HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1979-06-04 MinutesCITY OF MIAMI
COMMISSION
MINUTES
\
ETORIBek
ITEMNO,
SUBJECT
itRDINANCE OR
SOUJT1ON
PAGE NO.
MO
2
3
5
11-A
11-B
11-C
'PRESENTATION TO "SOUTH FLORIDA YOUTH ,
ASSOCIATION"
PRESENTATION BY DR. OTTO GUTIERREZ BOLIVAR AND
JAVIER GARCIA DE JARANO, REPRESENTATIVES OF SISTER
CITY BOGOTA, COLOMBIA PRESENTATION
CHANGE DATES OF CITY COMMISSION MEETINGS PREVIOUSLY
SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 28 AND JULY 12 DISCUSSION
PRESENTATION
SECOND READING ORDINANCE:
AMEND SEC.1 OF ORDINANCE 8719 (SUMMARY GRANT
APPROPRIATIONS ORDINANCE) -ESTABLISH NEW TRUST
& AGENCY FUND ENTITLED "COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT FUND (5TH YEAR) ORD.8943
APPLICATION BY THE CITY OF MIAMI TO THE STATE OF
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIROMENTAL REGULATION -
FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF THE BULKHEAD ALONG SOUTH
BAYSHORE DRIVE, ETC. R-79-401
APPOINTING 5 INDIVIDUALS AS MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI HEALTH FACILITIES AUTHORITY R-79-402
AUTHORIZE MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENT:
FLORIDA STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (SUBJECT
TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS) FOR EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY
FOR THE RELOCATION OF S.E. 4TH STREET R-79-403
AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO RECEIVE BIDS:
STRUCTURAL STEEL WORK FOR CITY OF MIAMI/UNIVERSITY
OF MIAMI JAMES L. KNIGHT INTERNATIONAL CENTER
PROJECT R 9 404
DISCUSSION: UPDATED REPORT ON FINANCIAL PLAN FOR
CONFERENCE CENTER PROJECT DISCUSSION
APPROVE IN PRINCIPLE BASIC PROVISIONS BETWEEN THE
CITY OF MIAMI AND THE WORLD TRADE CENTER DEVELOPER
FOR USE OF "AIR RIGHTS OVER THE PROPOSED CONFERENCE
CENTER PARKING STRUCTURE." 004-79-405
(OM-79-406
(OM-79-407
APPROVE REVISED AGREEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF
WATSON ISLAND FOLLOWING CONSULTATION WITH I.R.S.
AND APPROVING QTHER MATTERS PERTAINING TO THIS
DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT
TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND DIPLOMAT WORLD
ENTERPRISES, LTD., DATED NOVEMBER 11, 1977 IN
ACCORDANCE WITH TERMS OF AMENDATORY AGREEMENT
AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE INVESTMENT
BANKING AGREEMENT W/ PRESCOTT, BALL, TURBEN &
W/ BLYTH EASTMAN DILLON & CO. INC. FOR THE
SALE AND ISSUANCE OF $55,000,000 IN REVENUE BONDS
TO FINANCE "WATSON ISLAND PROJECT". R-79-411
RESOLUTION CONFIRMING INTENTION TO UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD)
CITY'S COMMITMENT TO CONSTRUCTION & OPERATION
OF THE "WATSON ISLAND PROJECT", ETC. R-79-412
M-79-408
M-79-409
R-79-410
1
2
3
5
7-8
8-25
25-45
46
47
47
PAGE #2
ITEM NO.
SUBJECT
p�ESINANCE
ROLUTION�t o, PAGE NO.
11-D
12
13
15
APPROVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND:FIRM OF
ECONOMICS RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, TO PREPARE POLICY
MANUAL AND REVISE ITS FEASIBILITY STUDY OF APRIL
1978 FOR THE "WATSON ISLAND PROJECT"
AUTHORIZE FINAL PAYMENT OF $4,034.03 TO MICHAEL E.
ANDERSON, ESQ. AND JOHN R. FARRELL, ESQ. FOR`
'PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BY REPRESENTING THE CITY IN
THE COCONUT GROVE PROPERTIES, INC. ET. AL. V.
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA-SUPREME COURT OF FLA.-
CASE NO. 54,557
RESCHEDULE CITY COMMISSION MEETINGS FOR THE MONTH;,
OF DUNE 1979
RESCHEDULE CITY COMMISSION 'MEETINGS FOR THE
MONTHOF JULY 1979'
POLICE'COMMUNITY RELATIONS -SOLUTION TO THE SO
CALLED "INTERNAL REVIEW PROCESS"
R-79-413 48
48
49
49-50
50
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI,;FLORIDA
* * * * * * * *
On the 4th day of June 1979, the City Commission of Miami','Florida
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 10:00 A.M., by Mayor Ferre
following members of the Commission found to be present:
ABSENT:
ALSO PRESENT "ERE:
Commissioner Armando Lacasa
Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson
Vice Mayor J.' L. Plummer, 'Jr..
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
Joseph R. Grassie„ City; Manager
R. L. Fosmoen, Assistant City Manager
George F. Knox, City Attorney
Ralph G. Ongie, City Clerk
Matty Hirai, Assistant City Clerk
with the
An invocation was delivered by Reverend Gibson who then led those
present in a pledge of allegience to the flag.
1. PRESENTATION TO "SOUTH FLORIDA YOUTH ASSOCIATION."
Mayor Ferre:
step foward.
MAYOR FERRE READS TEXT OF THE PRESENTATION MADE TO THE
"SOUTH FLORIDA YOUTH ASSOCIATION."
MR. DWORKIN, CHAIRMAN OF THE ASSOCIATION, MAKES BRIEF STATEMENT.
I see Allan Dworkin is here. I'd like to ask if Allan would
ER
1(A) PRESENTATION BY DR.OTTO GARCIA DE JGARAtiO, REPRESENTATIVESUTILRREZ BOLIVAR and JOFISISTER
CITY BOGOTA, COLOMBIA.
PRESENTATION TO THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE NATIONAL FLAG OF
COLOMBIA, SUCH PRESENTATION WAS MADE BY MESSRS. OTTO GUTIERREZ
BOLIVAR AND JAVIER GARCIA DE JARANO.
(COMMISSIONER ROSE GORDON ENTERS THE
mh
SUN 4 1979
2. CHANGE DATES OF CITY COMMISSION MEETINGS PREVIOUSLY
SCHEDULED FOR NNE 28 AND July 12.
THE CITY COMMISSION, AFTER LENGTHY DISCUSSION,
CHANGED THE PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF June 28
TO TAKE PLACE June 25, at 10:00 A.M., and June 26
(Planning & Zoning portion) AT 6:00 P.M.
FURTHER, THE CITY COMMISSION CHANGED THE PREVIOUSLY
SCHEDULED MEETING OF JULY 12, 1979 TO TAKE PLACE ON
JULY 11, 1979, AT 9:00 A.M.; AND RESCHEDULED THE REGULAR
MEETING OF JULY 26, 1979 TO TAKE PLACE ON JULY 23, 1979
AT 10:00 A.M. THEY FURTHER RESCHEDULED THE PLANNING &
ZONING PORTION OF THE JULY 26, 1979 MEETING TO TAKE PLACE
ON JULY 23, 1979, AT 6:00 P.M.
Upon motion duly made by Commissioner Gordon and seconded
by Commissioner Plummer, the above changes were unanimously
passed and adopted. (THE ABOVE MOTIONS WERE LATER FORMALIZED
BY RESOLUTIONS NOS. 79-415 AND 79-416).
SECOND READING ORDINANCE:
3. Amend Seed of Ordinance 8719 (Summary Grant Appropriations
Ordinance)- Establish New Trust & Agency Fund entitled "Com-
munity Development Block Grant Fund (5TH Year)
Mayor Ferre: All right, now we are on item 1. Who moved it before
Mrs. Gordon: I'll move it.
Mayor Ferre: Mrs. Gordon moves, Mr. Lacasa seconds, read the ordinance.
(THE CITY ATTORNEY READ THE ORDINANCE INTO. THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Mayor Ferre: A11 right, call the roll.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1 OF ORDINANCE NO. 8719, ADOPTED
OCTOBER 26, 1977, THE SUMMARY GRANT APPROPRIATIONS ORDINANCE
BY ESTABLISHING A NEW TRUST AND AGENCY FUND ENTITLED "COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (FIFTH YEAR)"; AND APPROPRIATING $10,726,000
FOR THE EXECUTION OF SAME, CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of May 22, 1979,
it was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption.
On motion of Commissioner Gordon, 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 (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson
Commissioner Armando Lacasa
Vice Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
(voting cont'd
next page)
JUN 4 1979
NOES: None.
SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 8943
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.
4. APPLICATION BY THE CITY OF MIAMI TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION - for reconstruction
of the bulkhead along South Bayshore Drive, etc.
Mayor Ferre: We are now on item No. 2. (MAYOR FERRE REDS TEXT OF PREPARED
RESOLUTION INTO THE RECORD)
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, there are some people here who want to speak on
that.
Mayor Ferre: Are there people who are objectors? This is not a public
hearing, I don't think, but I'll be happy....
Mr. Plummer: Well, let me just tell you, Mr. Grimm, their concern is that they
have read in the paper where that will be approximately $1,000,000 project. Is
that going to be assessable to the landowners of land? And if so, they want to
know what it is going to cost them.
Mr. Vince Grimm: The answer to your question is "no." That°was created in ,a
highway district and the people are already notified as to what their portion'_
of the cost would be, and it would be 25% of half of, the cost of the tight -of -
way, and I don't remember what that number is.
Mr. Plummer: You are talking about bulkhead.
Mr. Grimm: No, that's adjacent to City -owned property.
Mr. Plummer:
Mr. Grimm:
So they will not be paying this bulkhead.
True.
Mr. Plummer; All right, sir.
(BACKGROUND STATEMENT MADE OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Mr. Plummer: Butthat's for the acquisition of right-of-way, not the bulkhead.
(BACKGROUND RESPONSE MADE OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Mr. Plummer: Is $25.00...apartment.' Okay. I think they can afford that.
Mayor Ferrer,
Mr. Plummer:.
Mayor Ferre: Moved by Mr. Plummer
call the roll.
The following
its adoption:
All right, is there further discussion
I'll move it, Mr. Mayor.
on this?
seconded. by Lacasa, further discussion,
resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer
who moved
RESOLUTION NO. 79-401
A RESOLUTION, PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 253, FLORIDA STATUTES, URGING
ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRON-
MENTAL REGULATION FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF THE BULKHEAD ALONG SOUTH
BAYSHORE DRIVE BETWEEN S.E. 14 STREET AND S.E. 15 ROAD IN THE CITY
mh
3
OF MIAMI, FLORIDA.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted
in the Office of the City Clerk)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Lacasa
adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Commissioner Armando Lacasa
Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R.
Commissioner Rose Gordon
Vice Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
None.
the resolution was passed anc
5. APPOINTING 5 INDIVIDUALS AS MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
HEALTH FACILITIES AUTHORITY.
Mayor Ferre: Now we have the appointments to the Health Facilities Authority.
I see Mr. Rosenberg here, is there anybody else here who wishes to address the
Commission? All right, Don.
Mr. Don Rosenberg: MR. DON ROSENBERG APPEARED IN CONNECTION WITH THE
APPOINTMENT OF INDIVIDUALS TO THE HEALTH FACILITIES
AUTHORITY. RECORDING MICROPHONE WAS NOT TURNED ON -SO
STATEMENT DID NOT GET INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD.
Mrs. Gordon: Don, may I correct a comment? None of those persons
are Board members of the ESA.
(MR. ROSENBERG'S RESPONSE NOT RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Mrs. Gordon: Well, I don't know specifically who you are referring to, would
you be able to tell me?...(RESPONSE NOT RECORDED) What is Maria's connection
with the H.S.A. (RESPONSE NOT RECORDED) That's only an honorary, there is no
connection to any determining factors that we rule on where this facility
would be concerned that an individual member would have any jurisdiction what-
soever. The individual members' role is simply to be able to vote annually
on those persons who have been nominated for election to the Board and to the
officers of the Board, but Maria Hernandez is not a current Board member per
se.
Mayor Ferre: All right, what's
recommended.
Mrs. Gordon: I would suggest we proceed to make an individual notninatiOfl,
there are five appointments available, five of US. if you=agree,;would like
to moninate Maria Hernandez.
AFTER SOME DISCUSSION AS TO THE METHODOLOGY IN MAKING
THE NOMINATIONS, THE CITY COMMISSION PROCEEDED TO MAKE
THE FOLLOWING APPOINTMENTS:
Commissioner Gordon nominated:
Comm.(Rev.) T. R. Gibson nominated:
Commissioner Armando Lacasa nominated:
Vice Mayor J.L.Plummer,Jr. nominated:
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre nominated:
Maria Hernandez
T. Willard Fair
Modesto Mora
Charles Gottlieb
William Goldrich.
WHEREUPON the above -nominees were incorporated into
the prepared resolution.
mh
!j.
Ju% 4 1979
AFTER lengthy discussion, the City Commission agreed that the terms be staggered
and the following nominees were selected to serve the following terms:
Nominee
Modesto Mora
T. Willard Fair.
William Goldrich
Maria Hernandez
Charles Gottlieb
The following resolution was
its adoption:
Term
4 years`
4 :,years
3 years
2 years
1 year
introduced by Commissioner Plummer,, who moved
RESOLUTION NO. 79-402
A RESOLUTION APPOINTING 5 INDIVIDUALS AS MEMBERS OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, HEALTH FACILITIES AUTHORITY TO SERVE TERMS
OF OFFICE VARYING FROM 1 YEAR TO 4 YEARS AND SPECIFYING THAT
UPON THE EXPIRATION OF SAID TERMS, FUTURE APPOINTEES BY THE
COMMISSION SHALL SERVE TERMS OF 4 YEARS.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here
in the Office of the City Clerk).
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gordon, the
adopted;by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Armando Lacasa
Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson'`
Commissioner Rose Gordon
Vice Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
and on file
resolution was passed and.
6. Authorize Manager to FLORIDA STATE DEPARTMENT OF
enter into agreement: TRANSPORTATION (subject to certain
conditions) for EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY
FOR THE RELOCATION OF S.E. 4 Street.
Mayor Ferre: We are now on item No. 4. Is there any problem with this item?
Does anyone want to move that?
Mr. Plummer: Move it.
Mr. Lacasa:
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Plummer moves it, second by Lacasa, further discussion on
item 4, call the roll
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 79-403
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN
AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND OTHER
APPROPRIATE STATE AGENCIES, SUBJECT TO RATIFICATION AND CONFIRMA-
TION BY THE CITY COMMISSION, FOR THE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY FOR THE
RELOCATION OF S.E. 4TH STREET WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI/UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI JAMES L. KNIGHT INTERNATIONAL CENTER
SITE.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file
in the Office of the City Clerk).
(Vote follows):
mh
JUN 4 1979
(Vote on Res.79-403 coned):
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Lacasa
adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Armando Lacasa
Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson
Commissioner Rose Gordon
Vice Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
.r-
7. Authorize City Manager to .- STRUCTURAL STEEL WORK for City of
receive bids: Miami/Univ. of Miami James L. Knigh
International Center Project.
Mayor Ferre: On item 5, what this will do, as you recall, we discussed this
before, it was a question of time and we wanted to be able to award the steel
contract and what this does is it says that whoever is the low bidder gets the
steel contract. Now, is this acceptable legally, George?
Mr. Knox:. Yes, sir, we examined it and there is no legal problem.
Mayor Ferre: All right
bidders did we have?
now, one more question that I have for you, how man
Mr. James. Connolly: About 1
and picked those documents..
Mayor Ferre:
Mr. Plummer:
Connolly.
Mr. Connolly:' Yes.
Mr. Plummer: Let's discuss it so we understand what both portions of this thing
are. Tell us what the second thing is.
Mr. Connolly: You are still in item 5?
Mr. Plummer: Yes, I see one for the contract for structural steel, thenI
see a second contract for shop drawings.
Mr. Connolly: The normal procedure is if and when you award the contract it
takes six to twelve weeks to prepare the shop drawings and we are trying to save
that twelve -week period of time by authorizing the successful bidder to proceed
with the shop drawings but limiting it to a $30,000 expenditure which gives us
a gain in time in total construction period.
Mr. PluMner: What is the steel in that thing proposed to run?
people who are in the
steel fabricating business
A11 right,
s there a motion?
Well, wait a'minute now, there is a second portion to :this, Mr.
Mr. Connolly: I don't have the figures right
Mr. Plummer: What are you projecting?
here with me but....
Mr. Connolly: I don't have my contruction cost estimate but I` think it
$4,000,000.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Knox, you say it's legal?
Mr. Knox: Yes,' sir.,
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Grassie, do you recommend it?=
is about
mh
.JUN 4 1279
Mr. Grassie: Yes, sir, this is a...
Mr. Plummer: I move it.
Mr. Lacasa: Second.
Mayor Ferre: All right, further discussion on item number 5 call the roll.
The following resolution was introduced;' by Commissioner
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 79-404
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO RECEIVE BIDS FOR THE
STRUCTURAL STEEL WORK FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI/UNIV.
OF MIAMI JAMES L. KNIGHT INTERNATIONAL CENTER PROJECT; CONDITIONALLY
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH THE AP-
PARENT LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER SOLELY FOR THE PREPARATION OF
STRUCTURAL STEEL DETAILINGS (SHOP DRAWINGS) IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO
EXCEED $30,000; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO BRING THE BIDS FOR
FABRICATION AND INSTALLATION OF THE STRUCTURAL STEEL BEFORE THE
CITY COMMISSION FOR ITS SUBSEQUENT AWARD OF CONTRACT; AND FURTHER
DIRECTING THAT FUNDS FOR THE AWARD OF THE SHOP DRAWINGS BE EXPENDED
FROM TITLE I FUNDS FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE THROUGH THE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION, PURSUANT TO GRANT DATED
SEPTEMBER 16, 1977.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file
in the Office of the City Clerk).
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Lacasa,
adoptedby the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Armando Lacasa
Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R.
Commissioner Rose Gordon
Vice Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES:
None.
3. DISCUSSION: Updated Report on FINANCIAL PLAN FOR
CONFERENCE CENTER PROJECT.
Mayor Ferre: We are now on item No. 6 which is discussion and update for the
Financial Plan for the Conference Center project.
Mr. Grassie: I would like to have Mr. Connolly introduce this subject for the
City Commission.
Mr.James Connolly: On March 8 of this year, a preliminary.Financial Concept
•
of a;plan'to develop,..
Mr. Connolly, either my portfs:.incomplete.-..I don't have a
Mr. Plummer:•
copy of: it.
Mr. Connolly: It's an.update report t
meeting of the Commission.
e you asking me to approve a Financial Plan without a copy?
Mr. Plummer:
Mr.
Mr.
Connolly: No, no, we are not asking for approval.
Plummer: Oh, are you just merely giving a Report?
here will be`a draft report at the next`
1
•
mh
•,
'JUN 4 1971
Mr. Connolly:
Mk. Plummer: Oh, I'm sorry. You will submit it prior, in writing
Mr.
Plummer: Okay.
