Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2011-02-24 MinutesCity of Miami City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 www.miamigov.com 1 r V drCuRe 4RATtI ! L Meeting Minutes Thursday, February 24, 2011 9:00 AM PLANNING & ZONING City Hall Commission Chambers City Commission Tomas Regalado, Mayor Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Chairman Frank Carollo, Vice -Chairman Marc David Sarnoff, Commissioner District Two Francis Suarez, Commissioner District Four Richard P. Dunn 11, Commissioner District Five Tony E. Crapp Jr., City Manager Julie O. Bru, City Attorney Priscilla A. Thompson, City Clerk City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 CONTENTS PR - PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS MV - MAYORAL VETOES AM -APPROVING MINUTES CA - CONSENT AGENDA SR - SECOND READING ORDINANCES FR - FIRST READING ORDINANCES RE - RESOLUTIONS PART B PZ - PLANNING AND ZONING ITEM(S) MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS M - MAYOR'S ITEMS D1 - DISTRICT 1 ITEMS D2 - DISTRICT 2 ITEMS D3 - DISTRICT 3 ITEMS D4 - DISTRICT 4 ITEMS D5 - DISTRICT 5 ITEMS Minutes are transcribed verbatim. Periodically, agenda items are revisited during a meeting. [Later...J'fefers to discussions that were interrupted and later continued. City ofMiami Page 2 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 8:30 A.M. PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS PR.1 11-00157 PRESENTATION Honoree Homage to African Americans 11-00157 Protocol.pdf PRESENTED Presenter Protocol Item Mayor Regalado and Tributes of Honor Commissioner Dunn 1. Commissioner Dunn celebrated Black History Month by bestowing a special tribute to Ms. Nancy S. Dawkins, honoring her dedicated service, goodwill, and commitment to excellence as an outstanding education professional, political activist, and respected public servant, who serves as a model of genuine leadership in the development of the spirit of community in the City ofMiami. 2. Commissioner Dunn celebrated Black History Month by bestowing a special tribute to Chief Clarence Dickson, honoring his outstanding service, goodwill, and commitment to excellence as an Air Force Veteran of the Korean War and career Peace Officer for the City, in addition to being a respected public servant, who serves as a model of genuine leadership in the development of the spirit of community in the City ofMiami. 3. Commissioner Dunn celebrated Black History Month by bestowing a special tribute to Ms. Thelma Vernell Anderson Gibson, honoring her dedicated service, goodwill, and commitment to excellence as an outstanding nursing professional, respected philanthropist and humanitarian, who serves as a model of genuine leadership in the development of the spirit of community in the City ofMiami. 4. Commissioner Dunn celebrated Black History Month by bestowing a special tribute to Mr. Ralph A Pressley, Sr., honoring his exceptional service, goodwill, and commitment to excellence as an outstanding entrepreneur, proprietor of the original Esquire Barber Shop, and respected Christian, who serves as a model of genuine leadership in the development of the spirit of community in the City ofMiami. 5. Commissioner Dunn celebrated Black History Month by bestowing a special tribute to Ivan Yaeger, honoring his exceptional service, goodwill, and commitment to excellence as Chief Executive Officer of The Yaeger Companies, specializing in product development, educational programs and engineering innovations, including the Technology Leaders Initiative for young inventors and entrepreneurs, and saluted his success as one of America's top industrial designers, while serving as a model of genuine leadership in the development of the spirit of community in the City ofMiami. 6. Commissioner Dunn celebrated Black History Month by bestowing a special tribute to the Honorable Betty Jean Tucker Ferguson, honoring her outstanding service, goodwill, and commitment to excellence as a fearless fighter for justice, and catalyst for the creation of the City ofMiami Gardens, and founder of the Unrepresented People's Positive Action Council (UP -PAC), a community breakfast forum described as one of South Florida's most effective venues for the exchange of ideas, a gathering that has met each Saturday since 1987. 7. Commissioner Dunn celebrated Black History Month by bestowing a special tribute to the Honorable Carrie P. Meek, honoring her outstanding service, goodwill, and commitment to excellence as an educator, legislator, and Congresswoman who set impeccable leadership standards in a lifelong commitment to improving quality of life for Florida's citizens and its City ofMiami Page 3 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 future generations. 8. Commissioner Suarez paid tribute to Victoria Mendez, Esq. for her leadership as Supervising Assistant City Attorney for the Quality of Life and Environmental Division of the Office of the City Attorney of the City ofMiami, in addition to her position as President-elect of the 37 year -old Cuban American Bar Association (CABA), honoring her steadfast commitment to South Florida and her resolute concern with giving of herself to develop outstanding leadership in the legal community. 9. Chair Gort presented Certificates of Appreciation to: Jessenia Garcia, Jordana Zarut, Dan Gatzitua, Marylin Santos, Nancy Dorta, Celso Ahumanda, Jorge Pacheco, Jose Arana, Santiago Hernandez, Robert Pimantel, Upper Kutz, Rocky Coello, Octavio Marrero, Edwin De Jesus, Lidia De Jesus, The Nursing Station, Fashion Designers Expo., and Make up By Melissa; thanking them for their efforts in creating a private public sector event in which volunteers collected funds and materials to host a Back -to -School event in which 600 book bags were given out to students containing school supplies, in addition to providing other services such as free haircuts to those in attendance. 10). Chair Gort presented a Commendation to Ileana Hernandez Acosta in recognition of her distinguished tenure on the City ofMiami Zoning Board, honoring her outstanding service of fourteen years as a board member, seven of which involved serving as Chair from 2001 to 2008, and commended her integrity and commitment while acting as a fl atchdogTor the just and consistent application of the Planning and Zoning Rules and Regulations of the City ofMiami Chair Gort: Also on the dais we have the City Manager, Tony Crapp. He should be here in a minute. We have the City Attorney, Julie Bru, and City Clerk, Priscilla Thompson. Thank you. At this time, we're going to have -- we have some proclamations. Presentations made. 9:00 A.M. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Present: Chairman Gort, Vice Chairman Carollo, Commissioner Suarez and Commissioner Dunn II Absent: Commissioner Sarnoff On the 24th day of February 2011, the City Commission of the City ofMiami, Florida, met at its regular meeting place in City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida, in regular session. The meeting was called to order by Chair Gort at 9:28 a.m., recessed at 12:01 p.m., reconvened at 12: 20 p.m., recessed at 1: 06p.m., reconvened at 5:21 p.m., and recessed the meeting at 9: 20 p.m. to be continued to Tuesday, March 2, 2011, at 8: 00 a.m. Note for the record: Vice Chair Carollo entered the chambers at 9: 34 a.m. ALSO PRESENT: Julie O. Bru, City Attorney Tony E. Crapp, Jr., City Manager Priscilla A. Thompson, City Clerk Chair Gort: At this time, I would like to ask Commissioner Suarez, if you lead us in a pledge -- I mean -- no, we'll have the Reverend give us the invocations [sic] and, Commissioner, the pledge of allegiance. Commissioner Suarez: Yes. Invocation and pledge of allegiance delivered. City ofMiami Page 4 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Present: Chairman Gort, Commissioner Sarnoff, Vice Chairman Carollo, Commissioner Suarez and Commissioner Dunn II On the 2nd day of March 2011, the City Commission of the City ofMiami, Florida, continued its meeting from February 24, 2011, at its regular meeting place in City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida, in regular session. The meeting was resumed by Chair Gort at 8: 32 a.m., recessed at 9:18 a.m., reconvened at 10: 37 a.m., and adjourned at 11:14 a.m. ALSO PRESENT: Julie O. Bru, City Attorney Tony E. Crapp, Jr., City Manager Priscilla A. Thompson, City Clerk MAYORAL VETOES NO MAYORAL VETOES Chair Gort: Okay. Do we have any Mayor's veto? Do we have any Mayor's veto? Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): I am so sorry, Chair. I'm not hearing you. I apologize. Chair Gort: Do we have the Mayor's veto? Ms. Thompson: There are no mayoral vetoes. Chair Gort: Okay. APPROVING THE MINUTES OF THE FOLLOWING MEETING: Motion by Commissioner Dunn II, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, to APPROVED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Carollo, Suarez and Dunn II Absent: 1 - Commissioner(s) Sarnoff Chair Gort: The regular -- we have minutes? Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Yes, we do, sir. We have the minutes for the regular meeting of January 27, 2011. Chair Gort: Okay. Do I have a motion to approve the minutes? Commissioner Dunn: So move. Commissioner Suarez: Second. Chair Gort: It's been moved by -- Any further discussion? Being none, all in favor, state it by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Gort: Moved by Commissioner Dunn and second by Commissioner Suarez. END OF APPROVING MINUTES ORDER OF THE DAY City ofMiami Page 5 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Chair Gort: The -- any deferrals? Tony E. Crapp, Jr. (City Manager): Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, the Administration would like to defer SR.1 to the March 10 meeting. We'd also like to withdraw RE.1. Commissioner Suarez: So move. Commissioner Dunn: Second. Chair Gort: It's been moved and second. Moved by Commissioner Suarez, second by Commissioner Dunn. Any further discussion? Vice Chair Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Chair Gort: Yes. Vice Chair Carollo: Can we defer RE. 6 --? Actually, can we continue it to the same like meeting, RE.6? Commissioner Suarez: I amend my motion. Chair Gort: Okay, any other one? Vice Chair Carollo: Seconder accept? Chair Gort: Any other ones? Do I have a motion? Commissioner Suarez: I amended my motion to accept his -- Vice Chair Carollo: Seconder accept? Commissioner Suarez: -- additional continuance. Commissioner Dunn: Yes, yes. Chair Gort: Been moved by Commissioner Suarez, second by Commissioner Dunn. Any discussion? Being none, all in favor, state it by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. City ofMiami Page 6 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 CONSENT AGENDA CA.1 RESOLUTION 11-00074 Department of Public A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH Facilities ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE LEASE AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY") AND MIAMI OUTBOARD CLUB, INC., A NON-PROFIT FLORIDA CORPORATION ("LESSEE"), FOR USE OF A PORTION OF CITY -OWNED PROPERTY ON WATSON ISLAND, TO MODIFY THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE LESSEE, TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL BAY BOTTOM LANDS AND WET SLIP DOCK FACILITIES IN THE LEASED PROPERTY. 11-00074 Summary Form.pdf 11-00074 Legislation.pdf 11-00074 Exhibit 1.pdf Motion by Vice Chairman Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Carollo and Suarez Absent: 2 - Commissioner(s) Sarnoff and Dunn II R-11-0064 Chair Gort: Do I have a motion --? That was -- CA.1. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Chair, that mean -- Chair, I'm just making sure that your consent agenda vote would be recorded with your CA.2. Vice Chair Carollo: That's correct. Chair Gort: Right. Ms. Thompson: Okay, thank you. Madeline Valdes (Director): Good morning. Madeline Valdes, Department of Public Facilities. CA.1 is a resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into a third amendment to the lease agreement with the Miami Outboard Club, a nonprofit organization, for the use of approximately .54 acres of submerged lands. Any questions? Chair Gort: Yes. Vice Chair Carollo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I actually contacted the City Attorney yesterday with regards to the question that I had. Madam City Attorney, it stipulates here that these approximately .54 acres of bay bottom lands may require board approval, and that's some type of state board and may be subject to state fees. Now if a waiver is not received or if not paid, then this additional contract is void and null is my understanding. However, would the City be liable for that payment? Julie O. Bru (City Attorney): Mr. Vice Chair, I did look into it after you expressed your concerns about it, and technically, to answer your question, this amendment doesn't deal with what would happen if the trustees, the state agency or the state cabinet members were to require that there be City ofMiami Page 7 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 some -- you know, some kind of compensation paid to the state for any kind of waiver of deed restrictions. However, in discussing it with Ms. Valdes, we've determined that there is probably a very unlikely probability that that would happen because this is a club that is being used for a public purpose and they have an existing waiver of deed restriction that goes back to the '40s. They've continued to maintain their nonprofit public purpose status throughout the years, and it is unlikely that the state would impose any kind of fee for any kind of additional amendment to their existing waiver. Vice Chair Carollo: So -- Ms. Bru: She can address a little bit further the extent of this. Ms. Valdes: Commissioner, if you give me a moment. The club has been there since the '40s. They have a waiver -- an original waiver from the state even before the property was conveyed to the City, so they're long-standing in terms of the use of the property. We have the provision in all our agreements when it concerns submerged lands that should the state impose a fee, that they would be responsible for that fee. But it is very unlikely that the state would impose any fee because they have been out to the site and they clearly show the public purpose. Vice Chair Carollo: So would it be fair to say -- andl think it's -- the question's more for -- well, I guess both of you -- that although it's possible, it is highly unlikely that there will be any fees or any type of liability with regards to these fees for the City ofMiami? Ms. Valdes: That's correct. Ms. Bru: That's correct. Vice Chair Carollo: Okay. I have another question. With regards to the 5 percent for the fuel -- Ms. Valdes: The fuel? Vice Chair Carollo: -- do you have any comparable --? Like how do I know that 5 percent is a reasonable amount and we couldn't charge 10 percent? Or how -- is there like comparables? How wouldl know that --? Ms. Valdes: Actually, before we negotiated the fee, we went back and looked at what we received from other vendors who do fuel at other marinas. And normally the percentage that is provided is 10 percent, so what we're doing is we're splitting the 10 percent; 5 for the City, 5 for the Outboard Club in terms of the revenue. When they have an existing fuel facility, not a truck bringing in the fuel, but an existing fueling facility, normally it's anywhere between 5 and 10 cents a gallon. So we do think that this is comparable with what we would receive normally from an upland use. Remember, in this case they don't have a fueling facility. It's a truck -- Vice Chair Carollo: Right. Ms. Valdes: -- that comes in and fuels the vessels. They're monitoring for us to ensure that the vendor always goes to the same location so there is no contamination on site, and also, they ensure that we get a copy of the ticket as to what was fueled in the vessel. Vice Chair Carollo: Thank you, Ms. Valdes. Andl guess with your answer, I feel relatively comfortable that we're getting fair market value. Ms. Valdes: That is correct. Vice Chair Carollo: And my last question would be -- and always showing some professional City ofMiami Page 8 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 skepticism, I want to make sure that the percentage is done correctly so it's -- would you be -- would you object to having some type of -- or may requiring some type of agreed upon procedures or having the lessee install some type of fuel or revenue control equipment in order to see exactly how much fuel they are actually providing so we could get an accurate of the percentage? Ms. Valdes: I don't know if there's such a machine or equipment. But I could tell you that my staff looks at all the receipts that are provided by the club, and we're confident that we're getting what we should be receiving in terms of that revenue. We do do our own audits internally. I don't know if you're comfortable with that, but we -- I am certainly comfortable with that. I don't know if there's an equipment that you can somehow monitor when it's being fueled because, remember, this is a truck that comes in -- Vice Chair Carollo: I understand. Ms. Valdes: -- and loads the fuel on the vessel. Vice Chair Carollo: When you say you all do your own audits, is it by the audit [sic] general of the City or is it by your office? Ms. Valdes: My office. I have a staff person that's responsible for ensuring that we recover the monies that should be coming to the City as it relates to the fuel sales. We have the same situation with the Miami Yacht Club. Since there's no upland facilities, we get a percentage of the revenues for the sales of the fuels in their area as well. Vice Chair Carollo: I just -- I guess I'm starting to be a little bit more cautious because, again, it's the financial times, even though we actually should always operate in this matter [sic]. But I just want to verin, and confirm that the actual percentage that we are getting, first of all, is reasonable, is market value, and second of all, that, you know, it's accurate. You know, that the fuel that's actually being pumped in, you know, we have an accurate account so we could get our 5 percent from that. Ms. Valdes: We get the receipts so I think with that, you should be comfortable. Vice Chair Carollo: Okay. Ms. Valdes: Thank you. Chair Gort: Thank you. Actually, when the -- my understanding is -- and I'm not too familiar with this -- when they pump the gas in, the receipt will say how many gallons they pumped in and so on. Ms. Valdes: That's correct. Chair Gort: Okay. Now the motion. Vice Chair Carollo: So move. Commissioner Suarez: Second. Chair Gort: Moved by -- Ms. Valdes: Thank you. Chair Gort: -- Commissioner Carollo and second by Commissioner Suarez. Any further City ofMiami Page 9 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 discussion on this item? Being none, all in favor, state it by saying "aye. " The Commission (Collectively): Aye. CA.2 RESOLUTION 11-00075 Department of Police A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO INTERLOCALAGREEMENTS, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORMS, BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY") AND MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FOR THE PROVISION OF POLICE ROVING PATROL SERVICES WITHIN THE NATOMA MANORS SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT, BAY HEIGHTS SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT, MORNINGSIDE SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT, FAIRHAVEN SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT AND BRICKELL FLAGLER SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO RENEW SAID AGREEMENTS FOR SUCCESSIVE TWO (2) YEAR PERIODS AND TO ACCEPT PAYMENT FOR POLICE SERVICES PROVIDED AT CURRENT OFF -DUTY POLICE OFFICER RATES AND ADMINISTRATIVE FEES. 11-00075 Summary Form.pdf 11-00075 Legislation.pdf 11-00075 Exhibit 1.pdf This Matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Carollo and Suarez Absent: 2 - Commissioner(s) Sarnoff and Dunn II R-11-0063 Adopted the Consent Agenda Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Vice Chairman Carollo, including all the preceding items marked as having been adopted on the Consent Agenda. The motion carried by the following vote: Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Carollo and Suarez Absent: 2 - Commissioner(s) Sarnoff and Dunn II END OF CONSENT AGENDA Chair Gort: Consent agenda. Vice Chair Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Chair Gort: Yes. Vice Chair Carollo: I'd like to pull CA.1. Chair Gort: CA.1, okay. Do I have a motion on the consent agenda? There's only one more. Commissioner Suarez: So move. Chair Gort: Okay. It's been moved by Commissioner Suarez, second -- City ofMiami Page 10 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 SR.1 10-01296 Office of Strategic Planning, Budgeting, and Performance FR.1 11-00112 District 2- Commissioner Marc David Sarnoff Vice Chair Carollo: Second. Chair Gort: -- by Vice Chairman Carollo. Any further discussion? Being none, all in favor, state it by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. ORDINANCE - SECOND READING ORDINANCE Second Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ESTABLISHING THE DEPARTMENTS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI AS SET FORTH AND FUNDED PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION NO. 10-0528, ADOPTED NOVEMBER 18, 2010, AND PURSUANT TO SECTION 19 OF THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ENTITLED "CREATION OF NEW DEPARTMENTS; DISCONTINUANCE OF DEPARTMENTS;" CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE. 10-01296 Summary Form.pdf 10-01296 Legislation.pdf 10-01296 FR Summary Form 12-16-10.pdf 10-01296 Pre -Legislation 12-16-10.pdf 10-01296 Table of Organization 12-16-10.pdf 10-01296 Table of Organization-02-24-11.pdf 10-01296 Legislation (Version 2) 12-16-10.pdf Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Commissioner Dunn II, that this matter be DEFERRED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Carollo, Suarez and Dunn II Absent: 1 - Commissioner(s) Sarnoff Note for the record: Item SR.1 was deferred to the Commission meeting scheduled for March 10, 2011. END OF ORDINANCE - SECOND READING ORDINANCES - FIRST READING ORDINANCE First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING CHAPTER 31/ARTICLE III, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "LOCAL BUSINESS TAX AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS REGULATIONS/CONVENIENCE STORE SECURITY," MORE PARTICULARLY BY REPEALING SECTIONS 31-76 THROUGH 31-78 AND REPLACING WITH NEW LANGUAGE THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH APPLICABLE FLORIDA STATUTES; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. City ofMiami Page 11 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 11-00112 Florida Statutes 2010 Chapter 812 FR/SR.pdf 11-00112 Legislation FR/SR.pdf Motion by Vice Chairman Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Dunn II, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Carollo and Dunn II Absent: 2 - Commissioner(s) Sarnoff and Suarez Chair Gort: We go to FR.1. Tony E. Crapp, Jr. (City Manager): FR.1 is proffered by the District 2 Commissioner. It's consistent with the Florida State Statute. It's done in order to increase enforcement. Julie O. Bru (City Attorney): Okay, if you want to, I can just briefly tell you that this is a regulatory scheme that concerns convenience business stores. These are called -- it's called the Convenience Business Store Security Act, and it requires for any store that's a convenience store to have certain security measures in place. What we're doing here now is we're authorizing our Code Enforcement officers to enforce this law. Previously, it was enforced by the attorney general of Florida. And this is first reading. Between first and second, we're probably going to add a couple of definitions, but it is properly before you and it's something that is being sponsored by District 2. Vice Chair Carollo: So move. Chair Gort: Okay. Commissioner Dunn: Second. Chair Gort: It's been moved and second. Discussion? Anyone in the public would like to address it? Being none, any discussion by the board members? Okay. Ms. Bru: This is an ordinance. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): An ordinance. Chair Gort: An ordinance, read it. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Ms. Thompson: Your roll call on first reading. Chair Gort: Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been passed on first reading, 3-0. FR.2 ORDINANCE First Reading 11-00077 Department of AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING CHAPTER Finance 35/ARTICLE IX OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC/PARKING FACILITIES SURCHARGE," MORE PARTICULARLY BY AMENDING SECTIONS 35-346 AND 347 TO CLARIFY EXISTING LANGUAGE RELATING TO THE COLLECTION OF PARKING FACILITIES SURCHARGE AND City ofMiami Page 12 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 PENALTIES AND ADDING A PROVISION FOR REPEAT OPERATOR VIOLATIONS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 11-00077 Summary Form FR/SR.pdf 11-00077 Legislation.pdf 11-00077 Legislation SR (Version 2) 03-10-11.pdf Motion by Commissioner Dunn II, seconded by Vice Chairman Carollo, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Carollo, Suarez and Dunn II Absent: 1 - Commissioner(s) Sarnoff Chair Gort: RE.2. Unidentified Speaker: FR.2. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): RE (Resolution). Chair Gort: It's parking. FR.2, I mean. I'm sorry. Vice Chair Carollo: No, FR.2 is -- oh, the parking surcharge. Chair Gort: Yeah. Diana Gomez: Okay. Diana Gomez, Finance director. FR.2 is an ordinance of the Miami City Commission amending Chapter 35/Article IX of the City Code entitled "Motor Vehicle and Traffic Parking Facilities Surcharge, " to clarify existing language related to the timing of receipts of parking surcharge and adding provisions for repeat offenders. Chair Gort: Okay. Ordinance, first reading. You want to read it? Commissioner Dunn: I'm sorry, I -- Ms. Gomez: Sorry. It's an ordinance of the City Commission amending Chapter 35/Article IX of the City Code entitled `Motor Vehicle and Traffic Parking Facilities Surcharge," in order to clam existing language related to the timing of receipts of parking surcharge and adding provisions for repeat offenders. Commissioner Dunn: So move. Vice Chair Carollo: Second for discussion. Chair Gort: Been moved and second. For discussion, yes. Vice Chair Carollo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chair Gort: Before we go into discussion, there's a public hearing. Let's hear from the public. Anyone in the public would like to address this issue? Is there anyone in the public would like to address it? Close the public. Yes, Vice Chairman. Vice Chair Carollo: Thank you. I'd like to propose a friendly amendment on the ordinance. Section 35-347 on number five, item three, it stipulates the operator of the parking facility may be required to install parking revenue control equipment in said facility as approved by the City Manager. I'd like to add "or City Commission." Chair Gort: Okay. Any further discussion? That's an ordinance. You read it. City ofMiami Page 13 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Ms. Thompson: Your roll call on your modified first reading ordinance. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been passed on first reading, as modified, 4-0. FR.3 ORDINANCE First Reading 11-00107 Department of Public AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING Facilities CHAPTER 53, ARTICLE II, DIVISION 2 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED (THE "CODE"), ENTITLED "STADIUM AND CONVENTION CENTERS/CITY STADIUMS/MARINE STADIUM" TO ADJUST FEES RELATED TO THE USE OF THE PARKING LOT AT MARINE STADIUM, MORE PARTICULARLY BY AMENDING SECTION 53-53 (B)(1)(C) OF THE CODE; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE. 11-00107 Summary Form.pdf 11-00107 Legislation.pdf 11-00107-Submittal-Letter-Donald Worth.pdf Motion by Commissioner Dunn II, seconded by Vice Chairman Carollo, that this matter be CONTINUED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Carollo and Dunn II Absent: 2 - Commissioner(s) Sarnoff and Suarez Madeline Valdes (Director): Good afternoon. Madeline Valdes, Public Facilities. FR.3 is an ordinance of the City Commission amending Chapter 53/Article II/Division 2 of the Code of the City ofMiami regarding the use of the parking for Marine Stadium. This ordinance will require a use fee of $2, 500 a day for any use of the parking areas. Vice Chair Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Chair Gort: Yes. Vice Chair Carollo: I have a feeling FR.3's going to take a little bit. You know, is it possible to continue to someone else because I think that's going to take a while. Andl think we're going to go into that I o'clock that you had mentioned. Chair Gort: Okay. You want to table it 'till later? Vice Chair Carollo: Yeah. Can we table it? Chair Gort: Okay. Ms. Valdes: Thank you. Vice Chair Carollo: Continue. [Later..] City ofMiami Page 14 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Chair Gort: Now the argument you were talking about, we have a -- Vice Chair Carollo: FR. 3. Chair Gort: -- let's bring that up now. Ms. Valdes: FR.3 is an ordinance of the City Commission amending Chapter 53, entitled "Stadium and Conference [sic] Centers, " Article II This ordinance is the ordinance related to the fees for the use of the parking of the Marine Stadium. This ordinance would establish a fee to be $2, 500 as the fee, and then I believe the Commissioner wanted to do an amendment to what was being proposed. Chair Gort: Okey-doke. This is a public hearing, FR.3. Anyone would like to speak on this ordinance? Christian Anderson: We do. Christian Anderson, for the record, 2051 Northwest 112 Avenue. We're here to -- in reference to the fee -related of the usage of the parking lot at the Marine Stadium. We've been in the event production business for the past five years where we've used the same lot. And the fee or the amount that we've been paying for this past four years has been approximately $5, 500 per -- for all five days. Now with this new fee, we were introduced to a new cost of about $56, 000 because it's -- you will take the greatest amount. We are in need of -- it's divided into three different sections and we will need all three sections, and therefore, the amount will in -- will be increased over -- I believe was a thousand percent. Therefore, we're here to kindly ask to reduce that fee to -- similar to the previous case, $2, 500 per day. And in addition, for the record, we would like to provide a letter that has been written by Mr. Don Worth from Friends of the Marine Stadium, if we may pass it around. Wilbert Anderson: IfI may, for the record, my name is -- Chair Gort: Go ahead. Mr. W. Anderson: -- Wilbert Anderson, Paramount Productions, 21 --I'm sorry -- 2051 Northwest 112 Avenue, 33172. The way that I see this is not only the fees for the Marine Stadium; is the benefit that we bring to the City economic impact. Last year we have one of our triathlons in probably, I can say that, it's in the list of the 100 -- one of the best 100 races on earth, bringing 27 different countries to this beautiful City. And not only making money -- the City's not going to be making money just by renting the parking lot. City's going to be making money with all these people coming from everywhere around the world. Not only that, it's a high fee. In order for us to put an event together, we have to spend another $12, 000 bringing toilets, water, and generators and facilities. Mr. C. Anderson: Andl completely agree with Mr. Behar. By this new increment on the fee, we will completely be forced to walk away and find either a new venue and completely cancel this one and any other future triathlon event, which behind it, brings, yes, of course economic impact to the City, but also a healthy lifestyle. Chair Gort: Okay. Thank you. Mr. W. Anderson: The last thing is I -- matter of fact, there's two companies already that they walk out of the Marine Stadium, which is Nike Swim -- it's a swimming, and also (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Productions, they walk away from Marine Stadium. And for us -- maybe the -- for you guys, maybe the question is why Marine Stadium. Why you don't walk away; you go somewhere else. It's because this is a perfect venue because the -- it offer not only beauty, it's safe for the people. It's a close bay. It's a tremendous area for cycling, as you know, and for running. So this is a particular area that is -- City ofMiami Page 15 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Chair Gort: Thank you. Mr. W. Anderson: -- just great for this specific events. Chair Gort: Thank you. Ms. Valdes: IfI can -- Chair Gort: Anyone else? Excuse me. Anyone else in the public would like to address it? No one else. Yes, sir. Vice Chair Carollo: Mr. Chairman, thank you. The 2,500 will not be a reduction. It will be an increase. Unidentified Speaker: Correct. Vice Chair Carollo: I am not going to vote for an increase today, next week if it gets deferred, on second reading, or so forth. I am not going to vote for an increase. However, where we could work is on that $15. Instead of it being $15 -- I haven't done the figures, obviously. I don't know if you have. But maybe we could lower that figure from $15 a square foot to maybe $12, $11, $9 a square foot so it could be somewhere comparable with 2,500 or 2,000 or so forth. So maybe I wouldn't mind reducing the $15 per square foot to an amount. I don't think that calculation has been done yet. And at the same time, events such as the tennis, maybe construction should maybe stay at the 15, and don't know. I don't want to be biased and so forth, but you understand what I'm trying to get at. So I think reducing the $15 per square foot, which is the greater -- and you're falling into a greater by that $15 per square foot. If we reduce that by "X" amount, then maybe we could find a happy medium where everyone could, you know, work within their means. We won't lose you. You won't be priced out. And the City will still make its money. Chair Gort: Excuse me. The public hearing was closed. We're discussing it among the board members now. Public hearing is closed now. Vice Chair Carollo: Just a suggestion. I am telling you, the way FR.3 is written right now, I am not in favor of it andl won't be, so -- Chair Gort: The question is what's the price as it exists right now? That's the problem. Anybody wants to go ahead and contract now, they have to apply the -- because we have not changed, unless we make an amendment. And then even the first reading won't do it. Ms. Valdes: Commissioner, I think that they may be a bit confused in terms of the fees that we're talking about today. There's the use of the Marine Stadium parking as a fee, $2, 500, which we just discussed on the Rowing Club, and there's the other fees that the City has for an event. Those fees for this event, based on the estimates that were provided to me by them, is about 22,000. We're talking about solid waste fees, we're talking about police, fire, all those different things that have nothing to do with the use of the land. So I think that they may have it a little confused in terms of what they're asking for. What we were trying to establish today was a fee for just a use of the parking. There's a separate fee for all those other things, which do not apply to the Rowing Club in this case because they're only seeking the fee for the parking. Chair Gort: Okay. Vice Chair Carollo: Fine. Where do you want to go with this? You know where I stand. City ofMiami Page 16 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Ms. Valdes: I can come back -- Vice Chair Carollo: I think -- Ms. Valdes: -- with a recommendation for a reduction -- not a reduction, but maybe per type of event, a price per square foot. This event doesn't occur until June? Unidentified Speaker: June 5. Ms. Valdes: June 5. So we have -- Chair Gort: They got time. Ms. Valdes: -- plenty of time to come back for that. Vice Chair Carollo: With the backup. I want to see your methodology. I want to see your comparables. I want to see how you're coming up with the amounts. Ms. Valdes: Okay. Vice Chair Carollo: Because even with this increase, you were projecting to enhance our revenues by 75,000, more or less. Ms. Valdes: That's correct. Vice Chair Carollo: I want to see where are you coming up with those figures and so forth. Ms. Valdes: Okay. Vice Chair Carollo: Okay? Ms. Valdes: Okay. Thank you. Vice Chair Carollo: Do we need a continuance on this? Do we need a deferral, Madam City Clerk? Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): This is first reading, so you can technically adopt it on first reading; make the changes on second reading. It's left up to the will of the Commission. Vice Chair Carollo: Can we -- I understand what you're saying. I'm just not voting for it, even on first reading. I'm just -- you know how -- when I say yes on first reading, I'm not even saying that in this. Chair Gort: Can we continue it? Vice Chair Carollo: Yeah. Chair Gort: Move to continue it. Vice Chair Carollo: Yeah. Commissioner Dunn: So moved then. Chair Gort: Okay, it's been moved by Commissioner Dunn, seconded by the -- City ofMiami Page 17 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Vice Chair Carollo: Second. Chair Gort: -- Vice Chairman. Commissioner Dunn: Mr. -- Chair Gort: Any further discussion? Being none, all in favor, state it by saying "aye. The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Ms. Thompson: Do we have a date that you would like? Vice Chair Carollo: It's a continuance so same like meeting -- Ms. Thompson: Okay, fine. Thank you. Ms. Valdes: Thank you. Vice Chair Carollo: Which will probably be in a month, correct? Ms. Thompson: 3/24. Vice Chair Carollo: Thank you. Commissioner Dunn: Mr. Chairman. Chair Gort: Yes. Commissioner Dunn: I need to be moving. I have -- andl don't know how you want to handle it. Chair Gort: Well, my understanding, Commissioner Suarez was on his way here. Commissioner Dunn: I'll wait till he -- is he in route? Chair Gort: It's going to be 20 minutes before he can get here. Commissioner Dunn: He'll be here in 20 minutes? Chair Gort: Yes. Vice Chair Carollo: Is that Cuban time 20 minutes or -- Commissioner Dunn: Okay, I'll give -- Vice Chair Carollo: -- 20 minutes --? Commissioner Dunn: -- you 20 minutes. Chair Gort: Okay. Vice Chair Carollo: Cuban time -- Chair Gort: Thank you. Appreciate it. Vice Chair Carollo: -- 20 minutes? City ofMiami Page 18 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 FR.4 11-00144 Department of Building and Zoning ORDINANCE First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING CHAPTER 4/ARTICLE I OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES/IN GENERAL," MORE PARTICULARLY BY AMENDING SECTION 4-11, ENTITLED "EXCEPTIONS TO DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS," TO REVISE THE BOUNDARIES AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE WYNWOOD CAFE DISTRICT AS DEPICTED IN ATTACHMENT "A", AND REMOVING REFERENCE TO ATTACHMENT "B"; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 11-00144 Summary Form FR/SR.pdf 11-00144 Legislation FR/SR.pdf 11-00144 Exhibit.pdf 11-00144 Exhibit SR 03-10-11.pdf SPONSOR: COMMISSIONER DUNN Motion by Vice Chairman Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Carollo, Suarez and Dunn II Absent: 1 - Commissioner(s) Sarnoff Chair Gort: RE.4 [sic]. Orlando Toledo (Director, Building and Zoning): FR.4. This is an ordinance to revise the boundaries of the Wynwood Cafe District to allow a larger area for cafes and cultural events. Vice Chair Carollo: So move. Commissioner Dunn: Second. Commissioner Suarez: Second. Chair Gort: Move and second. Any discussion? First reading. Anyone in the public would like to address FR.4? Showing none. Ordinance. Julie O. Bru (City Attorney): Yes, Mr. Chair. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): And Chair, I -- please forgive me. My hearing seems to be off today. I have the mover as Vice Chair Carollo, the seconder as Commissioner Suarez. Is that correct? Vice Chair Carollo: That's correct. And I apologize. I actually didn't have my mike on when I moved it, so it's my fault. Ms. Thompson: Okay, thank you. I apologize andl appreciate that. This is your roll call on your first reading ordinance. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. City ofMiami Page 19 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 RE.1 11-00076 Department of Purchasing Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been passed on first reading, 4-0. END OF FIRST READING ORDINANCES RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE PROCUREMENT OF MEDIUM AND HEAVY TRUCKS, FROM VARIOUS VENDORS, ON A CITYWIDE, AS -NEEDED CONTRACTUAL BASIS, UNDER THE EXISTING STATE OF FLORIDA CONTRACT NO. 070-700-11-1, EFFECTIVE THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2013, SUBJECT TO ANY EXTENSIONS OR REPLACEMENT CONTRACTS BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE VARIOUS SOURCES OF FUNDS FROM THE USER DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, SUBJECT TO THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS AND BUDGETARY APPROVAL AT THE TIME OF NEED. 11-00076 Summary Form.pdf 11-00076 Certification of Contract.pdf 11-00076 Legislation.pdf Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Commissioner Dunn II, that this matter be WITHDRAWN PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Carollo, Suarez and Dunn II Absent: 1 - Commissioner(s) Sarnoff RE.2 11-00078 Miami Sports & Exhibition Authority RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), BYA FOUR FIFTHS (4/5THS) AFFIRMATIVE VOTE, APPROVING THE APPOINTMENT OF THE MIAMI CITY ATTORNEY, AS GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE MIAMI SPORTS AND EXHIBITION AUTHORITY. 11-00078 Memos.pdf 11-00078 Legislation.pdf 11-00078 Exhibit 1.pdf Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Vice Chairman Carollo, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Carollo, Suarez and Dunn II Absent: 1 - Commissioner(s) Sarnoff R-11-0067 Chair Gort: RE.1, we did. Julie O. Bru (City Attorney): RE.2 -- we're on RE.2, right? City ofMiami Page 20 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 RE.3 11-00079 Department of Capital Improvements Program Chair Gort: RE.2. Tony E. Crapp, Jr. (City Manager): RE.1 was withdrawn, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Bru: That was withdrawn. Chair Gort: RE.1 is dropped, yes. Ms. Bru: Right. RE.2 is appointing the City ofMiami attorney's office as the Miami Sports and Exhibition Authority general counsel. We have an ordinance in place that established this authority. In the ordinance it did state that the Commission could approve the City Attorney's office serving as counsel by a four fifth vote. Andl think we have been informally serving as counsel, but we want to formalize that relationship. Chair Gort: Okay. Commissioner Suarez: So moved. Chair Gort: It's been moved by -- Vice Chair Carollo: Second. Chair Gort: -- Commissioner Suarez and second by Vice Chairman Carollo. Any further discussion? Being none, all in favor, state it by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE GRANT OF EASEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, WITH THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY WATER AND SEWER DEPARTMENT, FOR STORMWATER OUTFALL IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED ON 1094 NORTHWEST NORTH RIVER DRIVE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FOR THE NORTH SPRING GARDEN GREENWAY PROJECT, B-40643A; GRANTING THE CITY OF MIAMI A NON-EXCLUSIVE STORMWATER DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A", ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED, TO CONSTRUCT, INSTALL, OPERATE AND INSPECT STORMWATER DRAINAGE FACILITIES AND ALL APPURTENANCES THERETO, WITH THE RIGHT TO RECONSTRUCT, IMPROVE, CHANGE AND REMOVE ALL OR ANY OF THE APPURTENANCES WITHIN SAID EASEMENT. 11-00079 Summary Form.pdf 11-00079 Legislation.pdf 11-00079 Exhibit 1.pdf Motion by Commissioner Dunn II, seconded by Vice Chairman Carollo, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Carollo, Suarez and Dunn II Absent: 1 - Commissioner(s) Sarnoff City ofMiami Page 21 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 R-11-0068 Chair Gort: RE.3. I'm sorry, it's RE.2. Alice Bravo: Good morning. Alice Bravo, Capital Improvements director. RE.3 is requesting permission to enter into an easement agreement with Miami -Dade Water & Sewer for purposes of constructing an outfall that'll complement the Spring Garden Greenway Project B-406438. Vice Chair Carollo: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. Which -- Chair Gort: Yes. Vice Chair Carollo: -- agenda item are we in? Chair Gort: RE.2. Ms. Bravo: Oh. Vice Chair Carollo: I think she's reading RE.3. That's why -- Ms. Bravo: RE.3. Commissioner Dunn: Which one are you reading? Vice Chair Carollo: -- I want clarification. Chair Gort: I'm sorry, RE.2. Sorry, sorry. Commissioner Dunn: Oh. Ms. Bravo: I heardRE.3. I'm sorry. Vice Chair Carollo: Yeah, you read RE.3, but we're on RE.2. Ms. Bravo: Okay. Chair Gort: Sony about that. Ms. Bravo: No problem. Tony E. Crapp, Jr. (City Manager): Mr. Chairman, we haven't done the first readings yet either. You want to do the first reading? Chair Gort: I'm sorry. What's that? Mr. Crapp: We haven't done the first readings. We didn't do FR.1 yet. Chair Gort: We didn't do FR (First Reading)? Okey-doke. Sorry about the confusion. [Later..] Chair Gort: RE.3. Ms. Bravo: Good morning. Alice Bravo, Capital Improvements director. RE.3 is an item requesting authorization to execute an easement agreement with Miami -Dade County Water and Sewer Department for the purposes of constructing an outfall through their property as part of City ofMiami Page 22 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 RE.4 11-00080 the north Spring Garden greenway project B-40643A. Chair Gort: Okay. Commissioner Dunn: So move. Chair Gort: It's been moved -- Vice Chair Carollo: Second. Chair Gort: -- by Commissioner Dunn, second by Vice Chairman Carollo. Any discussion? Being none, all in favor, state it by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. RESOLUTION Department of Capital A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH Improvements ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING AN INCREASE TO THE PROFESSIONAL Program SERVICES AGREEMENT ("PSA") WITH METRIC ENGINEERING, INC., FOR ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND OBSERVATION SERVICES, FOR THE NEW SEGMENT B2 OF THE NORTHEAST 2ND AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, B-78508C, IN THE AMOUNT OF $194,916.29,THEREBY INCREASING THE PSA FROM $548,894.40 TO AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $743,810.69; ALLOCATING FUNDS FOR SAID INCREASE FROM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. B-78508; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE PSA, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, FOR SAID PURPOSE. 11-00080 Summary Form.pdf 11-00080 Pre- Legislation 1.pdf 11-00080 Pre- Legislation 2.pdf 11-00080Addendum No. 1.pdf 11-00080Addendum No. 2.pdf 11-00080Addendum No. 3.pdf 11-00080 Legislation.pdf 11-00080 Exhibit 1.pdf Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Commissioner Dunn II, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Carollo, Suarez and Dunn II Absent: 1 - Commissioner(s) Sarnoff R-11-0069 Chair Gort: FR.4 [sic]. Alice Bravo (Director, Capital Improvements Program): RE.4 is a resolution to approve amendment number one to the professional services agreement with Metric Engineering, Inc. They're performing the construction, engineering, and inspection services for the ARRA (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) projects that the City is performing on Northeast 2nd Avenue for reconstruction. ARRA being the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the federal stimulus funds that the City received. With the savings that we had from the original ARR4 projects that the City put out to bid, we were able to compile enough funding in order to City ofMiami Page 23 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 RE.5 11-00081 Department of Capital Improvements Program put forward another segment of Northeast 2ndAvenue. So this contract amendment will allow them to continue providing construction inspection services for the new segment. Commissioner Suarez: Move it. Commissioner Dunn: Second. Chair Gort: I think it's been moved by Commissioner Suarez, second by Commissioner Dunn. Discussion. Being none, all in favor, state it by saying "aye. The Commission (Collectively): Aye. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), ADOPTING THE FINDINGS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY") PHASE I STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN, DATED JANUARY 20, 2011, PREPARED BY ADA ENGINEERING, INC, ALLOWING THE CITY TO IMPROVE ON ITS NATIONAL INSURANCE FLOOD PROGRAM -COMMUNITY RATING SYSTEM WHICH ENABLES CITY RESIDENTS TO RECEIVE DISCOUNTS ON FLOOD INSURANCE PREMIUM RATES; RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE FINDINGS, MEASURES AND LOCATIONS CONTAINED THEREIN. 