Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1979-03-22 MinutesCITY OF MIAMI `MST/3 ie urED - / - 7 ? COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON MARCH 22, 1979 (REGULAR) PREPARED BY THE i..::. =FICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL RALPH G.. ONGIE CITY CLERK CITY MARCH 22, 1979 • ft ITEM ND. &EJECT rat11110. 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 4 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 8 'DISCUSSION OF PENDING LITIGATION OF BALL POINT PROPERTY AMEND RULE VIII, SECS. 8 & 9; RULE XIX, SECS 3 & 5 AND RULE XIV, SEC. 2 - CIVIL SERVICE RULES TO CONFORM TO NEGOTIATED LABOR AGREEMENTS ESTABLISH NEW APPROPRIATION FUND FOR ADDITIONAL PROJECTS FROM FP & L FRANCHISE REVENUES INCREASE ENTERPRISE FUND ORANGE BOWL TO FUND STRUCTURAL SURVEY AND ANALYSIS OF THE ORANGE BOWL STADIUM EATABLISH NEW TRUST & AGENCY FUND: "SCULPTURE EXHIBIT - BICENTENNIAL PARK" DISCUSSION OF CITIZENS PARTICIPATION AND REQUESTING DADE COUNTY NOT TO HOLD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ELECTIONS CONFIRMING RESOLUTION: REQUEST CITY MANAGER TO INVESTIGATE "NEIGHBORHOOD PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY SYSTEMS." REPORT ON RESULTS OF CULMER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TASK FORCE MEETING AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO APPLY FOR GRANT -JUVENILE RUNAWAY PROJECT AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO APPLY FOR GRANT TO PROVIDE SERVICES, REFERRALS AND SUPPORT TO NON -ADJUDICATED JUVENILE OFFENDERS AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO APPLY FOR GRANT TO PROVIDE VIDEO EQUIPMENT RECORDERS IN PRISONER PROCESSING EXTEND AGREEMENT - ALLIED REPRESENTATIVES TO MANAGEMENT, INC. (ARM) TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL COMPUTER PROGRAMMING SERVICES NAME PROPOSED CENTRAL MIAMI PARK - HENRY E. S. REEVES PARK BID ACCEPTANCE - ORANGE BOWL PAINTING AND MAINTENANCE 1979 BID ACCEPTANCE - AUTOMOBILES, MOTORCYCLES AND GROUNDS MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT AMEND RESOLUTION 78-374 APPROVING 400 SECTION 8 • HOUSING UNITS AND APPROVE FINANCIAL PLANS FOR 325 SECTION 8 HOUSING UNITS CLAIM SETTLEMENT - ROBERT AND VICKIE JACOBS AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT: UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO TO CONTINUE MANDATED DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF EXAMINATIONS FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT M-79-200 Ord. 8914 Ord. 8915 Discussion Discussion Discussion R-79-202 M-79-203 M-79-204 R-79-205 R-79-206 R-79-207 R-79-208 R-79-209 R 79-210 R-79-211 R-79-212 R-79-213 R-79-214 PAGE NO. 1-25 26 27 27 28 29-34 34 35-38 38 39 39 40 40 41 41 42 43 43-44 q1Y isEFJEME,TORNA PAGE # 2 I1FM NO. SUBJECT tOLUTION INANCE Off NO. PAGE NO. 19 CONFIRMING RESOLUTION: REQUEST METRO NOT TO HOLD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TARGET AREA ELECTIONS 20 DISCUSSION: FUTURE LOCATION OF THE GOODYEAR BLIMP ' 21 OPEN SEALED BIDS: CITY WIDE SANITARY SEWER EXTENSIONS IMPROVEMENT-FLAGLER ST. SR-5458-C (CENTERLINE SEWER) 22 OPEN SEALED BIDS: S.W. 22 STREET HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PHASE III H-4418 23 PLAQUES, PROCLAMATIONS AND SPECIAL ITEMS '4 AUTHORIZE TRANSFER OF CERTAIN CERTIFICATES OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR TAXICABS 25 (a) (b) CITY REPRESENTATIVE SENT TO TALLAHASSEE TO PROTEST METRO COMMISSIONERS' ACTION PRE-EMPTING MUNICIPAL REGULATION OF THE TAXICAB INDUSTRY; AND REQUESTING AND PETITIONING THE FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES TO INTERCEDE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI IN THE ABOVE MATTER 26 ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK -MANOR SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT SR-5437-C 27 EMERGENCY ORD: AMEND ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORGINANCE INCREASE SPECIAL PROGRAMS AND ACCOUNTS TO FUND DADE COUNTY SCHOOL PROGRAM AND DADE COUNTY AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM THROUGH MARCH 9, 1979 28 DISCUSSION OF ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY FOR LATIN RIVERFRONT PARK -REQUEST MEETING WITH DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD TO DISCUSS MATTERS OF MUTUAL CONCERN 29 VACATE & CLOSE ALLEY BOUNDED BY BRICKELL PLAZA, BRICKELL AVENUE AND S.E. 8TH STREET - TENTATIVE _PLAT #1040-"INTERCAP SUB" (REQUEST PLANNING DEPT. STUDY EXTENSION S.E. 1ST AVENUE. AT BRICKELL PL TO 7 STREET 30 30.1 CHANGE DATES OF APRIL 1979 CITY COMMISSION MEETINGS CONTINUED DISCUSSION: ITEM 23 - PROPOSED CLOSING ALLEY -TENTATIVE PLAT 1040-INTERCAP SUB. 31 PERSONAL APPEARANCE: VICTOR LOGAN - UNRESOLVED ISSUES CONCERNING THE MIAMI SUMMER BOAT SHOW 32 INSTRUCT CITY MANAGER TO REMOVE CITY COMMISSION TELEPHONES FROM CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS 33 (CONTINUED DISCUSSION) VICTOR LOGAN-UNRESOLVED ISSUES CONCERNING THE MIAMI SUMMER BOAT SHOW 34 PERSONAL APPEARANCE: JOEL JAFFER REGARDING COCONUT GROVE HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT R-79-215 Discussion M-79-216 M-79-217 Discussion R-79-218 M-79-219 M-79-220 R-79-221 Ord. 8916 44 45 45-46 46 47 47 48-51 52 52 Discussion 53-55 M-79-223 M-79-224 Discussion 'Discussion M-79-226 M-79-227 M-79-228 M-79-229 M-79-230 56-63 64 64-65 65-78 79 79-93 93-100 cT; PAGE M 3 11111 ila. MCI 45, i 35 36 36.1 36.2 36.3 36.4 36.5 36.6 37 38 39 40 41 42 NaMMINIMEMMIlk PERSONAL APPEARANCE: MS. ELLEN OSMAN - REQUESTING FINANCIAL ASISTANCE FOR COCONUT GROVE CHILDREN'S THEATRE "PERFORM-A-THON" AT GUSMAN HALL CONSENT AGENDA BID ACCEPTANCE, WAIVE FORMAL BID PROCEDURES FOR FURNISHING PRE -PACKAGED MEDICATIONS FOR THE DEPT. OF FIRE ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK - D.M.P. CORP. FOR SOUTHERN DRAINAGE PROJECT E-43 (SECOND BIDDING) ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK - MET CONSTRUCTION,INC. FOR ORANGE BOWL STRUCTURAL REPAIRS - 1978 BID ACCEPTANCE - NEW RIVER CONSTRUCTION CO.,INC. N.W. 20 STREET AREA SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT - SK-4437 BID ACCEPTANCE - BOODWIN, INC. FOR AVALON SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT SR-5453-C 6 S AUTHORIZE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR OBJECTIONS TO ACCEPTANCE OF COMPLETED WORK DELAWARE SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT SR-5390-C CONFIRMING RESOLUTION: REQUESTING JOINT MEETING WITH DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD ESTABLISH MAY 24, 1979 AS DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON BALL POINT APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT CONFIRMING RESOLUTION: CHANGE DATES FOR CITY COMMISSION MEETINGS DURING THE MONTH OF APRIL EXPRESSION OF CITY COMMISSION'S DISSATISFACTION WITH RECENTLY REVISED STANDARDS OF ELIGIBILITY FOR DETERMINING AMOUNT OF FOOD STAMPS TO BE AWARDED TO PEOPLE IN NEED URGE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE THAT NO CHANGES BE ADOPTED PERTAINING TO CHAPTER 175 AND 185 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES "PENSION FUNDS" PERSONAL APPEARANCE: LAZARO ALBO REGARDING EXCHANGE OF EQUIPMENT WITH LIMA, PERU. APPOINT LAZARO ALBO AS ASSISTANT TO THE MAYOT AT $1.00 A YEAR towriINANCE OR cti N . PA �,_ M-79-231 R-79-232 R-79-233 R-79-234 R-79-235 R-79-236 R-79-237 R-79-238 R-79-239 R-79-240 R-79-241 R-79-242 M-79-243 100-101 w 103 103 103 103 103 104 104 105 105-10, 106 107 108-11 110-1 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA * * * * * * * * ON THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 1979, THE CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, QR DA MET AT IREGULAR MEETING PLACE IN THE CITY HALL, 35TS uu FAN AMERICAN LRIVE, MIAMI, 1L.ORIDA IN REGULAR SESSION. THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 9:12 O'CLOCK A.M. BY MAYOR MAURICE A. tERRE WITH THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION FOUND TO BE PRESENT: Commiaa.i.oner Rose Gordon Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commi.aaionen. (Rev.) Theodore Gibson Vire-Mayon J. L. PQummen, Jr. Mayon Maatice A. Fenne ALSO PRESENT: Joseph R. Gnaasie, City Manager R. L. Foamoen, Aaaistant City Manager George F. Knox, City A.t.tonney Ralph G. OngJ e, City C.Qenfh Marty H�.naL, Aasit taut City Ctekk An invocation was delivered by Reverend Gibson who then led those present in a pledge of allegiance to the flag. A motion to waive the reading of the minutes of January 18th and February 1st was introduced by Commissioner Plummer and seconded by Commissioner Lacasa and was passed unanimously. 1. DISCUSSION OF PENDING LITIGATION OF BALL POINT PROPERTY. Mayor Ferre: Before we get into Items A & B we do have the pending situa- tion with the St. Joe Paper Company property and Mr. Ted Gould's purchase of it and the lawsuit that is pending before the Supreme Court of which you have a copy of the jurisdictional statement that was presented by our attor- ney, Guy Bailey. The way this matter was left last time was that we were going to get the letter up -dating from the two constitutional lawyers that the City has retained, one Edward Bennett Williams and the other one Bruce Roggo for the purposes of them (1) looking at the brief that was presented by attorney Bailey and (2) looking at a 1978 Supreme Court Case that Mr. Bailey had stressed was the main thrust of his presentation. Furthermore, the transcripts of the hearing were to be mailed to these two parties. Now, Mr. City Attorney and Mr. City Manager, was all of that done? And what is the result and what is your interpretation and recommendation? Mr. George Knox, City Attorney: Mr. Mayor, I will begin. Subsequent to the laE City Commission Meeting I transmitted a letter to Bruce Roggo who is the Dean of the Nova University School of Law, it is relatively short and I would like to read it into the record. "As you may have noted in the newspapers, I have been requested to call upon you again in order that you would give your interpretation of the Spannaus Case and the New York Trust Company_ Case as these cases are the authority upon which Mr. Guy Bailey relies in support of his contention that the Supreme Court may rt 01 MAR • 2 1979 be disposed to hear the Ball Point question. Would you please provide the City Commission with the benefit of your thoughts in advance of this March 22nd Meeting? The City Commission has also requested a determination as to whether the Florida Supreme Court has ever reviewed directly the Wild Deed question, that is has the Florida Supreme Court ever definitively determined that those deeds which have no root of title upon the record should be cured by the Marketable Titles Act. In addition to the foregoing, Mr. Bailey has requested that you have the benefit of his briefs which are scheduled to be filed on March 14th as a part of your analysis, I will arrange to transmit these briefs to you in a timely manner. Thank you again for your coopera- tion with the City of Miami. Kindest personal regards. Sincerely, George F. Knox, Jr., City Attorney. Copies of Mr. Bailey's briefs along with the cases that were in question were transmitted to Mr. Bruce Rogow and I received from Mr. Rogow on March 20th, 1979 a letter which consists of five pages. Unless there are some questions I will only read the concluding paragraph. "In sum, while I think the chances of Supreme Court review to be exceedingly dim, I think the City will know for certain the fate of this case within three months. I leave it for the Commission to decide if it can afford to wait." His suggestion was that the Supreme Court would make a determination as to whether or not it had pr^bable jurisdiction in this case befora the end of its June term and that if the City Commission should choose it could wait until that deter- mination is made. However, he indicated that he did not believe, he did not change his opinion from his former opinion that there is an extreme unlikeli- hood that the Supreme Court of the United States would grant jurisdiction to hear this legal question. Mr. Grassie: And further, Mr. Mayor and members of the City Commission, you also asked for the opinion from Mr. Edward Bennett Williams and his relatively lenghty review of the case comes to a similar conclusion, a stronger if any- thing, he concludes: "I am still of the opinion that there is no reasonable likelihood whatsoever that the Supreme Court of the United States will grant plenary review." So based on these opinions we would have to conclude that there is virtually no chance that the Supreme Court will after whatever length of time it takes for them to review the case will, in fact, accept legal review. Mayor Ferre: Well, would you now before I open it up to the Commission for questions conclude, you and Mr. Knox, your recommendation to this board after you've reviewed the facts and the information? Mr. Knox? Mrs. Gordon: I didn't hear your statement. Mayor Ferre: The request was, as you recall, last time that after all this was done and all the information received received that we wanted, I would like to have into the record their recommendations and then I will open it up fcr questions. Mr. Knox: As I have rendered my opinion before in this matter, that this is a policy question which involves on one side a purely legal question and on the other side a practical and public policy consideration. .In determin- ing rather recently that I would be called upon to make a recommendation I considered the question of law versus policy which is a profound and sub- stantial question and the analogy that came to mind most vividly was the sit- uations in which the City Commission had been faced by virtue of courts' interpretations of the Sunshine Law and most recently there was a Third Dis- trict Court of Appeal decision which supported a lower court conclusion that the selection of Police Chief or the screening process by a committee appointed by the City Manager for the selection of a Police Chief should be done in the Sunshine. It was the opinion of your City Attorney along with public attorneys from throughout the State that this was an erroneous decision by the Third District Court of Appeal and, of course, we had an opportunity to appeal that decision to the Supreme Courtof the State of Florida and, indeed there was a great deal of pressure, if you will, upon our office from univer- sity systems, from school boards, from City Attorneys throughout the State urging us to file an appeal and indicating that all of these entities and institutions would file amicus curiae briefs or assist us in any way possible in pursuading the Supreme Court that this administrative activity should not be subject to the Sunshine Law and despite all of these suggestions we con- cluded that the City Commission had announced a policy in support of the con- cept of openess in government and that even a victory as to this point in the Supreme Court may have been what the Mayor sometimes refers to as a rt 02 MAR 2 2 tp7Q pyrrhic victory in terms of the public purpose and the commitment to the public that the City Commission had. In light of the fact that there have ben precedents where sometimes policy considerations must outweigh legal considerations even in the case where there is a likelihood to prevail. I am compelled to concur in a suggestion which was made by Mr. Roggo in his letter on page 4 where he says, "I have no idea what the cost of seeking Supreme Court review is to the City, if any delay in resolution will result in irreparable injury or substantial economic loss to the City then I would advise immediate termination of this case." That would be your City Attor- ney's recommendation. Mayor Ferre: All right, Mr. Grassie. Mr. Grassie: The basic case that we have in front of us, Mr. Mayor and mem- bers of the City Commission, is one of the interests of the City. My con- clusion and recommendation is that it is in the best interest of the City to terminate this case and to move ahead with the proposed development. Mayor Ferre: A11 right, now I'm going to open it up•for Commission questions and if there are none then I will recognize Guy Bailey for a statement and then I'll recognize Mr. Gould's attorney for a statement and then hopefully then we can come to a conclusion. Are there any questions of either the City Attorney or the City Manager at this juncture? Mrs. Gordon: As long as we're not precluded from questioning I don't mind hearing from the attorneys first. Mayor Ferre: All right, Mr. Bailey. Mr. Guy Bailey: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, I have given each of you a notebook which sort of is a rehash, I did not have the transcript of the whole thing until last time and I wanted you to have the however dub- ious benefit of my comments about the several aspects of this thing. The most significant change which has occured since the last meeting is Mr. Roggo's comment in my mind in terms of your decision because Mr. Roggo's quotation which your City Attorney has read to you says, "...if any delay is going to result in irreparable harm..." then he recommends termination. His conclusion in the letter, however, is that if the City waits until June then he believes the City will certainly have an answer from the United States Supreme Court on probable jurisdiction. Now I do not agree with Mr. Roggo's conclusion as to the merits of this lawsuit. I think you know my comments about Mr. Edward Bennett Williams' attempt to understand five years of work in a week or so for close to $3,500 and I submit to you that is a very dubious number that he is supposedly charging this City for that opinion. But I will say to you that I have read carefully, I received both of these letters yesterday, I read them carefully, I read the first two letters from the:,e gentlemen carefully. I discussed it with the lawyers in my office based upon the research that we have put in on the City's behalf since 1975 which has not been hurried, which has been thoughtful and using that back- ground and using that history and ability, whatever we have to analyze legal issues I will say to you that the issues that are raised, and incidentally, I have given each of you a copy of what we filed in the United States Supreme Court, this is called a Jurisdictional Statement, a lot of things are proforma that have to be in there, the guts of the paper are in pages 14 through I guess it is 32. I reread that and I reread the cases, I read those letters from those two lawyers and I submit to you that if I were a judge assessing this jurisdictional statement against those responses to it I would note probable jurisdiction. I do not think either these lawyers want to understand what we are raising or that they do understand. I do not think either one of them meets the legal argument that we have raised. Their attempts to distin- guish those two cases which they had omitted before, and it seems to me in evaluating the validity of someone's opinion, and you've just had two opinions that omitted to deal with the very precedents that we're alleging, our basis for our case, that you've got to look with some concern about that. They do not meet the arguments that we raised. If that is going to be Mr. Ball's defense in his motion to dismiss or affirm I am encouraged. I will say to you that since 1975 when we started this lawsuit it is the first attempt, the first attempt by any lawyer to defend that position. All of the briefs by the Florida Bar, by Governor Askew, by Attorney General Shevin, by the Phos- phate and mining industries, by St. Joe Paper Company, by Southeast Properties Company and the other defendants in the case, all of those briefs were silent on the point that we raise here. There was in their view no answer to them. Mow we have had the first attempted answer and frankly the first shot by Mr. rt -03 'MAR 2 2 1979 Edward Bennett Williams which attempted to deal with one of the cases helped to sharpen our position a little bit and I thought it was beneficial. I feel more confident about the legal position after reading the work of these gentlemen and I respect them, they're good lawyers. I do not think that they are so good that they can do in two weeks something that's taken me four or five years to work on but that's perhaps just a matter of professional ego. I do not think that they respond to the issues that we raised and if the Supreme Court is given an opportunity to review them, statistics aside I think that they would take the position that this is something they ought to rule on. And I say that to you despite my earlier comments and despite the fact I don't want to get into a hassle with the City about fees. I still think that on the practicalities if I'm right and there is a 10 to 15% chance I suppose I should want you to eliminate, to take me out of that position so that that would eliminate my dispute with you on fees because then I think you'd have to pay me and I do, incidentally quote the langauge of the con- tract with you which says that if you tell me to stop which is your right because you're the client, that you will reimburse me for my fees. I was interested to see that the Miami Herald last time thought that fee discus- sion more interesting than the facts I raised to you that their advices about this could be possibly colored by the fact that their land and their building are a part of this 1919 grant. I suppose the best thing I can do is to ask you to look at these booklets with the plastic fronts and blue covers and turn to the back - this is not a very good copy - but if you see the back you will see a map which shows the 1920 shoreline between Venetian Causeway and Mc Arthur Causeway and then you will see over on your right the 1921 shoreline - it's all filled. It happens to be the residence of the Miami Herald publishing company at the present time. 1919 was the date when the City was given everything east of the shoreline, I think the 1920 shore- line and the 1919 shoreline were the same so anything to the east of that 1920 line was given, vested irrevocably supposedly in the City of Miami by the State of Florida. Now if you'll. turn up one page in front of that there is one more little diagram. This is the diagram of the entire 1919 statutory grant by the State of Florida to the City of Miami. Obviously a lot of it is still under water because it was a submerged land grant. There has been litigation back in 56 I believe which eliminated the ownership in the City of what is designated there as Burlingame Island which is now Claughton Is- land and which is about four times as big but you see the arrow about the middle of the page, that's where Ball Point is and you see the other arrow at the top, you're getting up to the Venetian Causeway area, that's about where the Miami Herald building is. Now we have done something in the nature of a pencil search of the rest of this grant. The grant includes the land beneath the Dupont Plaza Hotel, it includes some of the Dupont Plaza parking lot but just a little bit of it, it includes all of Ball Point, it included Bayfront Park, it included the FEC property which you are now paying lawyers in excess of $250,000 attorneys fees to pay for from the Florida East Coast Railway. It includes what is now Bicentennial Park and it includes the land up to and just south of Venetian Causeway, I don't know what else is there. And since the Miami Herald chose to write a story omitting their possible conflict of interest in this and since they then chose to editorialize and rather snidely and incorrectly make a comment about how would the United States Supreme Court possibly rule against the State of Florida when the State of Florida had done something twice if that were the standard I can assure you that no State Supreme Court would ever have been reversed in the history of the United States and perhaps Mr. Ball would own the entire State of Florida instead of just the part that he owns. I say to you that this law- suit, and incidentally all of the recorded transfers that we can find pre- date the 1944 deed that we were contesting here, the transfer from FEC Hotel Corp. to St. Joe Paper Company in 1944. So far as we can tell, all of the land grants to people who purported originally by Wild Deeds to own some of that filled land, all of them are before 1944. If you drop the lawsuit you drop the right to own all of the land in that 1919 land grant which is filled and which is now already park, and obviously you own some of it already, at least it is acknowledged that you own some of the land that you were given. The United States Supreme Court in the Claughton Island Case, I'm sorry, the Florida Supreme Court in the Claughton Island Case in 1956, I believe, held that the City of Miami owned that land, that it was vested with the title of that land grant, not that it had a claim to it but that it was vested with fee simple ownership of the land. Now that is the point that the Dean of Nova Law School and Edward Bennett Williams have missed. That is a con- tract that this City has with the State of Florida not a claim but a vested right. The State by the passage of the Marketable Record Titles Act accord- ing to the Florida Supreme Court in the decision that we're appealing has said it is true that you are vested Fee Simple Title full owners of vested rights in that land, however, unless you file another piece of paper in the 04 rt MAR 2 2 1979 future whether you know you have to or not you lose it. Now that is precisely what a state cannot do and it was in the Contracts Clause of the United States Constitution from the very beginning. The early early early decision about it was called Fletcher against Peck, that was 1810 and there was another one in 1819 called Trustees of Dartmouth College against Woodward. Mr. Rogow's first letter said that if the best the City has is a claim under the Dart- mouth College Case it's not got a very good claim and when he said that he was expressing the conventional wisdom of members of the bar for the last fortyyears because since approximately the 1930's the United States Supreme Court had pretty much made a dead letter of the Contracts Clause. A clause in the Constitution of the United States says you shall not impair contracts. It's sort of an ex post facto law applied to contracts. Now, if the last decision had been in 1933 and if it were not something that was current then ',would say that our chances would be difficult but we raised this in 1975 because we saw that this was an impairment of contract and even if the court had not ruled on it in the last 30 years it was a Constitutional principle that was there and we raised it in the proper court and there was no response to it and it was ignored and ruled against by the trial judge. We raised it in each of the other courts. Now while we were in suit in this lawsuit, while we were in the Supreme Court of Florida the United States Supreme Court decided the decision which I think it is called New York Trust in a couple of these letters, it is United States Trust Company of New York against the State of New Jersey. And again in 1978 they decided Allied something, I forget the full name, against Spannauss and they resurrected the Contracts Clause. They used it for the first time in 40 years to upset legislation passed by the states. So we are not dealing with something that is a dead letter, in fact, one of the opinions of one of the justices of the United States Supreme Court said by this opinion we cease to have the Contracts Clause as a dead letter. Six of the justices of the United States Supreme Court in those two decisions, in one or the other of those two decisions said that the states cannot no matter what their Supreme Courts say cannot impair valid contracts for vested rights by legislation no matter what the Supreme Court of the State says you can't do it. Now our Supreme Court said you can and they said that because they said we're going to let you do it because it affects the public concern, the public welfare. Now the three dissenting justices in those two opinions said you don't need the Contracts Clause to upset state legislation because you can use due process and then you get into a measuring or balancing of interest situation and you see what's involved and you see how severe some individual or some private party's rights have been dealt with, and incidentally, we have been pronounced by the Supreme Court of Florida as a private party and if there is too severe impairment of that party's rights then you upset the state legislation on due process grounds and we raised due process too. Due process ground would invalidate this legislation in the eyes of the three dissenting justices in those decisions and the impairment of contracts grounds would invalidate it in the opinions of the six justices of the Supreme Court. Based upon those two decisions there is not a justice of the United States Supreme Court if this matter gets brought to his attention and he is asked to make a decision on it who hasn't taken a position in the last two years that said this is wrong. Now no number of footnotes in Mr. Edward Bennett Williams' letter is going to change that and nobody has tried to argue with that, what they suggest is that the volume of cases which is massive just makes it very un- likely that they're going to have this brought to their attention in any significant way. Somebody, they said, I think the rule is you have to get at least four justices to note probably jurisdiction and that means that a recent graduate of law school, perhaps a year or two years out, and generally they're the top in their class at knowledge excellent law schools will have on the average ten minutes to read the papers that are presented to them and presumably if they read this in ten minutes they know where to go. They will pass the text and they will ignore the appendix and they will go to through those ten or fifteen pages I referred to. Now if they do their job I submit to you that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction, should take jurisdiction and the State of Florida has taken away this 1919 grant, at least valuable por- tions of it by virtue of the Marketable Record Titles Act and they just can't do that. So I submit to you that by reviewing these little diagrams at the back of m5 little booklet here you will see that the decision that you are faced with dropping this litigation is not whether or not Mr. Ted Gould or his corporation are going to have a development on Ball Point, at least it is not that alone. It is whether you ever want to assert the City's owner- ship of this land - and I have a typographical error in there, I say $200,000, I think there's probably land worth in an area of $200,000,000 that you're talking about. It belongs to the City of Miami and your predecessors based upon most recently advice just like you're getting now from two outside lawyers rt 05 TAR 2 2 1979 didn't go after this in 1973 and this is your last chance to have any of this property, now I don't know whether you want it or not. But I don't know whether you've got a right to walk away in the public interest from all of that land. I know the City has financial problems and I say again I would love to see that development right there, I suppose it would prob- ably generate some law business in the City of Miami. However, you're not just talking about e1 acres in Ball Point you're talking about a lot of land. Now if I can still ask you to read from the back of my little booklet there, if you go to page 26, now I am your special counsel and I am counseling you. I don't know these gentlemen and I wish them well but I ask you if you drop a lawsuit right now for $200,000,000 maybe, even if you drop a 1% chance for a $200,000,000 recovery for the City of Miami what are you going to do if this contract that I have ever seen, I don't know whether you've ever seen it, doesn't close on June 30th? Well, they don't have to close it and you can't sue them if they don't close. You can't sue Mr. John Aurrell for tell- ing you that they have the contract and that they intend to close but I haven't seen the contract but I doubt very seriously that anybody enters into a contract of that magnitude without an escape clause. Now let's assume tat something happens and Mr. Gould decides he doesn't want to do it, sup- pose he has some reversals between now and June 30th? Well, you're sitting here, with all respect, looking like a bunch of idiots because you dropped a lawsuit for a reason which no longer exists and which you have no right to compel to happen. Well, let's ask you this - let's assume it's going to go ahead and close and we've dropped the chance for a S200,000,000 lawsuit be- cause of Herald editorials which omit to tell the public that they own some of the land in question and Mr. Gould's lawyers come in and say, "You know, we've been looking at the economics of this and the costs are going up so high we really would like to have a little bit greater high rise right on this than we presently have, how about let's make it five stories higher." Which one of you is going to vote, having dropped this $200,000,000 lawsuit to deny them that little bit more? Well, then he's going to say, "Well gee, I'd like to have a little bit more right to come out closer to the boundar- ies and not have setbacks. Which one of you is going to vote no on that, having dropped this lawsuit? Who is going to rule against him on anything after you've dropped the lawsuit? Just a matter of your bargaining position with somebody who wants to build something in your City and might want some special favors from you which you have rights under certain circumstances to grant, where are you going to be if you've taken a commitment like this al- ready? I don't think after that that you're going to be anything but in the - I started to say in the pocket and that's wrong, I don't mean that - I mean you're going to be in their control. Okay? Now, suppose he says, "I want more buildings, I want five buildings" and you're going to say no, that's too much, that's just too far, good -by and away it goes. You know I just ask you to consider that, it seems to me that is a policy thing. I would counsel you not to do this. Now what am I coming to? I'm coming to the fact that nothing is happening this week and nothing is happening next week, Pioneer Title Insurance called me yesterday and said, "Hey, have you filed that lawsuit in the United States Supreme Court?" and I said, "Yes, why?" "Well, we're doing the title work on it, we haven't written a policy yet." And I said, "Well, is this a cloud on the title, is there some reason this is a cloud on the title that I don't know about?" And the man said, "Well, I don't know, it makes us nervous and we probably are not going to ride over it." I said, "Well, I'd be interested if you find some rule." I just don't think it is a legal title problem because there is no lis pendens, if they sell the property and close it it's a matter of law, they own it in my view, I'm not really giving you a formal opinion about it. Page 23 and 24 deals with the question of your contract with me. Mayor Ferre was I think, and I guess in view of the history of lawyers dealing with the City of Miami in the past of which I have no knowledge, was concerned at the time of the granting of this or going into this lawsuit and the signing of the contract with me about what was I going to do after I got paid the money that I was going to get paid and he was worried about that a year later. After he gets that $25,000 which is a magnificent sum, is he going to quit? Well, I think that was a valid concern then and it was a valid concern, perhaps in 1976 but I don't think that it is a fair statement to worry about the fact that I've quit, I'm sitting here I suppose like an idiot and asking you not to pay me and give me my little bitty chance to get the Supreme Court to rule for you. But a conversation between you and your City Attorney a year after our contract does not let you out of the contract. With all due re- spect, it certainly doesn't show no meeting of the minds under the law of Florida, we have a contract, if you drop it you've got to pay me. I just think that is a peripheral issue, I think it is much lower down in the cate- gory of things to worry about than what you've got to deal with. So I guess rt VAS MAR 2 2 1979 the bottom line of all of this is that you're being stampeded to make a deci- sion now. I don't know why Mr. Grassie is so urgently asking you to do this, and I like Mr. Grassie and I think he is a fine gentleman and I don't think he dislikes me but I know that he is my enemy in this lawsuit and I know that he has gone on his own hook and hired Edward Bennett Williams to ask him to give you an opinion. I understand his desire for tax revenue and I agree with it and I think you need tax revenue just to pay the pensions of your past City Managers. Mr. Plummer: I'm glad you didn't say present. Mr. Bailey: Well, all things come to an end. The thing that concerns me about it is, and in his zeal to have a project and in the zeal of the Cham- ber of Commerce to have this project and in the zeal of that gentleman who was here the last time reciting statistics to you about this project, nobody has said that if you wait until June 30th or the day before June 30th or even if you wait until July 1 so that we can see that it is closed at which time you have a Commission Meeting and say we drop the lawsuit if it hasn't been resolved by then nobody has said "The End", we're going to walk away. Nobody has said that to you one time. Now maybe they're going to say that to you today but that will be a new position. If they really have hired all of these architects that you heard about and they've hired all these con- tracts with these great contractors it seems to me that they have enough commitment to hang in there to see if you don't drop the lawsuit before they close because nobody is going to pay until they close, folks and nobody is committed until they close. And what's happening now, if Mr. Rogow is right you will have a decision from the Supreme Court of the united States before then. I did misunderstand Mr. Jones who has worked with me on this that told me he talked with the Clerk. The Clerk of the Supreme Court said that most of their rulings on these things happen within six weeks when they're all in. I did not hear him right and I thought it was six months. I would not want to say it anyhow because it might not be six weeks, they could kick it to the next term. Mr. Rogow suggested, however, that they probably will resolve it this term. That means June, that means by the time this contract is presently supposed to be going to close. So it seems to me that my counsel to you is for a variety of reasons even if you think this lawsuit is not worth a damn - that's just wrong, it is worth considerably more than that but if you think it is not worth a damn why don't you wait until you see whether these people are really going to have it. You heard Mr. Aurrell say to you when we first came up with this that Cadwalder, Wickersham and Taft of New York and Mahoney, Hadlow and Adams of Florida had given the opinion that there was nothing to worry about with this lawsuit before he signed the contract. Vice -Mayor Plummer said, "Well, what do you have to worry about then? You already knew about it, you're not worried about it, why are you worried about it now?" And I wonder if they really are. I know it would make them happier and everybody would like to know there is absolutely no concern about it but they knew about it. You can't move your house next to a garbage dump and complain about the presence of the garbage dump and if that's all this lawsuit is well they moved right next to it. And I think you ought to wait for a variety of reasons to resolve this because I really wonder where you're going to be if for some reason they decide to walk from it and I just don't know why there's anything that needs to be done now. Now, I really had planned not to talk as long as this and I guess I've talked longer. If you have any questions about any of this I'll be happy to answer them and I know they want to tell you why I'm a maniac. Mayor Ferre: All right, Mr. Bailey, thank you for a very fine complete pres- entation. Mr. Aurrell? Mr. John K. Aurell: Mayor Ferre and members of the Commission, my name is John K. Aurell' and I'm an attorney. I represent Theodore B. Gould who plans to develop Tract B at Ball Point. I've been here before on the 22nd of Feb- ruary and the 8th of March, the comments I made at that time I reaffirm and I will not repeat them, I'm sure you all recall them. After hearing Mr. Bailey speak I would like to take just a few moments to make some additional com- ments. First of all, there is no doubt it seems to me and to all of us that Mr. Bailey sincerely thinks that he is right in his lawsuit. I don't question his zeal in pursuirg what he thinks is a proper legal coure. The problem from our standpoint, Mr. Bailey referred to our firm's advice to our client and the Cadwalder firm's advice to our client given some time ago. As I re- call, what I told you on Febru.:•y 22nd was that we and the Cadwalder firm advised Mr. Gould that we did not think there was any merit in the appeal, that we did not think there was any reasonable chance of success with the rt 0'7 IIAR 2 2 1ii$ appeal to the United States Supreme Court. I did not tell you nor did I tell my client that there was nothing to worry about with the lawsuit. There is a substantial difference, there is a substantial distinction between those two matters. I believe the City's two independent counsel, Mr. Williams and Mr. Rogow have confirmed advising the City in the same manner that we in the Cadwalder firm had previously advised our client. There is obviously a prob- lem created by the continuance of this lawsuit vis-a-vis our attempts to develop the property. It does not take a high degree of intelligence to understand that. I will state it briefly. We have to borrow a great deal of money from substantial lending institutions to construct this project. I don't believe any of you think that a substantial lending institution will lend us well in excess of $100,000,000 if there is a pending lawsuit which could create the situation even in the remotest circumstance where we don't own the land. It is indeed a cloud on the title as far as financing of this project is concerned. Of course it is. Whether Mr. Bailey thinks he is right or not, the undisputed facts are that eleven judges in this state, one circuit judge, three judges of the District Court of Appeal for the Third District and seven judges of the Florida Supreme Court, the Florida Supreme Court sitting in bank have heard this matter, they have heard it on rehearing, they have all unanimously without one dissent been of a different view than Mr. Bailey. I have great respect for our judges, I do not believe that they are politicians, I do not believe that they are involved in a political con- spiracy against Mr. Bailey or this Ci.ty or anyone else. I believe they have ruled on the merits as a matter of law as to the claims raised by Mr. Bailey as attorney for the City. They have ruled against him. Mr. Williams and Mr. Rogow have said that they believe that the Florida judges were correct. They have said they believe in any event that the United States Supreme Court is not going to consider this petition. Therefore, what does it mean to this City if you proceed with this appeal? You have to make that decision, it is one in the public interest. I can only speak as to what it means to us and to our project. If that affects your judgement, and I think maybe it does, then I want to pass it on to you again and to reaffirm it. First of all, it is our understanding and our advice as Mr. Bailey pointed out toward the end of his comments that there is a substantial chance with a jurisdictional statement being filed this late in the year that ii- will not be decided by the Supreme Court by the end of the current term which expires in June but rather it will be held over until the beginning of the October term. I can't tell you whether it will be decided by June or by October but I understand there is a substantial likelihood that it would not be decided until October. If we wait until October we just have greater problems, we exacerbate the problems that we have if we wait until June. One problem is that according to our construction bids an increase in cost between June and October is $7,250,000 according to what Mr. Gould just advised me. Another substantial problem, and I point it out to you, it is a technical, legal, very real prob- lem, our contract with the St. Joe Paper Company is scheduled to close on June 29, 1979. If this appeal continues to pend, if it creates title prob- lems, if it creates problems in financing, if it cannot close at that time because of this appeal then we have no idea whether the St. Joe Paper Company will, indeed, close thereafter. They do not have to. We have put up a depos- it and if the contract can't be closed by June 29 - that's the scheduled closing date - as you know, one puts up a deposit when you contract to buy some property and if you don't go through and close then you have a problem. We don't know if the St. Joe Paper Company will close or deliver the property if we don't close on that date and this appeal could substantially and dir- ectly affect that. Obviously any delay in this project, as I've explained before, is going to increase the construction costs. I won't repeat the fig- ures, I'm sure you all recall them. They're going to increase the construc- tion costs substantially. Obviously if the construction costs are increased in order to make this a commercial success, Mr. Gould is a businessman. He is in this with a profit motive, if it is not a profitable project it makes no sense to go forward with it. In order to absorb any increased costs he will have to be required to reduce the quality of the project, increase den- sity, reduce the amenities, something. You're not going to get the same high quality project that you would get if you let it go forward on schedule. It is on schedule. I respectfully submit as I said last time that the problem that you should be considering now is whether the City has any realistic chance of success with this appeal to the United States Supreme Court. As I said before, if you really believe that upon the advice of all of your attor- neys, and don't take mine, take your attorneys' advice, then you should go ahead. If not, then what on earth will the City be accomplishing by continu- ing this appeal and delaying the project? You're going to adversely affect the project and cause all the consequences that I've just described. Thank you very much. rt 08 MAR 2 2 1979 Mayor Ferre: All right, Mr. Aurell, thank you for your presentation. Is there anybody else in your group that would like to speak? Mr. Gould, all right, sir. Mr. Theodore B. Gould: My name is Theodore B. Gould and I'm the President of Hollywell Corporation. Mr. Bailey in his presentation has made a number of statements that I think should be corrected. In the negotiation of this agreement with Mr. Bell and the St. Joe Paper Company I was aware of the nat- ure of the suit that had been beought by the City of Miami. I did have Cad - welder, Wickersham and Taft to review it to determine whether the suit had merit, I was informed that it did not. The problem that I was confronted with was not the merit of the case, it was the fact that title insurance com- panies take title risks and insurance companies who mortgage properties take economic risks. Now the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is going to Com- mittee, that is a finance and investment committee, on April llth and Bankers Life is going to their Finance and Investment Committee the week of April 2nd. Pioneer Title, contrary to what Mr. Bailey has said, has taken this case as an exception primarily because the litigation is pending. Pioneer Title's lawyers believe the case has no merit also. I'm going to put this in very simple terms for you because many of you know Mr. Ball. If we do not close on the property by June 29th it is highly likely that Mr. Ball will not be prepared as the Executor of the Estate to close on the property at all unless we require specific performance and go to court to get specific performance. Under those conditions there is no question in my mind that St. Joe Paper is going to request an increase on the price of the property. Now, construction costs are rising very rapidly in this country. We're going to working draw- ings on the hotel tower on Friday and we're going to working drawings on the office building tower in two weeks when the wind stress tests that we're pres- ently in the process of conducting with respect to the design, the present design, the design that has been proposed have been completed. It is my in- tention because of the increase of construction costs to go into the market now and buy elevators and buy concrete and buy dry wall in order to continue at least to build this thing at the lowest possible cost. The George Hymann Construction Company has estimated that the increase in costs from going to June bid as opposed to an October bid will be $7,250,000. That's hard con- struction costs. If you add soft costs to that it means that in order to construct the same building that we propose we would have to increase the rents to satisfy the mortgage requirements and the appraisal requirements by a dollar a square foot and I don't think that that is teasible. So I think that very likely the consequences of a delay could be the termination of this project which would be a great shame and it would be the termination of a project that had a significant economic disadvantage not only to my firm but in addition to that in my opinion to the City of Miami. Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Mayor, may I ask a question of Mr. Gould? Mayor Ferre: Mrs. Gordon,... No, I will let you do that as soon as every- body makes their presentations. Maybe Mr. Bailey may have something else to add or somebody in this group. Is there anybody in your group that wants to add anything? Then I'm going to ask the Downtown Development Authority and the Chamber of Commerce to put their statements on the record and then I'll open it up for questions from the Commission unless there is somebody in the public that wants to speak to this. All right, well wait a moment, sit down. I'll give you a chance in a moment. First is the Downtown Development Author- ity. Mr. Roy Kenzie: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, my name is Roy Kenzie, I'm Executive Director of the Downtown Development Authority. I have at our last board meeting raised the issue of the lawsuit and the questions which were raised before the City Commission prior to our board meeting. On the instructions of the board I conveyed to them individually the transcripts of the prior Commission Meeting, the opinions of the attorneys on the first round and on the second round and have called the board members over the phone after they have had a chance to review all of this material. The result of the poll to the board members is that the majority of the board would request the City to consider dropping the lawsuit for the benefit of the City in terms ofmov- ing ahead with the project. Mayor Ferre: For the record, you did not poll me and I'm a member. Mr. Kenzie: No, Gerald Lewis, Oliver, Wolfarth, Gill and Jacobs were the votes for it. rt 09 11AR 2 2 1111 Mayor Ferre: I just wanted to put it on the record that I have not taken a position at the DDA level. All right? Mr. Kenzie: That's right. Thank you. Mayor Ferre: Chamber of Commerce? We have your letter here which we'll sub- mit into the rdcord. Mr. Lester Freeman: Thank you, Mayor, Lester Freeman, Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Chapman and Mr. Goode, the chairmen of our committee couldn't be here today, asked me to express their views. Mr. Revelle who is chairman of our subcommittee is here. I'd like to say at the outset that we are cer- tainly proud and commend the City for the initiatives that you all have under- taken in the last several years to produce jobs and to increase the economic health of this community - the Conference Center, the Exhibition Center, the Department of Trade and Commerce that you founded and funded, even the Watson Island Project all manifest your extreme desire to proceed in this direction. However, you have expressed and we share a concern from time to time with the percentage of these projects that involve public lands and public funding. There has been a massive effort by us and by you and your staff to find respon- sible private organizations to participate in the New World Center concept. You already have heard Mr. Gould and you know that we have found as responsi- ble a private organization and how fortunate we are to have them in our midst making these proposals. It is private, it is the kind of thing we're looking for, the Dupont Plaza area is the most desirable underdeveloped piece of ground perhaps in the south, certainly in the southern part of Florida. We also sym- pathize and commend the legitimate effort that you all have made to establish the fact or the non -fact of the trial rights of this land. Mr. Bailey and his people have done an outstanding job. They have explored it tediously and meticulously over and over. However, it is our opinion as we expressed that that now has become futile. Businesses make decisions based on probabilities. The probabilities of the Supreme court accepting this case and then the fur- ther probability that they would rule in the favor of this City are so remote as to make it unnecessary to proceed. The question had to do with irreparable harm, whether or not there really would be harm done by delaying until June. Mr. Gould has faced the harm to his particular proj,:ut, I would like to deal with it and answer emphatically yes, there would be harm, irreparable harm done to the City in the terms of reputation and image. Our reputation as a place in which to do business, Miami always sharing the image of Miami Beach, Dade County and even Southeast Florida has been sun, surf and sex and we're trying to get off of that image as a place for a developer to make a profit, as a place for a manufacturer to make a profit. Our reputation remains shaky although improving, however, it is so shaky that any slight to any responsi- ble business has to be disastrous. The communications among the American business community is very good but it is also very superficial and very im- pressionistic and their general opinion of Miami at the present time is not positive. However, these kinds of people getting involved in our City have a very positive affect. This action proceding and losing Gould, and I think we stand a very good chance to do that would be a car load of straw on the camel's back and I urge you to not proceed with this case. Thank you. Mayor Ferre: All right, Ernie. Mr. Ernie Fannatto: Honorable Mayor and members of the Commission, I'm not going to argue on the merits of the case. Mayor Ferre: We need your name and address for the record. Mr. Fannatto: Ernie Fannatto is my name, President of the Taxpayers League of Miami and Dade County. I'm not going to argue on the merits of the case, I've heard it but I think the City Attorney is capable of giving you a decis- ion and I also want to commend the City Attorney, Mr. Grassie for hiring an outside attorney to give him advice whether to proceed with the case or not proceed with the case. I think that's business and good business. There's one thing that I am a little disturbed about and that is the fees. The tax- payers are going to have to pay a big fee here and it seems to me every time Mr. Bailey speaks his fee goes up. I think the air should be cleared right now and here. We should have into the record what will Mr. Bailey's fee be if the case is stopped, what will Mr. Bailey's fee be if he wins the case, what will Mr. Bailey's fee be _'f he loses the case in the Supreme Court and I'd lilt.: co have that put into the record, I thinkthe taxpayers should know what they're going to pay and I don't think Mr. Bailey has a right to keep rt ICJ IlAR 2 2 1979 changing it. I heard Reverend Gibson say, "Well, this is a good risk,•he's not charging a high fee it's mostly percentage." Now, i understand we're paying him, now the taxpayers are going to be gouged for a big fee. Let's put it in the record right now, I'd like to have Mr. Bailey possibly say what his fees are going to be then I'd like to have the City Attorney's state- ment saying what he thought he was going to pay him before he undertook this case. Now Mayor, I want these in the record. I want to hear from Mr. Bailey right now. Mayor Ferre: A11 right, Ernie, well we will.... Mr. Fannatto: No, right now I want it. Mayor Ferre: No, sir, we have a ... Listen, you made a statement into the record and like everybody else you've got to wait your turn now. So just sit down, we'll get to that in due time. Mr. Fannatto: Well, I want Mr. Bailey's statements into the record what he's going to charge. We don't want to be taxed afterwards, we want to know what we're paying and I think we're entitled to know, the taxpayers of this County. Mayor Ferre: Mayor Ferre: We're going to get into that later on. All right. Is there anybody else who wants to speak before we get to the Commission for questions? Mr. Robert H. Traurig: My name is Robert H. Traurig, I'm an attorney with offices at 1401 Brickell Avenue. I'd like to make some general comments, I would say in answer to Mr. Fannatto that I know Mr. Bailey as a good lawyer and a strong advocate and a good citizen who is operating out of conviction and I'm not worried about his fees as not a citizen of the City of Miami but as a taxpayer in this community because I know that if the issue requires strong advocacy he is capable of doing it and will do it as fairly as any other lawyer would do it. But this Commission has already heard from all of those judges and all of those other fine lawyers who have suggested to you that the great weight of the legal opinion is that the case really does lack merit and both your City Manager and your City Attorney have urged that you consider dropping this case for good and valid reasons and we think that other responsible citizens have similarly urged and the media with whom we all dis- agree from time to time have given us strong analysis which indicates that it is really in the best interest of the City of Miami to cooperate in order to encourage this project. Now I would say to you that your issue is what is the value of the property as an extension of the park versus the fiscal bene- fit to the City by encouraging this project with regard to both a tax benefit to the City and the economic impact and that's the same thing that others have said but I think that if you analyze all of those issues you must conclude that that the City will benefit by dropping this suit, we urge you to do so. Thank you Mayor Ferre: All right, anybody else? All right, thank you very much. Now I open it to the members of the Commission. Mrs. Gordon? Mrs. Gordon: There are so many things I hardly know where to begin first. I think first I'd like to ask Mr. Gould a question that I had in mind before, about the proposed development and the statement that you made about the hotel tower and the office tower, would you tell me on what floor that tower begins, those towers begin? Mr. Gould: The Development Regional Impact Statement has begun and the basic concept is to have the lobbies of both buildings begin at ground level. Mrs. Gordon: Ok, what else is on ground level? Mr. Gould: There is a six story podium which will include parking for two thousand five hundred cars, it will also include commercial and retail space as well as restaurants, perhaps a bank. Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Gould, is there any open. space on ground level for the vista of the public through to the bay? Mr. Gould: The way the project has been designed is that the vista of Bay - front Par}has been extendc2 into an atrium into the center of the site that is carried through to the other side, to the mouth of the Miami Paver. rt 11 VAR 2 2 1979 Mrs. Gordon: If I'm standing on Biscayne Boulevard can I see the bay through your building? Mr. Gould: No, what you will see is a landscaped park. Wait, now if you're standing on Biscayne Boulevard? Mrs. Gordon: Yes, sir. Mr. Gould: No, what you're going to see is a landscaped park and.... Mrs. Gordon: I'm going to see concrete. Correct me if I'm wrong, I want to be wrong. Mr. Gould: Yes, I'm going to correct you, you're not going to see concrete. I dislike the terminology of concrete buildings. First of all, they're not going to be concrete buildings. Okay? What you're asking me architectural questions, the DPI has been submitted with a basic plan, I believe that today a request is going to be made to establish the public hearings of the review of the design, we have employed as architects among other people Pietro Boluski who is the 1972 Gold Medal Winner of the American Institute of Architects, Tideo Sasaki who has an important function to perform in landscaping and fundamentally as a developer I take the position that I do not limit the creat- ive expression of an architect. Now if you as a City Council member in review- ing it for site plan approval want to make suggestions to the architect that's fine but the suggestions are inappropriate to me. Mrs. Gordon: Okay, it wasn't a suggestion to you, sir, it was simply a ques- tion since I know you know your project, you know your product that you would be able to answer it. What I have heard, which I don't know if it's true or not, that you're going to have six stories of pretty solid construction.... Mr. Gould: The answer to that is no. Mrs. Gordon: ... on the ground floor that your towers would begin at the top of the sixth floor and any vista that I wanted of the bay I'd have to go up, excuse me. Mr. Gould: Mrs. Gordon, the answer is no. Mrs. Gordon: Okay. I'd have to go up on the sixth floor and then look through your towers to see the bay and I think that is rather, you know, strong.... Mr. Gould: Mrs. Gordon, the answer to your answer and your statement is that it is incorrect. Mrs. Gordon: Okay. Were you planning a setback from the bay for the public's OIL use? Mr. Gould: Yes. Mrs. Gordon: Of how many, do you know about how many? Mr. Gould: It varies from 20 to 90 feet. Mrs. Gordon: Okay. With a continuance of a public walkway? Mr. Gould: That's correct. Mrs. Gordon: Had you considered perhaps elevating the building one story and allowing the public at least to look though to the bay from Biscayne Boule- vard? Mr. Gould: It is an architectural issue.... Mrs. Gordon: Would you be willing to take that approach? Mr. Gould: I do not, Mrs. Gordon, ask my architects to do things. I give them a program, right? Okay, an economic program and ask them to design a building. If yr_: want to suggest it to them th,n they will respond to it. Mrs. Gordon: Okay. The next point is you're a well known builder and you build in great numbers of places and not necessarily one place at a time so I also understand you're involved in the Washington area with construction. rt 1? MAR 2 2 1979 Mr. Gould: That's correct. Mrs. Gordon: Is it true that you are involved in Rosalyn, Virginia in a proj- ect? Mr. Gould: That's right. Mrs. Gordon: Okay, is it also true that there is a Federal case pending against you in that particular development? Mr. Gould: I don't know, there was a case that was brought against the County of Arlington and three developers. The Federal Eastern District Court decided the case against the United States Government. The Government had proposed that the zoning laws of the County of Arlington had not been adhered to by the County. The Federal Courts held that that was incorrect that the County had adhered to its own laws, that the site plan approval was correct, that my giving the County of Arlington and the people of Rosalyn a park across the street from this project was not illegal. Now I do not know at this time whether the United States, that is the Justice Department is going to appeal to the Court of Appeals. But the issues concern the merits and the decision was made adversely to the United States complaint. Mrs. Gordon: Did that have to do with the fact that it was within the ten mile plan of Washington? Mr. Gould: No. Mrs. Gordon: Well, that is the understanding that I had, I could be wrong not an attorney but I had received this kind of information that the Secretary of the Department of Interior was involved and the suit had to do with high rises that you were involved in in Rosalyn, Virginia. Mr. Gould: I don't want t.o say anything. Mrs. Gordon: Okay, I don't think I want any more than that, that' sufficient. Mr. Gould: Do you want me to respond to that statement? Mrs. Gordon: The point I'm making.... Mr. Gould: Your statement is incorrect. Mrs. Gordon: Okay, then it is incorrect. Have you been held up by suit at all in construction? Mr. Gould: No, because the federal courts refused to grant a temporary re- straining order to the Federal Government and described the actions of the Secretary of the Interior as being arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable. Mrs. Gordon: What period of time did it take for that kind of a statement to be made or to come out of the courts? You know, a week, two weeks, a month, three months? Mr. Gould: Well, if you're raising the question, let me respond to you. The issue of the City's appeal to the United States Supreme Court which is what I think you're getting at was one of the things that concerned me and so I had Cadwalder, Wickersham and Taft and in particular one of my lawyers there who had previously been a clerk to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court find out when this case would be heard if the appeal was made in March. My position is if the case has merit then it ought to be taken to the Supreme Court of the United States. If it doesn't have merit,it should be dropped. I was in- formed by my counsel after he spoke to the Clerk of the Supreme Court that this case because it was being appealed so late in the Spring Session would not be dealt with until the first week of the October session. Now if you personally would like to speak to my counsel at Cadwalder, Wickersham and Taft in Washington, D. C. I'd be very happy to arrange that. Mrs. Gordon: We're not interested in doing that. I'm simply trying to estab- lish an element of comparability here. Mr. Gould: There is none. Mrs. Gordon: ... In that you, are you the owner in title of that proerty in Rosalyr- rt 13 MAR 2 2 1979 Mr. Gould: Yes, I am. Mrs. Gordon: And your plans for development then are not proceeding because you are waiting the outcome of the case? Mr. Gould: No, because the Federal Courts refused to grant an injunction to the United States Court. Mrs. Gordon: Okay. All right, that's sufficient for that standpoint. Mr. Mayor, first of all everybody agrees including me that we have a slim chance in the court. However, in the last five or six years the courts have shown a tendency to hear more of these property cases so the slim chance is somewhat better than as slim as it may have been six or seven years ago. First of all, the City's claim is and was based upon the granting by the state and the declaring of our interest in it and it appears anyway that the City was negli- gent in not doing whatever had to be done at the particular time that it should have been done to establish that but the point is now that in my opin- ion I wonder, I wonder if we have a right today to sell out the public's right and interest to at least, you know to give up and not have an opportunity at least until the court adjourns in June. Mr. Gould's right under his contracts are not going to be negated by us waiting until that point in time. His architect still has the opportunity to do whatever they have to do to prepare for the reviews that he has to take and nothing, no construction, no dollars are going to cost more, nothing is going to change economically speaking no matter how many arguments you are prepared to give us, the facts are clear. Economically speaking nothing is going to cost you more until you are actually into contracts or going into contracts and you are far from going into con- tracts because you do not even have final plans approved that you can put to a contract. I believe that we don't have a right to give up the public inter- est in this case after this number of years to give it up today. If the court doesn't take jurisdiction by the end of June I would be one of the first to want to give up the case because I would not want to have this proceed in the federal courts or anywhere else forever. I am not opposed to development, I am in favor of good development. I am in favor of development that protects the amenities of our community. I am not for obtaining the highest dollar return if it is going to injure the rights of the public to what is rightfully their's and that is a view of the bay and I am expecting that you're a fine developer and that you're going to protect the rights of us, the people of the City of Miami and when you complete your project and you come back to visit us you're going to be proud of the work you've done and maybe you'll decide to stay. I also wonder about the widening of the boulevard and I'm wondering whether you are prepared to dedicate to the governmental agencies for the widening of the boulevard, what is your plan with that regard? If you have an answer I'd appreciate it, if you don't I would accept your not answering it. Mr. Gould: As you know, we have an option on Lots 3 and 4 of Mr. Ball. It is, in fact, my intention, and I have begun, to negotiate the acquisition of Lots 2 and 5 and yes, I would be prepared in the widening of Biscayne Boule- vard to dedicate a part of land so that the boulevard could be widened. Mrs. Gordon: You would donate that? Mr. Gould: That's right, yes, right. Now let me say something to you so that you understand the relationship between George Hymann and Hollywell Cor- poration. I don't have to go to contract with George Hymann to begin the process of purchasing the material because George Hymann is my partner. Mr. Clark and I will begin purchasing materials for fundamental operating systems like elevators, like steel which we can specify now in quantities, dry wall which we can specify now in quantities, electrical fixtures which we can speci- fy now. We will purchase those materials now. We'll go into the market as if we were going into a futures market, we'll purchase the materials now for delivery in three years without having to wait for the final drawings. That's one of the advantages of the relationship that exists between Clark Enterprises and myself. It is my intention to begin in May as oppose:: until July, for example, to go to bid. Mrs. Gordon: Okay, but this is March. Okay? Thank you. Mayor Ferre: Any other questions? Mrs. Gordon: Not now, maybe later. rt 14 MAR 2 2 1979 Mayor Ferre: Any other members of the Commission? Mr. Lacasa: Mr. Mayor, I see my responsibility as a City Commissioner as one to protect the best interests of the City and that means whatever property rights the City of Miami might have as well as the business affairs of the City of Miami. What is before us today is a question of probabilities. I don't sit here as an attorney or as a judge, for that we have a legal depart- ment, for that we have a very able attorney, Mr.Bailey and for that we have had the advice of two recognized authorities in the field, the legal depart- ment of the City of Miami. What I am concerned now is with what in my view is a business decision on behalf of the City of Miami, the probabilities, quite frankly from my standpoint of view for the Supreme Court to hear this case are very slim. Even if they hear this case the outcome quite frankly I don't think it would be in favor of the City of Miami. However, this is not my concern at this point so much as to the fact that we have before us a unique opportunity to develop a very important piece of property which is going to contribute tremendously to the growth of this City and to the fiscal stability of the City. It is going to supply jobs, it is going to add to the prestige of the City of Miami national and international. I'm also concerned with the image of the City of Miami in the national and in the international business worlds. We have been facing for years doubts cast, quite frankly by our own press in relation to the ability of the City of Miami and its gov- ernmental body to conduct the business of the City in a business manner. If we were considering now whether to drop this suit before this suit was Heard by the Florida courts and by the Florida Supreme Court I would say no, I would say that the best interests of the City will then be to go through the whole process at least until we have the Florida Supreme Court decision but we have been turned down several times on the merits of our suit. I think that Mr. Bailey has done a tremendous job, I commend him for keeping up the fight but I as a City Commissioner not judging from the legal standpoint of view alone but judging on the best interests of the City of Miami I feel that enough is enough that now we ought to go ahead and to contribute to the development of our own downtown and to drop a suit that at this point has very slim chances to succeed if any and that compared to the damage that could be done to us I don't think that it has the merits. Mayor Ferre: Any other questions or statements, Mr. Plummer, Father Gibson? Rev. Gibson: I defer to my senior. Mayor Ferre: Anybody else want to make a statement on the Commission at this point? All right. Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor, I want to make this observation.... Mr. Fannatto: Mr. Mayor before you vote.. not after you vote... Mayor Ferre: Wait a moment, Ernie, I will not forget you. Sit down. All right, Father Gibson. Rev. Gibson: I sit here with amazement, I sit here with amazement that some people of this community don't want to give this city the opportunity to get its fair shot and I want to say that in the light of many things. You are listening to a buy who heard the Florida Supreme Court and a number of other courts say, "Gibson, you couldn't make it" and Gibson made it because I moved out of the realm of the politics that were so near. And to tell me, I could understand one of the counsels and I fully understand, you say the clergy are a board of politics but I am a clergyman and we are supposed to be the least attached to. Yet, when we elect bishops just like when you elect the pope the human element enters. No reflection on any denomination. You have an opportunity as a Commission to enter into a field of endeavor that has not been trodden upon before. Don't tell me that you don't have that opportunity. I would hope, I would pray that you would want to be venturous. Now you're venturing a lot of other things. You could venture, you could take the gamble for t;_ interest of the people, the people wouldn't condemn you. They condemn us abcut a lot of things but if you said to the people we have some doubts as to who owns that property the people will commend us because we want to clear up the doubts. Once the United States Supreme Court speaj:s they would have spoken certainly for a period of time. They reverse themselves sc::etimes, they always do. You know, but I want to give the court the opportunity. I don't think I could sit in judgement, I'm not smart enough to interpret nor understand the legal implications and all of the ramifications of law. That's what they are there for. Miami isn't going to die. I'm 63 years of age, will rt 15 1.!AR 2 2 1979 be 64 next year and I am a Miamian so if it stood 64 years it will stand some more time. You don't have to worry about that. But let's talk about the reputation of the City, it's very significant that we're talking about the image of the City, the reflection. We went out to the Super Bowl the other day and doggone it, you know that kind of crap that was given on the City out there I hope that the people will never forget. Business people ought to be happy that we want to put them on firm foundation, that there won't be no doubt and cloud on the titles after this particular. What's wrong with that? Certainly if we do nothing else we ought to wait until the Supreme Court ends its current session. The least we could do, that would be a sign of good faith. Any man who comes here and doesn't want us to do that, you know what I want to say to you, sir, as a native? May God bless you and may heaven smile upon you. We will not be discharging our commitment to the people if we did otherwise. And you know, it all depends on whose ox is being gored sometimes around here in this City and the people's ox is being gored and I hope the people's ox will not be gored in this instance. I love progress, I want development, nobody wants it anymore than I. You know how I vote around here. I feel that I would have a mandate after the court decides, not before. You have two opposing sides, each of which says I'm not sure. Well, I don't have to worry about who is short, the court tells me. Let me say something. it bothers me world without end how we decide the fate, how you want us to decide the fate of the people. I am going to suggest to this Commission so you'll know where I am. I'm going to suggest to this Commission to carefully consider their vote before they vote - carefully consider their vote before they vote. Do what is right. You notice every time I come up here I talk about what is right and best and fair for the people. I know all of us try to do that but I want to make sure in this instance that's exactly what we see. Let me make one further comment. Mr. Ball's not wanting to sign in June doesn't make a hill of beans to me. You saw it in the paper, how many of you saw it in the paper? You know I don't usually read the paper, don't usually have the time because I've got to stay on my knees and pray. I saw him in the paper, front page saying that he was still having the grip on the trust, you know that business, do you know what I'm talking about? He had that all along, nothing new. And you know, all of us just want to knuckle under. That outfit has been doing it to this state all around, don't tell me about the politics - all around, all this time. I urge the Commission be forthright and do what St. Paul in the Bible said, "Quit yee yourselves like men" and at least give the court an opportunity to deny us, the opportunity of hearing us or the privilege of hearing us. It is not a right, it's a privilege of hearing us. Then we can all come back here and feel happy and we can sleep at night like Elizabeth Verrick said, "Between me and that cover, man, t'ain't nobody." Mayor Ferre: All right, Mr. Bailey, do you want to make a statement? And while you're up I think Ernie Fannatto had asked the question about legal fees and I just wanted us to go over this on the record because he wasn't here be- fore, you told us last time you didn't know what your exact hours were but you figured it was over 200,000 and might be over $250,000 and that you thought that you were entitled to that and, of course, Ernie as to who decides that, if he pursues it and the City Attorney disagrees and the Commission doesn't agree I would imagine the courts will have to decide that. All right, Mr. Bailey. Mr. Bailey: Mr. Mayor, there was one other question that you directed the City Attorney to address last time which has been lost in the shuffle here. The first suggestion I gave to you was this is a great project, let the City assent to it and then it would be a question of ratifying the contract, affirm it with Mr. Gould so that he can proceed and then it would be a ques- tion of who got that money as to Ball Point whether it would be Mr. Ball or the City of Miami and that would be the issue and there would be no conflict and that would, incidentally open the question of who owns the rest of the property to the north. And you directed the City Attorney to answer two other questions, one was is it legal for the City to contract with Mr. Gould to sell this land to him based upon all of the compelling arguments for the good of Miami and so forth that you heard. I hay. since the last meeting been in receipt of a letter that Mr. Gould's lawyer. wrote saying that they did not think the City could do that. I understood the City Attorney last time to cast doubt upon whether or not you could do that and I ask you and I refer to this in my lit''e booklet here which I suppose I could put into the record which deals with . .s too, by the way. On page 22, If you cannot legally contract with Mr. '=_,.d to sell him this property and since the only argument and motivation and trust of any decision to drop the lawsuit woulc be to accomodate Mr. Gould are you able to do an illegal act, if that's the right rt 16 MAR 2 2 1979 conclusion about it, by subterfuge which you would be doing because the only argument for the City to drop this lawsuit is so that Mr. Gould will be en- couraged to build on the project which is fine. Now I haven't heard, in an- swer to that I do think you should consider it. Now let me just very briefly, on page, and I'll put this if I may...put in the record. I quote from the transcript on page 24 where you were concerned about what happens after I got my first $25,000 was I going to quit and you asked the then City Attorney, Mr. Lloyd, and he said, "We can resolve that in terms of the contract..." on page 25 the language from the contract is quoted, "... If Bailey is not pro- ceeding in the best interest of the City of Miami the City may cancel the con- tract, reimbursing Bailey for work done until the point of cancellation." Now the other part of my fee arrangement which was not only public, sir, but which was several hours at public negotiated here and on television and in the papers and everywhere else, was that my fee was a retainer of 25, and I'm reading from page 25 of this booklet and from the contract, from the resolu- tion - "...a retainer of $25,000 to be paid in monthly installments billed at the rate of $100 an hour plus costs and 21 of the 1975 assessed value of any lands secured for the City by the efforts of Bailey..." Mayor Ferre: Mr. Bailey, we've been on this for almost two hours, in the interest, we're not really going to resolve the question of the legal fees today, you know that's something that will come up depending on what this Commission does or doesn't do. Mr. Bailey: Ok, I just wanted to make it clear. Well, I do think it is im- portant if you can't sell it and your only reason for dropping the lawsuit is to accomplish the same thing I wonder if that is an appropriate thing to discuss? Mayor Ferre: All right, Mr. Knox, with reference to the questions that the Commission instructed you to answer, I have a memorandum dated March 20th which I assume all members of the Commission got which was in response to the question as to whether or not the City can contract to sell this property which the City may not have title to a private developer, etc., etc. Now, would you in non -legal language if possible just give us a simple version of what this says? Mr. Knox: Yes, sir, it was our opinion that they City may have power to con- tract for sale of property which it does not have title to because this is a permissible activity in the law. However, there are other factors to con- sider and that is to whom the City would be selling the property and for use would that property be put because we are now subject to a recent court deci- sion which determined that the lease of property at least to private individ- uals must be accomplished after a competitive bidding process and we have identified a person to whom the City would be selling the property at some future time and arguedly we would have violated the court's order in that respect. And the second consideration that the City Commission would have to have in terms of contracting to sell property again is the use to which the property is being put and as I understand it this project contemplates the construction of housing in condominium units and other types of housing units where there could be a question about the public purpose in terms of the City's powers with respect to a sale for that purpose and our recommenda- tion is that there not be a contract for the sale at a subsequent time in the event that the City later acquires proper title to the property. Mr. Fannatto: Mr. Mayor, the City Attorney hasn't answered as the fees and what he thought were the fees. Mayor Ferre: All right, Mr. City Attorney, for the record - he did but you just weren't here so for your particular benefit we're going to do this one more time then I'm going to ask you to sit down. Go ahead. Mr. Knox: At the last meeting I read into the record a portion of the Minutes of the meeting that was held where there was a discussion as to Mr. Bailey's fees. Subsequent to that time Mr. Bailey has referred all of us to a conver- sation which took place at some prior time and these represent inconsistenc- ies and it is my opinion that there would have to be some agreement hopefully between the City Comm on and Mr. Guy Bailey as to the City Commission's inter ion when they ent•_red into the contract for a retainer. So the simple answer is the fee could be anywhere from what !r. Bailey alleges to zero. Mr. Fannatto: I'd just like to answer, Mayor. This fee could go up from 200 to 4 or $500,000 on the basis that he's talking about and I don't think rt 17 MAR 2 2 1979 it's right. I think it should be put in the record the hours that's he's charged already. Mayor Ferre: Ernie, I think the City Attorney has given you the best answer he can. Ernie, there is no way that we can at this point negotiate this from this public forum on an issue that's not before us at this time. Mrs. Gordon: Can I ask Mr. Knox a question that's important to his thinking because Mr. Fannatto: Because you should know before you vote whether it's financial- ly feasible. Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Fannatto, I know how concerned you are and I appreciate that, with the dollars that come and go out of the City coffers, right? You're interested in what we're going to spend Mr. Fannatto: No, I'm interested in Mr. Bailey, Rose, Commissioner Gordon. Mrs. Gordon: I'm interested in everything you're interested in but I want to ask you a question. Under the circumstances of what we're dealing with today we're dealing with a possible value which is in question of an inter- est that you the taxpayers have in a piece of property. How much do you think the taxpayers should receive for that interest? Do you think the tax- payers should give a zero dollars, return that interest? That's the ques- tion before this body this morning. Mr. Fannatto: Not my question, Mrs. Gordon. Mrs. Gordon: What do you think? Mr. Fannatto: What you're saying is correct and I agree with you but that isn't the question. Mrs. Gordon: Okay, you think you should give it away, do you think that you should just say forget it? What do you think? I want your opinion, it's valuable. Mr. Fannatto: My opinion is that what you're saying is correct, Mrs. Gordon, I don't want to give up $200,000,000 and I don't want these attorneys coming in here and say, well my fee is 500, I want it to be in the record what the fee is up to date what we owe him and how much approximately the whole case will be. Mrs. Gordon: Do you think that the City should receive compensation for fiv- ing up this lawsuit, now, do you think the City is entitled to a settlement OP fee, that's the point that I'm asking you as a taxpayer, President of the Taxpayer's Association? Mayor Ferre: Mrs. Gordon, I'm going to rule Ernie and you both out of order because that is not the subject before us. Now you have a valid question. Now the City Attorney has given you his opinion. You can't go beyond that. Now unless Mr. Bailey wants to go up and specify into the record what he thinks he's due now and the City Attorney answers immediately there's nothing I can tell you. Mr. Fannatto: That's what I asked for, Mayor, how much is due now and how much Mayor Ferre: Is Mr. Bailey willing to do that at this point? .... Please, Mr. Fannatto, let me run the meeting. Mr. Bailey: Mr. Mayor, it is on I think page 25, I have given you an estimate of the number of hours that are there now. The 2% I think is what is bother- ing the gentleman. If you drop the lawsuit I don't have a claim under the contract for 2% of the value. If that's what's bothering you, sir, Mr. Fanr.4tt : If this case were to be dropped today approximately how much would the City owe you? That's what I want to know. Mr. Bailey: I would say approximately $250,000. Mr. Fannatto: $250,000, and if the case. goes on it's going to be $500,000 and that's too much money, if you wan'. to know. And I'll tell you point blank rt 18 MAR 2 2 1979 I think that you could have gotten other attorneys to handle it for $100,000 easy. Mayor Ferre: Thank you very much. Let the record reflect that we're not expressing any opinion or claiming anything for the City one way or the other, this is just an open discussion at a citizen's request and we're giving him the opportunity to do that. That's something that we'll talk about. Mr. Bailey: Can I possibly, the onoy thing I would have left to do is to respond to the motion that will come in in 30 days which is a very short re- sponse and unless they take jurisdiction I would have no additional hours so you're talking about very small amounts of additional time. Mr. Plummer: May I ask a question, Mr. Mayor? Let me just clarify this in my mind. Mr. Bailey, it is my understanding, and contrary to what else has been said here, I very vividly recall the terms and conditions in which you were hired. It is my understanding that if you go to the Supreme Court and lose the City owes you nothing beyond the $25,000. Mr. Bailey: That's correct. Mr. Plummer: That only if you win does the 2% apply against the 1975 assess- ment. Mr. Bailey: Yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: I just want that on the record. Mrs. Gordon: That's exactly correct. Mayor Ferre: Any further questions? Please, Mr. Fannatto. Mr. Plummer, do you want to make any other statements? Mr. Plummer: No, sir. Mayor Ferre: All right, then I would really like to address myself and I guess basically to you, Mr. Plummer, because what we have here is three Com- missioners have expressed themselves, two against dropping, one for dropping and you and I have not made any statements. Mr. Plummer: I always enjoy the wisdom of the center chair. Mayor Ferre: This is a legislative body and like any other legislative body when the Commission or when the legislature deliberates the representative or congressman or senator addresses the others to try to pursuade them in their position and that's something that ..e do around here all the time. Since we can't do this behind the Sunshine the only we're able to do this is in the open in front of these microphones. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, the only question I have is are you a registered lobbyist? Mayor Ferre: Yes i am, I was registered by the votes of the citizens of Miami in November of 1977 and in November of 1975 and in November of 1973. Is that a sufficiently good answer for your question? Mr. Plummer: All people make mistakes. Mayor Ferre: Talking about mistakes, I would like to recognize Mr. Plummer's ability in the past to accept mistakes. I well remember that when we came before this Commission on the Coconut Grove - now Coconut grove Exhibition Center the vote was 3 to 2, Mrs. Gordon and Mr. Plummer being the dissenting votes. And at the innauguration Mr. Plummer then and since very graciously, and I think it takes a person who has a lot of stature - he could have kept very quiet about it but he didn't. He said I made a mistake and I want to admit it publically. So we in this Commission 'must take positions that once in a while we do make mistakes and some of us have the ability to recognize them are big enough to say we made a mistake and others, of course, have done that, Mr. Plummer is not the only one. I have made mistakes and I hope that when I make them I try to admit them or amend them. Now, let's talk about this situation. What we have here is the three main themes: (1) the public welfare, (2) the legal aspects of it and (3) the practical considerations. Now, with regards to the public welfare I don't think any one of us here rt 19 MAR 2 2 1079 would question the fact that that property would preferably be an open park area, I think we would agree to that. Now, with regards to the legal, the fact is that three courts, a lower court and a supreme court have gone through this. There have been eleven judges, not one two or three, eleven judges who have all unanimously ruled that there is no merit, the Supreme Court of Flor- ida has judged that. Now I want to point out to you that the last time around I hesitated. The reason I hesitated was because Mr. Bailey I think very cap- ably pointed out that his briefs had not been read and that there was a 1978 Supreme Court Case which was the main thrust. Now we have retained the Dean of the Law School of Nova University, a very well respected and recognized constitutional lawyer from Florida, Mr. Bruce Rogow and have alwo retained in Washington a very well known and highly acclaimed and recognized Edward Bennett Williams law firm. We have now gotten into the record two legal opin- ions from two outstanding constitutional lawyers that agree with the eleven judges and conclude as the Supreme Court of Florida. Furthermore, we request- ed - I did anyway - that since I am not a constitutional lawyer, indeed I'm not any kind of a lawyer not even a one day lawyer that the City Attorney interpret for the City Commission or at least for the Mayor since I ion't understand constitutional language what these two opinions meant. The City Attorney has interpreted those two letters and has concluded, as he stated into the record that we should drop this lawsuit. Now the evidence of the fact that eleven judges at three different levels of courts including the Supreme Court, two renowned constitutional lawyers and our City Attorney have all recommended unanimously that this matter be dropped that I would from a legal point of view be guided by them not withstanding the very brilliant dissertation that Guy Bailey on this occasion and the last time he was here. Now we get to the last point which is the practical consideration. The key word is irreparable injury. Now, who are we going to believe? It could be that Mr. Gould is misleading this community and this Commission and is before us lying, that there is no irreparable injury, that he can wait until June, that he can wait until October, that there is no inflation, that the prices will not go up, that he will be able to hold back, that he will do all of these things. I think, however, that it is reasonable to assume that infla- tion will not stop as of March 22nd, that the price of elevators, steel, glass and everything else will go up. It is a reasonable thing to assume that un- less you get into the contractual obligations of buying these things immed- iately, getting into working drawings so that you know how much steel you need to buy, etc. etc. that the odds are that the project will increase in cost. Now, then the next question is, well, if it does go up $7,000,000 isn't it still a good business deal and won't he do it any way? Well, as a bus- inessman I would have to say that that obviously is a business judgement that every businessman has to take. I cannot speak for Mr. Gould, he has said that he would not. Now, we either believe what he is saying or we don't if we think he's bluffing us and telling us something for whatever purposes. Now, to that end I might point out, and that's why I thought the testimoney of the Downtown Development Authority which is composed of the President of the Florida National Bank in Miami who is not an interested party in this, the President of, the Chairman of the Board of Burdines of Florida, Mr. Mel Jacobs who is not an interested party in this and is now in Cincinnatti and has no interest at all in this matter personally, a former Mayor of the City of Miami, Mr. Bill Wolfarth, Mr. Jerry Lewis, the Controller of the State of Florida, so I think that these are people that we would recognize as being reasonable people who have in the past and I hope in the future exert leader- ship. They have recommended as Mr. Kenzie has said into the record that the lawsuit be dropped. Lastly, we have the Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber of Commerce, and I see Mr. Walter Revel here and Mr. Walter Revel represents the Downtown Action Committee and it is not Mr. Alvah Chapman alone who hap- pens to be co-chairman but I think that committee has over thirty members, a cross section of the business community and the Chamber, of course, has thousands of people and I understand it is their official position that we should drop this. Therefore, from a practical business consideration I have to conclude that if we do not drop this lawsuit we stand a reasonable chance of losing this project. Now, I want to tell you that I have been closer than most people to the Dupont Plaza because 20 some odd years ago my father bought from Mr. Ed Ball one of those lots. Unfortunately, my father and I and my family no longer have an interest in that property so I have no conflict of interest directly or indirectly. The banks own what we pzeviously owned. But I want to tell you that I have watched the going ons of the Dupont Plaza for 20 some odd years. I have been to see Mr. Ball, I have been to see Mr. Bassett, I have heard from numerable people that have come down, the Hines Company who came into town, the Rowse Company, all of the big developers, Mr. John Horton from Atlanta, we have been looking for 20 years, Oscar Dooley put together and went to United States Steel to set them interested to finance rt 20 MAR 2 2 1979 it, had architectural drawings made. There is a long long and an unfortunately sad and unsuccessful of failure of anybody to put something together at the Dupont Plaza. Now we have a major developer. I don't know what problems Mr. Gould has had at Rosalyn or has not had at Rosalyn, I do know Mr. Gould is a highly regarded member of the development industry at the very same level as somebody like Jim Rowse or Heintz or somebody in that category of which there really are not more than a dozen people'in these United States. He happens to be one of the highly respected "Big Fish", if you will in this particular business and he's come down here and he's taken an interest in this and I want to point out because I'm going to say this with a great sense of pride, I'm a great believer in the Multiplier Theory. Mr. Gould is down here be- cause of the City of Miami, because of this Commission and I'll tell you why. If this Commission had not acted with vigor and courage in the Conference Cen- ter/Convention Center we would not have enthused the business community as touch as we have. I think it is that initial act that has this Ripple Multi- plier Affect of bringing people in, people who normally would not have come to Miami and who, indeed, stayed away from Miami for years and years and years. And I would suggest if you call John Portman, J. L., that you get on the phone and call Heintz or that you call somebody like Jim Rowse and ask them what their previous opinions were of Miami. And I have done this with some of these people and I'll tell you on the record what their opinion is - Miami is an impossible place to deal with: In the first place your govern- ment is crazy, everybody wants to cut you up and divide you and quarter you into pieces and you've got the worst newspaper who wants to investigate and be against everything in the world.- now we are not going to go into that kind of a community. These are specific words spoken by the major developers in this country. Here we have an opportunity that I think would be another major step forward for the proper development of this community and lastly the taxpayers. I would assume that a project of this nature would bring into the coffers of the City of Miami two or three million dollars in taxes on a yearly basis and as it is developed into a larger thing, and I hope this will also have a multiplier to get other projects, we're talking about a substan- tial amount of money. Now let me remind you of one of the tragedies that we are facing - not we the City of Miami, Urban America. We do not have enough money whether it is Philadelphia, Boston, cities in California or Miami to render all of the services, the daycare centers, the police services, all the things that we need to have in this community. Today Ad Valorem Taxes only make up about 35% of our total operating budget. We don't have enough money, if it were not for the licenses and the subsidies that we get from the federal and the state government, some say that we're bankrupt. If you take that into consideration we are bankrupt but so is Metropolitan Dade County and Philadel- phia and Boston and Detroit and you name it. We are dependent on others. One of the ways that you look into the future is by creating the type of proper developments that will increase the tax base so that we can be more self-sufficient. The fact is that the services that we will have to render to this project will not be as much on the cost basis as the taxes that they're going to be paying. Therefore, what in effect that does is it makes the larger commercial developments share a larger proportion of the burden and inversely relieves the homeowner from that burden. You may have seen yester- day in the newspaper Mr. Blake's statement to Merit Steirheim that if Proposi- tion 13 came into Miami only 1/3 of the relief would go to the homeowners and 2/3 would go to commercial properties. I am afraid that is probably not a true statement in the City of Miami because the burden in the City of Miami is on the little homeowner. And the reason is that we have one of the weakest core cities of any of the metropolitan areas and I would put into the record that the City of Miami of the 20 major metropolitan areas, the core city has the weakest core taxwise of any major metropolitan area in these United States. The way that we turn that around is by inducing development of important and well thought out and well financed projects. Now whether or not this project would assure the view of the bay, I would imagine we're talking about for the 1312 seconds that an automobile passes from one location on Biscayne boulevard to another location which is the only way that anybody ever sees the bay at that point, I think it is a rather relative question because, for example, that is the kind of logic that would then say that we should move back to North Miami Avenue and knock down the buildings or not let any -buildings develop along Biscayne Boulevard because the people along First Street should have a view. Well, why First Street, why not Miami Avenue? Why not West First Street, Why not West Second? Why not have no construction back to the Government Cen- ter and have a clear view? Well, you know, we can make arguments on all sides of this but I think the point is that this is at this point a private property and there are eleven judges and we've gotten the legal opinions that we're going to lose again, then I don't that we have to go beyond the Supreme Court of the United States. That's why there are five members of this Commission rt 21 MAR 2 2 1979 rather than one and like any other governing body we have a diversity of opinion, we're all entitled to our's and I've expressed my opinion on the record and I will make a decision in a second. All right? Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion. Are we through with the discussion? Mayor Ferre: Does anybody else want to say anything else? Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to move that we continue the lawsuit and let the Supreme Court tell us one way or the other, certainly that we continue through the current court session, that at least we go through the current court session. Mayor Ferre: All right, Father, that is something that if you want to, of course, I'll recognize it and if we get a second we'll vote on it but unless this Commission takes another position, that's exactly what we have to do anyway. Mrs. Gordon: Well, he's being more specific I believe, Mr. Mayor, and that's why I'm asking for a clarification. I want you to clarify, Commissioner Gibson, please, that your motion includes a continuance until the end of June or the recess of the Supreme Court. Rev. Gibson: That is the sense. Okay, I'll make it more specific. My motion is that the attorney that represents us in this matter... All right, you want to? Mr. Bailey: Father, may I say that there is a resolution, I am empowered and Or directed to proceed with the lawsuit and it would take a negative vote, it would take a motion to stop me as I understand the resolution. So you don't need.... Rev. Gibson: All right, you've answered my question. We don't really have to have a motion. We could do nothing and you will proceed. A11 right. Mr. Bailey: It would take an affirmative negative vote. Mayor Ferre: Do you have a motion now? Rev. Gibson: I have no motion, I'm going to vote to do nothing. Mayor Ferre: Is there a motion? Mr. Lacasa: Then I'd like to make a motion. Mayor Ferre: All right, make your motion. Mr. Lacasa: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, as I said before, if we were discussing this situation prior to our having appeared in court three times in the State of Florida including the Florida Supreme Court and before having been turned down by eleven judges with not one dissenting I would be all in favor of con*inuing this suit. However, based on all the arguments, after having heard the legal opinions expressed here and based on what I con- sider to be priorities of the City at this point I'd like to make a motion that this case be terminated, the suit be dropped and Mr. Guy Bailey be released of part of the responsibilities toward the City of Miami as far as represent- ing us in this case and also to thank Mr. Bailey for the tremendous job that he has done. Mrs. Gordon: Did you put a time element in there? Did you consider that it be done at the end of this court session? Mr. Lacasa: Rose, my motion calls for the termination of this case as of now. Mayor Ferre: All right, is there a second to that motion? Mr. Plummer: Well, is that not a substitute motion? Mayor Ferre: No, what happened was that Father made a motion and Rose sec- onded it, Mr. Bailey got up and said you really don't need that motion so he withdrew the motion and now then Lacasa wanted to be recognized. rt 22 MAR 2 2 1979 I Mr. Plummer: Oh, you withdrew the motion? Rev. Gibson: Yes, I withdrew the motion because they said to do nothing was tantamount to telling him to continue. Mrs. Gordon: Yes, and what I'm saying,'in Mr. Lacasa's statement,•and I want a clear understanding is that if he's asking for an immediate departure from that suit then I cannot concur. If he is saying that he wants this to take place at the time that the closing would take place, at the time the court would recess for the summer session then I believe that there is some merit in his motion. Now, I just want to know if he is going to be explicit about it and say he terminates it, we're going to do a mercy killing today, the pat- ient is going to be disconnected today from the respirator and he's going to be allowed to die then I'm opposed to his motion. Mayor Ferre; All right, I think he's answered the question and you've made your statement on it, now is there a second to the motion? And then you can speak further to it, Mrs. Gordon. Is there a second to that motion made by Mr. Lacasa? And lastly, is there a second to that motion? Well, I will sec- ond the motion so that there is a vote on it. Mr. Plummer: Rose Gordon just put me in a conflict of interest letting the patient die. All right, would you repeat the motion, please? Mr. Ongie: A motion that the case is terminated as of this date, that the lawsuit be dropped and discharge Mr. Guy Bailey from further representation of the City of Miami in this matter and thanking him for his services. Mr. Plummer: Any further discussion? Hearing none, call the roll. The preceding motion introduced by Commissioner Lacasa and seconded by Mayor Ferre failed to pass by the following vote - AYES: Mr. Lacasa and Mayor Ferre. NOES: Mrs. Gordon, Rev. Gibson and Vice -Mayor Plummer. ON ROLL CALL Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I refrained from comment but I will make a brief comment now. I think there is merit on both sides but let me say to you quoting from a great Florida philosopher who for 91 years has done almost everything right, and I will quote the article, "I think that if a person makes a commitment and then welches on it I don't think he's any damned good." He says, "If there is anything I detest it's a person who doesn't live by his word." I agree. This Commission made a commitment, $25,000 if nothing more commitment. The people who are proposing to build were aware at the time of negotiations, I vote against the motion. Mayor Ferre: All right, the motion, therefore, is defeated and what is the will of the Commission at this point? Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, let me express something else. I have seen Supreme Court Cases take years and years and years. I wish to pursue this matter but I would like it to be reviewed by this Commission on June 1st or the first meeting in June, that we take a second look at this thing on June lst or the first meeting in June. Mr. Lacasa: Would you accept a substitute motion? Mrs. Gordon: Is that a motion? Mr. Plummer: I'll have to listen to the substitute motion. Mayor Ferre: Well the motion doesn't have a second yet so let's see if Mrs. Gordon seconds it. Mrs. Gordon: I'll second it in order that it be a legitimate motion. Mayor Ferre: All right, now the substitute motion, state your substitute motion. Mr. Lacasa: My substitute motion would be that we continue the case then un- til June and if by June the Supreme Court has not taken a dedision on whether or not to accept the case then it be dropped at that time but that we rt 23 TiAR 2 2 1979 do take this action now and the reason is this, we do have the developers here and I think that we owe it to them to give them a final word as of today of what they can expect. Rev. Gibson: Mr. Chairman? Mayor Ferre: Wait, let me see if we have a second because if there's no second then there's no use unless you want to just talk about it. Rev. Gibson: No, I'm not going to talk. Mayor Ferre: Is there a second? Let's understand where we are. Mr. Plum- mer made a motion that this matter be reviewed again on June 1st. Mrs. Gordon: Or the first meeting in June. Mayor Ferre: The first meeting of June. That was seconded by Mrs. Gordon. Now Mr. Lacasa made a substitute motion which said that this matter, that this case should be continued until the ending of the present Supreme Court Session which I understand is June, is that right? And if the Supreme Court does not rule on it or does not take it under advisement by June that we would then drop it at that point. Now that is the substitute motion. Rev. Gibson: It has died. Mayor Ferre: Well, I haven't called it yet, if you'll let me call it let me see. Rev. Gibson: Wait a minute, Mr. Mayor Mayor Ferre: Father Gibson, I second the motion, now I have a right. Rev. Gibson: Look, man, you didn't second the motion. Mayor Ferre: I wanted to explain why Rev. Gibson: Wait a minute,.... Mayor Ferre: No, sir. Rev. Gibson: I want to make sure that everybody understands that a lot of us know Robert's Rules of Order. Now wait a minute, don't play us all cheap. Mayor Ferre: Now I resent that! I'm not playing you cheap and I'm not play- ing anybody cheap. Rev. Gibson: I'm glad you resent it so you know from again. Mayor Ferre: I have a right to second a substitute motion! And I was going through the process before and I don't that's playing you or anybody cheap! Rev. Gibson: Come on, man. now on not to do it Mr. Plummer: Now, we have a motion and seconded, we have a substitute motion and seconded, is there any discussion first on the substitute motion? Read back the motion. Mr. Ongie: The motion is that the case will be continued until June or the ending of the present Supreme Court Session with the understanding that if they do not hear this case by June that the appeal would be dropped. Mr. Plummer: Motion understood? Call the roll. The preceding substitute motion introduced by Commissioner Lacasa and seconded by Mayor Ferre failed to pass by the following vote - AYES: Mr. Lacasa and Mayor Ferre. NOES: Rev. Gibson, Mrs. Gordon an3 Vice -Mayor Plummer. Mr. Plummer: I think this Commission has the opportunity to review and pos- sibly take a new stance at that time. Now, the original motion, would you read it back? Mr. Ongie: The original motion was that the City Commission would review today's action on Ball Point at the first meeting in June. rt 24 MAR 2 2 1979 Mayor Ferree Further discussion? Call the roll. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 79-200 A MOTION DECLARING THE INTENT OF THE CITY COMMISSION TO REVIEW THE STATUS OF THE LITIGATION IN THE MATTER OF THE BALL POINT PROPERTY AT THE FIRST SCHEDULED CITY COMMISSION MEETING IN JUNE. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gordon, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: Commissioner Armando Lacasa Mayor Ferre: Further discussion on this item? Mr. Aurell: Mr. Mayor, it is a technical matter but pursuant to Florida Statute380.06 there is a requirement that a notice of a hearing be given by the City in connection with the Development of Regional Impact application that has been filed and the written notice which has come down from the Reg- ional Planning Council to the City so pursuant to that section I request that the City take the necessary action to schedule the hearing. Mr. Plummer: You're saying that the City must initiate the action? Mr. Aurell: That is correct. Mr. Plummer: I so move. Mr. Lacasa: Second. Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute, here is the resolution, Mr. Mayor. Mrs. Gordon: Is there any material before us relative to this motion? Is that what you're handing out now? Well, could we have an opportunity to read it, J. L., and hold it until we can have an opportunity to read what has just been handed to us this very moment? Mr. Plummer: If you wish, be happy to second it later or move it. Mrs. Gordon: All right, take it up in the afternoon. Mr. Aurell: One further comment if I may, I believe it's a procedure required by the statute and it's a ministerial procedure. Mrs. Gordon: We're not arguing the point, just want to know what we've been handed and scan it. Okay? Mr. Aurell: Thank you. Mayor Ferre: All right, we will then take this up later on in the day, is that what you're saying? Mrs. Gordon: Yes, have an opportunity to read it. I don't like to get handed something and say vote, I want to read it at least. Mr. Aurell: Mr. Mayor, might I know approximately what time it will come back up so that we could be back? Mr. Plummer: Items usually not scheduled for the Commission come up at the end of the .genda. Thereupon the City Commission took a five minute break. rt 25 MAR 2 2 1979 2. AMEND RULE VIII, SECS. 8 S 9; RULE XIX, SECS 3 & 5 AND RULE XIV, SEC. 2 - CIVIL SERVICE RULES TO CONFORM TO NEGOTIATED LABOR AGREEMENTS. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING RULE VIII, SECTIONS 8 AND 9, OF THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 31, 1961, AS AMENDED, AS CON- TAINED IN ORDINANCE NO. 6945, AS AMENDED, BY PROVIDING THAT, WITH REGARD TO THE SAID RULES, EMPLOYEES IN THE AFSCME, LOCAL 1907, BARGAINING UNIT MAY BE ASSIGNED WORK OUT OF THEIR CLASSIFICATION ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE CURRENT LABOR AGREEMENT, AND AMENDING RULE XIX, SECTIONS 3 AND 5, OF THE SAID CIVIL SERVICE RULES BY PRO- VIDING THAT WITH REGARD TO THE SAID RULES EMPLOYEES IN THE FOP, LODGE #20; IAFF, LOCAL 587; AND AFSCME, LOCAL 1907; BARGAINING UNITS BE COMPENSATED FOR UNUSED SICK LEAVE, COVERT SICK LEAVE TO VACATION TIME AND BE GIVEN TIME OFF WITH PAY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE CURRENT LABOR AGREEMENTS; AMENDING RULE XIV, SECTION 2, OF SAID RULES BY PROVIDING THAT, WITH REGARD TO THE SAID RULES, EMPLOYEES IN THE AFSCME, LOCAL 1907, BARGAINING UNIT MAY BE PLACED ON AN APPRO- PRIATE LAYOFF REGISTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE CURRENT BARGAINING AGREEMENT; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of March 8th, was taken up for its second and filial reading by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Gibson, seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the Ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title:. and passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Armando Lacasa THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 8914. 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. rt 26 MAR 2 2 1979 3. ESTABLISH NEW APPROPRIATION FUND FOR ADDITIONAL PROJECTS FROM FP 6 L FRANCHISE REVENUES. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1 OF ORDINANCE NO. 8716, ADOPTED OCTOBER 26, 1977, AS AMENDED, THE CITY'S CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT APPROPRIATIONS ORDINANCE, BY APPROPRIATING FROM THE FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY FRANCHISE EARNINGS AN AMOUNT OF $4,313,000 TO FUND ADDITIONAL PROJECTS, AND FROM THE FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING DINNER KEY ACQUISITION FUND AN AMOUNT OF $150,000 FOR ADDITIONAL WORK ON THE COCONUT GROVE EXHIBITION CENTER; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HERE- WITH; AND CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY PROVISION. Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of February 26th, was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Plummer, seconded by Commissioner Gibson, 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 Gibson Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Armando Lacasa THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE N0. 8915. 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. INCREASE ENTERPRISE FUND ORANGE BOWL TO FUND STRUCTURAL SURVEY AND ANALYSIS OF THE ORANGE BOWL STADIUM. Mayor Ferre: Is Item 4 controversial? Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I will want a word changed in there or wording which would say that if, in fact, this $25,000 is not paid from the 2% tax which I feel that it should and in discussion others feel the same, if it is not paid from that source then we will pay it. Mayor Ferre: All right, is that acceptable? Mr. Grassie: In order to contract with somebody we would have to be sure that we have a source. Mr. Plummer: We'll guarantee payment but not, this here speaks that we defin- itely pay and I'd like to give the opportunity to the 2% tax to pay this be- cause I think it is legitimate. Rev. Gibson: Isn't it true that, is this another study, Mr. Grassie? Mr. Grassie: This is the one that was authorized by the City Commission in its discussion at your last meeting, Commissioner. Mayor Ferre: Is this formalizing that? Mr. Plummer: Father, speaking for the motion this is something regardless of who does it it's got to be done to establish the engineering feasibility of the Orange Bowl and there is some question by some people. I think that this study as expressed to me will, in fact, come forth with a truthful answer that rt 27 MAR 2 2 1979 the Orange Bowl is worth re -doing or it is not and I think.... Rev. Gibson: All right, Mr. Plummer, I'm going to vote for it but you know I get rather disturbed, you know we make these studies and we make these studies and another study. All right, let's go. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 1 AND 6 OF ORDINANCE NO. 8858, ADOPTED SEPTEMBER 28, 1978, THE ANNUAL APPRO- PRIATIONS ORDINANCE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEP- TEMBER 30, 1979, AS AMENDED; BY INCREASING THE APPRO- PRIATION FOR THE ENTERPRISE FUND, ORANGE BOWL, IN AN AMOUNT OF $25,000; INCREASING ANTICIPATED REVENUES, ENTERPRISE FUND, ORANGE BOWL, BY THE SAME AMOUNT; FROM 1977-78 ORANGE BOWL ENTERPRISE FUND, RETAINED EARNINGS; FOR THE PURPOSE OF FUNDING A STRUCTURAL SURVEY AND ANALYSIS OF THE ORANGE BOWL STADIUM; CON- TAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. Was introduced by Commissioner Plummer and seconded by Commissioner Gibson and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice . Ferre NOES: None. 1 The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the cit commission and to the •ublic. 5. ESTABLISH NEW TRUST & AGENCY FUND: "SCULPTURE EXHIBIT - BICENTENNIAL PARK." 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: "SCULPTURE EXHIBIT - BICENTENNIAL PARK;" AND APPROPRIATING A GRANT AWARD IN THE AMOUNT OF $500 FROM THE FINE ARTS COUNCIL OF FLORIDA FOR SAID PURPOSE; CON- TAINING A REPEALER AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. Was introduced by Commissioner Plummer and seconded by Commissioner Gibson and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice . Ferre NOES: None. 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. rt 28 VAR 2 2 111R 6. DISCUSSION OF CITIZENS PARTICIPATION AND REQUESTING DADE COUNTY NOT TO HOLD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ELECTIONS. Mayor Ferre: We're now on Item "A" oh the morning agenda. Mr. Grassie: Mr. Jack Bond will introduce the subject, Mr. Mayor and members of the City Commission. Mr. Jack Bond: At your last Commission Meeting you instructed us to look at four models across the country in citizen participation and advise you as to what they say, what they report. We have done that in writing to you. You also advised us to advise you as to a course of action in the development of the citizens participation process in and for the City of Miami. To high- light what we have put into writing to you, I will quote, "The most noteworthy similarity among the four models that were discovered in each of the cities' administration attempted to bring a staff plan for city participation to the community for approval." In each case the plans received caustic criticism by the community for lack of citizen involvement in their development of those plans. For those reasons we propose not to make the same mistake that at least those four major municipalities made. In contrast, we propose that the Citizens Services Department, the Planning Department and the Community Devel- opment staff recommend to you to maximize citizen participation in our plann- ing process, that we develop a series of six neighborhood quorums utilizing Imp the existing six planning districts. (STEPS AWAY FROM THE MICROPHONE AND BECOMES INAUDIBLE) ... Using those planning districts as a base to conduct meetings therein, giving due public notice, etc. so that all can have ade- quate input, notifying all citizen based organizations, etc. we would then synthesize the data gained from those six meetings, put it into some reason- able foremat, return it to those neighborhoods for clarification, further input etc. to open lines, make sure that lines of communication are open and then bring the results of that to you in the way of recommendations. Mrs. Gordon: Question, Jack. The process then would be to get an input from these neighborhood groups as to what they feel are important community issues as they affect them, is that correct? Mr. Bond: Actually the purpose is to develop an openess in communications between the government and the community groups that they feel comfortable with as well as.... Mrs. Gordon: A townhall type of meeting in these target areas that you're referring to. Mr. Bond: Yes. Mrs. Gordon: I think it's a good idea, I think in times past there was some- thing similar that took place but they were never on a steady basis, it was a haphazard, you know once in a while kind of thing. I think what you're say- ing is a more regular kind of meeting of getting together neighborhoodwise, is that correct? Mr. Bond: This is really to establish what kind of formal citizen participa- tion structure we can develop jointly between the neighborhoods and the policy makers. Mrs. Gordon: I understand, Okay. Mayor Ferre: Let me reiterate on where I started last time on this. At a national conference, at the Mayor's Conference the National Endowment for the Humanities at a luncheon in which the Mayor of Birmingham explained to us how the experiment in participatory democracy the way he explained it was functioning in Birmingham and that they had 75 neighborhoods organized. What in effect they have are neighborhoods organized with councils, the council has a president and a vice-president and what have you. The City of Birming- ham provides staff, these people have regular community meetings and from the community level it goes up a council of presidents of all these neighborhoods and from there to the City Commission. So in effect what we have is an at- tempt to create an upward mobility of participation from the neighborhoods rt 29 MAR 2 2 1979 which we have to some extent in some places like, perhaps, Coconut Grove that we don't - the northeast part - we don't have throughout the City and this would be an attempt to do such a thing. I've only got one problem with the memorandum that has been written here. I'm strongly for this, I think it is a very bold and important move forward in getting the citizens of this commun- ity to be more involved and more participatory in our government. I do, how- ever, think that it is a political process and people get scared of the word politics, they think it is dirty. I think it is something that should be within the eventual purview of the City Commission and not the City adminis- tration. The purpose of this is not to advise the City administration on things, the purpose of this is to get the neighborhoods to become a partici- pant in city government and that means to the elected officials and I think there is some indication here as to whether or not the administration is too much involved in the selection and guidance process. I think you should be involved in it but I think that these councils should really eventually go up to the Commission level. Mr. Bond: We take that under advisement, sir and in the last paragraph I had hoped that that was made clear. We invite each of you, all we're going to do is the leg work and involve each of the Commissioners in the process. Mr. Lacasa: Mr. Bond, we do have two others, for instance, let's take as an example one particular target area, Little Havana. We do have two others as well as in'all the other areas two other committees that are duly elected through an electoral process, one is for the purpose of the implementation of the CD program and the other is for the implementation of the CAA Program. So how do you evision the working of this proposed committee with these two other committees or do you invision the fusion of all of them into just one? Because the thing that worries me is the possibility that we have a multiple number of committees that could duplicate and detract from the power of repre- sentation of each one of them. Mr. Bond: Sir, consistent with what the Mayor has said it would really be inappropriate I think for the staff to try to answer that question at this time because that would be tantamount to trying to tell the people in those communities what we think they need to do in the organizational process. Mr. Lacasa: No, but that is not my question. Mr. Bond: I know. We do have boundaries, there will always exist boundaries that are proterminus with moneys, ie., Community Development Funds have certain boundaries, other funds have certain boundaries. They may have to constitute somewhat of a sub -committee to whatever is the broad representation committee from that particular neighborhood, those boundaries cannot be vio- lated in the expenditure of funds, people outside those boundaries would not be able to impact on how the moneys would be spent, an example would be Com- munity Development Funds. Mr. Lacasa: Yes, but my question or rather than a question is a suggestion - could something be worked out so that one committee might be the conduit of the other activities, in other words that we might have this committee that you are proposing here and that this would also encompass the functions of CD and CAA so as to have only one voice rather than to have three different bodies with three different chairmen and three different boards and a situa- tion where we have fragmentation rather than unity in the neighborhood? Mr. Bond: That is our goal, sir, not to proliferate but to consolidate and to legitimize the process. Mr. Lacasa: For this particular purpose I guess that inquiries would have to be made with CD, that means County CD - well no, because we do get the CD Funds directly, and see if it could be implemented in just one committee, that would be my suggestion because I'd rather see just one authority .... Mayor Ferre: I think the point being that we don't want to end up with say the Little Havana area, just to take one, with two committees and you'd have competition and all that kind of stuff. Mr. Plummer: Well let me ask the question, because you know basically what we're looking for, the bottom line is for the citizens of this community to express themselves to this Commission in helping to mold the decisions that we make. Now unless I'm off somewhere it seems like to me we have eight tar- get areas of Community Development which is required. Now why would you feel that those eight present coverages of the different segments of this commun- ity are not adequate? 30 MAR 2 2 1979 Mr. Bond: Because they do not involve the entire city, they only involve target areas of the City and it was my understanding that you were looking at a total overall democratic process wherein the total population could interact with you. Mayor Ferre: And furthermore I think that there are neighborhoods that have their own particular framework of working and thinking and I think that they all should have proper representation. For example, the people out at Tamiami or Grapeland Heights are usually much more active. I think that would permit them forming themselves into a neighborhood. This is not a regional thing this is a neighborhood. See, and we hae eight target areas, well, Birmingham has seventy-five target areas. That's basically what I guess we're saying, it's not much larger than the City of Miami. Mr. Fosmoen: Mr. Mayor, one comment We're finished with this year's planning cycle in Community Development, the application has been approved by this Commission and submitted. The time table that Jack has laid out sug- gests that this Commission may consider a structure around September. What we would propose is that the current chairpersons in the CD target areas remain in place and we not go ahead and hold the elections during the summer but rather see what kind of a structure comes out of the six neighborhood meetings... The CD target areas are one of the basis by which people parti- cipate then we would hold elections in September. But in the meantime I don't think it makes a great deal of sense to go ahead through the whole process of elections if the Commission is looking at alternatives. Mayor Ferre: Well, I would.... I was just going to say if we're finished with this discussion later on in the day when we have some time I'd like to 111, talk about the forthcoming elections in first the Allapattah area which is coming up and secondly Little Havana. They both come up in April and even though that's not the subject, I realize that's not the subject. Mr. Fosmoen: Do you mean CD elections? Mayor Ferre: CD elections. I want to talk a little bit about that and I'll tell you what the thrust of what I'm going to say is. Mr. Fosmoen: If I may, I think it is germane because of the things that I'm asking is that we hold those elections and let the people, the current chair- persons stay in place. Mayor Ferre: Then I'll say it now. With all due respects to my colleague Armando Lacasa who did a magnificent job as chairman, I think that it should be the policy of this Commission - this is my personal opinion - that those boards function as boards and rather than just have a president and vice- president and treasurer that we should insist that the people in Allapattah elect a board, the people of Little Havana elect a board the way it is pro- vided for in the statutes. You see, they can go either/or and I think what they're calling for is an assembly. The assembly then decides which way they go. I think that frankly speaking for myself I'm not willing to let that be determined at an assembly level because it all depends on who is able to muster up what force to get what votes. I think it ought to be a policy of the City that all of these regions have a functioning board elected by the neighborhood and the way it's prescribed and that they in turn be the govern- ing body and that the president and the vice-president be subject to the majority in these boards rather than having one person become the Czar if you will or whatever you want to call it of that particular neighborhood. Mrs. Gordon: Please explain to me, is the chairman a Czar in these community development areas? I'd like to know if that's the way the procedures have been made. Have the chairmen made the decisions for the community? Somebody tell me who is familiar with it. Mr. Fosmoen: Dena is here, but you know each community functions differently. Mayor Ferre: That's the point. Mrs. Gordon: Well, I need to know because you know if a chairman singly made decisions for the community without consulta*ior.w.aith the community then a board is certainly going to spread it to mor people for a decision. Mayor Ferre: Precisely. rt 31 MAR 2 2 1972 Mrs. Gordon: But, if the community can contribute into the decision making process in the structure that we have now then I would like to keep the structure as it is now. I would hesitate to allow enormous community decis- ions to remove the populace from those decisions. An assembly possibly, I'm not saying that they couldn't stack the deck, an assemly possibly might be more democratic, I'm not sure. I'm asking you. I'd like to hear from Dena, please. Mayor Ferre: Would you permit me to say something? Mrs. Gordon: If it's an answer to my dilemma. Mayor Ferre: Yes, I'd just like to make a statement if it's all right with you. Mrs. Gordon: Well, I'd like to get an answer from the professional staff and then you can make a statement, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: I will make the statement anyway. The case of Allapattah is a case in point. You may recall Pat Keller. See, Allapattah has a board and has a process where a group headed by Pat Keller don't have much to say and I think that if you were to expand this so that there is a board process that the board is elected by the assembly or by the people in an electoral process then people like Pat Keller would have the opportunity to be heard at a board level. That does not mean that the people in a regular assembly couldn't deliberate on questions because they do anyway. But it does mean that I don't think that we should put all of the strength and the emphasis of the whole neighborhood in the hands of one or two or three people as we've had in some neighborhoods in the past. Mrs. Gordon: Well that's the question that I want the professional staff to answer. Is that what you have found to be the case? Ms. Dena Spillman: I'm not prepared to say that any chairman currently is acting as a Czar but I will say that I think we are not getting appropriate representation at some of these meetings. We have twelve people, twelve or fifteen people who may be making decisions for an entire community. There is another point T'd like to add that I think.... Mrs. Gordon: Well wouldn't a board of directors do the same thing? Ms. Spillman: But I think the whole goal of this is to get wider participa- tion in the community and by bringing it down to neighborhood levels where• people feel an identity, like Buena Vista, for example. Mrs. Gordon: Yes. What you're saying then, Dena, I don't want to interrupt you, finish your conversation. Ms. Spillman: That's all right. Mrs. Gordon: Is that you wouldn't want it shortened, the amount of represen- tation, you'd want to broaden the amount of representation and I think every- body here wants to broaden it too, the method is the thing that we are trying to find, the best.... Ms. Spillman: Well, if I could, just let me clarify one thing. In the past the City used the Court:y's method of citizen participation in Community Devel- opment. We've never had our own system. The County is withdrawing their funds from the City, we all know that, I think I told you that last time. The elections which are proposed to happen next month are County elections in the County process. You have never seen that, it's not a City. We would not be in favor of conducting those elections, what we would like to do is hold, go out to the people, find out what kind of system they want to have, come back to you in the fall and then you utilize that system as our commun- ity development process. If the chairmen are asked to remain and any special subjects come up over the summer we can certainly call meetings and go out to the peopld but I would not be in favor of proceeding with the CAA process, it's not effective at all. Mayor Ferre: All right, Father Gibson. Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor, I want to address that issue because I think that if we're not careful we'll have another layer of agencies and have confusion. rt 32 MAR 2 2 1979 You already have in the Culmer area confusion which we'll be talking about later on and I would hope that you don't confuse those people even more. Mayor Ferre: Is there an election coming up in Culmer now? Ms. Spillman: I don't know. Mayor Ferre: I think the next two elections I know of that are pending now are Allapattah and Little Havana. Mr. Fosmoen: And again, Mr. Mayor, what we're proposing is that we hold those elections in abeyance until after the community has had an opportunity to express to this Commission how they feel about representation. Mayor Ferre: Well, I'm all for that but I'll tell you what I'm not for. I'm not for what's going to be happening in April. What's going to be happening is, as I read those regulations, and the County has put them out and they say the County and the City so they're talking for us. Ms. Spillman: No, we already told the County that they should not speak for us. Mayor Ferre: You may have told them but they went out and printed something that is made a public document now and I've got it upstairs and it says the County and the City and what it says is that there will be an assembly called, the assembly will decide the way to proceed and then what they're going to end up doing is selecting a president, a vice-president and a treasurer in an election which would be held 40 days after, or 45 days after and you're going to end up with two or three people deciding the whole fate of that whole neigh- borhood. Mr. Fosmoen: Mr. Mayor, might I suggest if that's the case, and I haven't even seen the document you're talking about.... Mayor Ferre: Well I have. Mr. Fosmoen: And that's the kind of communication that we have had with the County and their electoral process. Mayor Ferre: They're telling us what to do. Mr. Fosmoen: Yes, sir. What I would suggest is this Commission go on record to the County Commission asking them to hold.... Mayor Ferre: Precisely my point. Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor, I think we need to in all of our structure too, if the County is going to get out we ought to wait so the County can get out. Let me tell you I was at a meeting the other night and I'm not so sure and I urge this Commission because if,you are going to have a City structure and the County is going to still be in place you're going to be in trouble. Mayor Ferre; We're going to have two boards. Rev. Gibson: Right, going to have two boards and those people aren't going to know who is speaking for. Mayor Ferre: Well, and that's why I think that it is appropriate at this time for this Commission to go on record to the County that they do not speak for us, that we have not made a decision and that the regulations that they put out we would respectfully request for them to hold up until both the City of Miami Commission and the County Commission have had the opportunity to read them and approve them and we have not had that opportunity. Rev. Gibson: And to further substantiate what you are saying, the meeting that was held last week, that meeting was not our meeting that was the County's meeting and even so the logo announcing the meeting, the logo was not our logo. Mayor Ferre: Well, does somebody want to make a motion then to that effect? Rev. Gibson: I move that we ask the County at this point not to hold the elections until we have had an opportunity to make necessary changes and recommendations. rt 33 MAR 2 2 1079 Mayor Ferre: And at least deliberate on this. Rev. Gibson: Yes. Mayor Ferre: All right, is there a second? All right, moved by Rev. Gibson, seconded by Commissioner Lacasa. Further discussion? Call the roll. The preceding motion introduced by Commissioner Gibson and seconded by Commissioner Lacasa was passed and adopted by a unanimous vote. SEE LATER RESOLUTION NO. 79-215. Mayor Ferre: Now, Mr. Bond, with regards to your presentation here on the citizens participation, what is the next step that you recommend that we take on this? Mr. Bond: The next step, sir, is that we will begin organizing meetings in the planning districts. This is just an informative session to you. Mayor Ferre: Do you need any action on our part creating these neighborhood boards or what? Mr. Bond: No, sir, we don't. Mayor Ferre: In other words you're going to proceed. Mr. Bond: Yes, with your blessing. Mayor Ferre: So you don't need any formal action. Mr. Bond: Actually I think what you're doing, if you will look at Item 22, when you pass Item 22 you will in affect be giving us our charge. 