Mr. Connolly: Since the meeting of March 8, we have proceeded with the Financial
Plan. We retained the services of our bond counsel to work on the legal aspects
of this including the problems with State Constitution law and IRS conside-
rations. We retained Laventhol and Horwath to do a feasibility study. We received
the preliminary numbers projected from that study on Friday, we distributed them
to our attorney and to the bond underwriter by express mail. The numbers, by the
way, tract very closely to what we had projected from in-house determinations
of the cash flow to the City from the project. Therefore it appears that the
funds are available and will be available in order to have a revenue bond issue
to cover the completion of cost of construction. At this time, we are moving
ahead on that basis and we'll have at the meeting of the 28th a written report
from the underwriter as to the marketing aspects of the bond issue and from our
bond attorneys.
Mr. Grassie: Any questions from the City Commission?
Mayor Ferre: Any questions on item No. 6? Thank you.
9, (a) APPROVF
10
RINCIPLLE ASIC PROVISIONAGREE'4ENTBE-
TQse o PRINCIPLE
RERETBFFR
PARKING STRUCTURE."
(k Please refer to two other motions outlined herein '
below.
Mayor Ferre: All right, we are now on item No. 7, Mr. Grassie.
Mr. Grassie: Again, Mr. Connolly will make some introductory comments and then
we are going to ask the developer to expand on that, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. James Connolly: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission. Since we have first
presented the World Trade Center which is more than a year ago, one of the primary
concerns of the City Commission was the exposure on the part of the City being
the holder of the land in a project of this magnitude and with a program that was
forecast for the utilization of the air rights. Since that time, we have been
moving in two directions in this project. Number one, was to secure financing
that would give a minimum exposure to the City. At the same time, we have been
looking for further funds to develop the air rights using the Urban Development
Action Grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development of the Federal
Government. We've had discussions with them and it appears that they are very
reasonably listening to what we have to say in their review of the application
and probably would move forward on the grant subject to approval by the Commission
of the proposal we have in hand today. On the part of the developer which is a
consortium of Worsham Brothers, Dade Federal Savings, Sefrias and Miami World
Trade Center, Inc., I would like to ask Marty Fine to make a short presentation
to you of what specifically is the deal and how the City fits into the total
picture.of this development.
Mr. Plummer:
Are you into item 7?
Mr. Connolly: Yes, this is item 7.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Connolly, do we have the parking' study?
Mr. Connolly: It was distributed this morning?;
Mr..Fosmoen: It was delivered to your office, this morning, Commissioner.
Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute, that's this one? (INAUDIBLE RESPONSE) This'is no
what I asked for.
'JUN 4 IPS
Mr. Fosmoen: What's the question?
Mr. Plummer: It was not a question, it was a statement. You misunderstood.'.:
This only projects itself, as I read it, and I read it very quickly because
it was only given to me this morning, to the basic of the hotel.
Mr, Grassier No, it takes into consideration, Commissioner, also the'construc
tion of 450,000 sq.ft. of office space at the World Trade Center above the park
ing space. That is also one of the considerations in that study, and all uof those
-for purpose analysis- are taken together, that is the hotel, the Conference
Center and the World Trade Center.
Mr, Plummer: Well, maybe -I stand corrected, it was...I
quickly but..., okay.
Mr. Connolly: J.L., on the. second page,
the air 'rights
Mr. Plummer:- All right,
right here, included in the program is
Mr. Martin Fine: For the record, myname is Martin Fine, I; represent the pro-
posed developer of the World Trade Center. Because I know you have a very tight
schedule I'll be very brief in these remarks. Firstly, Earl Worsham is here, and
Mr. T'ing Pei -who are part of the overall consortium; Howard Ward, who is a
Senior Vice President of Dade Federal Savings & Loan. This consortium consists
of Dade Federal, the Miami World Trade Center, Worsham Brothers, Sefrias and
Turner Development. The estimated cost of the air rights proposal will be ap-
proximately $55,000,000. The City is being asked to apply for a UDAG Grant -
HUD in the amount of $7,500,000 which will trigger this private investment. It
is very much in line with HUD's policy to put some seed money in to make this
type of a development possible. This overall proposal will permit the parking
spaces previously pegged at about 750 to be increased to 1,200. This is a very
important item andthat's the City will net -that is net- approximately $400,000
per year from the parking revenue. By the way, all of this is spelled out in
this memorandum that Mr. Conolly had submitted to the Manager dated May 30.
In addition to that parking revenue, it is anticipated that the City will receive
a total of $300,000 per year for the air rights for allowing this 450,000 sq.ft
building to be built over the parking structure. That would be divided as
follows: $150,000 would be received from and through Dade Federal, who will occupy one
third of that space - 150,000sq.ft. Mr. Ward is here and can relate it in more
detail to you but basically,the fact is that Dade Federal, as you know, was
chartered and organized in 1934, it is approximately a 2 billion dollar insti-
tution. It has its roots in Downtown Miami, it wants to stay in Downtown Miami,
has been looking for space there and feels this is an ideal place in which to
do it. The balance of $150,000 will come through the rental achievement basis
on the theory that as the structure is rented up,the remaining 300,000 sq.ft.,
the rents will be paid so that at the fifth year, regardless of the rental,
you would receive an additional $150,000 for a total of $300,000. I might men-
tion that the first $150,000 will be tied to the consumer price index. The
300,000 sq.ft. of the building will be leased to this consortium of Worsham
and Miami World Trade Center, Inc. and will be beaconed as a focal point for
international trade in Miami to carry out the exciting development that is and
has taken place over the past several years. It would, once again, point out
Miami's position as an international city. It would do and function in the man-
ner that world trade centers throughout the world are presently functioning,
such as the one in New York City originally built by the Port. We think this is
an exciting development which will aid and assist the overall Downtown develop-
ment plan as pointed out in yesterday's paper, and more importantly, as pointed
out in the work you've done. Now, Mr. Worsham is here, Mr. Ward is here and
Mr. T'ing Pei is here if any of you would like to hear from them or have any
questions I'm sure they'd be glad to address you.
Mayor Ferre: All right, any questions of Mr. Worsham?
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Fine, I spoke with Mr. Worsham and Mr. Connolly in reference
to increasing the parking from the 1,200 spaces -which I understand now the
criteria for environmental review and everything goes into effect at the 1,500
car level and I would like...
Mayor Ferre:
Does that mean that we are under it then?
J U N 4 1979
Mr. Plummer: Well, yes, we are way under it and I would like to see more ade-
quate parking on the site up closer to but under the 1,500. Now, I don't know
whether I would be addressing that question to the Manager, since the parking
structure will be ours, or whether...well, let me take it from there, Mr. Grassie.
Mr. Grassie: Commissioner, would it be your intention that we expand the park-
ing structure on this site or are you considering the possibility of an adjacent
site which will provide additional parking?
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Grassie, it's basically inmaterial to me. You know, we now sud-
denly have found ourselves in a different set of figures. Before we were build-
ing a garage of 999 spaces because I was told that the environmental impact came
at 1,000. We are 500 committed to the hotel, we are 300 committed to the Univer-
sity -which is 8, I don't know where the 750 ever came into play....
Mayor Ferre: Which is 8 what?...800?
Mr. Plummer: Just those two, where we have to guarantee the hotel a minimum of
500 a day. We have to guarantee the University Conference Center 300 a day.
see.
Mayor Ferre: I
Mr. Plummer: At that level
vention Center.
Mayor Ferre:
that
leavesus 299 for the operation'of the Con-
m-sorry, but you are confusing me. I though it was 1,200.
w, what they are in 'fact doing, for a building of 450.000.sa. f
Mr. Plummer: No
is providing another 200 parking, spaces.....
Mayor Ferre: I' see.
Mr. Plummer::, ...and I don't feel, personally, that that's adequate in any way.
shape or form. Now, if you can go to the maximum which would be the 1,499....
Mayor Ferre: Can you go that much on that property.
Mr. Plummer: You just can't go to the 1,500, it would be an additional two''.
floors' Maurice, or $1,500,000.
Well, you see, that's the question, can we physically put that
Mayor Ferre:
many...?
Mr. Plummer: The answer is "yes".
Mayor Ferre: Who said that to you?
Mr. Plummer: Mr.Worsham....or Mr. Connolly, let me, it would be an additional,
$1,500,000in cost but what it would do, Mr. Mayor, is it would give you then
500 which we, are committed to for the hotel, 300 for the University` -which is 8,
it would give you roughly 700 for the operation of the Convention Center and
and the World Trade Center
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Worsham, let's then address that question. Can I expand on that a
little bit J.L.? Mr. Plummer brought up, last time, the question of
parking, that he was concerned about not sufficient parking, his argument
being that since we are already committing 800 units, an additional 400 which
is what we would need to go 1,200, would either not take care of your needs or
not take care of the public. Now, our concern here, of course, if for this to
be a multiplier which is what UDAG applications are for, to induce the private
sector to' invest money. Now, the question is if we were to go up to 1,400 I've,
got...I will repeat the two questions, I want to make sure you understand them,
one is, do we have to go for an environmental impact study at 1,400?
Mr. Plummer: 1,499.
Mr. Worsham: 1,499 is my understanding.
Mayor Ferre: So the figures have changed. The second, is who says that we can
put 1,400 on that lot? AM how .many floor do we have drive up for 1,400?..We
are not going to get into one of these Century cities or whatever it is, where you
have to drive up 20 floors to get a parking space.
Mr. Earl Worsham: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, although the feasibi-
lity studies seem to indicate that 1,150 to 1,200 parking spaces would be suf-
ficient to serve the needs of the Wnr1A Trade Center and the Hyatt Regency and
the Convention complex, I personally agree with Mr. Plummer that if without
delaying the project -by having to go through an environmental impact statement -
that if we can go to 1,499 spaces it would be beneficial to the project. Personally,
I feel as though the more parking that we have Downtown will alleviate the parking
requirements.
Mrs. Gordon: How much time would the delay be if there was an environmental"im-
pact? What do you figure that would take?
Mr Worsham: Mrs... Gordon, I rather imagine it would take six months or more; to
go through an environmental impact statement.
Mrs. Gordon:
There hasn't been one a
all.
Mr. Worsham: Yes, there was. There was one on the Convention Center but,
course, 'we are expanding now into the garage.
Mrs. Gordon: And to update. that, including this, would take another six months?.
Mr. Worsham:`
Mr. Fosmoen: Commissioner, to give you some idea, Mr.'Gould on his Ball Point
project, received hie development order about, four. 'Months after he started the
DRI process. So four to five months' duration. A` lot of that is simply review
time and notification time for public hearings and so'forth.
411* Mrs. Gordon: It would seem to me that it would serve .the best interests
parties` concerned=if there was an environmental impact', statement"made. I personal-
ly can't find any real reason why... because it would.be comvleteddurine'the same
process` that'you are doing other things just as it was with.<the"Bali Point, the
environmental impact hat,:back.at all, not really.
Mr. Grassier: You:are,right, Commissioner, we anticipate that if the City Com
mission' approves the,World Trade Center project,andfwe receive the UDAG grant
that wewill-have to,go through..a DRI;for the building itself. -
Mrs. Gordon:;: I"believe 'we will.
Mr. Grassier . so, in , consequence, those two analyses, the one , for ,the `par;cing
structure and the other for the buiiding, would run at the same time and pro-
bably would not delay the project.
Mrs. Gordon: I"don'tthink it would and 1 would go along with J.L. also
desiring more parking spaces for those entities, if possible.
Mayor Ferre: That's all fine and'I agree` but who is going to pay for
That would be one of the project costs, it would come out of the
Mr. Grassie:
project.
Mayor: Ferre:
Mr. Grassier
Out of theirproject costs
it?
system would come out of ,our project, the part that comes out of the ui g
Well, the part.of the DRI which had to: do with the parking
b ' ldin
would be their cost.
Mayor Ferre: No, no, I understand that, no, noI understand that, :that's
obvious, that's not my question. My question, and I'll go over it slowly, is
we.are making an application for a UDAG grant which will be $7,500,000. That
$7,500,000 will take care of the construction of foundations and a garage, that
will go 9 or 10 stories high with beams coming through. I would imagine that
would cover it, wouldn't it?
Mr. Grassie: Well, it will also take care of the connecting facilities between
the Conference Center and the ramp itself. Everything that has to be"built
under the expresswaY and soon.
J U N 4 1979
Mayor Ferre:Mayor Ferre' Okay, so that the City would not have any outlays of
money out-of-pocket other than those received from the Federal Government,
UDAG
application, and other than those that we have already putto buy
the nd
Mr. Grassie: And what you have in your Capital budget which is basically a
Reserve Fund, that's all.
Mr. Grassie: In other words we are not putting up -additional moneys. Now, if
you go from a 1,200 parking garage to a 1,450, we are adding now 250 parking
units and that is going to cost about $1000,000,to $1,500,000. Now, my ques-
tion is who is going to pay. for that additional million to million and a half
dollars, the cost of the construction ofthe parking garage because of the in-
crease of 250'spaces.
the total amount of bonding
Mr. Grassie: That would, resultin a
which the City would have to do.
Mrs. Gordon: In the revenue bonding.
Mr. Grassie: By that figure. You remember,
the plan e become now,
the
alwfinancial leplan
now, that we are contemplating which is gog
it on the 25th, hopefully, involves the City's portion of expenses for the
Conference Center itself plus; the garage. Now, if we are adding in this process
of discussion,on a policy basis, if you adding $1,500,000tto the costnt of the
garage, then that financial plan would have to go up by that
ney.
Mayor Ferre: I guess the point that I'm trying to make in all this is that
we have hadseveral qualified, nationally recognized parking experts look at
this project. That includes the Convention Center -Conference. Center, the hotel
and World Trade Center, they say that 1,200 parking spaces is enough. All right,
Mr. Plummer:. Well, that's a qualified answer, very qualified
by a control that we, the Commission,do not exercise
if we are going to add 250 parking spaces, should
Mayor Ferre: `All right, now,
the City . pay for that?...
Mr. Plummer: Not at all.
Mayor Ferrer ..or should the developerpay for that? That's the question,
you know, I know that I don't want to be adding any more burdens on the developer
but I'd like but,I think that's something that ought to be discussed.
Mrs. Gordon: Wouldn't that come from the bonding? The revenue bonds?
Mayor Ferre: Yes,
but therevenue bonds have to be paid from the revenue...
Mrs. Gordon: From the revenue.
Mayor Ferre:- —wand
: as long as it doesn't have any underpinning-fromthe=City...
I get your point, then it doesn't make any difference.
Mrs. Gordon: It doesn't make any difference,
Mayor. Ferre: I accept that.
Mr. Connolly: Mr. Mayor, I would like to point out that the financial return,
as long as we have an adequate number to meet the market requirement,- is
the
asn
highest yield per dollar invested in your total financial plan so�byciiintucrey ing
the parking -provided that the market stay at a
hances the total bond issue.
Mrs. Gordon: And it also helps the would beentire oangreataimprovementhtoethe project
is so much
other development taking place.
in my opinion.
Mayor Ferre: All right, then, as I can get this consensus around here, as long
as we go to 1,499 parking spaces, and as long as we go to a DRI, that it seems
to be a move afoot here I don't see anybody screaming or getting too upset.
Is there anything else that has to be asked?
Mr.
Plummer:. Youmean in that area or in the project?
4 re
'JUN 4 1l19
Mayor Ferre: In anything?
Mr. Plummer: Well, I've got a lot of other questions, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: Okay, so let's get on to them.
Mr. Plummer:
Mrs. Gordon:.
increased.
Are we understood atthis point?
J.L., I suggest you make a motion which I'll secondthat it be
Mr. Plummer: Well, Rose, it's difficult for me to make.
stands now, I'm voting against the World" Trade Center.
a motion because , as it
Mrs. Gordon: ` Oh, then I'll move it, tt,pt 1.t ha" increased because I firmly'
the parking....
Mayor Ferre: Mrs. Gordon moves that
1,499.....?
Mr. Plummer
rota ';999:to 1,499..
,400,
believe that
the parking be increased from 1,200 to
Mayor Ferre: 1
Mrs. Gordon:,. Well, I want to say that I'm not opposed to obtaining -in
I prefer we do obtain, Marty, have you any objections?
Mayor Ferre: Do you want to make that a of the motion?
Mrs. Gordon: Yes,: an environmental impact statement is a,true necessity,
my thinking,' if we need to go and live within what the impacts will be, notto,;
kill it but''to"design it in such a way. Do`you want to say something, Fosmoen?"
Mr. Fosmoen:. I: guessmyonly comment is that is will not be an EIS,
be a development of regional impact, it will be a State requirement,. no
Federal Environmental Impact Statement requirement.
Mayor Ferre: Sure, sheunderstands that.
Mrs. Gordon: Yes, well,`I sit on that Board I ought
ing about.
Mayor
moved
Ferre: Allright, so, in other wore
to 1,400 parking spaces....
Mrs. Gordon:'
Mayor Ferre:
Mrs. Gordon:.
Okay?
Mayor
Mrs.
,499 or..
fact,
it will
t the
to know what you are.talk-
e, Mrs. Gordon moves that it'll be
1,499 or thereabouts.
..whatever. As large as possible amount at would b
feasible.
Ferre: Within reason, please, we don't want to be going up 20 stories.
Gordon:
said, "as'is feasible".
Mayor Ferre: Well, Rose, in Chicago there is a parkinggarage that goes u
20 stories, and it is feasible, and I` don't think that makes any sense.
Gordon:
Mrs.
All right, we are not going to play on semantics, okay.
Mayor Ferre: That's not semantics, it's a reality, there is a garage that goes
up 20 floors, you've got to drive up, in a car, 20 floors, it's feasible, but
I don't think we want to do that here.
Mrs.
Gordon:
Okay, that resolves the first....
Mayor-Ferre. And the other condition is that the project go through a DRI
process, voluntarily.
Mrs. Gordon:
Mayor! Ferre:
voluntary on
I believe it's mandatory.
Well, it doesn't matter, whichever, I think it is nice if it's'
our part, I think it shows good faith. Allright, there is motion,;
1.3
JUN 4 t979
is there a second? Further discussion, call the roll.
Rev. Gibson: May I ask...are the developers, let me ask, you all understand
what is being proposed I trust? I know you do, I just want to make sure I
get it on the record.
Mr. Fine:. There is one phase of it that I -hope we understood correctly, an
that is that there is no way -as I understand it from the point of view of the
developer- that it can pay for the additional spaces.
Mayor Ferre: Okay, I think that's been cleared up.
Mrs. Gordon: It wouldn't be
Mr. Fine: I' agree.
Rev. Gibson: I just wanted
know.
necessary because of; the revenue bonding.
o make sure that the developers understood, you
Mr. Plummer:' And at this point, just so we have the record clear, Mr. Fine,
at this point there is,nocommitment to. the- World'Trade Center for;any-priority
parking. We understand that?..Everybody isshaking their heads,I wanted to
hear some "yes" or "noes".
Mr. Connolly: Marty Fine pointedout,that the DRI for the garage portion will be
a City 'expenditure, DRI for,the,World Trade Center will 'be thedeveloper'sex-
Mayor Ferre: Yes, now answerthe question:`Plummer
asked is...so ahead, J.L.
Mr. Plummer: The question is that there is no priority in parking as there is
for the Hotel or the Conference. Center so that gives us the availability for
700 up in the air for the Convention Center as well as the World Trade Center.