11-00081 Summary Form.pdf 11-00081 Legislation.pdf 11-00081 Exhibit 1.pdf Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Commissioner Dunn II, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Carollo, Suarez and Dunn II Absent: 1 - Commissioner(s) Sarnoff R-11-0070 Direction by Commissioner Dunn to the Administration for the community to be informed of a reduction in their flood insurance premiums once this plan is adopted by the Miami City Commission and recognized by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Chair Gort: RE.5. Alice Bravo (Director, Capital Improvements Program): RE.5 is a proposal to request adoption of the citywide storm water management master plan phase one. And basically, the City is preparing this plan as part of its participation in the Community Rating System. And this is a program offered by the National Flood Insurance Program. And basically, if you participate in this system and you perform certain activities to mitigate flood loss within the City limits, the City residents are eligible for discounts on their flood insurance rates. Now the City -- over time you'll have to continue performing maintenance activities in order to be part of the system. So right now our rating, we've accomplished a Class 7, so citizens currently receive a 15 percent savings. As we adopt this master plan, we gain additional points. There are other activities that are being conducted internally between Public Works and other departments which will gain us additional points, and then we'd move to a Category 6, where our discount would be 20 percent. And our goal is to ultimately get to Category 4, where citizens would have a 30 percent discount. So this master plan, our consultant analyzed a portion of the City. They analyzed existing City ofMiami Page 24 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 drainage infrastructure, hydrologic models predicting rainfall, and based on that, identified areas that needed drainage improvements and potential cost of those improvements. And as part of phase two, they'll complete the rest of the City. Commissioner Suarez: Move it. Commissioner Dunn: Second. Vice Chair Carollo: Discussion. Chair Gort: Been moved and second. Moved by Commissioner Suarez and second by Commissioner Dunn. Discussion. Vice Chair Carollo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Okay, I want to make sure thatl have clarity. We're approving the findings, the measures, and the locations contained therein, right? Ms. Bravo: Yes. Vice Chair Carollo: And what about those dollars amount? It's saying that it's going to cost -- I think it was over 22 million or something like that. What was the amount? I don't have the amount -- I don't have the total amount. I could say for the number one rank, which is basin XXX, it's 17 million; then on number two, it's 7 million, 15 million, 15 million, 5 million, 3 million, 9 million, 10 million, 13 million, 3 million, 800, 000, 2 million, 2 million, and that's 2.4 -- 2.8 million, 3.4 million, 1.1 million. Those are for the 15 ranks, correct, which each have a basin number, which I could give you. Now I don't want to -- I'm skeptical 'cause am I -- are you tying us -- andl don't mean you, but by this vote, are we being tied into making these measures and the cost and so forth, and where's the money going to come from? Ms. Bravo: Yes. This does not function as an appropriation or a commitment to the dollar values listed on Table 8-1 on page A-2 that has the probable construction costs per sub basin. What this commits is that as we move forward with capital improvement projects, we will endeavor to address the flooding issues in these areas. We might develop solutions that are less expensive, but over time, we will work to implement these. And over time as they are implemented or addressed, funding being available of course, then we would probably be eligible for additional points on their system and additional discounts. So part of this master plan is maintaining our existing rating and our existing discounts for the citizens. As we take steps of actually implementing this project, then we could gain additional discounts. Vice Chair Carollo: And question, the company that actually did this survey -- I don't know what's the technical word -- would they also be able to bid for some of the work or contracts or so forth? Ms. Bravo: Well, they're a design firm that has a miscellaneous service contract with us. I think we would probably prefer to retain them in a capacity of helping us review additional work that may result from this rather than performing the design and the construction themselves. Vice Chair Carollo: See, this is where I'm going with this. You're asking me to approve this and approve their findings. I may know about numbers, you know, law enforcement, and many other things. I could be quite diverse. I have no idea about any flooding issues or so forth unless I physically go there, like we have on occasions andl say, hey, listen, this is flooding. There's tadpoles here. It's been a week. This is flooding. We have an issue. Ms. Bravo: Right. Vice Chair Carollo: So, you know, we are being asked now to approve this finding and locations City ofMiami Page 25 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 and so forth, and at the same time is saying to fix this, it's going to cost ' X" amount, millions here, millions there, millions -- you know. And I'm just very skeptical of being tied into -- Commissioner, you yourself, you know, voted and agreed that we had a problem or that this -- Ms. Bravo: Right. Vice Chair Carollo: -- was a problem and it's going to cost this amount. Therefore, we need to use "X" amount of dollars from this bond or that bond to fix this problem and -- Ms. Bravo: Right. And -- Vice Chair Carollo: -- on and on and on. Ms. Bravo: -- this wouldn't serve for that type of function. I think as approval of a master plan, it's that we're going to explore each of these areas further before we initiate any type of project. That would be a separate step. That would be a separate appropriation before we actually move to implement these projects. So this, as a master plan, represents the results of the analysis that was conducted and areas for future exploration. Vice Chair Carollo: And l just want to verify, rank 14 sub basin CC6-S-8 is the only one really in my district, correct? Ms. Bravo: Yes. Vice Chair Carollo: Everything else is outside of my district. Ms. Bravo: Correct. Vice Chair Carollo: There may be a piece -- a small piece somewhere else that may incorporate a small piece of my district. But the funny thing is that -- and it illustrates the map -- this is not the area where we've encountered the flooding. Ms. Bravo: Right. Vice Chair Carollo: So I'm skeptical. Ms. Bravo: And the type of flooding that this targets is the repeated loss type flooding where water actually comes into a home and causes damage that would be claimable against a flood insurance policy, not so much the ponding that you would see on a street. Vice Chair Carollo: Right, but you know the location perfectly well 'cause you've been there. Ms. Bravo: Yes. Vice Chair Carollo: I think you've been there with me. I've shown you pictures and so forth. And it appears to me that in rank 14 sub basin CC6-S-8 that area, which is in my district, is not included. Ms. Bravo: Right. Vice Chair Carollo: So again, I'm skeptical to, you know, how -- I'll just leave it at that. I'm just Ms. Bravo: Right. City ofMiami Page 26 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Vice Chair Carollo: -- skeptical -- Ms. Bravo: And -- Vice Chair Carollo: -- on the survey and you're asking me to approve it where my knowledge -- I have to admit, my knowledge on flooding issues and so forth is quite limited, other than I know my district very well andl know what streets flood, what streets don't and so forth. Ms. Bravo: Right. And there is a phase two evaluation that will cover other geographic areas, so I'm not certain right now the street in question if it fell into this study area or phase two. Vice Chair Carollo: But we will not be tied to these dollars amounts and -- Ms. Bravo: No. Vice Chair Carollo: -- having to do these projects. Ms. Bravo: No. Vice Chair Carollo: Okay. Chair Gort: Commissioner Suarez. Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. I think that I wanted to clarify that specific concern, but there's a -- I think there's a second economic aspect to this, which is once we send this master plan to the state, it should reduce flood insurance rates for our residents by 20 percent, correct? Ms. Bravo: Well, the -- Vice Chair Carollo: Why? Ms. Bravo: -- 20 percent goal was a master goal developed in the City going from a Class 8 to a Class 4. We've already implemented some measures so we're already at a Class 7. So the discount that City residents receive as a result of being Class 7 is 15 percent. The adoption of this master plan gains us potentially a certain number of points, 225. There's a flood plain management plan we're developing internally that would get us 359 potential points. Those two together would move us into the next bracket where we'd go to a Class 6 and then City residents would have a 20 percent discount. So -- and then there's future steps and ultimately, when we get to Class 4 over the length of this whole process, we've retained our existing discounts and have the potential to increase that discount. Commissioner Suarez: And it seems to me that the reason why that happened was because we've invested. I know in the last several years in my district in particular, we've invested millions and millions in dollars in flood reduction infrastructure. So I think what this shows is that that has actually had an impact in flood reduction. And so thankfully, we're -- you know, those residents who have had -- not only do they have the flood reduction, but they're also going to achieve the benefit of having a reduction in their premiums, which makes sense. If it's -- if we've spent 10, $20 million in the last five years in, you know, improving the flooding capacity of our infrastructure -- in my district in particular -- then that would mean that less areas flood, which would mean that less -- there are less insurance claims, which would mean that the policy should be less. Ms. Bravo: Right. Commissioner Suarez: So I think the Vice Chairman has a good concern, which is, you know, we City ofMiami Page 27 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 want to make sure that this doesn't mean that we are obligated to spend all this money, which we may or may not have -- probably don't have -- at this particular juncture. But I just wanted to kind of shed some light on the other aspect of the value of this. Ms. Bravo: Right. And just to point out, there are about 15 to 17 different categories for which a city could be awarded points in this discount program, so obviously we're going to pursue all the categories at the lowest cost to the City possible in order to improve our ranking. Chair Gort: Commissioner Dunn. Commissioner Dunn: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Additionally, to Commissioner Suarez's, my colleague's comments, I would like to ask that when this plan is adopted and recognized by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency), that we direct the City Manager to get the word out to the community so that we can let the residents know that they should expect or see a reduction in their flood insurance premiums. Tony E. Crapp, Jr. (City Manager): We'll definitely do that, Commissioner. Chair Gort: Speak a little louder. Mr. Crapp: I said we'll definitely do that, Commissioner. Chair Gort: Okay. My understanding is, like you, Vice Chair, I don't have knowledge of engineers. I don't have knowledge in this. I've seen a lot of flood taking place in my district. A lot of them has been straightened out, a lot has been taken care of. Now my question is, in a lot of the process that we did in taking care of the floods, I know we worked with the County and we worked with the state. Are we going to continue to receive help from the County and from the state? Ms. Bravo: Absolutely. We'll pursue any and all avenues available to us. Chair Gort: Because I know some of the County Commissioners work very closely with us and they were able to secure some funds, especially in the Grapeland area where there's a lot of flooding that was taking place in there, and also it was some in Allapattah, which also helped us work with. My understanding is this is a plan adopted by us, but at the same time, I guess we get the points according to how much we spend. Ms. Bravo: Well, part of maintaining the discount we have is having this plan. And as we do this plan and other actions, we can -- Chair Gort: Part of this is a plan for the maintenance of the existing facility that we have, and that's why we have 15 percent deduction [sic]. Ms. Bravo: Correct, because we participate in this program and periodically update our master plan at least every five years. Chair Gort: No. I understand that, master plans. I've seen master plans, but the enforcement of the master plan and the cost of the enforcement of the master plan is what I think worry all of us . Ms. Bravo: Right. Chair Gort: Okay. Vice Chair Carollo: And -- City ofMiami Page 28 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 RE.6 11-00084 Office of Strategic Planning, Budgeting, and Performance Chair Gort: Yes. Vice Chair Carollo: Yeah, just for clarity, Mr. Chairman, before we take a vote -- and I'll be quick. And more than anything, I just want clarity. Right now we have a 15 percent reduction, correct? And the approval of the master plan will give us an additional 5 percent and we'll reach 20, and the approval of the master plan is just approving this and that is it, or do we have to do some of this maintenance or do we in good faith have to do some of this maintenance? And again, I'm definitely sensitive to flood issues in the City ofMiami. The only thing, I'm looking at it fiscally. I just said some of the millions and millions of dollars that it will cost, so I just want to have some clarity. Ms. Bravo: Right. Adoption of this plan today guarantees maintaining the existing 15 percent discount. Vice Chair Carollo: Okay. Ms. Bravo: This plan, together with the flood plain management plan we're doing internally, we estimate will give us enough points for an additional 5 percent discount, but it's -- it gets -- these documents, once they're submitted, they get graded and they -- we estimate potential points and then they give you actual points. Vice Chair Carollo: So just by doing an additional plan, we're going to get an additional 5 percent without touching anything out there? Ms. Bravo: That is our goal, and hopefully we're rated with sufficient points once the plan is received to accomplish that. Vice Chair Carollo: And this does not bind us to anything? Ms. Bravo: No. Vice Chair Carollo: Okay. Chair Gort: Any further discussion? Being none, all in favor, state it by saying "aye. The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Gort: RE.7. Want to break? Let's take RE.7 and that's it. This is an easy one. No? Okay. Come back at 3: 30. All right. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), ADDING CAPITAL PROJECTS APPROPRIATIONS TO THOSE LISTED IN RESOLUTION NO. 11-0038, ADOPTED JANUARY 27, 2011, AND REVISING CURRENT APPROPRIATIONS AMONG APPROVED PROJECTS; FURTHER APPROPRIATING FUNDING FOR THE ADDED PROJECTS. 11-00064 Summary Form.pdf 11-00084 Legislation.pdf 11-00084 Exhibit.pdf Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Commissioner Dunn II, that this matter be CONTINUED PASSED by the following vote. City ofMiami Page 29 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Carollo, Suarez and Dunn II Absent: 1 - Commissioner(s) Sarnoff Note for the Record: Please refer to Order of the Dayfor minutes referencing item RE.6, RE.7 RESOLUTION 10-01353 Department of A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH Finance ATTACHMENT(S), ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER APPROVING THE FINDINGS OF THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE, PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. 245238, THAT THE TOP -RANKED FIRMS TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL ADVISORY SERVICES, FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, ARE THE PFM GROUP AND FIRSTSOUTHWEST, RESPECTIVELY; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENTS ("PSA") WITH SAID FIRMS, RESPECTIVELY, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ATTACHED TERM SHEETS AND IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, FORA PERIOD OF ONE (1) YEAR, WITH THE OPTION TO RENEW FOR FOUR (4) ADDITIONAL ONE-YEAR PERIODS, IN A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $500,000, FOR EACH PSA, INCLUSIVE OF THE ORIGINAL TERM AND ALL RENEWAL OPTIONS; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE VARIOUS SOURCES OF FUNDS OF THE USER DEPARTMENT, SUBJECT TO THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS AND BUDGETARY APPROVAL. 10-01353 Summary Form.pdf 10-01353 Summary Sheet Evaluation Committee.pdf 10-01353Addendum No.1.pdf 10-01353 Request For Proposals.pdf 10-01353 Fee Proposal 1.pdf 10-01353 Fee Proposal 2.pdf 10-01353 Legislation.pdf 10-01353 Exhibit 1.pdf Motion by Commissioner Dunn II, seconded by Vice Chairman Carollo, that this matter be CONTINUED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Carollo and Dunn II Absent: 2 - Commissioner(s) Sarnoff and Suarez Chair Gort: Okay, the afternoon session -- hold it. RE.7. We have to defer this one. I have a conflict of interest and -- Commissioner Dunn: It's not going to leave a -- Chair Gort: -- so we have to continue. Let's table it for a while. If Commissioner Suarez gets here, then we'll be able to hear it. [Later..] Chair Gort: We got an item -- the only left is 9 and 10. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): RE.7, you tabled. And then we have RE.10. Vice Chair Carollo: RE.7, I think it's going to have to be deferred because even with the other City ofMiami Page 30 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Commissioner, you're still not going to be able to vote. Commissioner Dunn: Well, I'll -- if you take that item right away, I'll -- if we take that -- Vice Chair Carollo: There's going to be discussion. There will be dis -- hey, it's a million dollars. Commissioner Dunn: Okay. Vice Chair Carollo: And I'm not here to just give away a million dollars on one quick vote. Commissioner Dunn: No. I misunderstood. I'm thinking about the Chairman's item where it was -- oh, that's the same item? Vice Chair Carollo: Yeah. It's not his item. What happened -- Commissioner Dunn: Well, he had a conflict on it. Vice Chair Carollo: Right. Commissioner Dunn: Okay. Vice Chair Carollo: It's a million dollars, so you know -- Commissioner Dunn: Okay. Vice Chair Carollo: -- I'm just not going to give a million dollars in one quick vote. I mean, we're going to have discussion on it. Ms. Thompson: So are -- Chair Gort: RE.10. Ms. Thompson: -- I'm -- Chair Gort: I mean -- Commissioner Dunn: Okay. Chair Gort: -- billboard, RE.9. Vice Chair Carollo: I think -- Ms. Thompson: I'm sorry, Chair, andl hate to do this -- Commissioner Dunn: Okay. Ms. Thompson: -- because I just want to make sure we clear out the agenda. Is it your intent to just leave RE.7 tabled or are we going to act on a continuance or a deferral? Commissioner Dunn: Continuance. Chair Gort: Continue. Vice Chair Carollo: I'll second. City ofMiami Page 31 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 RE.8 10-01248 Department of Building and Zoning Chair Gort: Need a motion. Motion by Commissioner Dunn, second by Vice Chairman Carollo. All in favor, state it by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Ms. Thompson: Same like --? Vice Chair Carollo: And that's a continuance for RE.7, same like meeting. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. That's 3/24. Vice Chair Carollo: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI AND CLEAR CHANNEL OUTDOOR, INC., IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM. 10-01248 Summary Form.pdf 10-01248 Legislation.pdf 10-01248 Exhibit.pdf 10-01248 Summary Form 02-24-11.pdf 10-01248 Legislation Version 2 02-24-11.pdf 10-01248 Exhibit 1 02-24-11.pdf 10-01248-Submittal-Letter-Commissioner Sarnoff.pdf Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Commissioner Dunn II, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Carollo, Suarez and Dunn II Absent: 1 - Commissioner(s) Sarnoff R-11-0065 Chair Gort: Do we have anyone else who'd like to --? At this time, I'd like to, if possible, call RE.8 'cause I want to call it before time. Yes, ma'am. Vanessa Acosta: Vanessa Acosta, assistant director of Building and Zoning. One point of clarification, RE.8 would have to be taken with RE.9, as the settlement agreement would be RE.8, andRE.9 would be the license that travels with it. Is that acceptable? Chair Gort: I beg your pardon? Go ahead. Ms. Acosta: Okay. RE.8 is a settlement agreement -- a second amendment to the existing settlement agreement between Clear Channel and the City ofMiami. We're looking to amend their settlement agreement to allow 14 new LED (Light Emitting Diodes) faces. They will be removing 38 throughout the City in a combination of bulletin and poster sizes. The -- each one of these LED faces has traveling with it NEA payments that will go to the individual districts. Depending on the size of the face for each bulletin, the district will receive 15, 000 per face and City ofMiami Page 32 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 for every poster size, 7,500. The new signs are going up in Commissioner Sarnoff's district, Commissioner Suarez district, Commissioner Gort's district. And the majority of the takedowns are from Commissioner Dunn's district. Chair Gort: Okay. Vice Chair Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Chair Gort: Yes. Vice Chair Carollo: Could we get some further explanation on NEA payments? Ms. Acosta: NEA payments are payments that were agreed to through the first settlement agreement discussions and they're payments that go individ -- to the individual Commission district and it's decided between the Commission district and the company that's placing the billboard up where these payments will be distributed. Vice Chair Carollo: Where these payments will be distributed? Ms. Acosta: Yes. The Commissioner has discretion within his district to decide how these payments will be made out, to what charity, charitable organization and/or group. I believe Commissioner Gort's already used some in his district and Commissioner Sarnoff I believe as well. Vice Chair Carollo: So it's in a special revenue fund for them to be able to allocate in a future time period where these funds should be allocated or to what organizations. Does it have to be a non -for -profit organization or --? Chair Gort: Yes. Ms. Acosta: Yes, it does. Vice Chair Carollo: Okay. Last question that I had with regards to this, as far as signs being taken down, I believe the total amount is 38. Ms. Acosta: Yes, sir. Vice Chair Carollo: But it was a 4/1 ratio. How --? Ms. Acosta: The way that it works -- Vice Chair Carollo: Yeah. Ms. Acosta: -- is for poster size, which is the half size of the bulletin, it's 2/1, and for the full size bulletin, it's 4/1. We have a combination of poster and bulletin coming down and a combination of poster and bulletin going back up. Vice Chair Carollo: And do you have the locations of all the ones coming down? Ms. Acosta: They're in ExhibitM of your -- of the packet as to where they're being located. And in addition, one of the other changes between the standard billboard and these is that these carry with it a more streamlined monopole that is apparently more attractive, so it'll actually also mitigate some of the appearance. Vice Chair Carollo: Okay. It was just my recollection when I read through the agreement that City ofMiami Page 33 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 there were some alternative locations that all locations of where they were being taken down were not set in stone yet. Ms. Acosta: They're actually mentioned as well as part of the alternates in the back of the exhibits. Vice Chair Carollo: Okay. That's all I have. Chair Gort: Okay. Any further question? Dusty, let me tell you. This is not a public hearings [sic]. I'm going to allow you two minutes. We heard you before and you're going to come back. Two minutes, that's it. Dusty Melton: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Dusty Melton, 3430 Poinciana Avenue. I'm not in England today; I'm here. The people's business is important not just to District 2, but to all citizens. Two things happened in the summer of 1985. The County passed a sign code that applies to the City. Not everyone's heard the presentation, Mr. Chairman, before and I'm trying to squeeze it into two minutes and work with you. Thank you so much. And at that time, the County also included in its sign code a ban on billboards and murals near expressways within cities. In 1994, the County amended its sign code to catch up with technology, to catch up with the City's own programmable sign at Bayfront Park Amphitheatre and they created ten criteria for programmable signs. It has to be at least ten acres in size and you can only advertise goods, services, and events on the premises. The County Commission further amended its sign ordinance in 2009 to allow cities to opt out of the prohibition on billboards and murals within express -- close to expressways, and the City ofMiami availed itself of that opportunity. There was confusion two weeks ago about whether this opt out of the prohibition on location took the County sign code completely away from the City ofMiami. And there was a desire on the part of most everyone on the dais to get some written certainty from the County whether I was right or, with all due respect to the excellent attorneys in your Law Department, whether their view that having opted out made those programmable sign regulations go away. And it's clear from the public record, from the director of the County's Planning and Zoning Department, who is the ultimate arbiter of the sign code for the City of Miami, which this document has been since 1985, with the one tiny exception of allowing billboards and murals close to expressways, that those old -- Chair Gort: Thank you, sir. Mr. Melton: -- ten regulations apply to these programmable signs. You may not make legal by RE.8 -- Chair Gort: Dusty -- Mr. Melton: -- by municipal resolution -- Chair Gort: -- thank you. Mr. Melton: Just finish the sentence, please. Chair Gort: Thank you very much. Go ahead. Wrap it up. Mr. Melton: You may not make legal by RE.8, by municipal resolution, that which is illegal under the governing statute. Chair Gort: Okay, thank you. Ms. Bisno, I know you've been there. You want to talk also, andl also give you the privilege of two minutes. Andl want you to understand this is not a public hearings [sic]. This is something I'm doing for you all. City ofMiami Page 34 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Barbara Bisno: We understand that. Thank you. And I'm going to speak as fast as I can. My name is Barbara Bisno. I live at 1000 Venetian Way. I support that what has just been said. These signs are illegal under the county and federal law. You're passing an illegal resolution. I want you to know that Miami is part of a national issue. This is not just Miami. Clear Channel is working in Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Jacksonville to get these signs. They've been sued in Los Angeles and Philadelphia on the settlement agreement and lost. The -- there's a federal study that will be out in two months and all you have to do is wait two months to find out if it's a public safety issue for these digital signs to be along our highways. Now when we find out that it is, if that's what the study says, it's going to be up to you to make sure that our public safety is protected and the signs are going to be there. How are they going to come down? Two months. They've already done the study. It's being vetted. You -- how can you not worry about the public safety? The locations, there are alternate locations. They don't have to be on those -- it says alternate locations. They don't have to be -- on those exhibits. Your room would be filled if someone knew one of these things was going in their neighborhood. There's been no notice to anybody that there's going to be these digital signs in neighborhoods in all of your districts, all your constituents. It's a notice issue. You're zoning by doing a private agreement between the City and a company. That's zoning. It's not in public policy. Andl would ask you to ask your City Attorney -- 2009, I know you weren't -- most of you weren't here. There was a request for compliance with the settlement agreement that was never answered. If you would ask City Attorney Bru whether they've been complying, we'd appreciate it. Thank you. I'm so -- Chair Gort: Thank you, ma'am. Ms. Bisno: -- sorry to go over. Thank you very much. Chair Gort: I'm sorry. This is not a public hearing so I'm not -- Ms. Bisno: I know and we appreciate -- Chair Gort: -- going to open to all the public. No, I understand, but there's people lining up behind you and I'm not going to allow it anymore. Commissioner Dunn: Mr. Chairman. Chair Gort: Ms. Priscilla, you have a letter to read. Commissioner Dunn: Okay, go ahead. I'll yield. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): This -- we received this letter from Commissioner Sarnoff office, and Commissioner Sarnoff asked that this be read into the record. Dear Mr. Chairman, Mr. Manager, and Madam Clerk, please note that will be unable to attend this Thursday's meeting. However, I would like to express my support for resolution numbers RE.8 [sic] and RE.9 [sic] for the Commission deliberations on Thursday, February 24. Resolution RE.8 [sic] is the second amendment to the existing settlement between the City ofMiami and Clear Channel Outdoor. And resolution 9 [sic] authorizes the placement of a billboard at the City ofMiami Police Department. As you know, both items were deferred at our previous meeting and will be brought back to the City Commission for approval this Thursday. I would like to affirm [sic] that I do not have any objections to either of these resolutions and thatl support both in their current version. Regards, Commissioner Marc D. Sarnoff. And copies went to the Honorable Mayor Regalado, City Commission, and the City Attorney, Julie Bru. Chair Gort: Thank you. Madam Attorney, as I recall last meeting, you spoke very highly and very confidence [sic] that we were in complying with the law of the City ofMiami. City ofMiami Page 35 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Veronica Xiques (Assistant City Attorney): That is correct, Commissioner. We do believe that these agreements comply with law. And more importantly, other than the fact that the City Attorney's office stands behind these agreements being legally correct, the agreements require that Clear Channel comply with all laws, whether they be City ordinance, county ordinances, state regulations, or federal regulations. So it's not just the City Attorney's office saying this is a legal document. This is Clear Channel agreeing to be bound by any laws that exist. Chair Gort: Thank you. Ms. Acosta, my understanding in reading through the contract, if at any time any of the jurisdiction makes them illegal, we in compliance -- we will be in compliance with either the County, the state, or the US (United States) government. Ms. Acosta: We will be -- that's -- they will be -- Veronica. Chair Gort: That's what I interpret of the contract. Ms. Xiques: You are correct. Chair Gort: Okay. Thank you. Any questions? Commissioner Suarez: I'll move it. Commissioner Dunn: I'll second it. Commissioner Suarez: I have some questions, but -- Chair Gort: Moved by Commissioner Suarez, second by -- Commissioner Suarez: -- I'm ready to move it. I just -- Chair Gort: -- Commissioner Dunn. Commissioner Suarez: -- want to make some statements. More than -- Chair Gort: Yes. Go ahead. Commissioner Suarez: -- questions, just make some statements on the record. One is that I very much respect Ms. Bisno coming before us and Dusty as well coming before us in the last Commission meeting. I think, unfortunately, in the last Commission meeting, it was a little bit confusing. I've sense taken a lot of time to study this issue. I feel much more confident in our position than I did in the last Commission meeting. But I do want to just touch upon a couple of things that Ms. Bisno said because I do very much respect anyone that comes on behalf of our residents to express an opinion. One of them is, you know, she mentioned that if the study later on declares that these billboards are -- make it unsafe to drive, then how are we going to get them down. That was kind of the question. Well, in this particular agreement, you're taking down 38 signs. Thirty-eight are being taken down. Yes, they are. Unidentified Speaker: They're not digital. Chair Gort: Excuse me. Commissioner Suarez: It doesn't matter. Chair Gort: I'm sorry. Commissioner Suarez: Thirty-eight billboards are being taken down. So my point is that there is City ofMiami Page 36 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 a process by which, you know -- let's see, it's almost four times the amount of billboards that are being taken down here. Secondly, the study hasn't been completed, so it could be very well that the study says that they're very -- it's very safe to have these digital billboards along the highways. I've seen them. They've already been in place for several months. We have not -- and let me tell you, we received complaints on everything that you can ever possibly imagine in our office. Andl haven't gotten one complaint nor have I heard of one traffic accident as a result of these billboards. Literally, when there's some kind of a situation like that that evokes such a problem, we're getting flooded and inundated with e-mails (electronic), calls, you know. Our Police Department is inundated with calls about, you know, this dangerous condition and these multiple accidents are happening, two, three, four, five times a day. I haven't received any of that so -- and these signs have been up there for a very, very long time. I think it may be a good idea to clam the recordfrom last couple of weeks, if the City Attorney just maybe explains why they feel that their legal -- you know, legally speaking, if you could take us a little bit through the analysis, just to clam the recordfrom the last hearing. Ms. Xiques: Absolutely, Commissioner. The City opted out of the County's sign ordinance. The regulation of spacing is dictated by FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation), not by the City ofMiami. So all we really have -- all billboards are illegal within the City ofMiami. We make them legal by virtue of these settlement agreements, and these settlement agreements, whether it be with any of the billboard companies, they spell out specifically how each billboard company is going to behave. And by opting out of the County's sign ordinance, we have -- the City has allowed itself to regulate these signs, and we do so through these settlement agreements, which are negotiated through the Administration and the billboard companies agree to be bound not just by City ordinances, but by all other regulations regarding billboards. Commissioner Suarez: And think, ifI may interject, what read in our Code is that we ban all billboards, and then pursuant to state statute, which of course is supreme to County code or City code, for that matter, which is Section 70.21, municipalities -- and we're a municipality and it distinguishes a county from municipality -- and all other governmental entities are specifically empowered to enter into relocation, which is what's happening here, and reconstruction agreements and whatever terms are agreeable to the sign owner and the municipality. Furthermore, it's been stated that the County code doesn't contemplate LED boards, but Section 33-96 of the County code allows signs that are illuminated by exposed bulbs, fluorescent tubes, interior lighting, or by indirect lighting from any external source. So it doesn't even seem to me that the County code prohibits these kinds of billboards from being erected in the County. They do have a prohibition against commercial signs, which is in 33-96, that are illuminated by flashing, moving, intermittent, chasing or rotating lights, but T,FDs don't fit this definition. They are a display of series of static images that, you know, change every so often. They don't flash, they don't move, and they don't rotate. So I just wanted to clam legally the record a little bit because I think that's what happened in the last Commission meeting. There was some confusion as to the legal status. Ms. Xiques: Specifically, Commissioner, in regards to the changing static image, it is regulated by FDOT And the agreement allows for them to change every eight seconds or as dictated by FDOT, whichever is less. So if at any time they change the rule and require them to change less often, for example, for public safety, it would be something that Clear Channel would have to abide by. Vice Chair Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Chair Gort: Yes, Commissioner. Vice Chair Carollo: I want to verf, are any of the signs being taken down T,FD signs? Ms. Acosta: No. City ofMiami Page 37 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Vice Chair Carollo: No. Ms. Acosta: They're all standard billboards. Vice Chair Carollo: They're all standard billboards. All the signs, all the new LED signs are all outside of my district, correct? Ms. Acosta: Yes, sir. Vice Chair Carollo: And there's at least a couple taken down from my district, correct? Ms. Acosta: Yes, sir. Vice Chair Carollo: Okay. I'm leaning to support this, you know, if my colleagues so wish, and I'll respect their wishes since it's in their district. Chair Gort: Okay. Any further discussion? Commissioner Dunn: Mr. Chairman, I just -- Chair Gort: Commissioner. Commissioner Dunn: -- wanted to reiterate some of what Commissioner Suarez indicated in terms of the passion and the confidence that our City Attorney has exemplified in this matter. And also, I, like you, echo your respect for Mr. Melton, as well as always acknowledging and respecting the residents of the City. There was just one last question just for the record. We did in fact reach out to the County to weigh in on it, am I correct? That was the -- Ms. Xiques: Yes, Commissioner. This Commission directed the City Attorney's office to seek guidance from the County. The County Attorney's office declined to provide us with any opinion. Commissioner Dunn: Okay. Thank you very much. Chair Gort: Thank you. Any further discussion? Being none, all in favor, state it by saying "aye. Ms. Thompson: IfI might -- Chair Gort: Yes. Ms. Thompson: I apologize, again, Chair. IfI might get clarity from the Department. I want to make sure whether or not RE.8, which you'll be voting for -- on now and the next vote for RE.9, has [sic] those resolutions been substituted, changed, or modified from that which went out to the public? Ms. Acosta: No, they have not. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Chair Gort: Okay. We're moving on RE.8. Ms. Thompson: You -- we had a mover of Commissioner Suarez, and then the seconder was Commissioner Dunn. City ofMiami Page 38 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 RE.9 11-00035 Department of Building and Zoning Vice Chair Carollo: For RE. 8. Ms. Thompson: Yes, for RE.8. Chair Gort: Okay. All in favor, state it by saying "aye. " The Commission (Collectively): Aye. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE PLACEMENT OF A BILLBOARD AT THE CITY OF MIAMI POLICE DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A LICENSE AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, WITH CLEAR CHANNEL OUTDOOR, INC., AND ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, FOR THIS PURPOSE. 11-00035 Summary Form.pdf 11-00035 Legislation.pdf 11-00035 Exhibit 1 SUB.pdf 11-00035-Submittal-Letter-Commissioner Sarnoff.pdf Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Commissioner Dunn II, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Carollo, Suarez and Dunn II Absent: 1 - Commissioner(s) Sarnoff R-11-0066 Note for the Record: Please refer to item RE.8 for minutes referencing item RE.9. Chair Gort: RE.9. Commissioner Suarez: Move it. Commissioner Dunn: Second. Chair Gort: It's been moved by Commissioner Suarez, second by Commissioner Dunn. Any discussion? Vice Chair Carollo: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Chair Gort: Yes. Vice Chair Carollo: Looking at the contract -- I'm going to have a few questions -- it stipulates here under item 5, Annual License Fee, stipulates licensee shall pay to licensor an annual license fee of $80, 000 per year or 20 percent of revenues derived as a result of the license agreement for years one through five. Revenues, I would expect, is gross revenues, correct? Vanessa Acosta (Assistant Director/Building & Zoning): Yes. Vice Chair Carollo: Okay. I just want to make sure that then we make the amendment to be gross revenues. Second question. Here in the agreement -- I'm reading -- continuing on item 5 -- City ofMiami Page 39 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 RE.10 11-00046 Department of Building and Zoning Ms. Acosta: Yes, sir. Vice Chair Carollo: -- towards, let's say, three-quarters down of that paragraph on page 1, with an account -- let me start from the beginning. Within 30 days after the anniversary of each license fee commencement date, licensee shall render licensor with an accounting of revenues derived as a result of this license agreement. Accounting of revenues derived, would this be from an independent accounting firm? And if so, I would prefer that. Ms. Acosta: If you would prefer that, we can definitely put that in place. There's nothing that's been contemplated as to how it's actually going to be carried out. Vice Chair Carollo: Okay. I think it should be an independent accounting firm, maybe an agreed upon procedures. So ifI could amend that part. Ms. Acosta: Yes, sir. Vice Chair Carollo: And the last would be -- what happens --? Andl understand this is an at will, so even though I believe it's a 15 year contract, it's at will, so either party can disengage or cancel. What happens if within that timeframe they actually don't pay us? Ms. Acosta: It's a contract. They would actually -- at that point we'd sue them to -- for either specific performance or damages. Vice Chair Carollo: Okay. That's all my questions. Chair Gort: Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. All in favor, state it by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Vice Chair Carollo: As amended. Chair Gort: As amended. Vice Chair Carollo: As amended. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, IN THE ATTACHED FORM, WITH SOUTH FLORIDA EQUITABLE FUND, LLC., WITHOUT ADMISSION OF LIABILITY, IN FULL AND COMPLETE SETTLEMENT OF ANY AND ALL CLAIMS AND DEMANDS, INCLUDING ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS, AGAINST THE CITY OF MIAMI, IN THE CASE STYLED SOUTH FLORIDA EQUITABLE FUND, LLC. VS. CITY OF MIAMI, PENDING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, CASE NO.: 01 0-21 032-CIV-UNGARO. 11-00046 Summary Form.pdf 11-00046 Legislation.pdf 11-00046-Ex hi bit-S U B. pdf 11-00046-Submittal-Commissioner-Sarnoff-Changes to the Settlement Agreement. pdf Motion by Commissioner Sarnoff, seconded by Vice Chairman Carollo, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. City ofMiami Page 40 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Sarnoff, Carollo, Suarez and Dunn II Direction by Commissioner Suarez to the City Attorney to provide a legal analysis of the mechanisms that would allow for other entities to place or erect a structure at the g'evennine Site" without having to come to the City Commission for approval. Chair Gort: Okey-doke. What's next, RE (Resolution) --? Vice Chair Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Chair Gort: RE -- yes. Vice Chair Carollo: If we're on the billboards, could we continue with RE.10? Since we just did RE.8, RE.9, which deals with billboards, can we just continue to RE.10 then? Julie O. Bru (City Attorney): Mr. Vice Chair, I can't do RE.10 now. There's been some -- there's going to be some changes which I have to look at over lunchtime so -- Vice Chair Carollo: Changes? Ms. Bru: There's -- the settlement agreement's going to be modified because one of the parties that we were going to join in for purposes of the settlement will no longer be a part of the settlement agreement. I will continue if -- after I review it, I believe that it will still be my recommendation that you approve the settlement agreement, but I have to sit down and review all the modifications to it before I can present it to you. Chair Gort: Bring it back this after -- Vice Chair Carollo: Mr. Chairman, if I could have -- Chair Gort: Yes. Vice Chair Carollo: -- the floor for a second. Okay, the only thingl respectfully request from my colleagues -- as you know, my little daughter is a little sick and so forth -- that this item be not taken up ifI am not present. Chair Gort: Okay. Vice Chair Carollo: It affects my district so -- Commissioner Dunn: Absolutely. Vice Chair Carollo: -- I respectfully request that this item not be taken up if I'm not here. Thank you. [Later...] Ms. Bru: Mr. Chair, ifI may, as a point of privilege. I wanted to address something regarding RE.10 before we break -- Chair Gort: Yes. Ms. Bru: -- and before we lose the Vice Chair. I just wanted to put on the record that that settlement that is before you today is time sensitive. We have pending an action in federal court. This -- our sign code has been challenged in federal court and this is a settlement that would resolve that challenge. The judge in the case has been asked to grant a stay, pending this City ofMiami Page 41 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Commission taking up this item today, and it has been represented to the judge that this item would be taken up by the Commission today. She has granted that stay only through March 4, and she has indicated that she is ready to enter her order. So to the extent that it would be recommended as a favorable resolution of this matter, it is urgent that it be addressed today or before March 4. Vice Chair Carollo: The only thing I'm seeing that you're already telling us that what we have before us and what we read is no longer in play because now there's changes to it and we don't even know the changes because you're not ready to -- which, in all fairness, I respect that, you know, you want to take time to look at the changes, but -- Ms. Bru: Right. Well, the changes, substantively, I know what it is. It's removing one of the parties from the settlement agreement. And the reason for the change is that because -- it's because that one party no longer has an interest in the sign that's going to be part of the settlement agreement. So substantively, I am okay with it and I continue to support the settlement. However, technically, I have to actually read it because I want to make sure that what purports to be the change in fact is being expressed, so that's the reason why I want the time to be able to read it before I present it to you. Chair Gort: Vice Chairman, what time would --? Can you read it with -- have someone --? Ms. Bru: You know, I can leave someone else here, take the time -- Chair Gort: Yes. Ms. Bru: -- now to read it and come -- Chair Gort: Please. Ms. Bru: -- back within like, you know, a couple -- 20 minutes or so. Vice Chair Carollo: Or -- unless we take our lunch recess and then come back but, you know (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- Ms. Bru: No. I can do that now. I mean, I could step aside now, I mean, if this is the will of the Commission, let somebody else chair the meeting here for me and come back and -- give me about 20 minutes. Commissioner Dunn: It's your call. Chair Gort: I don't have any problem. Commissioner Dunn: It's up to you. Chair Gort: It's up to you. There's a couple of things happening today. At 3 o'clock, my understanding, we should be somewhere on 8th Street at 3 o'clock. My understanding, if we break now -- I was thinking maybe break a little later so we can extend the lunch break so we could -- back about 3: 30, something like that. Vice Chair Carollo: When do you want to break for lunch then? What's your suggestion? Chair Gort: I say maybe around 1, a little before 1. Vice Chair Carollo: Okay. City ofMiami Page 42 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Chair Gort: Okay. (UNINTET,TIGIBT,F). In the meantime, can we take 5? Vice Chair Carollo: Yeah. Chair Gort: Let's take 5. [Later... Vice Chair Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Chair Gort: Yes. Vice Chair Carollo: I just spoke to the City Attorney and she says she is ready to present for -- or at least she is ready for RE.10, which dealt with the billboard. Ms. Bru: Yeah. Mr. Chair and Vice Chair, Vanessa Acosta from the Administration is making some copies, so as soon as she finishes making the copies, we'll be ready. If you want to take up something else until she comes down with the copies. Vice Chair Carollo: Yeah. I think there's someone here for RE.2. Chair Gort: Right. Vice Chair Carollo: And on the PZ (Planning & Zoning) items, Madam City Clerk, since we already swore in everybody, could we still take a PZ item now or --? Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Sure. You've already opened up your PZ -- Chair Gort: Let's take RE. 2. They've -- Ms. Thompson: -- agenda. Chair Gort: -- been waiting. Vice Chair Carollo: Okay. [Later..] Chair Gort: Do you have the copies? We have the copies or --? Vice Chair Carollo: There we go. Ms. Bru: Okay. Well, let me -- Vice Chair Carollo: Thank you. Ms. Bru: -- introduce the item while she's getting ready to distribute the copies. This item is a settlement agreement of a pending lawsuit that is -- has been filed in federal court which challenges our sign code regulation. As you know, the City ofMiami, we prohibit outdoor advertising. We prohibit billboards. However, pursuant to state law, we have the authority and, in fact, we have through various settlements, entered into settlement agreement with companies that had existing signs. And obviously, in order to advance a very compelling interest that we have of making sure that we achieve a net reduction in the number of signs throughout the City while promoting our interest in the aesthetics and the safety that comes about with the reduction of outdoor advertising. So this is a settlement agreement. You know, we have filed our defenses City ofMiami Page 43 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 to the action and we feel very strong about the constitutionality and the validity of our law, but we do recommend the settlement because as with all cases, you can never guarantee the outcome. And we wouldn't want anything that would impeded our ability to continue to promote the interest that we have in the aesthetics of the City and the safety of the City by the reduction of signs. Now this settlement agreement achieves that. It reduces the net number of signs. The reason for the substitution is that previously we had Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. as a party joining in in the settlement agreement because the plaintiff in this case didn't have the requisite number of signs in order to achieve the net reduction that we wanted as part of the settlement. Since we had prepared the settlement and distribute it to you, South Florida has acquired an interest in the sign that Clear Channel was going to bring into the settlement mix, so they no longer need to be a part of the settlement agreement. So the changes to this agreement really only concern the fact that Clear Channel is no longer a party to the agreement. So anywhere in the agreement that previously we had reference to Clear Channel, it is no longer necessary. I have read it and, in fact, it achieves that purpose. The only other change that has been made is in page 15 of the agreement under subsection 11, and that is just to expressly provide that in this agreement each party will bear its own cost in attorney's fees. And that was something that had always been negotiated and agreed to. We just had not expressly provided it for in the settlement agreement. So we are inserting language in there to provide for the following. So having put that on the record, I recommend the settlement agreement. The business terms of the agreement and the logistics of it, Vanessa can explain. Vanessa Acosta (Assistant Director, Building and Zoning): Okay. This is a settlement agreement that will resolve -- Chair Gort: I'm sorry, you are? Ms. Acosta: Vanessa Acosta, assistant director of Building and Zoning. This is a settlement agreement between the City ofMiami and South Florida Equitable Fund to resolve the federal lawsuit, as our City Attorney mentioned, and other related issues. In trying to follow the guidelines of our existing ordinance, we asked that the company provide us the two -for -one takedown that is required by all of the other outdoor settlement agreements. We have achieved that. For this agreement we are only allowing for one additional billboard to be put up. The net takedowns and billboards existing in the City will not be changing. This is two -for -one takedown in our continued effort, as was expressed by this Commission, to continue taking down billboards throughout the City. Chair Gort: Thank you. It's a public hearings [sic]. No. This is a resolution. It's not a public hearing, but I'll allow you to speak. Two minutes. Grace Solares: Thank you so very much, Commission -- Mr. Chairman. My name is Grace Solares, president of -- I mean, vice president of the Roads Association. I'm sure you may remember -- I'll go as quickly as possible. Eight months ago, I wrote you a letter when this matter came before you with respect to an LED (Light Emitting Diodes), and told you that the Roads Association opposed the I,FD because that was what the application stated. Just yesterday I found out that Mr. Echemendia has been making some representations or innuendos that Grace Solares has a personal interest in your denying this action because I work for a firm -- that I work for a firm that has an interest in this particular deal. Mr. Echemendia came to my house on a specially set meeting of the board of directors of the Roads, and he made a presentation to the board of directors of the Roads Association. After he left, there are two members of the board of directors that are attorneys that had questions andl didn 't know the answer. Therefore, we called the firm I work for and then my boss gave the answers. We hung up the phone and they commenced a debate about these issues, whether LED or this or that. The conclusion was that the Roads Association moved in its entirety to oppose any, any signs, whether it's LED or no LED, within our neighborhood. It's a visual pollution. It is terrible. Mr. (UNINTELLIGIBLE), who was the one who moved, will say I am going to be looking at the back City ofMiami Page 44 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 of a billboard, whether it's lit or not, from my home. Can you imagine the ones living next to it? There is already one for the vodka, Ultima, on the other side of -- Let me finish just now, just one second, Mr. Chairman. There's another one that may be less than 1,500 feet. In any event, I want to put on the records [sic] that Grace Solares, on behalf of the Roads Association, opposes any, any signs, LED or any on behalf of the neighborhood association, whether if it's Mr. Echemendia, God, or Mr. Obama who comes here requesting. Thank you so much. Chair Gort: Thank you. I'm going to let you this time. Two minutes, okay. Two minutes. Nathan Kurland: Thank you, Commissioner. Nathan Kurland -- Chair Gort: Persistence helps. Mr. Kurland: -- 3132 Day Avenue. First of all, I would like to thank the assistant director of Planning and Zoning. I'd never heard the term streamlined monocle before. That's a new one on me. Commissioner, I'd just like to reiterate what Grace Solares said. And Commissioners, I am aware of at least five cities in the state of Florida that do not do two -for -one trades; they do ten -for -one trades. So my first comment is that I don't understand why we're settling for a two -for -one trade when there are already precedents for a ten -to -one trade. Secondly, again, I would like to reinforce what Grace Solares said. I don't believe that we are actually downgrading in terms of size because when you have a sign that can change its message every eight seconds, if we take that out to the extreme, we're talking about taking down two signs and putting up thirty-two thousand. So it's a bit deceiving to say that we're actually getting less signage when, in fact, if these are changeable LEDs, we're getting more signage, not less. So I would like to ask that you members of the Commission keep that in mind. And at the very least, as we go forward with, I'm sure, what will be more billboard issues, visual pollution issues, that you contemplate perhaps going to the higher range as opposed to this lower two -for -one range. Thank you. Chair Gort: Thank you. Okay. Ms. Acosta: Commissioner -- Chair Gort: Any questions? Vice Chair Carollo: Yes. Is the public hearing closed? Chair Gort: No. It's not a public hearing. I just -- Vice Chair Carollo: You just allowed them --? Chair Gort: -- allowed those individuals to speak because they've been sitting here all morning. Vice Chair Carollo: I'll let Ms. Acosta continue. Ms. Acosta: The two -for -one takedown was in following with the past practices set in terms of what would be taken down. It's a total net effect of billboards coming down in the next years. Chair Gort: Now my understanding, Ms. Acosta, this has been ongoing for a few years now? Ms. Acosta: This -- we've been attempting to reach settlement negotiations for over a year. Chair Gort: Okay. Thank you. Vice Mayor [sic] -- Vice Chair Carollo: Mr. Chairman. That one sign happens to -- is proposed to be located in my City ofMiami Page 45 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 district. I think it's called the Sevennine site. I agree with Ms. Solares andl agree with the residents. I don't think that it's an appropriate site for a billboard. Andl am opposed to this and I respectfully request, just like I yield to you all judgments in your districts just a little while ago, that you respect my wishes. Andl cannot support this location for a billboard or an LED at this time. Ms. Acosta: Gentlemen, there are actually alternate locations also mentioned in the agreement should the Sevennine site not be acceptable where this may be relocated in an effort to achieve a settlement with this party to avoid any further problems. Chair Gort: Vice Mayor [sic]. Vice Chair Carollo: The alternate locations are not in my district. I could tell you, I am not in support of this location, the Sevennine site, which is on 1700 Southwest 3rdAvenue or 299 Southwest 17 Road. I am strongly opposed to this site at this present time. Ms. Acosta: The alternate site locations were in the original package that you guys received with the agenda. Vice Chair Carollo: They -- I believe it is the Tanaka site, 570 Northwest 67th Street, or the Elks Lodge site, 4949 Northwest 7th Avenue. There's one more site, 4291 Northwest 7th Avenue. Now question. It seems like a little while ago I asked about NEA payments. I don't -- I didn't read anything about NEA payments with this -- Ms. Acosta: In this agreement I tried to take an amalgamation of the past three agreements and try to mirror this as much to Carter, CBS (Columbia Broadcasting System), and Clear Channel's agreements. This came closest to Carter in terms of numbers. Aandl asked them, in an effort to deal with the visual plight, to come up with the more expensive pole and that was the loss on the NEA payments. They actually are close enough to the other agreements. Chair Gort: How close? Ms. Acosta: The numbers that were taken were actually percentages after adding the numbers owed by all three other agreements. And then I did some math to figure out more or less what would be the amount based on the amount of signs, the amount of time that's gone into this and all of those factors. Chair Gort: Any other questions? Do you have any problem with the change of alternative sites? Commissioner Suarez: I have a couple questions -- Chair Gort: Yes. Commissioner Suarez: -- Mr. Chairman. One question is, is this an LED billboard? Ms. Acosta: No. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. Ms. Acosta: It's a static standard billboard. Commissioner Suarez: That's what I thought. I just wanted clarification on the record. I just want another clarification, andl think maybe Ms. Solares may have to make the clarification, which is she stated on the record that she opposes and -- this site and that the homeowners City ofMiami Page 46 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 oppose this site. And just for her own purposes, since there's been apparently, according to her, a claim that she has a conflict, that she opposes also the site that her firm represents. I just wanted her to clam that on the record -- or that the association better said, not you personally. Ms. Solares: Yes, sir. Commissioner Suarez: Right. Ms. Solares: Because it so happens to be in the Roads section. Commissioner Suarez: So -- Ms. Solares: It happens to be in the Roads -- Commissioner Suarez: I know. Ms. Solares: -- section. Commissioner Suarez: I just wanted clarification. Ms. Solares: Both, okay. Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. Ms. Solares: But the thing is that this document that have not seen -- the people have not been privy to that document. New document or old document; I never had it. I was supposed to have had it, but they never sent it to me. So now I don't know, I mean, where these things are. I'm talking on behalf of the Roads Association today. If these other sections that they're applying -- Commissioner Suarez: Right. Ms. Solares: -- for, ifMNU (Miami Neighborhoods United) would like to make an opposition to that, I don't even know where they are. If it's next to a neighborhood association, it's fine. But as far as this one is concerned, is the Roads Association -- it's the Roads area. Commissioner Suarez: Maybe I wasn't clear. I'm sorry ifI wasn't. I didn't mean for you to opine on the other two alternative sites. What I meant was there's been a contention that you stated that your firm, the firm that you work for, represents a site that is nearby and I just want -- Ms. Solares: Correct. Commissioner Suarez: -- you to be clear on the record 'cause you just made a very broad statement that you're going to -- Ms. Solares: I am clear on the records that the Roads Association -- Commissioner Suarez: Right. Ms. Solares: -- is opposed to any billboard -- Commissioner Suarez: Right. Ms. Solares: -- in our neighborhood -- Commissioner Suarez: Right, including the one -- City ofMiami Page 47 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Ms. Solares: -- coming from him or anyone else. Commissioner Suarez: I think that's pretty clear. Ms. Solares: Thank you. Commissioner Suarez: Thank you, Ms. Solares. I have another couple of things. Is -- would the settlement be doable without that site? Ms. Acosta: Yes. There are alternate locations just in case that site for any reason, FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation) related or any other come up. Commissioner Suarez: So you can take that site out of the agreement? Santiago Echemendia: No. Can clarify a second, Francis, ifI may? IfI may, Mr. Chairman, just one comment -- Chair Gort: Yeah, go ahead. Mr. Echemendia: -- just for clarification, particularly for Commissioner Carollo. It -- the contingency is this particular site. What's important, Commissioner, is that if you don't approve our settlement, one of the other three companies will have this site or the abutting site because under those settlement agreements, they don't need your approval. They don't need the City Commission's approval for the sites. So a structure will go there whether it's pursuant to our settlement agreement or CBS or Carter or Clear Channel in which case they don't come to you. This particular site has been approved twice by the City. They signed the FDOT form twice, so I think that's a very compelling point for you to understand. Ms. Thompson: Excuse me, Chair. Chair Gort: Thank you. Yes. Ms. Thompson: Excuse me, Chair. We do need an identification for the record, please. Chair Gort: Yes. Mr. Echemendia: I'm sorry. Santiago Echemendia. I'm one of the principals in South Florida Equitable. Commissioner Suarez: Go ahead. Chair Gort: That statement -- Madam Attorney. Ms. Acosta: The -- all of the settlement agreement relocations, unless there were specific sites allocated, can choose to relocate and/or reconstruct with only an approval by the Department. The sites do not come back to the Commission after the settlement agreements. The only difference -- the principals are correct -- is in this one you'd be approving it with a nicer version of the monopole, but the FDOT form will more than likely end up in my office for either this company, CBS, Carter, or Clear Channel. It's a very desirable site. Vice Chair Carollo: For your department's approval. Ms. Acosta: Yes. City ofMiami Page 48 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Vice Chair Carollo: And -- Ms. Acosta: And short of having any reason not to approve it based on the rules set in the settlement agreements, I have to sign off on it. Vice Chair Carollo: See, this is all brand-new information that is being brought up that need to be briefed on it. I need the information, I need the documents to actually see that because I clearly have indicated my opposition to, you know, any signs at that site at the present time, and therefore, I need to see that documentation and so forth. Ms. Bru: Commissioner -- Vice Chair, that site located -- that's called Sevennine is an existing site that has already been -- that is -- that somebody has -- some company has an interest in that sign -- it already exists. In the future, that com -- whoever has an interest in that site could use it as a takedown in order to -- maybe to relocate someplace else or -- potentially, but somebody already has a vested right to that site. Vice Chair Carollo: See, and who has that vested right? Because if that's the case, then just a few minutes ago when we voted on takedowns and put up, we could have used that as a takedown. Ms. Acosta: The -- Vice Chair Carollo: Andl was never informed of that. Ms. Acosta: -- reality is that there have been FDOT forms signed off prior to my working on this by the City for other companies to erect a billboard at that location. This location has already been approved by the City as a billboard location. This is not a new approval, so to speak. Mr. Echemendia: Just to clam, Commissioner, there was one signed off on for Outlook Media, which is our other company for this site, and one also for Carter at this same exact site pursuant to the settlement agreements. Vice Chair Carollo: Again, I need to meet with my City Attorney andl need to meet with staff in order to iron this thing out. Andl wish this would have come up earlier, but again, I -- I mean, I need to make sure there's clarity from my part exactly what we have and don't have. Mr. Echemendia: Commissioner, couldl implore you maybe to consider it later this afternoon? The reason being, the judge in the order, Ungaro, has basically said that she has an order ready to sign March 4, so the judge is going to rule one way or another. I would implore you respectfully that if you guys are going to be here for a while, maybe defer it for later in the afternoon for some further discussion simply 'cause I don't believe we have time. Your next Commission meeting is March 10, so the judge has indicated she's going to rule. I think the City Attorney has shared that order with you. I have a copy if you'd like to see it. Chair Gort: We do have that information. Thank you. Vice Chair Carollo: I think at the present time, you know, we have no alternative but to table it. And I need to see the documentation, exactly what our position is. I was not aware of the fact -- as a matter offact, in the all the maps that I had seen, I had never seen that that site was one that was approved already and so forth. So I -- Ms. Acosta: I have to go back to the office to get the old forms that were approved. These were Chair Gort: Excuse me. Hold -- City ofMiami Page 49 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Vice Chair Carollo: And again, it goes back to, you know, us having all the information so we could make an educated vote, but with that said, I guess we'll have to table it. Chair Gort: Okay, we're going to table it for later on. And make sure that everyone, all the party interested, get the copy of the document, okay? Thank you. Vice Chair Carollo: Thank you, Commissioners. [Later...] Vice Chair Carollo: We still have RE.10 tabled. I briefly spoke to Ms. Acosta. I didn't really get into much detail with -- as it is right now, I'm still not going to be in favor of it. You know, I would like to get more of a legal guidance on that. It was sprung on me in the last minute, as you saw, by a person outside of the City ofMiami. So I would like to, you know, speak to my City Attorney before I make any movement. And as it is right now, I'm still going to vote against it. Ms. Bru: Vice Chair, ifI can recap where we were before we tabled the item. I believe the objection was made about the location, the Sevennine location where we're agreeing in the settlement agreement that a sign will be permitted. And the observation was made by the Administration that simply by not approving the settlement agreement, you are not going to be able to guarantee to anyone that a sign won't go there eventually. And you asked why is that? Andl reviewed -- during the recess, I reviewed existing settlement agreements and reviewed our current regulatory scheme, our code provisions, and indeed, that is the case because under our code, we, number one, don't allow new signs; number two, we do recognize that there is a universe of existing signs out there that we want to be able to reduce, but in order to do that, we have to allow certain individuals who have rights to those signs to be able to relocate them or reconstruct them, and we have recognized that right in order to avoid having to pay out compensation by entering into settlement agreements with certain entities who has that universe of signs that we have recognized. Those entities have an inventory of signs that they can, under their existing settlement agreements, reconstruct and/or relocate to other locations without the City Commission having any say in it because it's governed by the terms of the settlement agreements. So conceivably there is or there are entities out there who have rights to relocate signs to that location without coming to this Commission for approval. Vice Chair Carollo: Right. But here's the thing. Just today I voted for, what was said, 4-1 ratio for LED signs and the removal of certain signs. I'm still not clear if that location could have been one for the removal of a sign. Ms. Bru: There isn't an existing sign there. There is no sign existing at the Sevennine location. Vice Chair Carollo: I understand that. However, it is allowed to have a sign there. Ms. Bru: It is -- Vice Chair Carollo: So instead of removing -- physically removing a sign, I want to know if we could remove that clause that says that someone could, you know, erect a sign there as one of their removals. You understand what I'm saying? Ms. Bru: No. Vice Chair Carollo: Okay. Right now there could be a sign erected there, from what you're telling me. City ofMiami Page 50 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Ms. Bru: There could be if someone has control over the location, so that has to happen first. And if they get an FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation) permit for it or a tag for it because they need certain distance requirements and other technical regulations. Vice Chair Carollo: Does someone have control over that location? Ms. Bru: This settlement agreement assumes that someone does have control over the location, and that is the entity with whom we're entering into the settlement agreement. Santiago Echemendia: We have a lease, Commissioner, ifI can help. We do have a lease for the Sevennine Site. Chair Gort: Excuse me. Mr. Echemendia: I'm sorry. Just trying to help. Chair Gort: Let's wait. Let him -- let the Commissioner finish, then I'll call you up. Ms. Bru: Yes. Under the proposed settlement agreement, the plaintiff in this federal lawsuit has control over that location. Vice Chair Carollo: Under the proposed settlement agreement. And if we deny that proposed settlement agreement, then who has control of that location? Ms. Bru: The plaintiff will continue to have control or anybody else who's a successor in interest to the plaintiff. Vice Chair Carollo: Question, he or his company is in a lawsuit with the City ofMiami, correct? Ms. Bru: Well, this is a lawsuit filed by this entity that -- South Florida Equitable -- is suing the City. Yes. Vice Chair Carollo: And if we deny this proposal, then it goes back to court and there's going to be a -- Ms. Bru: The judge has -- Vice Chair Carollo: -- an opinion. (UNINTETTIGIBT,F). Ms. Bru: -- already indicated that she has already prepared her ruling and she's just waiting to issue it, and she's given us until March 4 before she renders an opinion. And at stake in this lawsuit is a challenge to our entire regulatory scheme of signs. And also, they're seeking damages. Vice Chair Carollo: I have questions for you, but I'd rather not do it on the dais. That's why I said that I wanted to speak to my legal guidance, my City Attorney before. Chair Gort: You want to take five? Vice Chair Carollo: Yeah, I think we need to take at least five or ten. And -- Chair Gort: Let's take five so you can go, and then we can get Francis to come back. Let's take ten. [Later... J City ofMiami Page 51 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Chair Gort: Meeting's come back to order. RE.10, presentation has been made. Commissioner, you had some questions of the Attorney. I was hope [sic] that they were able to answer your questions. Vice Chair Carollo: Yes, they were. And again, I wish some of this information was provided -- I don't want to say the backup material 'cause I spoke to the Attorney and she says that since it's a pending lawsuit, some of this information, you know, they limit the amount of information in the backup, but still, I was surprised today with some of the information that received. Andl just -- I'm still leaning no. I'm still leaning against it. I -- you know, I understand that maybe in the future someone could erect a sign there, maybe not. And you know -- and you know, I guess by March 4, we'll know what the judgment is from the courts. Andl believe in our City attorneys. I mean, I think we've stated here in the past that we believe in our City attorneys and so forth. And you know, let's take it to court. That's what think. Chair Gort: Commissioner, my understanding is, the -- whatever takes place in federal court sounds like it can affect our whole ordinance that we have on the walls and wallscapes [sic] and whatever program that we have put together, that we have worked for so many -- for a year and a half more or less, dealing with all the people in the industry. Vice Chair Carollo: And if that's the case, I think we all should have been briefed, if that was the case, and think that all Commissioners should have been here present to vote this up or down. Andl don't think that we were briefed that way, that it was a whole City thing and the ramifications. And now we have three Commissioners, and if any one of us leaves this dais, there will not be a quorum and there will be no vote and it just goes to the court system, so -- Linda Carroll: Mr. Chairman, may be heard, please? Chair Gort: I'm sorry. Ms. Carroll: Because -- Chair Gort: I'm sorry. We -- the public hearing's -- Ms. Carroll: -- the decision -- Chair Gort: -- has been heard. Ms. Carroll: -- you're about to make affects a client of mine. Unidentified Speaker: Excuse me. Chair Gort: Okay. Excuse me. Unidentified Speaker: We can barely hear. Ms. Carroll: I said a decision -- Chair Gort: Excuse me. Ms. Carroll: -- you're about to make -- Chair Gort: Public hearing -- I understand. Ms. Carroll: -- affects a client of mine. City ofMiami Page 52 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Chair Gort: I understand. Mr. Carroll: -- and he's never been given -- Chair Gort: Excuse me. Ms. Carroll: -- an opportunity to be heard about -- Chair Gort: Public hearing was closed. Okay. Ms. Carroll: -- the fraud that's been perpetrated by Mr. Echemendia. Chair Gort: Excuse me, Miss. Public hearing has been closed. This is not a public hearing. It's discussion among board members. Vice Chair Carollo: You know -- I mean, it's portrayed now, Mr. Chairman, that, Commissioner, this is something that could affect citywide and, you know, it's put on my shoulders now. You have to, you know, look at the better the whole City and so forth, but I revert back to well, you should have let all five Commissioners know an appropriate time. And I'm sure that something as important as what you're portraying now, all five Commissioners would have been here, and we would have made arrangements or it would have been done differently. So again, there's only three Commissioners. Any one of us walks off this dais, and that's it. It goes to court and render the opinion on March 4. Chair Gort: My experience with the court orders and the judges, it's going to go against the City. I rather have -- we can get another -- a special meeting just to deal with that next week. I think it's very important for the City to do this. I mean -- it's going to affect a lot, Commissioner -- I mean, Vice Mayor -- Vice Chairman. Excuse me. Vice Chair Carollo: Something of that importance, you know what? I'm not too fond of special Commission meetings, but I'll be here. Andl think then, if it affects every member of this Commission, then let's have all five members here and let's discuss it. I've always worked -- welcomed, you know, discussion and debates. Commissioner Suarez: I'll be here as well, if you need me to be here. Chair Gort: I'll be here and we'll make sure the Commissioners are here. Vice Chair Carollo: We have three Commissioners that is then requesting a special Commission meeting and we will set the date and time, but -- Chair Gort: Next Thursday? Commissioner Suarez: That's fine with me. Chair Gort: Nine o'clock. It will be just this one item. Vice Chair Carollo: I haven't checked my calendar, but yes, I'll make arrangements. Yes. Chair Gort: Okay. Vice Chair Carollo: Next Thursday? Chair Gort: No. Wait a minute. What's the -- next Thursday, what's the date? City ofMiami Page 53 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Ms. Thompson: That would be March 3. Vice Chair Carollo: March 3, the day before. Chair Gort: March 3. Vice Chair Carollo: So we're in time. Ms. Bru: You know, the Court has indicated that she will enter the order on March 4, so I think that we should be prudent about it and give ourselves at least, you know -- Chair Gort: Wednesday? Ms. Bru: The 4th is --? Ms. Acosta: Friday. Ms. Thompson: The 4th is a Friday. Ms. Acosta: Friday. Ms. Bru: When is the 4th? It's next Friday? Ms. Thompson: That's correct. Vice Chair Carollo: So if she's going to render an opinion on the 4th, why not meet on the 3rd? As a matter of fact, it always goes to the end anyways, so we might as well. Ms. Bru: And we have to communicate the -- you know, to the Court -- Ms. Acosta: Julie, one of the other portions of this agreement actually states that the judge who is deciding this will have some jurisdiction over even this agreement, so we need to be able to prepare the agreement and return it to her for her review. That's one of my few concerns with the time frame. Ms. Bru: And it was represented to the Court that the Commission would take this up on the 24th. That has been represented in pleadings to the Court. So she was expecting something immediately after the 24th so that she could review 'cause she has to approve it. Vice Chair Carollo: Right. And it was taken up by the Commission. The Commission decide to defer to a special Commission meeting so all members could be present. That's what occurred. Mr. Acosta: Will Commissioner Sarnoff have returned? Ms. Bru: I don't -- Commissioner Sarnoff will not be back by the 4th. Vice Chair Carollo: You know what? I think it's healthy for us to have a few days to sleep on this. Again, all this information -- at least with me, it appears to me like -- for the other Commissioners also. But at least with me, was received, I don't know, six, seven hours ago, whatever it is, so I wouldn't mind having a few days to think this over and possibly having a fourth Commissioner here. Chair Gort: Let's make it on Wednesday, give them time to draft it and send it to the judge. City ofMiami Page 54 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Vice Chair Carollo: I'm okay with Wednesday. Chair Gort: Wednesday, 9 o'clock. Ms. Bru: So we're setting a special at what time? What time special City Commission meeting? On Wednesday at what time? Chair Gort: Nine -- Vice Chair Carollo: Eight. Chair Gort: -- o'clock in the morning. Ms. Bru: Okay. Vice Chair Carollo: No. Chair Gort: What time do you -- the Commissioner prefers? Commissioner Suarez: Nine. Vice Chair Carollo: I prefer 8, but 9. Well, we'll do 9. Commissioner Suarez: Eight? I'll do it at 8. Chair Gort: No. Eight is fine. Commissioner Suarez: I'll do it at 8. Chair Gort: Eight o'clock. Vice Chair Carollo: Eight o'clock. Commissioner Suarez: Eight'd even be better actually. Vice Chair Carollo: Eight a.m. on Wednesday, the -- Commissioner Suarez: Second. Vice Chair Carollo: -- 2. Chair Gort: Second. Ms. Acosta: Can I ask the Commission for direction as to when they'd like me to be able to brief them with any questions regarding the issues surrounding this or the agreement itself? Chair Gort: My suggestion is I think you need to explain to all the Commissioners -- andl don't know if you've done it to the other ones before -- the impact, the negative impact that would have on the City ofMiami if it goes against us, okay. Commissioner Suarez: I think that's -- Chair Gort: Out of all the districts. That's a citywide that be affected. Commissioner Suarez: I think that's one issue. City ofMiami Page 55 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Chair Gort: Yes, sir. Vice Chair Carollo: Right. Commissioner Suarez: I think the second issue is there -- from what I remember from the prior discussion is clarity regarding whether a billboard structure is going to go up at either that site or the adjacent site, regardless of what decision that we take. And where are the -- what's the -- what are the legal underpinnings of that? What's the legal justification for that, so that we can make an informed decision? Because if the issue is protecting the neighborhood, I think everybody here is in favor of protecting the neighborhood, but if it's going to happen regardless Ms. Acosta: It is. Commissioner Suarez: -- I think that's -- Ms. Acosta: It is. Commissioner Suarez: -- where the relevant question lies. Ms. Acosta: A board can go up on that site regardless. Commissioner Suarez: Well, I think the Commissioner's indicating that he wants to study the issue in more depth than what he's been able to do. Ms. Acosta: Okay. Chair Gort: Okay. Thank you. Ms. Thompson: Excuse me. Before you move, Chair. You're calling a special meeting for March 2, 2011 at 8 a.m. That's Wednesday. We need a motion; we need a second, and a vote on it. And then we need to make sure that we identifi, the item or items to be discussed on that meeting. If it's only going to be this item, then you would then need to defer the item to that meeting. Chair Gort: Okay. The -- Vice Chair Carollo: I make a motion for a special Commission meeting on Wednesday, March 2, at 8 a.m., to defer RE.10 to that meeting. Chair Gort: Okay. There's a motion by Vice -- Commissioner Suarez: Second. Chair Gort: -- Chairman Carollo, second by Commissioner Suarez. Any further discussion? Vice Chair Carollo: Hold on. Madam City Clerk. Ms. Thompson: There is another option. If you want to go ahead, handle all of your business at this meeting, recess the meeting, and pick up the meeting on the Wednesday. Vice Chair Carollo: Yeah. She's saying instead of calling a special Commission meeting, we could recess the meeting. In other words, never adjourn, and just pick it back up on Wednesday City ofMiami Page 56 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Chair Gort: Okay. Vice Chair Carollo: -- at 8 a.m. Ms. Thompson: The -- it's up to you all. This meeting will then not close off okay. Commissioner Suarez: Can I ask a question? Would that save us money on advertising -- Ms. Thompson: Yes. Commissioner Suarez: -- a special meeting? Ms. Thompson: Because we would have to advertise a special meeting. Commissioner Suarez: So why don't we do it --? Chair Gort: We could still hear -- Commissioner Suarez: Right. Chair Gort: -- a special -- the zoning hearing. Ms. Thompson: I'm sorry? Yeah. We can -- Chair Gort: We can still -- Ms. Thompson: Yeah. Chair Gort: Okay. All right. Ms. Thompson: What we would do is complete everything else on the agenda and then recess with this item to come back on Wednesday. We don't have to advertise. We just continue with the meeting and -- Chair Gort: Okay. Ms. Thompson: -- finish it then. Vice Chair Carollo: I pull my motion then. I withdraw my motion. Commissioner Suarez: Can we get a legal opinion on whether a billboard will go up on that site regardless of whether it's included in this agreement or not, a legal opinion on that issue -- Vice Chair Carollo: Well -- Commissioner Suarez: -- in writing? Vice Chair Carollo: I'm sorry. Mr. Chairman. Chair Gort: Yes. Vice Chair Carollo: I don't know if they could state whether a billboard will go there. I think they could maybe have an opinion whether a billboard could go there, but I don't think they could say yes, for a fact, a billboard will be there, but -- City ofMiami Page 57 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Chair Gort: Well -- Ms. Bru: I mean, we could -- you know, I -- we could go through, as you asked, the legal underpinnings as to why, conceivably, there could be another entity that could place, erect a structure there without having to come to this City Commission, which is the issue. You know, without even having to come to the City Commission, there are entities out there who have certain rights under existing agreements that would allow them to erect a structure there, and we can explain that. When we meet with you, we can explain that to you and show you the documents that provide for that mechanism. Commissioner Suarez: You both articulated it better than I did, but if you can just write a -- do a legal analysis better than -- and put it in writing. It's better than -- what happens is if you show me the documents and don't put it in writing, then when we come before this body, then there's questions, what did you say, what didn't you say, you know. And think putting it in writing gives us the full benefit of your legal analysis so that we can analyze the decision that we have to make. Ms. Bru: We'll prepare something. Chair Gort: Okay. Commissioner Suarez: Thank you. Chair Gort: Thank you. There's a motion by Commissioner Suarez. Vice Chair Carollo: Actually, it's -- we don't need a motion. Andl withdrew my motion. He withdrew his second. We don't need a motion. The only thing is that we cannot adjourn the meeting. Chair Gort: Yeah. We need a motion. Ms. Thompson: No, no, no, no, no. Chair Gort: No. Okay. Ms. Thompson: So what will happen basically is you're just tabling this for right now. Vice Chair Carollo: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Okay. Chair Gort: All right. Ms. Thompson: And then whatever happens at the -- Vice Chair Carollo: End of the meeting, we'll take a recess, and then we'll come back at 8 a.m. on Wednesday and we'll reconvene this meeting. Ms. Thompson: To consider this -- whatever is outstanding. Vice Chair Carollo: Exactly. Thank you. Chair Gort: Okay. PZ.2. City ofMiami Page 58 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Mr. Echemendia: Is it possible to determine calendar appointments to brief the Commissioners, at least that are here? Chair Gort: What? Mr. Echemendia: Get a set time to brief each Commissioner that's here. Vice Chair Carollo: I think we have other more pressing issues. We could address that tomorrow. Mr. Echemendia: Okay. Note for the Record: The following discussion is the continuation of item RE.10, which resumed and concluded on Wednesday, March 2, 2011. Chair Gort: Good morning, everyone. Welcome for [sic] the recess. And item 10 is in discussion. Vice Chairman. Vice Chair Carollo: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We are resuming the RE.10. I don't know which is the correct way of proceeding with this. I can tell you that after having a chance to view, analyze this issue, the settlement agreement before us, I continue and even more strongly oppose the location that was chosen as the Seventy-nine [sic] Site. I continue to be opposed to it. We could get into the details about it. I'd like to hear my colleagues. As you all know, I asked for my colleagues to be here because it was presented by the Administration like this was more of a citywide issue. I disagree. I don't think this is such a citywide issue, but I'd be more than willing to debate all the different arguments and get into the issues. Once again, I am strongly opposing this billboard in the entrance of one of the neighborhoods in my district. Chair Gort: Okay. Staff. Vanessa Acosta (Director): Vanessa Acosta, Building and Zoning Department. As it relates to the settlement agreement, would you guys like to reintroduce it with all the information or just open it up to questions you may have for me? Chair Gort: My understanding, one of the issues was we're trying to see if that site cannot be utilized. And my understanding was we were informed by the Administration, by yourself, even if we vote against this today, the site can be picked up by someone else. Andl think that's the question. Ms. Acosta: The Law Department can better answer, pursuant to settlement agreements, the legality of putting that sign up by another company. Chair Gort: Okay. Warren Bittner (Assistant City Attorney): Yeah, that is correct, Chairman Gort. If you do not approve the settlement today, that location could be taken by another -- a company with a settlement agreement with the City. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): I'm sorry, Chair. We can hardly hear Mr. Bittner. Mr. Bittner: I'm sorry. Let me get closer to the microphone. I'll repeat that. Mr. Chairman, it is true. It is our opinion that if you do not approve this settlement today that another sign company, if they got the consent of the property owner, could erect a sign under the terms of their settlement agreement at that particular location. Chair Gort: This is the agreement you all have been working for a while now. My City ofMiami Page 59 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 understanding -- Mr. Bittner: I'm sorry; can you say that one again? Chair Gort: I'm sorry. I have a cold. Commissioner Sarnoff. Mr. Chair, can I --? Chair Gort: Go ahead. Commissioner Sarnoff. Maybe to give you guys a little historical perspective. As you know, all of us sit here on the shoulders of people who sat here before us and made decisions that we may or may not agree with. The billboard settlement agreement predates everybody on this dais, including myself. A Commission before us litigated with CBS, Carter, and Clear Channel, and some of those litigations were scorched earth, some a little less scorched. And before all of us sat on this dais, a Commission before us sat and determined that there were going to be settlement agreements as the Administration promulgated them, and we all inherit what they did. And you know, like it or not like it, that is the will of a Commission before us. The intent behind that was a two -to -one swap, which meant that you would take billboards out of neighborhoods and theoretically put them alongside interstates. Again, everything done before us. Andl did -- Mr. Chair, so you know, I watched the Commission meeting. I know that the Vice Chair has an issue with the -- what is colloquially called the Sevennine location. There are three alternate locations. One is called the Tanaka, the Elks Lodge, and the Contemporary Contractors. If this is a settlement agreement, Mr. Bittner, correct me if I'm wrong, it is this Commission's determination as to whether it will accept the terms and conditions of that settlement agreement? Mr. Bittner: Of course. Commissioner Sarnoff. Now, notwithstanding the fact that a CBS, a Carter or someone else -- I guess it would -- that would then leave Clear Channel -- could theoretically still put a billboard in the Sevennine location 'cause it doesn't require Commission approval. This Commission could move up the three alternative sites and move Tanaka to the first position, bring Elks Lodge to the second position, and Contemporary to the third position as alternate sites if it becomes the will of this Commission. Mr. Bittner: You -- that could be your -- you could do that. Commissioner Sarnoff. Right. Mr. Bittner: Of course. Commissioner Sarnoff. And the only thing the Vice Chair then would be concerned about is another company would come in and then use the Sevennine site, but at least it would not be on his watch or it would not be with his say-so that the Sevennine site would then be used. Andl'm -- that's a rhetorical statement. That's not a question. It's -- You then would not be making a determination and you would be living with something that a Commission did before you and even before I Andl'm comfortable -- andl do respect -- you're bringing a local issue into a global settlement agreement not inappropriately. This Commission can turn around and either support you or suggest maybe mitigations for you. But your issue is, as far as I read or heard the broadcast, the Sevennine location. So, I mean, I'm prepared to take the Sevennine location out and move up Tanaka, move up Elks Lodge -- and I've actually done it in my settlement and changed the wording to do that. I also have some suggestions I think that can make this a better legal agreement. Is that on the law side or you on the practical side? Johnny Martinez (Assistant City Manager/Chief of Infrastructure): We've discussed that City ofMiami Page 60 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 possibility with the other parry on the settlement and they will not agree to the settlement if we move up the other sites in lieu of the Sevennine site. We've discussed that possibility. They will not agree to settle this agreement if that's interjected into the mix. Ms. Acosta: The Seventy-nine Site -- Ms. Thompson: I'm sorry, Chair. I am really sorry. Chair Gort: We need names. Ms. Thompson: But in -- no, no. But in the interest of getting your record correct, I'm not recording -- like Mr. Martinez, can you make your statement again and come closer to the mike because we're not hearing you. We're not picking up your voice. Mr. Martinez: Yeah. What I said was that we discussed that possibility of moving up the other sites in lieu of the Sevennine Site and that the other parry's not agreeable to that. They want the settlement agreement with the Sevennine Site as their first shot. If for some reason they can't obtain the Sevennine Site, then there's alternate sites that we listed that -- so that the Commission would know where the sign would go. Ms. Acosta: They're putting in the other options as an alternative should FDOT, in its regulatory power for purposes of spacing and/or other issues, shoot down the site. I believe they have some value to the other sites as well. And this was a point that we negotiated over a couple of months, so I do not believe that the other party will be amenable to that. Commissioner Sarnoff. So -- Mr. Chair, is it all right? Chair Gort: Yes, go right ahead. I mean, you've been at it for a long time, so. Commissioner Sarnoff. Okay. I don't know if that means I should shut up or -- Chair Gort: No, no. No, no. No, no. I mean, you have more history -- no, no, no. Don't take it the wrong way. Commissioner Sarnoff. Okay. Chair Gort: You got more history than all of us andl know you've been working on this. That's why I -- Commissioner Sarnoff. Well, that brings -- Chair Gort: I'm -- my question -- Commissioner Sarnoff. -- it bring -- that brings up what the City has or has not to lose, and I was hoping not to get into this. Mr. Bittner: Before you get into that, Commissioner Sarnoff can I just raise one point -- Commissioner Sarnoff. Sure. Mr. Bittner: -- of clarification? Chair Gort: Put the mike up. Mr. Bittner: One point of clarification. What is at issue in the primary site is not necessarily City ofMiami Page 61 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 only the Sevennine Site. Alternatively, in the -- as the address of that site is defined, it could also be the Monsalve site. Both addresses are given as the first location. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chairman. Chair Gort: Yes, sir. Commissioner Suarez: Thank you. And I think -- I hesitate in interjecting myself here with the district Commissioner, you know, having to really drive this discussion because it does impact his district. But we do have the owners of the Monsalve site here present, you know. I don't know how the district Commissioner feels about the Monsalve versus the Sevennine Site. I went out there yesterday. There's no Jennings, you know, prohibition for me going out there. I can tel you that the Monsalve site is a better site vis-a-vis the residents in the sense that it is closer to the highway and it also blocks -- the building itself blocks a large -- can block a large portion or all of the sign from the residents if it's properly placed. I also spoke to some of the residents on that block and they said they had no problem with it going on that Monsalve site. Now that may or may not influence the district Commissioner. That's completely up to him. But at this point, everybody potentially has something to lose because this Commission hasn't acted, because the Court hasn't ruled, and all the parties are here. So it may be in the best interest of all the parties with all the risks involved, if the district Commissioner were so inclined to consider that site, to get together and see if a final settlement can be reached by all those parties. Commissioner Sarnoff. Is the Monsalve site --? Is it all right, Mr. Chair? Chair Gort: Yeah. Commissioner Sarnoff. Is the Monsalve site the Casola's sign? Commissioner Suarez: I think it's the yoga center. Ms. Acosta: No. Seven nine is the yoga. Commissioner Sarnoff. Is the Casola's sign, okay. Commissioner Suarez: Right, Ta -- yoga. Commissioner Sarnoff. I -- let me -- if we're going to go to the Casola's sign, then I have issues with that. Is that a mural or is that a billboard? Ms. Acosta: Code Enforcement is looking at it as an illegal mural. Commissioner Sarnoff. Right. That is -- Unidentified Speaker: (UNINTET,TIGIBT,F). Chair Gort: Excuse me. Commissioner Sarnoff. Well, I don't know if you're allowed -- well, sorry. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair -- Chair Gort: Okay, go ahead. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chairman. City ofMiami Page 62 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Chair Gort: Just make sure the public stays out of it. We're discussing it among ourselves right now. Commissioner Sarnoff. Look, that site has been up for as long as I've been Commissioner. The intent behind the mural ordinance and truthfully, any of this kind of advertising, but especially the murals -- and remember, that's a $5 million a year revenue source to the City. So when we all look back and think to ourselves, are we 20 million in debt or 25 million in debt, let's all talk out of one side of our mouths when it comes time for the next budget cycle and we're all trying to scurry and look for revenue sources, and that's really the underlying purpose of why this is even considered to be settled because frankly -- and this -- you all may not know this, but the person that Mr. Echemendia is here was -- is Mr. Harkley. When we were drafting the mural ordinance, actually sat across from us and said -- and if I'm saying it incorrectly, he's welcome -- well, it's up to the Chair. IfI don't draft your mural ordinance, I'll declare it unconstitutional or have it declared unconstitutional, unless you pay me ten percent of the gross. Now, that was a pretty big threat. We did not inevitably hire him. But he seems to have some understanding and some expertise, as he does this across the state of Florida, of declaring people's ordinances unconstitutional. And the idea behind the settlement today, and if you look at the wording in this document, he would be giving up those rights here today, which is a 5.1 or $5.2 million annual source to the City with the expectation of it growing -- going up with, I think, some additional murals going. But that gets me to how the mural ordinance actually works. It works only if legal murals are allowed to exist in the City ofMiami. And you have a mural. I call it the Casola's mural. It's been there since I've been Commissioner. I have asked Code Enforcement for five years now -- almost five years what the status is of that particular place. You never get a straight, clear answer. If it's been fined $250 a day -- and as you all know, the mural ordinance, you can go up to $1, 000 a day -- how is it still there? How does it still exist? And then you ask yourself the question, if you're one of the mural operators, you know, why would you continually put up murals, paying us -- I think the average mural operator pays in excess of $300, 000 a year. Why would you pay us that when somebody could just illegally put something up? And so, Commissioner Suarez, the only reason I bring up now Casola's -- andl guess that is considered the other alternate site -- I have an issue with giving somebody a place that has put up an illegal sign, since I've been in this Commission. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chairman, ifI may? Chair Gort: Yes. Commissioner Suarez: I have a little bit of a different take on that particular site. I don't think the issue is to make that into a -- necessarily a mural site. It's -- I think what we're talking about here is a potential billboard at that site with two faces, and that's what the -- my understanding of what the agreement contemplates. The building is situated in such a way and it's of a height that it could essentially block all or almost all of the billboard itself from the residents of the Roads area and that's where -- Now, the whole issue about the fact that may be code violators. I mean, there's code violators all over the City that we can't get to comply with the code. We're not -- you know, so that to me, personally, is not that dispositive for this -- for purposes of this decision. For me what's most important is what's in the best interest of the residents of that area and also, you know, obviously, the balance between that and what is at stake for the City, which is what you, I think, you know, alluded to in terms of the revenue that we generate from, whether it be billboards or murals or whatever. Commissioner Sarnoff. Well, this has been operating as -- is it all right, Mr. Chair? -- a mural for over four years. And if you read the mural ordinance carefully, you'll see if you have any code violations, you cannot then become a mural. And it was put in there for good reason, because you did not want to condone illegal activity. And by what you're saying is there's an overriding policy here and that is to resolve this issue and regardless of the fact that they've been operating illegally. And I'm -- I would like to see -- where's Code Enforcement? Mr. Manager, City ofMiami Page 63 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 where's Code Enforcement? As in summoning him in the building or as is summoning him out in the streets? How could Code not be here? All right. Well, the Administration will one day get its act together. You're saying the overarching policy here is to allow a property who, I suspect when Code stands up here will say, has, I would hope, thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars of violations. And that then becomes, from a mural -- an illegal mural to a FDOT approved and City Commission approved billboard site. And you know, from a policy standpoint, I have an issue with that because the thread -- this is a fabric and it's held together by a thread and that thread is that everybody will act legally and appropriately. And that thread is extremely thin, extremely fragile, and every time we erode or take issue with that thread, we risk a $5 million source. Commissioner Suarez: Well -- Ms. Acosta: Gentlemen. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chairman, ifI may? Chair Gort: Yes. Commissioner Suarez: Thank you. I think, first of all, we need to hear what the district Commissioner has to say about that possibility. I think that's critical here. I understand your perspective. I'm not saying completely disagree with it, but think there's a window of opportunity here for everyone to potentially walk away with something. There's a litigation risk all over the place, whether it be from the City, whether it be from all the parties that are involved and affected by this. I think, first, we need to hear from the district Commissioner and see if that's something that would even be acceptable to him. And then, you know, maybe the way to go -- we've heard your perspective. I don't know what the other Commissioners feel. I'm giving you what my perspective is. Maybe the way to go would be to let the parties -- we can reconvene in a time frame and let the parties see if they can come to some sort of an agreement that allows everyone to walk away with something or with some semblance of an agreement that is acceptable to the homeowners, to the district Commissioner, to the disputing parties, and to the City, and to all the billboard companies. So maybe that's a little bit too optimistic and naive or Solomonic, but you know, I think the district Commissioner should opine and then we'll go from there. Chair Gort: Gentlemen, I think we have to be very careful on this one. I think we have to make sure we can try to bring all parties together, come to some kind of agreement. If we look at our budget -- I haven't received the first quarter report yet, but I can tell the -- I think we're under. And this is a decision that we have to look at. I mean, we had some projections of some revenues that are going to be coming into the City for the budget when we balance our budget. I've been asking for the report. I have not received the first report yet, but I'm pretty sure we're under our projections, so this is something we need to consider. Andl can see the district Commissioner -- I apologize; I got a sore throat this morning -- how strong he feels about it. But at the same time, as district Commissioners, we also have to look at the City as a whole, how our decisions being affected, so I'm asking to -- and the one question that have is if we were to deny this today, could someone go tomorrow and put a permit -- and put a sign up? Ms. Acosta: Anywhere within 1,500 feet of that particular location. Because of spacing, FDOT would receive an application, we would have to sign off -- with regards to the settlement agreements, if they -- all we need to sign off is for zoning. We can't deny them the application for anything else, Commissioner Carollo, for zoning purposes alone. Vice Chair Carollo: Could it be appealed? Ms. Acosta: Could it be appealable? Yes. But if they -- City ofMiami Page 64 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Vice Chair Carollo: Yes. Ms. Acosta: -- meet the criteria of FDOT for purposes of spacing -- this site has already been approved twice. Vice Chair Carollo: Okay. And that doesn't mean that it cannot be appealed. Ms. Acosta: It is appealable. Vice Chair Carollo: Okay. And ifI may, Mr. Chair, can I have the floor? Thank you. There's so much to go on this that don't even know where to start. Let's begin with something that have pride myself and demonstrated throughout my tenure here in the Commission, which is being fiscal responsible. Five million dollars, you're saying. I'd like to hear from my City Attorney to see if we lose the court case, do you believe that we're going to lose $5 million in revenues. Mr. Bittner: The murals are -- Chair Gort: Bring the mike up. Mr. Bittner: -- not being challenged in this lawsuit. However, we have heard from the parties that they are threatening a challenge to that if this settlement isn't approved. This settlement releases the City, and there are assurances by the parties that they will not challenge the mural ordinance. Vice Chair Carollo: However, we could win in court? Mr. Bittner: That's a very distinct possibility. Vice Chair Carollo: And ifI understand correctly, based on what the City Attorney opined at the last -- well, not the last meeting -- at Thursday's meeting, we had a very strong case to win. Mr. Bittner: While we feel that we have a strong case of prevailing, there is always the possibility that we won't, and so I can't really predict for you we're going to win, we're not going to win. We have strong arguments, but there are strong arguments on the other side too. Vice Chair Carollo: Understood. However, let's go in a worst -case scenario. Even if the judge does not rule in our favor, that does not mean that automatically we are going to lose x'amount of revenues and so forth, correct? Mr. Bittner: That's -- there is the possibility that we would have to pay damages and the possibility that we would have to pay attorney's fees if we lost the civil rights case, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we lose the revenue from the murals. That's correct. Vice Chair Carollo: Okay. So I think saying that we're going to lose $5 million is a little too soon to tell. At the same time, if we're really that concerned about losing the revenues -- Who negotiated this? Ms. Acosta: The settlement agreement? Vice Chair Carollo: Yes. Ms. Acosta: This was negotiated between the Administration and the Law Department with the parties. City ofMiami Page 65 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Vice Chair Carollo: Who's the administration? Ms. Acosta: That would be me. Vice Chair Carollo: That would be you. So we're concerned about $5 million now. Yet, when we negotiate with the unions, we have an administration, we have attorneys; yet, we go out and we purchase the best attorneys we can buy to go after them. 'Cause, yes -- 'cause against the unions, you know, it's okay to go after our employees and so forth and reduce what we pay in salaries and so forth, which I don't necessarily disagree with some of the steps we take. I disagree with a lot of the steps. But still, my point is with this lawsuit that supposedly we could lose a potential $5 million, we just trust our staff yet, with other lawsuits, we go out and we hire the best attorneys money can buy and so forth. I mean, are we really concerned now about these $5 million, if it is $5 million? Because as our attorney said, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's $5 million. As a matter of fact, we may not even lose anything. Chair Gort: Hold it. Commissioner Sarnoff. If -- couldl respond a little bit to that? Chair Gort: Sure. Commissioner Sarnoff. Mr. Vice Chair. Chair Gort: Then I want to ask a question of the attorneys later on. Commissioner Sarnoff. Okay. Vice Chair Carollo: Go ahead. Commissioner Sarnoff. I mean, I know the City Attorney Office, I'd say, reasonably well. Warren Bittner is as good an attorney as exist when it comes to this particular issue. With all due respect to the City Attorney Office, I don't think they have anybody of his caliber in dealing with union issues, andl think they needed that expertise. So I would -- as a lawyer, I would personally hire Warren Bittner for an issue such as equal protection with regard to murals, with regard to billboards, with regard to commercial speech. I think he's as good as they get out there. So I don't know that you would have needed to necessarily go outside to get a Holland and Knight, to get a Sterns Weaver, to get any of these major law firms to get the work product of the City Attorney. So I think it's -- and to use it maybe to your -- the way you would understand it as a CPA (Certified Public Accountant), it may be an area that you're very comfortable in in auditing and -- versus an area you may be uncomfortable. For instance, you may be very comfortable with GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) accounting, but you may not be comfortable with statutory accounting. You may not want to audit a -- an insurance company, but you might feel very comfortable auditing a bank. Vice Chair Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chairman. Chair Gort: Commissioner Suarez. Vice Chair Carollo: It goes to a follow-up for -- with what Commissioner Sarnoff said. Mr. Bittner, what percentage did you actually participate in this negotiation? Mr. Bittner: A hundred percent. City ofMiami Page 66 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Vice Chair Carollo: A hundred percent? Chair Gort: That was my next question. Commissioner Suarez: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think here what we should be is clear and fair. I think those are the two overriding principles in making this decision. This is not an easy decision. I don't care what anybody says. It's not an easy decision. I've struggled with it tremendously. There's a million angles to this. But to be clear and fair, I think the question that the Vice Chairman asked needs to be answered clearly, which is what is at risk for the City? If we were to lose -- if tomorrow when the judge rules, if the judge rules in favor of the other side, you have stated that they would -- we would potentially be liable for attorney's fees and damages, damages being, I presume, lost profits, correct? Mr. Bittner: Yes. The -- Commissioner Suarez: Okay. What is the estimated amount of lost profits, guesstimate, a fair guesstimate? Vice Chair Carollo: He's not an attor -- he's not an accountant. Mr. Bittner: Yeah. That -- Commissioner Suarez: I don't think he needs to be an accountant to estimate the -- Vice Chair Carollo: Oh, yeah. Commissioner Suarez: -- fair amount of lost profits. Mr. Bittner: Remember -- Vice Chair Carollo: Oh, yeah. Mr. Bittner: Commissioner, remember we are in litigation. And if we don't settle today and the Court rules -- Commissioner Suarez: Okay. Let me -- Mr. Bittner: -- and we lose -- Commissioner Suarez: -- put -- okay, let me ask the question a different way. What do you -- what is your claim for loss damage -- for lost profits and what would be your claim for attorney's fees? I just want you to answer that question and nothing more. Mr. Echemendia: No. Vice Chair Carollo: He's biased. Mr. Echemendia: No. The answer is -- Commissioner Suarez: Sure. Mr. Echemendia: -- I don't know what the lawsuit says. The only thing that I could tell you that is in the public record, both in the lawsuit and in a pending Bert J. Harris claim, is 13 million is the amount under the Bert J. Harris claim, which is a public records document. Under the City ofMiami Page 67 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 federal lawsuit, it would be attorney's fees, lost profits. Commissioner Suarez: What are your attorney's fees? Mr. Echemendia: They're very substantial. That's not currently a public record, so I can't say exactly what the amount is. Commissioner Suarez: Give me a ballpark. Mr. Echemendia: They're certainly in the six figures. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. Mr. Echemendia: North of six figures. Moreover, it also -- the result of the lawsuit could in fact mean that we can put up all 11 of our sites, provided we have the appropriate spacing, 11 or 13, so that's another consequence of the lawsuit. Ms. Thompson: Chair, ifI might ask. Can we have the name of the speaker for identification on the record? Mr. Echemendia: Sorry. Santiago Echemendia, 1441. I'm a personal signatory on a lawsuit. Chair Gort: And Commissioner Suarez asked a question of the gentleman. Ms. Thompson: No, no. But I just needed his -- Chair Gort: Right. Ms. Thompson: -- name for the record. Chair Gort: Thank you. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Ms. Acosta: Gentlemen, additionally, one of the new facts that came as a result of late last evening was that part of what was at issue here was the companies. The outdoor advertising companies, billboard companies, more specifically, were at odds. They have reached a tentative agreement that hinges on the federal lawsuit being settled. This tentative agreement would put back into motion expected revenues under the CBS agreement that currently had been frozen because of disagreements over spacing and sites. So we have more than just this lawsuit. It actually could put to rest other issues within the industry as they then directly impact the City. Commissioner Sarnoff. I'm not sure I understand that. One more time. Ms. Acosta: There was -- there's a large dispute in the industry over sites and spacing. There are only a certain amount of sites available in any municipality based on FDOT rules. Because these sites were tied up in litigation between South Florida and CBS, we have not seen revenues that we expected under the CBS agreement. They have reached a tentative settlement agreement which would then start that streaming. That settlement agreement presupposes that the federal lawsuit has been settled. Commissioner Suarez: What's the amount? Vice Chair Carollo: It's going to be settled anyways on Friday. City ofMiami Page 68 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Commissioner Suarez: Tomorrow, I think. Vice Chair Carollo: No, no. Commissioner Suarez: The 4th? Vice Chair Carollo: The 4th. Commissioner Suarez: Oh. Chair Gort: Thank you. Any other questions? Commissioner Sarnoff. Yeah. Chair Gort: Yes. Vice Chair Carollo: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff. What -- you know, Mr. Vice Chair, what motivates me here is two things. Not the revenue we derive from billboards 'cause we don't derive a great deal of revenue from billboards. What motivates me with regard to billboards is the fact that we could have a proliferation of billboards in the event Judge Ungaro rules incorrectly. And you know, judges are capable of doing incorrect things, but then there's the 11 th Circuit which will correct her if she is wrong -- Vice Chair Carollo: Exactly. Commissioner Sarnoff. -- and she's rarely wrong. I'll go on the record since I have a court case in front of her. The second thing that really, really motivates me is a meeting and a conversation with Mr. Echemendia and Mr. Hartley [sic] where they were very clear that someday they were going to challenge the mural ordinance and that stuck in my mind like a burnt rod into, you know, human flesh. That comment that someday they were going to go after us for the murals is concerning because we're certainly pushing an envelope with murals, and think we have -- the most robust mural program in the United States exists in Miami. There's no two ways about that. If you look at the distinctions and the difference between London, England, New York City, Chicago, our mural program is pristine by comparison. And that's a revenue source that they have indicated they were going to go after. If this was just about murals -- I'm sorry. If this was just about billboards, you know, I could certainly go with the will of this Commission very easily because the revenue source is not great. Now, from a policy standpoint, I'd like to see fewer and fewer and fewer billboards as possible. And do feel for you on Sevennine. It's a place you don't want a billboard. It would be like the same as one of us putting it directly in one of our neighborhoods, so I absolutely understand that. Vice Chair Carollo: Coral Gate. Commissioner Sarnoff. I -- you know, and once I get an answer to the Casola's sign, I may bend a little bit with regard to a philosophical position that take, which is an illegal operator should not be rewarded. Vice Chair Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Chair Gort: Yes, sir. Vice Chair Carollo: Let me give a little more insight of what I'm thinking. First of all, as a little kid, I didn't let anyone take my lunch money. So now as an adult, I view this as outright City ofMiami Page 69 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 blackmail. And in the case we need a translation, it's called Chantaje. This is not about an ordinance that may need some tweaking, that may need to change somewhat; and in good faith, we're taking you to court so that we could work out our differences. This is simply give me a piece of the action and we'll go away. We'll go away at the detriment of our neighborhoods; that, by the way, they don't have the big powerful attorneys that we are or that we hired. Simply put, this is an attack on our neighborhoods. This billboard will go right at the entrance or one of the main entrance of the Roads. Again, this is, simply put, blackmail. The reason or one of the main reasons, if not the main reason, that neighborhoods associations exist is because of this right here that we're dealing with. Because yes, for the most part, they don't have the big bad attorney that comes before us and will file this lawsuit and loss -- that lawsuit and so forth, so they join together and request help. I, once again -- andl could keep going and keep debating many, many issues and I'll hold back on -- see what else arises. Butl can tell you that no. I think, as simply put, in principle -- I didn't let anyone take my lunch money when I was a little kid andl'm not going to let anyone come up here and blackmail us. Once again, this isn't about an ordinance that needs tweaking and we in good faith want to work it out and see how we can make it better. No. This is, simply put, give us a piece of the action and we'll go away. Commissioner Dunn: Mr. Chairman. Chair Gort: Yes, sir. Commissioner Dunn: As I listen and -- you know, listen to the various views and opinions, one that perhaps tugs at my heart the most -- andl know sometimes you have to be careful in terms of being -- making decisions from your heart. There is a fundamental issue that my colleague brings up that has to be clearly taken into strong consideration, and that is, you know, the impact it will have on his district and his neighborhoods and that -- I don't know how -- if some way there can be some -- I don't know -- there could be some type of compromise to conservatively work this -- or work around this. But that means a lot to me andl respect that. I -- andl'm not about to cross the line or infringe or intrude or encroach on territory that means so much, and you've expressed it in such a passionate manner. I can understand that. And to the contrary, when I was a little kid, I got my lunch money taken once, and after that drew the line in the sand. Vice Chair Carollo: Well, you know -- and one last thing. I mean -- 'cause I'm trying to put in perspective that we understand. And yes, sometimes you do have to draw the line because if not, it's going to keep happening and happening. And yes, I mean, there is some risk, I will admit. But you know, Commissioner Suarez, imagine if this billboard was going in front of Coral Gate, an area that I grew up in, I used to ride my bike, yes; and all the turns and so forth, yes, I know them. I know them very well. I mean, think about it. Yes, there is some risk. But imagine if they put a big 65-foot billboard in front of Coral Gate. You understand what I'm saying. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chairman, ifI may? Chair Gort: Yes. Commissioner Suarez: I mean, I think that's a great point. And think that's why we're struggling with this; because had this not been near a residential neighborhood, we really wouldn't be having this debate, to be completely honest with you. This would be a no -brainier. This would be about money and we would do the deal and walk away. And like I said, I think -- I'm going to go back to my earlier point. We haven't made a decision yet. We have time. And think there is a window of opportunity. I don't know how the parties feel about it. I went out there to the site, saw the Monsalve site. I saw the building. The building is built in such a way that a billboard could go and it would be almost invisible to the residents. I stood in front of the building. I went across the street. I spoke to one, two, three, four, five, six, seven or eight City ofMiami Page 70 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 neighbors that are on that street. They indicated that as long as they couldn't see the billboard, they wouldn't have a problem with it. So I think there's a window of opportunity here for everyone to walk away with something. I think, if we don't -- if people are not reasonable -- and that has been the problem with this from the beginning. If people are not reasonable in terms of understanding what all the relative risks are -- 'cause there are risks all over the place, andl don't think that should be minimized. There are risks to the City, to our funds. There are risks to the neighborhoods. There are risks to all the parties involved in terms of what they may or may not get at the end of the day. So you know, I think there's a small window of opportunity here. I think you have Commissioners here who are expressing a lot of concern. You have one that clearly is against this. And I'm not sure where all the other Commissioners are on this. So I can tell you that I have some serious concerns about erecting a billboard on a site that is going to essentially be very, very intrusive to a neighborhood. Commissioner Sarnoff.. Mr. Chair. Commissioner Suarez: I have a major concern with that, so -- Chair Gort: Commissioner Sarnoff. Commissioner Sarnoff.. Let's try to resolve it issue by issue. The first issue is Sevennine. If Sevennine were off the table and there may be a way of getting it off the table -- andl understand that right now they may be willing to take it out of their settle -- out of this settlement 'cause we're going to vote on this. But maybe there's enough -- CBS might be here and Clear Channel might be here and Carter might be here, and we may be able to say to them would you be willing to modifi, your agreement to take Sevennine out of everyone's settlement agreement so that it's no longer an available site. If that were the case, do we move on to the next issue? Or is it just philosophically you're against this? Vice Chair Carollo: No. As a matter of fact, when you first spoke, it's something that I brought up in the last meeting, where I said if Sevennine Site -- and my interpretation, Sevennine meant the two sites, the site that Commissioner Suarez is speaking about and the site that you're speaking about. If that was off the table, then no; I can go along with one of the alternatives. Andl think that's why, if we are dealing once again in good faith, once again -- 'cause why if FDOT doesn't, but if we, you know, are once again dealing in good faith, I do not have a problem with the alternative sites -- Commissioner Sarnoff.. Okay. So -- Chair Gort: Commissioner -- Vice Chair Carollo: -- because they're not intrusive, at least to the area that I am aware of the area that I know, which is the Roads Association. And just like I've done in the past, just like I did on Thursday, I yield to my colleagues' wisdoms in their districts. Commissioner Sarnoff.. So -- Mr. Chair. Chair Gort: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff.. Maybe the thing to do is to table this for ten minutes, let -- well, hear me out. Well, the reason I do only ten, if you give somebody half an hour, they'll take 29 minutes. Chair Gort: They're going to take an hour, yes. Commissioner Sarnoff.. If you give them ten minutes -- City ofMiami Page 71 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Chair Gort: Ten minutes, yeah. Commissioner Sarnoff. -- they'll take nine and a half minutes. And you know what? This is a decision they can make. Mr. Bittner: I think it is. Commissioner Sarnoff. They can -- this is a decision that Clear Channel, CBS, Carter can turn around and say we are willing to come to you next Commission with our agreements to excise out Sevennine. Now I just heard something else. I want to make sure I'm right, Mr. Vice Chair. You want Sevennine out, and do you also want Casola's out? Is that --? Vice Chair Carollo: I would prefer -- yes, I would want Casola's out, unless I can visual -- you know, unless there's -- which I know there is not or I believe there is not. Let me do what always say. Don't assume; confirm. Unless I could really see what the billboard would look like, what would be the affect on the neighbors -- because yes, six or seven. I could tell you in the Sevennine, it's not just 6 or 7; it's just not the immediate neighbors. Commissioner Suarez: I agree with you. Vice Chair Carollo: I think for someone two blocks down to go out of their -- Commissioner Suarez: Oh, no. I agree with you. Vice Chair Carollo: -- walk out of their house and see -- Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, I agree with you. Yeah, I agree with you on that. Vice Chair Carollo: You understand what I'm saying? So right now what I am speaking is about the Casola's site and the Sevennine Site, andl believe it's 1700 Southwest 3rdAvenue and 299 Southwest 17th Road is the descriptions. Chair Gort: Commissioners, by the way, I never had my lunch taken away. I was the biggest guy in school all the time, so -- in high school, I was 210 and -- Commissioner Sarnoff. So I'm the only guy on the dais that gave up his lunch money? Chair Gort: -- they didn't play with me. Vice Chair Carollo: Then don't -- Chair Gort: Now let me tell you. Vice Chair Carollo: -- let it happen now. Chair Gort: It's not going to happen now, but let me tell you. I've learned in business, if we can sit down and act in good faith, all of us, we can get this thing done. When I go in a meeting, I ask people do we want to do it or we don't want to do it. If we want to do it, we'll find a thousand way how to do it. And if we don't want to do it, we'll find a thousand ways how not to do it. So let's take the ten minutes and let's work it out, guys. Commissioner Suarez: Wait, wait, wait, wait. Let me just say one thing real quick please, Mr. Chairman. Chair Gort: Yes. City ofMiami Page 72 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Commissioner Suarez: I think one of the -- part of the problem here that we've had in this whole endeavor is people start counting votes, who's feeling one way, who's feeling another way, what are the relative -- who's got a stronger position, who's got a weaker position, who's got more bargaining power. And I'm going to tell both of you that this is not -- should not be about that. This should be about getting this thing done. Doing what's in the best interest of the City of Miami and of its residents and moving forward, okay. So this should not be about who's going to win, who's going to lose, who's got more bargaining power. Does -- do -- you know, is Commissioner Carollo going to vote one way, Suarez the other, blah, blah, blah. I don't know what I'm going to do. I'm thinking about it. So you know, you guys need to sit down and have an honest discussion about what you want out of this and bring it back to the Commission. Vice Chair Carollo: And before we recess, I want to put for the record that it's not that I am being closed -minded. I am being reasonable. I think there are alternative sites. There's a reason for alternative sites. I have always been very objective with regards to am I being reasonable or not. Andl can tell you, if there's been any one time in this Commission that have been unreasonable, please let me know. And once again, I truly feel that I'm not being unreasonable. Thank you. Commissioner Sarnoff.. How long do we -- Chair Gort: By the way -- Commissioner Sarnoff.. -- have to make that list? Chair Gort: -- I have a lot of industrial area within my district with the -- with a lot of high traffic. Commissioner Sarnoff.. Oh. Could l just hear from Code on the --? Mr. Guadix, I just want to hear with regard to the -- I call it Casola's. Is that subject to a Code Enforcement action? Chair Gort: Go ahead. Sergio Guadix (Director, Code Enforcement): It's been to Code Enforcement. It is collecting fines of $200 a day. Currently, it's up to $60, 000 and rising. Chair Gort: Are they paying it? Mr. Guadix: No, they haven't paid it. The fine -- and the lien is there on the property. Chair Gort: My question is -- and you know my biggest problem is the marina on 22nd and 14th Northwest. Mr. Guadix: Right. Chair Gort: They don't have a BTR (Business Tax Receipt). Fire's been there. Police has been there. Do we have any power to close these places? Mr. Guadix: That's another question, Commissioner. I mean, there are -- Chair Gort: Yeah. But we -- Mr. Guadix: -- like on this sign -- Chair Gort: -- need to work on this. City ofMiami Page 73 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Mr. Guadix: -- there are ways we can go ahead and foreclose. Chair Gort: You know what's happening? People are not complying with the ordinance and the law are getting away with it. Mr. Guadix: Right. Chair Gort: And the honest business person that comes in, pays his license, go through everything does not get it. Mr. Guadix: You're correct. Chair Gort: We gotta look into that. Commissioner Suarez: But you know what also happens. Then when there's a sale or there's a deal of this nature, somebody comes in and wants to mitigate that fine and get's ten cents on the dollar, five cents on the dollar, whatever. So that's a whole nother can of worms. I mean, that's -- You know, I think at the end of the day here what we're looking at is, you know, we have a district Commissioner that's got some very legitimate concerns. We have a Commission that is, you know, weighing, you know, the risks of what can happen if this settlement isn't approved. We have risks spread out all over the place. Andl think we have a window of opportunity to make this thing work, so everyone should be reasonable. Mr. Guadix: Yes, sir. [Later..] Chair Gort: Where are we at? Ms. Acosta: Vanessa Acosta, with the Building and Zoning Department. Pursuant to a request of the Commission, the parties, I believe, have spoken. I don't believe that there's a decision as to a site. We also proceeded to speak preliminarily with the other three companies, with whom we hold settlement agreements with respect to excluding these sites from potential relocation. Carter has no representatives here that can make that determination for them. CBS can correct me if I'm wrong, but based on their statement, short of a global settlement being reached on all of their outstanding issues, will also similarly not relinquish their right to erect a board in that area. I believe Clear Channel has agreed to relinquish the right to erect in that area. Chair Gort: Okay, questions. Commissioner Dunn: So let me see, in laymen's term, that means that that window of hope that might have been there is not there? Ms. Acosta: The companies are not giving me guarantees that they will sign off on amending their existing settlement agreements with the City to include the relinquishment of the site. Chair Gort: Okay. Vice Chair Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Chair Gort: Yes, sir. Vice Chair Carollo: So you're saying Clear Channel has stated that they will not look at that site? City ofMiami Page 74 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Ms. Acosta: I believe Clear Channel has representatives. If you'd like them to more clearly state their position than I can so I don't misconstrue their words? Vice Chair Carollo: Sure. Felix Lasarte: Good morning, Commissioners. Our settlement agreement with the City is -- Felix Lasarte -- Chair Gort: Name and -- Mr. Lasarte: -- with offices at 3470 Northwest 82ndAvenue. Our settlement agreement is very site specific. It doesn't include this site. However, if, you know, you would like us to further amend it to exclude it, we could do it; but it is very site specific, and this site is not one of the sites that's available to us. Chair Gort: Thank you. Vice Chair Carollo: Thank you. And you're saying we haven't been able to get a hold of Carter? Ms. Acosta: Carter does not have a representative here, nor have we been able to speak to them to have their agreement that they would relinquish their right. Vice Chair Carollo: Do they have anymore sites? Ms. Acosta: They have five amended permits left, if I'm not mistaken, Warren? Five, I believe. Vice Chair Carollo: How many -- yeah, how many permits do they have left? Come on, Mr. Bittner. Mr. Bittner: Okay. Vice Chair Carollo: Commissioner Sarnoff talked you up. Come on, don't make him look bad now. Don't make him look bad. Commissioner Sarnoff. Warren, don't fail me, buddy. It's called punting, buddy. Mr. Bittner: With regard to Carter, I would rather not give an opinion whether or not they can relocate. There is a, in my view, dispute on the terms of their agreement. And one may argue that they do. One may argue that they don't. I don't want to be the one making the decision on that -- on this before you. That's for you to decide. Ms. Acosta: One question, Warren, that was raised was do -- should they have to relocate because of hardship, is that something that they could do as well? Mr. Bittner: If it was -- if it fell under the hardship provision, yes, because of necessity, that would be a location perhaps available to them. But really, when it comes to Carter, this issue is not as clear as it is with CBS. CBS is crystal clear, what they can do. Vice Chair Carollo: Okay. So there's a potential that no, they cannot go to that site, and I understand what you're saying. So you're not saying unequivalently [sic] no, but there's a potential that no, they could not go to that site, correct? Mr. Bittner: Yeah, there's a potential that they can't. But there's a potential -- Vice Chair Carollo: Right. City ofMiami Page 75 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Mr. Bitmer: -- that they can. Vice Chair Carollo: Right. So that's gray right now and -- let me not say anything else. And then as far as CBS. Ms. Acosta: They are also in the room. If you'd like to have them speak on their behalf? Vice Chair Carollo: Sure. Glenn Smith: Good morning. I think it's morning. Glenn Smith. I represent CBS Outdoor, 200 East Broward Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. I guess the answer I would give to you, Commissioner, on this issue is that pursuant to discussions we have had over the last few months about all these disputes and everything, we have been trying to engage in and arrive at a global settlement of all the litigation, all things that are pending. And we actually went through mediation yesterday and was successful in mediation with Outlook and with South Florida Equitable with -- come up with an agreement between CBS and them, which would be made part of a global settlement involving the City and would settle seven lawsuits, including appeals, 11 FDOT appeals, and two appeals pending before you still to be done. And part of that negotiations, we had to utilize what was available under CBS agreement. Under the CBS agreement, both the Sevennine and what we call the Monsalve locations are permitted. I just want you to know that it was hotly negotiated between the City and the parties about excluding certain areas, leaving only area -- certain areas that are available with very limited number of sites. These happen to be in the available area of what was negotiated. Vice Chair Carollo: Now -- Mr. Smith: If that helps you. Vice Chair Carollo: Well, my question -- you're currently in litigation with either Outlook or -- what's the exact name? -- South Florida Equitable Fund, correct? Mr. Smith: Yes, sir. Vice Chair Carollo: So you could actually be negotiating right now and actually part of the negotiations to help them out now, correct? In other words, you're not representing the City, correct? Mr. Smith: No, sir. Vice Chair Carollo: And you're actually in litigation right now. You have a lawsuit against -- or they have a lawsuit against you, whichever it is. Mr. Smith: Yes, sir. Vice Chair Carollo: There's a lawsuit pending with South Florida Equitable Fund. Mr. Smith: We have a lawsuit pending between CBS and Outlook in state court pending now. We are also a party to the federal litigation brought by South Florida Equitable Fund, which you're aware. That's the Judge Ungaro case. There's also a case in Tallahassee filed by Stacy J. Thornton, Trustee, which we -- Clear Channel and CBS are parties where the Thorntons challenge the validity of certain permits issued by the City to CBS. And then there are tons of other types of appeals like administrative appeals in front of FDOT in which we are a party. The City is not but CBS is and Outlook is. City ofMiami Page 76 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Vice Chair Carollo: Are you seeking that site location at the present time? Mr. Smith: No, sir. Vice Chair Carollo: No, sir. Thank you. With that said, so in essence, this could be positioning. Andl -- you know what? I don't want to put words into your mouth and so forth. But it could be viewed, maybe by this Commission or Commissioner, that you are actually positioning right now in your statement 'cause it seems to me that you were not looking at this site and now you're positioning maybe because you have a lawsuit with Outlook that -- I don't know the exact terminology, but I don't know if the principals of Outlook or what technical relations they have to South -- I gotta look it up again. Mr. Smith: The same principals, sir. Vice Chair Carollo: Same principle. Mr. Smith: Yes, sir. Vice Chair Carollo: Okay. That's all I need to know. Mr. Smith: Can I just -- Vice Chair Carollo: Sure. Mr. Smith: -- respond? We negotiated in good faith yesterday to find a settlement which we hope would benefit everybody. It's not the best. A good settlement -- Vice Chair Carollo: Except the neighbors. Mr. Smith: Pardon me? Vice Chair Carollo: Except the neighbors. Who negotiated for the neighbors? Mr. Smith: That's the best we can do. All we can do is take on and look at what's available under our agreements, all the various agreements. And I'm just telling you, we reached agreement yesterday with Outlook and South Florida Equitable, which we believe we are bound to, which includes those two locations, and we cannot give that up or are not in a position to give that up without the agreement, at the very least, these two parties, Outlook and South Florida Equitable. Vice Chair Carollo: I understand your position. And once again, in those good faith negotiations, I want to know what high-powered attorney was there representing the neighbors? Mr. Smith: Representing whom? Vice Chair Carollo: The neighbors. Mr. Smith: No one. They were not a party. Vice Chair Carollo: And that's my problem. It seems like there's all these high-powered attorneys negotiating and -- how was this mentioned to me that --? Actually, it brought a big smile to my face -- silent auction or so forth. But the bottom line is, I don't see anyone -- any high-powered attorney representing the neighbors you know, interest, and that's my problem. Because the ones who's going to be affected dramatically are the neighbors of the Roads. City ofMiami Page 77 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Mr. Smith: Sir, I can't comment on that. Vice Chair Carollo: I understand. Mr. Smith: All I can tell you is this was negotiated, and this was an area available to Vice Chair Carollo: I understand. Mr. Smith: -- CBS and other entities, and that's the agreement that's in place to which the City is bound. Vice Chair Carollo: I understand. Thank you. Mr. Smith: Thank you, sir. Vice Chair Carollo: Commissioner. Chair Gort: Yes. Vice Chair Carollo: Again, it was portrayed at the last meeting that if we deny this, any one of these companies could come and erect a sign with no problem whatsoever. I disagree with that. First of all, we have one company that says they will not. Second of all, we have another company that may not be able to, and at the very least, they're not here. And the third company is still, in all fairness, a process. They have to come before the Planning board or -- no -- the Planning Department for the okay, which can actually be appealed. I can tell you right now, should they do that, they go that route, I'm very confident it will be appealed; may even be appealed by this Commissioner or as a private citizen. I don't know. But I can tell you, it will be appealed. I'm very confident of that. So it's not like a slam dunk, the way it was portrayed in the last meeting. Again, you know, when the question was asked -- and as a matter of fact, it was actually asked by Commissioner Suarez in the last meeting. Will a sign be erected there? Even today when it was asked, the truth of the matter is it could. I didn't hear our great attorney say it will be erected. I -- he said it could. So let's take it one step at a time and let's make sure that it is not erected now and we don't violate the quality of life of the neighbors of the Roads and we deny this settlement agreement. And by the way, those alternative sites, if they're actually dealing in good faith, let's go to the alternative sites, something that Commissioner Sarnoff suggested. I would have -- I would not have a problem with that. Why were those alternative sites there? It seems to me, an alternative site is in case these sites cannot happen, then we go to the alternative sites. Yet, all of a sudden, those alternative sites are not appropriate or we don't like them or whatever the reason is? So were they really acting in good faith? Chair Gort: Question. Can this Commission make a motion with specific sites on this settlement? Right? Okay. Ms. Acosta: Would we like to ask the party that we're setting with with regards to the alternate sites what their views are at this time? Vice Chair Carollo: I -- in all fair fairness, unless they would -- unless they take these two sites off -- I mean, I don't know what else is there to discuss. I mean, if they want to go to these alternative sites, I don't have a problem with it. But these two sites, they're unacceptable to me as a representative of District 3. They're unacceptable to the residents of the Roads. I mean, in all -- in essence, that really should be a gateway. And with that said, I'm going to make a motion to deny the settlement. Commissioner Dunn: Mr. Chair. City ofMiami Page 78 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Chair Gort: Yes, sir. Commissioner Dunn: I'll second. Chair Gort: There's a motion and a second. Discussion. Commissioner Sarnoff. Yeah, Mr. Chair. I think there might be a better approach than just denying this outright. And if you want to test -- if I'm understanding the Vice Chair, Sevennine is out. I think got that. I'm not that dense. Well, though, some may think am. The Hampton site, which is -- Vice Chair Carollo: 299 Southwest 17 Road. Commissioner Sarnoff. Well, I guess I've always colloquially called them -- so let's call it the Casola's one. That's out, too, right? You don't want that. Okay. So that would leave us with the Tanaka site, Elks Lodge site, and the Contemporary Contractors' site. Andl happen to somewhat agree with the Vice Chair that if you put the alternate sites in there, it would put in there for some legitimate reason, although, candidly, I know the purpose or the point of putting them in there is in the event FDOT didn't approve these sites. I want to -- I want to, as a guiding post for the way I exist up, always want to respect the district Commissioner with regard to something that's in his district. Andl think -- you know, I've sat on this dais. I watched people put billboards in parks. I wouldn't put a billboard in a park. It's just not me. It's not what want to see for District 2. The previous District 5 Commissioner did negotiate and want billboards in parks because there was, I think, some -- I think there was some monetary advantage to doing that for the particular park and that's a balance -- that's a discretionary call that she then made at the time based upon determining whether the money that was paid for that was outweighed by if she thought it was visual pollution. We all come up here with a different set of circumstances, as you pointed out at the last Commission meeting or CRA meeting, and a different set of values, and don't want to step on anyone's circumstance or value. But think where we stand right now, we're better suited in instead denying this motion, to impose terms and conditions that they could accept. And the terms and conditions that this board could accept sounds to me like Tanaka, Elks Lodge and Contemporary Contractors. So I just want you to know I won't be supporting your motion for denial, and let me just say why I won't be. 'Cause I'm going to then make another motion to accept and then take out Sevennine and, forgive me, I'm going to call it Casola's, but -- and somebody'll correct me on the record for the actual, physical location, whether it's Hampton or whatever you want to call it. And the reason is we know we have a shortfall this budget year. We don't know what it is, whether it's 6 million, 8 or 12 million. We know we have a shortfall this year. We project ourselves of having a $20 million shortfall next budget year, so the '11/'12 cycle for this City is projected to have a $20 million shortfall. Could be less; could be more. We just don't know. And with that, we're going to have a decision to make. We're going to either have to increase revenues or decrease expenses. It's as simple as that. Either we figure out a way of lowering our expenses -- and I've heard people say it's pretty much to the bone right now -- or we're going to increase revenues, and you could do that one of two ways. You can increase people's ad valorems, which is increasing taxes. You can try to create non ad valorem revenues, which would be murals, billboards, everything else you can possibly think of. You could charge more for the land that the City occupies and leases out or licenses out. And we can all kid ourselves all we want; 20 million bucks is a lot of a deficit to make up. So I do not want to imperil what I think is the true gem here, which is the mural. Andl think this Mr. Hartley [sic] will come after us very quickly for that. Equally, I'd also want to point out -- andl didn't know this when I first sat up here on the dais. Judge Ungaro has ruled in a case already, and she ruled in a case -- and I'm not going to tell you it's exactly on point, but I could tell you this about a federal judge. It's insight into what a judge will do. And it's Wilton Manors Street Systems versus Wilton Manors, and it is cited at 2000 West Law, 3391-2332. It's a Southern District of Florida, 2000 order by Judge Ungaro. And she is more than prepared to take on unfettered discretion in people's sign ordinances or, I should say, billboard ordinances. City ofMiami Page 79 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 So I think this is a little bit of insight into what she may or may not do. Now you could very readily accept her order and win. You could get her order; partially win, partially lose. You could get her order and lose and we can appeal to the 11 th Circuit, and inevitably, we'll find out what the law is. And this is very much like making a watch and turning it upside down and putting all the parts out there; it's pretty complicated. And putting them all back together is not that easy. So we're dealing with a very complicated issue. My underlying basis here is I don't want to face the employees. I don't want to face the citizens with a $5 million bigger shortfall than we possibly have when already know we're facing close to about a 20 million shortfall next year, so that's why my decision making is headed towards. I do not want to create a bigger shortfall than exists. Being a lawyer, looking Mr. Hartley [sic] in the eye, I'm pretty confident this guy will employ a scorched -earth mentality, whether he wins or whether he loses, andl don't want to imperil that. So I won't be joining you in the motion to deny, but will be making a new motion to, I hope spiritually and figuratively, help you by not putting a mur -- not putting a billboard in those two respective places. Commissioner Dunn: Mr. Chair. Chair Gort: Mr. Vice Chairman. Vice Chair Carollo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, as I mentioned in the past, I've been someone up here, which I believe, speaking objectively, even though there's always some bias; that I've always been reasonable and I've always been flexible. Very rarely do you see me take such a strong stand andl truly believe -- and I'll go a step further. What someone told me, Commissioner, you have coverage, you know. You have coverage; you could vote no. The other Commissioners will pass it and there's no problem. You know, it's not like it's going to hurt you. Andl said that's not the point. The point is it is bad for the Roads. It is bad for the neighborhoods. Although, I do strongly believe that this is actually blackmail because once again, it's not like they're working with us or they're suing us to work with us to make the ordinance better or to work in good faith. It's pretty much, you give us a piece of the action and we go away. Although I understand that, I also listen to my colleagues, andl am also reasonable. Andl had saidl will go along with the will of this Commission as long as, as long as my district, those two scenes do not go up. That would be detrimental to the neighborhoods. It would be detrimental to the Roads. So with that said, there's many ways we could do it. I can even withdraw my motion of the denial, and I'll yield to you for you to make your motion, andl will be supportive as long as those areas in the Roads, 1700 Southwest 3rdAvenue and 299 Southwest 17th Road, are taken out. So with that said, I will withdraw my motion of denial. Chair Gort: Okay. The second? Commissioner Dunn: Yes, I do. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say I want to thank my colleague to my immediate right for his legalistic profundity in at least coming up with a way to offer some type of compromise that would somewhat achieve both what is best for the City but also what is respected and respectable for the district Commissioner because those are, to me, two very sacred areas that we have to be very careful with and to try to balance it. And there are times, I realize, when -- you know, we have the responsibility for the overall City, which I understand very clearly, but there is a very sacred area, and that is the very district that you represent. If you -- if each of us as district Commissioners do not speak on behalf of the district that we represent, then what is our purpose for being here, and not to say that we let the tail wag the dog. Certainly, we have a responsibility sometimes to provide leadership, but oftentimes, it is based upon what we know the sentiment is of that said community. Vice Chair Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Chair Gort: Yes, sir. City ofMiami Page 80 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Vice Chair Carollo: Thank you. I'd like to add to that because I think, once again, we are setting precedence. This is for everyone to see, all companies to see that we up here, this Commission respect one another. We are reasonable. We act in good faith. And we really do work up here as a team. So I want to go a step further and make sure that I point out that we are, once again, setting precedence for all the companies that wants to try this Commission and you can see that we really are united. We can debate. We could have different positions, but the truth of the matter is we are reasonable, we act in good faith. We respect one another and we really are a team. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chairman, ifI may -- Chair Gort: Yes. Go ahead. Commissioner Suarez: -- go one step even further. Chair Gort: Go ahead. Commissioner Suarez: The one step even further that I would go is to say that we've demonstrated that we are going to protect our neighborhoods, our classic residential neighborhoods. There are a dying breed in the City ofMiami. Andl think -- you know, I think it's been very clear that we are going to protect it very zealously, that dying breed, and to prevent that jewel from being taken from us. Andl think, you know, we've demonstrated that time and time and time again here, and the fact that we are all, in effect, seeming to unanimously support this new motion, I think this is just another example of that. Chair Gort: Let me add. I always stated the City ofMiami is a very diversified city. You have different neighborhoods with different needs. What applies to one neighborhood might not apply in another one. That's something that I've discussed here quite a bit. Sometimes we pass ordinance and items that affects the whole City and it shouldn't be. I think every district have their own need. And one of the things I'd like to recommend in the future, any type of public ordinance that's going to come in front of this Commission and you're going to negotiate with anyone, I think you should include the neighborhoods. Some neighborhoods might be in opposition to it, some might be in favor of it, and we can avoid a lot of those problems that we have today. Thank you. With that said, do you have a motion? Commissioner Sarnoff. Yeah. Mr. Chairman, just two things -- well, there's a couple things I'd like to walk the Commissioner through 'cause I spent some time with the City Attorney. I thought I could improve the agreement. I know they were -- Vice Chair, they were very concerned about the five-day rule, so they didn't want to necessarily chance it. When I met with them on -- what is today? Today is Wednesday. I think met with them on Tuesday or Monday of this week. I came up with some language I thought that would improve the agreement. You have it in front of you, that particular language. I could read it into the record or Mr. City Attorney, can I just leave it as an exhibit, exhibit one to this particular --? This would be marked as Exhibit 1, Madam Clerk. I'll make sure you get a copy, if one is not already provided to you. Ms. Thompson: Chair, I'm sorry. Commissioner, before we make it Exhibit 1 because you have some -- CommissionerSarnoff. Exhibit A? Ms. Thompson: -- you may have some other numberings. Can we just say it would be the next one in succession? Commissioner Sarnoff. Okay. City ofMiami Page 81 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Ms. Thompson: Or do you want it to take precedent as number one and we would have to renumber? Commissioner Sarnoff. I'd want you to be able to identifi, it. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Commissioner Sarnoff. So as long as you're comfortable with that, you know -- if you've been numerically numbering things, that's great, andl can then call it Exhibit A or, if you prefer, just to call it the next numbered exhibit? Ms. Thompson: We'll assign the next number. Commissioner Sarnoff. All right. Ms. Thompson: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Sarnoff. Gentlemen, this essentially provides some definitional sections that go back to our code that think would strengthen this agreement, so instead of reading it and boring you, I'm going to just attach it. The other thingl have a question about is -- and Mr. -- and we know this because we've been doing a lot of research in our office. Stacy Harkley Thornton, why is she not a signatory to this agreement? Mr. Bittner: The -- Stacy Thornton instituted a lawsuit in -- I believe it was Orange County -- challenging the constitutionality of 1000 foot spacing. This settlement agreement is -- doesn't deal with thousand foot spacing. The -- none of the locations concern -- Commissioner Sarnoff. But my point in adding her to this is we are obviously trying to grab as many rights as we can from these folks, whether it's South Florida Equitable, Inc., LLC (Limited Liability Company); we'd certainly put Harkley Thornton there, and we'd certainly put Santiago Echemendia personally there. If Mr. Thornton acts through his wife on occasion, shouldn't she be signing this agreement? Mr. Bittner: It can't hurt to add her if you -- if that is your will. Commissioner Sarnoff. I -- gentlemen, she is suing -- this is what I know of it. Mr. Thornton created the 1000 foot pilot project up in Tallahassee and now his wife is suing to determine that to be unconstitutional. I strongly urge that we include her in this agreement because when he doesn't act on his own, he acts through his wife. Vice Chair Carollo: Make it as part of your motion. Commissioner Sarnoff. I just want to make sure it's okay with everyone. The other -- I had a couple of other questions, and not to blind sight the City Attorney; I just want to make sure I understood certain provisions of this agreement. You have a contingency in this agreement on page 12. It is Section 6 and it's Section F. It says this entire agreement is contingent upon the Court entering an order approving this settlement and retaining jurisdichon to enforce the terms of this agreement. You don't have any -- you have no power to make that happen. Mr. Bittner: I -- we do not, but -- Commissioner Sarnoff. So why --? The question becomes -- and know what you're trying to do 'cause I do it when I'm a layer as well. If you settle something, you of course want the Court to retain jurisdiction and hold on to the approval. Not every federal judge likes to do that, my experience. This is an independent document of its own breath which has your own ability to City ofMiami Page 82 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 enforce it. Why put a contingency in there that you don't know Judge Ungaro will follow? Mr. Bittner: We inserted this in here to prevent continued new litigation concerning breach of contract in circuit court. We knew that if there was a problem here, it could be resolved quickly and efficiently with Judge Ungaro's supervision. Now she may not want to do it and she might decline to accept this. At which point, the parties would have to come back here to see if you're okay with that. But she might agree to it. And if she does agree to it, that's the most efficient, expeditious way to solve a problem. Commissioner Sarnoff.. Agreed. But if she doesn't agree to it, is it not a condition precedent to this agreement? Mr. Bittner: It is. And we'll have tojust come back and see if you're okay deleting it. But we hope that she will go along with it. Commissioner Sarnoff.. All right. Then let's say you've satisfied Commissioner Suarez. I don't know if you've satisfied me, but -- Commissioner Suarez: I was just going to say that if she doesn't accept it, then we can all -- you know, the motion can be amended so that if it's not accepted by the judge, then it's hereby deleted. Commissioner Sarnoff.. Okay. Mr. Bittner: That's okay. Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff.. All right. Let me make sure I make that -- remind me to make that part of the motion. Last thing have -- Commissioner Dunn: I'm enjoying this. I just wanted to put that on the record. Chair Gort: I'm glad we got two attorneys and an accountant. Commissioner Sarnoff.. He's probably going to be the one cleaning up my motions, so I'll be nice. All right, Section 14a, page 16, and it goes on to -- there's a section -- I don't understand what this means, and it says notwithstanding anything to the contrary, which always scares the hell out of me in this agreement, SEF's [sic] limited waiver of its statutory and constitutional rights to receive just compensation upon removal of the boardwalk sign and CCO sign is expressly conditioned upon the City's issuance of the amended permit. Explain that to me. Mr. Bittner: This agreement -- Commissioner Sarnoff.. Just that provision of it. Mr. Bittner: When the City requires someone to remove a sign -- and this is provision that mirrors all of the other settlement agreements. When we ask them to remove a sign, that potentially triggers a right tojust compensation under the constitution. What they're doing here -- what we're doing here is in exchange as consideration for their removal, we are giving them the right to build a sign or erect a sign and move it somewhere else. There -- therefore, once they get that permit erect and get the opposite end of their consideration agreeing to waive their right tojust compensation against the City. All the agreements have this. Commissioner Sarnoff.. But you're calling it a limited waiver. Why is it a limited one? Does that mean they have some ability to seek compensation? I mean, should the word limited be in there? I mean -- 'cause I -- aren't they waiving its statutory inconstitutional [sic] rights? See, it's like a City ofMiami Page 83 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 lawyer saying well, we're almost there. Well, what part of the way aren't we there. Mr. Bittner: You know, frankly, it sounds better removing the word limited. Commissioner Sarnoff. Okay. Mr. Bittner: Feel free to take it out. Chair Gort: It's part of the amendment. Commissioner Sarnoff. All right. Make sure I get that in the motion. All right, last thing. On Section 15b, you start to recital where you're trying to grab everybody's net of rights as -- colloquial call it, but you don't use the word or include the word attorneys. Mr. Bittner: We discussed that. It should be added. Commissioner Sarnoff. Okay. So then at the end of agent, officers, or employees, we can put comma, attorneys or signs? Make sure I add that. All right. All right, here's the motion then. Vice Chair Carollo: I -- ifI may? Commissioner Sarnoff.. Sure. Vice Chair Carollo: I say you make your motion with the addition of everything that you said. Commissioner Sarnoff.. Yeah, you're right. Vice Chair Carollo: Just so you don't -- Commissioner Sarnoff.. Madam Clerk -- Vice Chair Carollo: -- lose one in there. Commissioner Sarnoff.. -- are you -- ifI try to grab the net of my discussion, will you understand it? Ms. Thompson: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff.. Okay. Ms. Thompson: But I -- we don't -- first of all, we don't have a motion. Commissioner Sarnoff.. I under -- Ms. Thompson: You're discussing it now. Commissioner Sarnoff.. We don't, right. Ms. Thompson: And the final entity that would be responsible for making sure that the information you're stating on the record is included would be the Law Department because that is what's going to show, between the Law Department and Building, your intentions in the agreement, okay. And that part of your motion, of course, will be stated verbatim on your record. Commissioner Sarnoff.. Okay. So my motion then would be to redact 17 Southwest 3rdAvenue, 299 17th Road as acceptable sites in this particular agreement, and then to approve the entire City ofMiami Page 84 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 agreement as previously amended by my previous statements by bringing up the alternate sites as the sites the City would accept in accordance with this agreement. Vice Chair Carollo: Second. Chair Gort: It's moved and second with the other amendments. Commissioner Sarnoff. I think got everything. Chair Gort: You got them all? Okay. Discussion. Vice Chair Carollo: Second. And just for clarity, I want to make sure, 1700 Southwest 3rd Avenue and 299 Southwest 17 Road. Commissioner Sarnoff. That's what I wrote. Chair Gort: Okay, any further discussion? Being none -- Commissioner Sarnoff. Oh, I'm sorry. I apologize, guys. One last thing. Andl was asked to do this by Law. If you happen to have noticed, we've been putting up new signs and they're actually made out of aluminum clad. Andl would also include my motion to include the aluminum clad design and whatever stick so that colloquially speaking they get. So my motion would include that. Does the seconder accept that? Vice Chair Carollo: Seconder accepts. Chair Gort: Okay. Any further discussion? Being none, all in favor, please state it by saying "aye. The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Vice Chair Carollo: Thank you. Chair Gort: Thank you all. Ms. Thompson: Are you going to adjourn your meeting? Vice Chair Carollo: Meeting [sic] to adjourn. Chair Gort: Motion to adjourn. Vice Chair Carollo: Motion to adjourn. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Vice Chair Carollo: Second by Commissioner -- RE.11 RESOLUTION 11-00149 District 1 - Commissioner Wifredo (Willy) Gort A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI AND THE FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FLORIDA HARDEST HIT PROGRAM, AS City ofMiami Page 85 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 STATED HEREIN. 11-00149 Legislation.pdf 11-00149-Exhibit 1-SUB.pdf Motion by Vice Chairman Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Dunn II, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Carollo and Dunn II Absent: 2 - Commissioner(s) Sarnoff and Suarez R-11-0072 Chair Gort: RE.8. No, we not -- Tony E. Crapp, Jr. (City Manager): RE.11. Chair Gort: We already took those. Mr. Crapp: RE.11. Vice Chair Carollo: RE.11? George Mensah (Director, Community Development): Yes. George Mensah -- Chair Gort: Go ahead. Mr. Mensah: -- director of Community Development. Commissioner, RE.11 is a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract between the City ofMiami and the Florida Housing Finance Corporation for the implementation of the Florida Hardest Hit Program. There's a substi -- this is a program that provides assistance to residents who are facing foreclosure. It's to provide up to 18 months of mortgage payments if they are either unemployed or underemployed up to an amount of $35, 000. The Miami -Dade County received approximately $15 million for such a program. There's a substitution and the substitution has to do with the insurance requirement of the program. So the contract was actually to include the City's -- the fact that the City's self -insured Vice Chair Carollo: Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Chair Gort: Yes, sir. Vice Chair Carollo: I have a question for the City Attorney. Madam City Attorney. Chair Gort: Madam Attorney, question for you. Julie O. Bru (City Attorney): Yes. Vice Chair Carollo: Madam City Attorney, does this -- does the City obtain any additional liability or any more liability on RE.11 whatsoever? Ms. Bru: Okay. We're going to be entering into an agreement with this agency, and the agreement does provide for -- I think it's in subsection F -- it requires that the City obtain some sort of professional liability insurance. There is a substitution. We have substituted that language for a statement that indicates that the City's self -insured. And we would be -- there is a potential for liability to the extent of 768, which is, you know, the self-insurance limits of the City. Vice Chair Carollo: This is something sponsored by you, Commissioner Gort, correct? City ofMiami Page 86 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Chair Gort: No. What I'm understanding, this is something we've been trying to do for a while. We want to make sure those people that we can help them to -- with the mortgage and to not lose their home, that they can keep their home. Now my understanding, the way the procedure works is we have to work through the Florida Housing Authority. In other words -- Mr. Mensah: Yes. Chair Gort: -- Florida Housing Authority is the one that does all the -- all we can do is provide the computer and the information for individuals and the individual have to apply directly to the Florida Housing Authority. Mr. Mensah: That's correct. Chair Gort: Florida Housing Authority is the one that makes the award to the individuals. Mr. Mensah: Yes. Chair Gort: Our responsibility -- so I don't see where we would have some liability, although they're requesting that. Mr. Mensah: Our role in this is just the collection of documentation and uploading that documentation online, so Florida Housing looks at it and makes the decision on it. The reason why the City -- we involved in this is that we want to be able to assist our residents and give the residents the ability to go to the various parts of the NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) offices so they can be able to help them. Some of our residents doesn't have computers at home so they can't apply online, and some of them doesn't speak English and this is only in English. So we want to help as many residents as possible, and that's the reason why the City's embarking on this. Commissioner Dunn: Mr. Chair, I wanted to ask a question. What do you anticipate that number and estimated that number -- in estimation that number being -- Mr. Mensah: Well -- Commissioner Dunn: -- with Miami being the largest city in Florida -- I mean, just an estimation. Mr. Mensah: -- in total, there's $50 million. The maximum each individual can get is 35,000, so approximately 14,000 residents can be helped. So what we are doing here is to ensure that at least majority of those 14,000 come from the City ofMiami. Chair Gort: Questions? Vice Chair Carollo: I'll move it. Commissioner Dunn: Second. Chair Gort: It's been moved by Vice Chairman Carollo and second by Commissioner Dunn. Any further discussion? Being none, all in favor, state it by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Gort: Thank you. RE.12 RESOLUTION City ofMiami Page 87 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 10-01256 Department of Capital Improvements Program A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), APPROVING THE CITY OF MIAMI'S ("CITY'S") 2010-2011 MULTI -YEAR CAPITAL PLAN ("PLAN"), WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE PROJECTS IN DISTRICT3, ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED, AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 163.3177, FLORIDA STATUTES (2010), AND PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 18/ ARTICLE IX/DIVISIONS 1 AND 2 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "FINANCE/FINANCIAL POLICIES/ANTI-DEFICIENCY ACT/FINANCIAL INTEGRITY PRINCIPLES," TO SET FORTH THE CITY'S FISCAL NEEDS FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, SUBJECT TO AN ANNUAL PLAN REVIEW, TO DETERMINE PROJECT PRIORITIES AND TO MODIFY FUNDING ALLOCATIONS AS NECESSARY. 10-01256 Summary Form.pdf 10-01256 Legislation.pdf 10-01256 Exhibit 1 SUB.pdf Motion by Vice Chairman Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Dunn II, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Carollo and Dunn II Absent: 2 - Commissioner(s) Sarnoff and Suarez R-11-0073 Direction by Vice Chair Carollo to the Administration for all District 3 items to be pulled from RE.12 and brought back as a new agenda item for the City Commission meeting scheduled for March 24, 2011. Chair Gort: Okay. Do we have any other items besides zoning? Tony E. Crapp, Jr. (City Manager): We have RE.13, FDO -- Oh, I'm sorry. RE -- Chair Gort: That's right. Mr. Crapp: -- 12. Chair Gort: I thought we had RE.12. Alice Bravo (Director): Good afternoon. Alice Bravo, Capital Improvements. RE.12 is a resolution authorizing adoption of the 2010-2011 multi year capital improvement plan, as required by the Financial Integrity ordinance, number 11890. This plan is to be adopted every year. Our plan basically shows a reconciliation of projects that are in a current of a future phase. In our document -- I do have to note that we distributed a substitution. We have the projects sorted three different ways in the plan. One sorting is by project type, whether it's facilities or parks. A second sorting is by funding type. And a third sorting is in alphabetical order. So there was a misprint in the first section. And our substitution item redistributed that first report where the projects are listed by category, whether parks, general facilities, et cetera. So the capital plan before you today with the substitution represents a $584 million capital improvement plan. The largest segment of the plan is encompassed by streets and sidewalk projects. We have just over a hundred of those projects, accounting for $131 million, roughly a quarter of the plan. We also have public facilities projects and park recreation projects. Those the three major categories. The plan also illustrates the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) projects that the Capital Improvement Program Department implements. They have 11 million -- just under -- I mean, 11 projects representing just under $25 million. So with that, are City ofMiami Page 88 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 there any questions? Vice Chair Carollo: Mr. Chairman? Chair Gort: Yes. Vice Chair Carollo: I will make a motion for approval of everything in this resolution, excluding every project dealing with District 3 so that every project dealing with District 3 will be continued to the same like meeting. And that's my motion. Commissioner Dunn: Second. Chair Gort: It's been moved and second. Moved by the Vice Chairperson Carollo, second by Commissioner Dunn. Will you repeat that motion again? Vice Chair Carollo: Yes. I make a motion to approve the resolution as is, excluding every project dealing with District 3, and that every project dealing with District 3 be continued to the same like meeting. Ms. Bravo: With the substitute. Chair Gort: To be continued? Vice Chair Carollo: Yes, to the same like meeting. In other words, to be continued to a meeting that's a PZ (Planning & Zoning) meeting, so it'll be, what, in a month. Chair Gort: All right. Vice Chair Carollo: And that'll give me ample time to discuss with Ms. Bravo all the various projects and capital projects in District 3 with ample time to go over our list. Chair Gort: Okay. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Chair. Chair Gort: Is there a motion? Let's -- Ms. Thompson: I'm sorry. Chair, it looks like you're bifurcating your resolution here and you're taking action on part of it and then you're continuing part of it, and I'd like to check with the City Attorney because with that bifurcation, it seems as though you may very well be making up another resolution. It's a little confusing. Julie O. Bru (City Attorney): I think what the Vice Chair wants to do is approve the capital plan that's been presented to the extent that it doesn't include any District 3 projects. Vice Chair Carollo: Correct. Chair Gort: Right. Ms. Bru: So those will have to be brought back at a subsequent date with an amended capital improvement plan. Vice Chair Carollo: Exactly. So is my motion correct, or do I need two motions? My motion is correct? Thank you. City ofMiami Page 89 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 RE.13 11-00082 Department of Capital Improvements Program Ms. Thompson: With the understanding that, first of all, there was a substitution presented by Ms. Bravo. Secondly, you're approving it pulling that out. And when you bring it back, you're bringing back a new file ID (Identification) for a new plan, so -- do you understand what I'm saying? Okay, a whole new item just on your portion. Vice Chair Carollo: I'm okay with it. Ms. Thompson: Okay. Chair Gort: Correct. Vice Chair Carollo: As long as we're not approving anything in District 3 today. Ms. Thompson: Right. So we'll set up in our records as a direction from you to Administration to pull out District 3's and bring them back, okay? Vice Chair Carollo: Yes, ma'am. Ms. Thompson: Okay, thank you. Chair Gort: Okay. Vice Chair Carollo: Thank you. Chair Gort: Any further discussion? Being none, all in favor, state it by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Gort: I do have a lot of questions, but I'll get them later. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENTS, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM(S), WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ("FDOT"), FOR ALL CITY OF MIAMI IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS LOCATED WITHIN FDOT'S RIGHT OF WAY; SUBJECT TO THE RATIFICATION OF THE CITY COMMISSION. 11-00082 Summary Form.pdf 11-00082 Legislation.pdf 11-00082 Exhibit 1.pdf 11-00082-Exhibit-Addendu m. pdf 11-00082-Submittal-Memo-Substitution for Item RE.13 Addendum to FDOT Construction Agreeme Motion by Vice Chairman Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Dunn II, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Carollo and Dunn II Absent: 2 - Commissioner(s) Sarnoff and Suarez R-11-0074 Chair Gort: Okay, that's the -- City ofMiami Page 90 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Alice Bravo (Director, Capitallmprovements): RE -- Chair Gort: -- regular agenda? Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): RE -- Ms. Bravo: -- 13. Tony E. Crapp, Jr. (City Manager): Do 13. Vice Chair Carollo: Thirteen. Ms. Bravo: RE.13. Chair Gort: Oh, 13, okay. Ms. Bravo: Okay. RE.13 is a resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into agreements with the Florida Department of Transportation for purposes of constructing City projects that may have some impact on Florida Department of Transportation right-of-way. In the past the City executed a permit with the FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation) in order to construct, let's say, a City project that terminates at a FDOT road and we needed to make a connection, but the FDOT permit now reads as an agreement. So this resolution would authorize the City Manager to execute these agreements on City projects. Vice Chair Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Chair Gort: Okay. Thank you. Yes. Vice Chair Carollo: I'll make a motion for approval with a friendly amendment that it also be subject to the ratification of the City Commission. Chair Gort: Okay. Commissioner Dunn: Second. Chair Gort: It's been moved by the Vice Chairman Carollo and second by Commissioner Dunn. Ms. Bravo: There was one substitution that was originally an indemnity clause that the City objected to and FDOT removed that clause from the agreement -- Chair Gort: Right. Ms. Bravo: -- so as substituted without the indemnification clause. Chair Gort: Okay. Vice Chair Carollo: And substituted with my amendment. Okay. Chair Gort: Okay. Any further discussion? Being none, all in favor, state it by saying "aye. The Commission (Collectively): Aye. END OF RESOLUTIONS PART B: PLANNING AND ZONING ITEMS City ofMiami Page 91 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Commissioner Dunn: Mr. Chairman. Chair Gort: Yes. Commissioner Dunn: I wanted to request that we take the PZ.1 item out of order, if it's -- Chair Gort: PZ.1 ? Commissioner Dunn: Yes, sir. Chair Gort: You wanted the -- Commissioner Dunn: Take it -- ifI can take it -- wanted to take it out of order, take it now if we could. Chair Gort: Take it now? Commissioner Dunn: Yes, sir, with your permission. Chair Gort: Okay. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Chair, ifI might. Chair Gort: Any problem? Vice Chair Carollo: I don't have a problem with it, Mr. Chairman, but I may have to go to my office real quick and get some notes so if that's the case -- Chair Gort: Right. Vice Chair Carollo: -- then let me just -- butl won't have a problem. Chair Gort: Yeah. We need -- Vice Chair Carollo: And you could start. I mean -- Commissioner Dunn: Okay. Chair Gort: -- our PZ (Planning & Zoning) agenda. Commissioner Dunn: Go ahead. The Clerk -- Vice Chair Carollo: Yeah. Go ahead and start. I just need to get some notes from my office. Commissioner Dunn: -- is trying to say something. Ms. Thompson: I apologize -- Chair Gort: But wait a minute. No. Ms. Thompson: -- Chair, okay. Chair Gort: We need a quorum. Ms. Thompson: Well, no. You have your quorum, okay, but during the interim, we do need to City ofMiami Page 92 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 swear in individuals if they're going to -- Chair Gort: Right. Ms. Thompson: -- so if you want me to do that now and -- Chair Gort: Let's do that. Commissioner Dunn: Well, I think when we hear what -- with the speaker, it's going to be a short deal. Ms. Thompson: Do you -- Commissioner Dunn: We still need to do it, okay. Ms. Thompson: Yes, sir. Commissioner Dunn: Go ahead. Ms. Thompson: Okay. Commissioner Dunn: I yield Vice Chair Carollo: And with that said, I'm -- ifI go to my office, if we don't take a vote, then we don't need quorum. I think ifI -- right, so I could go to my office, come back in case there's a vote so I'll be right back. Ms. Thompson: We're just going through the procedures of the order of the day -- Vice Chair Carollo: Exactly. Commissioner Dunn: Sure. Ms. Thompson: -- the swearing in. Commissioner Dunn: Okay. Ms. Thompson: You're not discussing or voting in anything at this -- Commissioner Dunn: Okay. Ms. Thompson: -- point in time. Ladies and gent -- I'm sorry. Our attorney's going to read the order of the day for PZ. Maria J. Chiaro (Deputy City Attorney): Before the PZ agenda is heard, all those wishing to speak shall be sworn by the City Clerk. The staff will briefly describe the request, whether an appeal or an exception, a vacation, text amendment, or zoning change, and make its recommendation. The appellant or petitioner will then present the request. The appellee will present its position. Members of the public may be permitted to speak on certain petitioners [sic]. The petitioner may ask questions of staff. The appellant or petitioner will be permitted to make final comments. The City ofMiami requires that anyone requesting action by the City Commission must disclose before the hearing anything provided to anyone for agreement to support or withhold objection to the requested action. Any documents offered to the City Commission that have not been provided seven days before the meeting as part of the agenda materials will be entered into the record only at the City Commission's discretion. City ofMiami Page 93 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Ms. Thompson: Ladies and gentlemen, if you are here and you will be testifying on any P&Z item, if you're here for any P&Z item, I need you to please stand and raise your right hand so thatl can swear you in. The City Clerk administered oath required under City Code Section 62-1 to those persons giving testimony on zoning issues. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. [Later...]" Chair Gort: PZ.2. You want to sworn [sic] in anybody for the PZ (Planning & Zoning) agenda? Ms. Thompson: Ladies and gentlemen, if you are going to be testing on the PZ agenda and you were not sworn in earlier today, then I need you to please stand and raise your right hand. If you're going to be speaking and you weren't sworn in today -- earlier today. The City Clerk administered oath required under City Code Section 62-1 to those who will be testing on zoning Issues. Ms. Thompson: And your responses, please. Thank you. PZ.1 RESOLUTION 10-00581 mu A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 13 AND 17 OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE APPLICABLE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, FOR THE CITY CENTER PROJECT, TO BE LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 100 NORTHWEST 12TH STREET, 1120 NORTHWEST 1ST AVENUE, 105 AND 113 NORTHWEST 11 TH TERRACE, AND 1129, 1135, 1145, 1151, AND 1159 NORTHWEST 1ST COURT, MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO CONSTRUCTAMIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX COMPRISED OF TWO 27-STORY TOWERS WITH A 9-STORY PODIUM -PARKING GARAGE AND A TOTAL MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF AN APPROXIMATE 270'-8" NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM (N.G.V.D.) AT TOP OF ROOF SLAB, PROVIDING APPROXIMATELY 340 TOTAL MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH APPROXIMATELY 392,612 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA, 3,130 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE AND 478 OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES; MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATING CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; PROVIDING FOR BINDING EFFECT; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. City ofMiami Page 94 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 10-00581mu CC 02-24-11 Fact Sheet.pdf 10-00581 mu CC Analysis. pdf 10-00581mu Zoning Map (Miami 21).pdf 10-00581mu Zoning Map (Ordinance 11000).pdf 10-00581 mu Aerial Map. pdf 10-00581 mu Miami -Dade Aviation Department Letter. pdf 10-00581mu Miami -Dade County Public School Concurrency Letter.pdf 10-00581mu PZAB Reso.pdf 10-00581mu CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf 10-00581mu ExhibitA.pdf 10-00581mu Exhibit B. pdf 10-00581mu Binder Cover. pdf 10-00581mu Inside Cover. pdf 10-00581mu Table of Contents. pdf 10-00581 mu Article I. A. Letter of I ntent. pdf 10-00581mu Article I. B. City of Miami Application for Major Use Special Permit. pdf 10-00581 mu Article I. C. Legal Description. pdf 10-00581mu Article I. D. Owner List. pdf 10-00581mu Article I. E. Disclosure of Ownership - RNG Overtown LLC.pdf 10-00581 mu Article I. F. Ownership Affidavit - RNG Overtown LLC. pdf 10-00581mu Article I. G. Disclosure of Agreement to Support or Withhold Objection - RNG Overtop 10-00581mu Article I. H. Ownership Structure - CDG City Center, Ltd..pdf 10-00581mu Article I. I. Ownership Affidavit - CDG City Center, Ltd..pdf 10-00581mu Article I. J. Disclosure of Agreement to Support or Withhold Objection - CDG City Cer 10-00581mu Article I. K. Public School Concurrency Form.pdf 10-00581mu Article I. L. Miami -Dade County Printouts - Property Deed. pdf 10-00581muArticle I. M. Ownership List.pdf 10-00581mu Article I. N. State of Florida Corporate Documents - RNG Overtown. pdf 10-00581mu Article I. O. State of Florida Corporate Documents - CDG City Center, Ltd..pdf 10-00581mu Article I. P. City of Miami Zoning Atlas. pdf 10-00581mu Article I. Q. City of Miami Future Land Use Map.pdf 10-00581mu Article I. R. Aerial Location Map. pdf 10-00581mu Article I. S. Photographs. pdf 10-00581mu Article I. T. Project Principals. pdf 10-00581mu Article I. U. Project Data Sheet.pdf 10-00581 mu Article I. V. Zoning Write-Up.pdf 10-00581 mu Article II. Project Description.pdf 10-00581mu Article II. A. Zoning Ordinance No. 11000.pdf 10-00581 mu Article III. Supporting Documents. pdf 10-00581mu Article III. Tab A. Survey of Property. pdf 10-00581mu Article III. Tab B. Site Plan.pdf 10-00581mu Article III. Tab C. Site Utility Study. pdf 10-00581mu Article III. Tab D. Economic Study. pdf 10-00581mu Article III. Tab E. Phase I and Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment. pdf 10-00581mu Article III. Tab F. Architectural Drawings.pdf 10-00581mu Article III. Tab G. Landscape Drawings.pdf 10-00581muArticle III. Tab H. Traffic Impact Analysis. pdf 10-00581mu Article III. Tab I. Traffic Sufficiency Letter.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 100 NW 12th Street, 1120 NW 1st Avenue, 105 and 113 NW 11th Terrace, and 1129, 1135, 1145, 1151, and 1159 NW 1st Court [Commissioner Richard P. Dunn II - District 5] City ofMiami Page 95 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 APPLICANT(S): Ryan D. Bailine, Esquire, on behalf of RNG Overtown LLC and CDG City Center, Ltd. FINDING(S): PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval with conditions*. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended denial to City Commission on December 15, 2010 by a vote of 6-1. *See supporting documentation. PURPOSE: This will allow a phased development of the City Center project. Motion by Commissioner Dunn II, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be DEFERRED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Carollo, Suarez and Dunn II Absent: 1 - Commissioner(s) Sarnoff Note for the record: Item PZ.1 was deferred to the Commission meeting scheduled for April 28, 2011. Chair Gort: Yes, sir. You're recognized. Ryan Bailine: Good morning, Mr. Chair, Commissioners. Ryan Bailine, with offices at 201 South Biscayne Boulevard. We're here requesting that this PZ.1, the Major Use Special Permit for City Center, be deferred until your April meeting, Planning and Zoning meeting so that we can continue to work with staff as well as with the community to provide information and get back here in April. We had come before you at the end of January and some of the issues we're working on just took a little bit more time. So rather than ask for the end of March, we would request that you defer us till the end ofApril. Thank you. Chair Gort: Okay. Yes, sir. Francisco Garcia: Mr. Chair, Francisco Garcia, Planning director. Staff recommends favorably on this request. And for your information, this would be then continued to a date certain ofApril 28, should that be your wish. Chair Gort: Thank you. Commissioner Dunn: So move. Commissioner Suarez: Second. Chair Gort: It's been moved by Commissioner Dunn, second by Commissioner Suarez. Any further discussion? Anybody in the public would like to address PZ.1 ? Being none, all in favor, state it by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Mr. Bailine: Thank you very much. Chair Gort: Thank you. PZ.2 ORDINANCE 10-01454zt Second Reading City ofMiami Page 96 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 13114, THE MIAMI 21 CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 5. "SPECIFIC TO ZONES," TO MODIFY STORY HEIGHT MAXIMUM FOR THE T4 TRANSECT ZONE, CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 10-01454zt CC SR 02-24-11 Fact Sheet.pdf 10-01454zt PZAB Reso.pdf 10-01454zt CC Legislation (Version 3).pdf 10-01454zt Exhibit A. pdf LOCATION: Citywide APPLICANT(S): Tony E. Crapp, Jr., City Manager, on behalf of the City of Miami FINDING(S): PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on January 19, 2011 by a vote of 5-4. PURPOSE: This will establish a maximum height for the "T4" Transect Zone as forty (40) feet. Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Vice Chairman Carollo, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Carollo and Suarez Absent: 2 - Commissioner(s) Sarnoff and Dunn II 13254 Chair Gort: PZ.2. Tucker Gibbs: Thank you. Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning): Thank you, sir. Item PZ.2 is a proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance, Miami 21, seeking to change the height in the T4 zoning designation, reducing it from 53 feet, which it presently is, to 40 feet, while leaving the three-story maximum cap in place. The Planning Department recommends approval, and this is before you on second reading. Chair Gort: Go ahead, sir. Adam Dunshee: For the record, I am Adam Dunshee, 500 Northeast 50th Terrace, speaking on behalf ofMiami Neighborhoods United, under which I serve as secretary. I'm speaking in favor of the previous 35-foot limit. Thirty-five feet equates to three stories, which many would consider tall when compared to your average single-family home. As you can see, the map is simple when allotting 35 feet over 3 stories. The previous slide would suggest a 15 foot first floor with 10 feet each for the 2 remaining floors. Now this example is not only for demonstration, but it is also a normal standard per City personnel. The 35-foot limit should also have flexibility, and as such, MNU (Miami Neighborhoods United) suggest that the 35-foot limit be filled however the builder see fit. Now there is a history on this discussion, and the Planning Department at one time had suggested a height limit lower than 35 feet. The Upper Eastside master plan once suggested a limit as low as 30 feet. Many neighborhoods came out in favor of the then proposed limit, in City ofMiami Page 97 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 particular these ones highlighted before you. Now the question is is 35 feet a realistic limit? We should take a look at some examples around the City. First is Legion Park, a place familiar to many of us. The ceiling height of the park's auditorium is 11 feet, 5 inches tall. Here's another example, the plans of a finished building on Miami Beach, which you may recognize the end result as the Prime Hotel at 100 Ocean Drive. The building measures 34 feet, 5 inches tall. Important to note here that the building's two-story neighbor, Prime 112, is one of the most lucrative properties per square foot, and that's per the Planning Department. Another example just three blocks up the street is the Sansa Hotel at 400 Ocean Drive. The building stands 34 feet, 6 inches tall. Here's what its first floor bar restaurant looks like. Here's one of its upper floors. Now before I get carried away, I want to remind everyone where T zoning is applicable, meaning that it's abutting single-family homes and not downtown. Esteemed Commissioners, Chairman Gort, I ask you that you please amend the T4 height limit to 35 feet in the interest of economic development and preserving neighborhood scale here in Miami. Thank you again for allowing me to speak. Chair Gort: Thank you. Anyone else would like to address on PZ.2? Anyone else? Okay, we close the public hearings [sic]. Commissioners, second reading. Mr. Garcia: IfI may, sir, I have --I've actually also prepared a presentation, which, if you indulge me with a couple of minutes, I'd like to run by you? Chair Gort: Go ahead. Mr. Garcia: Thank you, sir. Mindful of the time, I will be brief. We certainly -- I have had the opportunity of reviewing the material that has just been presented to you. Mr. Elvis Cruz was kind enough to visit with me and show me this personally and we had a chat about it, and we certainly don't take lightly the fact that many may prefer a lower height. There is no question about the fact it is uncontroverted, that a 35 foot height could work for purposes of a three-story building. I'm certainly not going to contest that at all. What I will say, however, is that elsewhere in the City, in other situations 35 feet may be somewhat limiting for other kinds of spaces that might want to populate a building of three stories. So our calculation was such that we would allow for a 16-foot high ground story which would allow comfortably, if not amply, for commercial uses, and the upper two stories -- and the upper two of the three stories, we would love for a height of 12 feet, which would actually accommodate nicely office space, which is certainly allowable in T4 0, for instance. Having said that, which is essentially technical information, what I'd like to show you briefly is an example of how 40 feet and maybe even some more than 40 feet, works relatively well when abutting the T3 condition that the previous presentation alluded to in somewhat of concern. This example happens to be in the City of Coral Gables, but not too far from here, and the reason we chose that to show you today is because it is actually built out and it allows us to show you how the two interact and we feel it interacts fairly well. What you're looking at here is Ponce de Leon Boulevard and a series of two -and three-story buildings, some of them four, exceeding the forty foot height limit, which align along the street. This is essentially the character of a T4 0 street as it would be implemented in the City ofMiami. Note, I said some of the buildings. This one happens to be three stories, as the T4 category allows, but some of the buildings would actually exceed the 40-foot height in this example, this being one of them. This is actually four stories and it exceeds a 40-foot height limit. The reason I show you these -- and I'll scroll through them quickly -- is I would like to show you now the properties behind these buildings, which are all zoned in the equivalent to what we would have as T3 in the City ofMiami. This particular building is three stories tall. It is approximately 42 feet in height. And as we turn around the building -- and there you see the back part. I'll go back one slide. This is the rear of the building and this rear of the building fronts -- andl am now taking a photograph from the backyard of the abutting property. You see, as the orange line shows, the parapet of the building, which is essentially lost behind -- visible to some extent, admittedly, but lost behind some landscape buffering and not too dense at that. You'll see other examples that actually mask it better. As we move down the alley, we see some City ofMiami Page 98 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 PZ.3 four-story buildings exceeding the 40 foot height. In here you see how the strategy has been to actually plant taller trees with denser canopies and the effect -- you'll see those also along the alley -- is that they all but mask the buildings behind. You see there the T3 street, the residential street, with the taller buildings behind those. And lastly, what I will show you is what is a very stable, I would define it as, upscale neighborhood, very comparable to many in the City of Miami, which lives fairly well abutting the T4 condition at 40 plus feet. And as further evidence of the fact that it has not been to the detriment of the area, I will show you some new development, definitely upscale, which is taken advantage of the situation to actually go to the 25 feet that T3 allows. And there you have it. Once again, we are sympathetic that in some instances, 40 feet may seem too much to the abutting single-family residential property owners. T4 is intended to be applied or available citywide. In some instances, it will abut T3. In some instances, it will not. And we think that it deserves the 40 that would allow it the flexibility to function properly. I'll answer any questions you have. Chair Gort: Okay. Second reading. Discussion. Vice Chair Carollo: You go first. Commissioner Suarez: No. I move it. I think this is a wonderful step in the right direction, going from 53 to 40. I think this is on the basis of what the residents in Miami Neighborhood United has recommended. Whether it's 35, 36, 40, 41 -- I mean, the examples that were used to justify 35 feet ironically were in a commercial zone, in Miami Beach, which had commercial properties next to it. The ones that had 40 feet or 42 feet or whatever were in a residential area, in Coral Gables where the property values are very stable and usually very, very high, so -- I mean, I don't think there's a magic to 35 or 40 or 36 or 41. I think the general idea is that we need to, to the maximum extent possible, bring in any commercial buildings that are close to residential areas as low as they possibly can so that they don't encroach visually onto the neighboring property. But if you're at 35 feet, you could probably see into the backyard of someone who's next to you. If you're at 40 feet, I don't think you get that much more visibility, you know. It's five feet. It's one body length or less. Actually, it's probably less than a body length. So I think this is wonderful. I think this is a great -- I think Miami Neighborhoods United should be extremely happy with this. You know, this is something that they've been advocating for for a long, long time, and I think this Commission has listened to them and has made, you know, an amendment to the code on the basis of their recommendation. Chair Gort: Motion by Commissioner Suarez and -- Vice Chair Carollo: Second. Chair Gort: -- second by Vice Chairman Carollo. Further discussion? Being none, all in favor, state it by saying iiye. " Vice Chair Carollo: It's an ordinance. Chair Gort: It's an ordinance. I'm sorry. Go ahead, sorry. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Deputy City Attorney Maria J. Chiaro. Ms. Thompson: Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been adopted on second reading, 3-0. ORDINANCE First Reading City ofMiami Page 99 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 10-01461 zt AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 13114, THE MIAMI 21 CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 5, SECTION 5.3, "SUB -URBAN TRANSECT ZONES (T3)" AND SECTION 5.4 "GENERAL URBAN TRANSECT ZONES (T4)", BY INCREASING ALLOWED FENCE AND WALL HEIGHT IN T3 AND T4 TRANSECT ZONES, AND SECTION 5.7.1, "CIVIC SPACE ZONES (CS)", BY ADDING REGULATIONS FOR FENCES AND WALLS IN PARKS AND SECTION 5.8, "CIVIC INSTITUTION ZONES -HEALTH DISTRICT (CI -HD)", BY ADDING REGULATIONS FOR FENCES IN THE HEALTH DISTRICT; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 10-01461zt PZAB Reso.pdf 10-01461zt Legislation (Version 2).pdf LOCATION: Citywide APPLICANT(S): Tony E. Crapp, Jr., City Manager, on behalf of the City of Miami FINDING(S): PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on January 19, 2011 by a vote of 9-0. PURPOSE: This will increase the allowed fence height within the first layer in "T3" and "T4" Transect Zones and add regulations for the height of fences and walls within "CS" and "CI -HD" Transect Zones. Motion by Vice Chairman Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Carollo and Suarez Absent: 2 - Commissioner(s) Sarnoff and Dunn II Chair Gort: PZ.3. Dakota Hendon (Project Manager): Good evening. Dakota Hendon, with the Office of Zoning. PZ.3 is an amendment to increase the height for fences in T3 neighborhoods and T4 from right now it says three and a half feet if you do any type offence, or up to five feet if you do an iron or picket. We will be changing that to four feet for any type offence and six feet if you choose iron or aluminum pickets. Also within this legislation is to add regulations for fences within parks, our CS (Civic Space) zone and within CI -HD (Civic Institution -Health District). Within the CI -HD there is an allowance to go above the eight foot maximum when required for the type of use it is, such as a detention facility or a hospital, and that just needs to be demonstrated to the Planning director. Chair Gort: Thank you. Vice Chair Carollo: So moved. Commissioner Suarez: Second. City ofMiami Page 100 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Chair Gort: It's been moved and second. Public hearing. Anyone like to address PZ.3? Close the public hearings [sic]. Read the ordinance. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Deputy City Attorney Maria J. Chiaro. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been passed on first reading, 3-0. Chair Gort: Thank you. PZ.4 ORDINANCE First Reading 11-00018zt AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 13114, THE MIAMI 21 CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 6, TABLE 13 ENTITLED "SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS"; ADDING AN EXCEPTION PROCESS FOR EXTENSIONS OF DOCKS OR PIERS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 11-00018zt PZAB Reso.pdf 11-00018zt CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf 11-00018zt ExhibitA.pdf LOCATION: Citywide APPLICANT(S): Tony E. Crapp, Jr., City Manager, on behalf of the City of Miami FINDING(S): PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on January 19, 2011 by a vote of 8-1. PURPOSE: This will add an exception process for extensions of docks and piers beyond the maximum allowed in cases where other jurisdictional agencies require additional extension to meet their requirements. Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Vice Chairman Carollo, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Carollo and Suarez Absent: 2 - Commissioner(s) Sarnoff and Dunn II Chair Gort: PZ.4. Dakota Hendon (Project Manager, Zoning): PZ.4 is an amendment to add an exception process to allow extension of docks or piers beyond the maximum allowed by code when a state or local jurisdiction requires to do so, such as when DERM (Department of Environmental Resource Management) in some cases require for a dock to actually go beyond where we -- our maximum allowed in order to preserve certain environmental features. We want to allow an exception process to allow that type of thing to happen. City ofMiami Page 101 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Commissioner Suarez: Move it. Chair Gort: Been moved. Vice Chair Carollo: Second. Chair Gort: Okay. It's been moved by Commissioner Suarez, second by Vice Chairman Carollo. Read it. A reso -- oh, it's a resolution. No -- Maria J. Chiaro (Deputy City Attorney): It's an ordinance -- Chair Gort: -- ordinance. Ms. Chiaro: -- for the public hearing. Chair Gort: Read it. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Deputy City Attorney Maria J. Chiaro. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): I'm sorry, Chair. Chair Gort: Roll call. Ms. Thompson: Before we take the roll call, did hear public hearing open and closed? Chair Gort: I believe I did. It's open, closed. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been passed on first reading, 3-0. PZ.5 RESOLUTION 06-00840x1 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), DENYING OR GRANTING THE APPEAL, AFFIRMING OR REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD, THEREBY DENYING OR GRANTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION AS LISTED IN ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, UNDER CONDITIONAL PRINCIPAL USES OF "R-1" SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, TO ALLOW A CHILD DAY CARE CENTER OF MORE THAN TWENTY (20) CHILDREN, ACCORDING TO ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 936 AND SUBJECT TO ALL APPLICABLE CRITERIA, FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1800 AND 1806 SOUTHWEST 2ND COURT, MIAMI, FLORIDA. City ofMiami Page 102 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 06-00840x1 CC 03-24-11 Fact Sheet.pdf 06-00840x1 PZAB Appeal Letter.pdf 06-00840x1 Analysis.pdf 06-00840x1 Miami 21 Map.pdf 06-00840x1 Zoning Map.pdf 06-00840x1 Aerial Map.pdf 06-00840x1 PZAB Reso.pdf 06-00840x1 Letter of Intent.pdf 06-00840x1 Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 06-00840x1 Plans.pdf 06-00840x1 CC Legislation (Version 3).pdf 06-00840x1 CC Legislation (Version 4).pdf 06-00840x1 ExhibitA.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 1800 & 1806 SW 2nd Court [Commissioner Frank Carollo - District 3] APPELLANT(S)/APPLICANT(S): Ines Marrero-Priegues, Esquire, on behalf of Natalia Montano & Roberto Salazar and Alejandro & Ellen Bonet FINDING(S): PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial of the appeal and denial of the original request. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Denied the Special Exception on June 30, 2010 by a vote of 8-0. PURPOSE: The approval of this appeal will allow the expansion of an existing daycare center and an increase in the number of children from 30 to 60. Motion by Vice Chairman Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be CONTINUED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Carollo and Suarez Absent: 2 - Commissioner(s) Sarnoff and Dunn II Chair Gort: PZ.5. Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning): Item PZ.5 is an appeal before you of a special exception that was previously denied by the Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board. The location is 1800 and 1806 Southwest 2nd Court. And the Planning Department is recommending a denial rather -- yes, a denial of the appeal, thus negating the request for special exception. I would cover with you briefly the fact that we have met both with the applicant, or representatives of the applicant, and also with some interests from the abutting property owners in the neighborhood in general. I believe that the representatives for the applicant will show you a number of design elements and conditions they have actually arrived at to try to address the Planning Department's concerns. I will caption briefly and perhaps answer more questions in a while, should you wish so, but will caption briefly the Planning Department's outstanding concerns, which are as follows. The number of children proposed as part of this extension, the proposed extension is from 30 to 60 children. We are concerned to some extent about the undue noise that this may generate for abutting properties. And the other outstanding concern is the fact that the surface parking lot provided or proposed by the applicant in this application is, in our opinion, not sufficient in terms of area to be able to accept comfortably the pick-up and drop-off process that would likely be triggered by 60 children arriving at the same or similar time. For those two reasons and others stated in the backup that you have, we are recommending denial at this time. City ofMiami Page 103 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Chair Gort: Okay. The appellant. Ines Marrero: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. For the record, my name is Ines Marrero and I'm an attorney with offices at 701 BrickellAvenue. I'm here this evening on behalf of Natalia Montano and Roberto Salazar, the appellants. I know we've waited a long time. And promise, my presentation will be brief andl have asked the speakers to limit themselves to two representatives from the supporters in the group and to keep their statements to no more than a minute, a minute and a half 'cause I know they all -- we all tend to be repetitive. I have, in the interest of expediency and costs, prepared PowerPoint presentation. I find that people tend to keep looking at. Okay. Vice Chair Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Ms. Marrero: I'm there. Chair Gort: Yes. Vice Chair Carollo: Can we take like a two- or three -minute recess so she could properly --? Ms. Marrero: I'm good -- Vice Chair Carollo: You're good? Ms. Marrero: -- to go. Vice Chair Carollo: Okay. Ms. Marrero: I mean, I -- Vice Chair Carollo: And we're getting you help. Ms. Marrero: -- don't see -- oops. But I can start without that. I -- just briefly, the property is located on the corner of 18th Road and Southwest 2nd Court. This is on the south side of Coral Way by point of reference, and I'll walk you through the PowerPoint. But this is Coral Way, 18th Road. This is the Coral Ridge Shopping Plaza where -- and (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Pasta restaurant is here. So this is 18th Road. You turn south on 18th Road. And right now the existing day care -- there is currently an existing day care with 30 children -- is located at this location. We are seeking to have another 30-day day care at the house located next to it, for a total of 60 students. Now my first part -- the first slides reflect the location of the property. The Coral Reef [sic] Shopping Center and that's important because in discussion, everybody wants to characterize the street as a residential street and residential traffic. But this is across the street from a commercially zoned shopping center that has points of ingress and egress onto the street, and this property continues to be zoned commercial and it will be redeveloped at one point with commercial uses, so it's not like we're putting a day care in an exclusively residential area. That's it. The back of the houses is the back of Coral -- or the buildings on Coral Way. We have a 9-story office building, and we have a vacant piece of property that will be developed in accordance with Miami 21. This is a picture of the existing day care and this is the proposed -- a picture of the house next door where we're proposing the relocation of 30 students. I was interested that there is additional comments from staff andl did have an opportunity to meet with the Planning director, as well as the neighbors, last night. The staff original objections related to the criteria for special exceptions. They're generally permissible unless there's adverse impacts. Staff at the time found that there was adverse impact because we were increasing traffic and also because we were increasing the driveways. Chair Gort: I know we're dealing with -- City ofMiami Page 104 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Ms. Marrero: I know. I'll -- Chair Gort: -- kids. Thank you. Ms. Marrero: And in fact -- Vice Chair Carollo: That's what the Planning director was saying, the additional noise. Ms. Marrero: Additional noise of happy children, which is something you have at your house right now, and you'll learn to appreciate the joy of happy children. In any event, I digressed. This is to orient -- to corroborate. This is 18th Road. This is 2nd Court. The way that we are right now, there's a driveway for the (UNINTET,T IGIBT ,F) Marina Day Care. There's a driveway for the single-family home next door, and there's a driveway for the existing parking lot. The three driveways are going to be eliminated and we're only going to have one driveway across the street from the existing shopping center. So in fact, we're going to be reducing the ingress and egress of nonresidential traffic on Southwest 2nd Court. The second point that was stated in the staff recommendation when they originally recommended denial before the Planning and Zoning Board was that we were increasing the number of children and because of that, there's going to be an increase in traffic. The fact -- the particular situation in this application is that the 30 children are in (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Marina and in Gym Kids, which is a day care that is in the shopping center, so those 30 children are already on those streets. That traffic already exists. And the impact has been in existence in that -- on that street for several years. So there's really no net increase. The traffic and the amount of parents driving on the street would remain the same because we're -- we have -- to relocate -- and the purpose of the application is to relocate the existing 30 children who are in the shopping center to the expanded day care. The -- we have a month -to -month lease -- we're not in a lease with the shopping center. We're being told that they are marketing -- they're going to redevelop the property. And we have -- they have not told us to leave, but we're told -- prepare because one -- at any given moment, you'll have to leave and as a result, we will -- if we don't have an expansion, 30 children will lose day care and we'll have to -- we won't need -- have a need for all the staff that we have, so some people will also lose their jobs. We have proposed mitigating conditions. There -- somebody passed out the PowerPoint, so you have the list. 'Cause I recognize that notwithstanding the fact we are a residentially compatible use, that we have a neighborhood on the other side. There's a need across the street and there's also a neighbor on the other side who are directly impacted. To mitigate the conditions, we have proffered, voluntarily proffered conditions that would mitigate the impact of the day care. No windows along the facade of the day care that are next to her house, and she's going to address you. Again, we're not going to have any driveways along 2nd Court. In fact, we intend to landscape and create what you could loosely call a linear park along that section of 2nd Court to provide more trees, to prevent people from parking there because if you don't plant trees and it's still a swale, people will park there inevitably, so we want to enhance it with supple landscaping and trees and street trees to prevent any on -street parking in front of the -- on the Southwest 2nd Court and a 6-foot high wall with landscaping along the common wall and no outdoor playground located with the new day care. In addition, we met with your Planning director and he expressed to me -- I didn't know about the noise, but he did express to me about the concern with the parking. I should point out that we are voluntarily proffering that all of our staff -- this meets, by the way -- the parking that we're provided, meets the parking requirement for the day-care staff and parents. But at the Planning and Zoning Board, we were told that they didn't think that was enough parking for the parents. So we are voluntarily agreeing that this is going to be exclusively parking for the parents, and all of our staff is going to park in the City ofMiami lot on Coral Way, and we've contacted the Miami Parking Authority and the spaces are available because these would be from 8 to 6 and their uses is at 9 in connection with the yoga places. So the staff won't be parking here. And all these parking spaces are going to be for the parents. We are happy to designate the spaces and design the entrance to designate drop -off -only spaces next to the day care so that those are the spots City ofMiami Page 105 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 that the parents pull up, a teacher who helps the kids come out, and then they go in and their -- the children are not -- don't have to walk in the parking lot. That said, right now we have half that number of parking spaces and it works in the existing parking -- in the existing day care. We are also willing to and happy to provide a left -turn -only sign so the traffic doesn't go to 2nd Court. Everybody has to force a left onto 18th Road and exit back through Coral Way. And to enforce it, we will voluntarily have one of our staff members enforcing it with the parents. We always tell the parents -- and you have this issue with the schools and all these institutional uses. Well, you may say you do, but how do you enforce it? We're only going to have 60 families and we know who they are, so we'll be out there every day when they come and drop off the kids and tell them it's a condition of our zoning approval. You have -- you can't turn south and go on 2nd Court. You have to do a left turn and go back on Coral Way. In that way, we will do to the best humanly possible of our abilities, stop the people from turning and driving through the residential streets at any time. We believe that the parking is sufficient and that the issue of -- the concern that the director just raised relative to the drop-off are addressed by designating drop -off -only parking spaces because the drop-off is staggered. Day cares are not like schools. Kids don't show up. Everybody arriving at the same time and we would actually tell the older children to arrive at 8:15 and then 8: 30 and then 8: 45 and stagger it so we would only be having 15 kids arrive at any given time. I feel obligated to address a point that's going to brought up by the neighbors andl think it's important for the Commission to consider andl won't -- I will be wrapping up quickly. But there's always this feeling that this is somewhat of an envy that we don't -- this is not compatible with residential uses. Andl submit to you, very respectfully, that day cares, schools, adult congregated living facilities, senior homes have to be in residential areas. That's where you want these services to exist. If you look at all your well -established schools, they're all in the middle of residential areas, andl have -- the ones that are in this neighborhood are here in the slides, Silver Bluff Coral Way, Beth David, Saint Peter and Paul, Shenandoah Middle, all of -- and here's a list of -- all these schools are right in the heart of single-family residential districts because schools and day cares have to be places that blend into the fabric of our neighborhood. The response, "well, they should go to a shopping center," day cares shouldn't be in shopping centers. Day cares, schools should be in neighborhoods. We want to provide services to the young families of our community. These are young families. Not all of them live down the street. Not all of them live in the Roads, but they all live on Brickell. They live in Brickell Key. They live in the Roads. They live in the City. They're residents. They have a need. They wouldn't be here if they didn't think that this is the day care that they find takes care of their children. It's a very personal decision. There's a lot of different styles, different levels of care. This one is special. These fine people have -- they were just told to be here. We're not going to get deferred. Show up. And everybody packed their children and came here to support. That's how much they love it. I won't go on and on. I'm going to let the objector speak or whatever the order of the objectors and the people here in support. It's only two speakers. I don't know what the pleasure of the Chairman is for them to speak. They can speak now. Chair Gort: Anyone in support to finish it, go ahead. Ms. Marrero: Okay. Anybody -- Vice Chair Carollo: Mr. Chairman, can I have a two -minute recess -- Chair Gort: Yes. Vice Chair Carollo: -- before everyone start speaking? Chair Gort: Okay. Vice Chair Carollo: Two -minute recess. Thank you. City ofMiami Page 106 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 [Later... Chair Gort: You want to finish your presentation? Ms. Marrero: Yes. I just wanted to add obviously that -- ask all the people who are here in support of the day care to stand up. Thank you. We also have a petition. I know the Commission is not keen on them, but we still had a lot of members of friends, people in the community. We have letters from three homeowners who lived on the street in support. I am going to give them to Madam Clerk. Vice Chair Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Chair Gort: Yes. Vice Chair Carollo: I have a question. Ms. Marrero, couldl have their addresses to see if they live in the area and so forth, everyone that stood up in support? Ms. Marrero: Sure. They can all come and identifi, themselves, just their addresses. Vice Chair Carollo: Well, name and address for the record. Ms. Marrero: The general -- name and address. Maria Gabriella Quintana: Okay. Vice Chair Carollo: Yeah, just name and address so I know, more or less, are they from the area or where they live by. Ms. Quintana: You know, I will -- my name is Maria Gabriella Quintana, andl live on 2501 Brickell Avenue. Chair Gort: It won't bite you. Vice Chair Carollo: Don't be shy. Erika Zafra (as interpreted by Maria Quintana): She's Erika Zafra, and she lives 1818 First Avenue -- Vice Chair Carollo: Thank you. Ms. Zafra (as interpreted by Maria Quintana): Southwest. Ms. Marrero: You want all of them? Vice Chair Carollo: I would like to -- Ms. Marrero: Yeah, sure. Vice Chair Carollo: -- since they all stood up. I mean -- Ms. Marrero: Yes. Vice Chair Carollo: I just like to see in general where they live by. Claudia Bazo: My name is Claudia Bazo, and my address is 445 Northwest 4th Street, City ofMiami Page 107 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Apartment 1404, Miami, Florida 33128. Vice Chair Carollo: Thank you. Ms. Marrero: Thank you. FuadRoman: Good evening. My name is FuadRoman, andl live 445 Northwest 4 Street. Vice Chair Carollo: Apartment? Mr. Roman: 1404. She my wife. Vice Chair Carollo: I kind of figured it out. Like I -- Nancy Ruiz (as interpreted by Maria Quintana): Her name is -- Vice Chair Carollo: -- tell my staff confirm; don't assume. Nancy Ruiz (as interpreted by Maria Quintana): -- Nancy Ruiz, and she lives at 2451 Brickell Avenue. Yamilet Roa: My name is Yamilet Roa, and my address is in 81 Road -- 81 Southwest 19 Road. Loraina Junciel: Hi. My name is Lorena Junciel, andl live in 200 Southwest 27Road. Thank you. Vanesa Fernandez: My name is Vanesa. I live in 3530 Coral Way. Unidentified Speaker: My name is (UNINTELLIGIBLE). I live in 2021 Southwest 3rdAvenue. Claudia Estrobu: Claudia Estrobu, 90 Southwest 3rd Street, 3909. Apartment 3909. Ms. Marrero: That's it? Vice Chair Carollo: Thank you. Ms. Marrero: In addition, the letters in support -- we have letters from 1849 Southwest 2nd Court, 1850 Southwest 2nd Court, and 1830 Southwest 2nd Court. They were repetition, but those are the addresses, and they're down the street. We also have of course the support of the person who is one of the applicants, but I don't count that 'cause he's the owner of the house that's subject to the application. Vice Chair Carollo: Gotcha. Ms. Marrero: That concludes -- I mean, I really don't need for them to speak. Vice Chair Carollo: No. They're all in support, correct? Ms. Marrero: They're all in support. I think the only thing is, literally, just 30 seconds. She just wanted to convey -- she works and her children go to the school. Ten seconds. Ms. Quintana: Hi. Hi name is Maria Quintana, 2501 Brickell Avenue, Apartment 406. Quickly, I just wanted to tell you that I've been a teacher for ten years, and I'm currently working at (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Marina. As a teacher, you play different roles. You're a moms [sic], dad, doctors, even princess and super heroes. In (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Marina we're forming citizens City ofMiami Page 108 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 that we want to see the change in our community. Thank you. If you can, support (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Marina. Ms. Marrero: That's it. Andl would just like to reserve a minute for rebuttal. Chair Gort: Okay. Ms. Marrero: Thank you. Grace Solares: Good evening. My name is Grace Solares, vice president of the Roads Association. The Association opposes the extension of the existing day care into yet another single-family home within a residential area. Mr. Francisco Garcia from your Planning Department, who's your expert on such things, has recommended a denial because of one, the traffic; two, the noise that is going to be generated. When this matter went before the Planning Zoning and Appeals Board, the present one, it was a unanimous 8-0 to deny this application because how egregious it was extending an existing business into the residential area. One of the members, I believe his name is Lazaro Lopez, I believe, he usually doesn't say much, but at that hearing, after a while of the presentation going on, he said, wait a second. I'm looking at the book they've given me here and I'm looking at an aerial photograph of the area. He says everything around here has orange roofs. Everything is residential. He says we can't just allow you to continue extending a business into the residential area. It's going to be killing more, even more the prices of the houses. You're going to have individuals here talking about what's happening to them with respect to that 'cause nobody wants to buy a house next to a day care. That's number one. Number two, in the package given to the PZAB, there were 20, 30 signatures of residents on 2nd, 18th in the back, 19th Road, and it would tender. I would assume you would have it in your package. I would assume that it travels from PZAB to you guys. So with that, I request that you deny this application. It is quite egregious to the residential area. Thank you. Chair Gort: Thankyou. Anyone else? Anyone else? Aquiles Corradi: Hi. I am Aquiles Corradi. I live in 1811 Southwest 2nd Court, across the street from the day care. I would like to say that I have a property I built in 2006, which I tried to sell it and nobody want to buy it across the day care. First of all, the day care is working right now is not in code. They have the playground and the handicap parking space, which is 1st and 2nd Court, andl have all that play -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE) playground across from my windows, okay. That's what I like to say to you. Chair Gort: Thankyou. Anyone else? Anyone else? Mariselly Rivero: Hello, Commissioners. Mariselly Rivero, for 1818 Southwest 2nd Court. And this is the house directly adjacent to where they want to expand the day care. I really hope that the Commission does not approve this appeal, and the reason why is because it's going to bring a lot more traffic. It is also going to increase the noise right next to my mom's bedroom. I -- there's going to be a parking lot where she does her gardening right adjacent to it. The young lady mentioned -- the attorney mentioned that the current owner of where the space is going to be expanded to agrees with it, but he did not agree with the original proposal of having a day care in the corner initially. The only reason he's agreeing now is because it's in his best interest to sell his house and make money off of it, and he doesn't live there. We currently do live there. We see the amount of traffic right now. The area is a dead end. The noise, it is going to happen, even though that they are saying that there's no windows. I'm not really sure how the fire marshal's going to take to that. It just means that -- the Planning and Zoning Commission denied it. And they're just making more and more exceptions. They're saying that the staff is going to park two or three blocks down the road. I don't see that happening. They mentioned that they were going to try to direct traffic. You know as well that we cannot even direct traffic in our schools right now. Where there is actual schools, you can't direct traffic. There is a lack of City ofMiami Page 109 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 traffic -- of police offices in our normal schools; imagine what that's -- what the increase is going to bring to our neighborhood. We're going to have to have the need for police officers to direct the children crossing the street. I mean, it -- there are other schools in neighborhoods. However, I just think that this is just -- it's just taking more and more and more away from the residents. Chair Gort: Thank you. Miriam Chiroldes: They say that the 19th -- Chair Gort: Wait a minute. Ms. Chiroldes: -- Road -- Chair Gort: If you're going to speak also -- Ms. Chiroldes: -- 18th -- Chair Gort: -- state your name and address. Ms. Chiroldes: Okay. Miriam Chiroldes. Like she says, I'm the owner of the house. Chair Gort: Okay. Your name and address. Ms. Chiroldes: 1818 Southwest 2nd Court. Chair Gort: Okay. Ms. Chiroldes: The owner -- the lawyer said that they would stop by directing the traffic to the left, but you still have 19th Road that you can go in through 19th Road and 2nd Court, which is our area right there to go to the school, so that's not even going to work either. Plus, she saying of making parking spaces in the back. That's my house next to it that they're going to be doing that. I'm the one who's going to be suffering because my window, my bedroom, my privacy is right there next to that house that they want to destroyed [sic] to make it a business. Because that's -- when they do that, that's going to become part of the business. It's not going to be residential anymore. It's going to be added to the business, and that's more kids. It's right now -- they said it's 30 kids. I can hear all the noises. I can see all the traffic going through. Andl work very hard. I like to have my peace also. I have kids. I have grandchildren. But there's a point to it. Okay. Chair Gort: Thank you. Ms. Chiroldes: So this is why I am opposing to this. I'm sorry. There's a lot of places where they can do it. If they don't -- if they want to add to it, they can add it somewhere else. Thank you -- Chair Gort: Thank you. Ms. Chiroldes: -- very much. Chair Gort: Next. Yes. Linda Koenigsberg: My name is Linda Koenigsberg. I've been a -- I'm a resident of the City of Miami. I've lived on 19th Road since 1978 and I've lived in Miami all my life. I'm a member of the Miami Roads Association. I support the Roads Association in their opposition. I support the City ofMiami Page 110 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 neighbor in her opposition. Andl want to remind you of a number of things. Number one, Miami 21 does not allow day cares in residential areas. Number 2, 60 children. Let's think about that. Sixty children. How many are here tonight? Less than a dozen. You had an uproar here; you had to shush them. Can you imagine the noise that this neighbor will have to suffer with 60 children? It's not fair. She's lived there too long. We do not want to -- a domino effect in our neighborhood. We argued against this when they first planned it. We argue against it now. Your own boards have disapproved it and are asking you to disapprove it. If you look around our neighborhood, she was right, cars aren't just going to come around Coral Way, go down 18th and take a right to drop off their kids. They're going to go up and down 19th Road, which was already congested. Animals have been killed there. Kids have been pulled off the street 'cause people were speeding. What if they're going to be late for dropping off their kids? They're going to be speeding. It's going to be a problem for the neighborhood. Let's also look at what else is around there. Beth David has a day care and school. That's a couple blocks away. Saint Sophia is just starting a day care. There's a Montessori school right on Coral Way, very close by. I think on 27th Road. There's another school -- forgive me; I don't know the name of it -- that just started. It's either a day care or an elementary school. Andl have had a chance in the last month when I have gone down Coral Way to see lines and lines of mothers waiting and parking in the medians to pick up and drop off the children and blocking the roads. I think it should be denied. I urge you all to deny it. Chair Gort: Thank you. Next. Jorge Rodriguez: Jorge Rodriguez, 1835 Southwest 2nd Court. This is the fifth time we've been here with this same situation. Andl understand that the owners of the day care met with the next -door neighbor yesterday to find a solution about doing a wall this way or that way, making some changes. The result is going to be the same. The noise going to be the same. The traffic is going to be the same. Like a prior person mentioned, these people are using a handicap area as a playground and it's closed. So if you get there, you cannot drive into the handicap parking space. You have to wait for somebody to open the door for you. And we changing -- trying to change a residential area into a business area and it's going to deteriorate. We want house catty -corner from the property in question and it's going to be the same. When my wife goes to -- for lunch, she can hear the noise. Now, you had some experience today here. You had a kid running around making noise. Now multiply that by 60, all right, and that's a lot of noise. I hope you will deny this petition. Thank you. Chair Gort: Thank you. Anyone else? Anyone else in opposition? Okay. We got back -- you got a few minutes for rebuttal. Ms. Marrero: Very quickly. Just to clam, there are no code violations. Just today, they had an inspection from the Department of Children and Families, and this is in full compliance. They don't have any violations of any of the regulations. I will respectfully object to any reference to Miami 21. This application was filed under 11000, and it would not be legal or appropriate for you to consider Miami 21 in your evaluation of the application that's before you. The criteria under which this application needs to be considered is a special exception criteria that was established by ordinance 11000. And under that code, this use is permissible at this location as long as we prove that we mitigate the impact, and the impact that was brought up to the attention of the applicant was the traffic and the driveways. And that with that respectfully, I, you know -- I'm here to answer any questions. We continue to be open to dialogue and conditions, but it's at the pleasure of the Commission. Thank you. Chair Gort: Thank you. I'll now close the public hearings. Unidentified Speaker: Can I make another comment? Chair Gort: Sir, the public hearing's closed. City ofMiami Page 111 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Vice Chair Carollo: I -- basically, the presentation that Ms. Marrero made, I had discussed in length with our Planning director, and has your opinion changed since when we spoke as far as the parking and the whole series of issues that we identified? Mr. Garcia: No, sir. I would like to say that the applicant is certainly to be commended in terms of coming up with a series of conditions that go partway toward mitigating the adverse impact the use would have. However, we still have significant reservations about the fact that the parking and in particular the pick-up and drop-off queue as mentioned earlier could be resolved in the fairly small surface parking lot they will have on site. The inevitable result of this would be that there would be traffic spillover onto the adjacent streets, and we are of course mindful of the fact that they are within a residential area and this would impact an otherwise tranquil residential neighborhood. Vice Chair Carollo: Just explain a little further to my colleagues. I'm not sure if they're aware of it or not. Right now they operate -- andl don't think you can clearly see it there. But they operate on the first house with 30 children right now. They have an additional 30 across the street in where you saw the -- actually, I should bring the map from my office. Commissioner Suarez: Strip mall. Vice Chair Carollo: Okay. They have an additional 30 kids operating from that commercial property, and what they want to do is bring those 30 over to the abutting house of the nursery right now. As it stands right now, I'm not in favor of what you have, Ms. Marrero. However, my problem is, if we deny this and for some reason they want to start doing their construction or whatever they're going to do in the commercial, we have 30 kids that are going to be out of the day care. So what would encourage is see if you could mitigate some more, see if you can negotiate with the neighbors some more and bring this back because right now as it stands, I can't be in favor. I really think it's going to be a burden on the neighbors and -- go ahead, Commissioner. Commissioner Suarez: Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have represented homeowners associations before as an attorney and, you know, I -- it would be very hard for me not to support whatever you decide to do because this is one of those issues that just Vice Chair Carollo: Right. Commissioner Suarez: -- affects your district, so I'd have to follow your lead on that. One of the things that I discussed with the Planning director in my briefings was -- and I'm not -- I think there was some mention -- and it may have been mentioned to the applicant, andl don't know how the neighbors feel about it. Certainly, you know, I think the general consensus here is from -- just from your basic initial comments that, you know, the concern obviously is for the neighbors, you know, the impact it's going to have on 2nd Court, the people who live on 2nd Court. As it currently stands, my understanding is with a 30/30 split, the way the -- even with, you know, one day care facility, one of the issues is that cars are using 19th Road and 2nd Court to, you know, get to the day care in the first place. And what had suggested was potentially closing off 2nd Court so that you can only enter from 18th Road and go directly into the parking lot and come back out. What that would do is that would solve the traffic problem that we currently have with people cutting through the residential neighborhood and cutting through 2nd Court to get to the day care. Now how you're going to solve -- first of all, that has to be agreeable to the neighbors and it has to be agreeable to the day care center. The second issue is noise. I don't know to what extent that's a solvable issue, and that's where I think you would have to really talk to the neighbors and convince them that there is some way that that can be mitigated. I'm not sure how it can be done, but I think that goes back to the point where City ofMiami Page 112 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 negotiating, you know, in good faith is probably the only way that you can get there. So I don't know if that's -- that helps in any way, but -- Vice Chair Carollo: Well, you just described what the Planning director andl were discussing as far as closing 2nd -- Commissioner Suarez: Second. Vice Chair Carollo: -- right. So we had discussed that. I just didn't put it on the record. I just said, you know, try to negotiate further. But the Planning director knows what we spoke about and so forth. And yes, you still have the issues with the noise. I don't want to take a vote right now 'cause ifI took a vote right now, I will vote to deny. And again, there's 30 students that, you know, potentially could be out of a day care, andl don't want to put you all in that situation right now because I do believe that, you know, again, there's 30 students that will be out andl don't want to be someone that puts in -- a burden now on mothers that need this day care and so forth. But at the same time, I have to look at the neighbors. So I think a good compromise right now, at least for today, will be to defer or continue it and for you to further mitigate, maybe speak to the neighbors, speak to our Planning director and see if, you know, we could come to some agreement. And again, ifI would vote today, I would vote to deny, andl don't want to do that. Chair Gort: Let me say a little bit. The -- I think the neighbors worry about the noise and they worry about the traffic and the domino effect. If -- I think in your mitigation, if you can afford the landscaping that would take place and the soundproof rooms that you could have within the area and ensure about the traffic, that's something that you would have to sit down with the neighbors and talk to them. A lot of times we have found that during deferrals, people get together and come up with great ideas, both the neighbors and the applicants. I think it's very important you all get together. We also need to realize that things are changes [sic] within the area. In -- I just want to make sure that that would not continue, the domino effect, there's no way that that could continue, so just food for thought. Ms. Marrero: Thank you. In response to that, yes, we are more than amiable to continue to explore and to discuss and agree conditions that would satisfy the neighbors. I hope we can find some. We met yesterday. I'm not hopeful about that. But we -- it's the way I've been trained, to always sit down and continue to talk, so -- Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chairman, can I make one more -- Chair Gort: Yes. Commissioner Suarez: -- suggestion, with the Vice Chairman's permission 'cause this is -- it's a district -specific item? Vice Chair Carollo: Absolutely. Commissioner Suarez: The other suggestion -- I think the neighbor who lives right next to the property who's worried, as is -- Vice Chair Carollo: Sure. Commissioner Suarez: -- natural, that they're going to put something literally right there and the noise will be there, I don't know if it could be -- and again, I'm not an architect, you know, so please excuse my lack of technical knowledge here. But if the day care -- the additional day care could be put on the 18th Road side of the parcel, okay, and then the parking lot, instead of being the way that it's oriented, be oriented in the backside so that the kids are pushed towards the 18th Road side and away from her lot. I don't know -- she's -- wait, wait, wait. She -- no, no. She's City ofMiami Page 113 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 the person who lives next to it. She's indicating that that would be something that she would consider. Chair Gort: Okay. Commissioner Suarez: I can't hear -- Chair Gort: Excuse me. Commissioner Suarez: -- we can't get your comment on the record. If you -- Chair Gort: If the Commissioner asks you a question, you're welcomed to. Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. You're the one that had -- that lives right next door, right? Ms. Chiroldes: Yes, we do. Yes, right next to it. My backyard goes right there. Commissioner Suarez: Right. Ms. Chiroldes: They want to do -- even if the parking space is right there. Commissioner Suarez: Right. Ms. Chiroldes: She said -- yesterday we got together -- Commissioner Suarez: Right. Ms. Chiroldes: -- and we did not come to any agreement. Commissioner Suarez: I understand. Ms. Chiroldes: Because she wants -- they say parking spaces to -- she can put it in the back. That's still not going to work because the parking, the smoke of the cars, everything, the movement, everything is going -- it's right there, five feet away from my house. And we did this yesterday. I explain it to her yesterday and to them also. There's no -- how can you put next -- added to it? Even if you add a room or something, it's right there by my window. Everything's there right by my win -- by my house. They already buys [sic] a fence. You put trees in there, it's going to be the same thing; a fence, the same thing. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. Chair Gort: All right. What's the -- Ms. Chiroldes: Thank you very much. Chair Gort: -- wish of this -- what's the wish of the Commission? Vice Chair Carollo: I think we heard from one party that she doesn't mind meeting with the neighbors again. I would again ask that everyone meets and that, you know, you try to work it out. Again, I -- you know, and I'm one that -- andl think I've demonstrated it up here -- I do not mind dialogue. I do not mind debate. I think it's healthy. I think it's healthy for people to meet, discuss items at great lengths, as you've seen me in this Commission, and then, yeah, finally make a decision. But I just feel yes, you just met with her last night. That's the first meeting. You know, let's continue the meetings. I think it might be healthy. Maybe -- Ms. Marrero, you've seen, you know, what our concerns, what are the neighbors' concerns, even more importantly. City ofMiami Page 114 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 You know, I asked the Planning director maybe to get involved a little bit more, you know, brainstorm with them. Let's see if we can come up with some solutions that's adequate to both parties. And we would defer this then or continue it to the next PZ meeting. Would that be -- well, hold on -- enough time, a month? Ms. Rivero: This is the second time we meet with them. Not only that, but had it not run over, we would not be here because it was very difficult to -- I found out about this meeting yesterday. This is for 1818. This -- we live in the same house. This is what's going to happen. They're going to come here. We're not going to have our side here. They're going to win. Vice Chair Carollo: No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Chair Gort: No, no, no, no. Ms. Rivero: That's what's going to happen. Chair Gort: Wait a minute. Ms. Rivero: We didn't find -- Chair Gort: Okay. Ms. Rivero: -- out until -- Chair Gort: All right. Ms. Rivero: -- yesterday about this meeting. Chair Gort: Okay. Excuse me. Let me try to keep it in order. You speak if a Commissioner asks you to speak -- Ms. Rivero: No problem. Chair Gort: -- or ask you a question. Ms. Rivero: Thank you. Chair Gort: Okay. Vice Chair Carollo: I don't want you to have a predetermined conclusion without even negotiating. Ms. Rivero: That's what I'm afraid of. Vice Chair Carollo: No. Okay. That -- in other words, that's your concern. Chair Gort: That's your concern. That's her concern. Vice Chair Carollo: Okay. No. Mr. Garcia, can we make sure, even if it comes from my office -- andl don't want to violate Jennings ruling [sic], but will even send a personal letter to your home letting you know when the meeting is and at what time and so forth so you won't worry. As a matter of fact, I will tell you when the meeting is going to be. If we continue it, it will be -- Madam City Clerk, would that be March 24? Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): If it's the P&Z, that's correct, March 24. City ofMiami Page 115 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 PZ.6 10-00044x Vice Chair Carollo: The meeting will be at March 24. We don't have a time certain for it, but I would -- I will tend to guess it's going to be in the afternoon, let's say, from 3 p.m. on. Don't quote me, butl would tend to think it'll be in the afternoon, okay, and it will be on March 24, okay, if that's enough time. You may need more time; I don't know. You may be right at the brink of coming up with a, you know, settlement or a solution and you need a little bit more time. I don't know. But right now the meeting will be scheduled for March 24 and most likely in the afternoon. Okay. Chair Gort: Okay. Do I have a motion? Vice Chair Carollo: So moved. Commissioner Suarez: Second. Chair Gort: It's been moved, second. Any further discussion? Being none, all in favor, state it by saying iiye. " The Commission (Collectively): Aye. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), DENYING OR GRANTING THE APPEAL, AFFIRMING OR REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING BOARD AND THEREBY GRANTING OR DENYING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION AS LISTED IN ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, TO ALLOW A PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL, FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1742 AND 1744 SOUTHWEST 2ND AVENUE, AND TWO UNASSIGNED ADDRESSES, HAVING FOLIO NUMBERS 01-4139-008-0070 AND 01-4139-008-0060 AND 1737 AND 1745 SOUTHWEST 2ND COURT, AND TWO UNASSIGNED ADDRESSES, HAVING FOLIO NUMBERS 01-4139-008-0080 AND 01-4138-001-5550; MIAMI, FLORIDA, PURSUANT TO PLANS ON FILE AND SUBJECT FURTHER TO A TIME LIMITATION OF TWELVE (12) MONTHS IN WHICH A BUILDING PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED. 10-00044x CC 03-24-11 Fact Sheet.pdf 10-00044x ZB Appeal Letter. pdf 10-00044x Analysis. pdf 10-00044x Zoning Map.pdf 10-00044x Aerial Map. pdf 10-00044x Miami 21 Map.pdf 10-00044x ZB Reso.pdf 10-00044x Letter of Intent. pdf 10-00044x Application & Supporting Docs. pdf 10-00044x Plans.pdf 10-00044x & 10-00044x-a Supplemental Page.pdf 10-00044x CC Legislation (Version 3).pdf 10-00044x CC Legislation (Version 4).pdf 10-00044x & 10-00044x-a ExhibitA.pdf 10-00044x & 10-00044x-a Exhibit 1.pdf City ofMiami Page 116 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 LOCATION: Approximately 1742 and 1744 SW 2nd Avenue, and Two Unassigned Addresses, Having Folio Numbers 01-4139-008-0070 and 01-4139-008-0060 and 1737 and 1745 SW 2nd Court, and Two Unassigned Addresses, Having Folio Numbers 01-4139-008-0080 and 01-4138-001-5550 [Commissioner Frank Carollo - District 3] APPELLANT(S): W. Tucker Gibbs, Esquire, on behalf of Brickell View West Apartments, Inc., Adjacent Property Owner APPLICANT(S): Miguel Diaz de la Portilla, Esquire, on behalf of Barim at Brickell, LLC, Wetbri Group, LLC and Ignacio and Lourdes Zulueta, Owners and AV Development Group, LLC, Contract Purchaser FINDING(S): PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial of the appeal and approval with conditions* of the original request. ZONING BOARD: Approved the Special Exception with conditions* on March 22, 2010 by a vote of 6-1. See related File ID 10-00044x-a. *See supporting documentation. PURPOSE: The approval of this appeal will not allow a primary and secondary school. Motion by Vice Chairman Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be DEFERRED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Carollo and Suarez Absent: 2 - Commissioner(s) Sarnoff and Dunn II Note for the record: Item PZ.6 was deferred to the Commission meeting scheduled for March 10, 2011, with a time certain of 4: 00 PM. Chair Gort: My understanding, we have a couple of people requesting deferrals, especially from the Senator Diaz de la Portilla. Let's listen to the deferrals first. Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning): That is correct, sir. There are a couple of -- I believe at least one item that I know of that is going to be seeking a deferral. Those are items PZ. 6 and PZ. 7. Chair Gort: Okay. Mr. Garcia: My apologies. Vice Chair Carollo: Deferral to when? I'm sorry. Mr. Chairman. Chair Gort: Yes, please. Vice Chair Carollo: To the Planning director, a deferral to what date? Mr. Garcia: I'm sorry, sir. Procedurally, it is not a deferral. I believe that we've been presented with a notice from Senator Diaz de la Portilla. Maria J. Chiaro (Deputy City Attorney): We did receive a notice, a letter this afternoon, just before you were to come back -from your recess, stating that the senator was in required legislative committee meetings and he seeks to have this item brought back on March 10. Under City ofMiami Page 117 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 the statute as I described at our last meeting, he is entitled to, as a legislator, have this item be heard at some other time when it doesn't fit within the parameters of the statute. Vice Chair Carollo: Do you -- Madam City Attorney, do you need any motion or do we need to do anything as a body? Ms. Chiaro: You can -- the only thing that the statute provides to the senator is that it does not need to be heard today. You can set it at any time that you wish, at any date or any time. He has requested in the letter that it be heard on March 10. Chair Gort: Okay. My understanding is by state law we have to comply with it. Ms. Chiaro: By state law, you must accept the notice. Tucker Gibbs: Mr. Chairman. Chair Gort: Okay. Mr. Gibbs: Mr. Chairman. Chair Gort: Yes, sir. Mr. Gibbs: I repre -- my name is Tucker Gibbs. I represent the Miami Roads Civic Neighborhood Association on this matter, and I'd like to ask, number one, that -- and put it on the record that the appellants -- and I'm one of the appellants in the matter -- be notified by Mr. Diaz de la Portilla as he gave notice to the City Attorney but never gave notice to my clients or myself. I never received anything. And I've been sitting here all day long since 10 o'clock and this thing came in, I understand to the City Attorney, at 4:15 this afternoon. That's number one. So I'd like to at least put that on the record, that we get the courtesy, as appellants, of notice. Number two, to avoid having everybody sitting here until 4:15 and having another such letter come in at the last minute, could we ask for a time certain on this? I know it's a difficult thing, but my understanding is this is supposed to be a very quick item anyway. There is one question that came from this Commission, so this shouldn't be longer than ten minutes at the most, I would suspect. So a time certain, I don't think, would be out of the ordinary. Chair Gort: Okay. Thank you. You concur with -- Amy Huber: I concur. Thank you. Chair Gort: Okay. Thank you. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): And the name, please. Chair Gort: And you are? Ms. Huber: I'm sorry. Amy Huber, with the law firm ofShubin and Bass, 46Southwest 1st Street. Chair Gort: Mr. Vice Chairman. Elinette Ruiz: IfI may? I'm sorry. Since you let them speak -- Vice Chair Carollo: Mr. -- Chair Gort: Yes. City ofMiami Page 118 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 PZ.7 10-00044x-a Ms. Ruiz: -- can I just say one thing? Hi. Elinette Ruiz, Becker & Poliakoff business address 121 Alhambra Plaza. Not my home address, like I said last time. Just to comment on that, yes, we do have you listed on. We will provide you with courtesy copy. Unfortunately, because of the nature and the fact that I gave it to her at 4, it was hand -delivery, my assistant should be -- Miguel should be sending that to you, so it might be in route to your office in some fashion. And I apologize for that. I did not bring copies with me, so I gave it to her, and you will be provided with a courtesy copy. So that's just -- I just wanted to say that. And we would -- if you could provide us -- indulge us with a time certain for, you know -- whether it is March 10 or March 24 of next month, that would be -- we would much appreciate that. Thank you. Chair Gort: Okay. Motion. Vice Chair Carollo: Do we need to make a motion on -- to defer to March 10 or does it automatically --? Chair Gort: Time certain. Vice Chair Carollo: Time certain. I don't know. Chair Gort: Four o'clock. Vice Chair Carollo: Let -- well, I'm fine with 4 o'clock. Chair Gort: There's a motion by Vice Chairman Carollo, time certain on 4 o'clock, and -- Vice Chair Carollo: For the March 10 meeting. Chair Gort: March 10 meeting. Okay. Is there a second? Commissioner Suarez: Second. Chair Gort: Second by Commissioner Suarez. Any further discussion? Being none, all -- Unidentified Speaker: (UNINTET,T IGIBT ,F). Chair Gort: Okay. Commissioner Suarez: I think the key thing here is fairness to them here because in all honesty, this is really -- we have absolutely no ability to set a time certain or a date certain or anything like that. That's the middle of the legislative session or the beginning of the legislative session. So I just think the key here is that whatever is going to be done, that it be communicated with sufficient notice to the other side so that they don't spend, you know, nine hours here for their client's sake and for everyone else. You know, I think that's the key. Chair Gort: Okay. Any further discussion? Being none, all in favor, state it by saying aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), DENYING OR GRANTING THE APPEAL, AFFIRMING OR REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING BOARD AND THEREBY DENYING OR GRANTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION AS LISTED IN City ofMiami Page 119 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, TO ALLOW A PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL, FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1742 AND 1744 SOUTHWEST 2ND AVENUE, AND TWO UNASSIGNED ADDRESSES, HAVING FOLIO NUMBERS 01-4139-008-0070 AND 01-4139-008-0060 AND 1737 AND 1745 SOUTHWEST 2ND COURT, AND TWO UNASSIGNED ADDRESSES, HAVING FOLIO NUMBERS 01-4139-008-0080 AND 01-4138-001-5550; MIAMI, FLORIDA, PURSUANT TO PLANS ON FILE AND SUBJECT FURTHER TO A TIME LIMITATION OF TWELVE (12) MONTHS IN WHICH A BUILDING PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED. 10-00044x-a CC 03-24-11 Fact Sheet.pdf 10-00044x-a ZB Appeal Letter. pdf 10-00044x Analysis. pdf 10-00044x Zoning Map.pdf 10-00044x Aerial Map. pdf 10-00044x Miami 21 Map.pdf 10-00044x ZB Reso.pdf 10-00044x Letter of Intent. pdf 10-00044x Application & Supporting Docs. pdf 10-00044x Plans.pdf 10-00044x & 10-00044x-a Supplemental Page.pdf 10-00044x-a CC Legislation (Version 3).pdf 10-00044x-a CC Legislation (Version 4).pdf 10-00044x & 10-00044x-a ExhibitA.pdf 10-00044x & 10-00044x-a Exhibit 1.