
into this thing without having those people who we asked to assist this Commission
at least have a look, review and recommend back to this Commission. I think
there is nothing wrong, that the Waterfront Board which we recently put into
being can have a look. I see nothing wrong with Father's suggestion, that the
Charter Review Committee have a look, then we have a meeting and sit down and
talk this thing out rationally. I don't want to rush into this thing. I just
have in fact, had the papers put before me this morning and as far as I'm
concerned, I want to have and avail myself of the thinking of all, that are
concerned. I think to do it any other way would be that haste makes waste and;
that's the way I feel on the matter.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, anybody else on the Commission that wants to speak?
Yes,... oh, Lacasa, may be.
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me. Mr. Mayor and Mr. Lacasa, excuse me. I`. just wanted
to make one other comment. Mr. Mayor, in my ten year history on this, Commission,
I have not, except with one exception because it was not a ballot to the
people to this community to speak, but a straw ballot. As I' have' said before
and I will say again. I have no hesitation to place before the people of this
community the right to speak on any given issue and I would take the same
posture here.
Mrs. Gordon: What about that Watson Island deal J. L.
again? Will you second my motion?
Mr. Plummer: Rose, that as far as Watson Island, I don't mean to be repetitive,
but let me go back to my statement. This Commission is only making one segment
of the decision, ok? There are many other parts of that which are consideration
which are out of the hands of this Commission, ok? I have said it before.
The grant is playing a very important part. The people who are going to
financially invest are playing, I guess the biggest part because those people
are not fools. So that as far as I'm concerned is an issue that is only one
third the responsibility of this Commission.
Mrs. Gordon: But J. L., you fail to realize that the people who are going to
be buying those bonds are only in it for a standpoint of an investment, but
the people who will vote on the ballot in November, if they have the opportunity
if you will give it to them, will vote whether they want that to take place
in their community and that location and that's entirely different situation.`
Mr. Plummer: Well, here again, Rose, I'm not going to belabor the issue.
My position is very clear, I have said it before. I have looked, as I do at
every project, at the negative portions of it. I have been in my estimation:
resolved that this thing is good for this Community and I think that we must
in some way listen to the experts who project that secondarily it will be a
source of revenue to this community, primarily it will be an attraction to this
community.
Mayor Ferre: Alright,` Mr. Lacasa?
Mr. Lacasa: I have no objection whatsoever in facing the public with issues
of importance to this community. I feel that after all it is the public, the
one who has the right to speak because it's their own interest. However, I`
do feel that this Commission has certain responsibilities inherent to the
position of Mayor and City Commissioners. And for us to literally pass the
buck on controversial issues just because they are controversial, doesn't quite
frankly, live up to my standards of what the responsibility of an elected
official should be. If we are elected here, is to take positions and to accept
our responsibilities. If we do it wrong, the public vote us out of office.
If we do it right, the public will support us. It's easy to sit here and vote
on situation where there is no controversy,and then when controversy arises,
then we don't take and we don't assume responsibility and we go to the public
and let the public decide. Well, we are here to take positions and accept
responsibility on both the controversial and the non -controversial and then we
have to live up to whatever our decision has been when the election time comes.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, where are we now? Anybody else want to say anything?
Alright, Mrs. Gordon, I was going to recognize you to make your motion.
Mrs. Gordon: The motion is to place these two proposals for Charter Amendments,
on the ballot in November and the proper resolution be prepared for our vote.
Mayor Ferre: If you will Separate those, I will vote for one probably and not
the other.
Mrs. Gordon: ;I will separate them. The first one was amendment #1, which" I'`
read before into the record.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, we are talking about amendment #11. Now, is there a second
to that motion? For purposes of discussion, I will second the motion Mrs. Gordon
if you will strike' the exceptions, which is any exceptions."
Mrs. Gordon: Where 'are 'you talking about?
Mayor Ferre: Well, in the middle of the paragraph it says "except structures
not in access of five hundred square feet each related to docks and structures
at the Port of Miami and the Convention Center".
Mrs. Gordon: I will admit that I didn't draft this amendment. I will ask Mr.
Paul for a comment on that and I believe that your comments to him also, were
well taken as mine were and some of ours were included and some were not included.
So, I would ask him for that comment.
Mr. Paul: Well, I think that you have... by striking it the problem
going to go away. Let me say this... but wait a minute Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: But Dan let's address
Mr. Paul: Alright, but let me just one thing that you are over looking. Under
the procedure provided by the Charter after these amendments are circulated
the Commission still has the opportunity to make any changes in the draft of
the amendments that they want to. That's what Section 503 of the Metro Charter
does. So Father Gibson's Charter Review Board process could be going on at
the same time. Obviously, after the amendments are circulated somebody may; come
up with a word change here or there or a clarification. I would suggest you
leave it in now until youget the Convention Center situation clarified. But
I see no reason... I wouldn't strike it at the moment.
Mrs. Gordon: Ok, then I wouldn't' strike it Mr. Mayor.;;`
Mayor Ferre: Alright, now as far as my second is concerned, I will second the
motion Rose,' if there are no exceptions involved. And then 1 think we have got
to address... I'm willing to address that specifically and I. think there is:a
way of simply doing it. Now, if my way of doing it doesn't resolve it,then
figure out.... certainly we are intelligent enough around here to figure out
a way to do it without naming a particular project. I just think it's going
to look terrible and I don't mean to be disrespectful, but 1 think there are.
a lot ofpeople who think that the Miami Herald is very deeply involved. in this
and John McMullin has been deeply involved in the drafting of all of this and...
Mrs. Gordon: Awe, Maurice, for God's sake. That was uncalled for.
Mayor Ferre: Well, there was discussion in all this and I'm just... This has
been discussed at the Miami Herald Editorial Board. They had an editorial on
Sunday to that effect. I just want to make sure that nobody criticizes us for
saying that the one pet project which is the James L. Knight Center has been
particularly excluded from this. Now, I think we can solve...
Mr. Paul: But Mr. Mayor, you were the one that asked that it be excluded. All
you wanted to do was; to make the language so nobody would know you excluded it.
You wanted to hide what you were trying to do.
Mayor Ferre: No, no, I don't mind saying it publicly.`
Mrs. Gordon: Yes, that's not being on top of the table Maurice.
Mr. Paul: You might as well say it out on the...
Mayor Ferre: I want to figure out a way ofexcluding it without specifically....
I think that's bad constitutional law, to try to excludea particular project
in a Charter.
Mr. Paul It's not bad law,
the table what you mean.
gl.
Mayor Ferre: No, no, no, I will tell you..:.
Mr. Paul: .I could have hidden in a way that,you wouldn't have possibly known
that the Knight Center was excluded by just inserting one little phrase in
the bottom that was suggested by Mr. Reed which said that if the public right-
of-way for the River Walk had been publicly provided, it was excluded. That
includes one project only in the City of Miami, it includes the Knight Convention
Center.
Mayor Ferre: Well, I'm sorry, but this is a matter...
Mr. Paul: So that would have done it, that would have :done it too, but it wouldn't...
nobody would have known.
Mayor Ferre: Well, I accept that. I will accept that. I, think that's a good
way to solve it. I just don't want in any one particular language exempt any
particular project. I think that's bad. Now,you can say it publicly, privately
anyway you want as far as I'm concerned, if it achieves the same thing, let's
do it without naming any project in particular.
Mr. Paul: Well, Idon't have any objection to making that change in it. Jim
you had the change that you suggested. It's just not... It does the same
thing. What was your language about where the public right-of-way is for the
River Walkway specifically provided.
Mr. Reid:
I didn't have any - language, .I had, an idea and..
Mayor Ferre: What's your idea?
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Paul, how about anything contiguous to the Brickell Bridge
on the Northeast corner?
Mr. Paul: That's about what you are saying. The whole thing is about:,
sudtle as cellophane as to what you are doing, but you know...
Mayor Ferre: I just don't want to.put,....I m.sorry, I just don't want to
have on the Charter..the JamesKnight Convention/Conference Center,; which is
the •title that, that has to be amended<to by the way., because the.Convention
Mr. Paul: Well, '.I..think you can do it very simply. The City at the public
hearing may grant an exception to the setback if the land owner or
the City-- just add the words "or the City" dedicatesa"permit right away
etc". ;,That will cover the whole thing.
Mayor Ferre:,
Mrs Gordon:
What line is that Dan?
Mr. Paul: That is inparagraph one, four lines
and then strike out the Convention Center up in
Mr. Grimm:
. Mayor. Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Ferre: Yes.
Mr. Grimm:
from the bottom.=
the other area.
or the ;City
May I say something that may be will help clarify this situation?
Mayor Ferre:.
Please, help
Mr. Grimm: There is a portion of the Convention Center which cantilevers at
about forty feet above grade, it's an amphitheater which cantilevers over....
Mayor Ferre:
He ;just solved the problem Vince, you know that.
Mr. Grimm: Well, what I'm saying... what I was going to say playing lawyer
for a minute, if the Charter change takes place in November and the Convention
Center is under construction in September,' won't it be.academic?.
Mrs.
Mayor Ferre:;
gl.
it won't be academic because Mr. Dan Paul has insisted
JUNE 25, 1979.-
and I agree. Now, I don't know whether that we will get three votes here or
not, but I'm certainly going to vote for an ordinance that will put this into
effect immediately, so that therefore, the ordinance is in effect now until
the Charter change is voted upon. If the Charter change is voted, then it
substitutes the ordinance, obviously. And if it's voted down, then the ordinance
will...
Mr. Grimm: I sorry, I presumed that you were just going for the Charter
change.
Mayor Ferre: No, sir. You see...
Mrs. Gordon: No, we are going to file it with the ordinances as well, so that
things will take place immediately. However, they won't be immediate anyway
unless we have it by emergency ordinance which would, of course, not be the
case. Now, here is another thing, we voted on July llth and again on the
23rd, then it's what thirty days after that before it's effective? The
Convention Center may be further along by then.
Mr. Grimm:
call for us
Mrs. Gordon:
Rev. Gibson:
Mayor Ferre
Mrs. Gordon and member of the Commission, our present plans do, not
to be under construction with theConference Center until September.
Ok, then this wording would take care of it.
When is the election?
The election will be November 6th.:
Ok.
Rev. Gibson:. When would this take place?
Mayor Ferre: This would take place thirty days after, I guess.
Mrs. Gordon: No, the ordinance would.
Mayor Ferre: .No, the ordinance if it passes would take place thirty days
after isn't it? What does the law say?
Mr. Paul: ,I. don't know, you have to
know.when ordinances take effect:'.
Ma or Ferre Mr- City Attorney...
y_-.
.
(BACKGROUND COMMENT
Mayor Ferre:
Mr. Knox:
ask the City Attorney" about that. I d,on't
oh, George, what are you doing there?"
OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD)
. Knox, whendoes an ordinance take place?
Thirty days after
the second "reading.
Mayor Ferre: The second reading would
effect August 23rd. Is that correct?
Yes, sir.
then be`July'"23rd,
this would.
take` in
Mr. Knox:
Mrs. Gordon: Ok,.this was to place it on the ballot, this motion was to
prepare a resolution to do that
Mayor Ferre: Alright,•• let's read it again into the
read it... Do you have the aniended copy?
Mr. Aurell:
Mayor. Ferre:
Mr. Aurell:
r..Mayor?
John?
May I be heard for a second?
Mayor Ferre: Yes, of course. Of course.
Mr. Aurell: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, I'm John Aurell and I'm
an attorney. I came down here in connection with another matter concerning
Ball Point. My client is Ted Gould the President of Holleywell Corporation
and the developer of Ballpoint. Hearing this, I become concerned and like you
Mr. Mayor and Mr. Plummer and Father Gibson, we have not had a chance to
study this and think it through, but it -appears to me that the second provision
of Amendment #1, which Mr. Paul has been kind enough to give to me might well
record. If you want to
gl.
JUNE 25, 1979.-
57
affect the Ball Point Project in the form that this Commission approved it
at the DRI hearings last month. We intend to break ground next month, assuming
that we can close and to commence construction and of course, to bring down the
building permits to accomplish that. However, there is no way in the world
that we can build Ball Point in the form which has already been approved by
this Commission if we have a seventy-five percent ground coverage of provision
in an ordinance that might be in effect prior to our getting on the way. At
least we will have a conflict that appears to me and I just bring that to your
attention. I think it deserves careful consideration in thinking through.
Thank you.
Mayor Ferre: I understand that you know, there are a lot of people that are
going to be affected by this that haven't had the opportunity for it to be
heard publicly. My answer to you is, that they will have ample opportunity
on the llth day of July and on the 23rd of July, which will be a public hearing
and it may not pass. I mean, it takes three votes for the...
Mrs. Gordon: Those will be the ordinances.
Mayor Ferre: You, see, the reason why the move is not to put it on one day,,
is because I think there is a general assumption that we can't muster' four' votes,
that would require four votes. But on the two readings there might be three
votes for this. I don't know, we will have to see.
Mr. Aurell: Well, I expressed our concern Mr. Mayor, there seems to be some
concern to move this along more quickly than putting it to the review, putting
it on the ballot for the people to vote on, on November 6th. And again, it may
or may not come into conflict with Ball Point. If you start this in motion
you could create grave problems. We are facing a closing on that property
this Friday. We have substantial loans involved in connection with this
project and you are raising a big question mark which will not be answered until`
subsequent to the happening of all those things and so I ask you not to do it.
Mayor Ferre: As far as the seller is concerned or the lender, I don't really
think that this in anyway jeopardizes this project. I think and I talked to
Mr. Gould about it and he said well, he would probably end up challenging it
in court", but I think you have to look at it from the legal point of view.
And the fact is that between now and then a lot of things could happen. The
first thing that could happen is that it not get three votes today. The second
thing that could happen is that it not get three votes on the llth and the next
thing that could happen is that it not get three votes on the 23rd and the next
thing that could happen is that on November 6th, the people of Miami will turn
it down. So you got... there is four opportunities for this thing to be turned
around. Now, let me point out with regards to Father's recommendation, with
regards to Amendment # 1. I also think that the Charter Review Board should
look at this and I think they would have ample opportunity between now and the
23rd which is almost one month to come back and give us their opinion on it.
Now,... and I think they are entitled... they should not only entitled, they
have the obligation and the right to come back and give us an opinion. Now,
I think that the Waterfront Board should also look at this. Now, my position
on Amendment #1 is quite different from my position on Amendment #2 because
Amendment #2 deals with a very complicated series of things and that I think
needs a much more careful evaluation. I think that Amendment #I1 may be... you
make them up or others make them up with recommendations to change. Obviously,
if by the 23rd of July there will be plenty of opportunity for public input
and for the press and everybody else to comment on this. What we end up voting
on may be changed and then we would also have the opportunity to amend this,
the ballot since we would have that opportunity until forty-five days before
the election of November sixth and that puts you into September sometime. uk?
Mr. Aurell: Mayor Ferre, we are talking about two different things. One is
the Charter Amendment and I understand that and I understand what you say and
have no disagreement with what you say as to a Charter Amendment. The second
thing you are talking about is an ordinance to go into effect earlier than the
Charter Amendment. The only purpose of an ordinance would be to cover a period
of time prior to that.
Mayor Ferre: Goes into effect
Mts. Gordon: The motion is on the resolution to prepare for the election
amendment-- the Charter Amendment. That's all that's on the table right now.
Mr. Aurell: Didn't you propose an ordinance Commissioner Gordon?
Mrs. Gordon: I haven't offered anything on it yet, I will, but you know,
that's going to take a second vote.
Mr. Aurell: Well, I think I heard you say that, I think I heard you say that.
Mayor Ferre: John, she can't offer that ordinance nor can I until July llth.
Mr. Aurell: But she has started that in motion as you say Your Honor?
Mayor Ferre: That's correct.
Mr. Aurell: This is the first time we can face it and I'm simply telling you
that on the plans of that project as this Commission and the South Florida
Regional Planning Council and many others have studied and approved them to
this point...
Mayor Ferre: And we voted for it unanimously, I understand that.
Mr. Aurell: ... it cannot be built with Item #2. Now, if the ordinance that
Commissioner Gordon's would grandfather that in as well as Mr. Plummer just said or
someone had just said and speak to that so that it is just clear that we don't
have this question mark hanging over our head between now and August 3rd or
July. Please consider that.
Mrs. Gordon: I tell you what, let us take a vote on this. This may fail and
then the whole thing is niute. If you don't get three votes on this there isn't
going to be anything else that we are going to be voting on either, I don't
think.
Mr. Aurell: I think I have made ray point. Thank you.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, now to the motion that Rose Gordon inade let's make sure
that we...
Mrs. Gordon: Read it the way you have it Mr. Ongie.
Mayor Ferre: Alright. (READS THE MOTION INTO THE RECORD).
Mr. Plummer: ,Where are you,reading.from? Oh, number two, I'm sorry. Ok. Now,
wait a tninute, the motion on the flooronly speaks to one.
_ • „,
Mayor Ferre: No, to one and two. This Is Amendinent‘#1. Mr. Plunlmer, Ainendment
#2 deals with leases, which is a completely different matter. • •
- .
• . - • ,
Mrs. Gordon: Olc, you, got that? ' - , • .
Mayor Ferre: Amendment #1.
Mr. Plunurter: Do we haVe a copy of Atnendrnent #2?
•••,- • .,, • .
Mayor Ferre: ,,Yes..,,- • .„'••.
• :•, ,,•, ,
Mr. . Plurmier •' I don't.' •
•.• •••••,
• .•, •., ,„
_ , • • • -.:- •,.. • • •....,•• _
Mrs. 'Gordon:: • J.L.,:everyone'of'Us,:reCeivedi-it., to
Mr. Homan
• • ,
and he had it • in our packets. vas the packet. •, •• • : • •._ ,„ -•
• ••
• • ,
• , „.
- • • ,•,. • , „ ,
Mayor Ferre: That's not before „_us• at this point. • Alright, then
therefore, pass thegavel to the Vice -Mayor... • ,
Mrs. Gordon: Passing the gave]., there there- is a motion on the floorand a second.
• • • • • • • • _ ,
•• • •.,' •.• -- • - -•
••••• -. • .•• .• .• • • , •
Rev. Gibson: He seconded.
. •
•. • •..., • . .• , • . • , ,„ .• •: • ..•
• •.• .,• •-- • •
Mrs. Gordon:•., Oh,- I getyoUAltight.,-.Let's'inove":lit.-. - • • .• • : •,, ,
.• .• , - • ,• • ••,• ,-, • -.- . •
JUNE 25, 1979.
gl.
59
Mayor Ferre: Do you move the motion?
Mrs. Gordon: Yes.
Mayor Ferre: Arid I second the 'notion.
Mrs. Gordon: Right, fine, now call the roll.
Mr. Plummer: A motion on the floor and duly seconded. Yes, sir?
Mr. Aurell: Mr. Plummer, John Aurell again, on behalf of the Ball Point
matter. Again, I respectfully request that the Cotmnission make an amendment
to this motion to place the Ball Point Project as an exception, just so that
it is clear, that there will be no problem with this matter.
Mrs. Gordon: This is just for the November Ballot. This is not an ordinance
'notion, I haven't done that.
Mr. Aurell:
Mrs. Gordon:
Mr. Aurell:
In any event, will you do that?
Now, let's see how this goes.
In bothways, that's our request. Thank you.
Mr. Plummer: I guess that comes under clause as to how many grandchildren
one City can have. Yes, sir?
Mr. Powell: Mr. Vice -Mayor, my name is Earl Powell and I'M here as a citizen
of the great County of Dade and a member of the Greater Miami. Chamber of
Connrierce. It seems to me that a lot of the discussion that has taken place
here today is very hurried and not terribly well considered. I think that
the discussion that ensued holding forth that the Mayor was trying to do
something repetitious with respect to the Convention Center is only perhaps as
correct as the fact that Mr. Paul, my friend is doing something very repetitious
with respect to Ball Point. The Bali Point Project is a controvesial one in
Mr. Paul's eye. I think it's one that he would much perfer to see not built
in this community. It's one that I think we could all agree is a very important
project for this community and my guess that whatever you pass here today and
I hope that it's nothing, you will see as time goes by that Mr. Paul will
raise other impediments to the Ball Point Project inclusive of perhaps lawsuits
if he can identify some reason for doing that or anything else that will delay
the project. I think if you remove the cover of what's really going on here,
what we see is a no growth kind of stature that's not in the best interest
of this community. I'm quite surprised myself that Mrs. Gordon would even
raise this issue. I think it's very detrimental to a lot of people who own
tremendous amounts of property along the waterfront in the City and I think it
a subject of such concern that it ought to be at least considered for a longer
period of time than we have seen it here, not withstanding the public hearings
that will take place later. I think it's a very responsible suggestion that
this matter be referred to the Charter Revision.
Mr. Jaffer: In answer to this gentleman's claims and also, Mr. Aurell's
concerns. First of all, I can't think of anything more meager than some guys
decision up in Washington to send some plans down here that he had already
designed to build a highrise because he heard that some land might be available
And I can't think of anything more well thought out and more developed over
the years as the people who live in the City of Miami feelings concerning the
development of this area. And there are concerns that have been put down year
after year and election after election and they aren't going away because they
are very real and they are very thought out and even if I go some other person
will come up and take my place. And you can't put... you know... Ok. Now,
in terms of the Ball Point...
Mayor Ferre: There is a motion on the floor and a second. Mr. Plummer, I
call this speaker out of order. The public section of this is completely out
of order and I call the question for the vote.
Mr. Jaffer: Yes, well, I want, to talk about the litigation.
•
•
Mr. Plummer: The question has been called.... Mr. Jaffer, excuse me.
running the meeting. The question has been called.
gl.
JUNE 25, 1979.
Mrs. Gordon: Well, I just wanted to note something to Mr. Powell. You said
I had no growth syndrome...
Mr. Plummer: Are you asking for a point of personal privilege?
Mrs. Gordon: Yes, a personal` privilegend1.-:thei theMayor has the"sAttie .disease?
because he seconded the 'motion"you-know. So I just wanted"to"cal'l that_ to "
your attention, that if'I suffer from it he does too.
•
Mr. Plummer:
Mrs
Call the roll .
Gordon: Ok, I just wanted to be sure you understood.
ON ROLL CALL:
Rev. Gibson: I want to make a statement. I think that if you don't need
these Boards you ought to get rid of them. And I think that in hast you make
waste. I think that forus to pass this motion will bring all sorts of
conflicts and confusion. Now, I want to say unequivocally, I'm.unalterably
opposed to this hurried type of action. I do not think I ought to lead
people into believing that when they come here that they cannot rely. The
man along, with his client came here, we voted. And I think that anything
that we do that will alter what he left here understanding is detrimental.
And I vote unequivocally "no".
Mr. Plummer::: I have stated my intentions before. I have no qualm about
presenting somethingto the electorate in November. I do feel that this must
be given serious consideration, a Charter change is not something to take
lightly. I vote "no".