This only relates to parking because I wantto go into the rest of it.
Mayor Ferre: Yes, sir, further discussion?
Mr. Connolly:
Mayor Ferre: Yes, sir.
Mr. Connolly:
Mayor Ferre:
Mr. Connolly:
The Chamber
That has nothing to do with. parking
All right.
May.I say one thing?
asked.
The question Plummer.
Cointnercedelivered to you this morning a letter...
does it?
Mayor Ferre: Allright,. call the roll on the motion.
Rev. Gibson:Let's make it... before we go, let me make sure... Plummer, may I. -ask
this question > to make sure, you are saying that at no time the World Trade Center
gets prioritv..say...500parking spaces are tied towards the Center...
Mr. Plummer: That's correct. Father,. what. it really says is, presently, for
the hotel we have a commitment up to>500 spaces a, day, guaranteed, we have.a
commitment to the University..of Miami up to 300 parkinj spaces a day. What
I am saying in this motion is, there is,no commitment to anyone else including;
the World Trade Center for those new parking spaces.'
Mayor Ferre: Of course, that'ssubject to change
packaging conditions and others we uay have, to do
that I'm willing to vote for that but I, for one,
if later on we have to tie a reasonable amount of
have an open mind on it.
if later on, for financial
that, I want to make sure
have a completely open mind
parking spaces, I'm going to.
Mr. Plummer: Well, I also have an open mind that says that if there is a tie
that they can build another parking structure to meet that requirement.
Mrs. Gordon: J.L., we need to also realize that thereis an investment of
almost $40,000000 that, is going to be made by Dade Federal and they are en-
titled to, you know, some security on the parking situation for that invest-
ment, so we don't want to kill the goose that laid the golden egg, because I
ash
1.4
think you laid a golden egg.
Rev. Gibson: Let me make sure that you, men...I hate to ask: this question,
you are comfortable with what we are saying?
Mr. Fine: Well, I think the Mayor summarized it properly, for example,.. and
Mrs. Gordon, if Dade Federal or other financial institution Comes `back :because
we are going to provide long-term financing and says. there is a requirement
for some, we would like to reserve the right to come back and between now and
the time as,doing justice, Mass Mutual did in reference' to the Convention Center
hotel itself.
Rev. Gibson: As long as we get that understanding, okay.
Mayor Ferre: If we were willing to do it for Mass Mutual I just don't see what
the distinction is between Mass Mutual and another lender. If we are willing' to
do it for a hotel project where somebody is going to spend $35,000,000, I don't
see why we aren't willing to do it for "x" project, it doesn't matter what it is
if somebody is spending $40,000,000. What is sauce for the goose, is sauce for
the gander.
Rev. Gibson: Let me add something..:
Mr. PlummerYes, but you know, let me. tell you
into the next facet: of this thing that I have some
you know, I've let all of you make your statements
golden egg, but I'm going to tell; you something, I
Mayor Ferre:
crack..`
something, you are now getting
great objections to, okay?, and
about the golden goose and the
'vegot'acrack in,that egg.
t's vote on' the egg first and
Mr. Plummer: And as the mayonnaise says -you
don't have no mayonnaise
Mayor Ferre: All' right, can we take a' vote: on
call the roll.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Gordon
adoption.
this portion
MOTION NO. 79-405
A'MOTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION ACCEPTING IN PRINCIPLE THE BASIC
PROVISIONS OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI AND THE WORLD
TRADE CENTER DEVELOPER FOR USE OF AIR RIGHTS OVER THE PROPOSED
CONFERENCE CENTER PARKING STRUCTURE, PROVIDED THE PREVIOUSLY
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES BE INCREASED TO 1,499 OR AS
CLOSE TO SUCH NUMBER OF SPACES AS IS REASONABLY FEASIBLE TO OB-
TAIN; PROVIDED, FURTHER, THAT THE PROJECT GO TO A DEVELOPMENTAL
REGIONAL IMPACT (D.R.I.) PROCESS.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Lacasa, the motion was
adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Armando Lacasa
Commissioner Rose Gordon
Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson'
Vice Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre,
NOES:
Mayor Ferre: Now with regards. to the cracked eggs,
Mr. Plummer: Mr.Mayor, first of all," Mr. Connolly, would you get up hereand"
expound'on .;-what, this letter from the Chamber has to say other than motherhood,,`.
apple Pie and baseball.
Mr. Connolly: I haven't
passed and
seen that letter.
Mr.
Plummer: Maybe that was intentional.
Mr. Grassier That they are for the project.
Mr. Plummer: Yes, but what does it say?
15
I:don't know what this' letter says.
J U N 4 1979
Mr. Grassie: That's what it says.
Mr. Plummer: Yes, they are for the project and then they are going to want to
say that they forced this City Commission to build the project by virtue of a
letter of apple pie, hot dogs and motherhood. You know, let's get into the
nuts and bolts of this thing. Mr. Mayor, members of this Commission,
first of all let me commend Dade Federal for having what I consider a vested
interest in this community, because they do, but also they are in business
to do the best they can for the stockholders. We are in business to do the
best we can for the taxpayers of this City. I find it absolutely out of line -
I will not use one of my colleagues' terminology that says that it is "indecent" -
but I find it ridiculous that this City is being offered for 450,000 sq.ft.
building -which means the developers put up not a penny for land costs, and
let's remember, they, the developers, could not get this property at any price,
only this Commission has the right of condemnation, and that's what we are
doing. Now, let's break these figures down and see what they are offering this
City to be put up this golden goose of 450,000 sq.ft. Number one,they are of-
fering us $1.00 per sq.ft. per year for the space that they are occupying. That's
well and good. I don't think that's sufficient. They are going with a $40,000,000
building projected out at about $13.00/sq.ft. for their space -for $150,000 a year. Now,
let's look at the remaining space, 300,000 sq.ft. of space. They are offering
this City the great return of about $.67 per sq.ft. I think this is totally out
of the question. This City is entitled to more. Without us they cannot build, and
I think that to offer this City $.67/sq.ft. is just...I don't know how anybody
can do it. I don't think it's fair. Now, I am told -if I'm in line and if I'm
not I stand corrected- that the going rate in Downtown Miami is from approximate-
ly $11.00-$16.00/sq.ft. If I'm wrong, I stand corrected. If it's $10.00-$15.00...
whatever it is, okay? Look, I see nothing wrong with this City deriving a
justifiable revenue in return for its investment. What in fact -as I see it- is
being done is giving the developer the advantage of the UDAG grant. That's ours.
The right of condemnation is ours, it is our land, it is our garage, and I„ think
that to offer this City $.67 peryear per sq.ft. is totally out of the questicn.
I will say to you that when I raised this to the developers, their immediate re-
tort was -well, youare going to make $400,000 out of the garage. And I say,
that's not enough, it's our money building that garage and what we derive out
of that garage is for the operation of that total complex. I would like to see
before any of this is passed -and let's remember we are going into a new facet,
something that's never been done to my knowledge in Downtown Miami- and that's
the leasingofair rights; that we don't start setting a precedent at°this .:time
of what I will call "ridiculously low return to this City for air rights above
a structure." Mr. Mayor, I'm very much opposed to this which is being proferred.
Mayor Ferre: All right, Mrs. Gordon.
Mrs. Gordon: J.L., can I: point out, we've already set the precedent. We set it
with the Hyatt Hotel.
Mr. Plummer:: Rose, you are correct but, remember, what the return is on the Hyatt
Hotel is predicated on how and how good that hotel does, it has nothing to do
with the World Trade Center, which this Commission will have no control over,
none, none.
Mayor Ferre: Let's recap a little bit. What is it that the City has -and very
briefly- in the Convention Center? What we have is $4,800,000 of our money'
and $5,200,000 that we got from the sale of Virginia Key. We roughly have
$10,000,000 plus a lot of grants and stuff that we got, which we have to count,
I recognize that. If you take into account what we've invested in the land,
the Convention Conference Center is one hell of a good return for the amount of
money that the taxpayers and people of Miami have put out. Now, in this parti-
cular deal, we didn't want to get into one of these sliding rule things because
it seems to concern and upset a lot of people, so I think what they've come up
with is just a very straight and simple deal. Now, whether or not it's enough
is a game question. Now, let's be specific. How much money do we have invested
in this property as of right now, Mr. Connolly?
Mr. Connolly: We have, presently, in this piece of property north of the feeder
ramps, we have spent $1,871,000.
Mayor Ferre: $1,800,000.
Mayor Ferre: Does that include the Butler piece?
Mr. Connolly: No, that does not.
Mayor Ferre: Well, what do you mean?
Mt. Connolly: No, I said 'presently', that's how much we've spent, that
includes prorating the Feinberg acquisition and the out parcel we:bought.:;
If you add in the two...
Mayor Ferre: How did you prorate? Did you' do it in a per square foot basis?
Mr. Connolly: I took the original appraisals which we hive done for the pro-
perty and they had a different dollar per square foot on the north side of the
ramps and the south side. I' took the price offered and"split it up>'on.asquare
foot basis on both sides.
Mayor Ferre: I see. Second question" is, how muchdo,
once we buy the Butier piece and everything included?
Mr. Connolly: Everything the :City has put into it?
Mayor Ferre: Including moving. the:` Butler building away and. putting it somewhere else,
because`that'h an investment that we wouldn't have otherwise.
we have in the project
Mr. Connolly:.
Let's than $3,000,000.
Mayor Ferre: Do you mean to tell me that the Butler property is going to cost
from $1,870,000, the difference is the Butler property?
Mr. Connolly. No, no. We are allowing $759,000 for the acquisition of. the
Butler property and the property next to it. In addition to that, the reloca-
tion expenses is $50,000 for the businesses...
Mayor Ferre: Yes, that makes it
in my, numbers ..$2,600,000,- go on.
Mr. Connolly: And $35,000 maximum, but what we know
relocation of the Butler building; itself.
Mayor Ferre: $2,635,000, how do get to. the
That's
now .is;;;$15,000 for th
,000,000.
Mr. Connolly: There was a $140,000 for the Davenol property.
Mayor Ferre: For the what?
Mr. Connolly:
Mayor
Ferre:
That small out •piece that Andy Crough bought.
Oh.So we get up to $3,000,000, is that what you are saying?
Mr. Connolly: Yes.
Mayor Ferre:
Mr. Plummer:
Mayor Ferre:
Mr. Plummer
All -right, now, what Plummer
Well, wait
s:saying ',.is.
...
a minute, you are not finished, are you? Let's continue.
What else have you got?
Well, how about $7,500,000?
Mayor Ferre: You mean the garage.
Mr. Plummer:
h, yes.
Mayor Ferre: It will be more now, how much does a
About $9,000,000?
400 place garage cost?
Mr. Connolly: Just ,let me say this. We, were originally planning, including
the land, a 1,000car sgarage that'd cost $8,000,000.
Mayor, Ferre: So this will be about $10,000,000. rouehly.
Mr. Connolly: Yes, sir.
J U N 4 1979
Mayor Ferre: ..because it will cost that much more to do, for the additional
400 cars. Now, let me ask you this question. Obviously, you have to allocate -
and Mr. Plummer you've got to be consistent, if you say the formula is good on
one side it's got to be good on the other side. You are saying now that we've
got earmarked 500 units for one project to 300 for the other, which is 800.
Obviously, then, the expense of that garage could not be allocated to this
particular project if they don't have any usage of that parking space, I don't
think that would be fair.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, let's don't make fruit salad, let's stick apples with:
apples and oranges with oranges.
Mayor Ferre Precisely.
Mr. Plummer: -All right,. first of all, that • Hotel is a complement to that com-
plex, in every way, shape or form. The cotnplex to the Hotel, 'the Hotel -to
complex.
Mayor Ferre:. But since the parking is, tied, J.L., because that's the key, since
the parkirig is tied to the Hotel, then obviously you" have tocharge the expense
of the parking to the Hotel, sincethey; go hand' in hand.`
Mr. Plummer: That's. well and good,' but,_'Mr..Myor the World Trade, Center
is not a.`,c,omplement to,- the complex. We can. operate; that: complex' very well
without .a World Trade Center.
Mayor Ferre: You can also operate it very well without the University .of Miami.
Mr. Plummer: No, We can't, I'disagree.'
,..you see, these things, I
Mayor Ferre:
Mr. Plummer: 450,000.
*Manor Ferre:, ...of which 300,000 will be a WorldTrade Center, will be as much
if not more of a producer of revenue to that Convention Conference Center than
the University of Miami will, I have no doubts about that.
Mr. Plummer:''Mr. Mayor, you might and you might not be right.:
the hotel is a cotnplement .to the complex.`
Mayor Ferre: So is the World Trade Center,.in my opinion.
Mr. Plummer I disagree. Mr. Mayor, if you were to take and to amortize out -
and I'm sure Dade Federal has done; this- Mr. Mayor, you are allowing a,'private
concern; as I see it,"to move. into one of the most prestigious locations-in� our
cotnmuriity for their own -use at less than $10.00/sq.ft., and.
•
Mayor Ferre: You see, I:. don't think you can go on your argument of. how much"
.per spare foot. I think what we have to figure out -and here, Plummer, I, May
end up agreeing with you- what we have to
"
Mr. Plummer: That scares me.
Mayor Ferre: Well, I'm glad you scare once
most of the time but....
Mrs. Gordon:
Mr. Plummer:
Mayor Ferre
Mr. Plummer:
n a while,.I thoughtit was just
Oh, boy.
Careful, or I'll run for Mayor.
Well, you know, that might be very helpful.
fou are right.
Mayor Ferre: Is there anything 1 can do to convince you? I think the point is
this, I've done a good job at the other end, I hope maybe we might add to the
fun....
go
Mr. Plummer:
ahead.
Yes, but suddenly you've become the meat between the sandwich,
guarantee you that 400,000 sq.ft....
JUN'4
1979
Mayor Ferre: As long as it's not the meatball. All right, let's get back to
this. The point simply is that what we have to look at is not how much per
square foot, but how much of a return on our investment and I think we also
have to take the tax consideration which nobody has talked about. Now, what
is a UDAG application? A UDAG application is the Federal Government saying -
we are going to spend $150,000,000 every quarter so that the private sector
will invest sufficient monies on an increase multiplier and this is something
that primes the pump. Now, what is it that the City of Miami is doing by all
of this? We are putting on a tax roll of $400,000,000 building, of which we are
going to be getting $300,000 or $400,000 worth of taxes of which, hopefully, as
we all know that commercial structures don't always cost as much as the taxes
we collect, supposedly' I mean, that's what most of these research studies
that have been made on the subject say. Now, I think that what we have to take into
consideration besides the tax factor is how much money do we have in it? Three
million dollars. How much money ..-and I agree to this extent- if we are going
to give them 300 or 200 parking spaces, then I think they ought to pay a pro-
portionate share of that. If for example they are going to use $4,000,000 worth
of parking garage, then I think we've got to add that $4,000,000 to our three.
And then I think they ought to pay a proportion of that seven. That's different,
either directly or indirectly, but if you don't tie the parking then I think that
the value of that is somewhat less. Now, the question and I think I agree with
you, you have a valid question, is $150,000 to a maximum of $300,000 sufficient
for $3,000,000 investment plus whatever it is that they get in the garage.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, let me reverse it. I find extreme difficulty trying to
equate, if I use their figures as just, which I don't, why Dade Federal is offer-
ing us $1.00 per sq.ft. per yr. but the bulk of the project is only offering us
$0.50 per sq.ft. per year ? Why would 300,000 sq.ft. be less valuable than that
which Dade Federal is occupying?.
Mayor Ferre: All right, let
Mr. Plummer: It just doesn't make sense. They are offering us $1.00 per sq.ft.
at Dade Federal, ;for. 150;000; f if ty cents per sq.ft.' for the remaining 300' 000.
To me that's ludicrous.
Mr. Martin Fine: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission,' there is no simple lead-,
easy way to. approach a very complicated project like this 'but there are a few
things that I think we might_. try to unravell. Mr. Plummer,.,I'd-like to see: if
I understood one of your earlier -comments and see if I can explain it. I believe
you are equating the matter of $10.00/sq.ft.:with $0.67/sq.ft.
Mr. Plummer: :No, sir.
Mr. Fine: Because as I listened to you I thought you were talking about finished
space. You said space downtown runs for $10.00, or $11.00 or;$12.00 a foot. That's
finished space in an existing office building where you walk in and rent it. That
is not what the City is renting to these developers here.
Mr. Plummer: Well, maybe we wish we were, but what I'm saying is that the person
who is<''renting the structure would pay somewhere between $11 00 to $16.00/sq.ft.`.
for a<finished building., It is my understand -and when we equated it out- that.
Dade Federal,` just Dade Federal who is offering us the $1.00 rather than the $0.50
would be in fact getting space for less than $10.00 per sq.ft.
Mr. Fine:. We11, I don't know how you could come to all those figures because
don't :think it's been refined anywhere near to that point but I would like'.., to,.
try to;'answer your second question.
Mr. Plummer: Sure.
Mr. Tine: Of necessity, this venture is one that is quite complicated and
although -,there has been a great deal of work done on it over the last few months,
the fact of the matter is there is still some final discussion that has to take
place. The sum of $300,000 was proposed by the group as such as a total entity.
It within itself chose to break it out between a hundred and fifty and a hundred
and fifty of the structures without relating the difference and the square footage.
What this consortium as a group said was that the air rights are worth $300,000/yr
plus to justify an investment of $40,000,000 which, by the way, the Mayor obviously
is directly the UDAG concept won't work without that private injection of capital.
So it really isn't a matter of $1.00 for one place and $0.50 for the other. It is
the total.
Mr. Plummer: You are right and you are wrong, all right? Now, you are right -that
mh
J U N 4 1979
the UDAG grant won't work without private capital, okay? It doesn't address it-
self nor is Dade FEderal's set into concrete, okay? So, we don't have to say
that we can't get someone else, another private concern. I'm merely stating
for the record that I feel that it is unfair to have a third of that building
paying one dollar a square foot and giving the World Trade Center 300,000 sq.ft. at
$0.xcus
m
Mr.SGrassie, atat's whatahell of a good deal. d,point does that increase..orewheneisethat equestion, other
renegotiated?
Mr. Grassie: The rent is proposed to be tied to the Consumer Price Index and
would change annually as a factor of that index, Commissioner.
Mr. Plummer: Annually.
Mr. Grassie: That is correct.
Mr. Worsham: Mr. Plummer, I would like to clear up one or two things if I may
and hopefully change your mind through this because I think that it is an
extremely fair deal to the City. First thing that I'd like to clear up is that
I think that Mr. Connolly in looking at the figures is slightly incorrect because the
investment that the City has in that land is $1,112,000 with an acquisition
which is to be provided by the Urban Development Action Grant in the amount of
$759,000 so that the actual cash investment after the acquisition of the Butler
property and the other properties to fill up the block respectfully is approxi-
mately $1,871,000 plus a couple of other charges such as the demolition and the
moving of the Butler Building which are also to be paid out of the Urban Develop-
ment Action Grant, so that in actuality the total investment that the City has
is considerably less than $3,000,000.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Worsham, what does that have to do with it?
Mr. Worsham:'
with it.