7. CONFIRMING RESOLUTION: REQUEST CITY MANAGER TO INVESTIGATE "NEIGHBORHOOD PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY SYSTEMS." The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gibson, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 79-202 A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THAT THE CITY MANAGER INSTRUCT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO INQUIRE FROM OTHER LARGE URBAN AREAS TO DETERMINE IF A NEIGHBORHOOD PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY SYS- TEM IS FUNCTIONING EFFECTIVELY AND TO REPORT THE RESULTS OF SUCH INQUIRY AND SURVEY TO THE CITY COMMISSION, TOGETHER WITH RECOMMENDATIONS OF SAID PLANNING DEPARTMENT. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gordon, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: NOES: None. Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. 'Ferre rt 34 MAR 2 2 1!7! E 8.a)REPORT ON RESULTS OF CULMER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TASK FORCE MEETING. b)NEW WASHINGTON HEIGHTS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM - CONTINUED FUNDING Mayor Ferre: Now we're on Item "En, Report on the Culmer Community Develop- ment Task Force. Ms. Dena Spillman: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, at our second public hearing on Community Development when the Culmer Community Development Target Area was discussed there was some confusion as to whether the residents of that area had been involved in the decision making process. As a result, Commissioner Gibson recommended that a meeting be held in the community clari- fying two issues in particular, one the Culmer Economic Development Program, the additional funding for that program and two the lease for the building that the Interim Assistance Program was proposing to occupy. The meeting was held on March 13th, Commissioner Gibson was in attendance and three motions were presented and voted upon by the community at that meeting. The motions that were voted upon are listed in the memo that you have before you. Mrs. Gordon: Dena, why don't you wait until everybody is listening to you. Ms. Spillman: I repeat, the motions that were voted upon by task force are listed before you. Several of them we do not feel were appropriate for us to respond to, however, there are three that I would like to discuss with you at this time. The first motion approved by the community was that the bidding process for the building and the Interim Assistance Program will occupy be open so that all property owners in the Culmer area will have an opportunity to present their properties as potential sources for this building and our recom- mendation is that we proceed in that vein, go out for bid on this phase. Mr. Plummer: Dena, please, my comments are not directed personally to you. You know to come here to this Commission and make such a statement, I read in the Miami Herald yesterday an advertisement to do that. Now why do you come here today and ask me to approve when yesterday I read it in the paper? Ms. Spillman: Perhaps Mr. Daughtrey can respond, I was not aware that it had been advertised. Mr. Plummer: Well, I hope somebody will respond. You know I've never had a problem in the past to ratify actions taken by the Manager or staff but I guess it's truth in packaging. Mr. Newell Daughtrey: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, on the 20th of this month in conjunction with the lease/management department after we went to the commun- ity and we were informed that we had to bid the item I went back to Lease Management who initially had negotiated the lease and they informed me that they had not ever bid it for the space. They sent me to the Purchasing Depart- ment, I explained to the Purchasing Department what Lease Management had asked me to ask them. They in turn required and requested that we write them the specifications telling them the exact amount of space we needed and all of the other particulars which we did. They were also told by me in a memo that we would need them to do it as expeditiously as possible to bring it back to the Commission and they advertised it. Rev. Gibson: W. Mayor and members of the Commission, I think what needs to be said is the staff got caught in a bind. Mr. Plummer: Yes, but I don't want to take the staff out of the bind and put this Commission in the bind. Now you know, Father, I have no problem with go- ing out to bid. Okay? I was the very one who two weeks ago raised the ques- tion about $43,000 for a one year lease. Okay? So I'm actually the one who actually brought this matter to the forefront and I'm not embarrassed for it. The point I'm bringing is that one of the recommendations here that we are re- ceiving is that we do such when it's already been done and we were not told that it had been done. That's my problem, Father. Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor, I would suggest that you ratify that action only be- cause it saved the City some of the anguish.... rt 35 MAR 2 2 On Mr. Plummer: Father, I agree, why don't we just ratify them all when get finished doing what they say here. Rev. Gibson: Ok. I know about that one, I'm not going to Mayor Ferre: Do you want to do this now or later or what? Ms. Spillman: I think they're separate items. Rev. Gibson: I'd like to move this one. ratify.... they The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Gibson who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 79-203 A MOTION RATIFYING THE CULMER COMMUNITY C. D. TASK FORCE'S RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING THE CULMER INTERIM ASSISTANCE PROGRAM IN THAT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR SPACE BE PUT OUT FOR BID AND THAT PROPOSALS BE RECEIVED, EVALUATED AND PRESENTED TO THE CITY COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gordon, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. Ms. Spillman: The second item, there was a second motion passed by the Cul- mer Community based on a recommendation by the Planning and Economic Develop- ment Committee. Members of whom you see listed on the first page and I'd like to point out to you just for your information that I don't believe that one of those people lives in Culmer and I think that reflects on the CP proc- ess that we had today. Going beyond that, the item that they voted upon, number two which is at the top of the second page, they requested that funds for New Washington Heights Economic Development Program be doubled and that the additional funding come from the Interim Assistance Program. Our recom- mendation to you on that remains the same as it did at our second public hear- ing, that the funding for New Washington Heights remain at the same level it is, that we evaluate the whole Economic Development process in Culmer and by June when their contract is up come back to you with a recommendation on how to handle this matter. Rev. Gibson: I would move, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: There is, all Mr. Plummer: tion? Mayor Ferre: Mr. Plummer: Mayor Ferre: Ms. Spillman: Mayor Ferre: Mrs. Gordon: Mayor Ferre: Do we need a motion on that? Is there a motion needed on that? right. Father Gibson moves, is there a second? Excuse me, what is he moving, what Dena said or the recommenda- The recommendation that she just rattled off. No, what she said and what is here is directly opposed. No. Number two at the bottom is our recommendation. Let the maker of the motion clarify his motion. What is you, I don't know what the recommendation is. Reverend Gibson, what is the intent of the motion? Rev. Gibson: The intent of the motion, my understanding is the staff wanted to evaluate or reevaluate that recommendation, isn't it? Ms. Spillman: Come back to you when their contract expires in June. Mayor Ferre: That's what I understood the thrust of your motion was. rt 36 MAR 2 2 tR79 Rev. Gibson: Mayor Ferre: Mr. Plumper: Mayor Ferre: Mrs. Gordon: none of these in Culmer? Right. All right, is there a second? Mr. Mayor, I have no problem seconding that motion. Is there further discussion? Call the roll. I just wanted to ask a question. Dena, in your statements that people lived in Culmer, can you answer whether they own property Ms. Spillman: Well, I think.... Mr. Hutchison is the trustee for the prop- erty occupied by New Washington Heights and I think you can call that owner- ship, I'd have to ask Mr. Knox about that. Mr. Wright is a property manager, I don't know whether he owns property or not. Mr. Johnson and Mr. Burton do not, they do not live there, they are employed at a local savings and loan institution who attend the meetings and.... Rev. Gibson: And they don't live there. Ms. Spillman: Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Plummer: Ms. Spillman: Mr. Plummer: Mr. Fosmoen: Mr. Plummer: No. They don't live or own property. Let me ask a question. Who picks this board? Mr. Hutchison picked this board. Is this an authority vested in Mr. Hutchinson? He's the chairperson. He has that right? Mr. Fosmoen: To appoint boards and to appoint sub -committees of the CD Task Force. The way the rules are written Commissioner, I think you could inter- pret that he has the authority. Ms. Spillman: That's the County rules. Mayor Ferre: A County rule. Ms. Spillman: Right, we don't have any rule. Mrs. Chapman is a property owner. Mayor Ferre: All right, further questions on the motion? All right, call the roll. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Gibson who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 79-204 A MOTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION THAT THE NEW WASHINGTON HEIGHTS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM CONTINUE TO RECEIVE THE CURRENT AMOUNT OF FUNDING UNTIL CONTRACT PERIOD ENDS IN JUNE, AT WHICH TIME AN ANALYSIS OF THE PROGRAM WILL BE UNDERTAKEN AND A DETERMINATION MADE BY THE CITY COM- MISSION AS TO HOW ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES SHOULD BE UNDERTAKEN IN CULMER. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson Vice -Mayor J. L. Plumper, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. Ms. Spillman: One more item that they brought up that we wanted to respond to was they wanted to allow under Interim Assistance commercial property owners to receive grants from the City and we're not prepared to make a recommendation rt 37 MAR 2 2 1979 to you on this at this time but the committee will meet again to discuss it and if we come up with a recommended program we'll bring it back to you for your approval. Mayor Ferre: Anything else? Ms. Spillman: There are other items that they requested, we do not feel that we had to respond to those, you may want to look at them and discuss them. Mayor Ferre: Does any member of the Commission want to discuss the remaining items 4, 5 and 6? If not then we will adjourn and we'll meet here at 2:00 and pick up where we left off. Thank you. Thereupon the City Commission recessed at 12:15 O'Clock P.M. and recon- vened at 2:20 O'Clock P.M. with Commissioners Plummer and Gordon absent. St 9. AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO APPLY FOR GRANT - JUVENILE RUNAWAY PROJECT. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Lacasa, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 79-205 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT A GRANT APPLICATION TO THE BUREAU OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE PLANNING AND ASSISTANCE, DIVISION OF STATE PLANNING, DEPARTMENT OF ADMIN- ISTRATION, STATE OF FLORIDA, FOR FUNDING OF A JUVENILE RUNAWAY PROJECT AND TO EXPLORE ALTERNATIVE WAYS OF COMPLI- MENTING THE PRIMARY MISSION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT MISSION WITH DIVERSIONARY AND PREVENTION SOCIAL SERVICE STRATEGIES; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT THE GRANT AND EXECUTE THE NECESSARY AGREEMENTS TO IMPLEMENT THE PROGRAM UPON RECEIPT OF THE GRANT. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gibson, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Rose Gordon * Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. *Although she was absent at the time of passage, Commissioner Gordon stated that she wanted to cast her affirmative vote on the preceding resolu- tion upon entering the meeting. rt 38 MAR 2 2 1979 10. AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO APPLY FOR GRANT TO PROVIDE SERVICES, REFERRALS AND SUPPORT TO NON -ADJUDICATED JUVENILE OFFENDERS. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gibson, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 79-206 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT A GRANT APPLICATION TO THE BUREAU OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE PLANNING AND ASSISTANCE, DIVISION OF STATE PLANNING, DEPARTMENT OF ADMIN- ISTRATION, STATE OF FLORIDA, FOR FUNDING OF A 3RD YEAR GRANT TO PROVIDE DIRECT SERVICES, REFERRALS AND SUPPORT TO NON - ADJUDICATED JUVENILE OFFENDERS COMING TO THE ATTENTION OF THE MIAMI POLICE DEPARTMENT; PROVIDING TOR AN APPROPRIATION OF$87,180 AS THE CITY'S CASH MATCHING FUND PROM THE SPECIAL PROGRAMS AND ACCOUNTS OF THE 1979-80 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET; AND FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT THE GRANT AND EXECUTE THE NECESSARY AGREEMENTS TO IMPLEMENT THE PROGRAM UPON RECEIPT OF THE GRANT. (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 Rose Gordon* Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. * Although Commissioner Gordon was absent on roll call, she stated that she wanted to cast her affirmative vote on the preceding resolution upon enterin the meetin•. • 11. AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO APPLY FOR GRANT TO PROVIDE VIDEO EQUIPMENT RECORDERS IN PRISONER PROCESSING. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Lacasa, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 79-207 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT A GRANT APPLICATION TO THE BUREAU OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE PLANNING, DEPART- MENT OF ADMINISTRATION, STATE OF FLORIDA,?OR FUNDING OF A 3RD YEAR GRANT TO PROVIDE FOR 3/4" UCA CARTRIDGE TYPE VIDEO EQUIP- MENT RECORDERS IN PRISONER PROCESSING IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE COST CURRENTLY INCURRED BY USING 1" REEL TO REEL EQUIPMENT, PROVIDING FOR AN APPROPRIATION OP $8,396 AS THE CITY'S CASH MARCHING FUND FROM THE SPECIAL PROGRAMS AND ACCOUNTS OF THE 1979-80 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET; AND FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT THE GRANT AND EXECUTE THE NECESSARY AGREE- MENTS TO IMPLEMENT THE PROGRAM UPON RECEIPT OF THE GRANT. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gibson, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Mr. Lacasa, Rev. Gibson, Mrs. Gordon* and Mayor Ferre. NOES: None. ABSENT: Mt. Plummer. 39 MAR 2 2 1979 rt *Although Commissioner Gordon was absent on roll call, she stated that She wanted to cast her affirmative vote on the preceding resolution upon enterin the meetin•. 4 • 12. EXTEND AGREEMENT - ALLIED REPRESENTATIVES TO MANAGE- MENT, INC. (ARM) TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL COMPUTER PROGRAMMING SERVICES. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gibson, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 79-208 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT EXTENDING AN AGREEMENT DATED AUGUST 23, 1978 BETWEEN THE CITY AND ALLIED REPRESENTATIVES TO MANAGE- MENT, INC. FOR FURNISHING, ON AN "AS -REQUIRED" BASIS ON - CALL PROGRAMMING -ANALYTICAL -CONVERSION SERVICES FOR THE CITY'S COMPUTER OPERATIONS; USING BUDGETED FUNDS OF THE VARIOUS CITY DEPARTMENTS RECEIVING SUCH SERVICES. (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 Rose Gordon* Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. *Although Commissioner Gordon was absent on roll call, she stated upon entering the meeting that she wanted to cast her affirmative vote on the precedin• resolution. 13. NAME PROPOSED CENTRAL MIAMI PARK - HENRY E. S. REEVES PARK. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gibson, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 79-209 A RESOLUTION NAMING THE PROPOSED CENTRAL MIAMI PARK, AT N.W. 10TH STREET AND 5TH AVENUE, THE "HENRY E. S. REEVES" PARK, IN RECOGNITION AND APPRECIATION OF MR. REEVE'S UNTIRING EFFORTS IN BEHALF OF THE CITY AND ITS CITIZENS. (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 Rose Gordon* Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson Mayor Maurice A. ?erre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Although Commissioner Gordon was absent on roll call, she stated upon entering the meeting that she wanted to cast her affirmative vote on the preceding resolution. rt 40 MAR 2 2 1979 14. BID ACCEPTANCE - ORANGE BOWL PAINTING AND MAINTENANCE- 1979. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gibson, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 79-210 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE BID OF BOWEN PAINTING IN THE PRO- POSED AMOUNT OF $83,300 FOR ORANGE BOWL - PAINTING AND MAIN- TENANCE - 1979; WITH FUNDS ALLOCATED FROM THE "ORANGE BOWL ENTERPRISE FUND" IN THE AMOUNT OF $83,300 TO COVER THE CON- TRACT COST; ALLOCATING FROM SAID FUND THE AMOUNT OF $9,163 TO COVER THE COST OF PROJECT EXPENSE; ALLOCATING FROM SAID FUND THE AMOUNT OF $1,666 TO COVER THE COST OF SUCH ITEMS AS ADVERTISING, TESTING LABORATORIES, AND POSTAGE; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH SAID FIRM. (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 Rose Gordon * Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. *Although Commissioner Gordon was absent on roll call, she stated upon entering the meeting that she wanted to cast her affirmative vote on the •recedin• resolution. 15. BID ACCEPTANCE- AUTOMOBILES, MOTORCYCLES AND GROUNDS MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gibson, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 79-211 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE BID OF NORTHSIDE MOTORS, INC. FOR FURNISHING FOUR AUTOMOBILES AT A COST OF $17,039.00; THE BID OF HARLEY DAVIDSON OF MIAMI, INC. FOR FURNISHING THIRTEEN MOTORCYCLES AT A COST OF $53,248.00: THE BID OF DE BRA TURF & EQUIPMENT CO. FOR FURNISHING SIX 3 WHEEL TRUCKSTERS AT A COST OF $14,970.00; FOR A TOTAL COST OF $85,257.00; ALLOCATING $53,248.00 FROM THE MOTOR POOL FUND, $23,489.50 FROM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUNDS, $4,259.75 FROM THE 1978-79 CAPITAL EQUIP- MENT FUND OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, AND $4,259.75 FROM THE 1978-79 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT FUND OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTERS AND COMMUNICATIONS; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER AND THE PURCHASING AGENT TO ISSUE PURCHASE ORDERS FOR THIS EQUIP- 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: Mr. Plummer, Rev. Gibson, Mr. Lacasa and Mrs. Gordon* and Mayor Ferre. NOES: None. rt 41 MAR .2 2 1970 16. AMEND RESOLUTION 78-374 APPROVING 400 SECTION 8 HOUSING UNITS AND APPROVE FINANCIAL PLANS FOR 325 SECTION 8 HOUSING UNITS. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gibson, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 79-212 A RESOLUTION AMENDING SECTIONS 1 AND 2 OF RESOLUTION NO. 78-374, ADOPTED MAY 31, 1978, WHICH APPROVED THE FINANCIAL PLANS FOR 400 SECTION 8 HOUSING UNITS LOCATED IN WYNWOOD, TOWNPARK, CULMER, JEDICAL CENTER, LITTLE HAVANA AND COCO- NUT GROVE BY APPROVING THE FINANCIAL PLANS FOR 325 SECTION 8 HOUSING UNITS LOCATED IN WYNWOOD, COCONUT GROVE, MEDICAL CENTER, LITTLE HAVANA AND TOWNPARK, SUBJECT TO THE CITY OF MIAMI HAVING INPUT AND PARTICIPATION AS TO USE OF FUNDS, DESIGNATION OF TRUSTEE, ETC.; SUCH APPROVAL BEING CONSISTENT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AGREEMENT FOR FINANCING HOUSING IN THE CITY OF MIAMI BY AND BETWEEN DADE COUNTY AND THE CITY OF MIAMI, DATED JULY 19, 1976. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: NOES: None. Commissioner Rose Gordon* Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre *Although Commissioner Gordon was absent on roll call, she stated upon entering the meeting that she wanted to cast her affirmative vote on the preceding resolutions. rt MAR 2 2 1979 42 The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 79-213 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE TO PAY TO ROBERT JACOBS AND VICKIE JACOBS, HIS WIFE, WITHOUT THE ADMISSION OF LIABILITY, THE SUM OF ONE -HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($150,000.00) IN FULL AND COMPLETE SETTLEMENT OF THEIR CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY OF MIAMI FOR PERSONAL INJURIES SUSTAINED BY ROBERT JACOBS UPON THE EXECUTION OF A RELEASE RELEASING THE CITY OF MIAMI FROM ALL CLAIMS AND DEMANDS (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: Mr. Plummer, Mr. Lacasa, Rev. Gibson. Mayor Ferre. (Mrs. Gordon) NOES: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Gordon . (requested to be shown voting yes.) ABSTAINING: None. 18. AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT: UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO TO CONTINUE MANDATED DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF EXAMINATIONS FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT Mayor Ferre: How about #12, the University of Chicago, to continue a mandated development? We really have no choice do we? Mr. Grassie: We really have no choice Mr. Mayor. This is a continuation of the agreement that we have entered into because of the Consent Decree. Mayor Ferre: Who's paying for this? Mr. Grassie: The City is. Mayor Ferre: Through what funds? Mr. Grassie: General obligation funds, --general budget. Mayor Ferre: How much do you estimate that will cost? Mr. Grassie: About fifty-five thousand dollars. Mr. Plummer: How much? Mr. Grassie: Fifty-five thousand. Mr. Plummer: How much extension of time? Mr. Grassie: One year. Now that's about thirty -thousand dollars less than it cost before. Mr. Plummer: They sure know when they've got you over a barrell, don't they? rn. 43 VAR 2 2 1979 Mayor Terre: Well, you know you could tell that to the Justice Department or to the Federal Judge,..I think his name is Eaton. Is there a motion on item #12? Mr. Plummer: Yes, we have no choice. Mayor Ferre: Moved by Commissioner Gibson, seconded by Commissioner Plummer. Further discussion on item 12? Call the roll. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gibson who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 79-214 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF SELECTION AND PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATIONS FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, WITH FUNDS THEREFOR APPROPRIATED AS PART OF THE BUDGET OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on f file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Rev. Gibson, Mr. Plummer, Mr. Lacasa, Mayor Ferre. NOES: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Gordon. (requested to be shown voting yes.) ABSTAINING: None. (Mrs. Gordon) 19. CONFIRHING RESOLUTION: REQUEST METRO NOT TO HOLD COMMUNITi DEVELOPMENT TARIJET AREA ELECTIONS. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gibson who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 79-215 A RESOLUTION ASKING METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS NOT TO HOLD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TARGET AREA ELECTIONS IN EIGHT TARGET AREAS PARTIALLY OR WHOLLY WITHIN THE CITY OF MIAMI, UNTIL THE CITY COM- MISSION MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS (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: Rev. Gibson, Mr. Plummer, Mr. Lacasa, Mayor Ferre. (Mrs. Gordon) NOES: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Gordon.(requested to be shown voting yes) ABSTAINING: None. rn. 44 MAR 2 2 1979 20. DISCUSSION: FUTURE LOCATION OF THE GOODYEAR BLIMP. cl Mr. Plummer: Mr.Mayor while we are waiting, let me bring up a subject very quickly. I read in the newspaper, --Mr. Manager, I am going to look to you for answers, I read in the newspaper the good news that says that the Blimp is coming back to Miami. I read with bad news that its on City property and the County is going to get $400,000. Can somebody inform me as to what is going on? Mr. Grassie: Yes, Commissioner. The City initiated negotiations with Goodyear to move the Blimp off Wastson Island as you know. The location that is pro- posed for the Blimp is in fact County -owned property, not City -owned property. In consequence the County has taken over those negotiations, however the City in turn is discussing with the County development of that same property on which the Goodyear Blimp would be located and we anticipate that those negotiations between the City and the County probably will be completed within the next two or three weeks. Now, at that time we would be prepared to bring to you a recommendation, and that would affect the whole question of leasing to Goodyear. Mayor Ferre: Well, let me ask you this question in reference to that. The County, as I recall Boyd Earp did the negotiations for the County. Didn't he do it unilaterally, or was it bilaterally done? Were we involved in the decision making process? Have we been kept apprised, informed? Mr. Grassie: No, not in terms of what they've been doing in negotiating,... Mayor Ferre: Do we have a copy of what they propose to do? Have we read it and analyzed it? Have we looked at it? Mr. Fosmoen: I saw some preliminary drafts Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: Well, don't you think we ought to pass a little resolution in a very polite way reminding the County that we had been hopeful that a better relationship would have been established and that we in reverse would have had the courtesy of dealing with them, and since we are involved and we are requesting that this property,...perhaps they might want to share this with us and let us know what the contract says before they finalize it. Mr. Grassie: I think your indication of intent in that regard would be helpful to us. I don't know that you want a resolution, but certainly that is the consensus. Mr. Plummer: Excuse me. I am missing something. Tell me again where the City plays in this now. Mayor Ferre: Nowhere right now. Mr. Plummer:Well why are they negotiating with the City? Mr. Grassie: They started out negotiating with the City,...of course their present agreement was with the City,..which was their Watson Island location, and they had been dealing with the City for 30 years. 21. OPEN SEALED BIDS: CITY WIDE SANITARY SEWER EXTENSIONS IMPROVEMENT-FLAGLER ST. SR-5458-C (CENTERLINE SEWER) Mayor Ferre: Would somebody move the opening of the ,bids? rn. 45 .VAR 2 2 1979 The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 79-216 A MOTION TO OPEN SEALED BIDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF CITY-WIDE SANITARY SEWER EXTENSIONS IMPROVEMENT FLAGLER STREET SR-5458-C Upon being seconded by Commissioner Lacasa , the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Plummer,Mr.Lacasa, Rev. Gibson, Mayor Ferre.(Mrs. Gordon) NOES: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Gordon (requested to be shown voting yes) ABSTAINING: None. Bids were received from: Giannetti Brothers, Joe Reinertson Equipment Co. and P.N.M. Corporation . 22. OPEN SEALED BIDS: S.W. 22 STREET HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PHASE III H-4418 The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Lacasa , who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 79-217 A MOTION TO OPEN SEALED BIDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF S.W. 22ND STREET HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PHASE III, H-4418 Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Lacasa, Rev. Gibson, Mr. Plummer, Mayor Ferre. (Mrs. Gordon) NOES: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Gordon.(requested to be shown voting yes) ABSTAINING: None. Bids were received from: Marks Bros. Not Inc., Williams Paving Co. Inc. P.N.M. Corp, Miri Construction Inc. , T 6 N Construction Co., Garcia Allen Construction Co.,Golden Eagle Engineering Constructors, Inc. 46 MAR 2 2 1971 NOTE: Mrs. Gordon entered the meeting and requested to be shown as voting yes on items. 8,9,10,11,12,15,16,17,19,20. No one appeared in connection with "Poison Prevention Week" Retirement plaques were given to William L. Noonan,Louis M. Sarsich Charles A. Hall and Hohnny T. Gems. Presentation of plaque to Mayor Maurice A. Ferre from Councilman John De Hart of Osharna, Ontario, Canada. Proclamation designating the week beginning Sunday April 8, 1979 as "La Semana de Juan Ponce de Leon". 24. AUTHORIZE TRANSFER -OF CERTAIN CERTIFICATES OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR TAXICABS. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummerwho moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 79-218 A RESOLUTION TRANSFERRING CERTAIN CERTIFICATES OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY ISSUED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 56 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gibson , the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. "1" 47 MAR 2 2 1979 (a) City representative sent to Tallahassee to protest Metro Com- 25. missioners' action pre-empting municipal regulation of the taxi- cab industry; and (b) Requesting and petitioning the Florida League of Cities to inter- cede for the City of Miami in the above matter. Mayor Ferre: I wonder if Clark Merrill is still here. All right, Sergeant, if you would, and I know there is a gentleman from the industry who would like to discuss this. As the Commission is aware, the Metropolitan Dade County Board in the last few days passed a Resolution which in effect attempts to take away from the City of Miami and other cities the jurisdiction with regards to our taxicab industry. Since Miami, as you know, is highly affected by tourism and we are a tourist City, I think we would be remiss in our duty if at least we did not comment upon this action because the matter is not finished yet. The reason that it is not finished is that Metropolitan Dade County has no authority to do what they have just done. Now, what they are hoping to do is to pass a legis- lation in Tallahassee which would, on a retroactive basis, permit them to take over the industry. At this time they do not have that authority and therefore what they have done in effect is put the cart before the horse. I think they have done that in the zeal of moving this matter forward quickly and hoping that nobody would object to it. I think this is a matter for discussion before this Commission. Mr. Manager? Mr. Grassie: I'd like to have Clark Merrill, Mr. Mayor and members of the City Commission, comment on this and give you a little background to make a recom- mendation with regard to the future action that we should take. Mr. Clark Merrill: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, on Tuesday, the County Commission passed an ordinance which is effective as of October 1st, 1979 which takes over the regulation of taxicabs, and makes it a county -wide regulation and prohibits the regulation of taxicabs by any municipality within the Dade County. The present State Statute 323052 states that the County Commission in order to do that must get a vote -an affirmative vote- of the Commission, the City commissions. in order to take over regulation . It specifically relates to Charter counties and I have a legal opinion from the City Attorney saying that that law is the supreme law which Dade County must follow. The county has made the implementation of this ordinance on October 1, 1979 in order that they may have time to pursue a State statute which would change that in the State Legislature. Senator Paul Steinberg has introduced a Bill -Senate Bill 442- in Tallahassee which would give the county the authority to take over this regulation. Mayor Ferre: Would that be for all counties in the State or just here? Mr. Merrill: All chartered counties within the other counties which are not chartered counties Mayor Ferre: I don't understand that, doesn't Metropolitan Dade County have the authority to State of Florida. Now, all are regulated by the P.S.C. -under the Home Rule Charter - do that locally? Mr. Merrill: The constitutional authority that is given to Dade County spe- cifically prohibits the passing of an ordinance that supersedes general State law. It is a general State law that requires that the county come before this Commission and ask for your permission to take over the regulation of City of Miami taxicabs. Mayor Ferre: So in effect what Metropolitan Dade County is doing is completely ignoring the law. Mr. Merrill: Yes, they are trying to change the law but they've ignored it... Mayor Ferre: But as of right now what they are doing is illegal. Mr. Merrill: If the ordinance were to be effective immediately or prior to the end of the Legislative Session, it would be illegal. However, they have post- poned the implementation until October 1, 1979 in order to give themselves some time to go before the Legislature and have this... Mayor Ferre: I see, so we can't have them arrested by the Sergeant here now. mh 48 MAR 2 21979 Mr. Merrill: No, not yet. Mr. Grassie: I wonder if we could have the Sergeant comment for just a moment and possibly give you an example of the kinds of problems that this is getting us into in the short run. Mayor Ferre: Sergeant Campbell. Sgt. Campbell: Well Mayor, I have a meeting at 4:30 P.M. with Paul Steinberg up in Miami Beach to discuss the State statute that he is proposing in the State Legislature. From what I've seen of the ordinance, it would be dated July 1, 1979 which, if passed, would be approximately two to three months prior to the county ordinance going into effect. I understand the cab industry does have lobbyists in Tallahassee that are lobbying against this ordinance now, the State statute they are trying to propose. Mr. Grassie: Now we are going to ask Clark Merrill to comment on the direction that possibly the City Commission wants to take on this, Mr.Mayor. Mayor Ferre: All right. Mr. Merrill: I'd first like to say that the City Commission has imposed several ordinances for the protection of the cab industry which are not included in the present ordinance and to continue those, the County Commission would have to in- clude those provisions that this Commission has adopted in favor of protecting the cab drivers and the industry. If this Commission chooses to oppose the Senate Bill we would need your approval by motion, if you would, to appear before the Senate Committee -it has not yet been assigned to a Committee- to explain to the Legislative Committee what is happening in Dade County and express your preference on that par- ticular Bill. Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor, as a member of the inter -governmental group, all of us were opposed, all of the City's representatives in that Agency were unalterably opposed and we sent word by formal action to the Commission, the Metro Commission, asking them not to do it, and certainly if they were to do it not to take a position until such time as a thorough investigation was made. You need to know that the county was warned by those of us who were present, that the county did not have that right and you need to know that the taxicab industry pointed out in a memorandum that they did not have that right. Despite all of that, they went on. You need to know that some of the same people who were here, if you remember the last Commission Meeting, I said isn't it strange how you all lie in the same bed when it is conve- nient. Some of the men who were here the last time in opposition, -do you remember that, Sgt?- and I said, in another instance,you all are bitterly opposed to each gir other. That was, you know, the drop..the shield business, I said isn't it ironic, and I would hope that this Commission will take the necessary action not only to write and talk but to send a body --b o d y-- a person, to address the Committee on behalf of the City. I don't know how much we, who live in the City, can afford to just let go, have those people take over, without any regard. And let me point out another serious thing that was pointed out, that if this should pass, what is going to happen is all of the taxicabs will eventually end up in downtown Miami. Now, I think that is a great danger and that we should not want that, and the out- lying areas will get absolutely no service and then you will really have some pro- blems if all of the taxis go down on Flagler and on Biscayne Boulevard. Isn't that the inference? Right! Mayor Ferre: All right, is there anything else on this subject? What's the will of this Commission? Rev. Gibson: I say that we take the necessary action in the form of sending a per- son to the Committee, there in Tallahassee, and testify expressing our opposition to such a take-over. Mayor Ferre: All right, there is a motion, is there a second?..A11 right, Com- missioner Lacasa seconds. Mt. Plummer what is the official position of the Florida League of Cities? Mr. Plummer: Mt. Mayor, this matter has never come before the Florida League, it has come before the Dade League of Cities in which they voiced total opposition and had their legal counsel, Mr. Jack Rice, appear at the Metro Commission to voice those objections. Mayor Ferre: Will the Florida League also pursue the matter? 49 MAR 2 21979 Mr. Plummer: The Florida League will, but unfortunately the Florida League does not meet again until mid -session before we meet again. Mayor Ferre: Mid -Legislative Session? Mr. Plummer: Yes, at the end of April. Mayor Ferre: And there is no vehicle in the Florida League for upholding the Board on an emergency basis? Mr. Plummer: I don't know that we've ever done it, I can't recall, but I will find out if there is the mechanics thereto. Mayor Ferre: It would seem to me that on a non -related but I think important matter that, shouldn't the Florida League meet at least one week or when the Legislative Session begins, because there are a lot of things that pertain to the League which usually come up, as a matter of procedure, shouldn't that be done? Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, we met last month and formulated the package for the Florida League of the legislative program and all matters that were presented were considered and that which was felt that was necessary and most important as items of priority were put into the package. Mayor Ferre: Well, this is a case in point, you see, this matter did not proceed as coming before the Legislature and now it will be before the Legislature and I think this is the kind of things that have come up, as you know, in the Legisla- tive procedure in the last week. Mr. Plummer: Well, Mr. Mayor, there is always a vehicle of every city petitioning the Florida League on behalf of their lobbyists to voice opposition or a position and that can be done as well as our own lobbying in Tallahassee. Rev. Gibson: May I ask this question: Mr. Plummer, how many counties are si- tuated as we are? Mr. Plummer: Father, I think there are two or three Home Rule.... Rev. Gibson: Well, that ought to tell the story. If there were more of us situated...there would have been an outcry long before now. Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we petition the Florida League of Cities to use whatever vehicle they have to address this issue forthrightly and get a reply. Mayor Ferre: All right, before I accept that as a motion, we have a vote on the first one, is that correct? Mr. Ongie: Yes, sir, we have not voted on the first one. Mayor Ferre: Well, then let's vote on the first one and then I'll accept that, go ahead. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Gibson , who moved its adoption. MOTION NO. 79-219 A MOTION DECLARING THE INTENT OF THE CITY COMMISSION TO SEND A REPRESENTATIVE TO THE APPROPRIATE COMMITTEE IN TALLAHASSEE TO PROTEST RECENT ACTION BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF METRO- POLITAN DADE COUNTY WHICH PREEMPTED MUNICIPAL CONTROL OF MATTERS RELATING TO THE OPERATION OF TAXICABS. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Lacasa, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson Vice Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. alh 50 MAR 2 21979 Mayor Ferre: Now, Father Gibson, does not need to repeat his motion, you have it on record. And he moves, is there a second? Mr. Lacasa: I will second. Mayor Ferre: Commissioner Lacasa seconds. Further discussion, call the roll. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Gibson, who moved its adoption. MOTION NO. 79-220 A MOTION TO PETITION THE FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES TO IMMEDIATELY USE WHATEVER VEHICLE MAY BE AT THEIR DISPOSAL TO INTERCEDE IN THE MATTER OF THE RECENT ACTION TAKEN BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY WHICH PREEMPTED MUNICIPAL CONTROL OF MATTERS RELATING TO THE OPERATION OF TAXICABS. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Lacasa, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson Vice Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. Mayor Ferre: Is there anything else to come up on this item? (INAUDIBLE COMMENT MADE OUTSIDE OF THE PUBLIC RECORD) Mayor Ferre: No, no, this is not addressed to Rick Sisser, it doesn't say who. It's up to the Administration. I would assume that you are going to be involved and that Sergeant Campbell is going to be involved. Mr. Merrill: But under our contract with Rick Sisser, he works for the City Commission, and if you gave specific direction... Mayor Ferre: All right, let the record reflect that this will obviously include our lobbyist,Rick Sisser, who works directly for the Commission. Okay? Any ques- tions on that? Yes, Sergeant. Sgt. Campbell: The bullet-proof ordinance that we have coming up in a couple of weeks. Did you want to go forward with that after what happened Tuesday, or did you want to...? Mayor Ferre: Well, what's the will of this Commission? Mr. Plummer: Well, Mr. Mayor, first of all, this is not a scheduled item on the agenda and I do feel that we should have the right to hear both sides, the pros and cons, who have the right to come here and speak their piece. It's even my understanding and I think re -enforced by what Mr. Merrill said that if we adopt it and disaster strikes and they take over, they've got to assume those obliga- tions that we have created. Sgt. Campbell: From what I understand about the ordinance, Commissioner, Chapter 56 would just not be in effect anymore and Chapter 31 of the county would be the new ordinance. Mr. Plummer: Well, I still feel we should proceed. Mayor Ferre: Well, unless I hear otherwise, the motion of the previous action of the Commission stands. Sgt. Campbell: Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: All right. Anything else on the taxicab item? Rev. Gibson: Doesn't the shield come back? Mayor Ferre: The shield matter comes back, I think, for a second reading as I recall. All right, thank you. 51 MAR 2 21979 26. ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK - MANOR SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT SR-5437-C. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gibson who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 79-221 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE COMPLETED WORK PERFORMED BY D.M.P. CORPORATION AT A TOTAL COST OF $606,701.94 FOR THE MANOR SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT SR-5437-C; AND AUTHORIZING A FINAL PAYMENT OF $67,744.95 (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer , the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. 27. EMERGENCY ORD: AMEND ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE INCREASE SPECIAL PROGRAMS AND ACCOUNTS TO. FUND DADE COUNTY SCHOOL PROGRAM AND DADE COUNTY AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM THROUGH MARCH 9, 1979 AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 1 AND 6 OF ORDINANCE NO. 8858, ADOPTED SEPTEMBER 28, 1978, THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS ORDINANCE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1979, AS AMENDED, BY INCREASING THE APPROPRIATION FOR SPECIAL PROGRAMS AND ACCOUNTS, SOCIAL SERVICE PROGRAMS IN AN AMOUNT OF $69,687; AND BY INCREASING ANTICIPATED REVENUES, SOURCES OTHER THAN AD VALOREM TAX, IN THE SAME AMOUNT; FOR THE PURPOSE OF FUNDING DADE COUNTY - COMMUNITY SCHOOLS AND DADE COUNTY - AFTER SCHOOLS: CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE Was introduced by Commissioner Plummer and seconded by Commissioner Gordon, for adoption as an emergency measure and dispensing with the requirement of reading same on two separate days which was agreed to by the following vote -AYES: Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. Whereupon the Commission on motion of Commissioner Plummer and seconded by Commissioner Gordon , adopted said ordinance by the following vote -AYES: Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED EMERGENCY ORDINANCE NO.8916. 52 'WAR 2 2 On The City Atty. read the ordinance and announced co.ies were available. 28. DISCUSSION OF ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY FOR LATIN RIVERFRONT PARK - REQUEST MEETING WITH DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD TO DISCUSS MATTERS OF MUTUAL CONCERN.• Mrs. Gordon: On the same subject, the additional funding for the 45 days is another related issue to this item. Will you tell us Mr. Grassie where we are on that? Mr. Grassie: The City Commission approved that in principle and as soon as we prepare the budget modification that will come back to you probably in your next agenda. Mr. Plummer: Well, now wait a minute. Let's put it all out on_top of the table Mr. Grassie. You want to tell us now, or you want to tell us later what beautiful things they did for us yesterday at the School Board ? Mr. Grassie: I,like you Commissioner only have the newspaper account to go by. Mr. Plummer: I'll wait until the full account comes forward, but I want all of the Commission well aware that as I understand it the School Board gave us Latin Riverfront Park for $1.00 a year, with a 30 day cancellation. Rev. Gibson: Let me ask this. What good does that do us? Mr. Plummer: You tell me. I can't stand their benevolence. Rev. Gibson: Are you telling me that we could make substantial investment in that property and in 30 days time they cancel us out? Is that what that means? Man, they must think we are crazy. Mr. Plummer: They know we are crazy because we keep pumping money into them and they just do it into us, and we keep pumping money into them. By the way, they also in their benevolence, didn't even take up the Highland Park matter. Didn't even consider that one. Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Grassie, you and I talked yesterday, and you told me that they told you the Highland Park deal was going to be delivered to the City at a reasonable amount, or low amount of something of those words that you used, I'm not sure, and that you never told me about the 30-day cancellation. You told me they were willing to give us and were giving us the property under the expressway near the Riverfront Park. I'm not quite sure why I didn't get all the facts. Mr. Grassie: Let's clarify it. When you say they told us, we are talking about the superintendent. Okay? Mrs. Gordon: You told me, that's all I know. Mr. Grassie: Well, and I told you of a discussion,... Mayor Ferre: Why don't you'answer her insinuation directly and tell her. that yesterday the Board did something which had nothing to do with the discussion you had with Dr. Johnny Jones. So obviously since you are not a fortune teller you couldn't tell her before it happened what happened,. since you didn't know it was going to happen. Mr. Plummer: I second the motion. Mrs. Gordon: You are going to let him tell me now. Come on Mr. Grassie, you can talk for yourself. You don't need anybody to talk for you. Mt. Grassie: I started out to say Commissioner,was that, my discussion with the superintendent did include his intention to recommend that the property for the Latin Riverfront Park be donated to the City. It is obvious that between his intention and what the Board has done, there is a difference, and there was no way, as the Mayor pointed out, for anybody to know that until the Board did it. Now, with regard to Highland Park, and any other property that the City might be interested in that the Board rn. 53 MAR 2 21979 has, again the superintendent has indicated his willingness to recommend that, and be disposed of to the City, at what he would consider to be a favorable price, but I don't think that they are talking about giving it to us. But they would, he indicated a willingness to recommend that property like Highland be sold to the City at a very reasonable price. And those are the things that I reported to you. Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor, I don't want us to forget that the School Board presently has a problem. They are over a barrel. The School Board agreed to rebuild the Booker Washington High School. They need same closing of streets. I just wonder how long and how much the people expect us who represent the people in the City of Miami, to give and take and get nothing in return. And I want Booker T. rebuilt. God knows I do. But I just feel, that man, there comes a time when somebody ought to understand that we are not a bunch of fools. We may look like it, but I hope they don't think I am. Mr.Plummer: Speak for yourself. Rev. Gibson: Well, I kr.ow I am not. It burns me up. Mrs. Gordon: You know, what I'd like to suggest to this Commission, Mr. Mayor could I ask your attention, --I'd like to see us sit down in a joint session with the School Board, the same way we sat down with the County Commission and discussed the People Mover issue, because I don't think that we are going to be able to overcome our differences of opinion so to speak until we sit in the same room and talk to each other around a table, in a sunshine environment. I am very much in favor of communication, --direct communication. I don't think there is anything better than doing exactly that. I would like us to arrange such a meeting and I would so move that we immediately try to bring about such a joint meeting. Mayor Ferre: But before you make your motion Rose, I'd like to remind you,.. Mrs. Gordon: Father seconded it already. Mayor Ferre:...would you let me finish? You passed that same motion last time. Mrs. Gordon: For a joint meeting? Mayor Ferre: Yes, yes. There's motion for joint meeting, it's on the books. You made it, Father seconded it and we all voted for it. Now would you like to have a copy of it? Mrs. Gordon: No, but I'd like to do it again. Mayor Ferre: We have motion and a second to repeat the same motion that we passed last time. Mrs. Gordon: Then we can send them copies of both, so they can see them. Mayor Ferre: Then we have two motions. A motion on a motion, on a motion. Call the roll on the motion on a motion. Mr.Ongie.: Mrs. Gordon? Mrs. Gordon: Yes. Mr. Ongie: Mr. Plummer? Mr. Plummer: Yes, yes, yes.. Mr. Ongie: Mr. Lacasa?' Mr. Lacasa: Before I vote I would like to say,... Mrs. Gordon:Yes, yes, yes, Mr. Lacasa:..that this is a very serious matter and a very serious business of this Commission, in the particular case of the Latin community, which 1 rn. N 54 MAR 2 21979 ista substantial proportion of the City of Miami. Quite frankly we feel in just one word discriminated against by the School Board of Dade County. And yesterday I had the opportunity to attend one more meeting of the School Board of Dade County where here again they completely ignored our pleas and absolutely voted against the best interest of the Latin community, not only in the City of Miami, but also in the County. So I would like, and I am voting yes on the motion, to really expedite this meeting with the School Board with the hope that we could come to a certain understanding because we do feel that we have a responsi- bility to our Latin community in the City and they are not being taken care of in an appropriate way by the Sbhool Board. I want that fully written. Mr. Plummer: Well let me also put on the record that, Mr. Lacasa I appreciate your comments, but the Latins were not the only ones that were affected by the action of yesterday. Mr. Lacasa; I am not talking Commissioner Plummer about specifically the action that you were talking about. That affects the whole City of Miami. Mr. Plummer: No, sir, I am talking about Ada Merritt in particular. You were not around when I was an alumni of Ada Merritt and would like to see it remain. And I would like to tell you that there was a lot of people in opposition, in particular now, it affects the Latin community but there's a lot of Anglos and other people that think that Ada Merritt should remain. So I don't think its just a sectionalism type of thing. Mayor Ferre: A11 right, were in the middle of a vote now, so would you vote on this? Be votes yes. A motion calling a joint meeting with the School Board was passed and adopted by a unanimous vote of the City Commission and formalized later in the meeting by Resolution No. 79-238. Mayor Ferre: All right, there was for the record a.letter that was sent to you by Mr. Grassie of March 16, to all members of the Commission, -- I've got a copy of it, and my understanding there was a previous motion that said exactly what we've said now, but I would then recommend that you transcribe this quickly and give it to the Manager tomorrow if possible, or if not, Monday morning, and have it hand delivered over to the Superin- tendent Johnny Jones, and to Phyllis Miller for their immediate pursual hopefully. 4) MAR 2 21979 29 (a) DEFEP. CONSIDERATION•VACATE & CLOSE ALLEY BOUNDED BY BRICKELL PLAe BRICKELL AVENUE & S. F. 8TH STREET -TENTATIVE PLAT i`1040 Y)y) REQUEST PLANNING DEPARTMENT STUDY EXTENSION S.E. 1ST AVENUE AT BRICKELL PLAZA TO 7TH STREET. Mayor Ferre: We back to item 123. Mr. Davis: If I may explain this Mr. Mayor, there were three applications made by Intercap Investments Inc. for this property at 800 Brickell. There were three applications made. One of them was the closure of the alley which runs north and south through that block providing return in con- junction with the plat which is before you. Also in that same application aeries was an application for variance for lot coverage, and an approval for bonus for floor area ratio, both of which was passed by the Zoning Board. The period of appeals has elapsed on both of those items so therefore the only thing that's before this Commission is the alley closure itself. Mayor Ferre: So technically the period for the appeals by the neighbors has elapsed. Mr. Davis: That's right. Mayor Ferre: So they are not techincally entitled to appeal the variances that were granted. Mr. Plummer: Is there anyone here to object? Mayor Ferre: Any objectors here? You are an objector? In other words you have no objections? Obviously you were not,...you did not appeal, so you were not an objector to the variances that were granted.You are an objector to the closing of the alley? Mrs. Gordon: In actuality, if the alley is not closed as requested, those variances would not be able to take effect anyway I believe. Mr. Davis: That's our observation. Mrs. Gordon: That's mine too. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Traurig, you represent the applicant? Mrs. Gordon: While you are setting up Bob let me ask a question. Did you deliver this material or have someone deliver this to us? Mr. Traurig: That material was delivered by the applicant. I didn't do it, but the applicant did. Mrs. Gordon: Is the applicant here? Okay. I simply wanted to state that my office received it this morning at 9:45. The other Commissioners and the Mayor were delivered copies yesterday. I simply want to tell you I have had no chance to look at anything you've delivered to me because of .the lateness of the time of delivery. Inaudible. Mayor Ferre: We have a rule around here that if a member of the Commission wishes to look at the property or has not seen all of the material, that he or she is entitled to postpone the matter for the next meeting, and that's why I ask. Mr. Robert B. Traurig: For the record my name is Robert E. Traurig. I an the attorney who represents Intercap Investments Inc. which is the applicant for the closure of this alley. As has been stated to you, this matter has already been considered by your Zoning Board which recommended approval of the application, and that vas after ,your Plat Committee had also reviewed it and after reports had been received from the Fire Department and the Police Department etc. What we seek to do is -to close a portion of the n/s alley that lies between S.E. 8th Street and S.E. lOth Street rn. 56 WAR 2 2 1979 end between Brickell Avenue and Brickell Place. ' Mrs. Gordon: You can take the mike off the stand if you want, Bob. Mr. Traurig: I apologize to the objectors whose views are blocked by the exhibit. I don't know where else I could put the exhibit. (A elide pre- sentation follows). Mr. Traurig stated initially there was a great amount of objection from property owners. The Allan Morris Company was very concerned that the relocation of the alley would do harm to traffic flow to and from their building, but as a result of meetings with members of the Company, they agreed to a slight modification in the initial plans, with some convenants on the part of the applicant regarding landscaping etc. so their building would be beautified and not impaired by the traffic flow. Mr. Traurig expressed the opinion that S.E. let Avenue should be extended to 7th Street. Mayor Perre: All right. Are the opponents here, and do they wish to address the Commission? Mr. Frost Walker: Ladies and gentlemen my name is Frost Walker I am an attorney with offices at 1 S.E. 3rd Avenue Miami Florida. I represent an objector, Banac Investment Corporation. We own the property to the south of the proposed development. Mayor Ferre: Would you point that property out? Mr. Walker opposed the building being on public property. He stated the applicants had threatened to build a 25-story, ugly building if the City does not close the alley in the interest of the public. He begged the Commission to not be pursuaded or threatened nor influenced by these threats because that building will never be built regardless of their threats, that a building such as this would not be feasible with 40 per- cent core -area on each floor. He also stated the traffic coming out of Sth Street was not as serious a problem as the applicant had stated. After a long discussion, he again requested the City Commission not to close a public street for private gain. Mayor Perre: Mr. Walker and Mr. Traurig, before we continue on this, I'd like to ask a question. Is there middle ground somewhere here? For example you don't care what happens above the public right-of-way. Suppose that alley was left the way it is and we would let them build over the public right-of-way. Would that be a problem for you, for your client? Mr. Walker: My immediate reaction is I don't know of any problem that that would create. No, sir. Mayor Ferre: Mt. Traurig, would that be a problem for your client? Inaudible. Mayor Ferre: See, I'm saying if we could leave the alley the way it is. Mrs. Gordon:You are talking about using the air rights? Mayor Ferre: Yes, just give them the air rights. We won't close down the alley,..just give them the air rights. And they can build over,...you'll have to cut the building 5 or 10 ft. or move it some way. You see, let me tell you Bob what my problem is, and I'd like for you in your rebuttal to address it. We had a similar case a little while ago called the James town Apartments. The difference between this and the Jamestown is the; Dr. Robertson owns both sides of the property, and the closing of is alley did not affect the property at either end of adjacent. 0n this case,... see you own both sides of the alley, but you've got properties that they claim...I don't know,..they are claiming that they being adjacent, need rn 57 MAR 2 2 1979 that alley. And that's what concerns me about all this. Mr. Traurig: I want to cover that on rebuttal, but I think they are wrong. Inaudible. - SPEAKING OFF PUBLIC RECORD Mayor Ferre: I don't want to get into discussion with you, because I really haven't come to a conclusion in my own mind on this, but I was asking you if there's a middle ground that everybody could agree on, and perhaps we might solve the problem. Mr. Traurig: I will be happy to have the architectes answer this Mr. Mayor but I want to make sure that everybody understands that the Carib property is this property. What they are saying is they want their drive-in facility should generate the traffic to go out this alley to the Trail, (inaudible) Mayor Ferre: You see the problem of it they are entitled to do that today. What you are asking us to do is to take that right away. Now I have no objections, if they have no objections, and if the traffic people have no objections, and the government, my problem is that the property owner,... he's affected. Mr. Traurig: We don't want to take it away. We want to merely relocate the alley and give that traffic substantially more options, to go north south and west from this location so they can then move in a number of different directions rather than all coming out here, the result of which is they have to go down to the corner of Brickell, maybe stack up to the point where they are going to create a substantial traffic jam at this location, and then either turn right and get into the Brickell Avenue flow, or have to get across Brickell, across the Trail to this north lane and then go here and then come this way. Mayor Ferre:I see. Mr. Traurig: In all of those events they are creating a worse traffic situation for the City. To let the traffic go to this location gives those options to the driver. Mayor Ferre: I see. Mr. Traurig: And that was the design consideration. And in Mr. Candela's design of the building,.. Mayor Ferre: Well now I asked you a question. Mr. Traurig: I want the architects to answer you. Mayor Ferre: I'd like to get an answer to that, because that might be the middle ground everybody is,.... Mrs. Gordon: You know what: the ideal situation,...let them have both. The air rights and open an alley to First and everybody could flow easily. Mayor Ferre: That's a perfect solution. Inaudible. Mayor Ferre: You'd better speak up. Mr. Alvarez: My name is Artemus Alvarez. I represent the firm of Ferindino, Grafton, Spillis, Candela.We have been commissioned by Intercap Investments to design this complex this complex or office at the corner of Brickell S.E. Sth Street.I will answer your questions regarding the possibility of right-of-way.If we were to retain the present rout of the alley, the present project would actually be divided as you may see. The direction of the alley will affect the base of the tower for the office building. It will affect the parking garage adjacent to it. Considerable interference by the traffic generated will result C.. rn. 58 MAR 2 2 1979 and the actual integration from the parcel would result in two separate parcels where the pedestrian movement and the circulation through the retail,the arcade, and atrium space which was really the objective to develop a very strong appealing people -space, would be seriously damaged because of the presence of the heavy traffic at the time of maintaining the circulation that now the alley gets. In our judgment as architects we feel that the strongest point of appeal of this project would be seriously damaged if this alley were to obtain its present route. It is not a question of having the same square footage. There's no question about it, we could rework the solution to contain the same square footage, but the quality of the urban space and the appeal that is could have as its presently proposed, would seriously be hurt. Rev. Gibson: Let me ask you sir, you own the property? Mr. Alvarez: No, sir we are only the architects. Rev. Gibson: No, I don't mean you. Your client owns the property? Mr. Alvarez: Yes. Rev. Gibson: For all intents and purposes, you are like the owner? You own the property? Mr. Alvarez: No, they do not. Mrs. Gordon: His client does. Mr. Traurig: Our client has contracts to buy those parcels of property. Rev. Gibson: Then you don't own the property. Let me ask you this. I don't know about the others,...let's assume that didn't own but you now own it. Okay. That means that you bought it with the full knowledge that that alley was there. Isn't that right? Mr. Traurig: Yes, sir. Rev. Gibson: Now, what I'm concerned about is, if I had the property,.. 4 if I'm next to you, adjacent to you, abut you, and I went out there at. noon, I know you can't believe it, ..to make sure I know what I was talking about,..if the people to the south of you are there and they own the property, and that's a bank, I want to ask you sir, if you were in their shoes, how would you react? No, not you counsel. How would you react? See, you are an architect paid to do a job. Okay. How would you react? • Mt. Traurig: I would be absolutely delighted to have that alley relocated. The reasons for it is, the traffic would be distributed. The alley is not used to any great extent at the present time. We have those figures and we'll be happy to give them to you. We don't think that the people • utilizing the drive-ins for the Carib National Bank will want to go out to the Trail, and they'll probably use the alley to get to loth Street rather than to the Trail and they'll impact loth Street. If I owned the bank, my objective would be, get as many cars out of those drive-in lines as fast as I could during peak hours. The way to do that would get those cars to the arterial street system. Its like the Orange Bowl clearing out. The reason that the traffic is so effectively moved out of the Orange Bowl parking lot is that that arterial system from 12th Avenue to 17th and from Flagler to 7th Street, permits traffic to move in a number of different directions simultaneous. That's what would be accomplished if the alley were turned to the west. My answer to you Rev. Gibson is I would really be delighted if I could get my traffic out to let Avenue instead of going to the Trail to mesh with all that oncoming traffic. Rev. Gibson: One other question, the Mayor referred to Dr. Robertson You know why I voted for Dr. Robertson rn. 59 MAR 2 2 1979 Mr.Traurig: Its a good project. Rev. Gibson: Not only because it was a good project but because it did not do to anybody else but...it did not interfere,..with anybody else as this would be interfering with his neighbors. For instance, he owns both sides. So when you close the alley, what happens is you put him back on to the bank property and all of the people who go through must either be his people or no people. You follow what I'm saying? That's my dilemma. Mr.Traurig: Well, we own on both sides too. Maybe I didn't make that clear. We own the property on both sides of the alley in the area in the area we want to have closed. And I think we have to explain that a little bit better. Rev. Gibson: Mr. Traurig, I understand what you are saying. All I am saying is the people who are to the south of you, and the people who are to the west of you, have some certain rights and when I do what you are asking me to do, not that I may not do it. I want you to answer this for me. When I do that, I then inhibit or damage their rights to the south of you, and I damage the people's right, not directly to your west hut Allan Morris property, catty -corner like. You understand what I mean? Right. So the alley comes up to their property and you will turn and the alley will then switch on over to Allan Morris. Isn't that right? Based on the drawing, isn't that right? Mr. Traurig: Perhaps I didn't understand you, and I'd like to explain it. This is our site.Two different parcels. This is the property,..the Brigham Building, and this is the property that was one time Citizens Federal and one time Kislak Associates. This is where their bank would go. This alley now exists from 8th Street to loth Street. We want to close it just for this distance. We are saying that the cars and their drive-in windows would come up in this direction. They will then be in the alley. The question is will they go this way in the alley or will they go this way? They do have the right for their vehicles to get to the public right-of-way and that alley is a dedicated alley, and that's why we are here to ask you to vacate the alley and relocate the alley. But the law does not require that alley to remain open if in your discretion you feel that the overall public welfare is served by the re- location of the alley as long as they are not denied the right to get to a public street. I think that your City Attorney will tell you that that is correct. So therefore if their vehicles come after this point, the question is should they go to the Trail, should the go to First Avenue or should they go to loth Street? They will still be able to go to 1Oth Street. We think its desirable from their standpoint. You asked me the question about how I would react if my client owned this property or I did. I think it is desirable to go to First Avenue and not have our traffic mesh with that traffic that will be coming down the Trail. We think also that the alternative that is suggested and that is to have air rights above 10 ft.-15 ft. would do great violence to a great project. As has been indicated to you by Mr. Alvarez, the Zoning Board has already approved all of the things that we requested, and the result would be, the if we are going to build this building with this garage, we could build, -- this is the building we would build. We could build two separate structures and keep the alley open. One structure would be this structure, the other would be this structure. But in doing that there right, we would have 7500 sq. foot floors after taking out the core area, which is not quite as desir- able as having a larger floor. But we can build 15 stories now by the plan we are proposing or 24 stories if we have to build the two separate structures. But what we would be sacrificing in building the tall building, is the kind of effect that we choose to accomplish, and that is to create the kind of ambience that you see to prevent a restaurant to be here in Brickell Avenue, and this location needs restaurants. We would not have the opportunity to do that if we covered the lot as we are authorized to do right now with that other structure. So by accomplishing this kind of a design solution, the Ferendino, Grafton firm has created something better for Brickell Avenue than would exist if we went the other way. We think that the City has the right to relocate that alley. We have done sub- stantial legal research that satisfies us that that right exists. We rn. 60 LIAR 2 2 1979 don't think we are depriving any private property owner of his private property rights.to get to a public right-of-way. And furthermore we are helping the safety conditions on the streets in that immediate vicinity. Rev. Gibson: Let me say this and I'll hush my mouth. I would be the first,..I want to admit to you that the graphics that I saw this morning, (Rose I wasn't much different then you, the delivered my yesterday and I didn't have time till this morning to see it), I want to concede. Its beautiful. I want to congratulate you. Most folk who come here don't come with it that thorough. My concern is, my only problem is, I would have felt so much better if you and the adjacent property owners, --like you did Allan Morris, had got together and you had come to us, I think then I would have eased my conscience as a public official knowing that the people who were affected were not opposing. You follow me? Mr. Traurig: We'd welcome the opportunity to sit down with them. Rev. Gibson: Well, I think you ought to do that. Mrs. Gordon: I have a question. Can I ask you this Mr. Traurig? This parcel of property that you have under contract, is that a rectangular piece of property? Mr. Traurig: Yes. It's not square. It's a true rectangle. Mrs.Gordon: It's a true rectangle. And when you take the portion off for the alley, there will be somewhat of a indention on the westerly portion of your rectangle, for the extent of the alley at any rate. Where you are turning the alley to the west, to the south of your property, one side of your property will be somewhat shorter than the other side. Is that correct? Mr. Traurig: That's correct. Mrs. Gordon: Okay. The question that in my mind might be another possible solution, maybe you'd like and maybe you won't, but have you thought that perhaps since you are going to be given the advantage if this is closed, to have one solid piece of property which does lend itself to design a whole lot better than a parcel that is divided, had you thought of running that alley straight through from Brickell to Brickell Place? Rev. Gibson: From east to west. Mrs. Gordon: Would you make a T out it? Mr. Traurig: What we've got here are some drive-in tellers that come through from Brickell Avenue, you come out at this point here. We already have a drive. It isn't a public driveway. It's a drive-in. Mrs. Gordon: What I'm asking though is because of the comments we heard relative to the enormous amount of parking that's going to come out on Brickell Place, and when the people mover is a reality, that will be a problem. If you dedicate it, okay, --a alley through, from Brickell to Brickell Place, some of the traffic would go one way and some would go another. Now I don't know if that's going to be practical for you to approach that or not. Mr. Traurig: I don't know what the client's reaction would be. I would like to ask our objectors if they are prepared to dedicate half of an alleyway going from east to west. Mr. Walker: We are not prepared to do any dedicating at this time. We are prepared to sit down at any time and discuss any possible resolution of the matter that didn't involve us giving up our access to 8th Street. Mrs. Gordon: Okay, I would like to move a deferment on this item for the applicant and the objectors to get together and explore whatever avenues may be available to satisfy both parties. rn. 61 VAR 2 2 1979 Rev. Gibson: What she was saying was that if you come off Brickell this way and put all your property together that way . Mrs. Gordon: You'd be giving up a little bit more. Mayor Ferre: Tell me, because I was,... Mrs. Gordon: Maurice, I suggested that a possible alternative might be a alley through from Brickell to Brickell Place, forming a 'T' and therefore releiving some of the problems on Brickell Place. So they are will to all sit down together and put their thoughts together and come up with something. I move deferment. Mayor Ferre: Does anybody have any problems with that? Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor my question is in relation to these people, so I'll hold. I can still ask my question. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Plummer: Mayor Ferre: problems? Do Mr. Traurig: Mayor Ferre: Mr. Plummer: Mrs. Gordon: What people? The Carib Bank. You are the Carib Bank, just to the south? I am going to call for a vote now. Mr. Traurig, you got any you have any problems with deferral? I would like it for Is there any reason Yes, because we are the briefest possible time. why this can't be brought up on April 12? not meeting on the 12th. We have to set a new date for a meeting Maurice. Mayor Ferre: Well at the next meeting. It might be before the 12th. If it is before the 12th,--we have to bring this to a quick conclusion. My guess,(if you will wait for a moment, as soon as we vote on this item), is that I am going to make another motion on something related, then I am going to see what the date is. My guess is that it will be before April 12. Now does anybody have any problem with that? I certainly will not vote for one month. Maybe everybody else will want to vote for a month and that's the will of the majority, but I think it is only fair for these people who have done an awful lot of work to give them an answer one way or the other quickly. Mr. Plummer: Mayor Ferre: Mrs. Gordon: Why don't the motion just state at the next regular meeting? At the next regular meeting yes. I'll include that in the motion. I didn't include anything. Rev. Gibson: I'll second that too. You all have to stay up night and day. Get your business together. Mayor Ferre: Further discussion. Call the roll. /' rn. 62 MAR 2 2 1979 The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Gordon , who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 79-223 A MOTION TO DEFER CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR VACATION AND CLOSURE OF AN ALLEY BOUNDED BY BRICKELL PLACE, BRICKELL AVENUE AND S.E. 8TH STREET, TENTATIVE PLAT .1040, "INTERCAP SUB", AND REQUESTING THAT THE APPLICANT AND THE OBJECTORS ARRANGE A MEETING TO RESOLVE THEIR DIFFERENCES AND RESCHEDUL- ING ACTION ON THIS MATTER UNTIL THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gibson , the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. Mayor Ferre: I would like for somebody to move, otherwise I'll move, that S.E. lst Avenue, the extension that you talked about, or somebody talked about,--Brickell Place,..the extension of Brickell Place over to 7th Street makes an awful lot of sense because the People -mover is going to be coming down that way anyway. So the People mover is going to have to take some of that land,..for the People mover. Follow me? Mrs. Gordon: Excuse me. But where are we going to get the money? I think we need to explore it. Mayor Ferre: I am not going to move it, obviously because we don't have the drawings or the engineering. All I would say is, to tell the Manager to start looking into that aalignment and come back with a recommendation one way or the other, after the staff and engineers and everybody looks at it, including obviously,.. Mrs. Gordon: The feasibility is what you are talking about. Rev. Gibson:I move it. It makes sense. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Gibson , who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 79-224 A MOTION INSTRUCTING THE CITY MANAGER TO STUDY POSSIBLE ALIGNMENT AND FEASIBILITY OF THE EXTENSION OF BRICKELL PLACE TO 7TH STREET AND TO REPORT HIS RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COMMISSION IN THE NEAR FUTURE. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Lacasa , the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. rn. 63 VAR 21 f979 30. CHANGE DATES OF APRIL 1979 CITY COMMISSION MEETINGS. After a discussion between the Mayor and Commissioners, a motion to change the meeting dates to April 19th at 9 A.M. and April 23 at 6 P.M. was passed and adopted by the unanimous vote of the Commission. (See Resolution No. 79-240 adopted later in the Meeting). 30.1 CONTINUED DISCUSSION: ITEM 23 - PROPOSED CLOSING ALLEY -TENTATIVE PLAT 1040 - INTERCAP SUB. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor I want to ask a question because it bothers me. I asked Mr. Grassie, it was my impression that all drive-in tellers (sir would you listen, or your client), --all drive-in tellers were subject to approval. Do I understand correctly that your proposal is putting forth the traffic from the drive-in tellers into the alley? Mr. Walker: The proposal that's before you now is not by our bank sir. Mr. Plummer: No, sir. Your proposal. Mr. Walker: The proposal that we have has not even been finalized to my knowledge. I don't know exactly what stage in the process that it is. Mayor Ferre: Its a very important question and I might add to what Mr. Plummer is saying, when we hear this next time, I want to see your drawings, and your garage and how it flows because we need to understand that too. Mr. Traurig: Exactly. And I think they should both be considered together and that's part of the problem with granting them any,.... Mayor Ferre: And I would like your traffic people here and you'd better have a traffic person who is an expert in traffic, because,.. Mrs. Gordon: They are going to be neighbors Maurice. They have to work together. Mr. Walker: I'd like to answer that question though, Mayor. The answer is that our drive-in tellers are exclusively on our property. Their drive-in tellers would use the alley. Mr. Plummer: Well all I'm saying Mr. Traurig is,... Mr. Walker:..we go through one street to the other. Mr. Plummer: You know alleys are not streets. There's a big difference, and I would be very, very leery of any proposal, even yours, if you empty into the alley. I'm saying, you know, alleys were designated as dedication for the purposes of utilitiea, and in no way were alleys ever created to carry regular residential traffic. I'm going to go on record now Mr. Manager that any proposal which shows emptying into an alley, I want before this Commission. Mr. Traurig: And I'd like it very clear that not one vehicle that will utilize our property in any way, will use this alley. Not one of our vehicles. 64 ra. 1IAR 2 2 ten d Mayor Ferre: One more thing. I think Mr. Manager I think it might be important to have the traffic people from Dade County here in case there's some questions to come up on this item. Mrs. Gordon: I was hoping by the time they come back they will have resolved all of their differences and we won't have to have any body but ourselves, if they haven't been bringing everybody. Mayor Ferre: All right. Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Mayor I want to clear the records, because you made a statement before that I could not recall ever us making a motion regarding a joint meeting of the School Board and the City of Miami Commission. And the item that took place on the March 8 was a suggestion by Mr. Grassie which was not acted upon. The Clerk has checked the record on this simply suggesting that you meet with the School Board and try to resolve issues. The motion we have now before us in which we acted upon is to bring into a joint meeting the joint bodies of both the City Com- mission and the School Board. And I do believe that we will, if we meet in the same kind of harmony we are expecting of these two people that just left, be able to resolve the differences I'm sure. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Clerk, take back one of my 'yeses' please. 31. PERSONAL APPEARANCE: VICTOR LOGAN -UNRESOLVED ISSUES CONCERNING THE MIAMI SUMMER BOAT SHOW. Mr. Victor Logan: Good afternoon Commissioners, since there are only 3 months to go before Miami Summer Boat Show and the administration has not been able to negotiate my contract satisfactorily and I must come before you again today. One of the issues which needs your attention is the usage of Pier 5 for our show. Previous to this we were led to believe there would be no problem getting the use of Pier 5, so we included it in our brochure and to this date have sold 28 of the 42 slips or two-thirds of Pier 5. It was our desire to work with the people on Pier 5 personally, and so I went out to Pier 5 to find out what their problems and desires were previous to this. We sent out invitations re- questing their presence at a meeting so we could try to get them all to- gether and unfortunately right after getting our invitation to this meeting, and just prior to the meeting a letter was sent out to all persons residing on Pier 5 by the administration, indicating that they could not sublet their space to us due to ordinance 50-57..A few days later while contacting the people on Pier 5 again personally, they indicated why they had not shown up because the letter, that even if they wanted to they couldn't rent us their slips. Several of the people on Pier 5 have indicated to me that they would not move their vessels from Pier 5 unless order to do so by the City Commission. I have checked the matter with the legal department with Mr. Knox and Mr. Knox indicates that there is no legal problem with the Commission granting us that right. This would be a major part of the Boat show and unless this area can be made available to us, we will lose approximately 70 very important boats who cannot exhibit on land. We would like you to pass a motion or ordinance whatever is necessary just as you have for Larry Perl's show. In addition we would appreciate your setting aside ordinance No. 50-57 so that if we wish to personally work with the people that have vessels on Pier 5, if they have special problems that need attending to, we'd like to help them with those problems, and we'd like your permission to work with them personally, in addition. Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Grassie will you speak to that issue?. Mr. Grassie: Yes, I think that we need to have at least two things clarified for the benefit of the City Commission, Commissioner Gordon. rn. 65 'BAR 2 2 11M9 Mr. Grassie: (Cont'd): One is the history of circumstances under which boats are moved off Pier 5 and I am going to ask Bob Jennings to give you that history, both of its length and its specific provisions. Then I think that we need to ask the City Attorney whether he agrees with what Mr. Logan is putting in his mouth in regard with regard to what the City Commission cay do. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Jennings? Mr. Bob Jennings: The first item I might mention is that there is a pro- vision, --there are two provisions in the dockage agreements of tenants at Dinner Key. The first provision says that they cannot sublease their slips to anyone without authority from the City Commission. That 's the provision that Mr. Logan referred to when he said that we advised the tenants that they would have to obtain that permission before they could deal with Mr. Logan on an individual basis. The second provision that is in all the dockage agreements, the tenants at Dinner Key, says that the tenants on Pier 5 must vacate their slips each year for the Miami Dinner Key Boat Show, or any other boat show which might succeed the Miami Dinner Key Boat Show, and that's all it says. In other words, they are required by virtue of the dockage agreement that they sign when they accept their slip at Dinner Key to vacate for that one boat show. There is no provision for them to vacate for any other purpose.I think those are the two points that Mr. Grassie mentioned. Rev. Gibson: I could understand that. I would hope that the people who have boats there realize we have a problem. All of us live with problems. I would hope we would, as good citizens want to cooperate. I would think that those persons who are willing to cooperate with Mr. Logan, we the Commission ought to be most happy to facilitate it, because we created a problem, and we ought to be happy to help,...have somebody relieve us of some of these,... Mr. Grassie: Yes, sir. Rev. Gibson:...all right,...and I would hope my good citizens over here on the docks would want to cooperate. We aren't trying to make anybody do anything, but you know if we would spend half of the time that we spend in trying to get along, rather than being irritable and obnoxious to things, we would find ourselves much further on the way. And I want to plead with you, I want to beg you to try, please. Don't let people say,..you heard somebody say here this morning,'Come to Miami, man, --they give you a hard time'. For God's sake don't let us get that reputation. I know you have rights to protect. It wasn't in their lease, --but for God's sake, we have a problem. And we want the man to operate his boat show, or whatever he is going to do, with a minimum problem if you will cooperate. And if I am in order, I'd like to make that motion that we ask our tenants to cooperate. We can't make you do anything, but I would like for you to cooperate. Here's a man who is trying to survive. Help him to survive. Mrs. Gordon: Are they opposed to it? Rev. Gibson: I don't know. He said that he could not do it until we asked the people, give them permission. The people cannot sublease. I think that we the Commission ought to make a motion asking the people to cooperate, not that we want to demand or make anybody do anything. But those who will cooperate, as he has indicated, give them the right to cooperate if they want to do it. Mr. Victor Logan: Father Gibson could I express that lightly please? The problem here is that, just as in this Commission Chamber, --let me give you an example with the Boat Show. Unfortunately what happens is that we could not hold the Boat Show using Pier 5 if one out of every 5 people, or 2 out of every 5 people, said you can use our slip, because the other people who would not be moving would have problems with people who are paying to see the Dinner Key Boat Show,who aren't on Pier 5.and are going to attempt to board their vessels because they think its part of the Boat Show, and there's going to be all kinds of fights and all kinds of problems. Now in referring to the dockage agreement, and I have it in front of me, so let me quote it to you rather than to try and 1 rn• 66 'Lao a 1670 remember as Mr. Jennings did. It specifically says 'owners of vessels assigned to Pier 5 at Dinner Key Marina agree to relinquish their berths on 60 days notice, if requested by the Director Public Facilities by direction of the City Commissioners in order that the City may accomodate the in -the -water display of the annual Miami Dinner Key Boat Show or any other boat show, --or any other boat show, --which may in the future succeed the Miami Dinner Key Boat Show. If you will check the dictionary which I have done, the word succeed has two meanings. One of the meanings is 'follow'. We follow the Dinner Key Boat Show by some months. The other meaning means 'replace'. Irrespective of that before this was put into their dockage agreements, it wasn't in there, and the Commission made some sort of a resolution that put it in their agreement. Now moreover than that, it says in paragraph 6B that legally their dockage agreement may be broken by a written notice of termination by the City. And this is the reason why its a very light document. The City,..the Commission, they are not bound by that document and if we lose,..if we are not able to use Pier 5, we are going to lose 40 percent of our exhibitors. And I have some other discussion to bring up to you in a few minutes which will show you the suffering that I have already done because of the conflict with the Marine Stadium Show won't allow me to succeed. And this is why I talked to Mr. Knox about it last week end. Mr. Grassie may I address your remarks sir? I don't try to put words in anybody's mouth. I am simply quoting a remark that made by me to Mr. Knox this week. And if Mr. Knox would like to answer it I welcome his answer. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Knox do you wish to comment? Mr. Knox: Yes, sir. I did speak to Mr. Logan sometime either early this week or last week concerning the question of defining the word successor as he indicated and he gave to me his dictionary definition of successor and I indicated to him that the consideration would probably be what the parties have in mind at the time that used that word in the existing agreement. And that I indicated to him was a question for deter- mintation by the City Commission of those persons who participated in the process which lead to insertion of that term into the agreement. Mr. Plummer:Mr. Logan why don't you go ahead and continue and bring out your other point sir. It might be pertinent to the first point. Mr. Logan: I realize the City has other problems and business to attend to but with the publicity about the two shows, and the mention by the Miami Herald that I don't contracts. Several potential exhibitors have requested I call them as soon as I have my contract signed. They're skeptical about putting money into a show which Mr. Perl's office is telling them I can't get contracts for. And the Miami Herald after the February 26th meeting misquoted me as saying I didn't think I would get contracts or that my show would materialize. May I ask you to please instruct this City's administration to finish my contracts and have them before by the next Commission Meeting? Mr. Plummer: You can ask that sir. Yes sir. Is there anything else? Mr. Logan: To attend to that particular question? Mr. Plummer: I'm asking if there's anything else? Mr. Logan: Yes, there's several things. Mr. Plummer: All right.Go ahead. You.have the right to ask and if a Commissioner wants to make a motion then it will be considered. Go ahead and finish your presentation. Mr. Logan: When my contracts were submitted to me on February 1st they also did not include motion M78-762 which provided that we would be granted a 60 day protection clause before and after our event against similar events in all City facilities. Instead we were give a letter of January 19th which Mr. Lieberman will pass out to you now, which indicated that it would serve to confirm that action of the City Commission. A letter similar to the one that you ordered my contracts be based on,..representation from the City. And based on that representation I have performed and made certain 67 111AR 2 2 ten representations to many exhibitors..After discussion with Mr. Knox at his question, he also indicated to me that the question that was posed by Attorney Dan Paul at the 26th meeting was relevant to cities getting involved with cities competing with other individuals. And I asked him whether he saw any legal reason why the clause could not be put in my contract for at 1980 through 1983, since you have another, as Mr. Grassie calls it permit, or standard contract that you have given to Mr. Perl. I would appreciate your instructing the Administration to put this in my contract and if there are any further questions on this I would appreciate the administration posing them to you now. Mayor Ferre: Vic, I'll tell you. We discussed this before here and as you may recall Dan Paul representing Perl. He gave us some kind of a letter about the Supreme Court and all that stuff. Ron have you had a chance to look at that? There was some discussion here, then I turned,..or somebody around here turned to Knox and asked Knox to make a legal determination as to the validity of the letter from Dan Paul. Who was that letter addressed to anyway? Was it to me? Mr. Knox: No, it was addressed to me. Mayor'Ferre:It was addressed to you? Okay. Well I think this is the pertinent point now to address that question. Mr. Knox: Pursuant to the City Commission's instructions we have engaged in research concerning the questions that were raised by Mr. Dan Paul in his letter. I have a copy that Mr. Lieberman can have if he'd like to. And the question involved whether or not the granting of a 60-day protect period on either side of an event to cover all facilities owned by the City would violate the Sherman Antitrust Act. And Mr. Dan Paul correctly pointed out that pursuant to a decision by the United States Supreme Court which was rendered in 1978, that cities are not immune from violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act. So that whatever antitrust legal principles apply to private corporations will also apply to municipalities. The question that was decided by the Supreme Court had to do with whether or not municipalities who operated their own public utilities could exclude private companies from operating similar facilities in the same city. And the court determined that if this would violate the antitrust laws then cities would be prohibited from doing so. The question of whether or not a protect period which extends to all the facilities owned by the city would be a question number one whether or not this creates a monopoly, number two whether or not the City intends to create or authorize the creation of such a monopoly. The questions have not been answered in any judicial cases regarding this kind of situation, and the Supreme Court has only issued broad guidance and courts have not had an opportunity to themselves interpret the answer to the question. After consultation with the members of the staff who have researched this question and after having engaged in our own research regarding this question, it would appear based on antitrust principles that there would be a legitimate argument that a protect period which extends to other facilities througnout the City could violate antitrust laws. And the antitrust laws provide that where that is the situation that the burden has been on the defendant or the burden would upon the City, or the City's lessees to prove to a court that no violation of the antitrust law exists. That represents our inter- pretation of the current staus of the law regarding the antitrust question. Mayor Ferre: Does that mean that we can or we cannot? Mr. Knox: It means that you can, subject to challenge,in the event of a challenge where there's a determination that there is a monopoly then the burden would be on the City, --burden on the City rather than burden on the plaintiff, to show that there is no monopoly. Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor, a monopoly means an exclusive, --an exclusive right. Isn't that right? Nobody else would do it but you. You are talking about time, whether you could it within 60 days,..we tell Mr. Perl he could have it 90 days later. That doesn't say that this man is only the person is to have that thing. I think that this whole business has been the most regurgitating experience I've seen for a long, long time. I think that this man ought to get his contract forthwith. 4nd I think that this rn. 68 'OAR 2 2 flT9 man ought to be given, --not this year because you can't isolate a contract that you have. But beginning those years that he asked for, give him the 60 days before and the 60 days after. Now you can't tell me you have already signed a contract on those things. You told me that you signed one, --you know the story. But you haven't signed one yet. And I think, man, the public is going to be saying some awful things about us. There's no reason why this man should be held up all this time. The City should make every effort to facilitate these actions. And it angers me. I make a motion that the Commission instruct the administration to proceed posthaste. Mr. Lacasa: What is your motion Father? Rev. Gibson: My motion is that they must proceed posthaste to give this man his contract. Mr. Lacasa: I will second that motion. I think that Mr. Logan has been subjected for whatever the reasons, to quite a heavy situation here by circumstances and I feel the man is entitled to have the same rights that other people such as in the case of Mr. Peri is having to use the City facilities, so I second that motion. Mrs. Gordon: And on this subject, I want to tell you I feel ashamed. Truthfully embarrassed by the kind of treatment that any citizen doing business with this City would have to bear the kind of treatment that Mr. Logan has had. I'm ashamed, that's all I can tell you. Embarrassed and ashamed. Mr. Plummer: Any other Commissioner have something to say? We are embar- rassed, ashamed, regurgitated. Mrs. Gordon: Absolutely. And its not funny J.L. It isn't even something for us to joke about. Mr. Plummer: Rose I its been said many, Mrs. Gordon: But I really. fully understand what you say. You know,..I think many times. Mr. Grassie you wish to comment? don't think the message has gotten home. It hasn't Mr. Grassie: Yes, I think so Commissioner. I agree with a number of the comments made but I think that this is one of the sorriest displays of poor business practice that I've seen a city engage in in a long time. With regard to concluding a contract, my impression from the staff is that the only reason that we don't have a contract with Mr. Logan is that he keeps making demands that are simply unreasonable and unaccept- able. I understand for example that we finally,(Mr. Jennings will have to tell me when), have gotten Mr. Logan to agree that in fact he would put up a five -thousand dollar deposit like everybody else rather than the thousand dollars he wants to put up. Well, if he agrees to reasonable standards that apply to other people who use City facilities, then it will be very easy to reach a contract with him. But maybe Mr. Jennings needs to comment on just what is holding up that contract process. Aside from the question of terms, the other two questions that have held up the contract, are basically legal questions. And those are detailed for you in a letter which one of my staff people sent to Mr. Logan and which you have copies of. One of the legal questions is the one that the City Attorney just finished discussing with you, and that is the very real question of whether or not legally we can enter that all -facilities provision which allows for a protect period in all City facilities. We really don't have a legal response to that question which has been asked. Now those are the very basic things which prevent the contract so far. I hope that we can get it resolved, because certainly it is in no one's interest to keep the thing dangling any longer than necessary. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Jennings would you like to comment on why the contract has not been signed? Mr. Jennings: I would just like to add to what Mr. Grassie said. There rn. MAR 2 2 1979 are the two legal questions. We've been waiting for responses on those two issues. Mayor Ferre: What two issues? There's only one issue. Mr. Jennings: Well there's the 60 day protect in all City facilities and the issue of Pier 5 contract. The other two issues,..its my under- standing that Asst. City Manager Cortina has been involved In some of these meetings while I was out of town. But my understanding that we have now resolved the two nonlegal issues which were the deposit and for the dates. Mayor Ferre: Have the dates been resolved? Mr. Jennings: Yes, the dates have been resolved. Mayor Ferre: Now Mr. Jennings is there any reason why this afternoon or first thing in the morning you cannot conclude this contract since the two nonlegal issues have now been settled and we have a legal inter- pretation from Mr. Knox, since we'd have the two legal interpretations on this. Now with regards,..I've listened before and today and what -have - you, and I'd like to just quickly state my opinion on this. I think that Mr. Logan is entitled to a quick resolution of the problem. Let me finish, --is it germane to what I'm about to nay? The only problem that I have at all in any of this is a question of the competitive/noncompetitive aspect of it. The Sherman Antitrust laws are very, very complicated. I spent unfortunately,(to my regret as it turned out) about two month in a court room defending some Sherman Antitrust cases which I just couldn't believe, so complicated. But the burden falls on you,through,..you are not violating antitrust laws. And if the Supreme Court has now ruled that cities are not exempt from that, I realize that the question of time, but when you have a facility, you have two things to sell, space and time. So time is a factor in antitrust litigation. Now my concern Mr. Grassie and Mr. Knox, not only in this particular contract but every other contract that the City of Miami might be violating. For example, and this may affect Mr. Dan Paul's other clients, in football stadiums, baseball stadiums, golf courses and other public facilities that the City of Miami has. So after this thing is all done, depending on what the final resolve is to this Commission, I would like to move that the City Attorney go through all existing contracts to see if there are any possible Sherman Antitrust violations in any of our contracts due to a noncompetitive nature. I think that a very important thing for us to resolve very quickly. And that includes Mr. Perl by the way. Mr. Logan: May I address something very important here? I'd like to point out that the reason that my contract has not been negotiated, Father Gibson I learned a couple of new expressions when I walked into this Commission. The Administratibn has been 'shucking and jiving' and you asked me if I understood what C.Y.A. meant.I am not sure its covered but I understand it. I want to tell you that I have requested Mr. Grassie get down off his podium and meet with Mr. Knox, myself, Mr. Cortina and Mr. Jennings and help together as a team to work out my problems. Mr. Grassie absolutely refuses to sit in my presence, to return my calls or to try to negotiate any kind of property contract. The reason why we have failed to negotiate this contract is because the administration continues to show total dis- respect for this Commission and refuses, refuses, I repeat, to put the thing in my contract which you have already given me. May I remind you that based on a letter that was sent to me by Mrs. Bush back in August and that letter was the basis under which you gave me my contract. And it said at that time that they were holding days for me. That's that letter of August 31st. The letter will advise you we are holding June 18, to 28, inclusive for your proposed show in the Coconut Grove Exhibition Center. You felt you had an obligation to honor that letter. Well, sir, the letter you have in front of you dated January 19, I submit to you that you have an obligation to honor that letter as well and that your administration has got to quit shucking and jiving. This public works issue that Mr. Paul has brought up simply says that if you stop a private individual from competing with you as a City, it may violate the antitrust laws. But under- stand you are leasing the facility to me,as Father Gibson said, you are only giving me not a total exclusivity, --there is no question about antitrust here. You are simply giving me a 60 day protection before and rn. 70 MAR 2 2 tun after my show. And you've given that to me already. And based on that I have moved, --I have made representations to exhibitors who are going to go with me because I am supposed to have the only summer boat show in Miami for the continuing years. Mayor Ferre: We have a motion by Father Gibson, seconded by Rose Gordon. Mrs. Gordon: May I hear the motion again? Rev. Gibson: My motion is that we instruct the administration to proceed posthaste in completing this contract for a maximum of 10 days, as per the agreement made by us and this man. That is, give him 60 days, not this year, but next year, 60 days before and 60 days after, that's it. Mayor Ferre: You are saying the 60 day on either side is for the full, all the years ? Rev. Gibson:Not this year because you have a contract. Mr. Logan: I am willing to relent this year. Rev. Gibson: You can't do it for this year because they signed the contract. Mayor Ferre: But for future years? Rev. Gibson: Right. Mayor Ferre: Let me ask Mr. Knox, before I cast my vote I must have on the record, your again, legal opinion as to whether or not I can vote that way legally.Or am I going against the Supreme Court ruling and the antitrust laws or what -have -you. Because I don't know. That's a very complicated area. Its a matter of law. You tell me what the law says and if I can vote, I am ready to vote. Mr. Knox: Currently, there is no prohibition which is contained in the United States Supreme Court cast against granting a protect period. How- ever I would indicate again that if you grant a protect period which extends to all facilities which are owned by the City then that would invite a challenge based on the Sherman Antitrust Act, and upon such challenge, again based up another federal circuit court case, the burden would be on the municipality to defend the monopoly. Mayor Ferre: Are there any further questions? Mr. Jennings: Mr. Mayor I have a question. I'd like to be clear as to what you desire me to do with regard to his contract as regards Pier S. That's not clear to me. I understand what's to be done with the other issues. Mayor Ferre:Well the Pier 5 issue is something that's not been addressed yet. And as far as I'm concerned I'm willing to go along with the motion. Mrs. Gordon: Do you want it included in there Father Gibson? Mayor Ferre: Well don't because I'm going to be voting against this motion on the legal aspects of it, but I want to vote with the other motion. Mr. Logan: Can we handle Pier 5 after this? Mayor Ferre: If you separate these motions Vic, I may be able to vote with some of them but I won't be able to vote with the others. Mr. Logan:Thank you. Mayor Ferre: You may not need my vote. The majority may go otherwise. As long as there is this legal question, I cannot vote if you make them rn. 71 'MAR 2 2 1!7! all-inclusive motions. However, you separate it into.parts then I'll be able to vote with some of them. Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor I could appreciate that. I have no objections to separating them. Absolutely none. Because I want to get the administration off the spot. I move you that we deal, we ask the tenants on Pier 5,.. Mayor Ferre: You are going to have to withdraw your previous motion. Are you going to withdraw it or keep it. Rev. Gibson: I'm going to keep the previous motion. Mayor 'Ferre: You want to call the question on the previous motion? Rev. Gibson: Yes. Mrs. Gordon: Now the motion we are voting on. Mr. Ongie: The previous motion, the City Commission would instruct the administration to proceed posthaste in the negotiations and to give Mr. Victor Logan a contract for his summer boat show within a period not to exceed 10 days as per the agreement made previously by the City Com- mission containing the 60 day proviso for not this year but the other years of the show. Mayor Ferre: We haven't voted on that. Mr. Ongie: No, sir, not yet. Mayor Ferre: This is what we are voting on now. We haven't given you years 80, 81, 82. Mr. Logan: Yes, sir, you have. You gave me all the years. If you'd like me to quote,... Mayor Ferre: No, no. I mean with this noncompetitive proviso on either side? Mr. Logan: Yes, sir. You gave me everything. And the Minutes were from December loth and I read to you Motion 78-762. Mayor Ferre: You don't have to read it. I recall that. As I recall the vote on it was 3 to 2 wasn't it? Mr. Logan: That's correct sir. Mayor Ferre: All right. Now we have the motion, and there's a second. Is there further discussion? Mr. Plummer: Under discussion you passed out a letter dated January 19, 1979. I ask you sir, did you execute that which obviously sent to you and returned as requested? Mr. Logan:No, sir and the reason for that was that there were other things that you had told the administration to put in that contract that were not there, so I was not in the position to execute the contract without these things being proper. Mr. Plummer: What were those provisions? Mr. Logan: The provisions were the deposit amount. At that time it was my under- standing the Commission was willing to go with a thousand dollars per year. That was incorrect. In addition to that, I have been given by this Commission a 60 day before and after all City protect. And I wanted it put in the contract rather than in an attached letter which I was told by my attorney was proper. In addition to that, if I could pull out my last letter on this, because I wrote Mr. Grassie a letter on that. That was January 19. Okay, on January 31 I wrote another letter and in that letter I pointed out that,... Mt. Plummer: May I have a copy? rn. 72 VAR 2 2 Vag Mr. Logan: Yes. Mr. Jennings: Commissioner Plummer I might also add if I may that it was also subsequent to our sending him that contract. And Mr. Logan decided that he wanted the Pier 5 issue mentioned in his contract. That is one of the factors that contributed to the delay because at that point we had to start looking into the legalities of ordering the people off Pier 5 for a second boat show etc, etc. and so this is what has delayed the contract. This is one of the factors. Mr. Logan: The letter that I sent you Mr. Plummer, a copy of from March 14 which should be in front of you, indicates the 5 issues that were problems. Mr. Plummer: Did you so indicate in writing to Mr. Jennings subsequent to March 14, which is approximately 8 weeks of delay. Mr. Logan: Yes, I did. Mr. Plummer: May I see a copy of it? Mr. Logan: What period are you speaking of Mr. Plummer? Mr. Plummer: Well obviously the period between January 19, the date of this letter and your's dated March 14. Mr. Logan: I want you to remember that in between there we had a meeting February 26 and in the interim there before anything else could be done, the City held off. There was also,..many of the people were out of town, as the last eight days of this period. Mr. Jennings had to go out of town for a week and Mr. Cortina had go out to the Super Bowl, the N.F.L. choosing and so forth, and schedules have made it impossible for them to answer my things. We had a meeting,.. Mr. Plummer: All I'm asking Mr. Logan, did you respond in writing to Mr. Jennings' letter of the 19th prior to March 14th , which is one week ago? It vas an 8 week time lapse in which you brought to his attention your objections. Mr. Logan: Okay, there's a February 13th letter. I have been attempting right along to get this settled, and its been excruciating . Mr. Plummer: I can imagine. Sometimes you get too much paper work. A11 right, sir, what you are stating here the dates for '80 through '83 were incorrect. Mr. Logan: That's correct sir. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Jennings do you agree? Mr. Jennings: Yes, sir I do, and they've been adjusted. Mr. Logan: Mr. Jennings, let me answer that. Mr. Plummer I have asked for that adjustment to be sent to me in writing, and Mr. Jennings and Mr. Cortina's office refused to do that. That's another reason why that hasn't been solved, because they refuse to put it in writing and send it to me. Mr. Plummer: The second item is the $1,O00. as opposed to the $5,000. Mr. Jennings? Mr. Jennings: Yes, I believe that's been resolved also. Mr. Plummer: All right sir. Mr. Logan: I just got a letter on that about a half an hour ago when I walked into the Chambers. That letter was nailed to me yesterday and the wording on it is incorrect. I think its something to the benefit rf1 MAR 2 2 1979 of the City that I tell them of their error. Mr. Plummer: So nowhere here is there any contention on your part about Pier 5. Today is the first day you have raised that problem. Mr. Logan: In front of the Commission, yes sir. Mr. Plummer: Did you raise it to the administration? Mr. Logan: Yes, sir, I had talked to Mr. Jennings about it and I had talked to Hec Gui about it. Mr. Jennings:..but until recently he had not requested it be a part of his contract. Mr. Plummer: Thank you very much. Would you repeat the motion on the floor floor please? Mr. 0ngie: That the City Commission instruct the City administration to proceed posthaste to complete negotiations with Victor Logan on the contract for his projected summer Boat Show and that his contract be concluded in a period not to exceed 10 days pursuant to previous agreements made by the City Commission with the 60 day proviso, front and back being included for the years 1980, 1981, 1982 and 1983. Mr. Plummer: Any further discussion? Mr. Lacasa: I have a question. Mr. Knox, what would be your legal advice if the 60 days proviso protection clause would be limited to only the Dinner Key facilities rather than to all the City facilities? Mr. Knox: We don't feel that under those circumstances there will be any danger of violating the Sherman Antitrust Act because there would be an opportunity for competition and that's the basis upon which the Act was originally adopted. Mayor Ferre: You mean we went to a bid process? Mr. Lacasa: No, no. If it is limited to 60 days, --protection clause is limited to Dinner Key facilities only rather than to the whole facilities of the City of Miami, then his answer is that he doesn't feel that that within the provision of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Mr. Lieberman: The problem I have with that interpretation on the antitrust is we are dealing in a situation here where if Mr. Logan has the 60 day protection before and after within the City of Miami, I don't belive there is any monopoly problem since you've got other facilities. You have private facilities, you have municipal facilities, --in Miami Beach, North Miami, Ft. Lauderdale, County facilities, so there's no monopoly in that respect. Secondly the protection clause goes for 120 day period. It doesn't include the City of Miami for the whole year. I would say clearly there's no monopoly problem, if the original resolution giving Mr. Logan 60 day protection before and after for the entire City , passes. The problem if you don't is you get the situation we have this year where Mr. Logan's got a summer boat show at Dinner Key and two weeks later you've got a boat show right down the street, and the same exhibitors have to decide which show to advertise at. Neither show is going to be a complete boat show. I think that's detrimental to the City to have two half boat shows instead of one solid boat show. Mr. Lacasa: George that's a well taken point. What would be your reaction to this point. Mr. Knox: The difficulty is that there's no way really to define the scope of the market and I would maintain that if there is a prohibition against individuals holding boat shows for periods which include 120 days which is a substantial period of the year from which there will be no competition, that the burden upon a challenge, --that the burden would be upon the City to show that there's no Antitrust violation because in our opinion that rn. 74 MAN 2 2 1979 Mayor Ferre: Does Perl have any protective clause in his regular fall boat show? Is there 60 day protection on either side? Mr. Jennings: Before and after his show and only at Dinner Key Auditorium. Mayor Ferre: Yes, but I want to tell you something. Now I think that we ought to look into all these things and in my opinion remove them all, including Perl. I'don't think that we should take any kind of a chance on Antitrust. Rev. Gibson: Let me make this observation, the Florida Power & Light Company has a monopoly. Southern Bell has a monopoly. Logan in the same sense will not have a monopoly. I'm not an attorney, but I'm willing to bet, --I'm willing to bet, and I'm not trying to be a lawyer. I'm willing to bet, the very fact that Perl can go on Miami Beach, --the very fact that Perl could go in Hialeah or some other place and have his boat show, shows that we do not have a corner on the market. And you know, and all this business,...I call for the motion. Mr. Grassie: Discussion for clarification, Mr. Chairman,.. Mayor Ferre: Go ahead. Mr. Grassie: This City Commission does not have another meeting before the 10 day period mentioned in the motion is going to be up. In consequence to abide by this timetable means that we will have to take some action before you have a chance to review anything that is put together by way of agreement. We are talking about a five-year agreement which under normal circumstances could not be executed unless it comes back to you. 75 SIAR 2 2 1979 Mayor Ferre: Well, I think the way to do that is to send a copy of the agree- ment to the members of the Commission and give us two days to look at it before you sign it. Mr. Grassie: The point that I want to make is that the City Attorney has already told you that with the provision that you are talking about which is a protecting of all City facilities, he is advising you that the burden is on the City and that it is very likely that we have a violation of anti- trust. Mayor Ferre: You don't have any problems with me, I'm not voting with it. Mr. Grassie: Now, the consequence of that opinion, the Administration will not be able to recommend an agreement that includes that provision. Within ten days we will prepare -if your motion is adopted- within 10 days we will prepare an agreement which includes that. But I want you all to be clear one, that we will not be recommending it, that we will present it only based on your motion.... Mayor Ferre: You'll do what the majority of this Commission asks you to do, that's all. Mr. Grassie: ....and further, I simply want you to be clear that I simply will not have an opportunity to get back to you before the 10 days are up. Mayor Ferre: All right, further discussion...he said that he will sign it as I understand it, provide --I would imagine you would send it to members of the Commission and set a time date and then sign it. Mrs. Gordon: No, he said he couldn't, on account of the legal opinion. Mr. Grassie: That's not what the motion says, Mayor, but certainly, we'll be happy to do that. Mr. Logan: Mr. Mayor, did the motion say that the Administration was to do their job? I'm not worried at all about this Commission doing their job. And if this Commission, you know, wants to take a couple of more days to do their jobs to redevelop it and authorize it, I'll live with that. WHEREUPON the vote was called on the above stated Motion, which motion failed to be pass by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson Commissioner Rose Gordon NOES: Commissioner Armando Lacasa* Vice Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.* Mayor Maurice A. Ferre ON ROLL CALL: Mr. Plummer: I've got to be consistent. I'm in favor of Mr. Logan having his boat show, I'm opposed to the 60-day up front and after, and I have been opposed to it and I'm opposed to it for everyone. I think it restricts the possibility of potential revenue to this City and it ties the Facilities Di- rector from leasing those facilities and I think the public has the right if dates are not secured, so I have to vote against the motion. Mr. Lacasa: I will have to vote against the motion, and the reason is the 60-day protection clause on all the City facilities. For me this.is a very difficult situation because I can sympathize with your position. I am ready to make another motion as soon as this one is over. In all conscience, I cannot vote against my belief at this point that the City could be jeopardized twice by the 60-day protection clause. One from the legal standpoint of view in the question of the anti-trust law possibility; second, on the matter of the economic aspect that I will have reservations about tying up the possi- bilities of the City to rent all the waterfront facilities tor 120 days, which is one third of the Year. So consequently, I will have to vote no on the motion. 76 /AR 2 2 1979 Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor may I now... Mayor Ferre: All right, Father. Rev. Gibson: I'm going to make this statement not in rebuttal to anybody but I want to make sure the public hears it. We haven't been renting these faci- lities, nobody has been overly anxious to rent so I don't understand. How- ever, I make a motion that the City ATtorney be instructed to bring back an answer and tell me whether or not there is a monopoly on the use of the Orange Bowl by the Dolphins. Mayor Ferre: Would you expand that motion, Father, to include all contracts including the Baseball Stadium, all the facilities of the City of Miami where there is a contractual arrangement.? Rev. Gibson: Right, I'll make it. That's my motion, that the City Attorney report back to us within a reasonable period of.time to tell us whether or not we are operating a monopolistic outfit when we leased to these other folk and no let nobody else come in. Mayor Ferre: All right, there is a motion, is there a:aecond? The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Gibson, who moved its adoption. MOTION NO. 79-226 A MOTION INSTRUCTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO EXAMINE ALL CURRENTLY EXISTING CITY CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OF CITY -OWNED FACILITIES TO DETERMINE IF ANY MONOPOLISTIC SITUATIONS EXIST IN SUCH CONTRACTS. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the motion was passed and 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: None. Mr. Logan: Now, Mr. Lacasa, before you make that motion; may I pose one question? Mr. Plummer asked me to go all the way through my presentation and unfortunately I wasn't through with the presentation but I wanted to show respect for your questions and not interrupt you. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Logan, if in fact that was the case, it was the under- standing of the Chair that you had concluded and if we proceeded with,. that assumption then I'm sorry. Mr. Logan: I didn't want to interrupt you, sir, okay? Let me continue by saying this, I have two very important points. The literature that I just passed out to you, Commissioners, is a photostatic copy of Larry Pearl's Miami Dinner Rey Boat Show brochure. Mr. Pearl represented to Mr. Jennings and to this Commission, if you will read your Minutes, that he was interested in doing a clearance sale, not a Boat Show, and it wouldn't be any competi- tion to Mr. Logan. I must tell you that since this Commission has decided to go ahead -or since the Administration and Mr. Jennings decided to go ahead - and issue to him that "permit", as Mr. Grassie called it, he is now doing a full blast competing Boat Show, and there is no way that two full blast com- peting Boat Shows can compete with each other, and as a result there are many exhibitors that would be in my Show who I cannot have. Now, I hate to open up an old cancof worms but on February 26 when Father Gibson said to me he did not want to attend to anything except to Mr. Grassie and there were some questions that were unanswered. I need to bring these things to your atten- tion because they are very, very important. What we have here is a situation where..it is a legal question which was addressed to Mr. Knox by Mrs. Gordon and not answered clearly. You may recall Mr. Grassie saying under oath that he had never seen a "standard contract" before for the City of Miami. Be further stated, under oath, that he was under the impression that he authorized Mr. Jennings to reserve the Marine Stadium for a clearance sale, he thought he was authorizing a permit, not a contract, and further thought that the 77 MAR 2 2 1979 permit was revocable by the Commission. He pointed out that the City Charter says: "No contract is legal unless signed by the City Manager, unless he delegates the responsibility which presumably" -it is a very deep word- "which presumably ratifies them." The question was answered clearly when Mr. Grassie said he had not delegated the responsibility to enter into a contract. As Mr. Jennings told in the past, he felt it was Mr. Grassie's job to tell you certain things and that's why he didn't tell you there was a:contract entered into on the 12th of December. He felt it was Mr. Grassie's job. Mr. Knox indicates to me in conversation over the last two weeks, since that meeting, that he felt it was -at the last meeting- Mr. Grassie's job to answer the ques- tion Mrs. Gordon posed to Mr. Knox. And unfortunately, he wouldn't tell you or I that he felt it was not his job to answer that question and more time has passed. Now, he said it was his job to protect the City against embarrassment. It is our contention that you don't want to be protected against embarrassment if it keeps you from knowing the facts and the proper legal answer you were attempting to strive for. The fact is that the most damaging statement, but honest answer by Mr. Grassie, was that he had never before seen a standard contract used by the City so in effect every standard contract ever entered into since he has been in office by Mr. Jennings, or any subordinate have been illegal, including Mr. Perl's standard contract. The point now is that Mr. Grassie is aware of the problems caused and fully understands that he probably should have asked this Commmission what they meant when the Minutes of November loth indicated the 60-day before and after protect, and that you were very displeased on December 14 that didn't make the Perl permit as he called it knowledgeable to you. Would he continue to show total disregard for your feelings, the Commission by ratifying that standard contract? Further if Mr. Perl in fact had signed the missing application on the 12th of December as supposedly stated, why did Mr. Perl make the Commission aware of that when he spoke to you with me on the 14th of December? Didn't he feel his rights needed protecting if he thought he had entered into a contract? Its our contention that no such instrument was entered into on the 12th or signed prior to the Commission's decision on the 14th. In fact you may recall when you cross examined Mr. Grassie under oath, and Mr. Jennings, --Mr. Jennings said,.. Mrs. Gordon: Why don't you wait until he's listening to you. Mr. Logan: Mr. Grassie,--I'm sorry, I'm addressing a question to you sir. Rev. Gibson: Just wait man. Mr. Logan: That's the kind of cooperation I've gotten from Mr. Grassie all along. Mayor Ferre: You know that's not fair because I came over here to ask him something. That has nothing to do with Mr. Grassie. You blame me. Okay? Mr. Grassie: But it is typical of Mr. Logan's attitude. Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor it would appear to me,...I'm going to say this. I would think respect is due a dog, and you are not a dog. Mayor Ferre: Well I would like to point out respectfully to this Commission that I and others in this Commission are continually on the phone getting up walking around and talking to different people, so I don't think anyone can cast a stone in this glass box. Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor you know I don't know why you have to take exception and be,..you know. Look, the man called Mr. Grassie,.. Mayor Ferre: In the middle of a conversation. Rev. Gibson: You know, this is this man's future. I don't understand you all. You all treat people's future lightly. I'm not going to deal with that. I hope the day will come when all of us, --as far as I'm concerned you can get rid of this telephone, --I wish the day will come when all of us will come here on time, take care of the business and get out of here. All right. Mayor Ferre: I'll second that motion to remove the phones anytime you want to make it. II IIIIIIMNIIM= Rev. Gibson: I make the motion that they be removed forthwith. rn. 78 in 2 2 197$ ._s 1 32. INSTRUCT CITY MANAGER TO REMOVE CITY COMMISSION TELEPHONES FROM CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS. Mayor Ferre: I'll second the motion. Mr. Plummer: The item is out of order. I invoke the 5-day rule. Father let me answer that very quickly. I'm going to tell you I am damn seldom on that telephone, and I will not relinquish that possibilty, and my phone is not being answered, to have my vital communication with my family and my business. I will not vote for such a motion. I have not been on that phone but one time today to ask my secretary to bring me a piece of paper, so I would not have to leave this desk. If you take it out, by the majority, I abide, but I'll pay for it to put in here that one time to keep me in touch with my family and my office. I'm sorry. There's a motion on the floor and its seconded. Is there any discussion? Mrs. Gordon: Did you invoke the 5-day rule? Mr. Plummer: Rose I'm not going to do that to you or Father. I was kidding, but I'm just making my thoughts known the way I feel. Now there's a motion on the floor and a fmcond. Let's go from there. Any further discussion? Hearing none, call the roll. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Gibson , who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 79-227 A MOTION INSTRUCTING THE CITY MANAGER TO REMOVE ALL TELEPHONES USED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION FROM THE CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS Upon being seconded by Mayor Ferre , the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Rev. Gibson, Mrs. Gordon, Mayor Ferre. NOES: Mr. Lacasa, Mr.Plummer. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: None. Mr. Plummer: I vote no for the reasons stated. Mr. Grassie, you'll order the phones removed, you will have one put back in here at my expense sir. And when we remove the phones, that's all of the phones, so nobody can be disturbed, nor be in touch with their family at 2 o'clock in the morning when we sit here trying to conduct the business of the public. Mrs. Gordon: We can still use our phones out there. Mr. Plummer: Okay, Rose then you know other people have to understand that when I'm going to do that, I've got to get up and leave this room and go out there and take the time away hoping that I'll know when my family calls. Mr. Grassie, you will have this phone reinstalled at my cost. 33. (CONTINUED DISCUSSION) VICTOR LOGAN-UNRESOLVED ISSUES CONCERNING THE MIAMI SUMMER BOAT SHOW. Mr. Lacasa: Can we go back to the Logan situation here? Mr. Logan: I'm just about finished Mr. Lacasa, two or three more sentences. You may recall,(and this is very important), that,..Mr. Lacasa you weren't here I don't think but you may recall that the day,(you were there),..on the 26th when Mr. Grassie was questioning Mr. Jennings and Mks. Bush, you may recall that Mr. Jennings absoultely could not remember when he signed Mr. Perl's application, which vas only MAR 2 2 1979 a couple of months ago.Mrs. Gordon when you asked that the witness attesting signature be questioned, that individual was called in and questioned by Mr. Ongie and she verified that it was her signature but she absolutely couldn't remember when she signed it. It seems to me that its the job of Mr. Jennings or the administration to prove to you beyond a shadow of doubt that that permit or contract or what- ever you want to call it was in fact signed before your December 14th Commission Meeting when you gave me that 60 day before and after pro- tection. And that has not been established by this administration. A11 I'm saying to you is that were you in a clear conscience giving Mr. Perl permission to do a competing boat show three weeks after me , it would have been one thing, which you didn't have any word in. But they were giving him permission to do a 3-day flea market and in fact what he's turned around and done which is in front of you, is he's doing a full-fledged competing boat show. And that's the only reason why I need the 60-day protection all -city. Mr. Lieberman: Commissioner Lacasa you said before that you are casting your vote against because you felt the 120 days was too long a period of time. We are not asking for an unreasonable period of time. We are asking for protection. If 120 is too long, I would ask for 90. We are looking for a period of time that's not unreasonable but will protect Mr. Logan from somebody going right down the street and putting up another boat show. Mr. Lacasa: Listen I am ready to make a motion but I want to share this now with you. I'm with the members of the Commission. The question here from my standpoint of view is not only Mr. Logan but the interest of the City of Miami. It is in the best interest of the City of Miami that we have successful shows. I am not for having two shows at the same time or within a week or within a 15 day period, so both shows results in a failure, because,...and this goes beyond Logan's interest or Perl's interest. This is the interest of the City of Miami. It is in the best interest of the City of Miami that Mr. Perl's shows are successful and that Mr. Logan's shows are successful and that if any other one comes out with a show, that deal's also successful. My problem is very simple, that I don't feel that the way to do it should be by giving anyone whether Logan or Perl, or anyone, a protection clause which could result in disadvantage to the City from both legal and economic standpoint of view, as I stated before. There is an alternative though, and the alternative is the reason why the City Commission exists and where we are supposed to approve the contracts that come before the City Commission. Now, when we have this situation, the City Commission should evaluate on every contract situation that is presented, the feasibility of that contract. And from my standpoint of view, a major consideration should be that in a case like an application for a contract for a show, if that show that is now being applied for, competes with a previously scheduled show, to be a detriment of that show, and therefore could result in the failure of both. To make it plain if anyone by virtue of his financial situation, is in a position to afford losing on one show, just to maintain a monopoly for boat shows, then that of course will not be in the best interest of the City of Miami, and the City Commission would take exception I'm sure of that. So my position is this, I don't feel that we are to give two contracts any kind of pro- tection that could result in a monopoly for a certain period of days for any individual. However I do feel that the City Commission ought to protect the interest of the City by having healthy shows that will benefit the City. And this is the kind of motion I would like to make. My motion is to instruct the Administration to proceed with the contract within 10 days with Mr. Logan to include a protection clause on the Dinner Rey facilities only,(and what else was in your motion Father), --the same thing that Mr. Perl has, the 60 days before and after on the Dinner Key facility for the 5 years. Mrs. Gordon: So what else is new? Mr. Lacasa: No, no,...what we are voting against is on all facilities of the City of Miami. That's the reason I voted against it. I am willing to vote on the Dinner Key facility, which is not according to the legal rn. 80 MAR 2 2 1979 opinion expressed by Mr. Knox in contravention of any,... Mayor Ferre: That's a very important distinction. What he's saying is the previous motion said that he would not have any competition 60 days before or after in any City facility. What he's now saying is that in the Dinner Key facility, now we could have a boat show in another facility and that depends on who makes the offer, the price and all that. Mrs. Gordon: Maurice and Lacasa, you made a very nice speech and I thought you were going to come up with something that we could really find some credibility in, but what you are saying doesn't really add up. It doesn't make one -and -one -make -two because you are saying you want the viability and success of a program to take place and the two shows at the same time are very close together,.. you know? The Marine Stadium and this Auditorium are not very far apart, and if they take place within a week of each other, or two,.. Mr. Lacasa: That is up to you as a City Commissioner, Rose. When that comes,..when that second application for a contract comes, and the Administration is instructed by this City Commission to screen every contract that comes, and make pretty sure that no other application could jeopardize an existing scheduled show contracted by the City Commission, then is when your concern comes up. My problem is very simple. I am not willing to give to any individual a monopoly for a certain number of days of all the facilities of the City of Miami. I am willing to take into consideration the feasibility from the economic standpoint of view of any individual who has a contract with the City of Miami for any facility, and take that into consideration to enter into a second contract with anyone else. Mayor Ferre: Now, George as I understand this portion, I don't think the Justice Department could ever construe that to be in any way monopolistic because we are just talking about one facility. We've got a right to tie up facility for a certain period of time. 0r is that stretching it? Mr. Knox: No, sir, that is our interpretation, and the second part of Commissioner Lacasa's motion involves administrative activities concerning scheduling and again where the City Commission is in a position to make a determination as to whether or not a competing situation would create a monopoly. Then that would not, on its face violate the antitrust laws. Mayor Ferre: Is there a second to the motion? Anybody want to second that motion? Mrs. Gordon: Well it doesn't even need a motion. That's already taken,... Mayor Ferre: What in effect his motion says is that, at Dinner Key you will have 5 years with a 60 day protection on either side. Mrs. Gordon: He has that. We granted him that back, long time ago. Mr. Logan: You've already given me that on November 10. My point to Mr. Lacasa is, Mr. Lacasa since there are other facilities all over Dade County,..that is my point, that Mr. Perl or any other promoter as Mr. Lieberman said is not being withheld. That's the point. Mayor Ferre: Look, just for the matter of getting this thing, I think Lacasa has made a motion which is legal and which give some protection and I'm willing to second it. Mrs. Gordon: Its repetitious of what we have done before. You just want to reinforce what we said back in November. Okay. I'm sure you have a right to reinforce it, but it doesn't accomplish anything to solve the problem. Mr.Lacasa: It does accomplish. Let me tell you what it accomplishes. rn. 81 .YAR 2 2 1979 Mr. Lacasa: It accomplishes giving a contract to Logan. It accomplishes having Logan being able to put his show,giving him protection on the Dinner Key facility, the same kind of protection that Mr. Perl has. The only thing that is not given Mr. Logan at this point, is a complete monopoly for 120 days which is one-third of a full year, on all facilities of the City of Miami. At the same time, the question I am raising is that Logan, as well as anyone else, shold have the protection in his show,.. Mrs. Gordon: He already has it, Lacasa. We gave it to him. Mr. Plummer: I'm running the meeting. Now, Mrs. Gordon, you allow him to finish. Mr. Lacasa, in a very calm tone, you will finish. Mr. Lacasa: When you speak Mrs. Gordon in this City Commission, I always listen silently and respectfully and I never interrupt you. So I will appreciate very much if the same courtesy be extended to me by you. Mr. Plummer: Have you finished Mr. Lacasa? Mr. Lacasa: Yes, I have. Mr. Plummer: Mrs. Gordon, you wish to comment? Mr. Lieberman? Mr. Lieverman: Yes, Armando again you are getting back to the statement that we are trying to tie up the entire City for one third of a year. And as I said before, we are not looking necessarily for a third of the year, but your motion says nothing to prevent somebody from opening up a show a couple of weeks later. Now you say the City should review those contracts carefully. What you are suggesting is that we leave it to the good faith of the City administration to screen people out. They've already shown that they are willing to let a boat show go opposed to another boat ".within two or three weeks. So if the 120 days is too much, give us some protection clause for nearby events for the Miami Marine Stadium or anything else that's a couple of miles away. If 120 days is too much, give us 90 throughout the City. That's not tying up the City for half of the year, and its not tying up the City for a third of the year, but it protects this show from somebody siphoning off people from the public down the road. That's all we're after, --a reasonable period of protection. Mr. Lacasa: Mr. Knox what would be your legal advice if the days were to be reduced as to the effectiveness of the antitrust laws in relation to our position? Mr. Knox: It does not appear sir that the number of days of protection is relevant. Mr. Lacasa: We go back to the same kind of thing Ron. My problem is this, as much as I want to give a fair chance to anyone, I feel I have a respon- sibilty toward the City and I am not going to vote here for anything that might put the City in jeopardy, legally or economically. What I am saying is this, I think that not only on the Logan situation, on every single situation this Commission as well as the administration, has a responsibility to see that whatever. contracts we get into, are feasible contracts. I don't see the administration, and I don't see the City Commission entering into contracts with any individual that will result in two shows of the same nature within 15 days, which might result in the failure of both. This is the kind of thing for which the Commission and the Administration are here. And this is the kind of trust you will have to have on the City Commission, but the protection,..absolute protection that might result in jeopardy to the City of Miami, that quite frankly I am not willing to vote for. Mayor Perre: I think we are rethrashing over and over again and the same statements are being said over and over again. I think its been fully discussed. I call the question. rn. 82 'VAR 2 2 1979 Mr. Plummer: Repeat the motion. Mr. Ongie: The City Commission instructs the Administration to complete negotiations with Victor Logan within a period of 10 days for his Summer Boat show to include a protection clause at the Dinner Key facilities only, 60 days before and 60 days after. Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Knox can I ask you a question? Mr. Plummer: There's been a calling of the question unless you want a point of personal privilege. Mr. Knox? Mrs. Gordon: George is there a meeting of some sort that you are going to be attending in the near future which would perhaps shed same light on the legal question of monopoly? Mr. Knox: I'm scheduled beginning this Sunday to attend the midyear meeting of the National Institute of Municipal Law Officers, and on the agenda is a dicussion,... Mrs. Gordon: J.L. why don't you listen to this? Mr. Plummer: I'm sorry. I apologize. Mr. Knox:..is a discussion of the impact of the Lafayette Louisiana Supreme Court case that we've been talking about concerning antitrust. And in addition we've made a formal request of the National Institute of Municipal Law Officers to search the records to identify if possible a precedent situation or the existence of a situation anywhere in the country where a municipality grants protect periods to include all facilities owned by that municipality. That meeting takes place from the 23rd through the 26 which is Sunday through Wednesday. Mrs. Gordon: What is your advice to us based upon what you just told us as to the issue before us. Mr. Knox: Our indication has been that because the Supreme Court renders opinions that are then studies by legal scholars throughout the country, that this is an oportunity for me on behalf of the City of Miami to raise this precise question during the discussion that's taking place by the city Attorneys and legal scholars from throughout the country. And it also give an opportunity while the meeting is in Washington D.C. for us to utilize the resources that may be available in Washington in terms of historical interpretations of these kinds of provisions of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Mrs. Gordon: I appreciate that information because what that information says to me is that if Mr. Knox is able to make determinations during that conference that he's going to be attending that his concerns about the City's position as being in jeopardy legally, would be removed. This Commission could, in fact bring this portion of the dispute back to the table, and I assume that he would bring it to us as quickly as possible when he has been able to make that determination. Mr. Plummer: Any further discussion? Point of clarification by the Chair. It is my understanding the motion as proposed is a reversal of a former motion of this Commission granting to Mr. Logan an exclusive in all facilities 60 forward and 60 days back is the present resolution. The Chair is asking for a ruling must that be rescinded since this one directly contradicts the former motion as I understand it. Mr. Knox: The former act was in the form of a motion and the rules provide that a subsequent motion which conflicts with a prior motion supercedes that prior motion. Mrs. Gordon: The reason why, its very doubtful to me how we are to proceed now is because we are trying to instruct the Administration to proceed and draw a contract, and I don't think that those who voted for that privious postion want to remove the right to revert back to it if legally Mr. Knox is able to determine at the conference that we can. rn. WS- 'VAR 2 2 'o'• 1 Mrs. Gordon: And I would not be able to vote with the motion if that is the result of voting with the motion, and I don't see how we can develop the contract,..in completion of a contract without a stipulation of some sort in the contract. Mr. Lacasa: You can always amend the contract, later. Mrs. Gordon: Yes, but what we're saying is we're taking the policy change and I don't think we need to. I think perhaps we could have a substitute motion rather than what you're saying, and that this substitute should say that the City Manager is instructed to complete a contract for this year's show with Mr. Logan with all of the other provisos that this Commission has agreed to with the exception of all other facilities until such time as the legal issue is resolved and the information furnished to us by Mr. Knox. Mr. Lacasa: I'm willing to vote for that, Rose. Mrs. Gordon: That just doesn't remove our prior policy position. Am I correct Mr. Attorney? Mr. Lieberman: I believe so Commissioner. Mr. Plummer: Mrs. Gordon is that a substitute motion? Mrs.Gordon: In order to bring about a contract which would be executed very quickly I would say yes, that is a substitute motion that would not negate our prior policy position. Mr. Lieberman: For five years? Not one. Mrs. Gordon: Yes, five yesrs included. Everything except,.. Mayor Ferre: Point of order please, Mr. Chairman to the City Attorney. Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute. She's offered a substitute motion. Mayor Ferre: And on the substitute motion I've got a point of order. All right, to the City Attorney, this Commission just voted on a motion and the motion lost 3 to 2. Now does that motion, --because it is a motion, subsequent to the previous motion, doesn't it have precedence over the previous motion? Mr. Knox:Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: So therefore the policy that had been established was in effect altered. Mr. Knox: Yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: Is there a second to the substitute motion? Mrs. Gordon: It was seconded by Mr. Lacasa. Mr. Plummer: Can you make a motion and then second the substitute motion? Mr. Lacasa; Well, I withdraw mine, and I second Rose's. Mayor Ferre: Now, repeat the motion. Mrs. Gordon: I would ask the Clerk to repeat it as the Clerks have taken it down. Mr. Ongie: The City Commission instructs the City Manager to complete contract negotiations with Victor Logan for the Summer Boat Show for the 5 year period, with all provisions formerly contained in motions passed by the City Commission except the 60-day protection clause until this issue is resolved by the,... rn. 84 MAR 2 2 1979 Mrs. Gordon:..in)other facilities. Mr. Ongie:..in-other facilities until this issue is resolved by the City Attorney. Mrs. Gordon: Okay. Mr. Plummer: Any further discussion? Mayor Ferre: Yes, Mr. City Attorney, do you then feel, because my vote depends on your answer, now that you need to go to Washington to this conference to 'discuss this item, for you to come to a legal conclusion or do you feel that your conclusion is sufficiently researched, that you stand on what you previously said? Mr. Knox: It is my opinion that the question has been sufficiently researched and that my opinion would remain firm subject to having persuasive evidence to the contrary and I would appreciate the oppor- tunity of consluting with persons who are directly involved in anti- trust matters to have my opinion refuted or buttressed. Mayor Ferre: Well then the answer is that you would like to have that time to go to Washington and get that clarified. Is that correct? Mr. Knox: Yes, sir, especially since the event takes place with the next couple of days. Mayor Ferre: I see. All right. Mr. Plummer: Further discussion? Call the roll. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Gordon , who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 79-228 A MOTION INSTRUCTING THE CITY MANAGER TO COMPLETE CONTRACT NEGOTIATION WITH VICTOR LOGAN FOR THE SUMMER BOAT SHOW FOR THE FIVE-YEAR PERIOD WITH ALL PROVISIONS FORMERLY CONTAINED IN MOTIONS PRE- PARED BY THE CITY COMMISSION EXCEPT THE 60-DAY PROVISO PROTECTION CLAUSE IN OTHER CITY -OWNED FACILITIES UNTIL THIS ISSUE IS RESOLVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY Upon being seconded by Commissioner Lacasa , the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Gordon, Mr. Lacasa, Rev. Gibson. NOES: Mr. Plummer and Mayor Ferre. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: None. Mayor Ferre: As I recall, because I want to be consistent, when this thing came up originally, the vote was 3 to 2 and I was one of the dissenting vote. I think Plummer you were the other one. I think for me to vote differently now would be a reversal of my position. This would take precedence over the previous motion, and therefore my voting yes on this substitute motion, I would then reverse my position on that, and therefore I have to vote no. Rev. Gibson: Am I to understand that we are only voting to give the men the contract for 5 years,... Mr. Ongie:...with all provisions except the 60-day protection clause until that matter is resolved by the City Attorney. Rev. Gibson: I vote yes. rn. 85 1AR 2 2 1979 Mayor Ferre: I'll take the Chair back again, and thank you. What else do we have to discuss with you ? Mr. Logan: Pier 5 which is the,... Mayor Ferre: No, that was included. Wasn't that included? Mrs. Gordon:No. Mayor Ferre: Father Gibson moves, Mrs. Gordon seconds that this Commission go on record with regards to Pier 5 that we would request respectfully that the people who are leasing those slips be kind enough to be permitted to do all of this. Okay. I have not problem. Any further discussion on that? Mr. Logan: Yes, Mayor Ferre I have a very big question with that. As I said to you before, I have been out on Pier 5, I have been talking to the tenants of Pier 5, I have several tenants on Pier 5 that absolutely under no cir- cumstances will move. Just a second,..when you say you can't force them, let me point out that you made a motion somewhere down the road that was not in their pier agreements in the past, and allowed Larry Perl to use Pier 5. I have already gone out there and I have already asked them permission to use thier slips and a number of people say we absolutely will not. Now your contract or your pier dockage agreement is very clear. You are not legally bound by this. It says simply upon written notification, you can void this agreement. You are not breaking any legal rules. Incidentally during the summer many people have indicated to me that they don't mind moving in the summer because the kids are out of school and its less problems. Mayor Ferre: Then fine. Get their signature and you're all set. Mr. Logan: This is what I'm trying to tell you Mr. Ferre. There are people out there that reduce to move if we ask them to. Now, my question to you is if these people refuse to move, and I get the person on slip #1,5, 9 and 12 to say they'll go, I haven't got the use of Pier 5 and I can't use it for my boat show. I've already been out there. Mayor Ferre: What's your question? Mr. Logan: I'm simply asking you to please give me,...look I think you all know that I've really taken a beating on this boat show. You know I am not Howard Hughes, and financially this has really done a draining job on me. I'm simply asking this Commission to give me a consideration. Say to me Vic Logan, we will do the name thing that we've done for Larry Perl. You deserve no less. We will order the people on Pier 5 to move. Mayor Ferre: All right. Modify your motion and tell me,.. Rev. Gibson: I move that we invoke the rule to the provision in that contract asking the tenants to make available to Mr. Logan those slips. Mayor Ferre: Will you incorporate in that the same as we do for the other boat show. Rev. Gibson; That's the intent,... Mayor Ferre: In other words so that its understood that we're not doing for one more or less than we are doing for the other. Mr. Lacasa: I second it. Mrs. Gordon: I did already. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Grassie presently I know that is in Mr. Perl's and I voted against that for Mr. Perl. Presently at whose expense are these people moved? i rn. W WAR 2 2 1972 Mr. Plummer: It is an inconvenience, and are these people compensated, are they given additional apace? What happens there? I don't know and I think we must know. Mr. Jennings: Commissioner, we generally provide them with another slip, if we can and one of our two City marinas. We can't promise that we will have,....we have 42 boats on Pier 5. Maybe we will have 42 empty slips and maybe we won't. Mr. Plummer: My question is,.. Mr. Jennings: We do our best. Mr. Plummer: Who pays for it? Mr. Jennings: Who pays for their move? Or who pays for the other slip? Mr. Plummer: What exists with Mr. Perl,.... Mr. Jennings: They have paid for a slip anyway, so we pay for the other slip. We just give them a swap. Mr. Plummer: Can I have an answer? Mr. Jennings: I'm sorry. Mr. Plummer: My question is, the rules that presently are with Mr. Perl. Does he compensate the people for moving? Number two, does he compensate the City for additional square footage of lease? Mr. Jennings: No, sir he doesn't. In answer to your first question he does not compensate the people for moving. In answer to your second question he pays the City rental for Pier 5. Mr. Plummer: Okay. Mayor Ferre: And that would be the same in this case. Mr. Jennings: Sure. Mayor Ferre: What's sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander. Further discussion; on the goose and gander? Call the roll. Mr. Grassie: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Ferre: You're against the goose and gander? Mr. Plummer: No, he wants to get back to the ox. Mr. Grassie: Mr. Mayor you have 42 people out there on that pier, some of whom are live -a -boards. That's their home. They have a contract with you which says that they have to move once a year. Mayor Ferre: Once a year? Mr. Grassie: Once a year. Mr. Logan is proposing to you that you arbi- trarily without hearing these people, break their contract and force them to move. That's what he's suggesting to you. Mayor Ferre: Let's get this very clear' -on the record. Does the contract people sign on Pier 5, of 42 boats say that they must move at our request once a year? rn. 87 11111.11 *MAR 2 2 197" Mr. Grassie: Once per year for a specific named show. Mayor Ferre: So in other words we're not really legally able to do this. Mr. Grassie: That is correct, sir, you are not unless you void their contracts. Mr. Logan: That's not true. Mayor Ferre: Mr. City Attorney, is that correct? Mr. Knox: In order that the persons, in order that you would have the author- ity to enforce that provision of the contract it would be necessary for you to determine as a matter of policy that your intention at the time that that provision was placed in the contract was to provide that service in each in- stance where a boat show was held in the Dinner Key Auditorium or in the Din- ner Key facility. At the time that the contract was entered into there was only one boat show that was being held there and that was the so-called an- nual Dinner Key Boat Show. Mayor Ferre: So, therefore, we're stuck. Mr. Logan: May I address the question, Mr. Ferre? Mayor Ferre, Mr. Knox did not say that to me when he talked to me two days ago. Let me point out that the Miami International Boat Show was here at Dinner Key and you gave them permission to use Pier V for their boat show. When Mr. Perl' came to Dinner Key you gave him permission to use Pier V for his boat show and it specific- ally says, and I don't want to be repetitive but it says here, "... or any other show that may succeed the Dinner Key Boat Show." I don't think you meant when you made that motion, correct me if I'm wrong, to simply show favor to one person. You continually tell me you're trying to treat everybody fair- ly. Mayor Ferre: Does it say one? Mr. Knox: It says the Miami Dinner Key Boat Show or those which succeed it and Mr. Logan's question is how to define the word succeed. Mr. Logan: It does not say one. Mr. Lacasa: George, I have a question here. Could we, could the City Commis- sion change that particular situation in the contract based on the priviledge of the public welfare of the City? Mr. Knox: The management of the City negotiated that provision of the contract pursuant to to a motion of intent or statement of policy which was articulated by the City Commission at the time. Mayor Ferre: Let me tell you I've read this, I want to read this clause to you and I think, I hate to disagree with you, George, I never have and I'm going to be bound by what you tell me but I want to tell you how I think you might be wrong if you'll forgive my saying so. Item 12 of this contract reads as follows: "... Owners of vessels assigned to Pier V at Dinner Key Marina agree to relinquish their berths on 60-days notice if requested by the Director of Public Facilities by direction of the City Commissioners in order that the City may accomodate 'the in -the -water -display' of the annual Miami Dinner Key Boat Show or any other boat show which may in the future succeed the Miami..." Oh, I see, you're right. "... or which may succeed the Miami Dinner Key Boat Show." Mr. Logan: We do succeed it, Mayor Ferre, we succeed it by four months. We're the second boat show, I'm sorry. Mayor Ferre: George, will you accept my apologies for questioning your legal ability? Mr. Logan: we do succeed the Dinner Key Boat Show, it doesn't say only and it doesn't say one. Mayor Ferre: Or succeed, does that mean mean follow or does that mean takes the place of? RT 88 Mr. Knox: There are two definitions and the only way to resolve ambiguities is to search the minds of the parties at the time that thought of the words. Mr. Plummer: You are a fool. Mr. Lieberman: Maurice, if this said or its successor that would be differ- ent, it doesn't say.... Mr. Grassier Mr. Mayor, if I may? Mr. Mayor, I believe that the only person here who was involved in writing that language is Mr. Jennings, maybe it makes a little sense to ask him. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Jennings, when this thing was drafted were you involved in all of this? Mr. Jennings: Yes, sir, I was. Mayor Terre: All right, what was the intention of the drafters when you said, "or succeeds"? Mr. Jennings: Well, I'm sure my answer will be suspect but, nevertheless, I'm sure it was meant to mean a successor to the show. It says, "...the annual", the annual to me means one. I'm sure that was the intent. Mr. Lieberman: Can I address one question to Mr. Jennings, Mayor Ferre? If you're so sure, Mr. Jennings, that that's what it meant why is it you can't remember what happened two months ago when you can so explicitly what remember what happened years ago? Mr. Jennings: Well, I'm not remembering I'm just interpreting. Mayor Ferre: All right, let's not get into, we've had a little bit too much of that today. Mr. Knox: Mr. mayor, I'm advised that Mr. Clark drafted the appropriate legis- lation whenever it happened in the past and maybe he can enlighten the Commis- sion. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Clark, the drafter, the culprit of the ambiguity. Mr. Plummer: Why have you let us sit here for 2h hours without telling us that? Mayor Ferre: Go ahead, Mr. Clark. Mr. Robert Clark: The language was to protect the tenants of their rights from more than one eviction per year. We were very careful to spell it out and it was the in -the -water display of the annual Dinner Key Boat Show and just in case there was some sort of a successor corporation we said successor in the language. Mayor Ferre: All right, ladiestnd gentlmen, I think that we have really dis- cussed this to a point of the n degree. Can we now vote on it? Mr. Logan; I have one question, Mayor Ferre. Since you're spending so much time talking about one paragraph rather than looking at the entire is- sue which tells me whether or not I'm going to have a failure or a success it Pier V bothers you why don't you give me Pier IV? Mayor Ferre: I'm going to duck on that one. Where is Pier IV, is that in Ft. Lauderdale? Mr. Kogan: If you could give Mr. Perle Pier V, if you feel like now have told these people and I don't agree but give me Pier IV. Mr. Lacasa: He's got a very good point there because the question is this, what we are trying to do is to protect the tenants of Pier V from being evicted twice in a year. Mayor Ferre: But the legal question is unless you have it written in the contract with the people of Pier IV can you force it upon them? Mr. Attorney, can you force people on Pier IV to move out if it's not in the contract like that paragraph on Pier V? rt 89 Mr. Knox: They have a right to occupy those slips pursuant to their existing contracts and they would have to be negotiated with as those persons on Pier V were. Mr. Logan: Let me point something out to you, and you know Mr. Knox and I talked about this before the Commission and it is amazing how I'm getting a different story now. You must understand that you didn't have it in your contract when you gave it to Mr. Perl. You sat here and made a motion, it wasn't in their contract before you put it in for Mr. Perl. If you could just put it in to an existing contract with Mr. Perl why can't you just put it in for me? Your dock agreement specifically says, Mr. Lacasa, this is important; it specifically says if you want to legally, now we're talking about the legal question are we not, Mr. Knox? Are we addressing the legal question? Sir? Mr. Knox: Are you addressing me? Mr. Logan: Yes, I'm addressing Mr. Knox. We're addressing a legal question. Okay? If the City wanted to send letters to all of the people on Pier V or Pier iv cancelling their dockage agreement. This is only a dockage agreement, and issue them new ones they could. It simply says you don't have to have to have any cause. You could simply send them a letter. Now this boat show is for the good and the welfare of the City and if I don't have pier slips on Pier IV or Pier V I've lost 70 exhibitors. Mr. Grassie: Just for the information of the City Commission, I understand from Mr. Jennings that the question with regard to Pier V has been in the agreement for at least five or six years. Mayor Ferre: All right, is there further discussion on this item? I don't think that we can really, we're just going in circles now. All right, call the roll. Mr. Plummer: Well wait a minute, Mr. Mayor, it is mu understanding by the opinion of the City Attorney that the motion is out of order. Mayor Ferre: On Pier V. Mr. Plummer: Yes. Now am I right or wrong? Mr. Knox: It does not appear that the City Commission has any authority to order the tenants who are residing on Pier V or Pier IV pursuant to an agree- ment to order them to leave absent their consent. This would be tantamount to an eviction. Mr. Plummer: As such, is the motion out of order or in order? Mr. Knox: If there is a motion upon the floor which is designed to effective- ly evict these tenats for a period of time without their consent then the motion would be out of order or at least unenforceable. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Clark, would you interpret for the record? I understand, of course, the way I understand the understanding is that the motion is out of order. That's my understanding. Mr. Lacasa: Okay, but we still have a situation here. We have that Mr. Logan is going to enter into a contract with the City of Miami to have a show that he needs the slips to have his show, otherwise what we are doing is we are certainly telling Mr. Logan if he doesn't have the slips that his show is go- ing to be a failure and besides Mr. Logan's interest, I think it is in the best interest of the City to have a successful Sumner Boat Show. So the ques- tion remains how do we go about in providing Mr. Logan with the dock space that he needs. My question now is this: we have our tenants in the marina and I'm sure that the tenants have a very good will. We can negotiate with the tenants, we can try to convince the tenants that it is in the best inter- est of the City to have the boat show and try to obtain their cooperation. If that fails, and taking into consideration here again the interest of the City, we have that in this contract under Item 6(b) there is a provision that this agreement shall be terminated upon upon one of the following conditions and 6(b) is by written notice or termination by the City. In other words, my interpretation of this contract is that we could terminate the contracts by written notice. If that is the situation I would say that if negotiations fail and in order to protect the show I would suggest that we do terminate and renegotiate the contract with the tenants in order to include the provi- sion that will allow us to provide Mr. Logan with the docks. rt 90 r r Mr. Grassie: Commissioner, my understanding is that these are five year agreements and that they have to be renewed annually. Mr. Lacasa: Well, if we have to go on an annual basis we will have to go on that basis but here the basis is necessary. Mr. Grassie: What I'm suggesting to you is that maybe to accomplish what you are talking about if we are willing to wait until the next Summer Boat Show, as these contracts come up for annual renewal we could shift the burden to Pier IV and for the Summer Boat Show provide that Pier IV would have to move. Mr. Lacasa: I understand that but the problem is the show that he is going to have now which has been extremely jeopardized by all the happenings here I don't see how he can make it this year if he doesn't get the space. On the other hand, I don't see how he can make it in the following years if he loses his credibility now and his show is a failure at this point. So I think it is the best interest not only of his interest but in the best interest of the City if we are going to have a Summer Boat Show that is going to be success- ful that we give him as much ammunition as we can give him so he can run a successful show and, therefore, insure the success in the following years be- cause if he fails this year I can assure you that he doesn't stand a chance in the forthcoming years because he would have lost the credibility with his potential clients, many of whom are out of the state. Mr. Plummer: I disagree with my good friend Armando, you know I think that this thing would have taken a different picture, remember that this request for Pier V, Armando, comes late in the game. This game has been going on since December. That's why I pinpointed this here and asked when, in fact, this request for Pier V came. Now very obviously it came long after the init- ial request, the initial granting of this Commission for the Pier V and unless I stand corrected by a letter.... Mr. Logan: Mr. Plummer, to answer your question, all along I had been talking to Mr. Jennings and to Mr. Gai about using Pier V and there was no indication there would one problem whatsoever and I never knew I had a problem about Pier V that I had to bring before this Commission until that letter of January 26th came to my office three days after I had a dinner meeting with the tenants and no one showed up. Mrs. Gordon: What does that letter say? Mr. Logan: That letter is informing the tenants that they can't deal with me and informing me that I can't deal with the tenants after Mr. Jennings and Mr. Gai had led me to believe that there would be no problem getting Pier V and unfortunately I can't put everything in writing. Mr. Plummer: Sir, you know but unfortunately courts of law and quaisi we are a court of law, will not accept anything other than a written communication. As Father says, "Black and white don't lie." Now, all I'm saying, I never heard any request prior to today for the use of Pier V. Mr. Logan: Sir, did you see the brochure that I sent to you? OP, Plummer: No, sir. Mr. Logan: Did you? Well, I sent it to you, I gave everyone here a copy, it was right in there. Mr. Plummer: I might have seen it but I don't remember it. Mr. Logan: Sir, that brochure was out since November 20th. I'm not playing any games with you and Mr. Jennings is not standing there denying that we haven't talked about Pier V, we have talked about it. Mr. Jennings: I'd like to respond. Mr. Lacasa: Just a minute. Listen, I don't care about what Mr. Logan could have applied for or could have asked for. I think that the responsibility of the City Commission has to go beyond that. The responsibility of the City is to ensure a successful show even if Mr. Logan by omission in his applica- tion for a contract did not include something that could have ensured a suc- cessful show I think that it would have been our responsibility upon review- ing the proposed contract to see that everything that the City could do in rt 91 order to insure the success of the show be done. So this question of the dock apace to me is essential and I don't have to talk to Logan about this or listen to Logan apply for it to realize that he cannot have a successful show unless he has dockage space. So I am not considering Logan's interest now, what I am considering is the City's interest in having a successful Summer Boat Show. Mr. Grassie: Well Commissioner, I wonder if it would help if we tried to negotiate with the tenants, a voluntary withdrawal from the space, and if we can't do that then we bring it back to your next City Commission Meeting. Mr. Logan: I've already been out there, Mr. Lacasa. The motion on the floor as stated I think does exactly what needs to be done. We are giving them, or you are giving them the opportunity to fairly move out and be reciprocated, you are further giving me the opportunity if I want to personally pay them to move out, I'm willing to remunerate them. Okay? Instead of asking the City to do it and if they're not willing to comply and do it to the best interest of the City then you simply say, " We will send you a letter..." Mr. Lacasa: Vic, I have to disagree with you on that, I do believe that the City administration has the best interest of the City at heart and I do believe that they will do whatever needs to be done in order to insure the best inter- ests of the City. But, what I am going to do is make a motion - who is chair- ing this, are you chairing this? Mr. Plummer: The man who asked that the phones be removed. Go ahead, I'll Chair the meeting. Mayor Ferre: I'll tell you - excuse me for a moment, Harold - I apologize, I do have an emergency and I may have to leave in about five minutes. Mr. Lacasa: Well, I'd like to make a motion that the administration be in- structed to negotiate with the tenants and in the event that the negotiations with the tenants fail to seek alternatives to insure that Mr. Logan's boat show would have adequate dock space facilities. i move. Mr. Plummer: Is there a second to the motion? Is there a second to the motion? Is there a second to the motion? The motion fails for the lack of .... Mrs. Gordon: Would you please repeat the motion, the Clerk as he's got it down? Mr. Plummer: Mr. Clerk? Mr. Ongie: Mr. Lacasa, you didn't say which pier but I assume you mean V, did you mean Pier V or Pier IV? Mrs. Gordon: He meant Pier V I think. Mr. Plummer: Would the maker of the motion please instruct the Clerk? Mr. Lacasa: Pier V. Mr. Ongie: Pier V, Okay. The motion was that the City Commission instruct the City administration to negotiate with the tenants of Pier V for voluntary removal to facilitate the Summer Boat Show and if such negotiations fail that other alternatives be explored in order that the Summer Boat Show has the necessary space. Mrs. Gordon: I'll second it. Mr. Lacasa: Okay, now on the motion let me ask you a question, Vic. Why does it have to be Pier V? Because the problem that we have with Pier V if I understand is that the tenants will have to be moved twice in a year. Could it be Pier iV as you said before? Mrs. Gordon: Armando, why don't you say IV or V? Mr. Lacasa: Okay, let's say IV or V. Mr. Logan: The only reason I suggested Pier V is because there are enough slips on Pier V for one and number two, when the architects refurbished Dinner ICey they put the walkway where our sailboat exhibits go 111 ul 1111.1111111HIMINF III II IIM 92 rt m • I• A Mr. Lacasa: We could review then again but the problem is that I also have to take into consideration the welfare of the tenants and if they.... Mr. Logan: I'm willing to go for Pier IV or Pier V. Mr. Lacasa: Okay. Mr. Grassis: Let us talk to the tenants of both piers. Mr. Lacasa: That's right, that's it. Mrs. Gordon: That's what we want to do. Wherever you gat the greatest com- pliance than use that, four or five. (INAUDIBLE CONVERSATION BETWEEN MR. LACASA AND MAYOR TERRE PRIOR TO VOTING ON %ME MOTION) J The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Lacasa who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 79-229 A MOTION INSTRUCTING THE CITY MANAGER TO BEGIN NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE TENANTS OF EITHER PIER IV OR PIER V TO REQUEST THEIR VOLUNTARY REMOVAL OF VESSELS FROM SAID PIERS IN ORDER TO ACCOMODATE VICTOR LOGAN'S SUMMER BOAT SHOW, PROVIDING THAT IN THE EVENT OF FAILURE IN SUCH NEGOTIATIONS, THE CITY MANAGER BE INSTRUCTED TO INVESTIGATE OTHER ALTERNATIVES. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gordon, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mr. Plummer: The motion passes 4 to 1. Mr. Logan, do you have any other matters to come before this Commission? Mr. Logan: No, thank you. 34. COCONUT GROVE HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - JOEL JAFFER REPRESENTING B.A.Y. & COCONUT GROVE MERCHANT'S ASSOCIATION'S REQUESTS. Mayor Ferro: We now on Item 25. Mt. Joel Jaffer: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, my name is Joel Jaffer, I live at 3268 Mary Street and I'm the Chairman of the Bayshore Alert Yes Committee, soon to be a non-profit corporation in the community recognized by the City Clerk. At this time I would like to apologize for the first sen- tence of my letter addressed to the City Manager that's in your agenda packet. The B.A.Y. Committee is not, I repeat not interested in halting development on Miami's bayshore. In fact, I come before you today not as an abutting property owner to the Main Righway Improvement District but as a developer. In that sense 1'm willing to invest my time and money to see that Coconut Grove and Miami look and grow a certain way. What separates se frowsy developing peers is that instead of shaping Miami to fit Chicago, Sew York end national models in the trends I merely want to the city to look the way that it has looked and naturally evolved for hundreds of years. Although mainly concerned with several lots on Mary Street, I've also become aware of the large volume of traffic entering from downtown Miami to Old Cutler Shad. I think the aboli- tion of all traffic corridors in the Grove and especially Mac Varlane load and Main Bighway, I might add the in the last week I've done sore to alleviate the traffic prnblem..oxl South hayshore than all the planners in the City put together. I a.1reciate the thousands of hours literally that the Commissioners and the citizens of Miami have spent in_oonsideration.of this problem and I couldn't summarize briefly_or su:deratand a .l Of it but my objection at this Uwe today is that without_arppropriats.�ublic hearings of a problem of this magnitude which has been discussed and unless definite plans to four lane Main Highway for one block and obtain easements for its extension to Franklin Street have bean included in an unrelated side- walk and utility improvement project without any or with little public input in the planning process and a mask to prevent any public inspection of the final project. There are many people here today who wish to address this problem on their own but for everyone's benefit in that regard I would like to present a brief summary of the findings of some research I was able to do in this area and a lot of records weren't available tome. On February 24th, 1977 the City Commission confirmed Resolution 76-995 creating the plain High- way Improvement District, improvements that it resolved to make regarded, in- volved decorative sidewalks, curbs and gutters, drainage, some pavement ad- justments and a pedestrian crossing on Fuller Street. Subsequently on April 14th, 1977 a blue ribbon committee of members of the Coconut Grove a volunteer group was appointed to act as advisors to the Department of Pub- lic Works. On the 3rd of June, 1977 the Public Works Department asked the Dade Department of Traffic and Transportation, DOTT, to temporarily lane mark/. Capitol Bank and they were informed on June 14, 1977 that DOTT can only alter lanings after the City completes construction on the project. On the 27th, 1977 Public Works again asked DOTT to expedite the making of street marking improvements and to obtain the necessary street widening. On July 28, 1977 the Commission ordered adopting Resolution 77-626 for the Street Lighting. On September 19, 1977 the Public Works Department again asked DOTT for a lane marking plan. On the 3rd of October, 1977 the blue ribbon committee discussed the present Sodium Vapor Lighting noting that it looks like they're here perma- nently. On the 31st of October 1977 the Commission adopted emergency street lighting resolution for a supplemental street lighting. On the 27th of Decem- ber, 1977 the Public Works Department sent a letter to abutting property owners about funding for decorative street lighting. Since December of 1978 the blue ribbon committee agrees on one plan to make Puller Street one-way in order to make way for a parking garage. On the 8th of February, 1978 a formal letter is sent to the property owners to fund the improvements in the original improve- ment resolution and the improvements that it lists in that letter are the decor- ative sidewalks, curbs and gutters, drainage, some paving adjustments and a pedestrian crosswalk on Fuller Street. On the 14th of February, 1978 the com- mittee drafts a resolution to extend the boundaries of the improvement district to Mayfair in the Grove and that area and no action is taken on this resolution. On the 6th of March, 1978 the Department of Public Works again asked the DOTT for street marking plans to add to their improvements. The 17th of March, 78 Public Works decides that landscaping and lane marking improvements to Mac Farlane Road should be a separate project from the rest of the improvement project. On the 27th of April bids were received on the Street Lighting Proj- ect, the plans that were bid on did nothing to remove existing street lights and on the 13th of June, 78 bids were received on the original improvement project did include four-laning Main Highway for one block on page 45 and on page 55 and 56. My point once again is that while 1 didn't talk to anyone with any authority in DOTT this morning they apparently have no authority to include their street marking plans in the improvement project because they were asked three times and never complied with those. There are similar changes on Mac Farlane Road would be inappropriate and the letters to the property owners especially asking for money never mentioned any plans for the street widening. As far as the street lighting is concerned although the term sup- plemental is used in the Commission's ordinance they are referred to as decor- ative street lights in letters to the property owners asking for the necessary funds to put in the street lights. At this time I'll turn over my space to the abutting property owners and anyone else who wishes to comment on this. But I am asking the Commission to delete the lane marking changes from their plans and to take same steps to remove the present overhead sodium vapor light- ing. Thank you. Mayor Perre: All right, is there anybody else? All right, go ahead, sir. Mr. Joe Avalos: my name is Joe Avalon, I own Dade Cycle Shop in Coconut Grove at 3043 Grand Avenue and I'm speaking for the Coconut Grove Merchants Associa- tion, Inc., newly formed and a not for profit corporation. it is an associa- tion representing over 60 merchants in the Coconut Grove Business District and those of us who could leave our businesses are here today, we have been here since 2:30 and unfortunately I informed many of the attendants who are no longer here that we would probably be heard between 2:30 and 3:30. M1any of them had to leave to go close their businesses and are not here. However, the points that we would like to bring up are as follows: We would first like to point out to this body, and Mr. Jiffies speaks only for his group and not for the Coconut Grove Merchants Association, we are fully capable of speaking for our- selves and addressing the problems that we find ourselves confronted with. rt 94 During the course of the current beautification program certain aspects of the corollary construction have caused great concern among the business com- munity of Coconut Grove particularly with reference to proposed parking and laning changes. We are pleased to report that the City Manager's Office and the Public Works Department have been most helpful. Mr. George Campbell in particular of Public Works at a joint meeting of the Board of Directors of the Coconut Grove Chamber of Commerce and our board last night indicated that many of the serious concerns of our group may well be addressable. The Board of Directors of the Chamber of Commerce unanimously endorsed our efforts to have these plans reviewed at the earliest possible moment. We sincerely re- quest that this body instruct the appropriate departments and individuals in City government to continue their efforts to resolve these concerns to the satisfaction of all. We are heartened with the attitude of those in City government with whom we have thus far been in contact. One of the aims of this group is to avoid an adversary confrontation whenever possible. We are delighted with the prospect of resolving our concerns without resorting to sensationalism. We in no way intend to imply that we oppose the beautification program perse, to the contrary, we fully support the program. Our concerns we feel are readily solvable, with the assistance of this body we feel that our goals can be achieved. Mr. Bryan Hirsch will speak for a moment and then Mr. David Tackett, President of the Coconut Grove Merchants Association has prepared a briefing for you on the focal point of our concern. Briefing means brief and we shall attempt to take as little more of your time as possible. Mr. Hirsch. Mayor Ferre: All right, thank you. r Mr. Brian Hirsch: Mr. Mayor, my name is Brian Hirsch, I'm an attorney, my '' address is 19 West Flagler Street and I am here today representing the Coconut Grove Merchants Association as has been indicated a separate corporation not for profit. Before I begin I would like to indicate that we've been here since 2:30 this afternoon and we have, and I'd like to enter it into the record, 27 signatures of merchants that work here and unfortunately, we still have quite a few and I'm going to ask them to stand up so you can see how many have been hanging on since 2:30 this afternoon, they're all with our group so the record will not the people that are here. Mayor Ferre: All right. Mr. Hirsch: In addition I have 338 petitions that have been signed in the last two days through our group and we would ask that these two items be entered into the record at this time. Mayor Ferre: All right, if you'll submit them to the Clerk they'll be so entered. Mr. Hirsch: And finally, at the same time for the purposes of my presentation I'm going to ask you to examine the published notice with regard to the con- struction. I'm not here to make a legal presentation, I will remind this Com- mission though that I was the attorney for Save Brickell Avenue, Inc., a cor- poration not for profit that successfully won in court the opposition to the building of UTD Towers recently. Be that as it may, and the reason that I have taken it upon myself to submit to you the published notice of which I have a blow up copy for everyone to see, we are particularly concerned with regards to the lack of parking spaces and the traffic flow on the downtown Coconut Grove as a result of your passing Resolution No. 76-995. The problem is, and I've put a little red X on that portion of the notice on the left mar- gin, there is no indication in your published notice about the fact that you're intending to do away with the parking or make a four -lane highway on this part of the road. The possible portion of the notice that could even be deemed to be appropriate in my opinion is that portion that says "adjustment of drain- age structures and pavement adjustments may be necessary. I seriously ques- tion that but in any event I'm not here on a technicality. The point we're making is that while there are Florida Supreme Court cases and there are pre- sentations that can be made regarding failure to give notice we are in accord- ance with the articles of incorporation of this corporation not for profit, number (b) says to promote the activities and cooperate with organizations and governmental agencies that are involved and that's exactly what has transpired. This organization has been in existence since approximately Monday of this weak and in that period of time we have been able to.... Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, which organizations? rt 95 Mr. Hirsch: This is the Coconut Grove Merchants Association, Inc., a corpor- ation not for profit. Mr. Plummer: Has only been in existence since Monday of this week. Mr. Hirsch: That's correct, as a corporation not for profit. Mr. Plummer: Were they in existence prior to that without a corporation? Mr. Avalos: Another week. Mr. Plummer: I can't imagine anybody in the grove being a fly-by-night outfit, I'll just tell you that real quick like. Mr. Hirsch: No, it's not fly-by-night, you're right. We have as I've indi- cated over 60 members that are merchants in the Grove in this period of time and that's why the 338 petition signatures in that period of time. We did not get adequate notice about these changes, we didn't know there was going to be a four lane and no parking on Main Highway, that's why the brief pres- entation, and it will be a brief presentation because the point I'm making, and I'm going to summarize it, is.... Mayor Ferre: Well before you continue, let me see if I understand what you're saying. What's being done here is that the parking is being completely elim- inated from Main Highway and it is made into a four lane road which it is not now and you say that it did not go through a public hearing process. Mr. Hirsch: We're saying that the notice that was given was defective and, therefore, all of the merchants and the interested people, and the case law in Florida is quite clear that the notice, and that's the reason for the notice. Mayor Ferre: Now wait, because see what you're getting into, you may have noticed all day we were getting into this is you're getting into legal mat- ters. Mr. Hirsch: Okay, well I'll try to stay away from it. Mayor Ferre: No, but see you're an attorney and we've got an attorney here and if what you're telling me is that we did something illegal by having a defective notice then I need to have Mr. Knox's opinion on this. Mr. Hirsch: Well, I'm asking you that it's not - I would like to if I could just make two or three more sentences you may find it's not necessary. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Knox, I hope you're listening to this because I'm going to ask your opinion in a moment. Mr. Hirsch: In accordance with the purposes in the articles of incorporation the committee members and the committee itself have met with Mr. Campbell from your department, your administration and in addition Mr. Campbell from the County's Department of Transportation and the presentation that you will hear in just a minute which is an alternative which does away with the parking, the elimination of the parking and the four laning has been submitted, this was in a joint meeting between Coconut Grove Merchants Association, Inc. and the Chamber of Commerce last night with Mr. Campbell from your administration present. And the presentation which would put the parking back and which would make the road only two lanes at least during non -rush hours has been deemed _. and been found to be at least advisable to discuss and feasible and could very well work. So, since what we are proposing and you will hear in a minute does not require any construction changes so, therefore, no cost to the City of Miami, it is a matter as striping as they call it in Transportation and the fact is that's the last thing on the construction which will probably be anti- cipated sometime in August, there is time to discuss this, there are meeting set up and it will probably be thrashed out but we would like you (1) to be aware of the association, to be aware of our alternative plans and be aware that we have had good cooperation from the City and County officials and we are cooperating also. Mayor Ferre: I have one last question before you make a presentation. Is there anyone here who has been a part of this whole procedure and process who is against what you are proposing? rt 96 Mr. Hirsch: To the contrary.... Mayor Ferre: Is anybody here opposed, are you opposed to what they are pro- posing to do? Mr. Lester Pancoast (INAUDIBLE, NOT AVAILING HIMSELF TO THE USE OF A MICRO- PHONE) Mayor Ferre: I see, Okay. Mr. Hirsch: May we hae the gentleman's name for the record? Mayor Ferre: Mr. Lester Pancoast. Mr. Hirsch: Okay. The reason I mentioned that is because we hae not had an opportunity to discuss it with all of the people on the ad hoc committee but we have talked with one in particular who was at the meeting last night and has indicated he has no disagreement. I think that that's important to note. With that summary, and with the observation that we are not here to disagree, we just want to make you aware of us and our plan, we'd like to make a brief presentation. Mayor Ferre: From a procedural point of view shouldn't you actually go to the ad hoc committee, from there to the administration and from the adminis- tration to the Commission since it's not going to stop the construction any- way? Mr. Hirsch: I don't believe so, and the reason for that is if we start back on following square one as you're indicating, Mr. Mayor, I think then, in fact, we would have to whether the notice was defective. Mayor Ferre: Okay, Vince? Mr. Grimm: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, I don't really want to interrupt the procedings but I think maybe in order to put this in perspect- ive we do have to go back a little historically. We're all very much aware that no improvement or change takes place in Coconut Grove without repeated public airings and without many diversified opinions. And this particular circumstance we have something unique in Coconut Grove in the sense that the department,. the City, the administration, whatever you want to call it didn't sponsor this improvement, this was sponsored by a group of Coconut Grove citi- zens. They came before this Commission with an overwhelming petition request- ing that the City develop and beautify Main Highway and a few of the other streets leading into it. Mt. Avalos: Mr. Mayor, may I respond to that? Mr. Grimm: But when the public hearing was held to confirm this district these same people expressed some concern that the Public Works Department would ride rough -shod over the wishes of the people in Coconut Grove and to protect that from happening this Commission in its wisdom appointed nine members - Mr. Pancoast, Mr. Treister, Father Hingston, Claire Filer, Mr. Smith, Henry Alexander, Mrs. Prince - a whole panel of professional and business interests in Coconut Grove and charged that committee with the responsibility to see that nothing was done in that street development to adversely affect the people that were there. Now, this committee has met at least 20 times, has kept detailed minutes of their meetings, have gotten involved in such things as deciding how big the bricks were going to be, what texture they were going to be and what color they were going to be- has held repeated meetings. Now what we're hearing them say to you is that because these people did not see a notice in the paper which said parking might be affected, and that's what it is, affected it has not been entirely removed„ that they felt they didn't have to pay attention to all of these public hearings, now that's what you're up against. Mayor Ferre: Ok. Now Lester, you and Mrs. Prince were on that committee, are there any other members on that committee? Who is on that committee, would you raise your hands so we'll know? Are the only two members.... All right, sir. Mr. Avalos: Mr. Grimm is quite right, there was an ad hoc committee of Coco- nut Grove citizens. We have spoken with a number of them, we have not spoken to all of them. A number of them indicated that they were not aware of the extent of the disruption and changes involved in the traffic flow patterns rt and the parking. We are not here to pick a fight. We are not here to say anything about anything except that a number of the people that we have con- tacted are surprised at some of the extent of the changes and we are here in an effort to present a viewpoint that is not necessarily an opposing view- point but merely to suggest that there are alternatives to what is on the blueprints and we are requesting an open ear and an open mind from the City government. Mr. David Tackett has prepared as I said a brief presentation and if it is in order at the present moment for him to proceed I suspect that most of the questions that are being raised by the time we are done with our presentation will be answered to the satisfaction of all. Mayor Ferre: All right, to ahead, proceed. Mr. Avalos: David. Mr. David Tackett: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, my name is David Tackett, 2860 S. W. 22nd Avenue and I own a business in the Grove area. In regards to the ad hoc committee, yesterday morning was spent with Henry Alexander from the ad hoc committee and yesterday afternoon, and he did attend the meeting last night. At the end of the meeting he did state that the proposals that we have although I'm not a traffic expert, I don't propose to be a traffic expert, I have met with Mr. Campbell and I discussed just a few minutes ago with Mr. Campbell from the County and they are willing to negotiate, willing to at least hear what we have to say, programs based not just on parking but on safety, on traffic flow that is necessary for the Grove area. If I may proceed, the general diagram now as you see it, is for two lanes of traffic coming across the 3400 block. You see a merge coming from the right hand lane to the left hand lane. It then merges back form the left hand lane to the right hand lane where it intersects Fuller Street and then comes in from the top. We see no objection with the construction. We see no objection with the one-way street. We see one lane proceeding on downtown, then we see one lane return- ing with a center turn lane . This is an optional turn lane. It does not indicate that it goes in one direction only. The single lane gone on through town, becoming two lanes and out of town. We propose or have suggested and have had good reception from the Board of the Chamber of Commerce and Mr. Campbell, and a member of ad hoc committee, with the presentation last night that instead of having these two lanes merge in this manner, if the parking were restored here expcept possibly in the peak hours, having this lane being the through lane, the merge beginning here, rather than here. Now we belive this is important. A car coming from Fuller Street at this point, the driver being allowed in this position, his view would be blocked of this oncoming car already underway in this through lane. Now this thru lane I indicate as a through lane because it seems to be only a suggestion of a merge. Nothing here actually prevents through traffic, whereas if a car was coming in this direction, it would be better viewed from here, would not have competition in a crosswalk which we feel is very dangerous. A point on their behalf is that it is dangerous for cars to be parked in this lane, whereas persons walking between cars, walk into traffic therefore not be visible. We suggest that it may be even more dangerous to create a stack land situation here. Persons do jaywalk in Coconut Grove. They do very unique things in Coconut Grove. If they should choose to jaywalk at this point they would jaywalking not between parked cars but between a stacked lane that may move at any moment, therefore creating double hazzards. Also creating here, rather than having two cars competing, the merge would begin here, allowing the Fuller Street car a chance to get into a safe lane due to blockage here, whereas now he would have to wait in this line to give pedestrians a chance to cross, then look in this direction, hoping a car is not coming and he can only to approximately to this point. This way he would come in here. This car would be coming from here, then begin to merge, still allowing this turn lane. This is just a few of the ideas that we have, suggest- ing that there may be other alternatives, not that our plan is the best.We are not traffic engineers. Mayor Ferre: You know I'm trying to follow it. I think I followed about half of it. What I followed seems to make sense. Now, what is you want us to do? Mr. Avalos: We want you to be aware that there are different ideas as to that, and that there are meetings coming up with your administration and the County on the striping. It will not cost the City any money. rn. 98 IAR 2 2 1979 Mayor Ferre: Well, I think what you are proposing from what I've seen makes sense. I would like to have the reaction of Ms. Printz, Mr. Pancoast and the rest of that Committee and the administration. Mr. Avalos: We'd ask you to question Mr. Campbell. Mayor Ferre: If you are asking me a preliminary opinion of what you've said makes sense, and I like it. Beyond that I don't know. Mr. Tackett stated he was not opposed to the beautification and that the changes suggested or recommended are strictly striping and laning. He felt this may create a safer situation for pedestrians, and still save parking places. Rev. Gibson: Isn't it possible that, I guess what you want us to do is ask all involved to at least hear what you haveto say. Is that what you are asking us to do? Mr. Tackett: If I may. Rev. Gibson: I find it difficult to have a committee at work all this period of time and then all of a sudden,..I would hope that you all would go into the meeting with the feeling that you want to listen and hear and do that which makes good sense, and if you only protect one life, then come to it. I hope you know the sense in which I'm saying this. I find it difficult, --how many months now? Two years? So I would want you to go and have the meeting and from all indiciations, you are going to be dealing with reasonable people. And you seem to be reasonable. Mr. Avalos:If I may summarize good counsel, we feel that the serious problems of parking and traffic flow control, pedestrian safety that are addressed by the contemplated relaning etc. have not until now been given sufficient public ventilation to insure that the best possible design is attained. Also to department, the written text, to remove even one parking place in Coconut Grove until such a time as a municipal parking facility, which I understand a study has been commissioned and the contract is on the verge of being signed. Until that facility is a reality, it is an even more important, if you can create parking, do it. Don't take any away. It is obvious that it is the intent of this body as it is ours, to safeguard the best interest of all concerned, and that you share a desire to maintain the unique flavor of the Village. We thus request that you, Mayor Ferre, Commissioners, Gordon, Lacasa, Plummer and Rev. Gibson, that you direct the following: that the current laning and parking proposals be held open to constructive changes, that additional study and consultation with the Coconut Grove Merchants Association, Coconut Grove Chamber of Commerce and any other appropriate interested parties be implemented as soon as possible. I have high hopes that we will be able to report back to this group at an early date, and indicate that our efforts have borne results. Mayor Ferre: You have two recommendations there and I would accept that as a motion if somebody wants to move it. You have any problems with that? Mr. Lacasa: I can move that. Mayor Ferre: Moved and seconded. Is there further discussion on both of those items, together as part of one resolution. Call the roll please. rn. 99 'VAR 2 2 1979 The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Gordon , who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 79-230 A MOTION GRANTING TO THE COCONUT GROVE MERCHANTS' ASSOCIATION THEIR REQUESTS THAT: (1) THE CURRENT LANING AND PARKING PRO- POSALS BE HELD OPEN TO CONSTRUCTIVE CHANGES; AND (2) THAT ADDITIONAL STUDY AND CONSULTATION WITH COCONUT GROVE MERCHANTS ASSOCIAITON, THE COCONUT GROVE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, AND ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE INTERESTED PARTIES BE IMPLEMENTED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE Upon being seconded by Commissioner Lacasa , the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. Mayor Ferre: Will you make sure that the Clerk has a copy of those two items. Anything else you want to tell us. Mr. Tackett: Thank you very much. _ 35. PERSONAL APPEARANCE: MS. ELLEN OSMAN - REQUESTING FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR COCONUT GROVE CHILDREN'S THEATRE "PERFORH-A-THON" AT GUSMAN HALL Mayor Ferre: The next appearance is Ms. Ellen Osman, to present her request for City financial assistance for the Coconut Grove Children's Theatre Perform-A-Thon at Gusman Hall. Ms. Cornelia Dozier: Honorable Mayor and Commissioners, my name is Cornelia Dozier, I am director of the Coconut Grove Children's Theatre.We are a non- profit organization devoted to the educational training of the theatre arts for youth. Drawing from the community at large we now have 150 children that are involved in our program, offering clases diction, theatre history theatre technique, music,voice and technical theatre. Last year we requested and got the assistance from everyone involved in the City, in doing our very first Coconut Grove Children's Theatre of Performing Arts. Our endeavors are not only to educate the children in the theatre arts but also to instill a quality awareness of life. What better than theatre to do that? We are on April 30 this year, once again attempting to do our seventh annual Perform-A-Thon. Last year it was well attended. Over 6,000 people attended it. From 10 o'clock in the morning until 10 o'clock at night we are performing, all children, by children and of course children's theatre does appeal to the child in every one of us. Mayor Ferre: Sorry to interrupt you but I have a little bit of an emergency that I am going to have to leave, and I really would like to vote for your thing. What exactly,.. Ms. Osman: If you will turn to the budget that I gave to Mr. Grassie several weeks ago. You were given it today on your agenda. Mayor Ferre: Item 26. Ms. Osman: We have two changes. We are requesting from the City in this budget rn. 100 11AR 2 2 19T9 $1,050.00 which we are in deficit for this project, our annual Perform-A-Thon. Mayor Ferre: One thousand and what? Ms. Osman: One thousand and fifty dollars is reflected in the last page of what you have. Mayor Ferre: Are you a nonprofit organization ? Ms. Osman: We are a nonprofit organization. Mrs. Gordon: It was beautiful. I was thrilled to be there last year. I hope I can be with you again. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Manager has the staff had an opportunity to look and make sure this is a legitimate operation and all that kind of stuff? Ms. Osman: Rev. Gibson is well aware of our organization and Commissioner Gordon is also very aware of it. In fact we were presented a proclamation at our Perform-A-Thon last year. Mayor Ferre: I remember, which I signed. Mrs. Gordon: What's your change? Ms. Osman: Quick change. One thing is that we receive a waiver from Gusman Hall yesterday which I want you to be aware of. Mayor Ferre: Who gave you the waiver? Mr. Grassie: The Staff Committee, that evaluates requests for waivers. Ms. Osman:..which reduced the amount we need $250.00. There is a revenue income that is not near what I had anticipated which is ad book income which is being reduced by $500.00 which would increase our request by $200.00 Mrs. Gordon: I would so move Mr. Mayor. I think it comes out to $1500.00. Mayor Ferre: Are you earmarking where the funds come from? Mrs. Gordon: That would come from new programs and accounts under the 'Quality of Life' classification that we have. Festivals and such. When is it going to be? I want to come. Ms. Dozier: Its on April 30. We are sending invitations to all of you. We would be happy to have you attend this one. Mayor Ferre: Are you getting funds from any other source? Metro? Ms. Dozier: Burger King has given us a grant $2,800.00. Nothing else has been done,.... Mayor Ferre: Have you asked Metro or the Arts Counsel? We are now paying in this community,..we are raising about a half million dollars a month of which, ...what, 20% is being earmarked for just these types of things. Mr. Grassie: Yes, 201 is being marked,... Mayor Ferre: It will be well over 1 million dollars, which is exactly for your type of program. Yesterday when we met, in the Committee that's involved in that, I made a very strong point to Mr. Cooper and those involved in the arts not to forget that in this Community more than 502 „in Dade County,..of this community is either black or Latin, and I wanted to make that point very sure. I have nothing against the Philharmonic and I have nothing against the opera, and I have nothing against the well -established things except the times that I've been there I don't see that any blacks and I don't see that many Latins that are able to afford, or sitting there at those concerts. Ma. Dozier: They'll have to come to ours. rn. 101 MAR 2 2 1276 Mayor Ferre: I just want to make sure that it is understood that I made that point then. I think next year this going to be resolved hopefully this way. Mr. Grassie: Two points, Mr. Mayor. One the preliminary staff evaluation is that this is a very worthwhile kind of a project. The other point that you need to be aware of is that it is not a request that was budgeted. Consequently we don't have the money in that particular account. We can pay it in the short run. It simply means that as we get toward to the end of the year some of the organizations that have been budgeted are going to get squeezed. That's the kind of problem we always have. You are aware of that, but we can do it. Mayor Ferre: Call the roll. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Gordon , who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 79-231 A MOTION INSTRUCTING THE CITY MANAGER TO ALLOCATE FUNDS NOT TO EXCEED $1,500 TO THE COCONUT GROVE CHILDREN'S THEATRE IN CONNECTION WITH THE COCONUT GROVE CHILDREN'S THEATRE ANNUAL "PERFORM-A-THON"; SUCH FUNDS TO BE TAKEN FROM NEW PROGRAMS AND ACCOUNTS QUALITY OF LIFE OR OTHER APPROPRIATE SOURCE TO BE IDENTIFIED BY THE CITY MANAGER Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gibson , the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. 1 1.02 rn IlAR 2 2 t979 Mayor Ferre: "Before the vote on adopting all items included in the Consent Agenda is taken (Items 28-33), is there anyone present who is an objector or proponent that wishes to speak on any item in the Consent Agenda? Hearing none, vote on adoption of the Consent Agenda will now be taken. The following resolutions were introduced by Commissioner Plummer, seconded by Commissioner Lacasa and passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. 36.1 BID ACCEPTANCE, WAIVE FORMAL BID PROCEDURES FOR FURNISH- ING PRE -PACKAGED MEDICATIONS FOR THE DEPT. OF FIRE. RESOLUTION NO. 79-232 A RESOLUTION WAIVING THE FORMAL BID PROCEDURES AND ACCEPT- ING THE PROPOSAL OF INTERNATIONAL MEDICATION SYSTEMS FOR FURNISHING PRE -PACKAGED MEDICATIONS AS REQUIRED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF FIRE AT AN ESTIMATED TOTAL COST OF $8,000.00; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM 1978-79 OPERATING BUDGET OF THE DEPARTMENT; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER AND THE PURCHAS- ING AGENT TO ISSUE THE PURCHASE ORDER FOR THESE MATERIALS. 36.2 ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK - D.M.P. CORP. FOR SOUTHERN DRAIN- AGE PROJECT E-43 (SECOND BIDDING). RESOLUTION NO. 79-233 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE COMPLETED WORK PERFORMED BY D.M.P. CORPORATION AT A TOTAL COST OF $259,994.76 FOR SOUTHERN DRAINAGE PROJECT E-43 (SECOND BIDDING); AND AUTHORIZING A FINAL PAYMENT OP $27,543.88 36.3 ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK - MET CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR ORANGE BOWL STRUCTURAL REPAIRS - 1978. RESOLUTION NO. 79-234 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE COMPLETED WORK PERFORMED BY MET CONSTRUCTION, INC. AT A TOTAL COST OF $235,306.00 FOR THE ORANGE BOWL STRUCTURAL REPAIRS - 1978; AND AUTHORIZING A FINAL PAYMENT OF $25,330.60. 36.4 BID ACCEPTANCE - NEW RIVER CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. - N.W. 20 STREET AREA SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT-SK-4437. RESOLUTION NO. 79-235 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE BID OF NEW RIVER CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $23,334, THE TOTAL BID OF THE PROPOSAL, FOR N. W. 20 STREET AREA SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT IN THE N. W. 20 STREET AREA SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT; WITH MONIES THEREFORE ALLOCATED FROM THE "HIGHWAY G. O. BOND FUND"; WITH ADDITIONAL MONIES ALLOCATED FOR PROJECT AND INCIDENTAL EXPENSES FROM AFORESAID FUND; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH SAID FIRM. 103 'MAR 2 2 t9T! 36.5 BID ACCEPTANCE - BOODWIN, INC. FOR AVALON SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT SR-5k53-C 6 S. RESOLUTION NO. 79-236 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE BID OF GOODWIN, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,163,949, THE TOTAL BID OF THE PROPOSAL, FOR AVALON SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT SR-5453-C CENTERLINE SEWER) AND SR-5453-S (SIDELINE SEWER) IN THE AVALON SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT SR-5453-C (CENTERLINE SEWER) AND SR-5453-S (SIDELINE SEWER); WITH MONIES THEREFOR ALLOCATED FROM THE "SANITARY SEWER G. 0. BOND FUND"; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH SAID FIRM. 36.6 AUTHORIZE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEAR- ING FOR OBJECTIONS TO ACCEPTANCE OF COMPLETED WORK - DELAWARE SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT SR-5390-C. RESOLUTION NO. 79-237 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR OBJECTIONS TO THE ACCEPTANCE BY CITY COMMISSION OF THE COMPLETED CONSTRUCTION OF DELAWARE SANI- TARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT SR-5390-C (CENTERLINE SEWER) - BID "A" - IN DELAWARE SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT SR-5390-C (CENTERLINE SEWER) - BID "A". 104 37. CONFIRMING RESOLUTION: REQUESTING JOINT MEETING WITH DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gordon who • moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 79-238 A RESOLUTION STRONGLY URGING THE DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD TO MEET IN JOINT SESSION WITH THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSING AND RESOLVING MATTERS OF MUTUAL CONCERN AND ALSO RESPECTRULLY REQUESTING SAID SCHOOL BOARD TO ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THE HEREIN RESOLUTION AND RESPOND THERETO (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gibson , the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. 38. ESTABLISH MAY 24, 1979 AS DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON BALL POINT APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT Mrs. Gordon: I want to ask does this have to go to the Planning Board also? Mr. Fosmoen: Yes, it does. Mrs. Gordon: So therefore you have to schedule it for the Planning Board and then to the Commission? Mr. Fosmoen: We have it scheduled. Mayor Ferre: May 24 is for who? Mr. Fosmoen: For this Commission. Mrs. Gordon: When does the Planning Board get it? Mr. Fosmoen: May 16. Mayor Ferre: Do we have to pass a resolution for them too? Mr. Fosmoen:No. Mayor Ferre: Just for us? rn. 105 WAR 2 2 1979 The following resolution vas introduced by Commissioner Plummerwho moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 79-239 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING MAY 24, 1979 AS THE DATE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE BALLPOINT APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT, SAID MEETING TO BE CONTINUED FROM TIME TO TIME AS NECESSARY (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 Rose Gordon Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. 39. CONFIRMING RESOLUTION: CHANGE DATES FOR CITY COMMISSION MEETINGS DURING THE MONTH OF APRIL The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gordon who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 79-240 A RESOLUTION RESCHEDULING THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 12, 1979, TO TAKE PLACE ON APRIL 19, 1979, AND RESCHEDULING THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 26, 1979, TO APRIL 23, 1979, BEGINNING AT 6 P.M. O'CLOCK . (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gibson , the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. 1.06 rn MAR 2 2 1979 40. EXPRESSION OF CITY COMMISSION'S DISSATISFACTION WITH RECENTLY REVISED STANDARDS OF ELIGIBILITY FOR DETERMINING AMOUNT OF FOOD STAMPS TO BE AWARDEDTO PEOPLE IN NEED Mrs. Gordon: On the #2 item, I want to call to your attention a situation that maybe not everybody is aware of, but it hurting a great number of low-income people in our community and that is the cutback on the method- ology for determining the amount of food stamps that are made available to these people. I want to get the attention of the Commission before I,... Mr. Plummer:You've got mine, baby. Mrs. Gordon:...yes, but I need to tell you what the problem is so you will understand it and be able to speak out in other bodies about it. Congress has eliminated from the calculations of eligibility the costs that the persons, --particularly the elderly,have to spend for medical care. Medicine, or any other medical care. Now in reallocating the amounts of dollars that are considered their base, so they can determine how much money they will get, some of the elderly people are receiving as little as 12 to 15 dollars a month in food stamps whereas they were receiving closer to fifty dollars before. What's happening is that a number of these people have stopped taking the medication because they are getting no credit for it and a lot of those people now are ending up in the emergency room of the hospitals at lunch time because that's where they can get a meal. And its a really sad situation and I feel that we together with every other concerned body, the Dade League of Cities, the United Way, --whatever agency has to deal with community problems, must notify our congressmen, our senators, of the inequity of the system that's being used. So I would like to move that we as a City Commission notify those people concerned in Washington who have to deal with this issue, how its affecting our population, because we have a great number of people here who are being severely handicapped by the method now being used. I move it. I don't have a resolution before me. I would hope that we could get one ready before we leave tonight. Mayor Ferre: There's a motion and a second. Call the roll. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gordon who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 79-241 A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING EXTREME DISSATISFACTION ON THE PART OF THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, WITH RECENTLY REVISED STANDARDS OF ELIGIBILITY FOR DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF FOOD STAMPS TO BE AWARDED PERSONS IN NEED, AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO FORWARD A COPY OF THE HEREIN RESOLUTION TO THE PROPER FEDERAL OFFICIALS CHARGED WITH ADMINISTERING THE PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL FOOD STAMP PROGRAM (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gibson , the resolution Was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. 107 MAR 2 2 1979 41. URGE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE THAT NO CHANGES BE ADOPTED PERTAINING TO CHAPTER 175 AND 185 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES "PENSION FUNDS" ti. Mr.Plummer: Mr. Mayor I brought to the attention of the Commission a guess a sore subject, and I can go into it as much as you want. I'll read the resolution which I have combined. (Mr. Plummer reads resolution.) Mayor Ferre: That's a pretty heavy subject. Mr. Plummer: Well its not a heavy subject. Mayor Ferre: J.L. look, the session doesn't start until the middle of April, right? Mrs. Gordon: Well, its in committee now, Mr. Mayor and that's a reason. Mayor Ferre: You want to make a motion? Mr. Plummer: I make the motion, yes. Mrs. Gordon: I second the motion. Mr. Lacasa: I don't know what the impact of this will have on the pension and financial structure of the City. I relly don't know. Mr. Grassie: This is strictly a policy choice on the part of the City Commission. So whatever action you take here would be the position of the City. I think in fairness to the City Commission you need to know what the money impact this decision is. Mayor Ferre: Its going to be an hour. Mrs. Gordon: It's not going to be an hour. Mayor Ferre:I'm already an hour late. Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Gunderson, before the Mayor leaves, may I ask you a question? Are you planning to go to Tallahassee on March 2Oth? Mr. Gunderson: No. Mr. Plummer: Well I guess I'm running the meeting. Is there any other discussion? Call the roll. Mr. Lacasa: What? Mr. Ongie: It's a motion that Mr. Plummer read from a resolution about urging the State legislature not to,... Mr. Plummer: In fairness, I hear a disagreement over here, and over there shaking heads that they want to discuss the matter. Mayor Ferre: Look, with the records, I don't want to be leaving here without voting. Show me voting no on the premise that its a very com- plicated subject I don't fully understand. It has a serious economic impact as I understand it. J.L please don't misunderstand. Until I understand this much, much better, and I don't have time now. Mr. Plummer: Well, Mr. Mayor just so you will go away with a little comfort- able feeling, this is a proposal to change the present,.. Mrs. Gordon: Exactly right. Mr. Plummer:..its not a matter that this will change to make the impact rn. 108 MAR 2 2 1979 14r. Plummer: This is a proposal to change what is presently there in our pension fund. And Mr. Gunderson went representing the City and proposed this idea to a Committee who adopted it without first finding the policy of this Commission. Mr.Grassie: Commissioner, he did not go representing the City. He was invited as an expert witness and he testified et thier request,as an expert witness, of a person in the state who knows about these things. Mayor Ferre: When you testified did you make it a point to say that were not there representing the City of Miami? Mr. Gunderson: I represented the director,..as the Director of Finance,.. Mr. Plummer:...for the City of Miami. Mr. Gunderson:..for the City of Miami. Mrs. Gordon: Well, he did. Mayor Ferre: But you specified that this was not the City of Miami's position? Did you say that? Mr. Gunderson: Yes, sir, I said that. Very specifically. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor I want to say this to you, and I'll abide by your rules. This particular thing has got,... Mayor Ferre: Put it to a vote J.L. Mr. Plummer:No, I haven't got the votes at all. I can only say the way J.L. feels, and I'm saying to you, that its got a tremendous up -set in the Police Department, Fire Department and all employees. Mrs. Gordon: You know how I feel? J.L. is absolutely right. What it does, its a matter for negotiations in my opinion. In fact if it were going to be handled, it should have been handled at the bargaining table because that's where it belongs. Mr. Plummer: Rose, I don't agree with that. I think its wrong period. I am totally opposed to it. Mayor Ferre: I don't understand any of this,..because none of you,.. you may have gone to see J.L., and you may have gone to see Rose about it,... Mrs. Gordon: No one saw me about this..I just happen to know about it, being on the Pension Board. Mr. Plummer: For the record, it is unfortunate, with the instructions of this Commission, to place it on this agenda. I accept the Administra- tion, that they forgot to do it, and as such put it on the supplemental. But it was to be a scheduled item for today. Mayor Ferre: Would you continue calling the roll? J.L. I will commit to you if you lose this thing, I will move to reconsider and we'll bring it up at the next session. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor before I do that, and take defeat, which could be misunderstood, I'd rather defer. I don't want to but rather than take a defeat I'd rather defer. Mayor Ferre: And if you lose, I'm telling you on the record, that I will make a motion to reconsider. Mrs. Gordon: That no good Maurice, show that. Its no good that way. • rn. 109 VAR 2 2 1971 Rev. Gibson: Why don't we defer this? Mr. Plummer: Father the legislature convenes in abount another 10 days. Mayor Ferre: Call the question. Mrs. Gordon: How is the motion being stated? Mr. Ongie: I don't have a complete wording of it. He's got it. Mrs. Gordon: Will you read it? Mr. Plummer: Okay, I have the motion in front of me Rose, right here, okay, and its with an addition and that includes the Fire Department as well. I vote yes. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 79-242 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, RECOMMENDING TO THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA THAT NO CHANGES BE ADOPTED IN THE LEGISLATURE PERTAINING TO CHAPTER 175, FLORIDA STATUTES, ENTITLED "MUNICIPAL FIREMEN'S PENSION TRUST FUND" OR TO CHAPTER 185, FLORIDA STATUTES, ENTITLED "MUNICIPAL POLICE OFFICER'S RETIREMENT TRUST FUND: POLICEMENT GENERALLY", AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO FORWARD A COPY OF THE HEREIN RESOLUTION TO PROPER STATE OFFICIALS (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gordon , the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. NOES: Mayor Ferre. 42. PERSONAL APPEARANCE: LAZARO ALBO REGARDING EXCHANGE OF EQUIPMENT WITH LIMA, PERU. APPOINT LAZARO ALBO AS ASSISTANT TO THE MAYOR AT $1.00 A YEAR Mayor Ferre: Lazaro would you stand up and tell us what the problem is? This is the City of Lima, we passed a resolution last July to give them 9 trucks. They got sold for half of what we said they were worth four months later, and now there's a bunch of new trucks and my position for the record very clearly is, that we'll live up to whatever it is we agreed to do in the past. And no more. Mr. Plummer: Or no less. Mayor Ferre: On a dollar basis. We agreed last year , Mt. Lazaro Albo: ..give 9 trucks. Mayor Ferre:..to give 9 trucks. One thing is 9 trucks,...to Lima Peru. Mrs. Gordon: To what? For what? To where? ra. ,MAR 2 2 1279 Mayor Ferre: To Lima Peru. We passed this last year. Mrs. Gordon: Nine trucks? Mr. Plummer: For the statue Rose. Mayor Ferre: We are going to get a statue and all this kind of stuff. In the meantime, the trucks were sold. Four months went by, the whole thing went away. The trucks were sold. We didn't live up to this thing, through no fault of ours Mr. Grassie: They decided they did not want the trucks.They turned us down. Mayor Ferre: Then is the question. Would you mean Tommy de Toro because you never heard back from them. Mr. Grassie: No, sir. Mayor Ferre: We got an official communication? Mr. Grassie: You remember that Tommy De Toro was in Lima with us he was named by the Mayor of Lima as the official representative for him here. And that happened when you and I were the mayor's home. So we did accept his word for it. But what happened was that Lima could not get the national shipping company to give them freight, and consequently they did not accept the trucks. After that we sold them. Mayor Ferre: We sold them. All right. Now, the Captain was here from the Peruvian Navy, now says that they will have them shipped, to come by and pick up these trucks. The question is the trucks aren't there anymore. Mr. Grassie: His Mucks are not here. Mayor Ferre: Now, therefore all I am saying that I think made a commitment that I think we should live up to. Those trucks are no longer here. We've got to do something about it. However the problem is that these new trucks are worth much more than the old trucks. Mr. Grassie: Six times as much. Mr. Albo: No, no. The other truck was $9,700. These new trucks are $12,500. He sold for $9,700. Now hP Mayor Ferre: I've got no problems Lazaro as long we do not change what we did before. Mr. Albo: No change,...before, 9-trucks, now, 6-trucks. Mayor Ferre: The same thing. Mr. Albo: What's the difference. Mr. Plummer: I sounds like a Chinese election. Mayor Ferre: Look this is a serious matter. Mr. Albo: This is a serious matter,...and City Manager should be in Peru. Okay, go ahead. Mrs. Gordon: Where's the statue Lazaro? Mr. Grassie: The same people who estimated the value of the trucks the first time, did them the second time. Trucks that we now have are worth $6,000. a piece and that is for 6 trucks, $36,000. rn. 111 LIAR 2 2 t! Mayor Ferre: Lazaro we cannot do that. Mr. Albo: Mr. Manager, before you want a price for $1500. --they sold for $350. Mayor Ferre: No, but,... Mrs. Gordon: Can we take it up next month? Mayor Ferre: No, because the ships are leaving. Mr. Albo: Before you got in big trouble, --you want $1500. it's no good, $350.00,. (INAUDIBLE) Mr. Plummer: How much are you willing to pay? Mr. Albo: I am willing to pay nothing. The City Manager and the Mayor being in Peru,... Mr. Grassie: Mr. Mayor can we agree that want to give them $9,000. of equipment? If we can agree on that,... Mrs. Gordon: No. Mr. Albo: (INAUDIBLE) Mayor Ferre: Look this Commission took a position that we were going to give them $9,500. worht of equipment. All right? Now, that stands. They were going to give us in exchange for that a statue. If we don't get the statue, you don't get the trucks. Mr. Albo: I'll put you in the statue. Mayor Ferre: I don't want to be in the statue. Mr. Plummer: Remember what is to be inside the statue? Mayor Ferre: Mr. Grassie, with regards to the trucks.Lazaro, wait a moment. I am one hour late to a very important meeting. Now, Mr. Grassie, seriously now, the $9,000. worth of equipment that they had (will you keep quiet) four months later, was sold for less than half of that. So that means obviously we had either inflated the price or,...I hope we don't do that in this case. Mr. Grassie: Mr. Mayor we will try and give them, and if you prefer. we will get an outside estimator. We'll try to give them as honestly as we can $9,000. worth of equipment. Mayor Ferre: Thanks very much. Mr. Lacasa: I move that Lazaro Albo be appointed assistant to the Mayor for $1.00 a year. Mr. Plummer: If you'll knock it down to 99p I'll consider. I second the motion. rn. 112 MAR 2 2 1979 The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Lacasa , who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 79-243 A MOTION APPOINTING LAZARO ALBO AS ASSISTANT TO MAYOR MAURICE A FERRE AT AN ANNUAL SALARY OF $1.00 PER YEAR. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Rose Gordon Commissioner Armando Lacasa Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Commission at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 7:45 o'clock P.M. ATTEST: RALPH G. ONGIE CITY CLERK MATTY HIRAI ASSISTANT CITY CLERK MAURICE A FERRE MAYO R 113 MAR 2 2 ren CITY OF MfAMI MEETING DATE: INDEX March 22, 1979 ITEM NO DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION 1 COMMISSION AGENDA AND CITY CLERK REPORT 2 REQUESTING THAT THE CITY MANAGER INSTRUCT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO INQUIRE FROM OTHER LARGE URBAN AREAS TO DETERMINE IF A NEIGHBORHOOD PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY SYSTEM IS FUNCTIONING EFFECTIVELY 3 AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT A GRANT APPLICA- TION TO THE BUREAU OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE PLANNING AND ASSISTANCE, DIVISION OF STATE PLANNING, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, STATE OF FLORIDA FOR FUNDING OF JU- VENILE RUNAWAY PROJECT 4 AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT A GRANT APPLICA- TION TO THE BUREAU OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE PLANNING AND ASSISTANCE, DIVISION OF STATE PLANNING, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION 5 10 11 AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT A GRANT APPLICA- TION TO THE BUREAU OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE PLANNING, DEPART- MENT OF ADMINISTRATION. AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT EXTENDING AN AGREEMENT DATED AUGUST 23, 1978 BETWEEN THE CITY AND ALLIED REPRESENTATIVES TO MANAGEMENT, INC. FOR FURNISHING, ON AN AS -REQUIRED" BASIS, ON -CALL PROGRAMMING -ANALYTICAL -CONVERSION SER- VICES FOR THE CITY'S COMPUTER OPERATIONS NAMING THE PRORPOSED CENTRAL MIAMI PARK, AT N.W. 10TH STREET AND 5TH AVENUE, THE "HENRY E.S. REEVES" PARK, IN RECOGNITION AND APPRECIATION OF MR. REEVES'S UNTIRING EFFORTS IN BEHALF OF THE CITY AND ITS CITIZENS ACCEPTING THE BID OF BOWEN PAINTING IN THE PROPOSED AMOUNT OF $83,300 FOR ORANGE BOWL -PAINTING AND MAINTENANCE-1979 ACCEPTING THE BID OF NORTHSIDE MOTORS, INC. AMENDING SECTIONS 1 AND 2 OF RESOLUTION NO. 78-374, ADOPTED MAY 31, 1978, WHICH APPROVED THE FINANCIAL PLANS FOR 400 SECTION 8 HOUSING UNITS. AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE TO PAY TO ROBERT JACOBS AND VICKI JACOBS, WITHOUT THE ADMISSION OF LIABILITY, THE SUM OF ONE -HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($150,000.00) IN FULL AND COMPLETE SETTLEMENT OF THIER CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY OF MIAMI AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF SELECTION AND 4ROM0TIONAL EXAMINATIONS FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMISSION ACTION R-79-202 R-79-205 R-79-206 R-79-207 R-79-208 R-79-209 R-79-210 R-79-211 R-79-212 R-79-213 R-79-214 RETRIEVAL CODE NO. 0043 79-202 79-205 79-206 79-207 79-208 79-209 79-210 79-211 79-212 79-213 79-214 DOCUMENTIN DEX CONTINUED TEM NO.I DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION 13 ASKING METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMIS- SIONERS NOT TO HOLD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TARGET AREA ELECTIONS IN EIGHT TARGET AREAS PARTIALLY OR WHOLLY WITHIN THE CITY OF MIAMI, UNTIL THE CITY COMMISSION MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS 14 TRANSFERRING CERTAIN CERTIFICATES OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY ISSUED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 56 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI 15 ACCEPTING THE COMPLETED WORK PERFORMED BY D.M.P. COR- PORATION AT A TOTAL COST OF $606,701.94 FOR THE MANOR SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT SR-5437-C 16 WAIVING THE FORMAL BID PROCEDURES AND ACCEPTING THE PROPOSAL OF INTERNATIONAL MEDICATION SYSTEMS FOR FURNISHING PRE -PACKAGED MEDICATIONS AS REQUIRED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF FIRE AT AN ESTIMATED TOTAL COST OF $8,000.00 17 ACCEPTING THE COMPLETED WORK PERFORMED BY D.M.P. COR- PORATION AT A TOTAL COST OF $259,994.00 FOR SOUTHERN DRAINAGE PROJECT E-43. 18 ACCEPTING THE COMPLETED WORK PERFORMED BY MET CONSTRUC- TION, INC. AT A TOTAL COST OF $253,306.00 FOR THE ORANGE BOWL STRUCTURAL REPAIRS-1978 19 ACCEPTING THE BID OF NEW RIVER CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $23,334, THE TOTAL BID OF THE PROPOSAL, FOR N.W. 20 STREET AREA SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT 20 ACCEPTING THE BID OF GOODWIN, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,163,949, THE TOTAL BID OF THE PROPOSAL, FOR AVALON SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT SR-5453-C SEWER AND SR-5453 S IN THE AVALON SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 21 AUTHORIZING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR OBJECTIONS OF THE COMPLETED CON STRUCTION OF DELEWARD SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT SR-5390-C 22 STRONGLY URGING THE DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD TO MEET IN JOINT SESSION WITH THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSING AND RESOLVING MATTERS OF MUTUAL CONCERN 23 ESTABLISHING MAY 24, 1979 AS THE DATE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE BALLPOINT APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT. 24 RESCHEDULING THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 12, 1979, TO TAKE PLACE ON APRIL 19, 1979 25 EXPRESSING EXTREME DISSATISFACTION ON THE PART OF THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, WITH RECENTLY RE- VISED STANDARDS OF ELIGIBILITY FOR DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF'FOOD STAMPS TO BE AWARDED PERSONS IN NEED COMMISSION ACTIONL R-79-215 R-79-218 R-79-221 R-79-232 R-79-233 R-79-234 R-79-235 R-79-236 R-79-237 R-79-238 R-79-239 R-79-240 R-79-241 RETRIEVAL CODE NO. 79-215 79-218 79-221 79-232 79-233 79-234 79-235 79-236 79-237 79-238 79-239 79-240 79-241 26 RECOMMENDING TO THE LEGISLATION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA THAT NO CHANGES BE ADOPTED IN THE LEGISLA- minN PERTAINING TO CHAPTER 175, FLORIDA STATUES,