THEREUPON THE FOREGOING MOTION was introduced by Commissioner
Gordon and seconded by Commissioner Ferre and defeated by the
following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Gordon and :Mayor .Terre
NOES:Mr..:-Lacasa, Rev. Gibson and Vice -Mayor Plummer
ABSENT: None
Mrs. Gordon: Since the Charter change was apparently the concern of three
members of the Commission, I would move that the, subject matters that has'
just been discussed be drafted as an ordinance to be placed on the agenda of
Mayor Ferre:
Mr. Plummer:
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Gordon, who
moved its adoption:
I `second the motion.
Call the roll.
MOTION NO. 79-418
A MOTION INSTRUCTING AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT THE PROPER
ORDINANCE WHICH WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PRESENT PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT
NO. 1, HEREINBELOW QUOTED, AND REQUESTING THE ADMINISTRATION THAT SUCH
MATTER BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA FOR THE JULY 11TH CITY COMMISSION MEETING.
PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT NO. 1:
"IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE CITY'S NATURAL SCENIC BEAUTY, TO GUARANTEE
OPEN SPACES FOR LIGHT, AIR, AND SIGNIFICANT VISUAL ACCESS, AND TO
PROTECT THE ECOLOGY OF THE WATERFRONT AND BISCAYNE BAY AND THE MIAMI
RIVER, ANYTHING IN THIS CHARTER OR THE ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING NEITHER THE CITY NOR ANY OF ITS
AGENCIES SHALL ISSUE BUILDING PERMITS FOR OR PERMIT ANY SURFACE
PARKING OR ENCLOSED STRUCTURE (EXCEPT STRUCTURES NOT IN EXCESS OF
500 SQUARE FEET EACH RELATED TO DOCKS AND STRUCTURES AT THE PORT OF
MIAMI) LOCATED ON BISCAYNE BAY, GOVERNMENT CUT, OR THE MIAMI RIVER
FROM ITS MOUTH TO THE SOUTH MIAMI AVENUE BRIDGE:
JUNE 25, 1979.-
1. WHICH IS NOT SET RACK AT LEST 50 FEET FROM! THE BULEHEAD LINE OR
SEAWALL WHICHEVER IS GREATER EXCEPT THAT WHERE THE DEPTH OF THE LOT
IS LESS THAN 150 FEET THE SETBACK SHALL BE 25Z OF THE LOT DEPTH. THE
CITY AFTER PUBLIC HEARING MAY GRAN! AN EXCEPTION TO THIS SETBACK RE-
QUIREMENT IF THE LANDOWNER OR THE CITY DEDICATES A PERMANENT PUBLIC
RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG THE WATERFRONT NOT LESS THAN 25 FEET AVERAGE DEPTH
AND AT NO POINT LESS THAN 20 FEET IN WIDTH AND PROVIDES ACCEPTABLE
LANDSCAPING AND MAINTENANCE TOR SUCH RIGHT-OF-WAY; OR
2. WHICH AT GROUND LEVEL OBSTRUCTS THE PUBLIC'S VIEW OF BISCAYNE BAY,
GOVERNMENT CUT OR THE MIAMI RIVER BY OCCUPYING MORE THAN 75% OF THE
WATER FRONTAGE OF EACH LOT OR TRACT ON WHICH THE STRUCTURE IS TO BE
BUILT. THE FRONTAGE SHALL BE COMPUTED BY A STRAIGHT LINE CALCULATION
MEASURED FROM THE MAJOR PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. THE CITY IN ITS ZONING
CODE MAY GRANT FLOOR AREAS RATIO AND HEIGHT BONUSES FOR OBSERVING
SUCH PROPERTY OCCUPANCY LIMITS."
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Ferre, the motion was passed
and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Gordon, Mr. Lacasa and Mayor Ferre
NOES: Rev..Gibson and Vice -Mayor Plummer
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAINING:',None.
Mrs. Gordon: The'second Item was Amendment 412 for a resolution to be drafted;.
for this .item to be`placed on the November 6th ballot and I will read.it:for
the record. (READS AMENDMENT 412 INTO THE RECORD). That's a motion for a
resolution to'be prepared to place on the ballot of November 6th.
Mayor Ferre: On the November 6th ballot. Alright, is there a second to that
motion?' Is there second to that motion? Is there a second. For lack of a
second it dies. Now, I would like to make a motion to Plummer. I move that
the City of Miami Commission send to the Waterfront Board and to the Charter
Amendment Committee the proposed Amendment 112 for discussion and deliberation,
for themreturn back to the Commission within a month, that is the July
23rd meeting, ;with their recommendations to us for discussion and action at
that time. With specific recommendations regarding from the Waterfront Board
as to ithe type of restrictions on the leases and so that we take up the specific
recommendations. After I make this... if this motion passes then, also make
a motion that on July llth we pass an ordinance that no such leases be further
signed;; until' the people on November 6th vote for or against this. And we will
take it up,at that time.
Mrs.
Gordon:
Mr. Mayor,...
Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute, Rose?
Mrs. Gordon: I will second the motion with the intention that the Waterfront
Board and whoever else you vish to refer this to, shall set up specific guidelines...
Mayor Ferre:
Mrs. Gordon: Yes, but not.
that..... Ihope.. you are not
I'm trying to include that
only just the guidelines for future leases, but.
including, Watson Island, that's the only reason
and you are not excepting that from your motion
are you?
Mayor Ferre: Well, now, Watson Island we already have
on Watson` Island. Is that right?
Mr.'Grassie:
at s corre �
Mayor Ferre: Well,, should the lease change beyond November
would` affect Watson: Island.
as 1 understand, a lease
Th ' ct'Mr' Mayor but of course, it will be up for revision.
6th, obviously that
JUNE 25, 1979.
gl
Mrs. Gordon: Any modifications is what this reads, I just wanted you to understand
that and so there will be no misunderstanding.
Mayor Ferre: If this passes on November 6th, that would be the requirements
as outlined by the Waterfront Board. Ok? If this Commission accepts, puts
it on the ballot and should the electorate vote for it November 6th, obviously
we would all be bound by it.
Mrs. Gordon: But the Waterfront Board had deleted from it's jurisdiction
Watson Island. I believe that it need to now have the jurisdiction of Watson
Island included into their charge. They don't have it now.
Mayor Ferre: Well, I'm sure that whatever they recommend to us will affect,
all the water and of course, that is something that the City of Miami Commission
will have deliberate on at that particular time.
Mrs. Gordon: Yes, but that...That has to be included specifically in this.
motion that they be charged with also, guidelines for. Watson Island. Is that
in your motion Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Ferre: No, the motion speaks for itself andthe point I'm trying to make
is... Look, I'm going to make two motions. The first motion speaks to this
Amendment #2, let it be referred, ok? Which is what Father Gibson recommended
to the Charter Review Board and to the Waterfront Review Board, ok? And they
will come back by the 23rd of July with specific recommendations as to what
we should put on the November ballot. Now, period, I'm not saying anything
more and anything less than that. That's my motion.
Mrs. Gordon: Are you including Watson Island in the charge to
Mayor Ferre: '.Watson Island obviously, being a waterfront property will come up
for discussion and it does not preclude Watson Island because it will obviously,
come up for discussion by this Commission on July 23rd.
Mrs.
Gordon:` Ok, it's included then, I understand and I seconded the motion.
Mr. Jaffer:
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Jaffer, the public portion of this has been closed, sir and
as such, it is then for the deliberation of the Commission motions made and
voted upon. And I` will restrict it at this titne to that point. There is a...
Mr. Jaffer:. Make a point of, order may be? A point of information?
Mr. Plummer: You don't have that right, sir,. a member: of the Commission does.
Mrs. Gordon
You may speak, I will ask you to.
Mr. Plummer:: If Mrs. Gordon ask for you to speak, it's so granted, sir.
Mr. Jefferti I looked at the resolution creating the Charter Amendment Board
and then at the agenda of that meeting where it was created and it appeared
that it'never really was passed by the Commission, it was deferred. And I
just want to bring that'to your attention. If you all definitely remember
passing it, then I will take your word for it. But from the resolutions in
the CityClerk's Office, it doesn't appear that, that board was ever officially
created.
Mrs. Gordon: There was,a resolution -78-557, which said that there shall be a`
CharterAdvisory Committee,; but I don't recall any members being selected :to.
serveon that Committee. Mr. Grassie, can you correct me on that or enlighten
me on ;that?
Mayor Ferre: There is a Charter Committee and my appointment is Frank Kreutzer;`,
He is the Chairman of it.
Mr. Grassie: You are correct Mrs. Gordon
Mrs. Gordon:
Mr. Plummer:
Mr. Grassie:
gl
the members have not...
Are there members on it?
Who asked the City Manager to speak?
Commissioner Gordon asked me to speak, Commissioner.
Mr. Plummer: Continue.
Mr. Grassie: Nominations are due the City Commission from three organization:
in the Community and the Commission would need to appoint members on receiving.
those nominations.
Mayor Ferre: You mean, there is no Charter Review Board?
Mrs. Gordon: Not in place
Mr. Grassie: It is created, but the full membership has not been named.
Mrs. Gordon: There is no membership. The requirements are one member from the
City Attorney or his designee, one member a City Manager or his designee, one
member selected by City Commission from list of nominees furnisheduriedobylist eater
Miami Chamber of Commerce, one member selected by City
nominees furnished by Dade County Bar Association, three members by City Commission
appointed from community at large. I would like to just stress to you the fact
that if you feel that this is a possibility that this could all be in place
and that this group of people who are not yet named could have a recommendation
that would be available to you on the date you specified. I beg to differ, I
don't think it's a possibility, but I don't disagree with the procedure you
wish to take.
Mayor Ferre: Well, then I amend my motion and exclude, the Charter. Review Board
since we don't have a Charter Review Board and leave it strictly with the
Waterfront... What's it called?
Committee.
Mrs. Gordon:, Advisory
Mayor Ferre: The Water...no, it's not advisory.
Mrs. Gordon:-:AdvisoryBoard.
Mayor Ferre: it's called the Waterfront Board.
Mrs. Gordon: Well, whatever.
n't it?
Mayor Ferre: So in other words, I limit my;motion to `that.
Mrs. Gordon: Ernie, what did .you want to tell me?
Mr. Fannatto: Yes, I would. Mayor, I would just like to just say a little
something. _:I heard yousay_a minute ago that you want ttieBar to.sel'ect.
Mr. Plummer: No, she asked him..
Mrs. Gordon: No, I didn't say it, it's in the thing that...
Mr. Fannatto: Yes, well, I think that's a mistake.
I don't think, any attorneys
that are attorneys is going to practice before. these Boards should be allowed to
make any recommendations on anybody to be on the Board.
Mrs. Gordon: Alright.•
Mr. Fannatto: And I think it's fair and I think it's a conflict.
Mrs. Gordon: We don't have such a Board. Ok.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, further discussion... yes, call the roll.
Mr.
Mrs.
Mr.
Plummer: Motion understood? Call the. roll.
Gordon: Read the motion that you have now, Mr. Ongie.',
Plummer: Motion not understood, .read the motion..
Please repeat the motion, I.
Rev. Gibson: '
Mr. Ongie: A inotion that the City Commission would send to the Waterfront
Board the text of Charter Amendment #2 as previously stated for other discussion..
and deliberations, to return to the City Commission by their meeting of July...
JUNE 25, 1979.
gl.
64
Mayor Ferre: No, no, with specific recommendations.
Mr. Ongie: I will have that later. By July 23rd with specific recommendations
for discussion and 'action atthat :time. I have the specific recommendations...
Mr. Plummer: Motion understood?
Rev. Gibson: And what is that?
are sending man.
Father Gibson?
What are you sending? `'Reads. .. Read what you
Mrs. Gordon: They also include... Watson Island
that's what the Mayor said.
Mr. Plummer:
s included in that because
Alright, hold on. Father ask your question.
Rev. Gibson: Read what` you are
Mr. Plummer:
Mrs. Gordon:
sending to them.
Read what you are sending to then, Mr. Ongie.
Ok, I will read it.
Mr. Plummer: Wait, a minute
that, Rose.
no, you are not the Clerk. You don't get paid for
Mr. Ongie: Do you want me to read the entire Charter Amendment? Alright, it
would be a motion that the City Commission send to the City of Miami Waterfront
Board the following Charter Amendment. Effective immediately upon it's adoption
by a majority of the electors voting on this proposed amendment the Charter
of the City of Miami would be amended as follows,"anything in this Charter or
the Ordinances of the City of Miami to the contrary not withstanding until
such time as the City has proposed standards governing such leasing any contracting
which have been approved by the voters of the City of Miami, the City shall not
lease to or contract with private persons for the use or management for a period
in excess of three years of any of the City's property along Biscayne Bay,
Government cut, the Miami River or Rickenbacker Causeway or on Watson Island
or Virginia Key without first submitting such lease or contract to the voters
of the City of Miami for approval or rejection. And any such existing lease
or contract shall not.be modified or extended by the City without first submitting
such modification or extension to the voters of the City for approval or rejection,
such matter to be referred for discussion and deliberation to be returned to
the City Commission by July 23rd with specific recommendations or action".
Rev.
Mr.
Gibson: Let me ask a question.
Plummer: Question?
Rev. Gibson: What is the difference between the Orange
property leasing any of it. What's the difference?
Mr.
want an answer; from.
Rev. Gibson: I don't care who is going to give me`the answer. I want -the`
answer. �."Somebody ought to give me the ,.answer. The point I'makeis you .see,;,.
you need to know that 1 believe that when You... Well, Ok, You know, "I just can't...
Man...
Mayor Ferre:
Mr. Plummer:
one.
We have some leases... let me tell you what the,; difference is.
Boy, want to tell you, you got Mr. Paul ina dilemma on that
Mayor Ferre: Well, wait a
Mr. Plummer: The Orange Bowl and the waterfront.
Mayor Ferre: Now, wait a minute... Well, Mr. Paul is for handing them all over,
but that's neither here nor there. But I want to listen to this, I want you
to listen to this for a second. Twenty-five percent of the waterfront... no,
fifteen percent of the waterfront within the City of Miami boundaries is public.
That's a very important part. Now, the Charter doesn't speak to that and I
think that there is a valid point and I disagree with Dan Paul on a lot of these
things, but this one I can't disagree with. I think Dan Paul is a hundred percent
gl.
65
JUNE 25, 1979.
right, that we ought to have guidelines as to what can or cannot be done on
leases on the Waterfront. Because it is such an irreplaceable asset to the
community. Now, I think Father Gibson is right, that we shouldn't just jump
into this unilaterally or arbitrarily. I think we've got to do this in a
deliberate way. I thought his idea about the Charter Committee was right,
but we don't really have a Charter... I thought we had a Charter Committee,
but evidently we don't. But the Waterfront Committee was charged with that
particular purpose. Let the Waterfront Committee come back with recommendations,
which they are going to be doing anyway on some other items and let us address
what they recommend to us and we will have a full public hearing on July 23rd
and either accept or reject what they recommend.
Rev. Gibson: Let me ask this before I vote. Suppose the Waterfront Authorities
said we shouldn't lease any City property, you have some leases out, what are
you going to do?
Mayor Ferre: Well, I would vote against that, because my position is very
clear that I think that there are times when it makes a lot more sense to lease
City property including that on the water. I have no problems with that. If
that Water Board comes back and recommend something that is completely unreasonable,
I certainly have no obligation to accept that and if you want to accept it, that's
your problem. You have one fifth of the total vote here.
Rev. Gibson: And you know as well as I Mr. Mayor, that I will exercise that one
fifth. You know,... listen, you know that, you know that, so I mean, you don't
have to tell me.. I recognize...
I'm telling you on the record you've got two fifths vote now.
Mrs. Gordon: Father Gibson, what we are talking about is not what the Waterfront
Board is going to want or not want. What we are talking about is what the people
of the City of Miami are going to want or not want. We are just talking about
letting them have the right to make a choice and that's what we are talking about.
And I trust the people will speak loud and clear what they want and if they say
they don't want it, fine. If they say they do, well this Commission or any other
Commission succeeding us are going to find it difficult to do otherwise.
Mayor Ferre: But Rose, you see the arguement against that unfortunately, is
that the people of Miami voted for beer in the Orange Bowl and you consistently..
Mrs. Gordon: That was a straw vote Mr. Mayor, it had no weight whatsoever.
That was an expression and not a mandate. And the twenty-six vote margin
between the yeas and nays amounted to thirteen people more or less and
that's all. There is no comparable. Let's move ahead now.
Rev. Gibson:
before I put
Mr. Plummer:
ON ROLL CALL:
Rev. Gibson: I want this Commission and the public to understand that because
I vote to have an expression from that Board doesn't mean I'm going to vote to
accept what the Board says, ok? So you can't call me double talking, right.
Oh, yes, I'm going to vote for it, I want to hear their expression.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Ferre, who
moved its adoption:
My questions have been answered, I'm going to express myself
my vote down. Go ahead.
MOTION NO. 79-419
A MOTION REFERRING TO THE CITY OF MIAMI WATERFRONT BOARD THE PROPOSED
CHARTER AMENDMENT NO. 2, AS QUOTED HEREINBELOW, POR THEIR DISCUSSION,
':'DELIBERATION AND SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS, SUCH MATTER TO RETURN TO THE
CITY COMMISSION ON JUTLY 23, 1979 FOR THE COMMISSION'S CONSIDERATION.
PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT NO. 2:
g
JUNE 25, 1979.
"ANYTHING IN THIS CHARTER OR THE ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF MIAMI TO
THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING, UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE CITY HAS PROPOSED
STANDARDS GOVERNING SUCH LEASING AND CONTRACTING WHICH HAVE BEEN AP-
PROVED BY THE VOTERS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI THE CITY SHALL NOT LEASE TO
OR CONTRACT WITH PRIVATE PERSONS POR THE USE OR MANAGEMENT, POR A
PERIOD IN EXCESS OF 3 YEARS,OF ANY OF THE CITY'S PROPERTY ALONG BISCAYNE
BAY, GOVERNMENT CUT, THE MIAMI RIVER OR RICKENBACKER CAUSEWAY OR ON WATSON
ISLAND OR VIRGINIA KEY 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 NOT BE MODIFIED OR EXTENDED BY THE CITY WITHOUT
FIRST SUBMITTING SUCH MODIFICATION OR EXTENSION TO THE VOTERS OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI FOR APPROVAL OR REJECTION."
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gordon, the motion was passed
and adopted by the following vote -
AYES:
NOES: None.
Mrs. Gordon: Ok
Mayor Ferre: Now, wait
the gavel.
,''
Coimnissioner Rose Gordon :-
Commissioner Armando Lacasa
Commissioner (Rev.). Theodore Gibson
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
a minute,.;
still have the floor because you
Mrs. Gordon: Yes, but`I thought I had the
put this on the agenda for that purpose.
will let .you`have it.
Mayor
Mrs.
still have
floor on this item Mr. Mayor.
o you want.to have the stage?,
Ferre: Mrs. Gordon, your motion: failed. You made a 'notion...
Gordon: I haven't finished the item Mr. Mayor and it's on here...
Mayor Ferre: You made a
motion and, itfailed and I told...
Mrs. Gordon:`; Alright,;I know you need a little applause,
it. Alright, I will applaud you, go ahead.`:
so go ahead and have`.
Mayor Ferre: I made the statement. that I wanted to make two motions,: that was
one. The second motion that I want to make is that this matter beput on the
agenda as an ordinance so that there will be' no further leases... Dan, I want.
you to listen to this now...
Mayor FerreThis isa motion that there wouldn't be any further leases on
any City of Miami waterfront property between now and November 6t and I so
Mrs. Gordon
Mr. Plummer: Rose, wait a minute, wait a minute. Is there a second?
Mrs. Gordon: I will second it but I just want the Mayor and the records to
reflect, that the Mayor, being he is not creative enough to have thought of
it in the first place and finds it a reasonable way to get a little attention
has decided that he should take the motion and make it and I'm letting him
do it. Because the objective is to have this ordinance before us on July llth.
Mayor Ferre: Precisely, and the fact is that all of these things are... we have
to think of what's best for the public and not on personal, politisals, you
know, band wagon stuff or screaming. And the fact is Mrs. Gordon, that you
voted for the Gould property on Ball Point and reversed yourself, now this.
is the second reversal. And ifs you are entitled... and when I questioned
that last time, you told me...
Mrs. Gordon: Mayor, I don't think you know what you are talking about. You
JUNE 25, 1979.
gl.
don't know what you are ..talking about.
Mayor Ferre: You 'said to me "I have a perfect right to admit "1 was wrong,
I was wrong and have changed my mind".
Mrs. Gordon: What did'I vote against?
Mayor Ferre:
what, are you the only one that has that right around here?
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Mayor, what did I" vote against?
the Gould property. What are you talking about?
You said °I voted against
Mayor Ferre: Mrs. Gordon, you voted for Watson Island for five
then you reversed yourself.
property. Look,
or six times,'
r. Mayor...
Mrs. Gordon:::. I'm talking about the Gould M
Mayor Ferre: On the Gould property you voted one way and then reversed yourself.
Mrs. Gordon:
can see that.
Mr. Mayor, it's going to be a very amusing five months ahead, I
no way that I;;
Mayor Ferre:. No, but I tell you... Imean, can't. is.there
can make a'statement without you interrupting me Mrs. Gordon?
Mrs. Gordon: Not, if you are going to stick with the truth, I will
interrupt you, but the minute you go off in left field 1 will.
Mayor Ferre: Oh,;I see, but you are the judge.
you, you get all excited.
Mrs. Gordon:' No, Dear,,I don't get excited.
distort the truth.
Mayor Ferre:
never
Every timethat I do that"to•
I just don't like people that
Well, then you must` have a very hard time with yourself.
I think we have a motion and. a second... Repeat the motion
Mr. Plummer:;.
because I have lost it.
Mr. Ongie:
s, I'm lost too.
Mayor Ferre: The motion issthat the City Attorney be instructed; to prepare" a --
by this resolution for the next.. time-- an ordinance which will preclude any".
City Of Miami leasesbetween,the time thatthe resolution--- the motion becotnes
effective as law in November 6th.
Mr. Plummer:: Have a motion` and a second, any further discussion, call the roll.
Mr. Lacasa:
o, no, under discussion.
Mr. Plummer: I'm sorry, you are right, he did ask tospeak.
Mr. Lacasa:
I'm going to oppose this motion..
Mr. Plummer: Did you mean waterfront leases Mr. Mayor, which is asked for.
clarification by the City Attorney? That was your premise? Is that correct?
Mayor Ferre: Yes, waterfront leases.
Understood Mr. Attorney? Mr. Lacasa, you have the floor.