Mr. Plummer,I respectfully submit that it has everything todo
Mr. Plummer:, Please do because what I'm equating is what the return to this
City is for 450,000:sq.office ft. of building. What we put into it or don't putinto it has no
bearing you.
Mr. Worsham: Mr. Plummer
Mayor Ferre: Excuse me, we have a problem and it's my fault because I thought
Father was going to be able to stay here until 12:00, he now tells me that he
has to leave at 11:30 A.M. I thought we had made this meeting from about ten to
twelve, but now I'll tell you, I think` that, what we ought to do...I think we
obviously have to finish this and we've got .this Watson Island...can we come
back this afternoon, you think?
ve being Dade Federal..
Mr. Plummer: Rose and I can't, we go the. Dade Criminal Justice thing this
afternoon at 1:00 oclock, that was the reason for breaking up.
Mayor Ferre:
Mr. Grassie:
Mrs. Gordon:
Mayor
Ferre:
Mr. Grassie:
What's, the deadline on the UDAG application
For us to get our material
Didn't we already apply for that
together, yes.`
June 6.
UDAG in April.?
Yes, we did but we have updatethe ,figures."..
perfected so that we will be eligible
eady applied for it. Thatparthas been done., no?
It has to be
Mrs. Gordon: Well, we alr
Go ahead Fosmoen.
for grant.
Mr. Fosmoen: We have applied, Commissioner, however we must give to the people
in Washington the outline of an agreement between the City and the developer
before they'll consider the application.
Mrs. Gordon: And does it have to be in complete detail?
Mayor Ferre: Absolutely, otherwise what they'll do is they'11
which means basically they kill us.
Mr. Plummer: Rose, let me ask you a question.
Mrs. Gordon: Yes, J.L.
20
J U N 4 1979
Mr. Plummer: Do real est ate appraisers, would they be
value of the air rights space?
Yes, sure, of course they could.
Okay, that's the answer.
in a position to appraise
Mr. Worsham: All right, and I'd, incidentally, live with that J.L'because, what
we are doing without our private funds, we are spending $40,000,000 for that
450,000 sq.ft. building.
the
Mr. Plummer: I understand.
Mr. Worsham: All right, we are paying the City more than a fair return non
subordinated, by the way, in other words, the City does not subordinate to any-
thing. We are paying a fair return on your investment, which is less than
$3,000,000, $300,000 per year. One other point that I did want to make is that
the lease is with Dade Federal so that the total $300,000 in effect is coming
to Dade Federal. Dade Federal subleases to the World Trade Center so you have
further'additional security, so if you wish, we can proceed with this.
Mr. Plummer: Earl, I have no problem with that, you know, in your particular
complex of the Hyatt Regency Hotel, now, I wasn't able, when you take the square
footage involved in that and the air rights space and the return on the money
with the potential of not -locked in to a given figure dollar but what you...the
better you do, the better we do, the potential is there. We are locked in the
World Trade Center to that thing except by the Consumer Index.
Mayor Ferre: Let me ask you a question, because... let me tell what our dilemma and
what the problem is here, Father. The problem is that if we don't get this UDAG
application, we not only don't have a World Trade Center but we are not going to have
a garage, and if we are not going to have a garage, then we are in trouble in this,
whole complex. Now, I think the way to... let me see if I can cut through and I know
you are not going to like this and -I apologize. Suppose, whatever it is that we deter-
mine and can agree to as the basis of our investment - and that's what we are going'
to have to sit down and maybe we'll have to go to an appraiser- would you agree to
pay ten (10) percent as a return?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Mayor, and Commissioner Plummer
Mayor Ferre: Are you going to answer that question?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, I'd like to answer the question in the following
way. If, for the sake of argument, the City's investment in the site is three
million dollars ($3,000,000) and Mr. Worsham has just indicated that it is slightly
less than that, a ten percent return on $3,000,000 is $300.000. which is the way we
11110, figured it, now the fact of the matter is that a 10% return on a site which is
shared with the City's public parking garage is a very, very adequate return, and
in fact it will be more than that. Now, on top of that, I want to point out that...
Mayor Ferre: It isn't $300,000, that's the problem,see, that'
has been talking about.
Mr. Plummer: That's exactly what I've been trying to tell you, look, I'm going
to tell you again maybe you are not understanding me. What the City's invest-
ment in that property is has no relationship, none, what I'm saying is if Dade
Federal went out and bought a piece of property and built a $40,000,000 structure what
would their land cost per square foot, per year be including parking?
Mayor Ferre: All right, Mr. Fine, Father Gibson has to leave, and I think we
better bring this to a head because we have a position now. Now, as far as I'm
concerned, I am willing to vote for this thing as it is presented before us on
the premise that this be taken to an appraiser and that whatever he comes back
with as our investment that we get a..
Mr. Plummer: No, no, I'm not.
Mayor. Ferre: ...I'm telling you what I'm willing to do, I'm not asking you
what you are willing to do you can state that for yourself- ..provided that
it is at least is 10% or whatever of whatever it is that the City has.
Mrs. Gordon: Of the air rights value
the return on the air rights value.
mh
Mr. Fine: I have a suggestion to make which I think might accomplish everyone's
objectives. We hear very loud and clear what the Commission is saying, parti-
cularly Commissioner Plummer. I think the spirit of the Resolution you are being
asked to pass today is to authorize the Manager to proceed with a lease that is
basically in the format and structure so that you can file for your UDAG and -
you already filed for it- and get it. During the course of negotiations if the
Manager is either instructed or asked by the Commission to get an appraiser to
evaluate air rights, irrespective of your investment, you have that opportunity.
We always have to come back to get the lease signed by you and you have all the
controls and all the time in which to accomplish it.
Mrs. Gordon: J.L., can I assure you that the appraiser will take into considera-
tion the foundation, the improvements and everything else when he estimates what
the air is worth, because air up in the air without anything underit isn't worth
anything.
Mr. Plummer: I'm sorry, you know, I'm sorry, I'm not sorry. Let me clarify that.
Rose, I think it is only fair :to this City that what Dade Federal or any; other
private developer would have to figure into the cost ofa project for land and
parking'is what should be a fair: return to this City. and I don't feel. that that
is what we are being offered.•;
Mrs. Gordon: All right.
Mayor Ferre: ;-I agree, provided that they can, use the parking. If they cannot
use the parking then I think it is unfair to burden them with that.
Mrs. Gordon: That also. would determine the value of the air rights, whether they
use the parking or don't` use the parking, all of those are parts of the considera-
tion.
Mayor Ferre: Of course.
Mr. Plummer
Mayor Ferre:
Mrs.
Our investment has no bearing on it.`
All right, is there a motion?
Gordon:. Yes,I'll ''move .it this way, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ferre:
rs.; Gordon. moves, is, there a second?
Mrs. Gordon:...That we proceed to permit. the Manager to enter into a lease arrangement
as outlined, with the_proviso that:that -arrangement not be less than_tte fair market
valuewould be of the air rights after an appraisal is done.
Mayor Ferre:,"Is.there a second to: that motion?
Rev. Gibson: Let me. ..I want to make sure because:I don't want to:.mislead.the
developers. I'm.pretty sure you understand what is being said 'You aren't raising
any serious objections. All right,' I'll second the motion.
Mayor Ferre: All right, further discussion,. call the roll;.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor,. under`. discussion,
year that you are obligatins:.90 years.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Gordon, who moved
MOTION NO. 79-406
A MOTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER
TO ENTER INTO A LEASE ARRANGEMENT WITH THE DEVELOPER OF THE
WORLD TRADE CENTER WITH THE PROVISO THAT RENTAL FOR THE LEASING
OF SUCH AIR RIGHTS TO THE CITY BE NOT LESS THAN THE FAIR MARKET.
VALUE OF THE AIR SPACE ABOVE THE PROPOSED CONFERENCE CENTER PARKING
GARAGE STRUCTURE AS DETERMINED BY AN APPRAISAL TO BE MADE SPECIFICALLY
FOR THAT PURPOSE.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gibson, the motion was passed.
by the 'following ;vote
AYES: Commissioner Rose Gordon *
Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson.
Commissioner Armando`Lacasa' ***'
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre ****
its adoption:
adopted
NOES: Vice Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
ABSENT: None.
ON ROLL CALL (MOTION 79-406):
*Mrs. Gordon:. I will vote yes but I need to tell my fellow Commissioner.
J. L. Plummer, who I respect very much, that the motion permits the adjustment
on fair market value nine years from now, so you know, nothing precludes that
that be a fair arrangement to all parties concerned.
Mayor Ferre: And it's indexed.
Mrs. Gordon: Of course,but that's,part of the original proposal but I'u►
talking about an appraisal of the area which will be made.
**Mr. Plummer: I want a fair marketvalue today and I don
cart in front of the horse, I vote "no".
***Mr.-Lacasa: I am going to vote "yes" based on the fact that I believe that
the motion protects the City in the way it is presented by giving the City the
opportunity to have an appraisal and a return based on the present market value
of the air rights. I want, for the record, to reflect that under no circumstances
am I going to support any type of lease which does not include the real value and
for me it is totally and completely irrelevant what the City has put in cash into
this property, the question for me is what anyone, other than the City, will have
to pay for this particular piece of property, so I vote "yes".
****Mayor Ferre: I personally think that a project of this magnitude which will
bring a $40,000,000 blue chip investment which will be a major factor in the
multiplier of the growth of Downtown and furthermore enhances the success of. the
Convention Conference Center, and furthermore enchances the success of inter-
national trade -which is the future of this City- and furthermore gets for us
$7,500,000 in Federal Funds that we would not normally get otherwise, could do
nothing less but to get from me, on this proposal especially as improved by:'
this amendment, a "yes" vote.
(Commissioner Gibson leaves meeting at 11:40 am)
Now, with regards to when we are going to meet because we still have some
very important items that have not been discussed....
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, may I at this time make a motion that the Manager be
instructed to hire two appraisers to determine the fair market value return`
to this City.
Mr Lacasa:
Mayor Ferre:
Second.
there is. a motion and a second, further discussion,...
Mr. Plummer: With the proviso, Mr. Mayor, that that is done after those ap
praisers consult with the Commission :i
to what _... ..a., «., we as the finale.
project.
Mrs. Gordon: No, no, no, J.L., no, no, honey, let me tell you something,
you don't do that. That's not fair, you cannot do that, you will never get an
appraiser who's worth a grain of salt that will work on a proposition
like that!
Mr. Plummer: Look, fine, all I'm saying to you is I don't want an appraiser to
come back here and say to me that this is what a fair return is based upon your
investment. I don't want that.
Mrs'. Gordon: J.L., that's not the way it's done, let me just quickly, one second,
tell you that an appraiser will do an analysis of the air rights value based on -
it's not an exact science- based upon certain procedures and evaluations of other
properties and other situations and you can't tell him what you want.
Mr. Plummer: Rose, what
it on the record now, if
Miami, what would be the
Developer. ?
I'm saying, and the question I want answered -I'll put
a 450,000 sq.ft. office building was built in Downtown
property cost return value to this City or tothe
juN 4 1979
Mayor Ferre: Will the Clerk write out the whole statement as made by Com-
missioner Plummer and others and submit it to the Manager, who will submit
it to the appraisers, if they have any questions they can come back.
Mr. Fine: I think that last comment may cause a problem, everything after
that was all right because I think you may be putting the appraiser into a
position where you are asking him to give you what the value of the land is,
I think what you are asking is what the fair market value of air rights is.
Mr. Plummer: Oh, no, oh no, you see? You still don't understand me, Marty.
Now, let's make it clear. I'm saying -and, please, I want to take Dade Federal
out of this, because I've complimented them from the beginning and I think it's
tremendous but , you know, I'm here for the City. I want to know if a private
developer went Downtown Miami and built a 450,000 sq.ft. office structure what
would he in his financing have to dedicate for land cost? That's what I feel
is a fair return to this City.
Mr. Fine: Mr. Plummer, I would just suggest to you that the appraiser should
be -asked the question what is the value of air right sufficient to build
450,000 sq.ft. of office space over a parking structure. Now, if you don't
do it that way we are never going to end up with a lease.
Mr. Lacasa: But, you both are talking about the same thing because actually
because what Mr. Plummer here is asking for is the real value of the land.
The real value of the land. And you are talking about air rights. Air
rights here would be tantamount to the land, which means....
Mayor Ferre: No, there is more to it than the land.
Mr. Lacasa: Well, the air rights are going to be equal not in price, maybe,
but it's going to be what is required to build on top of the land. In other
words, what you might come out with is a different price per square foot if
it were on land versus air rights, but you two are talking about the same thing.
Mrs. Gordon: I believe that we should leave this to the qualified MAI's that
you are going to obtain and you won't have to teach them their business, they
know what they have to do.
' • . „,„ -• • , , • "-. -" -,•,
Mayor Ferre: Further discussion, the motion is made with that clarification,
call the roll.
Mr. Grassie: Well, Mayor, I know that we are in a hurry but we have to make
sure that we are not doing something which is contrary to what the majority
of you want. Now, I understand that the question that is going to be asked
of the appraiser is fair return as if it were private property but keeping in
mind that the property is encumbered with a parking garage.
Mt.Plummer: Sure, because it is for their utilization also.
Mr. Lacasa: Right. In other words, Marty, your contention is that the air rights
might be worth less than the land.
Mr. Plummer: We understand that.
e
Mrs. Gordon: Yes, of cours
.
It's understandable.
How does the motion read now,,.to the Clerk.
STATEMENT OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD)
The one that I made? That was the one that you called the vote
Mr. Lacasa
Mrs. Gordon:
•
(INAUDIBLE
Mrs. Gordon:
on before.
Mr. Plummer: The motion up for a vote is my motion to have the Manager hire
two MAI's for appraisal.
Mks. Gordon: Yes, that's all that's up for'a vote right now, the other motion
was prior. ' • •
JUN 4 1979
Mayor Ferrel And there is a lot of discussion which is part of the clarification
of the motion, but the motion still read the same. Is there further discussion
on that motion? Call the roll.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its
adoption.
MOTION NO. 79-407
A MOTION AUTHORIZING AND INSTRUCTING THE CITY MANAGER TO HIRE;
TWO APPRAISAL FIRMS TO DETERMINE WHAT THE FAIRMARKET VALUE IS
TO THE CITY FOR THE RENTAL OF THE AIR SPACE DIRECTLY ABOVE THE
PROPOSED CONFERENCE CENTER.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Lacasa, the motion was
adopted by the following vote:
AYES:. Commissioner Armando Lacasa
Commissioner Rose Gordon
Vice Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner (Rev) Theodore R. Gibson
10. Approve REVISED AGREEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF WATSON ISLAND
following consultation with I.R.S. and approving other
matters pertaining to this development.
Mayor Ferre: We have one other important item which also needs to go before
the UDAG application, and I know it's obviously going to be a hotly discussed
issue. The question now is when can we meet and I'm available, I'll cancel
whatever I have to.
THE CITY COMMISSION DISCUSSED AT::GREAT LENGTH WHETHER THEY COULD LEAVE FOR ANOTHLK
DATE DISCUSSION OF THE'ABOVE-CAPTIONED MATTER. DUE TO CONFLICT IN THEIR TIME
SCHEDULES, IT WAS NOT„POSSIBLE TO REACH;AGREEMENT. FINNALY, MAYOR FERRE STATED:•
Mayor Ferre: In other words, we don't have a full Commission unless we meet
today, until three weeks from now. So now,.
Mr..Grassie: The only thing
mt._Mayor. -is the meeting, of
question of judgment so that
5:00 o'clock and then come b
that's standing on the way, as far as I know,
the Criminal Justice Council and it would be a
we could break up for an hour between 4:00 and
ack.
Mayor Ferre: All right, I think we ought to hear it right now, because I
hnwe ought to jut goingmove
toin,
havethis
a fullmuch
Commission anynway youthing
slicelet
it.
hang, and we are not
And if we don't go the 15th, we get a dead UDAG application, so we are boxed
into this situation. So sit down and let's see if
wegcan
eddispatch
it quickly
I mean, and efficiently. Mr. Gilchrist, you are
rMr. John Gilchrist: Commissioners, we are here before you to propose that in
order to carry forward the intention of this Commission as indicated earlier
by entering into an agreement with Diplomat World Enterprises in November of
1977 and later in April of 1978, the approval of plans and feasibility studies
the intention of the Commission to develop Watson Island as a major family at-
traction,as a community amenity and a destination attraction for tourism with
the hope that this attraction would continue the overall attractiveness of
South Florida as a major visitor destination. In addition, the project will
provide immediate construction jobs equivalent to 1,700 man/years...
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Gilchrist, you've said all that about 10 times in the past.
Let us skip all that, we don't need any of the sweet talk, just get to the meat.
Mr. 'Gilchrist: „Okay, as you know, we advertised for participation with, private
developerson the basis of selling tax exempt revenue bond for;$55,000,000. In
25
JUN 4 1979
the process of attempting to get an advanced ruling from the IRS for that tax
exempt status, several issues developed regarding the management agreement. The
amended management agreement which you have before you now recognizes the guide-
lines as interpreted by our bond counsel that would be required in order to get
an opinion from bond counsel that the $55,000,000 bond issue would in fact be
tax exempt. The primary guidelines which affect the original agreement are the
term of the agreement and the method of payment. The term of the agreement under
current policy of IRS is limited to a 5-year negotiated term which must be terminable
without cause by the City on an annual basis. The developers greatly reduced in
their prticipation in the project by that particular policy. They have had in
the original agreement a thirty-year term plus a 10-year option. They are now
reduced to a 5-year term and at the discretion of the City terminate it without
cause annually. Secondly, the fee or revenues to the developer operator are not
allowed to be a percentage of gross or any percentage basis, they have to be
a fixed fee. Those are the two primary conditions. We also had to represent
to the IRS in earlier meetings we had in technical review, that employees would
be employees of the City of Miami, that is, that employees of the project would
be employees of the City of Miami. So, before you, you have an amendment to
the -agreement which recognizes a reduction of terms from 30 years plus a 10-year
option to a 5-year term terminable annually without cause. And, secondly, that
the fee paid for management services to manage the park which will be owned by
the City, operated by the City, will be a fixed fee basis and this amendment puts
that fix fee, places that fixed fee. I believe that Commissioner Gordon wanted to
ask a question.
Mrs. Gordon: Oh, I have a whole lot of questions and I'll be asking them. J.L.
wanted to make a comment now, s0...
Mr. Plummer:
Mrs. Gordon:
while.
That's all right, J.L., because when
get started it will take a
Mr. Plummer: Well, all right. Mr. Connolly, I have basically two points. Mr.
Gilchrist, if you would, my concern, of course and let me preface it by a re-
mark. I am convinced as I was before that this project and the real final
say in this project is not going to be this Commission, is not going to be
Mr. Fine or Diplomat World, the real say in this project is whether or not the
bonds can be sold, and if the bonds can't be sold, well, thank you, we tried,
goodbye and let's go back to the drawing Board. Now, my concern is, if in
fact the bonds are approved. They are sent then as I understand it to the
underwriters who buy the bonds. They in turn, then, sell them to the general
public. In that short terminology is where my fear lies, that if in fact.... is
our bond counsel here?
Mr. Gilchrist: They
Mr. Plummer:
Mr. Gilchrist
are not.
This is a Citybusiness presented to you.
Mr. Plummer: Well, okay, inlieu of their not being here, I will want a letter
from them; a letter of guarantee, okay? Now, the fear that I have is that we
sell the bonds to the bond counsel that they will not be sold to the'public
until IRS approval.
Mayor Ferre: That's just simply not the way it works.
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me?
Mayor Ferre: That's just simply notthe way, it works. Why don't you explain to
him,how it works?
Mr. Gilchrist: Okay, you misuse the word "bond counsel" which are attorneys,
the underwriters for the...the bond underwriters, purchases and sells within
a matter of several days.
Mr. Plummer:
Excuse me, I'm sorry.
Mayor Ferre: See, let me tell you the way because I have been through this
road a couple of times and I know. You get an underwriter. The underwriter
goes out and this happens a hundred percent of the time. If it is Blyth, Eastman
Dillon, or Smith Barney, they'll go out and they will what they call "syndicate"
They will get 5, 10, 20, 50 other houses take a piece of it, a million, two,
three million dollars, and then what they'll do is they already lined up customers
1101111•111MIONIMPI
mh OR
J U N 4 1979
to buy those things. So what happens is the underwriter goes to market, they
tell you've got your money because all of the houses have taken their proportionate
share, within a week it's all gone.
Mr. Plummer: Well, Maurice, here is the area of concern. As I readin the paper
and I'm not using that as the criteria because I want to hear it from
The potential liability if IRS does not approve tax-free status.
Mr. Gilchrist: No, IRS is not asked to approve IRS status. The attorneys at
their own rish, at their own liability give the opinion that it is tax-exempt.
They give this in the State Court during bond approval....
Mr. Fosmoen: Validation.
Mr. Gilchrist: And they stand at the riskof that. That is why they are paid the
fee they are paid and the only condition that exists at the time of the bond
sale is that bond counsels' statement and liability that the bonds are tax exempt..
In the future, it's possible that in auditing a bond's buyer return, that the
particular tax man could question whether those are taxable or not, that's a future
issue.
Mrs. Gordon: And if it is not a tax-free at that time, isn't the City gong;to
be in a position of jeopardy.?
Mr. Gilchrist. The' bond counsel is responsible as longas the City and, those in-
volved do not change the operation: of the rules as they have been described to
that point.
Mayor Ferre: Right, may
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Gunderson, could we get him
Mayor Ferre: Yes, but while Mr. Gunderson comes here...would you call for Mr.
Gunderson? Let me try to explain the process because this is one thing that I've
gone through very carefully and it's really quite simple. The City
l,of Miami
cause re-
quested a ruling to change the present IRS ruling. Now, why?
there
was precedent. What was the precedent? The precedent was Interama. Interama had
asked for a ruling and the IRS 5 or 6 years ago said, okay, we agree. Well, it
was reasonable to think that they would say- "okay, we agree" again. That did not
happen. What we have before us now is within the present IRS guidelines. We
don't need to get the IRS approval.This is a tax-free bond, period. Now, how
do we know that? Well, because the tax counsel that we have retained on penalty
of death, okay, in other words a penalty that he has to pay if his opinion is
wrong he is the guy that's on the hook. Now, that's why when you ask th.:se kinds
of opinions their fees go up a little bit because in effect what he is saying is
"I am guaranteeing to you that this is tax-free': If in the future this bond
issue is not tax-free, it is not the City of Miami, it is not the taxpayers, it
is the bond counsel who is on the hook for the money. Now, obviously, that's
why when you get into these highfalutin bond counsels, they get insurance which
is what this...., so that not only does the lawyer guarantee it in a very large
legal firm they are insured that their opinion is proper. Therefore their
insurance company eventually ends up okaying it and therefore what I'm saying is
it is almost one hundred percent
fail-safe
tax-free that itbon
isa I think itVis one
a written legal opinion that these are
in many, many thousands that gets reversed.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Connolly, if in effect 'MGilchrist,
a statement holdingithe City
- would
the underwriters or bond counsel, more so, issue
harmless accepting the bonds on this predicate?
Mr. Gilchrist: I can't really answer that. It's really I think not necessary
when you understand that their opinion liables them for the bond being
exempt. I can't speak for them here but I can certainly address that to them.
Bond counsel is available by phone, if you want, while this meeting is going on
to answer your questions.
Mayor Ferre: If in effect that's what they do,then I don't think there'd be..
too much of a problem to get them to say so in writing.? I don't think that's
big problem, is it?
JUN 4 1979
1r.Gilchrist: I think the fact that they give their letter of opinion__ in
writing, we have it before us, that really says that they would do the second.
Mayor Ferre: Listen John, you know that because you've been living withthis.
for a year and a half. Plummer is a business man that doesn't get involved.
with bond underwriting. He does other kind of underwritings....
Mr. Plummer: But mine is definite, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: ...and therefore I think you've got a valid point. You know, he
wants to be sure and I think that we can be sure, I don't think that any good
lawfirm, bond counsel, is going to make...knows that they are out on a limb,
we know it, everybody knows it. The fact that they say in writing -look,
we are out on a limb and we admit that if something goes wrong we pay the tab,
I don't think it's a big thing, they'll do that.
Mr. Plummer: All right, Mr. Gilchrist, my second area of concern is in that
of -the employees. Now, what....you don't go into -or at least in any of the
material that I have- what is the provision as to the employees being City
employees? How will they be fired?..you know, where will they be paid from?
Will it be a special fund? What is the City's liability there?
Mr. Gilchrist: All right, in addition to my answering these questions I'd
like to call in Mr. Fine and Mr. Cohen who are in the audience as well. The
position is that the project will require equivalent employee of 1,000 permanent
jobs. Of those permanent jobs we are really are calling them full-time equiva-
lent because the largest bulk of those jobs are first entry jobs at high school
and college level employees who directly meet the public. So, just to under-
stand the make-up of that. In addition, maintenance has to be done on the island
and on the project. In that case, we have considered that the most efficient
way to do that would be to go to the existing maintenance services that are avail-
able in the City and to contract those out. So, in those kinds of cases, what
we are saying is that it provides employment. It provides employment to mainte-
nance services that would contract to the City. In addition there would be
some level of administrative employees that would be considered employees to the
project. The funds we are paying these employees with would be funds of the
project's budget only. That is if the project ceased to operate the employees
would ceased to be employed.
Mrs. Gordon: What about the pensions and the other benefits?
Mr. Gilchrist: My understanding of the break -down of it would be that as many
as 200 employees;- would be full-time employees and therefore eligible for pension
and so forth under the City's existing program. Those who would be less than.
full-time would not have the same kinds of privileges and those services which
would....
Mr. Plummer: Is there provisions, Mr. Gilchrist, that the pension and other
fringe benefits could be handled on a separate basis as, i.e., the Off -Street
Parking has their own pension plan.
Mr. Gilchrist: Yes, I think'that'strue.
Mr. Plummer Well*, you say yes, possible, in other words....
Mr.. Gilchrist: Well,.I think this has to be addressed as a` project entity
which generates revenue to ,pay not only the salary but the benefitsthat`
are accruedwith the salaries.
Mr. Plummer: The fringe benefits then would come from that particular fund.
Mr. Gilchrist: And only from that particular fund.
Mr. Plummer: My final question has to be on the UDAG grant. On the UDAG grant,
the question was asked of me earlier, what justification is there? And ofcourse,.
you have in essence, in my estimation, just touched upon it answering another
question, and that is the employment of people of this community. The dollar
flow, increased dollar flows, and finally what, Mr. Gilchrist, is your opinion.
if this City were to not receive the UDAG grant. Where is the project.?
Mr. Gilchrist: I think the project would have to be reconsidered in its scope in terms
of what economists call "the atractions," that is each individual part of the project
it would have to be at this point reduced in scope to adjust for that and a re-
evaluation of the revenues generated from it would follow that too.
xe
J U N 4 1979
Mr. Plummer: In other words, what you are saying is if the UDAG grant is not.
approved, then that project would have to come back to this Commissionfor
further approval.
Mr. Gilchrist: Well, I would believe that's correct.
Mr. Plummer: I don
Mr
t want +believe", I want yes or no.
It is true.
Mr. Plummer: It is true, all right.
Gilchrist:
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Fosmoen, the proposal to obtain a UDAG grantfor this pro-
ject was, made`how long ago.?
Mr Fosmoen: The''30th of April.
Mrs. Gordon: May T ask you then, how much UDAG money is available for this
area?
Mr. Fosmoen:
Mayor Ferre:
It's.not allocated by area, Commissioner, it's'a nation-wide...
Well
whydon't you explain
the UDAG process.
Mr. Fosmoen: It's a 150 million dollars per quarter and each project i
against each other. And it is not done on a geographic basis.
ranked
Mrs. Gordon:` Okay, then let -,me ask you_ a very specific question to ma.,-•
•ing,the UDAG grant monies. --I understand -there was an:application made or to be
made fora development from the Shell City si-te. Now, how does this
affect that?
Mr. Fosmoen: There has been, it was denied on the first round. We have continued
discussions with the people involved in Shell City and I haven't talked directly
to them in several weeks but it's our expectation that they can put their num-
bers together with a private developer, that way we'd be talking about filing
an application at the end of July. For the next round, for the next quarter,
for the next period of funding.
Mayor Ferre: Would you explain that number one, it's 150 million dollars nationally,
there is no geographic breakdown. Number two. .one City can have more than one applica-
tion. It can have 2, 3 or 4, and many times several applications in one City
are granted. Number three, it's done on a quarterly basis and therefore if
what you have into the June round does not conflict with what you have in the
September round. Number four, sometimes these matters are rolled over into the
next quarter. The fact is that the Shell City application is not, at this time,
competitive to this application because it is not in the same quarter nor could
we possibly get it in the same quarter because the cut off date I think is on
the 15th and the Shell City application was turned down once and what we are
trying to do is change it and improve it so that the multiplier factor is im-
proved and therefore we can reapply. Until we get the multiplier proper to
reapply on the same premise as we were turned down is to court the same answer
again.
(STATEMENT MADE OUTSIDE OF THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Mayor Ferre: And it was, we set this out in April.
Mayor Ferre: No, wait, wait, I agree with that and I stand on that. Now, let
me tell you furthermore that I made it very clear that this was after the
UDAG application in Downtown for the World Trade Center.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Exactly, I understand that.
Mayor Ferre: That's right. I told you that that was my first priority and once
that was done, this would have the number one priority asfar as I was concerned.
Now, we made the application on the month of April.
April 30.was the final filing date.
Now, is that still pending before the UDAG.?,
The application for Watson Island or the application:,
the appliction for Shell City.
29
Mr. Fosmoen:
filed...
Shell Cityhas not been filed, sir, it's not expected to be
Mayor Terre: I thought we agreed that we were going to make that application
in 'April.
Mr. Fosmoen: ...it was to be filed in July.
(UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER MAKES STATEMENT OUTSIDE OF THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Mr. Plummer:Yes, but you see, let me tell you, let me just answer something here,
and I find no fault with my good friend Maurice, but I; don't think the'rest.of this
Commission knows what you are talking about, I don't. I've never been informedabout
any commitment or priority.
Mayor Ferre: J.L.
for. myself.
Mr. Plummer:, Okay, so then we understand, okay, that it was the Mayor who made
that commitment;, because I'm going to tell you, for one, that' at this point, right
now, is the first that I have heard about a UDAG grant for Shell
Mr. Fosmoen: ;No,we did tell you about one that was filed previously
year, Commissioner, and it was turned down.
Mr. Plummer:
to be.
(LONG STATEMENT MADE -BY DAVID FINCHER OUTSIDE OF THE PUBLIC
RECORDING MICROPHONE WAS INADVERTENTLY 'TURNED OFF.`
Mayor Ferre: Dave, I'm sorry, we could spend hours on this and the point -is that.
what we are on right now is_this UDAG :application �`for Watson Island.' Your:point"'
is that your application should have a priority, okay?
h, okay, it was denied. Yes, and that's what I` understood. it
Mr."Fincher: Yes, sir.
And that'sthe main point.
Mayor Ferre:
Mr. Fincher: That's the main point.
Mayor Ferre: made the statement to you and I'mstill,under that commitment,
okay? As far as a priority on the UDAG application that after the, World Trade
Center this was the next priority as far as -l.was concerned.
(STATEMENT BY DAVID FINCHER OUTSIDE OF THE PUBLIC RECORD).
Mayor Ferre: No, no, no, sir. I told you specifically that we already had an
application for the World Trade Center in the works and I told you that that
was the number one priority that the City.... absolutely , I told you that,
I'11 tell you, Fosmoen, you were in that office, weren't you? And I specifical-
ly said to you we have the World Trade Center application and that's number one
priority. As soon as that's done then as far as I'm concerned this becomes my
number one priority.
Mr. Fosmoen: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Ferre:
Sir.
Mr. Fosmoen:: I'm sorry. to disagree with you, sir-, but when we
Trade Center application hadbeen'filed...
Mayor Ferre: That's what I` just said.
Mr..,Fosmoen: It was filed on January 31. We at that time indicated that Watson
Island was being prepared and it would be filed on the April thirtieth round and
weindicated that if the people involved in Shell City could put together a prot.
ject and demonstrated they needed a UDAG and that there was in fact a need for'
Urban Development Grant funding and they worked with the staff in putting that
application together we would bring it to this Commission for consideration for
the July 31st funding date. Now, which means that....
JUN 4 1979
Mayor Ferre: And I made a commitment that the July 31 funding date and that
one that this project would have priority. That is the commitment that I`
made, as far as I'm concerned.
Mr. Fosmoen: That's right and the July 31 submission date means that it will
be considered in August, September and October, okay? And a final decision
on October 30.
Mr. Grassier And it's not competitive with this application
point.
that's the basic
Mr. Fosmoen: And it's not competitive with this application.
Mayor Ferre: That's what I've been saying all along, that these things are
not exclusionary one of the other.
Mr. Ronald Fine: May I? Maybe I could help everybody in terms of understand-
ing UDAG. UDAG is a fund that Congress has set aside to encourage cities to
solve the urban core problem by forcing and assisting private enterprise to work
with cities in building projects that create employment for the city people and
also to add money into the economu. And they have a ranking system based upon
what the effect of the investment is going to be and you can have as many priori-
ties in terms of the City Commission's desires as you want but it is the Federal
Government that is going to make the decision based upon how they rank, the im-
pact on new employment and the impact on the economy. Now, we met in Washington
with the head of UDAG and with his associates and they said to us to file this
particular application because it creates new employment in the inner core city,
because it takes first entry jobs, which very few projects do, that means that
the unemployed minority youths in the city today that can't find employment, are
ideally suited for this kind of project because they are trainable and employ-
able. Directly, this project will employ about 1,500 people of which about 1,300
will be unemployable minority first entry jobs and tat has a very priority on
solving the urban problem. It's putting to work and training for a future career
unemployed minority youth.
That's not the question.
Mayor, Ferre:
Mr. Fine:` No,.let`me get to the second point. The second point was that this
project will`inject $200,000,000 new income revenue into this economy which will
create another 4,000-7,000 jobs, so you are looking at a project that will. create
employment part-time and full-time for 7,500 to 10,000 people because of its
impact, and that's why they wanted the work completed and that's why they recom-
mended very strongly that it be in Washington completed prior to June 15th, last
point.
Mayor Ferre: Nobody questions that.
Mr. Fine: Last point, in order to be complete, you need two things. You need
a commitment from a financial institution that's going to supply the private
capital and we have in our possession and in your keep probably a Letter of Commit-
ment from Blyth, Eastman, Dillan and Prescott, Ball and Turbin outlining and
satisfactory to the Federal Government that they will buy $55,000,000 worth of
bonds. Number two is you have in your possession a written commitment from
bond counsel acceptable to the underwriters that if this amendment is approved by
the City and executed that this issue will be tax-free. The Federal Government
insists upon knowing that once they make a grant that the project is going to be
completed and they've gone through all of the testing that has to be done to get
to that point. So the priorities of the Commission are helpful in explaining
the City's indication to the Federal Government but the decisions are made upon
what the impact on the inner core is, how it affects minority employment and how it
affects the economy.
Mrs. Gordon: I don't want to dispute that this would probably employ people but
there are many other projects which could be introduced into, the core area and
the surrounding core area and even this project that we are talking about right
now who would do exactly the same, so, I mean....
Mr. Fine: Nobody is arguing as to any project, what we are saying is that this
project is at the point where it is ready to move and to employ -people very rapid-
ly. It will create' within six months 1,500 construction jobs.
Mayor Ferre: All right, let'
got to move along.
hear...Dave, let's wind up this, becausewe've
31
JUN 4 1979
MR. DAVID FINCHER MAKES A LONG STATEMENT, AGAIN, WITHOUT THE AID OF THE
RECORDING MICROPHONE UPON RESEARCHING TO RECONSTRUCT THE BASIC THRUST OF
THIS STATEMENT, THIS OFFICE FINDS MR. FINCHER STATED THAT THEY HAD NEVER
HEARD OR BEEN INFORMED OF, UP TO THAT POINT IN TIME, OF THE EXISTENCE OF A
PROJECT CALLED THE WORLD TRADE CENTER AND THAT HE WAS PROMISED BY THE
ADMINISTRATION THAT THE ONLY PROJECT THAT WOULD BE PRESENTED FOR A UDAG
GRANT APPLICATION DURING THE MONTH OF JULY WAS TO BE HIS PROJECT.
Mayor Ferre: I agree with everthing you've said. You've said it a little
bit loudly but I agree with everything you've. said. You haven't said one
thing that didn't happen exactly as you said it.
Mr. Fosmoen: There was one additional comment, Mr. Mayor, and I. think that: it
needs to be put on the record and that is that they submit and bring in a pro-
ject that demonstrates a need for UDAG funding.
Mayor Ferre: They understood that. Look, let me, ..because we are kind of
Y
getting excited and I think it's important that we don't lose respect.
quoted it
what you said is exactly what happened, word for word, I think you've
exactly. Now, when we met eaher it was lication.inWepvelor madein March, sever 1, weeveCity
beenf
Miami had already made a UDAGpp applica-
tions, several times for UDAG applications. Now, the two pending UDAG app
tions, and you are right band I efore us. I toldted, you atre thattson timelthatdwend wouldswant
project that you brought
to have the Watson Island project
askedthe
Fosmoenl asapplication
said,and
whether therewere therefore yours would be in July. I you said
any other applications pending and he answered after I asked him, as
because
twice, that there were none. Then aid forthat one,as dofar youas I was understandnthat?d,And I
I can't speak for five people, I speak
made that very clear to you, that as far as I was concerneed that
af tsthis would be
the priority application for the month of July assuming,
that the`.other;-:application that we had pending had moved and second-
ly things; lication.'
ly that you submit the proper information to justify for the UDAG application.
Now, isn't that` the way we left it?
(STATEMENT.; IN RESPONSE FROM MR. FINCHER MADE OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Mayor Ferre: Didn't I. tell you that we had Watson Island?
Mr
. Fincher:. Watson Island only.
Mayor Ferre: Well, that's all.
Fincher: You just said there: was another. one filed.
�I�IIII IIIIIIM
Mr. .
Mayor Ferre: I said I stand corrected, okay?
(STATEMENTS BY MR. FINCHER OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD). we don't have the
Mayor Ferre: That is correct. The problem is that, as I understand it w,
information in for the application...what is the deadline for the July cutoff?