Mr. Plummer:
Mr. Lacasa: I'm going to oppose this motion and the reason is this, here
again, we have a situation where the Commission is considering divesting
itself from responsibilities inherent to the position of a Commissioner and
Mayor of the City of Miami. We have created a Waterfront Board, I have no
problems and I so voted to send this for recommendation to a body which we
created for that particular purpose. Until that recommendation comes and
we have the advice of the people 1n whom we place our trust in order to
determine this, I see absolutely no reason why we should divest ourselves of
the responsibilities that we do have according to the Charter. I do believe that
we have to accept those responsibilities and I do believe that we have
from here until we think otherwise or the people of Miami amend the Charter.
If that situation comes through, those responsibilities are ours and we have
gl.
68
JUNE 25, 1979.
to exercise it if the situation comes to our attention.
ON ROLL CALL:
Rev. Gibson: I'm opposed to this. I'm opposed to it. I have just voted
reluctantly to send this matter to a Board. Are you telling the Board that
I don't have the moral, courage and fortitude not to let a lease'within the
next five to six months, while they are trying to make a decision? That's
what it implies. That's what I would... if I were on that Board, if I were
on that Board you passed such a resolution, you know what I would say? What
are you taking up my time for? And I think that this Commission ought not do
it. If I were on that Board I would tell you where to go and it won't be to
heaven.
Mrs. Gordon: •Could I remind Commissioner Lacasa, that he voted affirmatively,;
for the ordinance to be placed on November llth agenda for the other item,
which is petition #1.
Mr. Lacasa: I might remind Commissioner Gordon that I voted in a position
to your motion of placing the other question on the ballot. I voted for
consideration on July, because that does not permit me in anyway, shape or
form to place it on the ballot. I am voting for that to give further
consideration to it since I was not aware of the way that this was going to
come. There was negotiation here today which I had no opportunity before
to realize there were changes to this petition that was going to be presented
by some people here. So I am willing to reconsider this on the 23rd and give
all kind of thoughts and consideration, but that doesn't have anything to do
whatsoever with voting on this motion of Mr. Ferre now. Because this motion
of Mr. Ferre means that we here by our own action are going to divest ourselves
of the responsibilities placed on us by the Charter. And that I am not going
to do. If the people of Miami in November... if this is placed on the ballot
wants to take those responsibilities away from us, fine and dandy, the people
are the one who decides because they are the City of Miami. But I am not
going to take any responsibilities from ourselves at this particular point.
Mayor Ferre: I call the question.
Mrs. Gordon: No, you are wrong Mr.. I've got to tell him because he thinks
he didn't vote on the ordinance, the prior one, but he did. He Voted for
July llth for the other ordinance to be heard and you've changed your mind'on.,
that?
Mr. Lacasa:
To be heard does not mean that we are
Mrs. Gordon: No` of -course, it doesn't mean that.
Mr. Lacasa: But what`. the Mayor now has proposed i
now of...
Mrs. Gordon: He can't do that.
implementing.
the implementation .right
Mr. Lacasa: Oh, yes, he can because if we pass this motion... Mrs. Gordon,
if we pass this motion what we are saying is that this Commission cannot
•
consider any leases until after November.
Mayor Ferre: Only if it passes on July llth and July 23rd.
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Lacasa, you certainly understand the difference between a
motion that's going to place an ordinance on the agenda in July llth and what
he is saying obviously, he is confused.
Mayor Ferrer I can do it anyway, so call the question and then I
make an annoucement after that.
Mr. Plummer: Call the roll.
THEREUPON THE FOREGOING MOTION was
Ferre and seconded by,Commissioner
following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Ferre
NOES: Mr. Lacasa, Rev. Gibson and
ABSENT: None.
introduced by Commissioner`
Gordon.'and 'defeated 'by the
•
Vice -Mayor Plummer
11111111111MINIMMIN
gl.
JUNE 25, 1979.-
Mayor Ferre: Alright, I'll just make this annoucement. Mr. City Attorney,
as one member of this Commission and as Mayor I by this method instruct you
to please prepare for me an ordinance that will do what was just previously
voted down and I will present it as an ordinance in it's finished form.
(BACKGROUND COMMENT OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Mayor Ferre: Well, I made it in the form of a motion and it was'lust voted
down J. L. and I have the authority as a member of the Commission to instruct
the City Attorney to prepare a... something for the purposes of presenting'
a--- what do you call those things again?--- an ordinance, ok.
Mrs. Gordon: By the same instructions and by the prior vote that this Commission'
took, I would instruct you to prepare the ordinance for July llth relating to
amendment #1 which was passed by a three to, two vote with Lacasa's affirmative
vote.
Mayor
voted
Ferre: It's already been, but that was voted to three to two. Lacasa
for it which is your point.
Mrs. Gordon: That's correct and
you just instructed him to'do.
that has to be prepared as well as the one
Mayor Ferre: Precisely, but the point is in that one, that was the instruction
of the Commission because it passed three to two. So you were right in what
you said. Ok, now, you are so instructed on both cases. One by the Commission
and it's majority and the other one by two members of the Commission'
Awiw-
individuals.
15. URGE DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD TO CONTINUE BILINGUAL PROGRAM
EVEN IF CONGRESS CUTS FUNDING TO CUBAN REFUGEE PROGRAM.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, go ahead Mr. Lacasa.
Mr. Lacasa: Mr. Mayor, I have two motions that I want to introduce today,
both pertain to the question of the funding of the Cuban Refugee Program.
Congress has indicated their intention to cut down the funding of the Cuban
Refugee Program for the next fiscal year. This will create a tremendous
impact in this community on two accounts. One the services... the social
services that are being... has been maintained for all these years for the
Cuban Refugee community here. Second the impact on the bilingual program of
Dade County. Therefore, I am going to move that this Commission recommends
first to the proper officials be urged to continue the Cuban Refugee Program.
Second, that the City Clerk of the City of Miami is hereby directed to send
copies of the herein resolution to the Honorable Robert Byrd Minority
Leader United States Senate and to the Honorable Thomas O'neil a speaker
United States House of Representatives and to each member of the Florida
Congressional Delegation.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, there is a motion, is there a second...
Mrs. Gordon: I second it and I would like to state into the record that
two weeks ago I sent telegrams individually to Washington and I have
received replies from two of our congressmen relating to the same subject
I have no objection to reiterating this as a Commission action.
Mayor Ferre: There is a motion and a second, under discussion I might say and
I don't mean to offend anybody's feelings here that I'm going to vote for it,
obviously. But these things aren't done by passing resolutions as you have
had and I know that I certainly have been on the phone and Mrs. Gordon has
sent telegrams, but the yay these things happen is you've got to work head to
head on them. I went to Washington to get this thing resolved and I want to
tell you that so did a lot of other people in this Commission and I know how
many hours you spent on the phone talking directly to members of Congress on
this. And I want to tell you that the resolution is fine, but please stay on
the phone and talking to the people that are involved in this. The matter
gl.
.70
JUNE 25, 1979
really is in the hands of Senator Lawton Chiles and it is now in Conference
Committee, he is the guy that's going to decide this. Now, there is a motion
and a second, further discussion, call the roll.
Mrs. Gordon: I think some people may not realize that it has a tremendous
affect upon our entire economy when this money is turned down for this area
because we will still be having to subsidize a lot of the programs and a lot
of the educational facilities that are being now funded by the Federal Government.
So it is a general concern to the entire community.
Mayor Ferre: Call the roll.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Lacasa, who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 79-421
A RESOLUTION URGING THE DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD
TO CONTINUE THE BILINGUAL PROGRAM SHOULD THE
CONGRESS SIGNIFICANTLY CUT THE FUNDING OF THE
CUBAN REFUGEE PROGRAM; FURTHER, DIRECTING THE
CITY CLERK TO FORWARD A COPY OF THE HEREIN
RESOLUTION TO THE PROPER OFFICIALS CHARGED
WITH ADMINISTERING THE PROGRAM.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gordon, the resolution
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.
16. URGE CONTINUATION OF CUBAN REFUGEE PROGRAM AND DIRECT THE
CITY CLERK TO FORWARD RESOLUTION TO APPROPRIATE FEDERAL OFFICIALS.
Mr. Lacasa: Now, Mr. Mayor, second resolution. there is a tremendous danger
that if Congress still go ahead and cuts the fund for the Cuban Refugee Program
the Dade County School Board has indicated that those funds are going to in
fact, the Bilingual Program. I do believe that the Bilingual Program is essential
forthis community. I do believe that now that the City of Miami is projecting
itself in the international scene. Not only as a tourist mecca, but also as
an international trade center bilingualism is essential. So therefore, I am
going to move that if significant cuts are made in the Cuban Refugee Program
by the Federal Government, the Dade County School Board is hereby requested
to continue the Bilingual Program at it's current level of funding.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, there is a motion on the floor, is there a second?
Rev. Gibson: Second.
Mayor Ferre: Seconded by Father Gibson, further discussion, call the roll.
The following resolution vas introduced by Commissioner Lacasa, who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 79-422
A RESOLUTION URGING THE CONTINUATION OF THE
CUBAN REFUGEE PROGRAM ON BEHALF OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AND DIRECTING THE CITY
CLERK TO FORWARD A COPY OF THE HEREIN
RESOLUTION OT THE PROPER FEDERAL OFFICIALS
CHARGED WITH ADMINISTERING AND FUNDING THE
PROGRAM.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here
in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gibson, the resolution 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
NO •
17. URGE DADE COUNTY COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY TO CONTINUE FUNDING
ALL SAINTS HEADSTART PROGRAM & HEADSTART PROGRAMS IN THE CITY
LIMITS.
Mayor Ferre: I see that Ike Withers is here...
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, may I bring up a very quick pocket item?
Mayor Ferre: J. L., you know, I hate to do this, but I stated to all of you
that I had an emergency, that I would have to be out of here by 5 o'clock, it's
now 5:30. I am in serious trouble and the only... Ike Withers is here and since
I feel responsible along with Lacasa for his presence here, I would like for
Lacasa to speak to it briefly. Let's make a motion and then I will recognize
you and then I have got to go. You all can stay and deliberate.
Mr. Plummer: The presence of Mr. Withers here is the result of many other
members of this community of the present danger that the Headstart Center that
exist at the All Saints Church, the only one that serve the Little Havana
Community area ar.d which has been in existence serving an average of about
a hundred thirty children for the last eight years is now in danger to be cut,
to be closed down due to a reduction in funding by Community Action Agency.
What we are talking here is of an amount of about fourteen to fifteen thousand
dollars and the amount is insignificant if we consider the tremendous negative
impact that this could have in our community. This specific center is the
only one that serve Little Havana and I must point out that there would be over
twenty that will be still funded. Therefore, I would like to move that this
Commission request and urge Community Action Agency and the Dade County
Government to continue funding so to maintain the present level of services that
this particular Headstart Center presently provides.
Mayor Ferre: There is a motion on the floor, is there a second?
Mrs. Gordon: I would like to make an amendment to it, if he would accept the
amendment, that the other two centers that are also being cut back and... or
rather there is actually more than two, there is four that are in the City`limi
Mayor Ferre: All within the City of Miami.
Mrs. Gordon; All of those in the City of Miami limits. We have a great
population that needs this kind of service. Not only Little Havana, but in
Model Cities and in Edison Little River and in other areas. I believe that th
Headstart Program is absolutely essential for these preschool children.
Mayor Ferre: Do you accept the amendment?
Mr. Lacasa: I gladly accept the amendment.
72
JUNE 25, 1979.
gl
1
r
Mayor Ferre: Alright, now with that amendment that all Headstart be funded,
further discussion, call, the roll.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner
moved its adoption:.
RESOLUTION NO. 79-423
A RESOLUTION STRONGLY URGING THE DADE COUNTY COM-
MUNITY ACTION AGENCY TO CONTINUE FUNDING THE ALL
SAINTS HEADSTART CENTER, 1045 S.W. 27 AVENUE, MIAMI,
FLORIDA, IN THE AMOUNT OF $14,115; AND FURTHER
REQUESTING THAT DADE COUNTY COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY
CONTINUE TO FUND, AS WELL, ALL OTHER HEADSTART
CENTERS LOCATED WITH THE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI; AND FURTHER DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO
FORWARD A COPY OF THE HEREIN RESOLUTION TO MAYOR
• STEPHEN P. CLERK AND TO EACH MEMBER OF THE DADE
COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND TO MR.
ISAAC WITHERS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE DADE
COUNTY COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY AND TO EACH OF THE
INDIVIDUALS SERVING ON THE BOARD WHICH ADMINISTERS
THE DADE COUNTY COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file
in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by, Commissioner Gordon, --the resolution was
passedrand adopted by`the following vote -
AYES
NOES: None.
ON. ROLL CALL:
Commissioner Rose Gordon
Commissioner Armando Lacasa
Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
. Plummer: This is quickly. Mr. Lacasa, does this; contain the
present level of funding or is that indicated?
Mr. Lacasa: Present level of funding.
Mr.
Plummer:
Mr.`Lacas.:
You are not asking for any increase?
Mr. Plummer: Just present level?
Mr. Lacasa: Just present level of funding.
Mr. Plummer: I vote "yes".
Mrs. Gordon: Actually the continuation of those existing programs.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, now Mr. Withers, the Chair recognizes you for a moment.
Dr. Green, we are always happy to have you here and I see that your Vice -Chairman
is here. How many members of the Board do we have here? Would you raise your
hands?
Mrs. Gordon: Father Gibson is a member and I'm a past member.
Mayor Ferre: Well, we have Father Gibson... we have four members here. Alright,
Dr. Green, we are always happy to see you.
Dr. Green: Thank you, very much Honorable Mayor and members of the Miami
City Commission. I will make this brief because I understand you are pressed,
for time. I think you all are aware of the fiscal constraint under which the
gl.
73
JUNE 25, 1979.
,--"�'l—
CAA is operating now days. There are several reasons for this. But we
are really hard pressed for funds in order to continue our present level of
operating in not only the Headstart Program, but in our community service
centers. Our level of funding from Community Service Agency has not increased
during the past four or five years and because of inflation and all the other
increases in cost that we are facing, we are just not able to continue our
present level of service without more money. We operate about six community
service center in the City of Miami and we have furnished you with a packet
there that shows you the present level of operating, the projected level of
operating these centers for the 1979-80 year and the difference in these figures
and we are asking for help from the City of Miami in both of these areas. We
are particularly sensitive to the Headstart needs as you mentioned. The problem
in Headstart is that we are having to close some of those centers because we
just don't have the money to pay the rent. We are having to close some of the
centers and have those children transferred to other Headstart Centers. This
touches a sensitive area with parents because it means busing children, sometimes
long distances into strange areas and under adverse circumstances to other
centers and we are encountering all kinds of resistance against this and we
just don't have the money to continue their operations unless we get additional
funds. So we are contacting the City Commissions of the various municipalities
in Dade County to ask for assistance to continue the present level of services
in their particular municipalities. And Mr. Withers is here and I'm going to
ask him to give us some figures, if you would like, to let you know how much
money we need. And I employ you to be sympathetic with the CAA in this effort.
Mrs. Gordon: Doctor, can I ask you whether or not the Saint Paul Headstart
is in the City of Miami. I know the others...
Dr. Green: Yes, it is and there are sixty children there.
Mrs. Gordon: It is? Where is it at? Where is that at?
(BACKGROUND COMMENT OFF THE:, PUBLIC RECORD)
Mr. Plummer:
Speak into the microphone please.
(BACKGROUND` COMMENT OFF THE
PUBLIC RECORD)
Dr. Green: I just would mention. Those Headstart Center that are within
the City of Miami, that we are dealing with here are Saint Paul, Edison Little
River, Todos los Santos, Grace Methodist and Temple Israel.
Mrs. Gordon:
There
Todos
Dr. Green: T
Eighty-five T
Temple Israel.
Mr. Plummer:
How many children are being helped or served in those five?
are sixty at Saint Paul, sixty at Edison: Little River,
los Santos, ninety at Grace Methodist and ninety-five, at
Mr. Withers, do you wish to comment, sir?
Mr. Withers: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, in addition
to what Dr. Green, Chairman of the Board has stated. The material that we
provided you with reflects what we feel that would be realized through the
process or through the'Flosing of the centers, certainly the Board and I
realize the importance of maintaining centers in neighborhoods where they are
accessible to children. Unfortunately, the decrease in and the lack of an
increase in budget has created this problem. As far as the Headstart Program
is concerned we are requesting that you give consideration to a total of
approximately fifty-four thousand dollars which would provide...
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, Ike. Ok, continue Mr. Withers.
Mr. Withers: We are requesting that you give consideration to possibly to
make a contribution to the program in the amount of fifty-four thousand dollars
This applies only to the Headstart Program and I must remind you that the dollars
that we have reference to are not the total dollars involved in serving those
children. This only assist in paying some of the cost involved. Such as the
rent, such as the maintain of those facilities. You might say "how can you
operate and serve the same number of children if these dollars aren't available?"
What we have been able to secure is the Bethune Elementary School which is in
excellent repair at this time from the School Board at a cost of one dollar
per year. When we realize that there is an additional cost operating that
facility in the amount of about twenty-two thousand dollars and we compared
that against the total amount that we are currently are paying for the same
gl
74
JUNE 25, 1979.
kinds of items, we are really talking about a possible savings to help
carry the program a hundred sixty days in the amount of fifty-four thousand
dollars. As it relates to the Community Service Centers, as you are probably
aware, we must reduce the level of services as a results of lack of dollars
in our Community Service Centers through -out the entire County. Those
services in terms of cost amount to approximately a hundred fifty-nine thousand
dollars as far as residents of the City of Miami. Again, I must'say to you
that these centers will--- are going to remain open, but the services will be
reduced approximately fifty percent. These centers will not be staffed by
five and six members as they have in the past, but they will be staffed by
approximately three members for each and everyone of those centers. And again,
we really are talking about dollars that would be only --if provided--- would
only be provided to expand services to the residents of the City of Miami
over and above that which is currently being provided by the limited dollars
for children in the other municipalities or in the unincorporated areas.
Mrs. Gordon: How much money all together, Ike?
Mr. Withers: We are talking about a hundred fifty-nine thousand as it relates
to approximately-- as I have on the second page of my memorandum to you--- for
the Community Service Centers and are fifty-four thousand dollars as it relates
only to the Headstart Center. And again, we are only talking about dollars
that would assist in maintaining current level of services. Services will not
be discontinued, but will be continued, but will be continued provided in all
of those neighborhoods. All of those communities, but at a much lower level.
Mr. Lacasa: Ike, and what is the reason why we are facing this type of situation?
Is that because you have reduced funding now in CAA or what?
Mr. Withers: Well, itreally results in a reduced funding. What has actually.
occurred is that we have not received for the last four years any increase
appreciable in the Community Service administration's budget. Those dollars
that we have received have remained pretty static within tnese four years.
When we look at-- particularly this year--- look at the inflationary rates
which is approximately nine percent for a non -personnel cost, a approximate
five percent across the board for all staff, a merit increase and another
approximate 10.5 percent as it relates to a wage adjustment. We are talking
about really about a twenty-five percent--- almost a twenty-five percent
increase just to stay at even board. And of course, that is one of the problems.
Now, you might say why didn't this problem appear before this year. The board
has faced this problem for a number of years, but what has happened in the
past, we, the Board, has sought other funds from other Federal Agencies anu during
the previous years we have been fortunately enough to pick up a hundred thousand
dollars, two hundred thousand dollars, three hundred thousand dollars in some
instances to maintain level of services. This year it has been entirely different,
no other Federal dollars are made available. I have just returned recently
from the regional office. I have been in communication with the various
resources that we have taken advantage of previously at the national level
and their advice to me is that, we do not see the possible chance of you getting
any increased dollars for your 1979-80 program year.
Mr. Lacasa: And howmany centers are you phasing out if this plan were to
proceed?
Mr.`Withers:
Mr. Lacasa:
are `not closing any Community Services- Centers at
Mr. Withers: Headstart Centers, we have actually closed five Headstart Centers
and we have closed some classrooms of the School Board that we are using...
Mr. Lacasa: But Headstart Centers, five? Out of how many?
Mr. Withers: Yes.
in the school.
Out of twenty-six differentcenters, plus Headstart sites
Mr. Lacasa: Out of twenty-six. And what was the criteria to determine which
ones were going to be closed and which ones were going to be kept open?
Mr. Withers: The first criteria related principally to the availability of
an adequate facility in close proximity to those centers that we were paying
what was considered as fees higher than the average. That was the first. The
second criteria, related specifically to the availability of transportation
for those areas and the distance to be traveled.
JUNE 25, 1979
gl .``
Mr. Lacasa: Well, I believe Ike, that the transportation question now is
quite a question because it's obvious by the situation we are all facing
here in Dade County, that transportation has become such a problem that to
even consider at this particular point transferring these children from
one place, like in the case of the Little Havana Center to 45th Street,
I think is correct, just to consider that is totally and completely
unrealistic. Specifically with the kind of crisis that we have with gasoline
at this point now. I submit to you Ike... I submit to you and tb the members;
of the Board very respectfully and I'm very dismayed to see that we have
twenty-six centers in existence now and that the only one that serve the
particular area of Little Havana is one of the ones being marked to be closed
down. Not withstanding the fact that I do believe the other ones and I accept
and adopt that as mine, the amendment made by Mrs. Gordon as far as the other
centers in the City of Miami is concerned. I think that we ougnt to look very
deeply into this and if you don't have the funds in CAA, I submit to you,
very respectfully to the members of the Board that you seek alternative
solutions at the other funds from the County. And let me tell you why, we the
citizens of the City of Miami, we pay taxes twice. We pay taxes to the City
of Miami and we also pay taxes to the County government. Now, what we are
being asked to do is to be practically in this particular instance be taxed
three times. We are taxed by the City, we are taxed by the County and now you
are asking us to use City monies to fund a County responsibility. So the
big question that I have now in my mind is what benefits do we the citizens
Miami have in paying taxes to the County if we cannot get services from the
County.
Mr. Withers: Yes, sir. We share your sentiments entirely Mr. Lacasa., We too
feel that you know, if we could get the money from the County, that will solve
our problems and we indeed have gone to the County. The... We have placed our
budgetary problem with the County. They have worked on it, they are working
on their budget now, but as it understand it they don't give us any indication
that there will be any increase in funding. The only amounts that we have
any inkling that we can look forward to is approximately two hundred forty-eight
thousand dollars for three other programs within the agency. But we have had
the workshop with our staff and the County's staff and they have given us no
promise at all because they hadn't gone to the County Manager yet. But indeed
we are trying with all fervor to obtain the money from the County.
Mr. Lacasa: I understand that you have passed a resolution here... I mean,
today whereby you are requesting Mr. Withers to continue looking for funding
to keep these centers open. In other words, what they have done today, the
Board, passed a resolution which. in effect is a reconsideration of the previous
decision to close down the center, I' understand that, whereby you are requesting
the director to seek the necessary funds to maintain the centers open.