Mayor Ferre:
Mr.:Fpsmoen: July'31st�
Now, do wehaveany other pro
Mr.`Fosmoen: I don't have any.
Mayor Ferre:, All right, now, so you see you are getting excited over nothing.
We have no competition.. You get the figures
iintaand
Cif weocanssutnt thisetis hingt,
Y
together by July.=31, this will bethe only...if for__,
as"far .as,I''m concerned, I will vote for this being the only a
July for UDAG, period. Now, what's the problem?
STATEMENT BY MR. FINCHER OUTSIDE OF PUBLIC RECORD)
Mayor Ferre: See, you misunderstood all along and you got all excited unneces-
sarily. Would you explain where Watson Island...the application for the UDAG
and Watson Island came in?
ect for the July 31 deadline.
(INAUDIBLE
n47;
mh
3 U N 4 1971
PURSUANT TO THE MAYOR'S REQUEST, MR.' FOSMOEN PROCEEDED TO EXPLAIN THE
UDAG PROCEDURE ONCE AGAIN
(MR. FINCHER MADE A STATEMENT AGAIN WITHOUT THE AID OF
THE RECORDING MICROPHONE).
Mayor Ferre: Is there a motion now from this Commission that the City. of Miami:
proceed for a UDAG application and that this be the only application for the
July 31 submission for Shell City.?
Mr.,Lacasa: I so move.
Mayor Ferrer.
Mrs.
Mr. Plummer: Dave, I'm sorry, I am at a total loss to vote for such a motion.
How much is the appl
ication, what is it going to do?
Mrs. Gordon:
Mr. Plummer:
(INAUDIBLE STATEMENT OFF THE PUBLIC RECCRD
Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute, sir, please. If I asked a question of you.I would
appreciate your answering. I'm looking to the Administration to keep this Com-
mission informed. You know, real quickly, Mr. Grassie, if nothing else, how
much is their application?
Mr. Grassier Commissioner, I think that the motion is one of intent and would
have to be conditioned by the fact that they with their developers have to pre-
sent the necessary information so that in fact the City would have an applica-
tion that we would bring to you, which they have not done so far, they still
have to do that.
Mayor Ferre: But this Commission is stating a policy, the policy is that this
is going to be our application for this particular round of UDAG application
ending July 31 on those conditions. Obviously, if they don't bring the support
information together that would qualify it you know that we may go through the
paperwork but you know what's going to happen, it's going to get shutdown. We
are setting here policy, if this motion passes which has now been seconded by
Rose Gordon, that if it passes that's our policy.
(INAUDIBLE STATEMENT MADE OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Mr. Fosmoen: Mr. Mayor, the discrepancy that is bringing out is that there
are developers who are interested in that site without UDAG funding.
Mayor Ferrer Mr. Fosmoen: We can't help that and, obviously, that will all.
come out during the UDAG discussion, when it comes up before, you know, the
application with Washington. If somebody already is going to buy that pperty
and is going to put up a project without UDAG funding that, obviously, you
going to have to relate that and you know what that's going to do, that's going
to kill that application, those are the chances you are taking.
Mr. Lacasa: Well, yes, but what Mr. Fincher is asking is for the City of
Miami to tell the County that we are going to support the UDAG application
fox the coming quarter
Mayor Ferre: Absolutely.
Mr. Lacasa: ...and then that is what we can do, we cannot do more than that
so that we do, and what I suggest is that the Administration does that, and tells
the county and then if the county goes inanother way, it ifeelthe
is what webut
have
we
have come all the way to support this application which we
to do.
Mayor Ferre: Further discussion.
J U N 4 1971
Mr. Plummer: Yes, Mr. Fincher, I'm sorry, I don't want to vote against you but
I'm being forced into a position. May I even inquire as one vote on this Com-
mission, what is your project? I don't know.
Mrs. Gordon: Didn't you arrange a helicopter? You just said you did.
Mr. Plummer: I didn't.
If I went on a helicopter...
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No, you didn't.
Mr. pluznmer: Thank you, I feel at least I have my feet....
(INAUDIBLE COMMENT NOT PLACED ON THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Mr. Plummer:
I could not go. But all right, once again
what is the project?
LONG STATEMENT BY MR. FINCHER EXPLAINING WHAT HIS PROJECT
IS ALL ABOUT AND WHY THE NEED FOR THE UDAG APPLICATION.
AGAIN, WITHOUT THE AID OF THE RECORDING MICROPHONE SO STATE-
MENT DID NOT GET ON THE RECORD.
Mrs. Gordon: You know, I'm going to point out the real problem in all this.
conversation and that is that anybody who has an interesting idea should come
to a full Commission and not to a single member of the Commission whether it is
the Mayor or anybody else and that is the problem. Apparently our Administra-
tion is very happy to participate in that fashion and maybe it's good but I
don't think it is, I'm sorry, because J.L. knows absolutely nothing, I knew a
day or so ago when you called me with your problem and I brought this up to
the table for discussion but other than that I had no idea that you were meet-
ing with the Mayor or with the Administration or anybody else, or Father Gibson
was involved or anybody else was involved. I no knowledge whatsoever about
it and I just feel kind of left out as I'm sure J.L. Plummer even more left out
because you briefed me on the telephone.
Mayor Ferre: All right, call the, roll.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Lacasa, who moved its
adoption.
MOTION NO. 79-408
A MOTION OF INTENT OF THE CITY COMMISSION THAT THE CITY
MANAGER BE AUTHORIZED TO PROCEED WITH THE FILING OF A UDAG
APPLICATION FOR RE -DEVELOPMENT OF THE "SHELL CITY" SITE ON
JULY 31st; FURTHER STIPULATING THAT SAID APPLICATION BE THE
ONLY ONE FILED ON THAT DATE; AND FURTHER CONDITIONED UPON SUPPORT
INFORMATION BEING FURNISHED TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATION FOR CON-
SIDERATION BY THE CITY COMMISSION PRIOR TO THE FILING OF SAID.:
GRANT.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gordon, the motion was passed
adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Armando Lacasa
Commissioner Rose Gordon
Vice Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.*
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre**
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson
ON ROLL CALL:
*Mr. Plummer: Predicated upon this being a motion of intent to`back the Shell
City project for a UDAG grant,. fully understanding that at this time the pro
ject is not finalized and will be brought back to this Commission for approval
before to grant is actually imposed, I vote "yes."
**Mayor Ferre: There are many, many things that go on in this City. Some nf
them involve the Fire Department, some of them involve Day Care Centers, some
of them involve some of our senior centers, parks, I don't attend to all of the
things that are going on nor do I accept the limitation that I cannot talk with.
or come to the conclusion myself on this or any other project. That is my prero-
gative as a member of this Commission and any other Commissioner is entitled to.
do the same and actually does the same. I have no problems on this, I made a
mh
4
J U N 4 197%
commitment to you, I didn't have any doubt that this Commission would feel the
same way I did, I'm sorry that we've had some bureaucratic problems. I think
we have had some bureaucratic problems, I apologize personally and for the City
and I hope that you can put it all together by July 31, that the application
is successful and that it'll come back as Plummer says for final agreement
with the UDAG and that we break ground on it soon, and I vote "yes."
Mrs. Gordon: I wish you lots of luck.
Mayor Ferre: All right, we are now back to
Mrs. Gordon, do you want to ask a question?
the main theme, M
Plummer o
Commissioner Gordon indicated _that .when :-the , presentmatter' was finished.
she would like to bringup a matter concerning the employees`. and their
pensions.
Mr. Plummer: Mr..Mayor, there was a request for Mr. Gunderson who is out
of -the City. I'm assuming that when Mr. Gundersonis out of the City there
is someone here who is in charge and who can speak for him.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: J.L., I spoke to bond ,counsel again thismorning
to clarify that, issue that you are addressing that is`-in.some ways a., slight.'
contradiction to Gunderson's'answer and they've clarified exactly what`I
said to you, again.
-CITY COMMISSION RESUMES WATSON ISLAND, DISCUSSION-
Mayor Ferre: How many speakers do we, have that want •to be recognized?."
Would you yield.to the lady? And then?I'11 recognize you.
PUBLIC SPEAKERS:
Mrs. Florence Shubin appeared in front 'of the•City Commission speaking': in
opposition to the ,Watson Island p,roject,though she failed to turn-onher
recording microphone. Statement did, not get. into the public record.
Mr. Mike Rappaport appeared 'in'front of.the City Commission;,speaking=in
opposition to the -.:Watson_ Island,-�ro ect, specifically raising objections in
connection with the tr p, j
affic that would be generated by: the :project.
Attorney Andrew Hall appeared in objection to the project,. specifically the`
fact that in -his opinion the contract had not been properly�advertised.in
accordance with charter requirements.
Mayor Ferre requests of
Mr. Knox: I'll briefly address that point by indicating that this contract
as we rendered an opinion in 1977 is in -the nature of a contract for professional
services and in the charter requirments for formalized competitive bidding spe-
cifically don't apply to contracts for professional services.
Mr. Andrew. Hall disagreed with Mr. Knox on the first point and further made'.
long statement objecting to the City going into "partnership" with private
sector on this project.
Mayor Ferre: Now, let me just make one comment then I'll ask for a legal
opinion. The City of Miami for example has a golf course, the Melreese Golf.
Course, and the City of Miami has somebody that manages it, that we contract
for. I. don't see really -except for the magnitude of it- much of a legal
difference between one and the other. Now, the specific legal question -
we can address the moral later on- the legal question is can the City of Miami
enter into this agreement without violating the Constitution of the State of
Florida which prohibits joint partnerships or joint ventures with the private
sector?
Mr. Knox: The Constitutional prohibition refers specifically to those kinds
of partnerships which exist in a legal sense where the municipality is in fact
a business partner, that is having voting rights on Boards of Directors and that
sort of thing. It came about in an effort to curb municipalities' participa-
tion in investment schemes specifically in banks and railroads where City of-
ficials became members of Boards of Directors of private corporations. There
is no Constitutional prohibition against the so-called private sector incentives
in order to have private investment in public projects.
mh
JUN 4 197$
Mrs. Gordon: There is no private investment in this project, you are not
delineating the exact situation.
Mayor Ferre: Blythe,Eastman, Dillon's $35,000,000 is a pri.vate investmerit.
George, let me ask you this. The Constitutionality of this will be questioned
during the validation proceedings, won't it?
Mr. George Knox: Yes, sir.
Mayor Ferre: And therefore the Court will have to rule on your point which,
I'm sure, as an adversary to it, I'm sure you will be present to protest it
arid I'm sure you will point that out and therefore if our City Attorney is
wrong I'm sure the Court will uphold your position when it comes before the
Proper jurisdiction.
Mr. Hall makes statement on the record to the ends that the City Attorney's
opinion might be wrong.
Mayor Ferre: But the City Attorney says that it's apparently not wrong.
Mr. Fine: Mr. Mayor, in addition, the City's bond counsel Governor Fariss
Bryant's firm 'said the same thing, and the developer's •counsel said the same
thing.
Mayor Ferre: We have three legal opinions, all right, what's your third point.
Mr. Hall made his next statement in connection with State taxation but did
not avail himself of the recording microphone. Faint statements were picked
up by the Public Address System but this office was unable to transcribe his
statement.
Mayor Ferre: I think that last portion, Counselor, was not -I don't think -
a legal question. You didn't posture it as a legal question.
Mr. Hall: No, it was not but..REST OF HIS SENTENCE WAS NOT PICKED UP BY THE
PUBLIC ADDRESS SYSTEM).
Mayor Ferre: Well, I think your posture is one of a philosophical nature and
one of a question as to what the role of government is in this whole thing.
Now, you know, you can use words and change meanings or speak to the issue, as
you will, according to your beliefs. The point simply is this, that what is
before us here is not whether or not to utilize Watson Island for the purposes
of developing a theme park as defined previously. That the Commission has voted
on unanimously on several occasions in favor of. Now, of course, anyone is
entitled to change their opinion and say "I was wrong", you know, that's all
right, but we've voted on that. Secondly, we already selected somebody to do
the project for us, and that was voted upon unanimously, so that's not in ques-
tion today. So what is in question today is whether or not the changes that are
being recommended are acceptable to this City Commission and whether or not
legally that constitutes a breach, or -and we've had legal definitions from our
City counsel which we have to go by,that there is no legal impediment to our
doing what is before us today. So what is then before us is either a reconsidera-
tion of the project -which is one alternative- or secondly, whether or not the
terms, as they are presented, are acceptable.
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Mayor, excuse me, but I believe there is another alternative
available and one that we have taken as a route in prior days on other issues
less important than this one, Mr.Mayor, and that is giving the voters of the
City of Miami the opportunity to vote on this referendum, and I would so propose
that we do that and we go no further on this project until the voters speak out
and say -yes, we are doing the right thing, or no, we are not. We did it for
the beer ordinance and, my God, this certainly is a heck of a lot more important
than whether we serve beer in the Orange Bowl.
Mr. Plummer: Not according to Mr. Robbie.
Mrs. Gordon: Robbie wasn't going to . on beer, Mr. Plummer, I believe that
this issue should be put on the ballot in November and let the people speak.
Let the people have the proposition, let the people understand it, and let the
people say -yes, we are willing and we'd like to have a theme park in Watson
Island or no, we'd like to have open space as it is now. I would move that as
a motion, Mr. Mayor.
1
mh
(CV%
Ott-,
'1111..111.1111M1.111111.11.11i
JUN 4 1979
Mayor Ferre: A11 right, there is a motion on the floor. Is there a second?
Is there a second? Is there a second to the motion? Do I hear a second on
this motion? For lack of a second it dies. Now, Joanne.
Ms. Joanne Holzhauser appeared,as a private citizen in opposition to the
project,;stating among other reasons, that youths' brought out from the ghetto
and employed by this project would not stay on very long. Further stating -that.
what the City needed was to construct decent housing.
Mayor Ferre: Further discussion.
Mrs. Gordon: If I had had a Joanne Holzhauser up here
a second to my' motion.
Mayor Ferre: Now, let me make a comment, Joanne, in answer to your statement.'
just three things. In the first place, with regards to employment, that's
exactly what Interama was going to do when they were talking about...When we
had the Interama project that's exactly what the Interama project was going to
do. Nobody complained about it and the Herald thought that was great then.
Number two, well, on the same subject. That's what Disney World does. Disney
World employs a lot of kids from the ghetto and does do them a lot of good.
and those kids don't stay there forever, obviously, those are part-time students,
those are kids that take vacation time or take a semester off to work at Disney
World, so I don't necessarily think that that means that just because you are
going to work at this theme park that that's bad no more than working at Disney
World is bad. Number two, with regards to the Herald and the position of the
Herald's editorial. I would accept the Herald's editorial criticism a little
bit more if John McMullin, the editor of the Herald, had not told me that he and
the Herald would support this project 100% if we moved it away from here and put
it across the bay on Biscayne Boulevard or in the Little Havana area which was
their, preference. That's a valid argumen., that's a valid criticism, but if
that's the basis of the criticism then you can't say I don't this, I don't
like that aspect, I don't like this aspect because basically, if he says.
that he is willing to accept the project if it is transferred from location
what he is saying then is that he accepts the other premises of it. So, there-
fore, he cannot use that argument, don't you see? The other argument that I
think is valid -as far as I'm concerned- in the Herald editorial is that it
is in the wrong location, the traffic patterns are bad, etc., etc. But for him
to say -if you move this project over, across the bay, I will supportit then I
think kills the rest of these arguments, that's point number two. Now, point
number three with regards to how the City of Miami utilizes its funds and for
what purpose. I think it is an established premise in government, in local
government in the United States, in Oakland, California, throughout California
cities, in Kansas City, where cities come in and utilize available funds to in-
duce the private sector to develop a strong private commitment which strengthens
the tax base. Now, that is what UDAG, for example, is all about, at the Federal
level. That is what we did, for example in the John Knight Convention Con-
ference Center. That is 'What we did this morning which passed, as I recall, four to
one, in the World Trade Center. We are using City funds on which we are getting
a return on, etc., to induce somebody to invest $40,000,000. Now, the return on
this one admittedly -by me now, I'm only speaking for myself- it's not as good
as the World Trade Center, because in effect what we are doing is we are risking
$20,000,000 for the private sector to invest $35,000,000, okay, because the other
$10,000,000 we are getting from the Federal Government. But, if this project
goes well, that $20,000,000 will not be utilized, and therefore, it is a risk
factor, at worst,that we spend $20,000,000 and therefore the return of getting
$35,000,000 for $20,000,000 is not as good as getting $40,000,000 for $30,000,000-
which is the combination on the other one. On the other hand, this property,
once it's developed will be the property of the people of Miami. The $12,000,000
figure is only if they are successful because -and I want to make this very, very
clear, which hasn't been pointed out- if we kick them out without cause, in other
words, we just don't like the way they are doing it, and we kick them out and the
project is making a profit, we are ...on the first year, we owe them $4,000,000,
period. We do not owe them $12,000,000. That is another misapprehension of the
Miami Herald, who has -and I'm sure through no malice- but just didn't under-
stand the facts. The facts are that if they are kicked out for cause, they don't
get that, but if they are kicked out without cause, it costs us $4,000,000,
not $12,000,000. Now, if they are kicked out on the second year, then we pay
$4,000,000 plus $3,200,000. If they are kicked out on the third year, we pay
that plus whatever else...and obviously, if they are kicked out by the fifth
year, if we kick them out on the last day of the fifth year they will have
made $12,000,000. Now, with regards to the point as to whether or not they
should make $12,000,000, this Commission, unanimously, everybody here, voted -
and everybody is entitled to say I was wrong and change their minds- unanimously
voted previously for a contract that will let these people do this and have it
3'
JUN 4 1979
4
i"
for thirty years, twenty years and a ten-year clause, in which they weren't
going to make $12,000,000, they were going to make 10 times $12,000,000. So,
this contract that is before us is not here because the developer wants this
contract, this contract is here before us because the City wants the contract
and we are the ones that have initiated it because we were not able to get an
IRS Ruling which is nothing unusual and which doesn't mean... -and therefore if
we are going back to a one-year, all they are getting is the right to run this
for one year. Every year for a 5-year period and they can be kick out every
year, on a one-year basis. Now, what in effect we are doing is we are creating
not only jobs but we are answering.., we seem to have missed the main thrust
of what it is we are trying to do here. We are not trying to create either a
competition for Disney World nor are we trying to create a Coney Island. The
idea of this is to create a beautifully landscaped theme park which is what
was presented before us and they've got to live by that; and this Commission
looked at the drawings and voted to put that on that island. And that theme
park as it's designed, will have certain amusement things like -and we keep
talking about Tivoli Gardens- which will not only be a tourist attraction but
will also be something for this community to enjoy. Now, I think McMullin's
question is the -in my opinion- only valid question,and that is,is it in the
right location, and I think that is a very valid point. It'a a valid question.
The rest of these things, this contract before us is as far as I'm concerned a
vast improvement over the one we had before and is actually detrimental to the
interests of the developer and not to the City. As a matter of fact, if you
look at this contract it says -should in the future the IRS rule otherwise
they want to go back to the old contract, you bet you, because it is a better,
contract. That's -what's before us.
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Mayor, let °me.ask you a question.
is a better contract for the City!, when we don't have
fit?
How do you feel that it
any guarantee of any pro
Mayor Ferre: We11, that..Ronney why don't you answer that and then I'll supple,
went because you are the guy that has „to live with this.: You explain why this
is a better contract and why is:it a. worse contract for.you and why is it a
better contract for the City, and then I want Gilchrist, and then I'll give you
the rest of the answer.
Mr. Fine: The first question is that all projects are built on projections,
whether they are hotels, or they are shopping centers, or they are theme parks.
Those projections have to be done by people who have an up proven tract record
that the people that are going to finance the project, whether it be insurance
companies or bond buyers, etc. are willing to accept those projections based
upon passed performance. These projections are so strong that they can sell
private bonds without any recourse except the ::-1come of the project for
$35,000,000 worth. Now,that's the basic assumption upon which everything is built.
You build the hotel, you assume people are going to come to stay at the hotel.
You build a house, you assume people are going to come live in it, so in terms
of the assumptions of the feasibility, those are being made not just by the
City, nor just by the developer, but by the underwriters and by the people who
buy the bonds. That's where the real test of the economics is. It is not a
matter of what we think or you think. It's going to_be a matter of what the
people who put up the hard dollars are going to think.
Number one. Number two is assuming those projections are right, then over the
life of the contract based upon those projections and giving no way for infla-
tion, or no way for increase after the third or fourth year, this project will
produce at least $125,000,000 for the City and under the old contract it would
have produced $125,000,000 for the developers; or, a quarter of a billion dollars
income into the project in terms of net income. Now, the City has the opportu-
nity of, theoretically, that if the project is successful, at the end of the
first year, they can buy the project out with $3,200,000 to pick up the other
$125,000,000 which will return to the City over this period a quarter of a mil-
lion dollars in income coming in every year. Twelve million dollars a year
net income into the City with or without the developers. Without the developers
maybe $25,000,000 a year income into the City. That's what this project has the op-
portunity of producing for the City that no other project that the City is in-
volved in, that's point one. Point two is that in good aith -because we be-
lieve that the project is necessary both for employmez+ and tourism, particularly
tourism, the closest attraction for our tourist indusry 's in Orlando and we
have to have one of comparable capacity, comparable :,ature, comparable enjoy-
ment that has to be here. And in the interest of accepting that principle,
that's the second reading for taking it. The third reason is that inflation
keeps raising the cost of the project and at some point it will make it more
38
J U N 4 1979
•
difficult for local people to afford, because for $3.50 somebody can buy a
pass into the park and go as much as they want any time they want. Number
two is that this is a low -admission park, it's based on $1 for children and
$2 for adults, probably half of what the movies are running, at this point.
So those are the major features, and the developers are going to be at the
risk totallytat the risk and mercy of the City and we are prepared to do that
because we believe that the project is needed and necessary. Now, let's take
the other issues. The other issues are very subjective. We have from both
the County, Department of Transportation that did the studies for mass transit
and are doing it for the Downtown People Mover, etc., and for everything we
have a study that says that the capacity of the road of that highway is more
than sufficient. At no time do we get more than 60% capacity. We have what
we consider the finest traffic engineering firm in the country, Wilby, Smith
& Co., said substantially the same thing. Notwithstanding that, this project
is subject to a DRI and these issues have to be readdressed and revalidated in
the DRI. The legal questions, the legal issues, notwithstanding that three
separate legal entitles that deal in municipal law in Florida day in and day
out have said it's valid, are going to have to be addressed by the courts
in the validation of the bonds. So the subjectiveness of these positions have
true test, and what are they? The tests are the buying of the bonds by private
people, the validation of the bonds by a court system and the approval of the
studies by the DRI process. Those are the constraints that we nut on the
project that will stop the protect if there is anything wrong.
Mrs. Gordon: And how long a period of time from this point to that point?
Mr. Fine: We think it can be done within six months.
IP 4
lb Mrs. Gordon: MAY. So why wouldn't this Commission be willing to let the
voters say they think this is as good as you think i 9
Mr. Fine: UDAG is the key to moving this project now. UDAG has said that by
June 15 they must have the Resolution from the City of Miami, they must have
a commitment satisfactory to them from the underwriter and all of the other
materials updated and validated that we have to do. If we miss June 15th,
then (a) we don't know or don't
are going to be in competition with
a
other projects of the City; know whether the funds are going to
be available at that time. I can tell you that we have been encouraged at a
national level by UDAG on this project and they have suggested very strongly
not to miss the June 15 deadline that's why we are here today, because this
is the last meeting before June 15.
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Mayor, I understand all the points you are saying and if all
of those things were done and so on and so forth and still at six months down the road would you, Mr. Mayor, as an individual be willing to put it on the
ballot?
Mayor Ferre: Let ne answer that on the record and I wasn't avoiding it before
I was just getting...obviously, when I didn't second your motion, I spoke spe-
cifically. There is a difference between beer and this issue in my opinion
because the beer issue is a moral issue. I think there are people who object
to drinking and selling of beer on moral grounds. That's something that, you
know, is like when we get into religion, you get into moral issues and in my
opinion that's something that perhaps we can go out and let people decide.
The last thing that I was going to answer to Joanne Holzhauser is...is she still
here? Yes, I see her, excuse me, as I do on many, many occasions on things
that we disagree on is I submit myself to the people for their approval every two
years, and the rest of this Commission submit themselves every four years. Now,
this issue of Watson Island was voted upon by this Commission before the last
election, and I went around when people challenged me and said Watson Island
is bad and I said -fine, you don't like Watson Island, you vote against me. If
you don't like Watson Island, if you have a problem with Watson Island, I did
that two years ago, I will do it again this year. I stand on my record, I stand
on the things that I voted for and I don't have any problem on that. Now, the
opportunity will be here on November. I voted for this project before, this
Commission voted for it unanimously. It was an issue in my campaign two years
ago. I stood before the people and the people voted in my campaign and voted
for me. They could have voted as a protest on this issue. Now, let me tell
you something else with regards to the question of voting. We don't put to a
vote the Knight Conference Center. We don't put to a vote the remodeling of the
auditorium here in Coconut Grove, we didn't put to a vote some of the things...
mh
JUN 4 1979
Miamarina. We didn't put to a vote...I don't know of any project that the City
of Miami or Metropolitan Dade County other than when there is a bond issue,
that we have put to a vote. Now, I don't see why, after this Commission has
unanimously gone on record and has stood through an electoral process on two
different occasions, no one occasion, why we should consider that this is such
a uniaue protect that we are going to put this on e on a vote. And therefore my
answer to you is I will not second the motion. I think we live in a democratic
republic. People in a democratic republic elect people to make these types of
decisions. I'm willing to stand on my record.
Ms. Joanne Holzhauser rebuts in long statement and expresses her total disagree-
ment and displeasure in connection with the City Commission's position..
Mayor Ferre: All right, next speaker, we've got to wind
another.
Mr. Rappaport makes statement into the record in connection with the opening
of the bridge at peak hours of trafficand in general expressed concerned with
the traffic structure of the project.
Mayor Ferre: I think that's a valid point and I want to tell you why I'm not
worried about it, because before now and D day we have to pass through a regional
impact"study and therefore the State is going to have all the opportunity and
you are going to be there, I know, and you are going to challenge it and you are
going to say, and these are the figures and your figures are wrong and Save
Watson Island is going to be there and you are going to have the traffic en-
gineers that are going to say and the State and the Regional Impact Study say -
hey, those Wilbur, Smith are wrong and the DOT is wrong, and that's it, it dies.
Number two, Blythe, Eastman, Dillon, and what's the name of that Cleaveland
firm? (INAUDIBLE RESPONSE)..Prescott, Robinson and so and so, they are going to
have to come up with $35,000,000 and unless they are absolutely certain that
their investment is going to be....they are not going to...listen, those houses
have got 10 times more calls for money than they've got available to give out
and they arenot about to finance something that is going to cause them any
kind of embarrassment.
MR. RAPPAPORT RESPONDS, STATEMENT NOT PLACED IN THE PUBLIC RECORD.
Mayor Ferre: Then the. Regional Impact Studies are going to say no, or Blythe, Eastman,
Dillon is going to say hey, fellows look, we are not. going to put any. money: in something
where the bridge might go up, and that might impair the success of this, and we don't
believe it's going to be successful.
MR. RAPPAPORT RESPONDS, STATEMENT NOT PLACED ON THE PUBLIC RECORD.
f of the recording
Mr. Rappaport rebuts but in doing so, did not avail himse
microphone, so statement did not get into the record.
Mayor Ferrel But we will have
Wilbur,'. Smith before the State.
tion procedure, and before the
to defend those feasibility studi es.alongwitn,-
and the Regional Impact Study,before the valida-
underwriters.
Mr. Rappaport : .... This isn't the end of the line?
Mrs. Gordon: Mr.Mayor, question on the employment factor of the administrative
personnel who.will be asked...and in the contract it does not specify how much
time,,but.time will be devoted and all our other resources given willingly to
the project,how will the City be reimbursed for their time and —that's
just one item. Then another one is the fact that the energy crunch has come
about since;1977 and that presents another problem as to whether or not the
economic picture will be as rosy as it was back in 1977. I realize that you
feel that people will still be flying in even if they can't bring their cars
down but I' can assure you that I had a flight cancelled on me from Boston last
week because of the fuel shortage. I think this indicates a trend that we have
look forward to and...
Mr. Fine: Let me remind you of two things. Number one is that the break even
point for this project is that if this project has an equal draw to the Dade
County Youth Fair, it has an equal interest as the Dade County Youth Fair, it
only has to be open for 30 days and enough local people will go to it for the
project to break even for one month. Now, those are facts, in 10 days the
Dade County Youth Fair draws excess of f 600,000 people most of whom come
within a 10-mile radius, so therefore all we need is 1,800,000 and if we were
open for 30 days the local people would make it viable to start with. Number
two is the draw for people today is they have to drive to Orlando, and here they
are going to be in Downtown, because one of the assistants in the future of this
project is to tie the Downtown People Mover into this site, so that it will go
over it and we won't be dependant upon whether the bridge opens or not, looking
down the road. And number three is there is now in study a water transport
system study.
to
Mrs. Gordon: I know, I proposed that for 5 years, Mr. Fine, it was not an
original idea of this project, you know.
Mr. Fine: It's now being funded, and the study is being funded.
Mrs. Gordon: I know, I just want everybody to know that the waterboard
transportation system I proposed in 1974 or 1975 to this Commission has been
sitting around in the dark recesses of City Hall and now it's suddenly going
to be borne because you need it for this purpose. I believe that there are
a number of reasons why two years ago this was a more attractive proposition
to me than it is today and one of those reasons is the traffic problems that
have arisen on the Rickenbacker Causeway which indicate that it's an impos-
sibility to get people on and off of that island. I'm sure here you have
other alternative causeways which people possibly could use in times of emergen-
cy but that doesn't change the fact that there are some people who live on this
causeway who are going to be absolutely blocked in by the kinds of traffic con-
gestion that will take place. The People Mover that you are talking about pos-
sibly extending it, they don't build that for nothing. Where is that money
going to come from?
Mr. Fine: I can address it very simply, very quickly. Rickenbacker Causeway
has no relationship to this causeway at all. It's a one-way dead-end with
four lanes of traffic and has no relationship, and that problem could be solved
by probably $10,000,000 expenditure,part of which is in the progress of bonds,
as you know, and that's a solvable problem today. But that has 10 times...it
has no relationship, it's a dead-end island... We don't have that because we
have flow between two cities and the way the traffic comes.., and we have exist-
ing today 6 lanes that could be increased to 8 lanes. Number three is that I
think that the revenue of the project will be sufficient enough
for the City, if it desires, to build the connection into the People Mover. Re-
member, the Herald moved the People Mover half -way to Watson Island. They took
it off of Biscayne Boulevard and moved it down to. Bicentennial Park and it's now
half way to Watson Island, so it makes it a lot cheaper to do today than it
did when we started this project.
Mayor Ferre: All right, further questions from members of this Commission?
All right, Mr. Plummer.
Mr. Plummer:' Mr. Gilchrist, let me understand correctly. The developer in
concert with the City, the monies that are being spoken about are after all
expenses on a:50/50 basis?
Mr. Gilchrist The original projections were 50/50 after all expenses.
Mayor Ferret Including the payment of the bonds?
Mr. Gilchrist:Including everything, that was
Mr. Plummer: s So in other words, am I then to
developer is going to make $12,000,000..."
Mr. Gilchrist: That is correct
Mayor Ferre: We've got to make twelve:
Mr.
the net profit.
understand correctly, if th
Plummer: ...then this City has to make`$12,000,000..
Mayor
Mrs.
Mayo
was asking was...
Mr: Fine: The City has the right to terminate, first f"
bills aren't paid,the City terminatesfor cause.
Mayor Ferre: For cause and we don't owe.. you
Mr. Fine: That's correct. Number two is if it's only making $12,000,000 and
let's=say you are paying us $3,000,000"and ;You are unhappy with the "twelve,
.
you could buy out the contract, each year.
Mayor Ferre: Let me give you another condition.Suppose in the first year
okay, instead of making $8,000,000 where you get your...S4,000,000, we make
$5,000 000, now what do we pay you?
Ferre: What. happens if the City doesn't make twelve
Gordon: There' is no guarantee.
r Ferre: No, no, you didn't hear what `hesaid. Now, what in effect Plummer
4
anything.
of all, i
all of the
mh
J U N 4 1979
Mr. Fine: You pay us the $4,000,000, but you can cancel the contract.
Mr. Plummer: That's not the point, the point I was getting at and I think the
Mayor is trying to get to is if....look, in the first first, Mr. Fine, you
make $4,000,000, that's in the projections. If it were to come up that the
first year there was a $10,000,000.net profit...
Mr. Fine: That's all we make.
Mr.
Plummer: ...you make $4,000,000 and then the City makes $6,000,000.
Mr. Fine: We no longer share -revenue, that's what's part of'the tax change.
They would not<;allow us to share the profits with the City. The City must'have
all the profits above the fee.
Mayor Ferre: On the plus side we come out better, on the negative side they
come up better up to $12,000,000 except that if we want to buy out their contract
without cause, we could pay them their $4,000,000 and buy them out and they are
out, and in the next year whatever monies are coming in we've got. So, you
know, L:think the safeguards are...once you understand what this is all about
this is a substantially better contract for the City and a substantially worse
contract for the developer and that is why they are insisting and I don't blame
them,to try to keep on the availability should the IRS rule, for what period
of time?
Mr. Gilchrist: Until, the opening; day.
Mayor Ferre: Until the opening,if the IRS rules before the opening:. day that they
can go back to the.5-year contrayou know darn well they are going .to'go back
tothat.°
Mrs. Gordon: Well, they would. prefer it because: of the security of having a
thirty years, but I maintain that although that factor in itself was not a very
attractive one at the time nevertheless it was still a share profit but share
a possible loss, and in this case there is only a share of profit and any pos-
sible loss is ours, and there is a $20,000,000 that we are pledging which we need.
This City absolutely is critical to have every single other than ad valorem tax
dollar available to provide services to the people of this City, and this City..
I don't know where we are going to find the $9,000,000 we are already short but
if we have to pledge some of that income we receive from franchise fees and
license fees and other fees as security for this project we can't use them
for two separate things, we can only use them for one.
Mayor Ferre: Now, the. question, of the share of loss, if there is a loss in this
projectthen we can kick these people out for cause.
Mr. Fine:
Mayor Ferre:.
Mrs. Gordon: You fire: them and then what? You are left with a project, what
are: you going to do with it?
Mayor Ferre: But the point obviously is that the statement that was made that
they share in the profit but don't share in the loss, they never did share in:
the loss, they never were liable for anything in the 30-year contract. All
this does now is give us the ability to fire him which we didn't have before
in the same way. And this is a much better contract for us. Now, are there
further.questions?
Mrs. Gordon: I'll tell you then, I'm glad it's coming up for reconsideration
today because if it's that bad, that we voted affirmatively all of us, and it
was that bad, then I think that more than one of us made amistake.
Mayor Ferre: All right, I'm going to recognize Mr. Hall and then
close it up, because everybody has to leave.
Mr. Andrew Hall makes final statement but did not avail himself of the recording
microphone.Statement did not get into the public record.
Mayor: Ferre: All right, in answer to that I would simply say that under that
philOSOPhY the New York World Trade Center would never have been built. Under
that philosophy,_ the Crown Center in Kansas City would have never been built.
mh
42
J U N 4 1979
Mayor Ferre(cont'd): Under that philosophy, the Oakland Coliseum would have
never been built. Under that philosophy, the James L. Knight Center would
have never been built. I think we have plenty of precedents throughout the
country and here in Miami, and it's a question of judgment. Is it the judge-
ment of this Commission that this is an appropriate project, in the proper
place, under the appropriate contract. The bottom line to me is this. I've
already voted and we have that this is an appropriate location, to me that's
not a question anymore and if it is it will be turned down at the appropriate
time before the State DRI. The question of the appropriate project I think
is going to be answered by..it isn't that Blyth, Eastman, Dillon is going
to make the fee, it's that Blyth , Eastman, Dillon, who has a sterling repu-
tation to maintain, isn't about to get involved with something that's going
to go down the drain, and their tract record shows that. And the third point,
in my opinion, is whether or not this contract before us is an improvement
on the previous contract and, in my opinion, it is, and therefore I have no
problems in concluding that I'm for it that let's go and, as a matter of fact,
I'll be happy to make the motion to that effect.
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Mayor, just to correct the records, for one thing. That the
Convention Center Hotel complex did not raise any objections from any sector
of this community, none whatsoever that I can recall a single, solitary ob-
jector ever coming here and saying don't do it, that's a bad project.• What you
are facing here today is entirely different. You've got a very strong objection
to this project on its location as well as its financial structure andI be-`
lieve we owe it to the people of our community to let them speak to this issue
and not hide our heads in the sand and say -we like it, if you don't like it; then`
you don't vote for me. That isn't really a fact, they have a right to<vote.`for
or against this project, because this project is that important to thiscom
munity's welfare.
Mayor Ferre: Rose, would you hold that true for everything? Rose, would you hold
that true for every project that the City does that is controversial?
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Mayor, in certain instances would and in this one I'm very
certain: that the right thing is to take it to the voters.
Mayor Ferre: Well, this is the first time that the City of Miami would have
ever done that since 1896 that I know of, which doesn't mean that it's wrong
but, I' mean, it would be the first time. I_ certainly feel that we've gone
far along on this. I went through an electoral process two years ago when
this was an issue, and I kept saying, this is what we've done I stand on it
and I stood on it then and I stand on it now. I think this is an improvement
rather than..I think this is going forward rather than in regression and I
want to tell you that we've got a long way to go on this. I said some time
ago that I didn't think we had better than a 50/50 chance. I'm not too sure
that we've got a 50/50 chance now. In the first place, look at all the things
that could go wrong with this. Number one, the UDAG people can say "no" and
that, in my opinion, certainly is going to kill the project, or certainly it's
going to delay it until we find other sources of money. Number two, we have
a State Impact Study and that can go wrong. Number three, this has got to be
validated before the Supreme Court of the State of Florida. And that's going
to be challenged by you, I'm sure, and by others and if not there in other
courts for other reasons, that'sthe third place where we have...and fourth,
to me the most important is that somebody is Eying to have to put $35,000,000
on top of the barrel head to make this project a reality. We have a lone way
to go, but it's time to move.