Mr. Withers:
is a part of that seeking, that's why we are here.
Mr. Lacasa: Fine. Now, we have passed here a resolution today requesting you
to keep these centers open. What I am going to propose is this, that we
together, the City of Miami Commission which has indicated it's desire to
maintain the centers open and you who have done the same thing today by passing'.
this resolution, immediately start our efforts and lobby with the Dade County
Manager to see if at that level we can include these monies in the present
budget. And if we are not successful at the level of the County Manager, then
I submit to you that the thing to do would be for all of us together to go
down there to the County Commission and present the problem to them. But under
no circumstances, I believe that you should assume the responsibility of closing
down these centers and I for one intend to continue this situation to the end.
And to escalate it to whatever extent is necessary because my big question now
does not only pertain to the question of this particular Headstart Center, but
the question that I am going to throw wide in the open is, what benefit is
for the citizens of the City of Miami to pay taxes to the County if we are going
to see that those taxes are not going to do us any good and our children are
going to go without the only facilities that we do have in our community.
Mrs. Gordon: I would like to make a comment and I think you would agree Mr.
Lacasa that we have an opportunity before us of raising some money that we
don't get now and that is the money that is available to us from those Yacht
Clubs that pay a dollar a year.. The reasonable proposal that I suggested of
it a hundred dollars a year for non-resident members would bring to the coffers
of the City a hundred thirty thousand dollars, that would very well fund the
facilities for these children through -out the City and I for one would like
you Mr. Manager to put this item on the agenda for July 11 for a final conclusion.
We have dilly dallyed along long enough with these clubs and they have been
gl.
76
JUNE 25, 1979
getting a free, ridelong enough and it's, time for them to kick in an
provide services for our people.
Mr. Plummer: Alright, any further discussion on this matter? Thank you, very
much. Now, the Commission... oh, excuse me, I have an item to bring up...
Note: Mayor Ferre left the meeting at 5:30 P.M.
18. AUTHORIZE PAYMENT OT MIAMI/BAHAMAS GOOMBAY FESTIVAL
AS ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTION - 3RD FESTIVAL HELD JUNE 9, 1979.
Mr. Plummer: A pocket item which Mr, Manager, it is my assumption that
has been presented to you. (READ THE RESOLUTION INTO THE RECORD)... that
you are aware and concur. Am I correct in that Mr. Manager?
Mr. Grassie: My staff... specifically Jack Bond has been working with the
Goombay Festival Commissioner and he is aware of this, yes.
Mr. Plummer: Is there a second?
Mr. Lacasa:
Rev. Gibson:
Mr. Plummer: Call the
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 79-424
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A PAYMENT OF $3,223
TO MIAMI/BAHAMAS GOOMBAY FESTIVAL IN COCONUT
GROVE, INC., AS AN ADDITIONAL CASH CONTRIBU-
TION BY THE CITY OF MIAMI FOR SUPPORT OF THE
THIRD GOOMBAY FESTIVAL WHICH WAS HELD ON
JUNE 9, 1979; AND STIPULATING THAT THESE MONIES
WILL BE SPENT AND ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE MANNER
PRESCRIBED BY CITY COMMISSION POLICY NO. 100-4.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded
adopted by the following
AYES: Mrs. Gordon, Rev.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Mayor Ferre.
who 'moved
on file -`
by Commissioner Gibson, the resolution was passed and
vote:
Gibson, Mr. Lacasa and Vice -Mayor Plummer.
AT THIS TIME THE COMMISSION TOOK
19. ALLOCATE $206,050 C. D. FUNDS - WASHINGTON HEIGHTS OFFICE OF
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - "WORK PROGRAM".
Mr. Plummer: Jackie Bell, I understand has an emergency on Item 21. Is
there any controversy on 21? Dena, you got any controversy? Do you have
any problem with 21 Dena?
Ms. Spillman: No, as long as the Commission understands that you are approving
the work program along with the additional funding because you specifically,
asked that we come back to you with that.
Mr. Plummer; Do you understand that Jackie?
Mrs. Gordon: I will move approval.
Mr. Plummer: You are in accord. Dena`is,in accord. Bless you both.
Mrs. Gordon: Move approval.
Mr. Plummer: Moved. by Rose, seconded by Father, call the roll.
The following resolution was
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 79-425
'A RESOLUTION ALLOCATING $206,050.00 OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.
FUNDS FROM FOURTH AND FIFTH YEAR FEDERAL COMMUNITY DEVELOP-
MENT BLOCK GRANT FUND TO NEW WASHINGTON HEIGHTS OFFICE OF
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, INC., FOR THE PURPOSE OF CARRYING OUT
THE ACTIVITIES DESCRIBED IN THE ATTACHED WORK PROGRAM AND
BUDGET FOR THE CONTRACT PERIOD COMMENCING JULY 1, 1979, AND
ENDING JUNE 30, 1980; AND FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENT WITH SAID AGENCY.
(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
adopted.by the following vote:
AYES:.;: 'Mrs. Gordon,, Rev.. Gibson, Mr. Lacasa and Vice
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mayor Ferre.
JUNE 25, 1979.
20. ORDERING RESOLUTION: WEST TRAILVIEW HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT H-4447.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gibson , who moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 79-426
A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING ORDERING RESOLUITON
NO. 79-275 AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY CLERK
TO ADVERTISE FOR SEALED BIDS FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF WEST TRAILVIEW HIGHWAY
IMPROVEMENT H-4447 IN WEST TRAILVIEW
HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT H-4447.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here
in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Lacasa, the resolution was passed
adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Gordon, Rev. Gibson, Mr. Lacasa and Vice -Mayor Plummer
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Mayor Ferre.
and
21. CONFIRM ASSESSMENT ROLL: SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT
H-4342.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gibson , who moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 79-427
A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE HIGHWAY
IMPROVEMENT IN SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE HIGHWAY
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT H-4342 AND REMOVING ALL
PENDING LIENS FOR THIS IMPROVEMENT NOT HERBY
CERTIFIED.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here
in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Lacasa, the resolution
adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Gordon, Rev. Gibson, Mr. Lacasa and Vice -Mayor Plumper.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Mayor Ferre.
Objectors Joel Jaffer
gl
JUNE 25, 1979.
vie
22. CONFIRM ASSESSMENT ROLL: SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT
SK-4281.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gibson , who moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 79-428
A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE SIDEWALK
IMPROVEMENT IN SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE SIDEWALK
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT H-4281 AND REMOVING ALL
PENDING LIENS FOR THIS IMPROVEMENT NOT HEREBY
CERTIFIED.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here
in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gordon,
adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Gordon,' Rev. Gibson, Mr. Lacasa and Vice -Mayor Plummer.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Mayor Ferre.
23. PERSONAL APPEARANCE: ATTORNEY GUY BAILEY REGARDING ENDING
LITIGATION PENDING BEFORE THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
REGARDING BALL POINT.
Mr. Plummer: Item #5, Mr. Guy Bailey regarding continuing litigation on the
Ball Point Property. Mr. Bailey?
Mr Bailey: Mr. Vice -Mayor, I am here in response to request for Mr. Knox to
appear before you and explain to you where we are. I can do that I think very
briefly. If you will look before you I have now given you some sets of printed
items that were served before... almost all of them have been already been
given to you once, but if you will mind just turning in the larger one, the
thicker one to page number 4, you will see there on one page a caption called
"questions presented". Now, "questions presented" were the three items that
we in our legal judgement submitted to the United States Supreme Court. Now,
you may recall that we were here and we had a lot of discussion about how long
it would take them to Yule and what was the normal procedure. We presented
this petition and the other side had a right to file a motion and we had a
right to file a response to that motion and we filed that response April 17th.
Three weeks later from the date of the last filing by us the Court set down
on a conference two hundred case on the agenda. They had approximately five
hours scheduled that day and we computed that out to be three hundred minutes
and there were two hundred items and we got a minute and a half consideration.
I learned of this because both the AP and the UPI called me several days
before and I as a result of those phone calls called the Clerk's Office and
learned that we were down on that agenda item and that we going to be there
in three weeks when the filing and we would have a minute and a half. The
Clerk, I understood in an informal and off the record sense, told me that they
were in the process of clearing their agenda because the Court term ends on
June 30th and they had finished their oral arguements and they were now dealing
with great masses of cases. .So exactly how long they spent on this case
on that day I do not know, but I do know the average per case on that particular
Thursday by the Court was a minute and a half. Now,... and they issued an order
gl.
JUNE 25, 1979.
W
not finding that we were right or finding that we were wrong, but finding
that there was not in their judgement, a substantial federal question. Well,
we went back to the drawing boards and we thought we had a substantial federal
question. We.... if you see to the right on page five the several items that
we thought were being violated, I might say that all of the things that were
predicted in here as being raised against us, none of them were raised by the
our opponents in the Court. They raised the claim that the City was estopped
because it had sat for so long without moving which is not the ground that
had been ruled on and was not really a federal issue or a defense to the fact
that there was a federal issue. The rules provide the right of any appellant
to petition for rehearing. You also have in this little packet, also white
page, it's very small, it says appellant petition for rehearing and if you
look in there you can see it's about three pages long. You can see that we
have raised two other questions. Now, those questions were really part of the
ones we had raised before but they were not expressly delineated. It didn't
say there is here a question of sovereignty lana and there is here a question
of ignoring of a Federal Statute that quick claimed this particular property
to the City of Miami in 1953. So although we in our judgement felt it was
pretty clear we had Federal Questions the first time, they thought not to the
extent they thought at all and we have now restated our questions. These
were issues raised before, not ruled upon by any expression by the Court in
Florida, but rejected by silence. They are properly before the United States
Supreme Court. They are both recitations of things that are Federal Questions.
Now, we think this... and I might say one other thing responding if I can, if
they Commission will permit me to do so, to the suggestion by at least one
newspaper that I have ulterior motives here on page five of that petition for
a rehearing. There is my certificate which I have signed as a member of the.
Bar of the United States Supreme Court, that this rehearing is presented in
good faith and not for delay. I signed that and I value my right to practice
before the United States Supreme Court. I would not have signed it had it not
been in good faith. I say to you here that it is in good faith. I am a lawyer
and I am pursuing a legal case. I think that we haven't got anybody to hear
us. I have asked them in a different way, may be this time somebody will
spend more than a minute and a half. Now, I hope this as a practical matter,
they have new Clerks every year and there is a turn over in Clerks. Over the
Summer Clerks review things like this. I hope that a new Clerk or somebody
new or somebody taking the time other than a minute and a half will see that
perhaps the City is right and has been divested of what could be several hundred
millions of dollars worth of property. I hope that, I do not know that. Now,
there has been another question to me which I wasn't able to answer the other
day and I double checked it. We have called the Clerk's Office twice trying to
get two different Clerks up there so that we weren't just getting somebody's
opinion. We have been told that this petition for rehearing is not on the
Court's agenda for the conclusion of it's June 30, 1979 term. It will not be
considered by the United States Supreme Court according to the Clerk's Office,
before the Court resumes or starts it's new term on October 1 of this year.
So there will be no action on this until the Fall. I believe the grounds are
good, I believe the City's position is correct and I think you should allow
me to proceed with this on your behalf and I do this for the very good reason
that I think the City's position is correct. I do not believe despite the
recitation of the Courts that we have been before that we have gotten more
than one Court to look -At it and that was Florida's Supreme Court and I was
simply unable to over come the impact of the Governor and the Attorney General
and the phosphate industries and the Florida Bar, as well as opposing Counsel
in that case. The case that was decided by the Florida Supreme Court against
the City is in my judgement the only one like it in the history of the United
States. It's the only one that allows a statute retroactively to divest a
fee simple title owner of his property without notice, without a hearing. And
I cannot help but believe that if somebody will sit down and look at this in
the calmness of perhaps the Summer or perhaps the Fall when they are not trying
to clear a docket, that somebddy might just possibly tumble to the fact that
the City has a good claim to this property, has ownership of this property
and it should keep it. That's why I filed a rehearing, that's when I understand
it will be considered by the Court and I guess that's the end of my report.
Mr. Plummer: Thank you, Mt. Bailey. Anyone else wish to comment? For the
record your name, your address and who you represent.
Mr. Aurell: Mr. Vice -Mayor and members of the Commission, my name is John
Aurell and I'm an attorney with the Mahoney, Hadlow and Adams firm here in
Miami. I represent today as I have represented before you before, Holleywell
1
MM
gl.
SI.
JUNE 25, 1979.
Corporation and it's President Mr. Gould, who are the developers of the Ball
Point Project and who as of this Friday, we hope will own that property. Now,
I hope you all will listen to me very, very, carefully because at least to us
and I believe to the City of Miami this is a very, very, important matter. You
are going to decide again tonight whether the Ball Point Project is built or is
not built and I want you to understand that. I apologize on behalf of Mr.
Gould who cannot be here because he has to be in New York and is in New York
in connection with the loan transactions which are substantial, which involve
the development of the Ball Point Project. I want you to know that it is our
position tonight as it has been before when we have discussed this matter,
that if you the City decide that it is in the best interest of the City to
proceed with this petition for rehearing, then you of course, should do so.
And we would urge you to do so. What I am here to tell you tonight and I want
to explain it to you and I hope you will take me seriously, because I want you
to understand in the process of making your decision the consequence of deciding
to proceed with a petition for rehearing as far as it concerns the Ball Point
Project. Mr. Bailey alluded at the end of his comments to where the matter
now stands. I want to be more specific about that. We are not parties to that
lawsuit. Obviously, we are very interested in it and we have followed it.
We have a closing set to acquire this property from Saint Joe Paper Company
this Friday. We where therefore, in touch with their attorneys about the
closing and indeed whether there will be a closing. On the last day... Mr.
Bailey, on the City's behalf filed a petition for rehearing of the Supreme
Courts dismissal of the City's appeal. That means, ladies and gentlemen, that
to this point twenty judges have considered this case. All but the U. S.
Supreme Court have considered it twice, I believe. One Circuit Judge, three
Judges of the Third District Court of Appeal, seven Judges of the Florida
r.- Supreme Court sitting in bank. In each case with a full petition for rehearing.
And now nine Judges of the United States Supreme Court, that means twenty
Judges have found the City's case to be without merit. Not one dissent
has been voiced, not one. The petition for rehearing was filed late. The
U.S. Supreme Court by rule, by habit, by tradition all of us lawyers know and
by the way, I too am a member of the Bar of the United States Supreme Court,
goes on Summer adjournment, Summer recess. It will go July 2nd. I does not
reconvene until October. Things filed at the end of the year are either
disposed of by the end of the year or else they are carried over. They are
rolled over until the October term and nothing happens to it in between. What
has happened to the petition for rehearing as is Mr. Bailey indicated to you,
is that the Court couldn't get to it by the end of this term and therefore, has
put it on it's Summer calendar which means that it will not be considered until
October. I have been advised by the attorney representing Saint Joel Paper
Company that Mr. Rodack the Clerk of the United States Supreme Court advised
him that in the last five years not one petition for rehearing as been granted
by the United States Supreme Court. I don't know that on my own authority,
what I do know and what I think any lawyer will tell you is in any event, the
chances of one being granted, assuming it was right and wonderful are slim to
none. The economic effect of delaying this project until October are so
profound that the project will be killed. It will not be built, there will
be no closing Friday. We cannot close Friday, we will not be able to build
the project for the following reasons. In order to close the contract that
we have with the Saint Joe Paper Company requires that we be given good and
marketable title and that it be insured. We cannot get good and marketable
title with this technical cloud or defect. This petition pending. It's a
matter of record. It's a matter of Court record affecting or purporting to
affect the title to the property. Our title insurer has adviced us that it
will not insure over this petition for rehearing. We have substantial loan
commitments, the first one of which is required in order to acquire the
property this Friday. Our lenders will not lend us the money without the
title insurance and without further insurance, an opinion of their counsel
that there are no problems with the title. This technical matter pending
means that we cannot close the acquisition of the property on Friday, June
29th. That is the closing date. There are no extension provided. We either
get good and marketable title with the title insurance on Friday or we don't
get it. We cannot borrow the money to build the project with this matter pending
and if we can't borrow the money to build the project, we obviously cannot
build it. Furthermore, we have commitment amounting to one hundred twelve
and one half million dollars that will expire before the Fall term commences
in the U.S. Supreme Court. Those commitments are for some certain under
established conditions which have been taken into consideration in going
f.orward with the plans to'build the project. We won't have those commitments"
by October. There is no doubt. in my mind end I don't think there is any
doubt in any attorney's mind and I urge you to ask your City Attorney and
any other attorneys you want to, that this petition for rehearing is absolutely
frivolous it will be denied in October when the Court gets to it. We sat
gl.
82
JUNE 25, 1979.-
here and told you before if you will recall that the U. S. Supreme Court in
our judgement and it turned out also in the Judgement of the special counsel
you retained and I am here telling you "I told you so", would dismiss the appeal
in the first place for no substantial Federal Question. We told you then, we
were right. We are telling you now there is just no doubt that it's going to
be denied when the Court gets to it. Mr. Bailey knows that too. Our commitments
will expire. Construction cost are going up at an enormous rate. If nothing
else, even if we had the money in our pocket and owned the property a delay
until October would increase the cost of this project between one and a half
and two million dollars a month. I have told you that before. I will tell it
to you again, it makes it a different matter. So for all those reasons, if
we cannot close this Friday and go forward with the project which this Commission
approved unanimously on May 24th at the hearing concerning the development of
regional impact. Then there is going to be no project. I will remind
you of what this project will mean to the City of Miami and it's citizens and
this I think has been pointed out to you before, but I say it again because it
is so important. Just the fees for the various permits that are involved in
building this project. Building permit fees, water and sewer fees, etc., will
mean about one million dollars in revenues to this City. When the Ball Point
Project is completed it will mean approximately four and one half million
dollars a year in advalorem taxes. The hotel alone will employ over one
thousand people. There will be three thousand people working in the office
building.
Mr. Plummer: John, hold it, excuse me. You know, I don't mind sitting here
listening to that speaking to the point. I don't feel those issues that you
are now raising is really the consideration by this Commission. The consideration
is to whether or not Mr. Bailey has done and acted as the Commission would
want into pursuing this suit or to drop it. Now, I don't feel that it is
fair at this point to dangle before this Commission, here is what you are
going to lose in dollars, because this City did not take this lawsuit on
dollars. We took it on the fact of trying to keep it for public land. Now,
unless over ruled by the Commission, I will rule your comments as to what this
City would benefit as to dollars at of order. If I'm over ruled, so be it.
And I would ask you to continue in any vein that you wish as to the legality
of continuing or dropping the suit.
Mr. Aurell: Mr. Vice -Mayor, I accept your admonition and I will proceed no
further along that line. My point was and is that you have before you the
decision as to whether you wishto go further with this project. Whether it
goes forward or it doesn't go forward. Now, I am not going to get into the
legalities of Mr. Bailey's lawsuit. It is not my lawsuit, it is the City's
lawsuit Vis-A-Vi Saint Joe Paper Company. It has a phenomenal effect on us
and I just want you to know and take and have full understanding and it seems
to me that part of the full understanding was the information I was passing on
to you. If that's out of order, then it's out of order.
Mr. Plummer: Now, I feel a comment which I allowed you make that if we continue
the suit that the project as of Friday would be stopped, I think that's an
order. And I think that's not a threat, I think it's a legitimate statement
to make. But the issue before this Commission today is whether or not Mr.
Bailey has done what this Commission would want in filing for a rehearing
and I would ask you to keep your comments to that.
Mr. Aurell: My comments are essentially concluded Mr. Vice -Mayor and again,'`I
simply say enough is enough. We sincerely hope that it will the the decision
and instruction of the City Commission to withdraw the petition for rehearing.
If it is not withdrawn before Friday, we can't close. Thank you.
Mr. Plummer: Just for the record and very clear and concise and no question
terms. What you are indicating on behalf of your client Mr. Gould if the
suit continues beyond Friday, that he in fact will cancel the project. Is...
Mr. Aurell: Mr. Vice -Mayor, I am here and will try to quote my client's words
to me as exactly as I can. Mr. Gould asked me to make a very strong statement
to this. Commission that an action which would permit this lawsuit to continue
beyond Friday would kill the project.
Mr. Plummer: Thank you, sir. Do you have anything
Mr. Plummer: Alright, Mr. Bailey, you have rebuttal. No, I will recognize
him later and I won't deny him the right under standard operating procedures.
Mr. Bailey: I would_ like to tell you something very carefully and have you
listen to me very, very, carefully because I consider it very, very important.
Mr. Plummer: Well, I'm happy to tell you for the last thirty minutes we
could hear a pin drop in this room contrary to what has occurred earlier in
the day.
Mr Bailey: I"do not believe this lawsuit is absolutely frivolous, I do not
know that. I do not know how Mr. Aurell knows that I know something that I
do not know. I do not know why Mr. Aurell and Mr. Gould and the Chamber of
Commerce and the Miami Herald have chosen to attack me personally on this.
resent it, I deny it. If Mr. Aurell thinks he knows that Mr. Aurell is
sadly mistaken. I do not know what Mr. Rodack said to Mr. Myers who said to
Mr. Aurell. I do know that Mr. Gould came in here and escalated the million
dollars a month to two million dollars a month in the course of about five
minutes in one of these hearings. I do know that he did not say to this
Commission that his key tenant was going to be the Southeast National Bank
Corporation, which now is not only not going to be his tenant, but is going to
be his competitor. I do know that he did not mention that there was going to
be another project four blocks away. I do know that he has been less than
candid if his lawyers have been giving you his message with this Commission.
I am willing to deal with the public record of my statements and test their
candor against those that have been made to this Commission. Not two hours
ago Mr. Aurell-- may be it was five hours ago, at sometime this afternoon
Mr. Aurell was saying you might not close if you pass that ordinance. The
point I have been making to you, is that Mr. Gould does not own the property,
but when he did contract to buy it he announced publicly that he was not in the
least bit worried about this lawsuit. Vice -Mayor Plummer asked him that when
he came here and got the answer "yes" that he had said that. The press has
quoted him and I do not assure this Commission that the press is accurate
because I have recently been at least quoted by omission in the Miami Herald.
But the press has quoted him as saying that he had gotten some kind of insurance
and just wasn't worried about this. Now, in point of fact, I recommended to the
Mayor and I recommended to the City Attorney and I recommended to this Commission
that the City of Miami enter into a contract with Mr. Gould and his company
to be bound by his contract and let him proceed. And it was Mr. Gould and Mr.
Aurell for reasons never explained, for legal reasons never given, who chose
not to do that. Now, Mr. Gould has chosen not to have this title clear as
far as his project was concerned. He has chosen to do that, not this Commission
and certainly not me. Now, once he is chosen to do that I don't think that
he should be coming in here and saying this Commission is going to be responsible
if there is a failure. Can the Commission take credit for the fact if there
has been a drop in the prime rate since the start of the year? I don't know,
I don't know about all of those variables. I am not opposed to this project,
that's not my... you have never asked me about that and I have no concern
whatever with this project. Although, personally I would like to see the park
extended down there which everybody said they wanted to do, but the point is
that you have been told one scare tactic after another for six months about
this lawsuit. Now, Mr. Vice -Mayor, let me get back to what you said. I did
not perceive when I filed a motion for rehearing and I was quoted accurately,
that I had to come back and get permission to do that. I did not perceive
that I was doing what the Commission might vote or not vote on at the time.
I have been employed by this Commission by a former resolution to proceed with
this lawsuit. You are the client, you can discharge me or stop the lawsuit
any time you want, that's the law. But as a lawyer, I have proceeded with this
lawsuit according to what I was ordered to do officially and I'm going to
continue to do that until you order me officially to stop which is you right at
any time. I think it's a bad idea, I think that the twenty Judges who have
supposedly ruled on this have never given any consideration to it. I do know
that I have written legal arguements and written legal briefs that have not
been answered by the opposing parties in this matter and that were silent
by the Courts so far. I do not believe that a Court has addressed the points
that I have raised. I don't think that twenty Judges or a single Judge has
ever addressed these things and if twenty Bishops had done it, preceding this
Father Gibson, I would say you the same thing, they haven't looked at it
yet. And I think that there is a chance and it's slim and it's always been
a less than even chance in this lawsuit that they will do it if you give them
a chance over the Summer time. But I can't play the numbers game, I do not
84
know. But I do know that anybody who tells you that he knows I filed a friv-
olous motion for rehearing is a liar and I did not file a frivolous motion
for rehearing. I think it has merit and I know no such thing that the court
will deny it. I hope that somebody someday in this proceeding will listen and
read the words on the paper there and see that the City has lost a lot of land
by the passage of a thirty year statute that would apply it retroactively and
didn't tell you that they were going to take your land by it. And that's the
essence of a lawsuit and I still think it's good and I think if anybody looks
at it, which I don't think anybody has at least in Washington, that they'll
rule for you. End of rebuttal.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Bailey, speaking for one, and I would let the rest of the
Commission express their opinion, that I for one would expect you to operate
under the same procedures as the City Attorney operates and that is an auto-
matic filing of an appeal which doesn't placate our right to drop it at a later
time and I would assume under that you did, in fact, do as the City Attorney,
and that is file your appeal and then bring it to this Commission. So I don't
find fault with that, that is the automatic procedure of the Law Department and
it's rightfully now before this Commission. Mr. Jaffer, do you wish to com-
ment, sir?
Mr. Joel Jaffer: Yes. Joel Jaffer, 3268 Mary Street. I brought litigation
against the City and against Hoileywell in the Appellate Division of Circuit
Court contesting the approval of the order authorizing the Development of Reg-
ional Impact and to the best of my knowledge a motion to dismiss was denied so
at least one judge has considered the merits of the protest for this develop-
ment worthy of consideration and I wholly empathize with Mr. Bailey that the
court system hasn't even heard his points of argument that he has presented
and I would urge the Commission to authorize him to go ahead. And also, by
means of this lawsuit the Ball Point Project is in a lot of trouble anyway and
also by the things earlier this afternoon and inasmuch as the Commission shouldn't.
listen to a threat, it isn't even that good of a threat because he may not make'
it anyway so for these reasons I think you should let him go ahead and I'm also
very happy to hear that this thing won't be closed on Friday, just speaking for
a group of citizens and for myself.
Mr. Plummer:. Mr. Aurell, do you wish to comment?'
Mr. John Aurell: Mx. Vice -Mayor, Mr. Jaffer made a mis-statement, I'm sure he
didn't intend to but I would like to clarify it for the record. I believe this
past Thursday, because_I have a copy of the opinion, the court dismissed Mr.`_
jaffer's appeal.
Mr. Plummer: Would you send him a copy?
Mr. Aurell:, I -would be happy, the opinion recites that the court sent him'a,:
copy. I will wind up by saying, every court in the land that has a right to
review Mr. Bailey's appeal has seen it, has ruled on it and hasruled against
him unanimously.
Mr. Plummer: Anyone of the public wish to further discuss the matter? I''11
close the public portion of thisand ask for discussion among the Commission.
and then your pleasure. Don't everybody speak at once. What is the pleasure
of the Commission? What is the pleasure of the Commission?
Mr. Lacasa: Mr. Vice -Mayor, I understand there was a resolution passed by this
City Commission where the date of June 30th I think it was, June 30th of this
year was set to continue or discontinue litigation on this particular case based
on the fact that we felt that after that particular date Ball Point and all of
its implications for the City were in danger. That date has passed, chances to
me- and you know, Mr. Bailey, what my position originally was on this - seems
as slim as ever and, therefore, in view of that, I am going to move that liti-
gation be discontinued.
Mr. Plummer: Motion to discontinue litigation, is there a second? Is there a
second? Is there a second? Reserving the right to possibly second the motion,
Mr. Knox, I would ask your opinion.
Mr. Knox: It is very difficult to predict what the Supreme Court will do I
can I think say with very little equivocation that there is virtually no chance
that the Supreme Court will reverse it's decision and take jurisdiction of this
question.
rt
JUNE 25, 1979.
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Knox, you're not speaking loud enough, I can't hear you.
Mr. Knox: Even though it is difficult to predict what the Supreme Court may
do, I can say with very little equivocation that there is virtually no chance
that the Supreme Court will reverse itself and take jurisdiction over this
question. Again, there is a right provided in the rules for a rehearing of the
matter where the court has made a decision. To the extent that it conforms to
the rules the petition for rehearing is proper but again, by virtue of the slim
likelihood that the court would hear this matter when it was originally pres-
ented to them the likelihood is even much more slim to the point, perhaps, of
nonexistence that they would favorably consider the matter at any time in the
future and Mr. Lacasa is correct to the best of my recollection, that the reso-
lution which authorized Mr. Bailey to proceed with a petition to the Supreme
Court was conditioned, if you will, on a determination by the Supreme Court
prior to some time in June and the Supreme Court has made its initial determin-
ation already.
Mr. Plummer: So what you're saying is you feel the chances of a hearing are
almost nonexistent.
Mk. Knox: Yes, sir.
Mr. Plummer: Okay. The motion asI understand it is to drop the lawsuit.
For the purposes, one more time, is there a second? I then hand the gavel to
Mrs. Gordon and second the motion. In doing so, let me state that in effect
I made the statement which I lived up to that I was willing and wanted to wait
until such time as the court had the chance to review the matter and report
back to this Commission or made their findings. I feel the court has made
their findings, I know for one who originally was in the lawsuit that from the
inception that our chances were nill but we still had to take the chance and
I think we have taken the chance, I think we have fought the good battle and
I don't see that there would be any change and based upon that I second the
motion. Under discussion?
Mrs. Gordon: I would like to speak now to the motion and I guess probably more
than anyone here this evening I guess maybe I feel the most deeply concerned
with what is happening here tonight for the reason being that the suit origin-
ated with research that I was involved in and carried through a number of years
way back since 1973 or 74 - I'm not sure whether it was 73 or 74. What was it
Bailey? 74. And I sit here today facing the reality of a situation which as
much as I don't like the reality of the situation I'm going to face the reality
of the situation and that reality is that the City stands to lose a great deal
by proceeding further on an ify, which it is, our chances as even Mr. Bailey
admits are very slim and I would not have done this three months ago, two months
ago whenever it was we voted on this prior to today but I'm going to go with
the motion and I'm going to tell you that considerations that have gone though
my mind while I'm making that decision now and one of those was the numbers that
you didn't state completely but which you did state sufficiently for me to add
up that $4,000,000 or $5,000,000 is at stake in the first year of operation by
way of tax returns and that the maximum that we could anticipate I feel in gain-
ing from a winning suit which has such a slim possibility of happening is approx-
imately two years or less, a year and a half perhaps, of that sum that we're go-
ing to lose. So I think that bearing that in mind, adding up the numbers, that
we have to look forward to and multiply the returns to the City over a period
of a great number of years that the return will be coming in from taxes and
other revenues generated by that development. I sadly go along with the motion.
Mr. Plummer: Any further discussion, Father?
Rev. Gibson: Mr. Vice -Mayor, I find myself in a quandry. I don't understand,
I don't know. Mr. Lacasa said something that bothered me, that we agreed to
hold out this lawsuit through June. Isn't that right?
Mr. Plummer: Father, it was my understanding as the recollection of the Commis-
sion that if the Supreme Court did not act one way or the other by the end of
June that we would. That was my understanding.
Rev. Gibson All right, if you'll show me the record I'll keep my word.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Bailey, do you recall?
Mr. Bailey::
Mrs. Gordon:'` What was that, Father, I'm sorry I: didn't hear you
JUNE 25, 1979.
rt
Rev. Gibson: My concern is Mr. Lacesa said we agreed to pursue this case
through June. If we made that commitment I believe I have to live with the
commitment. If we didn't make that commitment I'm for going, I'm for trying
again because I want to utilize every possibility but I don't want anybody to
tell me, I want the record to read. See, because it all depends on which side
of the fence you're on. I want the record to read, read a motion was passed,
Mr. Bailey is saying no and some of us are saying yes, a motion was passed, and>
my brother the Clerk, read it.
Mr. Ongie: I'll have to get the exact motion.
Rev. Gibson: That's right, that's what
Mr. Ongie: Do you want to recess for a couple of minutes while I go find it?
Rev. Gibson: I have no objection. You know what they tell me? Black and white
don't lie.
Mr. Plummer: Okay, we'll hold this in abeyance until the motion can be brought
to Father. Mr. Bailey, if you'll have a seat, and we'll now go to Item #6.
24. PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF MR. F. WARREN O'REILLY, CHOPIN
FOUNDATION TO REQUEST SUPPORT FOR AMERICAN NATIONAL
QUINQUENNIAL CHOPIN COMPETITION.
Mr. Plummer: We'll now go to Item #6, Mr. Warren O'Reilly, President of the
Chopin Foundation, requesting City support for American National Quinquennial
Chopin Competition.
Mr. F. Warren O'Reilly: Thank you, Mr. Vice -Mayor, I am for the record F. War-
ren O'Reilly, a resident of the City of Miami, 2950 S.W. 3rd Avenue. I have
provided through the City Manager I believe copies of our most recent newsletter
of the organization, our membership information folder and a fact sheet about
the competition itself. For the benefit of those who are unaware, the word
quinquennial is every 5 years in the Latin, annual being 1, biennial, triennial,
quadrennial, quinquennial and so we have to do something fancy every now and
then and it is a lot better than having to say the every five years competition.
The every five years Chopin competition in Warsaw is the oldest in the history
of music competitions and in 1975 the American Institute of Polish Culture and
theUniversity of Miami conducted the first American Chopin Competition. Fortun-
e ately, the young man who came in first place on that occasion was the only Amer-
ican to win a prize in Warsaw and when the question of continuation came up it
was decided to form a permanent organization and I was asked to head that organ-
ization and it has been in existence only since 1977. The next American National
Chopin Competition occurs in March of 1980 and it will be the number one music
competion for Americans in the United States. We have already received 300
requests for applications from young performers in 47 states who wish to come
here and compete. They wish to come here because they are not only going to
receive prize money and their round trip to Poland to compete on behalf of the
United States in the International Chopin Competition but because we are provid-
ing for them something which no other international competition has ever done,
as you know, government's of other countries support their artists, their olympic
athletes or whatever in a very lavish manner. This country doesn't follow that
tradition. So we have obtained for our prize winners between the time they win
here in March and the time they go to Warsaw to represent us performances in
many parts of the country and it is the acquisition of these professional per-
formances that I have put together which makes our competition so immensely at-
tractive to them and it is also what gives this competition its tremendous im-
portance. Part of it, of course, is the fact that we have chosen a blue ribbon
jury of very distinguished people, the names are there in the literature before
you, part of it is the fact is that we are a major competition because we are
using the Florida Philharmonic for both nights of two nights of finals with the
finalists, accompanying them in their required concertos and no other competition
in the world whether the Chopin in Warsaw or the Tchaikovsky in Moscow or the
Cliburn in Fort Worth, none of them have more than two nights with orchestra so
we're already in world class right there. And, of course, finally we are able
to provide the performances. As a matter of fact, I was very happy you could
see me today because I plan to leave town tomorrow to visit 20 more music festi-
vals and get more performances because I have exhausted the number I could obtain
rt
87
JUNE 25, 1979.-
by picking up the telephone by calling friends and people that I know. We al-
ready have the Kennedy Center in Washington, Rice University in Houston, Rutgers
University in New Jersey, the Curtis Institute of Music in Philaldelphia having
performances for our prize winners, the Aspen Summer Music Festival, Chautauqua,
Ambler, Pennsylvania, Newport, Rhode Island, Spoleta U.S.A., the International
Music Camp at Interlochen, Michigan and a great many others are in prospect.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. O'Reilly, let me try if I can get to the bottom line. It is.
my understanding that you are requesting of this Commission a $153,000 grant
to put on this....
Mr. O'Reilly: No, sir, you have seen, merely our total budget,
this Commission for that sum of money.
Mr. Plummer: A11 right, sir, what are you asking of us?
Mr. O'Reilly: All right, let me get down to this. We have been endorsed unan-
imously by the Dade County Council of Arts and Sciences, by the Chamber of Com-
merce Executive Committee and Business Development Committee. I was going to
tell you further that when these young people perform at all of these music
festivals around the country they are carrying the name of Miami all over the
United States.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. O'Reilly, exactly the point I was trying
you're asking this Commission I'm sure for a dollar grant.
Mr. O'Reilly: Yes,
budget.
I'm asking for $5,000 now and $10,000 in next
Mr. Plummer: All right, sir. Now, my question immediately to you, sir, this
community, Dade County, has, in fact, passed a resort tax for those inoneys to
be used for promotion. Now it would seem logical to me that your first appeal
would be that area in which the revenues are being generated for tourist pro-
motion and my question is have you applied?
Mr. O'Reilly: Yes. Now, let me expand on this. The last Van Cliburn Competi-
tion which was the fifth edition in 1977 cost considerably in excess of its
budget which was $250,000, it ran 12.5% over budget. The Cliburn Competition
was able to raise all of these funds from private sources and was not obliged
to go to the public. Our organization is too new. Ten years from now, five
years from now we will not have to go to public funds but at this stage of
our development we will have to because we are still new and we are not on the
list of foundations and businesses in the community and we have to raise an
enormous amount of money in a very short period of time in order to produce
this thing. Channel 2 will be making, by the way, a one hour special which
will be very similar to the one that you may have seen on Channel 2 of the
Cliburn Competition, it was made in 1977 which has had three reruns already on
PBS. They will be producing one right here in Miami which will carry the story
of our competition here all around the United States for the next five years.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. O'Reilly, has the TDC given you an answer?
Mr. O'Reilly: I will tell you what we have received so far. The City of Coral
Gables
Mr. Plummer: Mr. O'Reilly, my question is very simple,
you a decision?
Mr. O'Reilly: They have recommended that we receive a grant but that has not
yet been passed upon and will not be passed upon for some months yet.
Mrs. Gordon: On your list of anticipated sources of income....
Mr. O'Reilly: That anticipated sources of income list which you have is one
that I had prepared six months ago but I am afraid I have had to revise my
estimates on the basis of experience. I do not believe that we are going to
get the quantity of funds from the business community that I had thought we
would receive. Let me tell you what I have received so far.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. O'Reilly, excuse me, sir, I will infer my privilege of rank..
Sir, I have to tell you and I've tried to tell you and let you down easy but
obviously I cannot, sir. The answer is regardless of how good your presenta-
tion is at this time the Manager has inferred there is no way, we do not have
the money. Now, if that is the casir, I think (1) you should redouble your
JUNE 25, 1979.-
1111111111111111111111111111
rt
efforts before the TDC and (2) what I think you must be asking of this.Commis-
sion since we have no dollars, is to recommend a resolution to the TDC urging
their passage. But Mr. O'Reilly, there is nothing this Commission, if the
Manager is sitting here as he has and indicated to me that he has no dollars
left in the Quality of Life fund there are no dollars.
Mr. O'Reilly: Now let me answer you in this respect: (1) The City of Coral
Gables has in March given us $1,500 and promised to include us for a substant-
ially larger amount in their budget. The Dade County Commission'lhas given us
$2,500 and we have been recommended for as much as $20,000 from the Tourist Tax
money. Now, the City of Miami is the one community which is going to really
reap the benefits from this whole thing because the winners are going to carry
the name of Miami around the United States. It's not going to be recorded that
they've won the Chopin Competition in Coral Gables or the Chopin Competition
in Dade County but the Chopin Competition in Miami, it is this City and I am
requesting three things from this City: $5,000 out of the current year,
$10,000 out of next year's budget and the same in -kind services from the Tour-
ism Promotion Office that I received when we had the Ives Festival in 1974.
Mr. Plummer: What is the pleasure of the Commission?
Mr. O'Reilly: Those are the three things I'm requesting from this Commission.
Mrs. Gordon: How much did Dade County give you?
Mr. O'Reilly:. Dade County gave me only $2,500 because they were waiting for
the Tourist Tax money to take up.
0 Mr. Plummer:
Mrs. Gordon:
Where it rightfully should come from.
What about Miami Beach, what did they give you?
Mr. O'Reilly: Miami Beach has not been approached for one reason, two reasons,
I'm sorry. The first reason is that we are not able to conduct any of.the
events of the competition on Miami Beach so far, we have not been able to find
a way to, there is no music hall over there which could function in, there was
no way that we could have any other function over these except the welcoming
party for the contestants when they arrive and that party when all the 40 con-
testants draw for their order of performance is not going to be on Miami Beach,
it is being given by Mayor Ferre at his home since he is one of the honorary
patrons. The honorary patrons include Governor Graham who will preside at the
prize giving ceremonies at Dade County Auditorium on March 15th, Senator Chiles,
all three of the Dade County Congressmen, Mayor Clark, Mayor Ferre and we have
also asked Mayor Haber although we have not been able to have any event that
we could have on the Beach. The other reason why we have not been able to do
anything on the beach has been the chaos within TDA and it's directorage which
I'm sure you're familiar with and there's not a thing I can do about the Beach
situation at this time but I think it is rather notable that the City of Coral
Gables which does not customarily fund things like this has kicked in and has
promised us more money and....
Mrs. Gordon: How much?
Mr. O'Reilly: They gave us $1,500 and they promised us at least $5,000 in their
coming budget and this is rather remarkable for the City of Coral Gables and
it is true the University of Miami is in Coral Gables and the first four days
of auditions will be there but it is not the City of Coral Gables or Dade County
which is going to really reap the publicity benefits from this over the years.
Mr. Plummer: Hearing no motion from the Commission, the Chair will instruct
the Manager to take this matter under consideration and to report back to this
Commission if you can find any funds for this very worthwhile endeavor in be-
half of the City of Miami. That's all I can do, sir, I can't get blood out of
a turnip. I'll ask once again if there is anyone of the Commission who wishes
to make a motion, if not the ruling of the Chair will stand. Mr. O'Reilly, if
you will keep in contact with Mr. Grassie he can keep you apprised of what he
is trying to do. Thank you, sir.
rt
JUNE 25, 1979.-
25. CONTINUED DISCUSSION - FORMAL ORDER TO ATTORNEY GUY
BAILEY TO WITHDRAW PENDING APPEAL CONCERNING BALL
POINT PROPERTY.
Mr. Plummer: We'll go back to Item *5. Father, do you now have ,a copy of the
motion?
Rev. Gibson: I don't have a copy, I'd like to ask the Clerk to read the record.
Mr. Ongie: The last time this action came before the City Commission was March
22nd. After considerable discussion, Mr. Lacasa made a motion which was a sub-
stitute motion. It says, "My substitute motion would be that we continue the
case until June and if by June the Supreme Court has not taken a decision as to
whether or not they will accept the case that it be dropped at that time but
when we take this action now, and the reason is this, we have the developers
here and I think that we owe it to them to give them the final word as of today
what they can expect" That motion failed by a vote of 3 to 2, it was made by
Mr. Lacasa, it was seconded by Mayor Ferre, Father Gibson, Mrs. Gordon and Vice
Mayor Plummer voted against it. The only motion that passed was Motion No.
79-200, March 22nd. It is a motion declaring the intent of the City Commission
to review the status of the litigation in the matter of the Ball Point property
at the first scheduled City Commission Meeting in June.,
Rev. Gibson:
010 Mr. Plummer:
Father.
Rev.
Gibson:.
Mrs. Gordon:
. Vice -Mayor, in the light of that I'm voting. Is that right?
Are we on the roll call?
I think we were asking for comments,
No, 'I think we want rollcall. Let's see, you voted didn't you?
We all did, everybody but you.
Mr. Plummer: M
Mr. Ongie:
. Clerk?
o, we had not
started
rollcall;
Mr. Plummer:, That is correct. Father, I solicited first Mrs. Gordon'scomments'
then I, solicited your's andthat's where we were, there wasnot rollcall.
Rev.
r Mr. Plummer: No,
Mr. Ongie:
didn't;; you?`
Mr. Plummer: It's immaterial, Father,
ready to vote.
if you've finished your comments we're
Rev. Gibson: Well, my position is I did not make a promise that I would not
proceed further. My position was, and I think it was the sense of the Commis-
sion that we would exhause every available remedy and we led the attorney in
that direction. That's why, note, you'lost your vote and I believe that morally
I'm bound since the ball game hasn't changed. If I had said that I would stop
it in June I'd stop in June, I didn't say that and the Counsel has reason to
believe that he could get them to listen and hear, Mr. Aurell says no. Well,
you know, until I hear no or yes any man's guess is good. I believe that since
the property belongs to the City - and further, let me tell you what really
bothers - it is said that we could contract - I don't want anybody to forget
that, that's one of the disadvantages of sending me to law school for a day -
we could contract to sell to the man, contract to sell to Mr. Gould if we get
it and since St. Joe has contracted to sell he can't lose, he can't lose because
we want to sell and St. Joe wants to sell. Isn't that right?
Mr. Plummer: Well Father, I'm not going to argue the point, I don't know that
we are wanting to sell. .1 think we are wanting to acquire so that we have the
right to make a decision as to whether we retain'. or sell.
Rev. Gibson: Well, I; promise you this, if I find out that I have the right to
own it there's no question about my willingness to sell and that is a` sworn
rt
90
JUNE 25, 1979.-
statement now - willingness to sell, and I just don't want St. Joe to be able
to sell without my challenge, they just have too doggone much around this state
nobody is willing to challenge and I believe for one time in my life as a na-
tive I'm willing to challenge them. I can't do anything with Florida East
Coast, they've kicked me around and about just like they wish. Do you know
what I mean? So this is the one time I could challenge. Okay, you know where
I am.