Mrs. Gordon:' Those somebodys are
panieswho are going to....
Mayor Ferre: Recommended by Blyth
people who will buying the bonds, the coin
Mrs. Gordon: Okay, but they are not putting their money out in the project,
they are just going to be offering a solicitation to the public. The public;
is going to relay on them, certainly, before they buy it but on the other
hand it's not their dollars that you are talking about. And then there is
another factor. The location probably could be improved upon, as without
a doubt there are locations that would be better from the economic standpoint
for the benefit of those people who are going to use this theme park. A theme
park in itself is not a bad thing but a theme park in the wrong location is
and that's just one factor.
Mayor Ferre: Rose
that was all true when you voted for it last time.
I know, Mr. Mayor, I made a mistake last time, I'm big enough
r
J U N 4 1979
to say I did. I would like you and this Commission to consider two things.
One, offering this as a referendum to the voters in November on this location,
and two, offering a theme park to the voters on another location. There is
a couple of very choice other sites that could be considered. One in Downtown
Miami, the property that we presently have under condemnation is a possible
site. And the second possible site is the one that is closer to 36th Street
the one that you, Mr. Fine, are even considering as a land bank for a possible
sports complex and whatever, that site might be available and might be suitable
for a combination of a sports site and a theme park. There are many alterna-
tives and we were ramming home something because we don't want to waste any
time to get this thing going. No, Mr. Mayor, I think that the time has come
where we need to reconsider what we've done as to whether we've done the right
thing or the wrong thing. And if you feel it's right, fine, but let the other
people say whether they think you did the right thing.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Makes a statement stating that the money involved is; how
much it would cost to build a brand new Orange Bowl and that such would also be
a money producing project.
Mayor Ferre: If we could get these kinds of returns from a football stadium
believe me we would have Blyth , Eastman, Dillon going out and trying to sell
them. There isn't a football stadium in this country that makes any money, not
one. All right, I' made a motion and I pass the gavel over to Plummer.
Mayor Ferre: The motion is approving in principle -I'm sorry- approving a
revised agreement for development of. Watson Island following consultationwith
the IRS and approving other matters pertaining to this development as it is
before us in item H and as clarified under discussion.
Mr. Plummer: Is there a second?
Mr. Lacasa: Second.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I will take just a minute under discussion. I think
the thing that has really been overlooked today that was addressed in the full
blown many hearings that we've had before this Commission is whether or not
there exists a need in this community for something to attract the number one
industry that we have -tourism. I fully understand that these people that are
sitting here today with the exception of Joanne, all are operating from a theory
that it will affect them directly and I understand that, they live on Palm Island,
very close by, and yes, I'm sure that in some way it will have an effect on them
but they are not residents of the City of Miami, they are residents of the City
of Miami Beach, I said with the exception of Joanne whose situation is much dif-
ferent, of course. We are all in favor of progress as long as it does not af-
fect me. Do what you want and if it doesn't affect me I'm all in favor of it.
Mr. Mayor, I felt that the vote previous to this there is a tremendous need for
something in this community. And very briefly, I think that the statistics that
the Tourist Promotion Department gave us before speak to that need. Thirty six
million people came to the State of Florida last year.
Mayor Ferre: How many?
Mr. Plummer: Thirty six million. Unfortunately, only twelve million went fur-
ther south than Orlando. Twenty-four million didnot go further south. They
stopped. Why? They had something for the children. They had a beach in
Daytona. There is nothing here. When we stop -and a good friend of mine asked
me yesterday- my wife is coming to town, what is there to see, what is there to
do. There are on one hand the things that are offered to the people of this
community to show with pride with what these people want to see. I addressed
the problem before. The thing that gulls me -that port directly across -I can't
say across the street, but across the waterway- is now handling in excess of
one million passengers a year who never see the streets of the City of Miami
or Dade County. They come in on chartered planes, get on a chartered bus and eo
to a chartered boat and are gone. They return to Miami, get on a chartered bus
go back to their chartered plane and go home. There is not a reason. The
reason is simple. There is nothing to attract them, there is nothing for them
to do. Now, I feel that this which is proferred before us today is something
that this City desperately needs. We must have something here to attract the
people. To stop what customs calls out here "the M.M. crowd'. The people who
come from Latin and South America who get off of that airplane and go directly
to Orlando. The "H.M. Crowd". You know why they go directly to Orlando? There
is nothing here to offer to them. This is something we have to offer.
mh
44
J U N 4 1979
•
Mayor Ferre: And we've got the statistics to do that.
Mr. Plummer: Let me conclude by saying this. I think that the potential of
income to this City -without question- is important. And the fear of a de-
ficit is more important. But let me tell you something, as far as I'm con-
cerned, you are talking about a total project of $65,000,000, If every-
thing tomorrow goes sour, the people who bought revenue bonds are out of the,
window. The people of the Feds and UDAG are out of the window. This City
could acquire a tremendous park facility for the involvement of a third of
the cost and still does not prevent us from operating something similar or
scaled down. Mr. Mayor, I never agreed with your thing of "behold the turtle
if he doesn't stick his head out he doesn't get anywhere". Mr. Mayor, that
decision was made before this Commission a number of years ago. I feel that
there are enough safe -guards. As I have said all the way along, the final de-
termination will not be made at this table. The final determination of whe-
ther the Economic Research Associates -who are a pretty legitimate firm,
whether their projections are solid. And I think that is the real crux of
the matter. Anyone else wants to make an observation? Hearing none, please
call the roll.
The following motion was introduced by, Commissioner
moved its adoption:
(Mayor) Ferre, w o
MOTION NO. 79-409
A MOTION A MOTION APPROVING IN PRINCIPLE A REVISED AGREEMENT FOR
DEVELOPMENT OF WATSON ISLAND FOLLOWING CONSULTATION WITH THE
I.R.S.,<AND APPROVING OTHER MATTERS PERTAINING TO THIS DEVELOP-
MENT AS MORE FULLY OUTLINED IN RESOLUTIONS NOS. 79-410, 79-411,
79-412, AND 79-413.
Upon being seconded by Comissioner Lacasa,;the motion was passed and adopted
by the following vote
AYES: Mayor Maurice A. Ferre *
Commissioner Armando Lacasa
Vice Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
NOES: Commissioner Rose Gordon.**`
ABSENT: Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson
ON ROLL CALL:
*Mayor Ferre: In voting, let me state that Watson Island is not used as much
as at least a dozen other parks in the City of Miami. It's not an overly used
piece of property and these are statistical records that we have on it. Number
two, let me say that as far as the beauty of Watson Island other than the
Japanese Gardens, which will be kept, it is an empty, barren piece of property
that in many parts doesn't even have grass growing on it. It certainly doesn't
have any trees or landscaping other than some scrub pines that are growing out
of there. It certainly is not an ecologically, beautifully landscaped piece
of property. Now, I think that the need for this and the main thrust of this
has been that we need a tourist attraction that counteracts the quest of many
people here for gambling. If we are not going to have casino gambling in this
community, and there are race tracts and at least one of them is having the
kind of troubles that they are having, and if our hotels are going down on the
other side of the bay as they have, hopefully they'll be redeveloped, we real-
ly need to have something in this community that will be a major economic mag-
net for our basic industry which is tourism. Now, out of 20 metropolitan
areas in these United States, every other city, but Miami, has a theme park.
Atlanta has one, Dallas has one, Houston has one, Los Angeles has one,Cincinnati
has one, you name it, the twenty major mtropolitan areas, everybody but Miami,
and we are supposed to be the tourist capital of the world. I think the only
valid question is that that was posed by John McMullin to me and that is is
it in the right place. I am satisfied that it is in the right place. I reaf-
firmed that today with my vote and I also reaffirm the fact that this is sub-
stantially better contract for the City of Miami than was the previous one that
we unanimously accepted, and I vote "yes".
**Mrs. Gordon: I vote "
"_ for reasons already stated.
JUN 4 1971
i_
1
11(A).
AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT
TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND DIPLOMAT WORLD
ENTERPRISES, LTD., DATED NOVEMBER 11, 1977 IN
ACCORDANCE WITH TERMS OF AMENDATORY GREEMENT.
Mayor Ferre:
through 8(A),
formally have
Mr. Plummer:
All right, Mr.. Plummer, I move item 8(A). We've got to go
(B), (C) and (D) because those are the Resolutions that
to be moved.
Is there a second to 8(A).
Mr. Lacasa: Second.
Mr. Plummer:
Any discussion? Hearing none,
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner
who moved its adoption:
call the roll.
RESOLUTION NO. 79-410
;Mayor) Ferre,
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN
AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND DIPLOMAT
WORLD ENTERPRISES, LTD., DATED NOVEMBER 11, 1977 IN AC-;
CORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE ATTACHED
AMENDATORY AGREEMENT.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and; on file
in the Office of the City Clerk).
Upon beingseconded by Commissioner Lacasa, the resolution was.
passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES:.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre.
Commissioner" Armando: Lacasa
Vice Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr
NOES: Commissioner Rose Gordon
ABSENT: Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson
11(B). AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE INVESTMENT BANKING AGREEMENT
W/ PRESCOTT, BALL, TURBEN & W/ BLYTH EASTMAN DILLON & CO. INC.
FOR THE SALE AND ISSUANCE OF $55,000,000 IN REVENUE BONDS TO
FL ANCE "WATSON ISLAND PROJECT".
Mayor Ferre: I move 8(B).
Mr. Lacasa: Second.
Mr. Plummer: Discussion on 8(B). Hearing none, call the roll.
The -following resolution was introduced by Commissioner (Mayor)
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 79-411
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN
INVESTMENT BANKING AGREEMENT WITH THE FIRM OF PRESCOTT,
BALL & TURBEN AND WITH THE FIRM OF BLYTH EASTMAN DILLON &
CO. INCORPORATED FOR THE SALE AND ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS
IN THE AMOUNT OF $55,000,000 TO FINANCE THE WATSON ISLAND
PROJECT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF
THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT; AND FURTHER APPROVING THE SAID
FIRMS TO ACT IN THE CAPACITY AS THE SOLE MANAGING UNDER-
mh
4C;
J U N 4 1979
(Res.79-411 (coned) ):
WRITER FOR -THE NEGOTIATED' SALE AND ISSUANCE OF SAID BONDS.
(Here follows body ofresolution, 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: Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
Commissioner Armando Lacasa
Vice Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
NOES: Commissioner Rose Gordon.
ABSENT: Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson
11(C). RESOLUTION CONFIRMING INTENTION TO UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) CITY'S COMMITMENT TO
CONSTRUCTION & OPERATION OF THE "WATSON ISLAND PROJECT", etc.
Mayor Ferre: I move 8(C).
Mr. Lacasa: Second.
Mr. Plummer: Any discussion on 8(C)? Call the roll.
The followingresolution was;, introduced by Commissioner (Mayor) Ferre, who
movedits adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 79-412
A RESOLUTION WHEREBY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
CONFIRMS ITS INTENTION TO THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) TO COMMIT THE CITY OF
MIAMI TO THE DEVELOPMENT, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE
WATSON ISLAND PROJECT; WHICH RESOLUTION THEREUPON COMPLIES
WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF HUD IN ITS REVIEW OF THE CITY'S
APPLICATION, DATED APRIL 30, 1979, FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
UNDER THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACTION GRANTS PROGRAM WITH RESPECT,
TO SAID PROJECT.
(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: Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
Commissioner Armando Lacasa
Vice Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.'.
NOES: Commissioner Rose Gordon
ABSENT: Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R.:Gibson
47
JUN 4 1974
11(D) APPROVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND FIRM OF ECONOMICS RE-
SEARCH ASSOCIATES, TO PREPARE POLICY MANUAL AND REVISE ITS
FEASIBILITY STUDY OF APRIL 1978 FOR THE "WATSON ISLAND PROJECT"
Mayor Ferre: I move 8(D).
Mr. Lacasa: Second.
Mr. Plummer: Anydiscussion on 8(D). Hearing none, call the roll.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner (Mayor) Ferre, who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 79-413
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI,
FLORIDA, AND THE FIRM OF ECONOMICS RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, TO
PREPARE A POLICY MANUAL AND TO REVISE ITS FEASIBILITY STUDY
OF APRIL 1978 FOR THE WATSON ISLAND PROJECT; AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT; AND AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO EXPEND AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $28,000.00
FROM THE WATSON ISLAND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND FOR SAID AGREE-
MENT.
(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: ' Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
Commissioner Armando Lacasa
Vice Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
NOES: Commissioner Rose Gordon
ABSENT: Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson
12.AUTHORIZE FINAL PAYMENT OF $4,034.03 TO MICHAEL E. ANDERSON,ESQ.
AND JOHN R. FARRELL,ESQ. FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BY REPRESENT-
ING THE CITY IN THE Coconut Grove Properties, Inc.et.al. v. City
of Miami, Florida - Supreme Court of Fla.- Case No.54,557.
Mayor Ferre:
Mrs. Gordon: Second.
Mr. Plummer: Call the roll.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner (Mayor) Ferre,
moved its adoption:
I move 9, which is John R. Farrell.
RESOLUTION NO. 79-414
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,0
34.03
03
TO MICHAEL E. ANDERSON, ESQ. AND JOHN R. FARRELL, ESQ. FOR PROFES-
SIONAL SERVICES RENDERED IN THE LITIGATION REGARDING THE REPRE-
SENTATION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI IN THE CASE OF COCONUT GROVE
PROPERTIES, INC., et al. v. CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA1 SUPREME COURT
OF FLORIDA, CASE NO. 54,557, WITH FUNDS THEREFOR ALLOCATED FROM
THE GENERAL OBLIGATION CAPITAL PROJECTS ACCOUNT ENTITLED PARKS
FOR PEOPLE BOND FUND AUDIT (PROJECT 305129, CODE NO. 310302-250),
RESULTING IN A TOTAL PAYMENT OF $8,554.68.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file
48
JUN 4 197
in the Office of the City Clerk).
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gordon
passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
Commissioner Rose Gordon
Commissioner Armando Lacasa
Vice Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
None.
Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson
13. RESCHEDULE CITY COMMISSION MEETINGS FOR THE
MONTH OF JUNE, 1979.
Mayor Ferre: All right Mrs. Gordon moves and Plummer seconds a Resolution
rescheduling the June City Commission meetings. Further discussion, call
the roll.
The following resolution was introduced
its adoption
RESOLUTION NO. 79-415
A RESOLUTION RESCHEDULING THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING
OF JUNE 28, 1979, TO TAKE PLACE ON JUNE 25, 1979, AT 10:00 A.M.;
FURTHER` RESCHEDULING THE MEETING FOR JUNE 28, 1979, (PREVIOUSLY
ESTABLISHED FOR THE COMMISSION PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING) TO
TAKE PLACE ON JUNE 26, 1979, AT 6:00 P.M.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
in the Office of the City Clerk).
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer
passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
Commissioner Rose Gordon
Commissioner Armando Lacasa
Vice Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R.
Gibson
14. RESCHEDULE CITY COMMISSION MEETINGS FOR THE MONTH
OF JULY, 1979.
Mayor Ferre: Plummer moves, Lacasa seconds, further discussion, call the roll,
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 79-416
A RESOLUTION RESCHEDULING THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING
OF JULY 12, 1979, TO TAKE PLACE ON JULY 11, 1979, AT 9:00 A.M.;
FURTHER RESCHEDULING THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY
26, 1979, TO TAKE PLACE ON JULY 23, 1979, AT 10:00 A.M.; FURTHER
RESCHEDULING THE MEETING OF JULY 26, 1979, (PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED
49
J U N 4 1979
E
•
Res.79-416(cont'.d):
FOR THE COMMISSION PLANNING AND ZONINGMEETING) TO TAKE
PLACE ON JULY 23, 1979 AT 6:00 P.M.
(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: Commissioner Armando Lacasa
Commissioner Rose Gordon
Vice Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R.
Gibson
15 POLICE COMMUNITY RELATIONS solution to the so-called
"Internal Review Process".
Mayor Ferre: Let me tell you, Bob Hardin has asked me to pass these things
out. I want to say, Mr. Manager, Mr. Grassie, I subscribe to the Bob Harding
recommendation for a Police Community Relations solution to the so-called
Internal Review Process, and I've already given a copy to each member and I'll
be happy to give it to the press, and to you, Mr. Grassie, I'd like a written
answer to this from the City Police Chief or from the Administration, as you
will. I guess that covers it.
ADJOURNMENT'
There being no further business tocome before the City Commission,
on motion duly made and seconded, the meeting was adjourned at 2:05 P.M.
ATTEST: RALPH GONGIE
City Clerk
NATTY HIRAI
Assistant City Clerk
J U N 4 1979
CI1'DF M%MI
DOCUMENT
MEETING DATE:
INDEX June 4, 1979
ITEM NO.
DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION
COMMISSION
ACTION
RETRIEVAL
CODE NO,
10
11
12
COMMISSION AGENDA AND CITY CLERK REPORT
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 253, FLORIDA STATUTES,
URGING ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT BY THE STATE OF
FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULA-
TION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE BULKHEAD ALONG
SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE BETWEEN S.E. 14 STREET
AND S.E. 15 ROAD
APPOINTING 5 INDIVIDUALS AS MEMBERS.. OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI, HEALTH FACILITIES AUTHORITY TO'
SERVE TERMS OF OFFICE VARYING FROM 1 YEAR TO
4 YEARS
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN
AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANS-
PORTATION AND OTHER APPROPRIATE STATE AGENCIES
SUBJECT TO RATIFICATION AND CONFIRMATION BY
THE CITY COMMISSION
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO RECEIVE BIDS
FOR THE STRUCTURAL STEEL WORK FOR CONSTRUCTION
OF THE CITY OF MIAMI/UNIVERSITY'OF MIAMI JAMES
L. KNIGHT INTERNATIONAL CENTER PROJECT
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO .EXECUTE AN
AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY
AND DIPLOMAT WORLD ENTERPRISES, LTD. DATED
NOVEMBER 11, 1977
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN
INVESTMENT BANKING AGREEMENT WITH THE FIRM
OF PRESCOTT, BALL & TURBEN AND WITH THE FIRM
OF BLYTH EASTMAN DILLION & CO. INCORPORATED
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI CONFIRMS
ITS INTENTION TO THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT TO COMMIT
THE CITY OF MIAMI TO THE DEVELOPMENT, CON-
STRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE WATSON ISLAND
PROJECT
APPROVING THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
MIAMI, AND THE FIRN OF ECONOMICS RESEARCH
ASSOCIATES
AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$4,034.03 TO MICHEL E. ANDERSON AND JOHN R.
FARRELL FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED
RESCHEDULING THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION
MEETING OF JUNE 28, 1979, TO TAKE PLACE ON
JUNE 25, 1979.
RESCHEDULING THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEET
ING OF JULY 12, 1979 TO TAKE PLACE JULY 11,
1979
R-79-404
R-79-410
R-79 411=
R-79-412
R-79-413
R-79-414
R-79-415
R-79-416
0016
79-401
79-402
79-403
79-404
79-410
79-411
79-412
79-413
79-414
79-415
79-416