Mr. Plummer: Further discussion?
Mrs. Gordon: I find your comments, Father, I always enjoy listening to them anyway,
whatever he says I enjoy but I have to be very practical and this is a practical
matter. If, in fact, we go any further we won't have any Mr. Ball to sell to,
we're going to have to go looking around if we did get it for somebody else,
who knows when, how much money will we lose in the interim period of time in
lost revenue that we could have generated from one source or another? And with
all those practical things facing me I just can't be as idealistic about this
as I would want to be so that's why I'm going with the motion. .
Mr. Plummer: Without any further discussion, call the roll.
Mr. Ongie: You have the gavel, Mrs. Gordon.
Mr. Plummer: I'm'_sorry.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Lacasa who moved
its adoption:,
MOTION NO. 79-429
A MOTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION DIRECTING ATTORNEY GUY BAILEY,.;
COUNSEL FOR THE CITY IN THE BALL POINT LITIGATION, TO WITHDRAW
THE APPEAL PENDING BEFORE THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the motion was passed
adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Rose Gordon
Commissioner Armando Lacasa
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
NOES: .:Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson
ABSENT: Mayor Maurice A. Ferre.
Mr. Plummer: The vote passes three to one
to drop the lawsuit, sir.
r._Bailey, then you are instructed
Mr. Bailey: I assume, sir, you'd like for me to do that before Friday.
Mr. Plummer: I think in all fairness it would be presumed that it would be
such that we can proceed, as we said we're all dealing from a postion of good
faith, I think the full intent of this Commission is to allow Mr. Gould to pro-
ceed.
Mrs. Gordon: Toclose his deal so that we know for sure there's
closing.
Mr. Plummer: I don't know the mechanics of how long it takes
intent of this Coinznss1On
Mr. Bailey: No, sir, I canand,;I will have there before Friday or by Friday I`
will have a withdrawal and I. will make that representation to Mr. Gould's law-
yers.
Mr. Plummer: Thank you,
sir, it's on the record.`.
Mr. Bailey: And I appreciate the Commission's consideration for this and<,I ,
appreciate your hanging in there so long.
Rev. Gibson: Let me raise.a question, Okay? I want to do it just like they
did it. Counsel, what would happen if you all don't proceed? Suppose you walk
out of here and change your mind or suppose the finance institution says well,
brother Gould, I'm not so sure I want to let you have that money?
91
JUNE 25, 1979.-.
Mrs. Gordon: Well, I've got to tell you what I think it's going to be.
think he is going to lose a deposit.
Mr. Aurell: That's right, a big one. We intend to cose Friday, Father Gibson
ad we have a good faith deposit of a substantial amount up.
Rev. Gibson: No, I don't mean that. Suppose Mr. Gould decides -I just' want_.
to raise this question, you know since I'm not a lawyer - we go on andaynot
All right, Mr. Gould, Okay. Suppose he decides later on, it has happened
once not twice many times. Okay, what happens? Then the City, you know I'm
not trying to argue the case after the fact but I just want to raise this ques
tion. What happens?
Mr. Aurell: Father Gibson, that is not going to happen. You have heard Mr.
Gould here before this Commission, you have seen all that has been put into
this project. When we close this project, close the acquisition of Tract "D"
which is Ball Point Friday we will have spent an awful lot of money on that
property. It is only being acquired for one purpose and that is to build a
development thereon which was the subject of the DRI application which this
Commission approved. Mr. Gould intends to proceed as quickly as possible to `.
do what he said he would do and that's my statement..
Rev. Gibson: All right, I want to put mine in the record, I hope we'regoing
to get the project. You know I've been around an awful lot of time. Have you
ever heard about Boom Days? Were you around here in Boom Days?
Mr. Aurell:
Rev. Gibson:
Mr. Aurell:'
was not aroundhere in the Boom Days. you're referring to, Father.
wasn't around anywhere then.
REv. Gibson:_ Okay. 1 just want to make sure that you
not opposed to the project.
Mr. Aurell: I know you're not, sir.
Rev. Gibson: Mine is a matter of principle. I promised that I would look into
the matter come June, I had that right. You said that I won't be heard, he said
I will be heard, since I think at a point he is my lawyer so I think Ihaie aou
right to have him to pursue._ it. Now, if he is not heard then I say,
"Well,
e l , to
weren't heard" but the City Attorney that I pay a mighty doggone goodY
advise me has some doubts too that maybe - you know, I learned in law
school,
man, they change, their minds every day. Maybe they'll wake up this
and
they've got a bright new idea, that's why I'm taking the position I'm taking.
Mr. Aurell: I understand and appreciate what you're saying, Father Gibson, and
not to renew old ground, but I will point out for whatever comfort it gives you..
Mr. Plummer: Mr
Aurell, a smart man knows to quit when he's ahead.
Mr. Aurell: I just wanted to say that I appreciate the Commission's allowing
us to proceed with the projectandwe. intend to do that.
Rev. Gibson: Beautiful.
Mr. Plummer:
Ball Point?
rt
to comebefore this in reference to,
Vow
26. PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF JEROME BAIN TO DISCUSS CODE
SECTION 30-28 - COIN OPERATED MACHINES AND LICENSE
FEES.
Mr. Plummer: We'll now move to Item #7, Jerome Bain to discuss the City Code,
30-28 dealing with coin operated machines and licenses thereof.
Mr. Jerome Bain: Thank you, Mr. Vice -Mayor, I'm Jerome Bain, I reside in Coral
Gables but I do business in the City of Miami, have my office in the City of
Miami and I own considerable property in Miami.
My condolences, sir, that you don't live in the City.
Mr Bain: I need them. Something occurred to me the other day about a month
ago and I want to apologize because I wasn't here last month but the fact is
that I was not informed that I,was going to be on the agenda last month and
that's the reason I was not here. But one of the buildings that I have is an
apartment building that is a four unit building and I have two machines in there,
it's a washer and dryer used solely for the occupants of that building. These
machines are under lock and key and only the residents of that building have
keys to the room where those machines. These machines are coin operated so that
they can be regulated. If I didn't have them regulated somebody might want to
wash one shirt or one pair of socks so you've really got to make them pay for
it as they use it to regulate it. It's not a money making proposition because
I can tell you that what I charge which is about 350 each does not barely cover
the electricity and water but it is an inducement for my tenants to be there,
it's a convenience that they can afford to have there while they're living on
the premises. Now the thing that bugged me about this was that the way the tax
structure is on this you are forcing individuals who have small apartment build-
ings to have to do business with coin operators who are in the business of operat-
ing coin machines. Give you an example: As an individual as you have it now
you have them pay $47 per machine, the one time that is,so that a person who has
100 machines only pays that $47 but pays $2.00 or $1.00 per machine. What it
should be, and I'd like to suggest that the Commission consider the possibility
of charging a lower amount for the person going in business but more money per
machine. To, give you as a matter of comparison, the City of Coral Gables charges
$6.00 per machine so it does permit a person who has let's say 100 machines to
pay $600 whereas a person who has let's say two machines will pay $12. The way
you have it now you're forcing a person who only has 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 machines
to have to do business with a person that's in the business of machines. I'll
give you another comparable, I'm in the real estate business. How would you
like to have, or I'd like to have it, where the City Commission would require
$200 for anyone that puts up a sign to sell a house regardless of how many signs
that person puts up? You would force the residents, the individual to have to
deal with people in the real estate business. So this is what I'm trying to
suggest to you. I'm suggesting that you structure your tax so that a person is
not forced to do business with a coin operator of machines and that's my sugges-
tion.
Mr
. Gordon: Mr. Grassie, it's a reasonable request,'respond to, it, please.
Mr. Plummer: Mrs.Gordon, may I ask th
view to please place it on the record?
Mr. Grassie: Mr. Vice -Mayor and members of the City Commission, on the reverse
of the agenda item that you got from Mr. Bain we have a memorandum which was pre-
pared by the Finance Director commenting on this generally. The point that I
would make for you is that there are two things that we need to keep in mind.
I think Mr. Bain has a reasonable point that he is making and that is that there
should be some relationship between the fee paid and the number of profit making
machines in an operation. The other side of the coin is that the City has an
investment that it has to make in the regulatory process of issuing licenses
which is not directly in proportion to the number of machines involved in a
location. In other words, whether you have two machines that have to be licensed
or have a hundred, getting an inspector out there and issuing the license costs
some money and since it has been City Commission policy that the licensing proc-
ess be self-supporting we have to take that into consideration. What I'm saying
is that if it is your direction that we look at the fee structure we certainly
rt
would do it to see whether we're being fair to the person with very few machines
but we would also want to keep in mind the actual cost of doing business with
the City.
Mrs. Gordon: Also, when you're doing that analysis you'll note that there are
varying fees for other things which are much less than $47, in fact, there is
another area of service that is I believe only paying $15 for a license and
it's called a marriage counselor. Someone pointed that out to me and noted
that it was totally incorrect for something like that because you know a profes-
sional has a very high fee and this could be just anybody, you know, "I'm a
marriage counselor", 15 bucks and you've got a license and you can go out and
be involved. At any rate, I believe that all of our fee structures are prob-
ably inequitable, I'm not certain, but I believe that the license fee for attor-
neys is a very very low amount. I'm not sure, somebody tell me if it is $19
or if that's incorrect, but I believe it's a very low fee and we need to take
a look at the inequities that are contained therein, reduce where we have to
like this and raise it where we have to in other instances where it doesn't
make sense.
Mr. Plummer: A marriage counselor tells you everything comes out in the wash.
Mr. Grassie?
Mr. Grassie: We would agree with you, Commissioner, I think that there is poss-
ibly a reasonable explanation for this circumstance and that is that in profes-
sional services or personal services there is nothing that the City has to in-
spect by way of a safety feature whereas with a number of the mechanical install
ations such as washing machines we do have to send out a technician,a mechanic .'
to look at those installations and it turns out that sometimes those things
cost more money but your basic point which is that the thing should be reviewed
we certainly agree with and if you would like we will do that.
Mrs. Gordon: Okay, do you want a motion to that affect?
Mr. Grassie: No, we'll be happy to do that.
Mr. Lacasa: Mr. Grassie, from that standpoint of view I was rather on defense
up to now but with that standpoint of view and with that angle that you have
to send mechanical people at a cost to the City this gentleman's point at least
with me is strengthened because then if you have more machines it's more cost
to the City for some mechanics there to check, the mechanical problems.
Mr. Plummer:_ Please, I feel that continued conversation really, we're going to
send itto the City Manager...•
anticipated will come back to the table?.
Mr.
Mr. Grassie: Let me ask our staff how much work they have to do because really
what the have to do is calculate their costs for a representative number of
these licenses. Theyhave done that, I have to find out from them how long it
will take them to reconsider and....
Mrs. Gordon: Could you furnish us, Mx. Grassie, with a list of all of the occu-
pations and all of the different varieties of fees so that we can look at it
too?
Mr. Grassie:
Mrs. Gordon:
Mr. Plummer:
Certainly.
All right, thank you.
Especially realtors.
Mrs. Gordon: Well realtors pay a good fee.
tion, Jerry.
Mr. Plummer: Mt. Bain', you'll.be notified by Mr. Grassie, won't you Mr.
when this _�item -.pis coming back up?
Mr. Grassie:
Yes, we'll have to make a.special
noteof that.
Thanks for bringing it to our atten-
Grassie,
JUNE`'2
1979
27. ALLOCATE $690,487 C.D. FUNDS TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
SOCIAL SERVICE PROGRAMS (EXCLUDING TRANSPORTATION
PROGRAMS).
Mr. Howard Russel, Director of the Impact Program appeared in objection to the
recommendation that Impact not be funded. He said that they had been doing a
good job and had not been told that there was anything wrong with'what they
were doing. Two weeks ato his superior had received a letter from Ms. Spillman's
office saying that they were cutting off their funds. They gave 3 reasons in
the letter which were found to be incorrect to which they responded in writing.
He said Impact had not been given a chance to pleade their case in person and
they had not been given a meeting. He also said that if funding was going to
be discontinued he would like to know what the reasons were.
Ms. Spillman said that the City was subsidizing a County agency that would prob-
ably continue to render the service even if the City didn't fund it any longer.
Mr. Russell said it was true that Impact was a County run program but that they
had not served the Allapattah area until the City began funding it and that the
money was used to help City of Miami elderly peopel in the Allapattah area and
he felt Impact served these people better than any other agency providing ser-
vices in the area.
After further discussion the Commission decided to act on Agenda Item 22 exclud-
ing that portion relating to transportation in the Allapattah area until it
could be further reviewed.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gordon, who
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 79-430
(*)
A RESOLUTION ALLOCATING $658,987 OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
FUNDS PREVIOUSLY APPROPRIATED BY ORDINANCE NO. 8943 ADOPTED,
JUNE 4, 1979, TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SOCIAL SERVICE PROGRAMS
FOR THE CONTRACT PERIOD COMMENCING JULY 1, 1979, AND ENDING
JUNE 30, 1980; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS WITH SAID APPROVED SOCIAL SERVICE
PROGRAMS.
(Herefollows body of resolution,; omitted here and on file`
in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner
adopted by the following vote
AYES:
moved
Gibson, the resolution was passed and
Commissioner Rose Gordon
Commissioner Armando Lacasa
Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Mayor Maurice.A. Ferre.
This item was subsequently rescheduled for rehearing on July 23,;. 1979.
Mr. Larry O'Toole from. the Musa Isle Senior Center appeared on behalf of Impact.
The City Manager stated that a resolution would be presented at the meeting o
June 26 for the 30-day funding of the transportation program.
(*) This Resolution was amended to exclude transportation for 30 days.
rt
JUNE 25
1979.-
w
4
rt
28. DISCUSSION ITEM: WYNWOOD TARGET AREA C.D. ELECTIONS.
Mr. Plummer: Ms. Spillman, do you have another matter to bring before this Com-
mission, a burning issue?
Ms. Dena Spillman: Yes. I received a copy of a letter from the residents of
the Wynwood Target Area to the Mayor, I don't know if you got copies or not, but
it is something that needs to be acted on now or never. On June 18th the nomin-
ation meeting was held in Wynwood for our Community Development Boards that we
discussed and conveniently enough 15 people were nominated for the board only.
There were 60 people in attendance at the meeting, 15 people were nominated.
The question now is because there are only 15 nominations should we have an elec-
tion.
Mrs. Gordon: Well, is there a period
ated?
Ms. Spillman
then for other people to be nomin-
o, the nomination; period is ended..
Mrs. Gordon:It's closed?
Ms.° Spillman: Yes,
according to the°guidelines.
Mrs. Gordon: Then there's nothing to discuss to discuss, that's i
Ms. Spillman: The only issue is the election of officers and the community, the`
55 people who attended that meeting are recommending that the 15 board members
elect their own officers. If we hold an election we won.'t be able to elect of
ficers because we are asking everyone to vote for 15 people so -we'll end up with
everyone being president. This is kind of Catch 22 here.
Do you have the list and all?
Mrs. Gordon:
Spillman: No, I don't.
Ms.
Rev. Gibson:%
Ms. Spillman:
That's funny.
Was the group elected only to nominate 15,.is that right?
Rev. Gibson: They had that right. Okay, if the 15 people, if you got that kind
of an action and the 15 people are instructed to elect theirown officers, Per-
sonally I have no objection.
Ms. Spillman We would save about 4`or $5,000 in election'. money i
have an election there.
Rev. Gibson: Let me get this for the record. Did those people have a right
and a choice at that meeting? You know, let me tell you, I don't want it to be
said later on, "The only reason we didn't nominate somebody else is because we
were threatened". Were they? Were you all there?
Ms. Spillman: No, my staff was present,
was widely advertised, flyers went out.';
they were not threatened. The meeting
Rev. Gibson: Well, so they elected, they were smart, smarter
givethem .credit :for.....
Mr.
Mrs.
Plummer: Except now comes the problem..
Gordon: They've got to elect
than you and
officers though, that's important.
Mr. Plummer: Thevote was supposed to nominate who would be president, vice-
president and such and without.a vote` how do you elect the officers?
Rev. Gibson: Let the 15 people elect among themselves, that solves the same
problem, nothing wrong with that. Listen, if we were willing to let 55 people
come and those 55 people said only 15 people are going to be running you ought
to be willing to say to the same 15 people if those 55 had confidence in you I
96
JUNE 25, 1979.-
now am willing to have confidence in you among yourselves to elect your officers.
I have no objection to that.
Mrs. _Gordon:
J. L. says there were 40 some odd people with machine guns.
Rev. Gibson: Then they should have told us that there were people there with
machine guns. I move you, sir, that these 15 people be authorized to elect
officers among themselves.
Mr. Plummer: Is there a second?
ing none, the motion dies.
Ms. Spillman:
s there a second? Is there a second? Hear -
There is a precedent for this in Coconut Grove.
What?
a precedent action that was established by this Commis
Mrs. Gordon: Whydon't we ask the neighborhood to take those 15 people and
decide who they want to have for officers?
Rev. Gibson:
Mrs. Gordon:
Yes, butthat ueans you have to spend that money.
It's set aside for that purpose. It's a democratic process.
Rev. Gibson: But Rose, I have some problems, and please don't misunderstand,
I have some problems with just spending money. I believe - listen, those people
were knowledgeable, they knew that they next step had to come.' All right? Those
people were knowledgeable. I believe that rather than spend that money for that
you could spend that money for something else.
Mr. Plummer: But Father, you know maybe there has to be a consistency and that
consistency, Father, as I see it is this. If, in fact, we allow the 15 members
that have more or less been elected to make the decision it does preclude the
peoples' right. Remember, it was on the basis of who got the highest vote would
be president, the second highest would be the vice-president and on down, and if
we, Father, then say that we elect them and they make the decision we have, in
fact, precluded the consistency of what we voted for and that is to allow the
people by their vote to make....
Rev. Gibson: That's not the same procedure in organization structure. When you
give people an opportunity - the whole system was described - they elected to
nominate 15 people only. Now they exercised their priviledge.
Mr. Plummer: Yes, Father.
Rev. Gibson: All right. Now once you do that and you go to the next step, if
they were willing to short circuit in that manner they also would be, I'll bet
you you would have any objections if you said to those 15 people, if you said
to the community, "All right, you only gave me 15..." Look what they did, they
were smarter than we gave them credit for, only 15. And if you go to them, that
15 and say okay, you have to get a president, vice-president and secretary-
treasurer. What I'm trying to say to the Commission, I just don't think spend-
ing money just to spend money is a good policy.
Mr. Plummer: All right, unless,I hear some motion from this Commission they
will proceed as outlined in the last action of this Commission.
Ms. Spillman: That would take a waiver to the guidelines in that in, this instance
the election would be held only for, I thinkeach, person would only have one vote
out of the 15 and then the top three vote getters would be the officers.
Mr. Plummer: That is correct.
Mrs. Gordon: I can't hear you at all, Dena.
Ms. Spillman: The 15 people who were nominated will be placed on the ballot
but instead of everybody voting for people as they will in every other target
area, in this instance they will only vote for one, the top three will get the
officerships. They can't vote for 15 people.
Mrs. Gordon: No, but they could vote for three and that would...
for three, there are three officers, right?
rt
JUNE 25, 1979.-
111111111111101111.01
Rev. Gibson:
Ms. Spillman: There is
sion in Coconut. Grove.
Ms. Spillman: Yes.
Mrs. Gordon: They could vote for three. That would give you the opportunity,'
of having three.
We. Spillman: Whatever youwant to do. You see, the guidelines say they have
to vote for 15, we're going to end up with 15 chairmen that way.
Mrs. Gordon:;
Everybody isn't going to vote for everybody. anyway.;
Ms. Spillman: Al).. right, but I think we need to make it clear that this is an
election for officers, that the board is already...
Mr. Plummer: That's pretty obvious.
Rev. Gibson: All right, let me point out...
Ms.
Spillman: So they can vote for five people and the top three will get....
Mr. Plummer:
How many officers are there?
Ms. Spillman:, Three.
Mr. Plummer: Then I'd say they votefor three.
Rev. Gibson: Let me point out, I know what the ruling is, but let me point out
to you a danger following what you're going to do. A man may be a good presi-
dent, good presiding officer,. but he may not be worth a cuss as a secretary and
he may not be able to even count money. Don't tell me that because I run a
church. What you now are doing is you preclude the possibility of getting some
011 choices. It is a matter of chancenow that the three highest vote getters will
be the president, vice-president and the secretary. In other words themost
popular guy who may not be able to write his name ends up being your secretary
That's all I'm saying, but listen, let's go on, I understand.
Mrs. Gordon: Father, that would havehappened anyhow :you ,know in the regular;
election process.
Rev. Gibson: No, but a man would be runing with the full knowledge that he's
running for secretary the other way. I'm going along with your process.
Ms.
Spillman: What do I do, proceed with
Mr. Plummer:.
29. AMEND APPROPRIATIONS ORDINANCE, INCREASE APPROPRIATION
FOR DEPARTMENT OF SOLID WASTE.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 1 AND 6 OF
ORDINANCE NO. 8858, ADOPTED SEPTEMBER 28, 1978, THE
ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS ORDINANCE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1979, AS AMENDED; BY INCREASING
THE APPROPRIATION FOR THE GENERAL FUND, DEPARTMENT OF
SOLID WASTE, IN THE AMOUNT OF $34,000; BY INCREASING
ANTICIPATED REVENUES, SOURCES OTHER THAN AD VALOREM
TAX, IN THE SAME AMOUNT; FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCREASING
THE APPROPRIATION FOR LOT CLEARING FEES; CONTAINING A
REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
Was introduced by Commissioner Gibson and seconded by Commissioner Lacasa, for
adoption as an emergency measure and dispensing with the requirement of
reading same on two separate days, which was agreed to 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.
Whereupon the Commission on motion of Commissioner Gibson and seconded by
Commissioner Lacasa, adopted said ordinance by the following vote-
AYES: Commissioner Rose Gordon
Commissioner Armando Lacasa
Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson.
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
(Absent) Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.,
SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 8946
The City Attorney read the ordinance into, the public record. -an•
d
announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commis-
* sion and to the public.
30. APPROPRIATE $25,000 FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE
FUNDS -PROPERTY MAINTENANCE -LABOR COSTS FOR CONTINUING
CITY HALL RENOVATIONS.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 3 AND 6 OF ORDINANCE NO.
8858, ADOPTED SEPTEMBER 28, 1978, THE ANNUAL APPROPRIA-
TIONS ORDINANCE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30,
1979, AS AMENDED; BY APPROPRIATING AN AMOUNT OF $25,000
FROM THE REVOLVING FUND IN THE GENERAL OBLIGATION CAPITAL
PROJECTS FUNDS; AND BY INCREASING THE APPROPRIATION FOR
INTRAGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE FUNDS, PROPERTY MAINTENANCE, IN
THE SAME AMOUNT; TO FUND MATERIAL AND LABOR COSTS FOR
CONTINUING CITY HALL RENOVATIONS: CONTAINING A REPEALER
PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of May 22, was
taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion
Commissioner Gibson, seconded by Commissioner Lacasa, the Ordinance was
thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and adopted
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Commissioner Armando Lacasa
Commissioner. (Rev.) Theodore Gibson
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
(Absent) Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
Commissioner Rose Gordon.
THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 8947.
0
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.
31. AMEND APPROPRIATIONS ORDINANCE -INCREASE APPROPRIATION FOR
DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM PROMOTION.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 1 AND 6 OF ORDINANCE NO. 8858,
ADOPTED SEPTEMBER 28, 1978, THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS ORDINANCE
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1979, AS AMENDED; BY
INCREASING THE APPROPRIATION FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF TOURIST
PROMOTION, IN AN AMOUNT OF $110,000; INCREASING ANTICIPATED
REVENUES, SOURCES OTHER THAN AD VALOREM TAX, BY THE SAME AMOUNT,
FOR THE MIAMI-METRO PUBLICITY AND TOURISM CONTRACT; CONTAINING
A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of May 22, was
taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion
Commissioner Plummer, seconded by Commissioner Lacasa, the Ordinance was
thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and adopted
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 8948.
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.
100
Commissioner Rose Gordon
Commissioner Armando Lacasa
Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
(Absent) Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
JUNE 25, 1979.-
rt
a
32. AMEND APPROPRIATIONS ORDINANCE - INCREASE APPROPRIAT
TION TO THE GENERAL FUND -CITIZEN SERVICES DEPT.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 1, 2 AND 6 OF ORDINANCE NO.
8858, ADOPTED SEPTEMBER 28, 1978, THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS
ORDINANCE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1979,
AS AMENDED, BY INCREASING THE APPROPRIATION FOR THE GENERAL
FUND, CITIZEN SERVICES DEPARTMENT, IN AN AMOUNT OF $104,021;
BY DECREASING THE APPROPRIATION FOR SPECIAL PROGRAMS AND
ACCOUNTS THE APPROPRIATION FOR SPECIAL PROGRAMS AND ACCOUNTS,
CONTRIBUTION TO ENTERPRISE FUNDS BY $24,021; AND BY DECREAS-
ING THE APPROPRIATION FOR THE ENTERPRISE FUNDS, COMMUNITY
CENTER, IN THE AMOUNT OF $104,021; BY DELETING THE SPECIAL
REVENUE FUND, UTILITY SERVICE TAXES (SECTION 2); INCREASING
THE APPROPRIATION FOR SPECIAL PROGRAMS AND ACCOUNTS, CON-
TRIBUTION TO DEBT SERVICE IN AN AMOUNT OF $198,750; BY
INCREASING ANTICIPATED REVENUES, SOURCES OTHER THAN AD VALORUM.
TAX, IN AN AMOUNT OF $278,750; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION
AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of May 22, was
taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion o
Commissioner Plummer, seconded by Commissioner Lacasa, the Ordinance was
thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and adopted
by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Rose Gordon
Commissioner Armando Lacasa
Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson >.
Vice -Mayor J. L., Plummer, Jr
(Absent) Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE -NO.
The City Attorney read the ordinance
that copies were available to the members
public.
rt
into the public record and announced
of the City Commission and to the
1979.
33. AMEND APPROPRIATIONS ORDINANCE -INCREASE APPROPRIATION
FOR SPECIAL PROGRAMS AND ACCOUNTS -SOCIAL SERVICE
PROGRAMS DADE CO. SCHOOL BOARD COMMUNITY SCHOOLS &
AFTER SCHOOL CARE
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 1 AND 6 OF ORDINANCE NO. 8858,
ADOPTED SEPTEMBER 28, 1978, THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS ORDIN-
ANCE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1979, AS AMENDED;
BY INCREASING THE APPROPRIATION FOR SPECIAL PROGRAMS AND AC-
COUNTS, SOCIAL SERVICE PROGRAMS, IN AN AMOUNT OF $100,391; AND
BY INCREASING ANTICIPATED REVENUES, SOURCES OTHER THAN AD
VALOREM TAX, IN THE SAME AMOUNT; FOR THE PURPOSE OF FUNDING
DADE COUNTY -COMMUNITY SCHOOLS AND AFTER SCHOOL CARE FOR THE
REMAINDER OF THE FISCAL YEAR; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION
.AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of May 22, was
taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion
Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the Ordinance was
thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and adopted
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Commissioner Rose Gordon
Commissioner Armando Lacasa
Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
(Absent)Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO.`:8950.'
The. City Attorney read the ordinance
that copies were available to the members
rt
into the public record and announced
of the City ComTnission and to the
1979.-
i
34. ESTABLISH RENTAL RATES FOR USE OF MIAMI BASEBALL
STADIUM, 10% CITY TAX ON ADMISSIONS.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE CITY'S TAX UPON
ADMISSIONS TO THE MIAMI BASEBALL STADIUM;
PROVIDING DEFINITIONS HEREIN, FURTHER
ESTABLISHING AND LEVYING A CITY TAX UPON EACH
ADMISSION TO THE STADIUM OF 10% OF THE GROSS
PRICE OF EACH ADMISSION TICKET SOLD BY THE
SPONSOR OF THE STADIUM EVENT LESS ANY FEDERAL,
STATE OR LOCALLY IMPOSED TAX PAYABLE FROM
SUCH ADMISSION PRICE; FURTHER ESTABLISHING
THE SPONSOR'S MINIMUM PRICE FOR ADMISSION
AS THE GROSS PRICE FOR ANY COMPLIMENTARY TICKET.
OR PASS; FURTHER REQUIRING EACH SPONSOR TO
PROVIDE REASONABLE ACCESS TO RECORDS OF
TICKET SALES AND REQUIRING THE FINAL ACCOUNTING
AND PAYMENT TO THE CITY OF ALL SUMS DUE HERE-
UNDER AS SOON AFTER EACH EVENT AS REASONABLY
POSSIBLE; FURTHER IMPOSING A PENALTY OF 2%
PER MONTH ON ALL SUMS UNPAID AFTER DEMAND
THEREFOR AND REQUIRING THAT THE HEREIN TAX
AND ALL SUMS PAID TO THE CITY HEREUNDER BE
DEPOSITED DAILY IN THE FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS OF
THE STADIUM; FURTHER ESTABLISHING CERTAIN MINIMUM
GUARANTEED RENTAL AMOUNTS FOR USE OF VARIOUS PARTS
OF THE STADIUM IN, INSTANCES WHERE EITHER NO ADMISSION
CHARGE ISBEING ASSESSED FOR A PARTICULAR EVENT,
OR THE ADMISSION' TAX REALIZED BY THE CITY FOR A
PARTICULAR EVENT IS LESS THAN THE MINIMUM GUARANTEED
RENTAL AMOUNT; FURTHER ESTABLISHING STANDARDS FOR THE
ISSUANCE OF COMPLIMENTARY TICKETS TO EVENTS; ALSO
RESERVING UNTO THE CITY COMMISSION THE RIGHT TO
ESTABLISH AND FIX SPECIAL CHARGES, TERMS AND CONDI-
TIONS PERTAINING TO THE USE OF THE STADIUM; AND
REQUIRING EVERY SPONSOR TO PAY THE CITY'S COST
OF OPERATING THE STADIUM FOR THE PARTICULAR EVENT;
FURTHER ESTABLISHING THAT THE NUMBER OF SECURITY
AND CROWD CONTROL PERSONNEL USED AT EVENTS BE SUBJECT'?.
TO PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS
AUTHORIZED DESIGNEE; FURTHER REQUIRING THE SPONSOR
TO OBTAIN CERTAIN AMOUNTS OF PUBLIC LIABILITY
INSURANCE FOR BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE AND
TO PROVIDE THAT THE CITY BE INCLUDED AS A NAMED
INSURER IN SAID INSURANCE POLICY AND ALSO CONTAINING
A HOLD HARMLESS PROVISION; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES
OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH AND
CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY PROVISION.
Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of May 22, 1979, was
taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of
Commissioner Plumper, seconded by Commissioner Lacasa, the Ordinance was
thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and adopted
by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Rose Gordon
Commissioner Armando Lacasa
Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
(Absent)Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 8951.
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.
Joel Jaffer appeared in objection.
JUNE 25, 1979.-
rt
35. FIRST S SECOND READING ORDINANCE: ESTABLISH NEW
TRUST & AGENCY FUND "CONSORTIUM LIAISON".
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A NEW TRUST AND AGENCY FUND ENTITLED:
CONSORTIUM LIAISON"; PROVIDING FOR REVENUES THEREIN TO BE
RECEIVED FROM THE SOUTH FLORIDA EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CONSOR-
TIUM TO PROVIDE FOR THE COSTS APPERTAINING TO A LIAISON OFFICER
TO THE CONSORTIUM APPOINTED BY THE CITY MANAGER; 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 Lacasa and seconded by Commissioner Gibson
for adoption pursuant to Section 4, Paragraph (f) of the City Charter dispensing,
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 J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson
Vice -Mayor Manolo Reboso
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES:
None.
Whereupon the Commission on motion of Commissioner Lacasa and seconded by,
Commissioner Gibson, adopted said ordinance by the following vote
YES Commissioner Rose Gordon
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson
Vice -Mayor Manolo Reboso
(Absent) Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES:
SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO.8952.
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced
that copies were available, to the members of the City Commission and copies were
Ii available to the public.
rt
JUNE 25, 1979.-
36. AMEND APPROPRIATIONS ORDINANCE BY INCREASING
POLICE DEPT. GENERAL FUND BY $51,392 RECEIVED
FROM STATE OF FLORIDA FOR OVERTIME EXPENSES.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 1 AND 6 OF ORDINANCE NO.
8858, ADOPTED SEPTEMBER 28, 1978, THE ANNUAL APPROPRIA-
TIONS ORDINANCE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30,
1979, AS AMENDED; BY INCREASING THE APPROPRIATIONS FOR
THE GENERAL FUND, POLICE DEPARTMENT, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$51,392; BY INCREASING ANTICIPATED REVENUES, SOURCES
OTHER THAN AD VALOREM TAX, IN THE SAME AMOUNT; FROM THE
STATE OF FLORIDA FOR THE OVERTIME EXPENSES OF A SPECIAL
. INVESTIGATION; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A
'SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND DISPENSING 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.
Was introduced by Commissioner Gibson and seconded by Commissioner Lacasa
for adoption pursuant to Section 4, Paragraph (f) of the City Charter dispensing
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 J. L. Plummer,
Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R.
Vice -Mayor Manolo Reboso
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
Jr.
Gibson
Whereupon the Commission on motion of Commissioner -Gibson and seconded by.
Commissioner Lacasa, adopted said ordinance by the following;, vote
AYES: Commissioner Rose Gordon
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson
Vice -Mayor Manolo Reboso
(Absent)Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 8953.
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced
that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and copies were
available to the public:
rt
7. ESTABLISH RENTAL RATES FOR USE OF CITY OF MIAMI
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.
Was introduced by Commissioner Lacasa and seconded by Commissioner Gibson
and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Rose Gordon
Commissioner Armando Lacasa
Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
(Absent) Mayor Maurice . Ferre
NOES: None.
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced
that cosies were available to the members of the cit commission and to the .ublic.
38. CLAIM SETTLEMENT -AUTHORIZE DIP.ECTOR OF FINANCE TO
PAY $60,882.82 TO FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY CO.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gibson, who moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 79-431
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE TO PAY TO
FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY COMPANY THE SUM OF $60,882.82
IN FULL AND COMPLETE SETTLEMENT OF ITS CLAIM AGAINST THE
CITY OF MIAMI FOR DAMAGES SUFFERED BY SAID RAILWAY COMPANY
AS A RESULT OF THE ORDER OF TAKING ENTERED ON APRIL 27, 1976,
BY DADE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT WHICH VESTED TITLE TO CERTAIN
REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY SAID RAILWAY COMPANY IN THE CITY OF
MIAMI FOR A PERIOD OF THIRTEEN MONTHS, THEREBY DEPRIVING
SAID RAILWAY COMPANY FROM ITS BENEFICIAL USE OF SAID PROP-
ERTY.
(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:
rt
Commissioner Rose Gordon
Commissioner Armando Lacasa
Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
(Absent) Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
JUNE 25, 1979.-
39. AUTHORIZE ALLOCATION OF 37 NEW SINGLE FAMILY
HOUSING UNITS -COCONUT GROVE, KING HEIGHTS, BUENA
VISTA, ALLAPATTAH AND WYNWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD AREAS.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gordon, who moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 79-432
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ALLOCATION OF 37 UNITS OF NEW
SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING TO BE DEVELOPED THROUGH THE CITY OF
MIAMI'S HOMEOWNERSHIP ASSISTANCE LOAN PROGRAM TO THE COCONUT
GROVE, KING HEIGHTS, BUENA VISTA, ALLAPATTAH AND WYNWOOD
NEIGHBORHOOD AREAS.
'(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file
in. the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gibson, the
adopted by the following vote
AYES:
Commissioner Rose Gordon
Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
(Absent) Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: Commissioner Armando Lacasa.
40. BID ACCEPTANCE - SANDY'S SKATES, INC. - OPERATION OF
OUTDOOR ROLLER SKATING CONCESSION AT BICENTENNIAL
PARK. NONE.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gibson, who moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 79-433
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT THE BID
PROPOSAL FROM AND EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH SANDY'S SKATES,
INC., FOR THE OPERATION OF AN OUTDOOR ROLLERSKATING CONCES-
SION AT THE NEW WORLD CENTER -BICENTENNIAL PARK; IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN THE ATTACHED AGREE-
MENT.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file
in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Uponbeing seconded by Commissioner Lacasa, the
adopted by the following vote -
AYES:.
NOES:
Commissioner Rose Gordon
Commissioner Armando Lacasa
Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
(Absent) Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
resolution was passed an
41. DISCUSSION: QUESTIONS ON CERTAIN ITEMS ON THE
CONSENT AGENDA.
Commissioners Gibson and Plummer requested clarification on Item,30 and Commis-
sioner Plummer requested further information on Items 36, 37, 40, 42, 44, 45,
50, 51, 55 and 57.
Joel Jaffer appeared in objection to Items 40, 40 and 56.
Commissioner Plummer read the following statement into the record:
"Unless a member of the City Commission wishes to remove specific items
from this portion of the agenda, Items 28-58 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
numbered resolutions, adopted unanimously by the, following motion:
..that the Consent Agenda, comprised o
Before the vote.' on'adopting,items included.. 'the:Consent. theConsent 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 , the vote; on the adoption
of the'Consent Agenda will be taken.'.'
The following resolutions comprising the Consent Agenda were introduced
by Commissioner Lacasa, seconder: by Commissioner Gibson and passed and adopted
by the following. vote:
AYES:
NOES:
42.
Commissioner Rose Gordon
Commissioner Armando ,Lacasa
Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
(Absent) Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
None.
GRANT',O,NE-Y-EAR.;.EX.TENS;ION-OF EMPLOYMENT;;= HARRY PEARLMAN,;`
.DEPARTMENT OF STADIUMS AND MARINAS.
RESOLUTION NO. 79-434
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A ONE (1) YEAR EXTENSION OF. EMPLOY-
MENT PAST THE AGE OF 75 FOR HARRY PEARLMAN, WATCHMAN, DEPART-
MENT OF STADIUMS AND MARINAS, EFFECTIVE MAY 28, 1979 THROUGH
MAY 28, 1980, WITH PROVISION THAT IN THE EVENT OF A ROLLBACK
OR LAYOFF, MR. HARRY PEARLMAN RATHER THAN A JUNIOR EMPLOYEE,
WOULD BE AFFECTED..
43. AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO ISSUE PERMIT: C.L.M. DEVELOPMENT
CORP,.FOR CONSTRUCTION & REPAIRS AT SNUG HARBOR.
RESOLUTION NO. 79-435
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ISSUE A PER-
MIT TO CLM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION TO FILL TWO BOATSLIPS,
CONSTRUCT RIPRAP BULKHEAD AND REPAIR AND COMPLETE A WOODEN
BOARDWALK ALONG THE BULKHEAD ALONG THE SHORE OF THE MIAMI
RIVER AT SNUG HARBOR SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF PLANS BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE
STATE OF FLORIDA AND THE U.S. CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
RT
9,08
JUNE 25, 1979.-
44. REAPPOINT HENRY C. ALEXANDER, JR., STEPHEN DAVIS, JULIA
FERNANDEZ, ANTHONY LAVARGNA, DAVID SCULLY AND STEPHEN ZACK
AS MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION
REVIEW BOARD.
RESOLUTION NO. 79-436
A RESOLUTION REAPPOINTING HENRY C. ALEXANDER, JR., STEPHEN
DAVIS, JULIA FERNANDEZ, ANTHONY LAVARGNA, IIAVID SCULLY, AND
STEPHEN ZACK AS MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI ENVIRONMENTAL
PRESERVATION REVIEW BOARD.
45. APPROVE ACTION OF CITY MANAGER -REFUND $24,401.24 TO DOUGLAS
GARDENS MIAMI JEWISH HOME & HOSPITAL FOR THE AGED (CITY TAXES).
RESOLUTION NO. 79-437
A RESOLUTION APPROVING, CONFIRMING AND RATIFYING THE ACTION
OF THE CITY MANAGER IN AUTHORIZING THE DIRECT PAYMENT OF
$24,401.24 TO THE DOUGLAS GARDENS MIAMI JEWISH HOME AND HOS-
PITAL FOR THE AGED WITH FUNDS THEREFOR FROM SPECIAL PROGRAMS
AND ACCOUNTS.
46. RATIFY ACTION OF MANAGER: ACCEPT GRANT "LET'S PLAY T
GROW" PROJECT.
RESOLUTION NO. 79-438
A RESOLUTION RATIFYING THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE CITY MANAGER.
IN ACCEPTING A GRANT AWARD FROM THE KENNEDY FOUNDATION FOR
"LET'S PLAY TO GROW" AND FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER
TO EXECUTE ANY ADDITIONAL CONTRACT(S) AND OR AGREEMENT(S) TO
FURTHER IMPLEMENT THIS PROGRAM.
47. AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT GRANT AWARD - $49,403
RECREATION SUPPORT PROGRAM.
48.
rt
RESOLUTION NO. 79-439
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT A GRANT
AWARD FROM THE COMMUNITY SERVICES ADMINISTRATION FOR A REC-
REATION SUPFCIT PROGRAM-1979 AND FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY CONTRACT (S) AND/OR
AGREEMENT (S) TO IMPLEMENT THE PROGRAM.
AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT GRANT APPLICATION
OF FLORIDA AREA WIDE CRIME PREVENTION PROJECT..
RESOLUTION NO. 79-440
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT A
GRANT APPLICATION TO THE BUREAU OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE PLAN-
NING AND ASSISTANCE, DIVISION OF STATE PLANNING, DEPART-
MENT OF ADMINISTRATION, STATE OF FLORIDA, FOR FUNDING OF
AN AREA -WIDE CRIME PREVENTION PROJECT TO IDENTIFY AREAS
OF COMMON CONCERN AND DEVELOP A WELL COORDINATED, CON-
CERTED EFFORT INCLUDING CITIZEN INPUTS TO OPTIMIZE APPRO-
PRIATE RESOURCE UTILIZATION, MINIMIZE EXPENDITURES AND
MAXIMIZE THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE CITY, PROVIDING FOR
AN APPROPRIATION OF $30,000 AS THE CITY'S CASH MATCHING
FUND FROM THE SPECIAL PROGRAMS AND ACCOUNTS OF THE 1978-79
FISCAL YEAR BUDGET; AND FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MAN-
AGER TO ACCEPT THE GRANT AND EXECUTE THE NECESSARY AGREE-
MENTS TO IMPLEMENT THE PROGRAM UPON RECEIPT OF THE GRANT.
49. WAIVE REQUIREMENTS OP ARTICLE V, SECTION 2-102 TO PERMIT
CECILIO DE AZA, PARKS DEPT. EMPLOYEE TO PARTICIPATE IN
CITY'S REHABILITATION LOAN PROGRAM.
RESOLUTION NO."79-441
A RESOLUTION WAIVING THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE V, SECTION
2-102 (CONFLICT OF INTEREST) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, BY FINDING THAT IT IS IN THE
BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY TO PERMIT CECILIO DE AZA, AN EM-
PLOYEE OF THE PARKS DEPARTMENT, TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CITY'S
REHABILITATION LOAN PROGRAM ADMINISTERED BY METROPOLITAN
DADE COUNTY.
50. AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT GRANT: $10,726,000
PROPOSED 5TH YEAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.
RESOLUTION NO. 79-442
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO
ACCEPT A GRANT FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT (HUD) FOR THE PROPOSED FIFTH YEAR COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM DURING 1979-1980; FURTHER AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS NEC-
ESSAF1 TO IMPLEMENT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.
51. AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH BARBARA
NEIJNA, INC. - SCULPTURE FOR HEAVY EQUIPMENT FACILITY..
RESOLUTION NO. 79-443
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE
ATTACHED AJEEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND BARBARA NEIJNA, INC.
TO CREATE A SCULPTURE BY BARBARA NEIJNA FOR THE HEAVY EQUIP-
MENT SERVICE FACILITY LOCATED AT 1390 N.W. 20 STREET, MIAMI,
FLORIDA; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXPEND $30,000
FROM EDA GRANT FUNDS FOR SERVICES UNDER SAID AGREEMENT.
52. AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITt-1 ANTONIO
MOLINA, CONCESSIONAIRE, MIAMI COUNTRY CLUB FOOD CONCESSION.
RESOLUTION no. 79-444
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AMEND-
'`MENZ Z`0 THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT WITH ANTONIO MOLINA, CONCESSION-
AIRE FOR THE MIAMI COUNTRY CLUB FOOD CONCESSION, TO PROVIDE
ALTERATION IN THE TERMS OF THE LEASE FROM FIVE (5) YEARS WITH
TWO FIVE (5) YEAR EXTENSIONS, TO TEN (10) YEARS WITH ONE FIVE
(5) YEAR EXTENSION, ADJUSTMENTS IN THE MINIMUM RENT, TO THAT
OF A 20% INCREASE ON EACH FIVE (5) YEAR ANNIVERSARY, AND
ADDITIONAL IMPRCNEMENTS OF $20,000 TO THE FACILITY BY THE LESSEE. "
'AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENT WITH -PUBLIC
HEALTH TRUST OF DADE COUNTY FOR COORDINATION OF EMERGENCY
MEDICAL SERVICES.
RESOLUTION NO. 79-445
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN
AGREEMENT WITH THE PUBLIC HEALTH TRUST OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
WHICH OPERATES JACKSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AND THE UNIVERSITY OF
MIAMI FOR THE COORDINATION OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES SUB-
STANTIALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS, AND CONDITIONS SET
FORTH IN THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT; WITH FUNDS THEREFOR ALLOCATED
THROUGH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT'S GENERAL BUDGET.
JUNE 25,
4
54. BID ACCEPTANCE - 100 GUN LOCK RACKS.
RESOLUTION NO. 79-446
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE BID OF PUBLIC SAFETY DEVICES,
INC. FOR FURNISHING 100 GUN LOCK RACKS FOR THE POLICE DEPART-
MENT AT A TOTAL COST OF $5,300 WITH FUNDS ALLOCATED FROM
THE 1978-79 OPERATING BUDGET; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER
AND THE PURCHASING AGENT TO ISSUE THE PURCHASE ORDER FOR
THIS EQUIPMENT.
BID ACCEPTANCE - ONE STORM SEWER PUMP AND MOTOR.
RESOLUTION NO. 79-447
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE BID OF SANDERS, ASPINWALL &
ASSOCIATES FOR FURNISHING ONE STORM SEWER PUMP AND MOTOR TO
THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AT A TOTAL COST OF $21,967.50
WITH FUNDS ALLOCATED FROM THE 1978-79 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM BUDGET; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER AND THE PURCHAS-
ING AGENT TO ISSUE THE PURCHASE ORDER FOR THIS EQUIPMENT.
56. BID ACCEPTANCE - UNIFORMS FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
RESOLUTION NO. 79-448
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE BID OF LAMAR UNIFORMS FOR FURNISH-
ING UNIFORMS ON A CONTRACT BASIS FOR ONE YEAR FOR THE DEPART-
MENT OF FIRE AT AN APPROXIMATE TOTAL COST OF $15,715.75; ALLO-
CATING FUNDS FROM THE 1978-79 OPERATING BUDGET OF THE DEPART-
MENT OF FIRE; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER AND THE PURCHASING
AGENT TO ISSUE PURCHASE ORDERS FOR THESE MATERIALS.
57. BID ACCEPTANCE - 600 TONS OF RED CLAY FOR PARKS DEPARTMENT.
RESOLUTION NO. 79-449
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE BID OF G.E. METCALF & CO. FOR
FURNISHING 600 TONS OF RED CLAY FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS;
AT A TOTAL COST OF $6,870; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE 1978-79
OPERATING BUDGET OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS; AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER AND THE PURCHASING AGENT TO ISSUE THE PURCHASE
ORDER FOR THESE MATERIALS.
58. BID ACCEPTANCE - 2 DISKETTE DRIVES & RELATED DATE PROCESS
EQUIPMENT FOR DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET.
RESOLUTION NO. 79-450
59.
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE BID OF SOUTHEAST COMPUTER DISTRI-
BUTORS FOR FURNISHING 2 DISKETTE DRIVE AND RELATED DATA
PROCESSING EQUIPMENT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET AT A TOTAL COST OF $12,090.00; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM
THE 1978-79 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT BUDGET OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER AND THE
PURCHASING AGENT TO ISSUE THE PURCHASE ORDER FOR THIS EQUIP-
MENT.
ORDERING RESOLUTION: ENGLEWOOD SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT
SR-5461-S.
RESOLUTION NO. 79-451
A RESOLUTION ORDERING ENGLEWOOD SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT
SR-5461-S (sideline sewer) AND DESIGNATING THE PROPERTY
AGAINST WHICH SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS SHALL BE MADE FOR A POR-
TION OF THE COST THEREOF AS ENGLEWOOD SANITARY SEWER IMPROVE-
MENT DISTRICT SR-5461-S (sideline sewer).
ENGLEWOOD SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 79-452
A RESOLUTION ORDERING ENGLEWOOD SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT
SR-5461-C (centerline sewer) AND DESIGNATING THE PROPERTY
AGAINST WHICH SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS SHALL BE MADE FOR A POR-
TION OF THE COST THEREOF AS ENGLEWOOD SANITARY SEWER IMPROVE-
MENT DISTRICT SR-5461-C (centerline sewer).
AUTHORIZE 10% RETAINAGE REDUCED TO 2 % FOR HEAVY EQUIPMENT
SERVICE FACILITY MAINTENANCE BUILDING.
RESOLUTION NO. 79-453
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE REDUCTION OF THE 10% RETAIN-,
AGE TO 21% FOR THE HEAVY EQUIPMENT SERVICE FACILITY MAIN-
TENANCE BUILDING BEFORE THE COMPLETION AND FINAL ACCEPTANCE
OF THE PROJECT BY THE CITY COMMISSION.
62. AUTHORIZE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARINGFOR
OBJECTIONS TO COMPLETED WORK - COLUMBIA SANITARY SEWER IMPROVL
MENT`SR5420-C AND 5, BID "A".
RESOLUTION NO. 79-454
'A.RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE
OF PCBLIC HEARING FOR OBJECTIONS TO THE ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY
COMMISSION OF THE COMPLETED CONSTRUCTION OF COLUMBIA SANITARY
SEWER IMPROVEMENT SR-5420-C (centerline sewer) AND SR-5420-S
(sideline sewer) IN COLUMBIA SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT DIS-
TRICT SR-5420-C (centerline sewer) AND SR-5420 (sideline
sewer) - BID "A".
63. AUTHORIZE INCREASE IN CONTRACT FOR DORSEY PARK IMPROVEMENTS.
RESOLUTION NO. 79-455
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE COMPLETED WORK OF BETTER CONSTRUC-
TION, INC. FOR DORSEY PARK IMPROVEMENTS - RECREATION BUILDING,
AT A TOTAL COST OF $131,329; AUTHORIZING AN INCREASE IN THE
CONTRACT IN THE NET AMOUNT OF $3,429; ALLOCATING THE ADDITIONAL
AMOUNT OF $3,429 FROM 4TH YEAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT FUNDS; AND AUTHORIZING A FINAL PAYMENT OF $16,219.
64. AUTHORIZE INCREASE IN CONTRACT - LITTLE HAVANA COMMUNITY
CENTER '-.$82,072.
RESOLUTION NO. 79-456
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE COMPLETED WORK OF B.E.C. CONSTRUC-
TION`CORP. FOR LITTLE HAVANA COMMUNITY CENTER AT A TOTAL COST
OF $1,066,275; AUTHORIZING AN INCREASE IN THE CONTRACT IN THE
NET AMOUNT OF $82,071; ALLOCATING THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF
$82,071 FROM THE ACCOUNT ENTITLED "COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT FUNDS"; (4TH YEAR); AND AUTHORIZING A FINAL PAY-
MENT OF $106,676.10.
65. ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK - SCOPE CONSTRUCTION INC. FOR AFRICAN
SQUARE
PARK.
RESOLUTION NO. 79-457
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE COMPLETED WORK OF SCOPE CONSTRUC-
TION, INC. AND INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA FOR AFRICAN
SQUARE PARK AT A TOTAL COST OF $427,651.00; AUTHORIZING AN
INCREASE IN THE CONTRACT IN THE NET AMOUNT OF $4,140.20;
ASSESSING $8,700.00 AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES FOR 87 DAYS OVERRUN
OF CONTRACT TIME; AND AUTHORIZING A FINAL PAYMENT OF $38,791.
TO SCOPE CONSTRUCTION, INC. AND INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH
AMERICA FOR AFRICAN SQUARE PARK.
112
66. AC'CEPT,COMPLETED,WORK OF T & N CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. FOR
CULMER'COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PAVING PROJECT 8 SANITARY
SEWER MODIFICATIONS.
RESOLUTION NO. 79-458
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE COMPLETED WORK PERFORMED BY T & N
CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. AT A TOTAL COST OF $150,237.15 FOR
THE CULMER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PAVING PROJECT PHASE II -
1978 AND CULMER SANITARY SEWER MODIFICATIONS PHASE II -1978
(BIDS A & B HIGHWAYS AND SANITARY SEWERS); AND AUTHORIZING
A FINAL PAYMENT OF $15,023.72.
ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK - ROADS STORM SEWER PROJECT - 1977,
PERSANT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.
RESOLUTION NO. 79-459
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE COMPLETED WORK PERFORMED BY THE
PERSANT CONSTRCCTION CO., INC. AT A TOTAL COST OF $240,713.18
FOR ROADS STORM SEWER PROJECT 1977; AND AUTHORIZING A FINAL
PAYMENT OF $24,071.32.
68. ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK OF IRPCO PAVING CO. AND RINKER MATERIALS
CORP. FOR CHOPIN PLAZA STORM SEWER REPAIR.
RESOLUTION NO. 79-460
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE COMPLETED WORK PERFORMED BY IRPCO:
PAVING COMPANY, INC. AT A TOTAL COST OF $36,220.72 FOR CHOPIN
PLAZA STORM SEWER REPAIR; AND AUTHORIZING A FINAL PAYMENT TO
BE MADE JOINTLY TO RINKER MATERIALS CORP. AND IRPCO PAVING,
COMPANY, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,834.76 AND JOINTLY TO ABLE
BUILDING ILDUSTRIES, INC. AND IRPCO PAVING COMPANY, INC. IN:
THE AMOUNT OF $200.00.
69. ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK - DOMINO PARK RESTROOM - ALGAB CO., INC.
AND AMERICAN FIDELITY, FIRE INSURANCE.
RESOLUTION NO. 79-461
A`RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE COMPLETED WORK PERFORMED BY THE
ALGAB COMPANY, INC. AT A TOTAL COST OF $26,154.87 FOR THE
DOMINO PARK - RESTROOM - 1977 (2ND BIDDING); AND AUTHORIZ-
ING A FINAL PAYMENT TO BE MADE JOINTLY TO THE ALGAB COMPANY,
INC. AND THE AMERICAN FIDELITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY IN
THE AMOUNT OF $97.89 AND TO THE ALGAB COMPANY, INC. AND THE
COBO COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,517.60.
70. BID'ACCEPTANCE - COCONUT GROVE C.D. PAVING PROJECT
T & N CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
RESOLUTION NO. 79-462
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE BID OF T & N CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,
INC. IN THE PROPOSED AMOUNT OF $208,685 FOR COCONUT GROVE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PAVING PROJECT - PHASE II; WITH FUNDS
ALLOCATED FROM THE 4TH YEAR FEDERAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT FUND IN THE AMOUNT OF $208,685 TO COVER THE COST
CONTRACT COST; ALLOCATING FROM SAID FUND THE AMOUNT OF
$14,608 TO COVER THE COST OF PROJECT EXPENSE; ALLOCATING
FROM SAID FUND THE AMOUNT OF $1,707 TO COVER THE COST OF SUCH
ITEMS AS ADVERTISING, TESTING LABORATORIES, AND POSTAGE; AND
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH SAID
FIRM.
71. BID ACCEPTANCE - FIRE STATION NO. 4 - BID "A" - DEMOLITION
L.G.H. CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION.
RESOLUTION NO. 79-463
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE BID OF L.G.H. CONSTRUCTION CORP.
IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,680.00, BID "A" (DEMOLITION)' OF THE PRO-
POSAL, FOR FIRE STATION NO. 4; WITH MONIES THEREFOR ALLOCATED
FROM THE "FIRE FIGHTING, FIRE PREVENTION, AND RESCUE FACILITIES
G.O. BOND FUND"; WITH ADDITIONAL MONIES ALLOCATED FOR PROJECT
AND INCIDENTAL EXPENSES FROM AFORESAID FUND; AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH SAID FIRM.
72. ISSUE WASTE COLLECTION LICENSES TO ANGEL FAGUNDO, GENERAL
HAULING SERVICE, INDUSTRIAL WASTE SERVICE, INC., LAZAROS
WASTE SERVICE, INC.
RESOLUTION N0. 79-464
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF WASTE COLLECTION
LICENSES TO ANGEL FAGUNDO; GENERAL HAULING SERVICE, INC.;
INDUSTRIAL WASTE SERVICE, INC.; AND LAZARO'S WASTE SERVICE,
INC., PERMITTING THEM TO COMMENCE DOING BUSINESS UPON FULL
COMPLIANCE WITH CHAPTER 20 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,
FLORIDA.
73. APPROVE 6 CONSENT TO ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHTS, FLORIDA
GAS UTILITIES CO., TO PEOPLE GAS SYSTEM, INC.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AND CONSENTING TO THE ASSIGNMENT OF
RIGHTS ARISING UNDER ORDINANCE N0. 6917, ADOPTED SEPTEMBER 6,
1961, WHICH GRANTED A GAS FRANCHISE TO FLORIDA GAS UTILITIES
COMPANY (THE HOUSTON CORPORATION), SAID TRANSFER OF RIGHTS
FROM THE ABOVE COMPANY BEING MADE TO PEOPLES GAS SYSTEM, INC.,
EFFECTIVE ON OR ABOUT JULY 2, 1979; CONTAINING A REPEALER PRO-
VISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; DECLARING THIS TO BE AN
EMERGENCY MEASURE ON THE GROUND OF URGENT PUBLIC NEED AND
DISPENSING WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF READING THIS ORDINANCE ON
TWO SEPARATE DAYS BY A VOTE OF NOT LESS THAN FOUR -FIFTHS OF
THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
Was introduced by Commissioner Gibson and seconded by Commissioner
Gordon for adoption pursuant to Section 4, Paragraph (f) of the City
Charter dispensing 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.
(Absent) Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES:
Whereupon the Commission, on motion of Commissioner Gibson and seconded
by Commissioner Gordon, 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. 8954.
rt
JUNE 25, 1979.-
•
'
,.
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.
There being no further business to come before the City
Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 O'Clock P.M.
ATTEST:
•
Rakph G. Ongi.e
City Clerk
Mary H inati;
Assistant City Clerk
MAURICE A. FERRE
MAYOR
DOCUMENT
INDEX
MEETNG DATE
June 25, 1979
ITEM NO
1
2
3
5
7
DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION
COMMISSION AGENDA AND CITY CLERK REPORT
URGING THE DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD TO CON-•
TINUE THE BILLINGUAL PROGRAM SHOULD THE :CON-
GRESS SIGNIFICANTLY.CUT THE FUNDING OF'THE
CUBAN REFUGEE PROGRAM
URGING THE CONTINUATION OF THE CUBAN'REFUGEE
PROGRAM ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
STRONGLY URGING THE DADE COUNTY COMMUNITY AC-
TION AGENCY TO CONTINUE FUNDING THE ALL SAINT
HEADSTART CENTER
AUTHORIZING A PAYMENT OF $3,3223 TO MIAMI/
BAHAMAS GOOMBAY FESTIVAL IN COCONUT GROVE, IN
ALLOCATING $206,050.00 OF COMMUNITY DEVELOP-
MENT FUNDS FROM FOURTH AND FIFTH YEAR FEDERAL
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUND TO NEW
WASHINGTON HEIGHTS OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOP
MENT, INC
CONFIRMING ORDERING RESOLUTION NO. 79-275
CONFIRMING ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR CONSTRUCTION
OF SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT
IN SOUTH BAYSHORE DREIVE HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT H-4342
CONFIRMING ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR C
OF SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE SIDEWALK
IN SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE SIDEWALK
DISTRICT H-4281
10 ALLOCATING $658,987 OF COMMUNITY.
FUNDS PREVIOUSLY APPROPRIATED BY
NO. 8943 ADOPTED JUNE 4, 1979
AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE TO PAY
TO FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY COMPANY THE
SUM OF $60,882.82 IN FULL AND COMPLETE SETTLE
MENT OF ITS CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY OF MIAMI
FOR DAMAGES SUFFERED BY SAID RAILWAY
12 AUTHORIZING THE ALLOCATION OF 37 UNITS OF NEW
SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING TO BE DEVELOPED THROUGH
THE CITY OF MIAMI'S HOMEOWNERSHIP .ASSISTANCE
LAON PROGRAM
11
ONST-RUCTION
IMPROVEMENT
IMPROVEMENT
S
C
DEVELOPMENT
ORDINANCE
13 AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT THE
BID PROPOSAL FROM AND EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT
WITH, SANDY'S SKATES,' INC
COMMISSION
ACTION
R-79-421
RETRIEVAL
CODE NO.
0074
79-421
9-422
9-423
79-424
79-425
79-426
79-427
79-428
79.-430
'R-79-431 .79-431
R-79-432
R-79-433
79.-432
79.-43 3
{
:1
.TEM NO.
14
15
16
U'MENT'INDEX
CONTINUED
DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION
COMMISSION
ACTION
RETRIEVAL
CODE NO.
17
18
19
2 0..
21,
22
23.
24
25•
APPROVING A ONE (1) YEAR EXTENSION OF
EMPLOYMENT PAST THE AGE OF 75 FOR HARRY
PEARLMAN , WATCHMAN, DEPARTMENT OF STADIUMS
AND MARINAS
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ISSUE A
PERMIT TO CLM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION TO
FILL TWO BOATSLIPS, CONSTRUCT RIPRAP BULK-
HEAD AND REPAIR AND COMPLETE A WOODEN
BOARDWALK ALONG THE BULKHEAD ALONG THE
SHORE OF THE MIAMI RIVER AT SNUG HARBOR
REAPPOINTING HENRY C. ALEXANDER, JR.
STEPHEN DAVIS, JULIA FERNANDEZ, ANTHONY
LAVARGNA, DAVID SCULLY AND STEPHEN ZACK
AS MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI ENVIRONMEN-
TAL PRESERVATION REVIEW BOARD
APPROVING, CONFIRMING AND RATIFYING THE
ACTION OF THE CITY MANAGER IN AUTHORIZING
THE DIRECT PAYMENT OF $24,401.24 TO THE
DOUGLAS GARDENS MIAMI JEWISH HOME AND
HOSPITAL FOR THE AGED
RATIFYING THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE CITY
MANAGER IN ACCEPTING A GRANT AWARD FROM
THE KENNEDY FOUNDATION FOR "LET'S PLAY TO
GROW"
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT A
GRANT AWARD FROM THE COMMUNITY SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION FOR A RECREATION SUPPORT
PROGRAM-1979
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT A
GRANT APPLICATION TO THE BUREAU OF CRIMINAI
JUSTICE PLANNING AND ASSISTANCE, DIVISION
OF STATE PLANNING, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINI.-.
STRATION,,
WAIVING THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE V,
SECTION 2-102 (CONFLICT OF INTEREST) OF THE
CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER
TO ACCEPT A GRANT FROM THE U.S; DEPARTMENT
OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY
AND BARBARA NEIJA, INC. TO CREATE A SCULP-
TURE BY BARBARA NEIJA, INC.
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT
WITH ANTONIO MOLINA, CONCESSIONAIRE FOR
THE MIAMI COUNTRY CLUB FOOD CONCESSION
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO
AN AGREEMENT WITH THE PUBLIC HEALTH TRUST
OF DADE COUNTY, WHICH OPERATES JACKSON
MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
R-79-434
R-•79-441
R-•79-.442
R-:79:-443
R-.7 9- 444
R-79-445
79-434
79-445
U11ENHN DEX
CONTINUED
,Tk71 NO.! DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION
26
27
28
29
30.
31
32
33
34
35
36
1
37,
38
39
ACCEPTING THE BID OF PUBLIC SAFETY DEVICES,
INC. FOR FURNISHING 100 GUN LOCK RACKS FOR
THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AT A TOTAL COST OF
$5,300
ACCEPTING THE BID OF SANDERS, ASPINWALL &
ASSOCIATES FOR FURNISHING ONE STORM SEWER
PUMP AND MOTOR TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS AT A TOTAL COST OF $21,967.50
ACCEPTING THE BID OF LAMAR UNIFORMS FOR
FURNISHING UNIFORMS ON A CONTRACT BASIS FOR
ONE YEAR FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF FIRE
ACCEPTING THE BID OF G.E. METCALF & CO.
ACCEPTING THE BID OF SOUTHEAST COMPUTER DIS-
TRIBUTERS FOR FURNISHING 2 DISKETTE DRIVE AND
RELATED DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
ORDERING ENGLEWOOD SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT
SR-5461-S
ORDERING ENGLEWOOD SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT
SR-5461-C
AUTHORIZING THE REDUCTION OF THE 10% RETAIN
AGE TO 2-1/2% FOR THE HEAVY EQUIPMENT SERVICE
FACILITY MAINTENANCE BUILDING BEFORE THE
COMPLETION AND FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE PRO-
JECT BY THE CITY COMMISSION
AUTHORIZING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR OBJECTIONS TO
THE ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
COMPLETED CONSTRUCTION OF COLUMBIA SANITARY
SEWER IMPROVEMENT SR-5420-C
ACCEPTING THE COMPLETED WORK OF BETTER CON
STRUCTION, INC FOR DORSEY PARK IMPROVEMENTS
RECREATION BUILDING, AT A TOTAL COST OF
$131,329
ACCEPTING THE COMPLETED WORK OF B.E.C. CON-
STRUCTION CORP. FOR LITTLE HAVANA COMMUNITY
CENTER AT A TOTAL COST OF $1,066,275
ACCEPTING THE COMPLETED WORK OF SCOPE CON-
STRUCTION, INC AND INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTF
AMERICA FOR AFRICAN SQUARE PARK
ACCEPTING THE COMPLETED WORK PERFORMED BY
T & N CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. AT A TOTAL COST
OF $150,237.15
ACCEPTING THE COMPLETED WORK PERFORMED BY
THE PERSANT CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. AT A
TOTAL COST OF $240,713.18
COMMISSION
ACTION
R-79-446
R-79-457
R-79-458
R-79-459
RETRIEVAL
CODE NO.
79.-446
9-447
79-448
9-450
79-451
9-452
-453
9-454
9-455
79-456
79-457
79-459
dMI
UMENTI NDEX
CONTINUED
,TEM NO.
40
41
42
43
44
DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION
r
ACCEPTING THE COMPLETED WORK PERFORMED BY
IRCO PAVING COMPANY, INC. AT A TOTAL COST OF
$36,220.72
ACCEPTING THE COMPLETED WORK PERFORMED BY
THE ALGAB COMPANY, INC. AT A TOTAL COST OF
$26,154.87
ACCEPTING THE BID OF T&N CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
INC, IN THE PROPOSED AMOUNT OF $208,685 FOR
COCONUT GROVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PAVING
PROJECT -PHASE II.
ACCEPTING THE BID OF L.G.H. CONSTRUCTION
CORP. IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,680.00
AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE. OF WASTE COLLECTION
LICENSES TO ANGEL FAGUNDO; GENERAL HAULING
SERVICE, INC:
RETRIEVAL
CODE NO.
COMMISSION
ACTION
R-79-460
1111■ 1111111 ■ I ■II 1111 1111111
del