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 1742 and 1744 SW 2nd Avenue, and Two Unassigned Addresses, Having Folio Numbers 01-4139-008-0070 and 01-4139-008-0060 and 1737 and 1745 SW 2nd Court, and Two Unassigned Addresses, Having Folio Numbers 01-4139-008-0080 and 01-4138-001-5550 [Commissioner Frank Carollo - District 3] APPELLANT(S): John K. Shubin, Esquire, on behalf of 1701 Brickell Condominium, LLC and Peacock Development, LLC, Adjacent Property Owners APPLICANT(S): Miguel Diaz de la Portilla, Esquire, on behalf of Barim at Brickell, LLC, Wetbri Group, LLC and Ignacio and Lourdes Zulueta, Owners and AV Development Group, LLC, Contract Purchaser FINDING(S): PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial of the appeal and approval with conditions* of the original request. ZONING BOARD: Approved the Special Exception with conditions* on March 22, 2010 by a vote of 6-1. See related File ID 10-00044x. *See supporting documentation. PURPOSE: The approval of this appeal will not allow a primary and secondary school. Motion by Vice Chairman Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be DEFERRED PASSED by the following vote. City ofMiami Page 120 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Carollo and Suarez Absent: 2 - Commissioner(s) Sarnoff and Dunn II Note for the record: Item PZ.7 was deferred to the Commission meeting scheduled for March 10, 2011, with a time certain of 4: 00 PM. Note for the Record: Please refer to item PZ. 6 for minutes referencing item PZ.7. END OF PLANNING AND ZONING ITEMS MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS CITYWIDE HONORABLE MAYOR TOMAS REGALADO M.1 RESOLUTION 11-00138 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO INITIATE AN INCENTIVE PROGRAM EFFECTIVE MARCH 15, 2011 THROUGH APRIL 15, 2011, TO PROVIDE ANY MEMBER OF THE GESE PENSION PLAN IN THE DROP OR ELIGIBLE TO RETIRE, WHO ELECTS TO SEPARATE FROM CITY EMPLOYMENT BY APRIL 15, 2011, SHALL BE ALLOWED TO MAINTAIN HEALTH INSURANCE BENEFITS AT ACTIVE EMPLOYEES PREMIUM RATE FOR 5 YEARS. 11-00138 Legislation.pdf 11-00138 Legislation (Version 2)-03-10-11.pdf Motion by Commissioner Dunn II, seconded by Vice Chairman Carollo, that this matter be DEFERRED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Carollo and Dunn II Absent: 2 - Commissioner(s) Sarnoff and Suarez Note for the record: Item M.1 was deferred to the Commission meeting scheduled for March 10, 2011. Chair Gort: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Tomas Regalado: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Vice Chairman, Commissioners. We made a commitment that we will be working with the budget early on so we can present to you a balanced proposal in late summer. Andl am bringing to you two resolutions that have been under study by the Administration for several weeks now. And this resolutions are two cost -savings resolution for the general fund of the City ofMiami. The first resolution and the second have to do with the DROP (Deferred Retirement Option Plan) incentive. And we have the chieffinancial officer. We have the Budget director to give you the numbers that you have been provide, that we have been provide after a very long analysis of early retirement, what it does for our general fund, what projections and actually projection -- real projections, not wishes that we have for this year's budget and next year's budget. And this is an incentive. So the first resolution -- andl will read both, if you allow it, because they both have to do with the same thing. And then, of course, the Manager and the chieffinancial officer and the Budget director will come to the podium to answer your questions. The first one is a resolution of the Miami City Commission directing the City Manager to initiate a DROP incentive programs for members of the FIPO (Firefighters Police Officers) pension plan, effective March 1, 2011 through March 31, 2011, to provide that if any member in DROP or eligible to retire who elects to separate from City ofMiami Page 121 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 City employment by March 31, 2011 shall be allowed to maintain health insurance benefits at active employees premium rate for five years. And effective March 1, 2011, any FOP (Fraternal Order of Police) member in DROP or eligible to retire who elects to separate from City employment by March 31, 2011 shall be allowed to maintain health insurance benefits at active employees premium rate for seven years. The second resolution is a resolution of the Miami City Commission directing the City Manager to initiate a DROP incentive program, effective March 1, 2011 through March 31, 2011, to provide any member of GESE (General Employees Sanitation Employees) pension plan in the DROP or eligible to retire who elects to separate from City employment by March 31, 2011 shall be allowed to maintain health insurance benefits at active employees premium rate for five years. As you have been briefed and as we have been brief what this does is that it gives an employee of the City ofMiami an incentive to keep his or hers insurance at the rate that they're paying now for the next year in exchange for early retirement. As I said, the numbers show that this will have a very positive impact in this year's budget and next year budget and even two years from now. I will let the Manager and the CFO (Chief Financial Officer) and the Budget director to comment on this. I believe that it is a cost -saving measure. You know that we have projected some revenues in this year's budget that are coming short, and we will have for you a very detailed report on the next meeting and we believe that this incentive, if approved by you and it's taken by employees, will help to keep this year's budget balanced and, of course, it would be a great help for next year's budget. Thank you. Chair Gort: Okay. Tony E. Crapp, Jr. (City Manager): Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Chairman, Vice Chairman, members of the Commission, this is an initiative that we worked on for the past two months. I have asked the Department of Risk Management, the Budget director, and the CFO to look at this proposal. The Budget director is going to go through the numbers. But basically, we see this as a viable alternative to reduce our payroll expenses by initiating this initiative. And Mirtha's going to go through the numbers with you. Mirtha Dziedzic (Director, Strategic Planning, Budgeting and Performance): Good morning. Chair Gort: Yes, ma'am. Ms. Dziedzic: Mirtha Dziedzic, Budget Department. PFM (Public Financial Management) performed an analysis based on the population in our DROP program for all of the different units. And based on their analysis, with a 20 percent expected rate of usage, we would be receiving savings of approximately $6 million in fiscal year '11. Yes, sir. Vice Chair Carollo: Could you explain 20 percent rate of usage? Ms. Dziedzic: It's 20 percent of the population. There's currently about six hundred and -- eight hundred and sixty-four members in the DROP program. If 20 percent of those members elect the DROP incentive, then we would be generating approximately $6 million in this current fiscal year. Vice Chair Carollo: But it's also open to all retirees or -- no, let me rephrase that. It's also open to all employees eligible to retire. It's not just the DROP program. Ms. Dziedzic: Eligible to retire, yes. Vice Chair Carollo: And they're saying if all -- 20 per -- okay, hold on. Let me start over. Twenty percent of the workforce is in a DROP program right now? Ms. Dziedzic: No. Twenty percent of the population that's in the DROP program right now. City ofMiami Page 122 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Vice Chair Carollo: Gotcha. So what he's saying, if 20 percent of the population in the DROP program right now retires early, there's going to be a savings of $6 million for this --? Ms. Dziedzic: Approximately for this fiscal year. Vice Chair Carollo: And what's the thought or the theory behind this savings? Ms. Dziedzic: Those are based on salary savings. Those are net of the compensated absences that would be paid out because we do have $10 million budgeted in the current fiscal year for those -- Vice Chair Carollo: I remember, yes. Ms. Dziedzic: -- payouts. So those would be generated from the salary savings generated from those positions. Vice Chair Carollo: And when you say salary savings, why? We're not going to replace those positions? Ms. Dziedzic: We will be replacing all the sworn personnel that elects the DROP incentive and we will be replacing approximately 12 percent of the personnel, other than sworn, that elects this incentive. But it takes approximately four to six months for the whole hiring process to be completed. Vice Chair Carollo: And question, if we're going to replace the positions, where's the savings? Ms. Dziedzic: Those people that would be hired will be hired at lower rates, so this analysis takes that into account. Vice Chair Carollo: Right, but at the same time -- let's take Fire and Police, which are paramilitary. Let's say a captain retires, elects early retirement. It's not like we're going to hire a police officer at a much lower rate and put him in a captain position. Realistically, a lieutenant is going to go up to become captain. He's going to have an increase in salaries and so forth and it's going to be a domino effect. Ms. Dziedzic: Right, but that position that that lieutenant would be vacating will be hired at a lower rate. It will be a promotion from within, but it will be at a lower rate than the previous incumbent. Vice Chair Carollo: And all those lower rates you believe is $6 million or estimated $6 million? Ms. Dziedzic: The analysis from PFM seems very solid. It looks at all of the population and it takes into account all of the different scenarios, who's in DROP, you know, the cost of the insurance for these personnel, so it seems to be very -- Vice Chair Carollo: How are they estimating which 20 percent out of the pool of --? Ms. Dziedzic: It takes a random selection. Vice Chair Carollo: It's a random selection? Ms. Dziedzic: Correct. Vice Chair Carollo: And from that random selection, how many of the personnel were actually City ofMiami Page 123 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 in their last year of DROP or six months from --? You understanding what I'm saying? 'Cause what -- and this -- it may be good all around. It seems like it's definitely good for the unions. I'm not exactly all that sure if it's good for the City because there may be people that are in their last year of DROP -- you know, they have six months left or so forth that then elect for the early retirement and receive the five years of the same rate of insurance. So I want to see how many people were going to retire anyways. Ms. Dziedzic: Currently in the DROP program there are 15 members throughout all of the units that are scheduled to end in 2011. There are 58 members that are scheduled to end in 2012. Vice Chair Carollo: And that's in the whole -- Ms. Dziedzic: Out of the 864. Vice Chair Carollo: Okay, right in the whole pool, not just the 20 percent. Ms. Dziedzic: No. That's the whole pool. Vice Chair Carollo: So we have--Andl'm sorry, what's the number again? Ms. Dziedzic: The total pool? Vice Chair Carollo: No. The total pool is 864, but I'm saying what's the total percentage that can drop or can retire by 2011, and what's the total amount that can retire by 2012? Ms. Dziedzic: Fifteen members are scheduled to drop by 2011 and 58 members by 2012. Vice Chair Carollo: I'm sorry, 58 members? Ms. Dziedzic: Fifty-eight, um -hum. Vice Chair Carollo: Okay, continue. Chair Gort: Let me ask a question. Those 58 members that are going to be retiring in two years, if they take the offer and drop now, do you have the numbers with the benefits and the cost -- the savings and the cost of the additional insurance for the five years? Ms. Dziedzic: We have average costs of what those benefits are. Chair Gort: The whole package, the insurance, the whole works. Gary Reshefsky (Director): Mr. Chairman, Gary Reshefsky, Risk Management Department. Could you clam the question you asked, sir? Chair Gort: The question is, my understanding in the year 2012, you're going to have 58 individuals dropping -- in other words -- andl don't know the dates that they'll be dropping. Mr. Reshefsky: Right. Chair Gort: If there were -- opt to take the -- this benefits right now and they were to drop today, do you have the numbers of how much revenues we're going to be save and what it's going to cost you versus the revenue -- the cost? Mr. Reshefsky: What I can share with you is the differential between what they pay as an active employee and what they would pay as a retiree for the remainder of this year when they take City ofMiami Page 124 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 advantage of it or over -- and over a five-year period. So on your analysis, there's a slide that shows what the five-year savings is -- the five-year cost differential on the health premiums. Chair Gort: As you look at these whole numbers, you talking about the 20 percent and everything, the numbers in here is averaging 20 percent. I want to know on an individual, if you can give me the numbers on one individual. Mr. Reshefsky: Okay. I'll give you one -- Chair Gort: To have an example. Mr. Reshefsky: Yeah, yeah. I'll give you an example because everybody's in a different tier, whether you're an employee or -- Chair Gort: Yeah, I understand, an -- Mr. Reshefsky: -- an employee with a family. Chair Gort: -- average. Mr. Reshefsky: For example, a current employee family coverage is $250 a month. That's their employee contribution. As a retiree, their monthly contribution as a family is $1, 000 -- $1, 061. So that's the difference. Chair Gort: Okay. Let me try it again, see if we can understand each other. Maybe I'm not -- Mr. Reshefsky: Yeah. Chair Gort: I'd like to have an example, one person that's going to drop on the 12th, if they would drop now and we don't pay his salary, it's going to be how much, and how much it's going to cost this program? For one individual, one example. Mr. Reshefsky: Okay. Ms. Dziedzic: For example, a person that would be making $79, 000 a year that would have a family coverage that we would be paying in excess of 9, 600 a year -- or covering 9,600 a year, we would still be making 70,000 in savings. Vice Chair Carollo: How? Ms. Dziedzic: Because their salary is less that 9,600, so 79,000 minus -- Vice Chair Carollo: But we're going to hire someone so how could it -- Ms. Dziedzic: It'll take -- Vice Chair Carollo: -- how could you say it's a savings of 70, 000 if we're going to hire someone in that position? Ms. Dziedzic: That person will be rehired at 40,000. Vice Chair Carollo: How so if -- let's say that person is a captain. Now the lieutenant is going to go up to become captain -- Ms. Dziedzic: But that lieutenant is already in our budget so the only thing that would go up is City ofMiami Page 125 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 the differential between the captain and the lieutenant so -- Vice Chair Carollo: Right, and that's the savings. It's not much. Ms. Dziedzic: No, because now that lieutenant vacated his position. Vice Chair Carollo: And the sergeant takes up -- Ms. Dziedzic: Right. Vice Chair Carollo: And the -- Ms. Dziedzic: So that's that differential. But at the very bottom of the reign, that police officer or that firefighter that had a position at 50,000 or 75,000 will now be hired at 45,000, so there is a savings and this model takes all of those scenarios into account and still we get $6 million in the first year. Chair Gort: Any other questions? Commissioner Suarez: Yes. I see here that you put in the additional notes -- First of all, I just want to clarify, this is a voluntary program, correct? In other words -- Ms. Dziedzic: Correct. Commissioner Suarez: -- the members can choose to -- Ms. Dziedzic: Or not. Commissioner Suarez: -- or not. I think the question is and the concern that the Vice Chairman has that share to a certain extent is that we're entering into an obligation so -- beyond this point. So it's a seven-year obligation to pay for health insurance and we want to make sure that the foundations or the projections are sound so that we're in fact saving 6 million -- I just got a new one today -- in the first year, and then it says here in the second year, it's actually 12 million, which is twice what we were initially given, which is a substantial amount of money. Andl don't think anybody up here doesn't want to save 6 million this year, 12 million next year. It's just, you know, we want to make sure that -- I think our due diligence is to make sure that the underpinnings of the analysis are correct. And so one question that I have was in the additional note section it says the analysis assumes no additional spending on training for re -hires. It says no additional spending on trainings for re -hires. How -- is that something that was left out of the analysis or is that something that --? I mean, you have to train -- if it's a new police officer, you're going to have to train them. If it's a new firefighter, you're going to have to train them. If it's a new employee, you're going to have to train them so -- Vice Chair Carollo: Right, but in that $6 million savings, they're not taking the additional training into consideration. Commissioner Suarez: So that will reduce that number in essence? Vice Chair Carollo: It should. Chair Gort: Let me ask a question. Vice Chair Carollo: And not only that -- I'll go a step further -- are we going to be able to hire that many people or, you know, are we going to have to start using overtime because we don't have enough people and is that going to then raise the amount of money that we pay out? City ofMiami Page 126 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Because 20 percent of 864 employees is a big chunk. So are we already ready and -- to actually hire that many personnel? And if not, we're going to have to use overtime, which is going to cost even more. We're going to be paying time and a half per employee. Chair Gort: My understanding is most people that are in the DROP have been in the City at least 20 or 20-something years, so there are people who have individuals just behind them that they're waiting for these people to retire so they can go ahead and step up a little bit, so I don't think there'll be much of a training in the new hire. Now my understanding is -- and you're talking about maybe -- your projection saying 172 will take the DROP. According to the 20 percent, 172 will take the DROP. A hundred and twenty-two, what's the total employees that we have? And you have the breakdown by departments. Larry Spring: Yeah, in the -- Sorry, Mr. Chair. Larry Spring, chief financial officer. In the model -- andl believe everyone received it -- it does detail each position, the department, and individual. It also discloses what their compensated absences are if, indeed, that individual were to leave. The question thatl wanted to address that the Vice Chair brought up, the issue of the rehire. In the model, there's two assumptions. One -- andMirtha already stated on the record that we intend to rehire all of the sworn individuals. However, we gave ourselves about a six-month timeframe. So, yes, to your point, there would probably be some overtime impact. However, there are classes in process right now on Fire. And with regards to Police, we have been under initiative to hire laterally, so we're hiring certified officers, which would limit -- there's still some training involved, but limit the amount of training. They would not go into -- they're not going to academy or full academy, so on and so forth. And that -- all of those things are underway right now. Vice Chair Carollo: Right. But if you're hiring lateral -- and I'm going to go back to when we had budget discussions when we compared what we pay our officers as compared to other departments. If we're going to hire lateral, the truth of the matter is there's not much of a savings. Mr. Spring: It would be -- I think it would -- we still would see some savings in our costs based on what we've modeled. Vice Chair Carollo: Now would that cost be enough to surpass the overtime that we're going to be paying for individuals that retired and we have not brought up that class or we have not brought in enough lateral personnel? Mr. Spring: I'd have to drill down to that specific to answer that today. I think the point in the analysis that we did and the point that we wanted to convey to the Commission today was we -- you know, when you're looking at an early retirement, you put in as many of those assumptions that you can. The fact of the matter is, I know I've heard this Commission say you're not wanting to hear anything about tax increases and fee increases, and the other side of that coin is we need to start reducing expenses. And part of that is, as you all know with all of the meetings that we've had, that 75, 85 percent of our operating costs is the people. And what we're talking about doing here is taking -- and probably the police and sworn is probably the bad example, if you will. Let's take a clerk, if you will, that's making $55,000 a year that we feel that we can absorb that functionality within the department. So we're going to save a $55, 000 a year salary. We're going to pay them out -- say we owe them $2, 000 in compensated absences, and then we are going to commit for the next five years to pay an amount that's equal to the amount that we're paying already today that's already in the budget as far as their healthcare if they were to stay anyways, and that's where truly the savings is predicated on the salary savings on not being able to rehire. There is a rehire assumption in this -- in the model, andl think it's 6 percent -- 12 -- excuse me, 12 percent in the non -sworn population. So -- but that still would be determined based on looking at needs. And we've already started having some conversations with certain departments. We know Police Communications is an area that cannot afford to have -- not to City ofMiami Page 127 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 have people replaced there, so we would have to focus that. GSA (General Services Administration), in the fleet area, they're supporting all of -- they're supporting the sworn, so we would probably have to focus more of that 12 percent in those critical areas. And those are meetings that we've already started having and looking at. But I know there's a lot of little further details and we can continue to bring you that information, but think the point that the Manager, Mayor were trying to express today is that we're bringing these initiatives forward so that the City Commission can fully vet them and hear them, but the point is we're trying to make some savings happen today and in the future as we go. Chair Gort: Thank you. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chairman, ifI may. Chair Gort: Yes. Commissioner Suarez: So ifI understand correctly, what you're saying is there's going to be some savings on the sworn side on the basis of -- although it's probably not much and so I think he's right -- when people get promoted to that level, they're still going to be promoted at a lower rate -- Mr. Spring: Right. Commissioner Suarez: -- than the prior person who was there. It could be a $20, 000 differential, $30, 000 -- Mr. Spring: Correct. Commissioner Suarez: -- differential or whatever, so there's a trickledown effect -- Mr. Spring: It trickles down. Commissioner Suarez: -- of all that. But you're saying the big savings is in the non -sworn piece where only 12 percent of those people will be rehired. Mr. Spring: Correct. Commissioner Suarez: The assumption is that only 12 percent -- Mr. Spring: That's the assumption. Commissioner Suarez: -- of those people will be rehired, so basically 88 percent of them -- there'll be an 88 percent savings on employees on that piece. I think the concern, as you see -- well, I have two questions. One is I think the concern as you see it -- andl think this is where we're all kind of -- there's a little bit of concern, which you see the cost as it models out to 2014, the cost is $22 million. So I think the concern is that if we're off with any of our projections, that could, you know -- right. Mr. Spring: Obviously, as you go in time -- and we modeled an increase in our healthcare 'cause that's another factor that could change over time. Our healthcare costs could go up, and they modeled an increase in there. But, yes, you're right. Things could happen in the environment over the next five years 'cause it is five years that could change these numbers. And obviously, it's things that we would need to monitor and report on -- yes, we're still saving "X" amount each year. I would submit to you, though, that today, if one person -- if that one critical administrative assistant took this today, we would save money on that one person, and we'd have some savings on the sworn side if that one person took it. But at the end of the day, it is City ofMiami Page 128 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 voluntary, and they could decide not to take it. Commissioner Suarez: I have two follow-up questions. One is it seems like the majority of the DROP members are dropping or finishing their employment in '13 and '14. Mr. Spring: Yes. Commissioner Suarez: So does your model, in terms of its random sample, take into account the -- I mean, I'm assuming that it takes into account that a random sample of all those employees. Mr. Spring: Yes. Commissioner Suarez: Is that realistic? Is that --? Is there a greater incentive for someone who's closer to retirement to take it than there is someone who's a little later on? Mr. Spring: Clearly. Commissioner Suarez: And has that been factored into the random sample? Mr. Spring: The answer -- the bottom line answer is no. Because it's random -- like each time we run the model, it picks a different 20 percent sampling to see where it come out. And PFM has done -- you know, they've done some static runs and they've all come out in this -- within this range, the savings that you're seeing. Commissioner Suarez: The problem is that people don't behave randomly. I mean, they behave -- they're supposed to behave rationally, you know, and what's in their rational economic best interest. So if you're an employee looking at this, you're going to do the numbers, I guess, and you're going to say what works out better for me as an employee. Mr. Spring: Partly, but then I would also submit that you may have individual employees that, for whatever personal reason -- you know, whenever we do these early retirement, people come up and ask me, oh, is it good for me to take it or not? Well, my answer to them is I don't know your personal financial condition to be able to tell you -- Commissioner Suarez: Right. Mr. Spring: -- this works. If you've saved your money -- Commissioner Suarez: Right. Mr. Spring: -- and you -- your mortgage is paid down to zero or whatever and you're just tired of working, it's a great plan 'cause now that one cost that we know is exponential for everybody, not just City ofMiami employees -- Commissioner Suarez: Which is healthcare. Mr. Spring: -- which is healthcare -- Commissioner Suarez: Right, right. Mr. Spring: -- you now have a guaranteed number and a good plan that has good benefits. Commissioner Suarez: So basically what you're saying is if you're feeling good about your -- what you've accrued so far -- City ofMiami Page 129 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Mr. Spring: Right, you'll take it. Commissioner Suarez: -- and you want to minimize -- Mr. Spring: Right. Commissioner Suarez: -- one big risk in your life, which is -- Mr. Spring: Right. Commissioner Suarez: -- your healthcare costs for the next seven years, you may be willing to take a deal that may not seem as rich in the money sense -- Mr. Spring: In the offset, correct. Commissioner Suarez: -- just because you have -- Mr. Spring: A DROP that's going to -- Commissioner Suarez: -- that comfort -- Mr. Spring: -- pay you -- Commissioner Suarez: -- you have that comfort -- Mr. Spring: Right, right. Commissioner Suarez: -- of knowing that for the next seven years you're basically fully covered. My last question is is there any modeling -- andl think all of my colleagues will be concerned in knowing the answer to this -- under which we lose money with this? 'Cause you had kind of mentioned -- kind of said on the record that anybody that takes advantage of this from the first person onward, we're making money on this deal. Mr. Spring: Well, I think in the model in the numbers that you see, clearly there comes a point in time where we know we start losing money. Commissioner Suarez: Correct, and that's in 2015. Mr. Spring: And that's because at that point the person would have left anyways, so there's no incentive, you know, because they would have been forced to leave anyways. And two, as the costs go up, you know, that per -- you know, if the salary increases or things that may happen in the environment over that timeframe, those things will happen. We do have some safeguards, at least with regards to the cost on the healthcare because that's something that is negotiated by the City every year in conjunction with the unions, you know, to try to keep those costs down. So -- and then FOP health trust, they have a board that has done a very good job at controlling their plan as well, so that control factor, if you will, is -- it resides in our hands, if you will, you know, as we go out in the future. And you know, this Commission even took action on the healthcare plan, you know, just last summer so we have the -- we have some safeguards that can help us control this number, if you will. But -- Commissioner Suarez: I just -- Mr. Spring: -- clearly, the point does come when we start losing money. Commissioner Suarez: I want to wrap it up by just thanking you and -- you know, thanking you for looking outside of the box because this is obviously -- you know, even though we've had a lot City ofMiami Page 130 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 of very, very in-depth questions, the cost savings are tremendous. I mean, I'm looking at it for fiscal year 2012. If your projections are anywhere near accurate, that could be half of what our projected budget deficit is, or more, and that's significant. It's hard to ignore. And you know, I think it's a significant thing that you've come up with this, andl want to acknowledge the Manager for working hard on this. Thank you. Chair Gort: Anyone else? Commissioner Dunn: Yeah. Chair Gort: Commissioner Dunn. Commissioner Dunn: Yes. I had a question in reference to the insurance with the employee. Will the employee have the flexibility to opt in and out of the insurance plan during that five-year period? Mr. Spring: No. We would have to sign a contract with each individual employee saying here's the deal, and they would take it. Opting out -- I guess once you opt out, you're out. Commissioner Dunn: So you won't be able to come back in. Mr. Spring: Yeah. Commissioner Dunn: That will be final. Mr. Spring: No. Mr. Reshefsky: Commissioner, one caveat to that is if they're a current -- a City of Miami employee and they're not on our health plan, they can come on to our health plan prior to retirement or at the time they retire and they could take advantage of the benefit at that point. If they drop it once they're retired, then they can't. Commissioner Dunn: That's it, okay. Vice Chair Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Chair Gort: Vice Chairman. Vice Chair Carollo: Mr. Springs [sic], do you have -- let me see. How do I ask the question? What is the average amount of employees that stay throughout the whole DROP? In other words, do they usually leave prior to their whole five years or so forth? Ms. Dziedzic: The assumptions were that FOP retires 75 percent into their DROP. The FOP members retire 75 percent into their DROP and all other members stay pretty much to the end. Vice Chair Carollo: So most members stay to the end; FOP stays 75 percent of the time. So they usually leave early. Ms. Dziedzic: Correct. Vice Chair Carollo: So it's actually not as much of a benefit with them because they're going to leave early anyways. Mr. Crapp: Commissioner, but I would like to point out that the Police DROP -- the FOP DROP is seven years, so you're looking at 75 percent of that seven-year period, which is about the same City ofMiami Page 131 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 as the four years that members in the Fire union andAFSCME (American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees) drop. So it's about the same period of time, I believe. I'll let Mirtha expound on that. Vice Chair Carollo: That's not how I think -- Ms. Dziedzic: It's about -- Vice Chair Carollo: -- they explained it, but if you could elaborate a little bit on what the Manager said. Ms. Dziedzic: It's about -- let's see. Vice Chair Carollo: 'Cause it's not -- I don't think that's what you were saying. And I guess what I'm looking at is if there's people that -- or employees that were going to retire anyways, now they're going to retire just as they planned and we're going to be liable now to pay for five years or seven years -- And by the way, I keep hearing five and seven. Is it five years or seven years or -- Mr. Spring: It is -- Vice Chair Carollo: -- how does that work? Mr. Spring: -- seven years for FOP members. They have a seven-year DROP. It's five years for all other members, so IAFF (International Association of Firefighters) and the two AFSCMEs, nonunion members. Vice Chair Carollo: So that's a big commitment on our part. It's seven years of the same rate of insurance. Mr. Spring: Right. There -- the insurance -- it's the insurance cost that is absorbed by the employer in the case of Cigna is more than it is in the FOP health trust. The FOP members absorb more of their cost on a percentage basis -- the employees do -- than employees in the Cigna plan. So there -- that differential in play is one -- another reason why you would want to give them a few more years 'cause they're already absorbing more costs right now. Vice Chair Carollo: I understand what you're saying andl don't want to disagree with you, just me stepping back and just from common sense, I would say why would they want to pay more than, let's say, what other employees in the City ofMiami actually pay. Mr. Spring: They're not. They're going to still be in their plan. The FOP members will continue to be in their FOP plan. We will just pay -- we will continue to pay the City subsidy -- Vice Chair Carollo: Their amount. Mr. Spring: -- during that timeframe. Chair Gort: Another question. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair, I have -- yeah, I have another question too. Chair Gort: Yes. Commissioner Suarez: Can I ask one more question, Mr. Chairman, before --? City ofMiami Page 132 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Chair Gort: Yes. Go ahead. Commissioner Suarez: Thank you. Chair Gort: Yes. Commissioner Suarez: My question has to do with pension costs. If let's say, 100 people take advantage of -- Have you guys factored in the pension cost of the new hires, is basically my question? Ms. Dziedzic: No. Commissioner Suarez: You have not factored that in? Ms. Dziedzic: No. That's not in this model. Mr. Spring: The reason -- well, one of the reasons is these individuals that we're targeting -- Commissioner Suarez: Right. Mr. Spring: -- they've already retired for -- Commissioner Suarez: Yes. Right. Mr. Spring: -- pension purposes. Commissioner Suarez: I understand that. Mr. Spring: Yes, you will have a new rehire. Commissioner Suarez: Right. Mr. Spring: You will have a rehire. Commissioner Suarez: Right. Mr. Spring: But we did not factor that into the model because of the long-term nature of that cost -- Commissioner Suarez: But -- Mr. Spring: -- in the timeframe. A new hire -- even if you go on the paramilitary model -- Commissioner Suarez: Right. Mr. Spring: -- the individual who's being promoted is already in the pension now today. Commissioner Suarez: I got it. It's the new hires I'm talking about. Mr. Spring: The -- it's all of the people coming in. Commissioner Suarez: Right. Mr. Spring: They're going to be coming in at the lowest salaries -- City ofMiami Page 133 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Commissioner Suarez: I got you. Mr. Spring: -- at the City and that relative pension cost is going to be -- Commissioner Suarez: So what you're saying -- Mr. Spring: -- low. Commissioner Suarez: -- is that it's not significant enough to deviate from the savings that would cause us to -- Mr. Spring: Right. Commissioner Suarez: -- have concerns about -- Mr. Spring: No. Commissioner Suarez: -- the analysis? Mr. Spring: I mean, we could -- obviously, to get to that number, we'd actually have to do an actuarial calculation of that -- Commissioner Suarez: No. I -- Mr. Spring: -- which is a little bit more -- Commissioner Suarez: Right. Mr. Spring: -- in depth than what we've done. Commissioner Suarez: Andl wasn't sure if you had done that or not -- Mr. Spring: No. Commissioner Suarez: -- if PFM had done that. Mr. Spring: We did not. We talked -- like I said, we talked about it in theory because it's like, okay, if you assume they're the lowest, you know -- say there was -- Commissioner Suarez: You kind of had a ballpark -- Mr. Spring: -- people coming at 40,000 a year -- Commissioner Suarez: Right. Mr. Spring: -- on average. They're not going to even be vested for ten years and -- you know, it's a lot of factors that come in so -- Commissioner Suarez: Got it. Chair Gort: Any further questions? Vice Chair Carollo: I think -- Chair Gort: Yes, sir. City ofMiami Page 134 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Vice Chair Carollo: Representative of the FOP. Sergeant Javier Ortiz: Hi. Sergeant Javier Ortiz, vice president for the FOP, 710 Southwest 12 Avenue. There's a lot of examples that you're giving, Commissioner, regarding captains. We only have two captains in the Police Department. We haven't had a test in years. Anybody that decides to join, if this ordinance passes, will be a significant savings to the City on a number of reasons. If -- right now let's say our HMO (Health Maintenance Organization) plan for myself is about $45 a month. That's what you're going to be paying month -to -month for the next seven years. IfI am a police officer that's in the DROP and is making $62, 000 a year, even ifI only have a year left and you hire somebody at 46,000, you're going to have a substantial savings over those whatever time I have left. And as far as training, we already have the equipment that's going to be given from one officer to the other. Yes, there's going to be some startup costs, but in today's economy we're not -- we haven't had a police officer that's gone on with our department in the past year as far as paying them through their academy -- sponsoring them through their academy, paying all those costs where there's a lot of people out there that have been self -sponsored and are just paying for their academy and they're not getting that first six months of pay that they would be getting from the City. So I think it's a no-brainer. Personally, ifI was in the DROP, I wouldn't leave. Again, it all depends on your situation because if you're looking at, let's say $5, 000 a year that I'm going to get for the next couple of years or I can be getting my DROP money plus my annual savings, I personally wouldn't leave, but there's a lot of people around here that are looking to see -- because of their financial situation that might be able to leave. And if they get this thrown in there, they'll leave, and again, you'll save money. But again, we only have two captains in the Police Department and somebody that's in the DROP is obviously making a lot more than any starting officer, especially since you have decided to freeze our step and our longevity raises. Chair Gort: Thank you. Vice Chair Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Chair Gort: Vice Chairman. Vice Chair Carollo: Thank you. And thank you for that, Mr. Ortiz. Yeah, I just used captain as an example, but we're talking lieutenants, we're talking majors, we're talking, you know, all ranks, andl just threw captain as an example. And in all fairness, I could really see why your union would be in favor of this. I mean -- but again, although we work as a partnership, I also represent the City andl need to make sure that the interest of the City is well taken care of because, as you mentioned, there's going to be a savings of let's say, $20,000 because of the new officer coming in. But at the same time, we're in a liability for seven years, andl don't know if insurance rates are going to go up or what's going to happen in this environment and, you know, could it actually be the savings. Because if all these years insurance rates go up, will it actually be that savings that we're thinking of $20,000, and that's what I'm looking at. And I'm not sure -- I actually -- I am in agreement with Commissioner Suarez as far as thinking outside of the box and thanking our Administration to think outside the box 'cause I always welcome it. I'm just, you know, cautious. As a matter of fact, just last Commission meeting, we mentioned as far as the estimates when we hadMPA (Miami Parking Authority), andl raised issues, questions with regarding to how reasonable were their estimates, andl guess that's what we're all doing here at the same time. I think on first readingl will be in favor of approving it. However, I'm a little uncomfortable on this emergency reading. That's where I'm -- I'm starting to be a little uncomfortable about that. Mayor Regalado: Mr. Vice Chairman -- Chair Gort: My understanding is there's been a change. City ofMiami Page 135 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Mayor Regalado: -- it's a resolution. It's not an ordinance. The City Attorney determined that this does not affect -- that the ordinance would impact the Code and this does not affect the Code of the City ofMiami because it's voluntary, so it's only a resolution. It's only for you to vote today and we can start the window on March 1, which is only a week away. So that's why you have a resolution in your hand. Vice Chair Carollo: Well, I have an ordinance in my hand. Mayor Regalado: Well -- Vice Chair Carollo: If it changed to a resolution, I don't know when it changed or when we received documentation. I have an ordinance in my hand, and that's exactly my point. I'm cautious in moving on this so quickly when just yesterday late afternoon we received -- well, actually, this morning on the dais we received this new analysis of the numbers and before us we have an ordinance. That's what we have, and now you're saying it's a resolution. So I'm somewhat hesitant because we are going to be committed to a seven-year liability, so I guess that's my hesitation with moving forward on this quickly. Chair Gort: Okay. Julie O. Bru (City Attorney): Just to clam, procedurally, there isn't anything being changed substantively. The only thing is that we carefully reviewed this, and of course, there was a certain urgency of getting this done and it was prepared as an ordinance. It's not necessary to adopt this as an ordinance. This is an expression of this Commission directing policy. It deals with an administrative matter. It's not enacting a law or amending a law. Therefore, the proper method, the proper official action to take in order to adopt this is a resolution, not an ordinance. Chair Gort: Let me ask a question. Have you all had an opportunity to discuss it with the directors of the departments and try to get an idea how many would drop from each of the departments? Mr. Crapp: We've had conversations with the directors. I intend to meet with them next week, if this were to pass, to go into specifics, but they are prepared to deal with this initiative if it were to go forward. Chair Gort: Questions? Vice Chair Carollo: Mr. Chairman, can we table this for a couple of hours? I mean, if we're going to take a vote on this and if it's a resolution, that's it. It's only one crack, just like an emergency ordinance. I would -- Chair Gort: We'll table it and bring it -- Vice Chair Carollo: -- you know, respectfully request to table it and we'll take it up -- Chair Gort: -- back this afternoon. Vice Chair Carollo: -- later on -- Commissioner Dunn: Sure, second. Vice Chair Carollo: -- this afternoon -- Commissioner Dunn: Sure. City ofMiami Page 136 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Vice Chair Carollo: -- if possible. Chair Gort: Yes. I have some more questions. Vice Chair Carollo: Thank you. Chair Gort: Let's go back to the Mayor. Mayor Regalado: Mr. Chairman, Vice Chairman, Commissioner, can we bring back the pension issue? We have two resolutions, the one that was -- that were tabled earlier, so we just want to make sure that it doesn't get -- Chair Gort: Yeah. Mayor Regalado: Okay. Chair Gort: Did you get your answers or --? Vice Chair Carollo: No. I mean, we really didn't have time for any further discussion on it. You know, I still -- like I said in the morning, I have issues with, you know, things that weren't taken into consideration, like overtime, additional training and so forth, and that was stated, but the overtime was not. And l just -- I don't see the savings. I'm just -- I am really cautious that it really is a savings for the first year, second year, but down the line, six years from now, seven years from now where it's a liability. We don't know what the environment is -- you know, the insurance environment. And realistically, it's out of our hands. Andl see that insurance increases every year. Therefore, I'm afraid five, six years down the road we may end up owing a lot more than what we're saving. Mayor Regalado: I think that the Budget director, she has more numbers that they can offer to you. And you're right, we cannot look into the future many, many years from now. What this does is that it offers a relief to the general fund in the next three years in a row compared to what we have now. Vice Chair Carollo: How many -- you're estimating that 20 percent of all -- everyone from the DROP is going to go into this plan? Ms. Dziedzic: That's the assumption, yes, 20 percent. Mirtha Dziedzic, Budget Department. Vice Chair Carollo: And what I'm afraid -- and you know, speaking to some of the employees and so forth -- and again, it's not a scientific poll or anything but just speaking to some of the employees, they're all telling me if they have, you know, two or three years in the DROP left, they're not leaving. And what I'm afraid is that everyone that has half a year or a year or somewhere in that range are the ones that are going to leave that were going to leave anyways and now we're going to be stuck with the liability for the next five and, even worse, seven years with the FOP. That's what I'm looking at and that's -- and l just -- again, I'm not comfortable with these figures. Ms. Dziedzic: The issue is that there is a loss of potential revenue because the retirees pay an additional amount of the premium. They pay 75 percent versus 20 percent that an active employee pays. So that would be the loss of revenue. The cost -- we already have that cost in our books. Now if rates increase, then through bargaining, we can change the amount that active employees pay or we can change the plan to keep costs down. That is up to our discretion in the bargaining. Vice Chair Carollo: Well, no, no. But it will be a flat rate or the current rate for the next five City ofMiami Page 137 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 years or for the next seven years, correct? Mr. Spring: No. It's not -- excuse me, Mr. Chair, if you will. Chair Gort: And you are? Mr. Spring: Larry Spring, chief financial officer. I just wanted to be recognized before I spoke, sorry. It is not -- this model doesn't have aflat rate. There is an assumption of growth in the amount that we will charge. So for instance, in this current year this -- from last year to this year, our rates went down 20 percent based on what we imposed. In prior years, we've had 7 to 10 percent increases in the annual amount that's paid. So if the family rate this year is $73 a month or biweekly that the person is paying and next year when we get into -- you know, if somebody takes advantage of the plan and next year it's $74, they would pay the $74. So they will increase the rate that they pay based on what we're -- the actives are paying. So they will help to absorb some of the ongoing increase in costs that may be -- that may occur over time. The point think the Budget director just made and put on the record earlier is that we do have the negotiating control, if you will, with whoever our healthcare TPA is. You know, when we go through RFP (Request for Proposals), when we look at plan designs. (UNINTET,T IGIBT,F) some of it is bargained with the unions as we -- you know, as we move forward, but you know, as they concede to what was imposed, you know, we're at a certain level. When we get to the next three years or the next year and something comes, we still have the opportunity to negotiate those rates. So you know, the rates will continue to grow. They will absorb a minor increase as costs increase the same as I -- or actually you guys, as you participate in the plan as well. Vice Chair Carollo: But are we bound to give them the same amount of coverage? Mr. Spring: You mean -- We're bound to give the same coverage that is being offered in our active plan. Vice Chair Carollo: Right. Mr. Spring: So if that plan changes, that would be the same plan that they would be able to participate in. Vice Chair Carollo: So -- Mr. Spring: For instance, this year we changed -- we imposed a out-of-pocket max of $3, 000. Say we change that in a future period to 3,500. They would still have to abide by the out-of-pocket max of 3,500 [sic], not what's on the books today. But they would be able to participate at the same rate. Assume that I'm still here working. If I'm paying $75 for that benefit, then they would get to pay $75 for that same benefit. Vice Chair Carollo: So in essence -- Mr. Spring: So we're not locking into this actual plan design. Vice Chair Carollo: You're locking -- Mr. Spring: It'll be -- Vice Chair Carollo: -- into whatever the City has at the time. Mr. Spring: Correct. Chair Gort: And you can adjust it. City ofMiami Page 138 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Mr. Spring: Yes, yes. Andl assure you, it will adjust over -- over the five- and seven-year period, there will be adjustments to it. I think, you know, from industry costs, we've seen healthcare increasing at about a 10, 11 percent clip here in the City annually. We were able to reduce it this last year because we changed the plan design to realize cost savings that we needed in order to balance the budget so -- Vice Chair Carollo: Let me ask you something. Some of the other things that were mentioned was overtime and being able to fill the vacant spots, at least with public safety, Fire, Police. We mentioned that every one of the positions that -- or employees that leave from those two areas, public -- you know, Police and Fire, will be filled. Is there a plan as far as filling those positions? I know you mentioned there's an academy now or so forth, but is that to fill positions that already are vacant or is that to fill these anticipated positions? Mr. Spring: We work with Fire, and personally have worked with Fire every year and speak to them specifically. They have DROP employees, anticipated retirements, so we try to work with them to have a lead time on all of that. I think what would happen in this scenario -- and it is pretty fast on the out -- you know, people leaving. You know, tomorrow we may find out that 30 people are leaving in one day from the plan, let's just say. We would probably need to adjust our ability to handle the class, work with them on a certification list, the testing process 'cause in the case of Fire, it is a very long process. But we right now, today, we work with the chief and his staff to allow them to do some of their hiring ahead of time in anticipation for future retirements and things, so we would try to build that in. In the case of Police, what we've been doing to help increase or -- increase the pace by which we hire, we've been working with already -certified officers, individuals who've gone to academy on their own and bringing those individuals in, in addition to the normal hiring process. You take the test, the certification list, you know, the train -- you know, going through academy, so on and so forth. We would have to try to see how we build that into the process as well. All of the answers -- and I'll be honest with you, Commissioner -- all of those answers are not -- I don't have them specified for me to give to you today and say in 65 days or in 45 days or in 90 days, all hundred or fifty of those positions will be filled or we'll have some -- you know, a probationary officer. But what we can commit to is in a matter of say, three weeks or two weeks from today, show you a plan on how we expect to address those hiring needs keeping in mind that there is already a class going on the one side, and we already have that other process moving as well for the, you know, anticipated vacancies that are already out there. Vice Chair Carollo: For the anticipated vacancies, not the vacancies that are --? Mr. Spring: The ones that are here and the anticipated vacancies that we are aware of now. Because I think one of the points you made about this program, we already know there are some people in here who are six months away from leaving anyways. We know that, the Department knows it. And they know on October 11, John Smith -- Officer Smith is going to be -- is his last day at work, and so they track that to make sure that they keep a level of force in place to be able to service the City. So we would have to, again, incorporate these moves into that plan. Vice Chair Carollo: Andl hear you. And, again, you know, I welcome, you know, thinking out of the box, andl appreciate, you know, you speaking candidly with me and you know, speaking in good faith. At the same time, Larry, you're telling me in two or three weeks, we could give you, you know, more or less our vision. However, I got to make the decision today. I got to vote today. And if in two or three weeks, the numbers don't look right and so forth, guess what? Commissioner, why did you vote for this? You understand what I'm saying? Andl just -- I'm not comfortable with this. Even the Police, FOP, you yourself said that they stay in the DROP 75 percent of the time. In other words, most of the members do not complete the seven years. Mr. Spring: That's correct. City ofMiami Page 139 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Vice Chair Carollo: They only stay 75 percent of the time. Mr. Spring: Right. Vice Chair Carollo: Why are we then offering them seven years of insurance? Mr. Spring: Again, I just go back to the different pricing structure that they have in their plan because it is self -managed by the FOP. The employees in Police pay a higher employee contribution, higher than that of the Fire, executives, the two AFSCMEs, and the unclassifieds because we're in a different plan structure, and the difference is about 15 percent, you know, between the two. In my discussions with the City Manager andl think his discussions with the unions -- 'cause we did talk to all of them about this, this was a move to try to bring some equity in that disparity or in that variance between what they pay -- the difference between what they pay and what the -- everybody else pays. Could it have been six years? Could it -- could have kept it at five? You know, we could have gone either way. And again, I know it's a difficult situation to consider, and there are some intangibles that still remain unanswered, but to -- I guess I would submit to you that today by making this decision and allowing for this voluntary window, at the end of the day I don't think the City loses per se 'cause what we're really trying to do is we're looking -- we're trying to look forward and say we know we're not going to solve this problem by taxing the City and increasing fees, but we do need to start focusing on the other side of this equation. Andl know you andl have had a number of conversations about making sure we maintain that proper mix of those solutions to get to the end, and this is just one of those building blocks I, you know, would tell you to get us, you know, a step closer to that end. You know, one person taking this today -- and again, we don't know who will take it. Vice Chair Carollo: Well, I can assure you the 15 people that are due to retire in 2011 are going tojump on it. Mr. Spring: They're probably going to take it. Vice Chair Carollo: Because for five years they're going to have the same rate and so forth. And then the ones for next year, about another 58, we're talking then 68, 70 employees, they're going tojump on this. I mean -- Mr. Spring: Surprisingly enough, I know of one person -- I won't say their name -- who's a very critical employee. You know who it is. That person is about 18 months away. He's in that second group that we talked about. He's already told me he's not leaving. Vice Chair Carollo: One out of seventy. Mr. Spring: Well, I'm just giving you an example of a -- an anecdotal example -- Chair Gort: One of seventy-seven? Mr. Spring: -- of someone that I've talked to that said they're not going to do it. Chair Gort: Commissioner Dunn -- Will you yield? Commissioner Dunn. Commissioner Dunn: Before you go, Mr. Springs [sic], in layperson's terms, if you did a comparison analysis -- and I believe I heard you, but I just want to -- need you to help me out a little bit -- and if we continue to deal with the DROP the way we've been dealing with it versus passing this resolution, could you give a comparative analysis in a best -case scenario in terms of the possible revenue savings and a worst -case scenario? And I'm not asking you to etch it in stone, but just kind of -- you know, if you can give me some type of illustration or example. City ofMiami Page 140 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Mr. Spring: If we were not to do this? Commissioner Dunn: Versus doing it. Mr. Spring: Well, what I'll -- Commissioner Dunn: I mean, even if it's for one year, two years, three years, just to look at -- andl yield to my colleague in terms of -- when it comes down accounting. Andl do know that anything is subject to change down the road, but if this is something that will reduce some of the debt that we're facing on the front end not as a cure-all, but a beginning -- Mr. Spring: Right. Commissioner Dunn: -- to reduce that debt, it could help at least alleviate some of the, you know, stress as we deal with this. Mr. Spring: Without having like hard numbers in front of me, what I would tell you is the people that we're talking about -- the 15, the 58, the 137 in 2003 -- they're already in the plan and they're -- and we're subsidizing them at the same amount that we're talking about today, so they're already built into our budget. The other thing that's built into our budget is the fact that we're paying them a full salary. They are accumulating a DROP payment, so they've retired for pension purposes. They're getting a salary and they're getting their pension benefit all at the same time. Via this process, if you will, what we're trying to eliminate is okay, they've been here -- they've been in the DROP for a year, three years, one minute, whatever it is, we're going to go ahead and eliminate the DROP payment. It's not going to happen anymore. They're going to take what they have and they're going to leave. We're not going to be paying them a salary anymore. And in the case of a non -sworn or non-public safety employee, non -sworn public safety employee, we're only going to rehire 12 percent of them. So there's just like kind of some inherent savings -- salary savings there, keeping in mind that yes, you're going to have some overtime, you're going to have some transition costs associated, you know, with that, perhaps some training, not necessarily equipment and things of that nature 'cause it is there. On the public safety said, same thing. They are paramilitary; they promote up. They -- and that's how it works. And I'm not going to be a police officer today and a major tomorrow. It's not going to happen. But there's going to be a lieutenant that's going to be a major and a captain. There's going to be a lieutenant and a sergeant. There's going to be a captain and so on and so forth. As you trickle that down, there is going to be some savings. Is it going to be, you know, 90 percent or 80 percent of that salary from each grade? No. But probably on average, probably somewhere between 30 and 50 percent of that number as you start extrapolating down. So while our assumption in the model that we gave you, we used the 20 percent return as the savings amount that we pitched for. If it's 10 percent, yes, it's going to be less. It's not going to be this number, but it will be, you know, empirically a savings. If it's 40 percent, that number will go up. Now we're going to have to deal with rehiring faster, and that's going to put a serious strain on the City. Andl can tell you as the ER (Employee Relations) director now -- the interim ER director, it will put a strain on the department to fast -pace Fire and Police recruitments. I'm not going to lie to you. It's absolutely true. But we are trying to -- what we're trying to do is solve for that "X" that we're still waiting on some of the variables 'cause we don't know the tax base number yet, but we know it's going down. We do know that there -- you know, from what we've seen. We don't know what the State's going to impose in this next session. It's looking pretty -- like they're focusing on closing costs. Andl think the Governor's already put out his budget with some of these things and ending the DROP altogether, you know, so there are so many variables still left to solve for. Andl know Mirtha is going to be soon getting -- starting to do the, you know, updated budget forecasts for next year so we can start working on the budget now as opposed to later in the summer. But these are just one of those building blocks thatl submit today. If one person -- if only one person takes it and it's an AFSCME employee, we will save City ofMiami Page 141 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 money. Commissioner Dunn: Mr. Chair, one -- Chair Gort: Let -- yes. Go ahead. Commissioner Dunn: -- more question. So worst -case scenario, the only real situation that would have that might be problematic would be in trying to rehire some of those people? Mr. Spring: I would -- andl would focus -- I would say the rehiring problem would be concentrated on the public safety area because of the process and the background checks, and it's just a long process. Vice Chair Carollo: It takes -- Mr. Spring: Yeah. Vice Chair Carollo: -- about a year. And the problem with that, if we don't have the personnel, then we have to pay overtime. Mr. Spring: Yes. Vice Chair Carollo: If we pay overtime, then our cost goes up 'cause instead of paying a salary, we're paying time and a half. So realistically, that's why I questioned some of the so-called savings that we're going to have or -- I don't know if -- how true those numbers are, you know. And again, we haven't really analyzed it, in all fairness, so it's, you know -- Chair Gort: Let me ask a question. In your projections here, you show an increase in the costs quite high from the first to the fifth year. You show a loss in the fifth year. My understanding is the increase has increased quite a bit, a large percentage. Why did it increase so much, like for the first year, the cost was one million six hundred? On the fifth year, the cost is 41 million. Is that taking all into consideration all the questions that have been asked? Ms. Dziedzic: The -- what the different scenarios are showing you and -- the different years are showing you is this population that is currently in the DROP right now. Mr. Spring: Right. Ms. Dziedzic: So by the fifth year, we would have expected those people to already been off of the DROP, have retired and separated from the City, so we are not going to be realizing any additional savings. So that's what the difference -- what that negative number at the bottom is saying. These people would have left by this time already. We're not going to realize any additional savings because the DROP ended for these members. Chair Gort: What I'm looking at is the -- according to the chart that I'm looking at -- and I'm not an expert in this -- but the cost to the City increases quite a bit in the fifth years. My question is is that cost increases because you've taken in consideration the new hire, the training, the overtime? I'm looking at the -- Mr. Spring: No, no. I know what you're looking at. No. The increase is associated -- it's taking into account the fact that in the early years, the savings to the City is -- or rather, the cost to the City -- cost differential to the City is less because they're -- the cost is the same. The people are here -- they're here today. Right now, short of us laying them off we've got to pay this number anyways, today. As you go out in time, you know, we're going to be owning a larger portion of the cost because the person would have been gone and now we're subsidizing someone. We City ofMiami Page 142 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 normally would have been subsidizing at 25 percent; we're now going to subsidize them at 80 percent, so that's why you see the big growth -- Chair Gort: Okay. Mr. Spring: -- at the end of the five years. Chair Gort: Thank you. Mayor Regalado: I just wanted to add that we did this, the Administration did, in good faith, and I understand that there are many questions. If -- the important thing is that we have a window that starts -- Commissioner Dunn: March. Mayor Regalado: -- March 1, so if you can vote it up and [sic] down -- it's a resolution and -- so we know -- instead of deferring and bringing back on next month or anything, just vote it up and [sic] down now so the Administration will then have time to regroup and, you know, do other things to reduce this year budget and next year budget. One thing is important -- and Larry mention that, but I think it's part of the philosophy of this Commission and in this Administration. In the last budget there was a lot of conversation about oh, we can do a rollback or we can just raise the millage a little. I have asked the City Manager to start working on a budget with no rollbacks, with no tax increase because this is what we promised to the people ofMiami, that this city will have fiscal responsibility and not put the burden in [sic] the people's back. So we have to do something else other than -- if we cannot do that. This is why we're asking for a decision. You know, vote it up and [sic] down and we move on. Vice Chair Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Chair Gort: Yes. Vice Chair Carollo: And by all means, you know -- I'll say it again, and I've already said it a few times. I welcome all this thinking out of the box, andl think this debate, discussion is actually very healthy. Andl agree with the Mayor as far as that we need to look for other avenues. I'm just not necessarily sure that this is the avenue. I don't need -- I don't necessarily know that this will ultimately be what we're seeking. And let me ask you something. We are stuck on this March 1. It needs to start by March 1. Does it really need to start by March 1, or can we have those extra two weeks, three weeks, whatever Mr. Springs [sic] said, to accurately get some, you know, more concrete numbers? Ms. Dziedzic: Every two weeks costs us between 300 and $500, 000 in potential savings. Vice Chair Carollo: Every three weeks? Ms. Dziedzic: Every two weeks. Vice Chair Carollo: Every two weeks. So -- andl don't have my calculator here, which is my first big mistake. So you're telling me that how many hundreds of thousands? Ms. Dziedzic: Three to five hundred thousand. Vice Chair Carollo: Three to five hundred thousand. So ifI calculate 500, 000 for what -- we have -- we are in February. Let's say March for argument sakes. March 2, that's a million; April is two million; April/May is three million; June is four; July is five; August is six; September is seven. So you're saying that we're going to save $7 million by the end of the year? You're City ofMiami Page 143 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 showing six here. Ms. Dziedzic: It's three to five. It depends on the population, but 300 to 500, 000. So if you have 300 times -- Vice Chair Carollo: And that's based on whose estimates? 'Cause I can assure you -- Ms. Dziedzic: From the model. Vice Chair Carollo: -- I'll get another accounting firm that'll -- I don't want to say tear the numbers up, but yeah, that -- Ms. Dziedzic: In the model that we e-mailed (electronic) you, if you plug in a different date and run the model again, it will show you how the savings changed. Vice Chair Carollo: But that model doesn't show overtime, doesn't take training into consideration; doesn't take everything that we've discussed. And it seems to me no one's argued against my points, that they're not invalid. It seems like they're all valid. We just don't know how valid they are because we don't have the calculations. So that number you're saying, three to five hundred thousand in savings every two weeks could be flawed. Ms. Dziedzic: It's based on the population in the model and the time between now and the end of the year. Vice Chair Carollo: Which doesn't take into consideration everything that we've talked about? Ms. Dziedzic: No, it does not. Vice Chair Carollo: Okay. So -- I mean, couldn't we wait two weeks and see if we get some more concrete numbers -- Mr. Spring: The -- Vice Chair Carollo: -- instead of just voting it up or down? Mr. Spring: Well, I guess my question to you is -- yeah, we could go and build some more assumptions into over -- what overtime is, but paying somebody at time and a half versus paying another person a full salary and full benefits, you know, there's a savings there between paying at time and a half and the full salary. With regards to the training and the timing, yeah, we -- you know, we could come up with an estimate, but again, the real number -- or the real number we would land on would really depend on who actually takes it, and that's that part in the modeling that gets a little fuzzy, and that was -- it wasn't that we just said, oh, we're not going to consider those things. It's just -- you know, Commissioner Gort could take it, and he's a AFSCME, or it could be Commissioner Dunn and he's a fire captain, and that difference between those two people makes a big difference on how the mod -- you know, it could -- like to your point, it could make a difference on how the model can come out. When you recalculate on the spreadsheet, it does pull another pool of people, another 20 percent, or whatever percentage that you put in there. so we've -- you know, you've -- we've played with the -- you know, we've done some playing with it to see where it comes out, and it tends to come right in the range of this number. To your point, yes, theoretically, the most we would lose in a year is the 5.2 'cause that's all the savings that we're calculating to your point. But you know, again, with the ranges and who it does, you know, there's a static -- you know, a range there, a 300, a 500 on what would happen. We can do that. You know, I'm willing to do it. I'm following the lead of the Manager, obviously, on what this Commission wants to get done or wants to see. I'm going to do that. But I just want to give those caveats that, you know, we're still going to be -- we're going to City ofMiami Page 144 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 be playing with assumptions at the end of the day; that, you know, it's going to be a static set of assumptions at the -- Vice Chair Carollo: I hear you. Mr. Spring: -- end of the day. Vice Chair Carollo: I hear you. Mr. Spring: So, you know, 5.2 million becomes 4.5 million when you, you know, add that static set of assumptions in there. Vice Chair Carollo: As long as it doesn't become a negative something. Chair Gort: Commissioner Dunn. Commissioner Dunn: Yes. I'm inclined to make a motion for this resolution because of -- with the caveat that any savings is better than none. I know that it doesn't cure all and it doesn't -- there are a lot of invariables that we can't -- you know, I'm not a numbers man, andl -- but, you know, just like we say we don't know what could happen in terms of who would retire. We don't know what would happen with the economy. Hopefully, in two or three years the economy will change. I hope we get through this. So I'm inclined to make a motion for this resolution. Chair Gort: There's a motion to approve. Is there a second? Vice Chair Carollo: I'll second it for further discussion. Chair Gort: Motion -- Vice Chair Carollo: I second it for further discussion. Commissioner Dunn: Right, right, right. Chair Gort: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Dunn, second by Vice Chairperson. Vice Chair Carollo: The truth of the matter is if there is savings to the City ofMiami, believe me, I'm on board. I want to support you. I mean, I really do. I just -- I'm not comfortable that the saving is really there, and more importantly, down in the future, I'm afraid with the way the economy is -- and look insuring [sic] rates have gone up every year, so I'm just concerned about that. And would really prefer to see -- you know, that we -- even though there are estimates, we could still look at a methodology as far as how we're getting those estimates. In other words, instead of getting 20 random, you know, or random personnel, maybe we should include just about everybody that is going to retire in this year and then get, you know, a random from the rest of the pool. I think that may be a little bit more realistic. Because I think, for the most part, everybody who's going to retire this year, it's to their benefit to retire those four or five months early and for five years get the same, you know, insurance rate. So I think, you know, maybe a methodology -- even though, once again, I understand it's estimates. But I think maybe we could look at the numbers a little closer, andl would prefer to, you know, wait the extra two weeks. You know, and believe me, I want to support you. You know, I really do. Mr. Crapp: Commissioner, we're going to follow the lead of whatever you all choose -- decide to do. I think it's important to say that this initiative was brought forth with the -- with saving salary this year in mind. I think we know at the end of the day that we need to reduce salary expenses, and this is a less painful alternative. The other alternatives are painful. But we know that that's a road that we will get to at some point. We'll listen to the directive and we'll request City ofMiami Page 145 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 whatever methodology you want us to use in order to get the numbers that you need to see, but it's very important for me to say that at the end of the day, we will reduce salary expenses this year, and I think this is a very good alternative. There are some things that we need to look at. Obviously, when you think outside of the box, there are going to be a lot of things that need to be is dotted and is crossed. But we do feel that this is a step in the right direction. Vice Chair Carollo: Out of courtesy, I'll ask my colleagues, what will you prefer, two weeks or do you want to vote on it now? Chair Gort: Before you get -- I don't know if two votes will be sufficient, but let me ask a question. You're looking about the -- we've had a lot of projections -- I've had for a lot of report on the first quarter from the projections that we had in the past andl have not received it yet. I know we're going to have some problems that we need to take care of. I know we need to reduce expenses not only for next year, but this year. For this year's budget, we need to take -- make some changes and so on. And let me tell you how I feel. I think the two weeks would not affect it, andl think people out there, the employees are getting the message what do we want to do, what we intend to do. What I'd like to see come back in two weeks and let me know how many people are going to DROP the first year, how many are going to DROP the second year and third year. And we got to talk to the directors and to employees to make sure that they adapt to this program 'cause this program is as successful as the amount of people that will participate on it. Now at the same time, going back into the public safety, I can tell you that public safety, we have a lot of already certified police officers. We have a lot of certified firefighters that they're ready to come and work, so -- I don't know. That's what I'm looking at. I want to have more -- understand the savings andl want to have some additional saving if possible. If you guys need to be voted on it today -- Vice Chair Carollo: Also -- and also, I would like to know how much are we paying in premiums for the retirees and the different -- and the general employees, the Fire and the FOP. Ms. Dziedzic: For the ones -- Vice Chair Carollo: Right. Ms. Dziedzic: -- in the Cigna plan -- Vice Chair Carollo: Yes. How much for the retirees right now? What --? Ms. Dziedzic: Twenty-five percent. Mr. Spring: We subsidize them 25 percent. Vice Chair Carollo: All -- Mr. Spring: All the ones that are in Cigna. I'd have to get you the number on FOP health trust because they structure their plan differently. They -- internally, they subsidize their retirees in the FOP health trust. But the Cigna, which is three fourths of the population of all of the people carried under a City ofMiami health plan, the City subsidizes them by 25 percent. State statute, though -- I should put on record -- requires that the City offer them the ability to be in the plan and pay the same -- not the same rate, excuse me -- at the same cost -- the same theoretical cost that everybody else would be charged. Vice Chair Carollo: But in dollars amounts, I would like to see those figures. You don't need to provide them now. Mr. Spring: Okay. City ofMiami Page 146 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Vice Chair Carollo: You know, again, I'm -- I would prefer to wait the two weeks. Mr. Spring: Okay. Vice Chair Carollo: And then get more concrete numbers 'cause in all fairness, I do want to support you. I think you're acting in good faith. I think, you know, you're thinking outside of the box, andl do want to support you. So -- Mr. Spring: Okay. Vice Chair Carollo: -- if -- Commissioner Dunn: I'll restate it. Vice Chair Carollo: To a deferral. Chair Gort: Mr. Mayor, let me tell you -- and we really appreciate what you're doing, but at the same time, vote it down is not going to help us. Vice Chair Carollo: Exactly. Chair Gort: Vote it up, we have our doubts. Andl think if we wait two weeks, we can come up with a more specific number where we feel very secure about voting for this issue. Mayor Regalado: No. No problem. I'll bring it back in our page in two weeks. But we come to the same situation in two weeks. By the third week, we're going to have to start reducing cost in salaries, so people will have to be lay off instead of -- Vice Chair Carollo: Well, it'll be great because at the next Commission meeting, we have to do our budget amendments and we're going to do what we should have -- Mayor Regalado: Right. Vice Chair Carollo: -- done in the beginning of the budget period, which is approve all the employee positions, and we didn't do that in the beginning of the budget year like we should have. So it'll be great because now in the next Commission meeting, we should have those positions there and we could start seeing exactly all the salaries, the positions, and so forth. And actually, I spoke to our Budget director last week and asked exactly when I was going to obtain that information because I know it's going to be lengthy and I'm going to have questions. You said mid -week. We're on Thursday andl don't think I'm going to get it today, so I'm starting to get a little concerned. Mayor Regalado: And the most important thing is that the majority, I believe -- and all the Commission -- that raising taxes is not the right way to balance the budget, so having off the table right now saves a lot of time because we don't have to think about rollbacks and if we raise half a mill, it will give us so many million dollars, so that's -- so we have to reduce the cost. And so we'll bring back those two resolutions. I do have a resolution, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, that Commissioner Sarnoff asked -- Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): I'm -- I apologize, Chair. Vice Chair Carollo: I'm -- yeah. Mr. Mayor -- Ms. Thompson: I apologize. City ofMiami Page 147 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Mayor Regalado: Oh, you have to withdraw the motion. Ms. Thompson: We have a motion on the floor that Commissioner Dunn made to adopt the resolution, so we need to do something with that before we move on. The discussion -- ifI might. Your original discussion was on M.1 and M.2. If you were to vote, you'd have to do them separately. If you're going to change that, then I need some direction as to if we're doing -- you know, on 1 and 2. Thank you. Commissioner Dunn: I'll make a motion to change it to defer it. Vice Chair Carollo: Okay. And you're going to withdraw your original motion and make --? Commissioner Dunn: Yes. Vice Chair Carollo: And I'll withdraw my second. And then make your motion to defer? Chair Gort: Yes. Commissioner Dunn: Yes, motion to defer. Chair Gort: Motion Commissioner Dunn -- Vice Chair Carollo: To the next meeting. Chair Gort: Next meeting. Commissioner Dunn: Yes. Vice Chair Carollo: I second that. Chair Gort: Second by Vice Mayor -- Vice Chairman Carollo. Ms. Thompson: And that would be on M.1 andM.2? Vice Chair Carollo: Correct. Mayor Regalado: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. I need a vote. Chair Gort: Yes, sir. Vice Chair Carollo: Any further discussion? Chair Gort: I'm sorry. All in favor, state it by saying "aye. " The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. M.2 RESOLUTION 11-00137 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO INITIATE AN INCENTIVE PROGRAM FOR MEMBERS OF City ofMiami Page 148 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 M.3 11-00147 THE FIPO PENSION PLAN EFFECTIVE MARCH 15, 2011 THROUGH APRIL 15, 2011, TO PROVIDE THAT ANY IAFF MEMBER IN DROP OR ELIGIBLE TO RETIRE, WHO ELECTS TO SEPARATE FROM CITY EMPLOYMENT BY APRIL 15, 2011, SHALL BEALLOWED TO MAINTAIN HEALTH INSURANCE BENEFITS ATACTIVE EMPLOYEES PREMIUM RATE FOR 5 YEARS; AND EFFECTIVE MARCH 15, 2011 ANY FOP MEMBER IN DROP OR ELIGIBLE TO RETIRE, WHO ELECTS TO SEPARATE FROM CITY EMPLOYMENT BY APRIL 15, 2011 SHALL BE ALLOWED TO MAINTAIN HEALTH INSURANCE BENEFITS ATACTIVE EMPLOYEES PREMIUM RATE FOR 7 YEARS. 11-00137 Legislation.pdf 11-00137 Legislation (Version 2)-03-10-11.pdf Motion by Commissioner Dunn II, seconded by Vice Chairman Carollo, that this matter be DEFERRED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Carollo and Dunn II Absent: 2 - Commissioner(s) Sarnoff and Suarez Note for the record: Item M.2 was deferred to the Commission meeting scheduled for March 10, 2011. Note for the Record: Please refer to item M.1 for minutes referencing item M.2. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION WAIVING A PORTION OF THE FEES FOR THE USE OF THE PARKING LOT AT MARINE STADIUM FOR THE MIAMI ROWING AND WATERSPORTS CLUB INTERNATIONAL REGATTA ON SUNDAY, MARCH 6, 2011. 11-00147 Legislation.pdf Motion by Vice Chairman Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Dunn II, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Carollo and Dunn II Absent: 2 - Commissioner(s) Sarnoff and Suarez R-11-0075 Mayor Tomas Regalado: And Mr. Chairman, thank you, and Commissioners. It's just that M.3 is a resolution, and we were asked by Commissioner Sarnoff, who is not here, to cosponsor this. This is a resolution waiving a portion of the fees for the use of the parking lot at the Marine Stadium for the Miami Rowing Club and Watersports Club, International Regatta, which is on Sunday, March 6, 2011. The reason that this is brought to you is two fold. Number one, they have done this in the past for many years. They have budgeted certain monies that they used to pay. But the parking lot rental has gone up, I think, ten times over or something -- Madeline will (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- and they were not budgeted. So because of that, they would have to cancel the event, and this is just for one event, and this is Sunday, March 6, which is the Sunday before the City Commission meeting. So this is why we're doing this in behalf of the District 2 and the Rowing Club. We have counsel, pro bono, for the Rowing Club, if you want to ask questions. But this is a simple thing that is recommended by Public Facilities. Chair Gort: My understanding is -- what is the amount being waived? City ofMiami Page 149 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Madeline Valdes (Director): Madeline Valdes, Department of Public Facilities. The amount for this event is actually $13,033.98. The amount that you're waiving is 10, 533.98. Chair Gort: Now my understanding -- and we have not move in the ordinance you're bringing to us for the first reading to change the -- Ms. Valdes: There's an ordinance that's being presented for first reading today, which would actually change the fee to be 2,500 from now on for all events. And the reason we propose this ordinance is because we found an untapped market of all these regattas and triathlons that had been coming to the City that previously were going to the County and having their events at the County. Since these regattas have not -- and the triathlons -- cannot afford the higher fee, we found that if we lower our fee to the $2, 500 figure, we'll be able to tap into this market that will bring us more revenue in the long run. We did some numbers based on just requests, and we have 12 requests for the use right now of the parking area that we would have never had before. So we think that this, in the long run, is going to make us more money if we just bring the fee to a flat $2,500 number. Chair Gort: Okay. Thank you. And the request by the Mayor is to -- in essence, to -- Commissioner Sarnoff request for a waiver of the fees, not all of the fees. Ms. Valdes: Right. Vice Chair Carollo: I'll move it for discussion. Commissioner Dunn: Second. Chair Gort: It's been moved and second. Moved by Vice Chairman Carollo and second by Commissioner Dunn. Vice Chair Carollo: You say they participated last year? They did this last year? Ms. Valdes: This regatta did participate last year. Vice Chair Carollo: And how much did you pay, $1,050? Robert Behar: That's -- for the record, Robert Behar, Behar Font. I'm here today not -- as an architect presenting a project. I'm not a legal counsel. I'm an architect. I'm here as a board member of the board of director for MRC (Miami River Commission), and lucky me, I've been appointed to deal with the City matters. Last year we paid I believe, it was a $1,000 -- Vice Chair Carollo: A thousand fifty. Mr. Behar: -- is my recollection. Just to give you a big picture, our total gross projected for this regatta will be $36,000. Our net expenses will be in excess of 27,500. We will do, best -case scenario, about $8,500 in total. That money goes to buy boats, buy equipment for the kids, and that's really for the youth program. That's why we're doing this. Last year, again, it was like $1,000, Madeline. And this year, you know, to 2,500. Vice Chair Carollo: Okay. And -- well, it's not 2,500. It's thirteen thousand something. Mr. Behar: Well -- Vice Chair Carollo: And you know why that is? Because this same Administration came to us five months ago and asked us to raise the fees. City ofMiami Page 150 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Ms. Valdes: And ifI could interrupt a second. Back when we came in for the adjustment, the clientele that we had were mostly construction companies that wanted to use the paved area for loading and unloading. Regattas have, in the past, used this facility, but the triathlons are coming as well and they're coming from the County, and they also cannot afford the increased fee. Based on my analysis, if we do lower the fee to the $2, 500, we'll be able to not only get the regattas, the triathlons, but even the construction companies who can afford the higher number. Vice Chair Carollo: Okay. Let me take it by different points. First of all, we're not lowering. We're increasing from 2,000 -- Ms. Valdes: We're increasing -- what we're taking out -- Vice Chair Carollo: So it's not lowering. Ms. Valdes: Excuse me. We are increasing. What we're taking out is "or the greater of $15 a square foot." These organizations want to use the entire facility. Well, that's 317,000 square feet, so it's a large area. And if they get charged per square foot, then it's about $13, 000 per day. Vice Chair Carollo: Right. And again, the Administration was the one who came to us asking for this. And as a matter of fact -- and the reason why you see me a little passionate about this is because this Commission approved it unanimously. I don't know how many times you will get a unanimous in this Commission with regards to any increase in fees. And by the way, I did ask the question, and I'll read from the minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Valdes, is that currently being rented out? And when I say "is that being, " I mean the Miami Stadium. And you said, yes. We have events requested. People are requesting for its use on a daily basis, especially on weekends for parking. So for parking for -- and you said events. For example, sometimes we have triathlons; people want to use it. We have filming events. That's what you were telling me. Now you're saying that before it was just for construction? Ms. Valdes: No. Vice Chair Carollo: But at the time, you told me it was for triathlons and it -- Ms. Valdes: Right. But we're tapping into a bigger market now as far as the triathlons are concerned. I have 12 requests now just on the regattas and the triathlons, which I didn't have before. If you recall, when we presented that item, our estimated -- Vice Chair Carollo: Twenty five thousand. Ms. Valdes: -- revenue was 25,000. Vice Chair Carollo: And 25 -- Ms. Valdes: Today -- Vice Chair Carollo: -- 600 by the City Manager. Ms. Valdes: Right. And today we're saying that the estimated revenue is in the 70 range. Why? Because we're tapping into this market that we didn't have before. We didn't know that the County was going to stop these events from occurring on County property because of their restriction with respect to signage. I even went out to the County to get an estimate as to what they charge for their facilities, and their costs or their charges are about $1, 000. So we're at a higher number, but definitely, we're tapping into their market because they can advertise on City property, where with the County, they can't advertise. City ofMiami Page 151 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Mr. Behar: Mr. Vice Chairman, let me just -- if we were to be -- have to put that amount, $13, 000, for us we will have to cancel not only this, which is like the 37th annual regatta every single -- and we would not be able to generate enough income to be able to pay that amount. I mean, it's -- for us, it's impossible. Not only for us. I think for any other event that will be there. We were projecting even a three-day usage where it would come out to 39,000. For us, it's impossible. We will not be able to do it. And we urge that you really, you know, consider this because I think it's going to be beneficial not only for the club, butl think everybody else who's going to be using the facility. Vice Chair Carollo: I understand, Mr. Behar. And there's two different issues here. One is your waiver and the other is the increase from the 2,000 to the 2,500, so -- Mr. Behar: Well, actually, from 1,000. From 1,000 to 2,500. Vice Chair Carollo: Right, right, right, right. But there's two separate issues, and I'm sure Ms. Valdes knows exactly what I'm talking about. There's two separate issues. One is your waiver, which is separate. The second issue is increasing -from $2, 000 to 2,500 and -- Ms. Valdes: Removing the $15. Vice Chair Carollo: -- removing altogether the $15 per square foot. Ms. Valdes: That's correct. Vice Chair Carollo: Now the thing is that just five months ago, they came to us requesting the $15 per square foot and the $2, 000. Ms. Valdes: But again, five months ago we didn't have this untapped market that we have now. With respect to what happened is the County stopped these events from occurring on their site because of the advertisement provision, and we're taking advantage of that. Vice Chair Carollo: How did you come up with the $25, 000 increase, and to date, where are we because I can't track it? If you notice, I requested where it will be in our revenue enhancement strategic -- whatever we called it at that time. And you mentioned where it would be, andl saidl don't see it. I see a triple that amount. You said because it's grouped into other amounts. So from that $25,000 estimate, was this part of that estimate? Ms. Valdes: No. When we -- Vice Chair Carollo: Why not? They were a client of ours -- or if you could say client -- in previous year, so I would think you would take them into consideration. Ms. Valdes: We had not gotten their request. Remember, what we do is that when we get a call for the use of a facility, then we put them down on our schedule. They didn't come up on our schedule until this year. We wait until they request the use of the facility to put them on schedule. When we did our estimate, it was based on people who already were on schedule. Vice Chair Carollo: Question, Ms. Valdes. How many people or companies have rented out the parking space in the Miami Marine Stadium this year? Ms. Valdes: This year, we have 12 so far on our list that want to use the facility. People that have already used the facility this year? Vice Chair Carollo: Yes. City ofMiami Page 152 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Ms. Valdes: We probably have seven of them. Vice Chair Carollo: Seven. Ms. Valdes: Yeah. Vice Chair Carollo: And what's the highest amount that any one of them paid? Ms. Valdes: I don't have those numbers with me now, I'm afraid. Vice Chair Carollo: It's -- Ms. Valdes: But it's been the $15 per square foot, which is the highest number. Vice Chair Carollo: So it's been the $15 per square foot? Ms. Valdes: Yeah. But a lot of these have only used a smaller portion of the property because they can't afford the entire stadium facility, which is 317,000 square feet. Vice Chair Carollo: Has anyone paid $13, 000? Ms. Valdes: No, sir. Vice Chair Carollo: Because here's where I'm at, Mr. Behar. I don't want the Administration to take for granted when they come before us and ask us for a rate increase. Mr. Behar: I understand. Vice Chair Carollo: I could tell you, you know -- I'm not going to tell you how many times I voted for a rate or a fee increase or a tax increase, but you know what? The record's there; look at it. I think most of you will be quite surprised. And I'll be honest with you, even Commissioner Suarez -- I don't know if you could get him to vote for another rate increase on the Marine Stadium. So with that said, I definitely don't want to price you out, you know, but at the same time, I'm grappling with this because at the same time, I don't want to be taken for granted whenever a rate increase is -- has come before us, especially when it's just five months ago. And I want to know from that calculation of 25, 000, how close are we to it? Ms. Valdes: I'll get you those numbers. Chair Gort: Okay. We're going to be here when they audit the -- this has got to come back because it's a first reading coming up. This is a different -- Vice Chair Carollo: Right. Chair Gort: -- issues. You'll get a chance when we come up with your issue. Vice Chair Carollo: Well, hold on. I think what happens is his event is prior -- Mr. Behar: Correct. Vice Chair Carollo: -- to next Commission meeting. Ms. Valdes: That is correct. Mr. Behar: Correct. City ofMiami Page 153 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Vice Chair Carollo: So -- listen, I don't mind voting on the waiver and, you know, I'll grant you the waiver somewhat reluctantly. And the reason why I want to grant you the waiver is because I don't want to price you out. I think it may be unfair. But at the same time, I don't know how many people are going to come before us now -- or I'll be honest with you. I don't know how many employees would say hey, wait a second. You increased the rates and now you're giving breaks here and there and waivers here and there. And the truth of the matter is who gave us any breaks? You imposed, you know, the cuts on us. You imposed this. You imposed that. And when we came up here and begged for mercy, you still imposed it on us. So I just don't want to set precedence that every good cause, every good organization comes before us now and requests a waiver, so -- and again, I understand. I don't want to price you out either. Mr. Behar: But you're right. And I think that -- Mr. Vice Chairman -- Chair Gort: Excuse me. You're ahead of the game. Commissioner Dunn: Yeah. Don't snatch victory out of the jaws of defeat. Mr. Behar: No, no. Chair Gort: You're ahead of the game. Commissioner Dunn: Or defeat out of the jaws of victory. Mr. Behar: Let me just say one comment because that price -- andl appreciate it. I know where you're going. But that price, look at it. Chair Gort: I warned you. Mr. Behar: I know he's going to vote for us. I know. But I want to -- if you look at the price per space -- not us; anybody -- so you may have to go back -- and this is not for -- only for our event. Vice Chair Carollo: Mr. Behar, enough -- with all due respect, why didn't you come here five months ago and said, hey, what you're proposing is crazy; you're going to price us out? You should have come here five months ago and said -- Mr. Behar: Well -- Vice Chair Carollo: -- Commissioners, wait a second, wait a second. What you're doing is outrageous, and I'll tell you why. Because we have been there "X" number of years and with this proposal, it's going to cost us 13 times more. You're going to price us out and it's not fair to us. Mr. Behar: In all fairness, the way we saw that written up, it was 2,500. It was not or the greater of 10 -- $15 a foot. That came in afterwards. So that's the reason we were not here. For me, I just came on the board two months ago, so I -- Vice Chair Carollo: I gotcha. Mr. Behar: -- wasn't involved at the time. But that's the reason I went back and look at the record and it showed 2,500 not the greater of two. Julie O. Bru (City Attorney): (UNINTET,TIGIBT,F) can't take action because you've lost quorum. You can't vote on it. City ofMiami Page 154 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Vice Chair Carollo: Right, I understand. And since we lost quorum, we could still speak. Ms. Valdes, not related to the issue of the waiver. Going back to the fees, is it -- and again, I'm not ready to vote on it or anything, but I just want to, you know, have some dialogue with you. Is it possible that instead of removing the $15 per square feet, we could leave that for certain events? For instance, the tennis tournaments, some construction. Ms. Valdes: Yes, of course. We, as a matter of fact, would recommend that in some instances where there's a donation to the City in services -- for example, if the tennis -- the County wants to do improvements or there's a construction company who wants to do repaving or some improvements on City property, of course we would recommend that kind of change to the ordinance. Yes, that would be wonderful. Vice Chair Carollo: Okay. And I'm looking at that, again, separate from this waiver for FR.3, I think it is. Ms. Valdes: Yes. Vice Chair Carollo: That's -- instead of removing the $15 altogether. Ms. Valdes: That would be a recommendation that would certainly be acceptable. Vice Chair Carollo: And I think Commissioner Gort is back. I guess I was chairing while you were gone. Chair Gort: You ready? Vice Chair Carollo: Yeah. I -- Chair Gort: Is there any further discussion? Vice Chair Carollo: We don't have a motion. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Yes. Commissioner Dunn: Yeah. Yes, we do. Chair Gort: Yes, we do. Ms. Thompson: You do. Vice Chair Carollo: We do? That's right. Chair Gort: Any further discussion? Vice Chair Carollo: That's right. Usually I'm the one who's on top of this, huh? Chair Gort: Being none, all in favor, state it by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Mr. Behar: Thank you. Ms. Valdes: Thank you. END OF CITYWIDE ITEMS City ofMiami Page 155 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 DISTRICT 1 CHAIRMAN WIFREDO (WILLY) GORT END OF DISTRICT 1 DISTRICT 2 COMMISSIONER MARC DAVID SARNOFF END OF DISTRICT 2 DISTRICT 3 VICE-CHAIRMAN FRANK CAROLLO END OF DISTRICT 3 DISTRICT 4 COMMISSIONER FRANCIS SUAREZ END OF DISTRICT 4 DISTRICT 5 COMMISSIONER RICHARD P. DUNN, II END OF DISTRICT 5 NON AGENDA ITEMS NA.1 RESOLUTION 11-00160 District4- A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION WAIVING, PURSUANT Commissioner TO SECTION 54-341(E), THE RESTRICTIONS CONTAINED IN SECTIONS Francis Suarez 54-341(C)(1),(2), AND (3) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, MORE PARTICULARLY: 1. THE RESTRICTION THAT NO MORE THAN TWO EVENTS PER MONTH SHALL OCCUR, 2. THE RESTRICTION THAT ONLY ONE EVENT OF THE TWO EVENTS MAY INVOLVE STREET CLOSURES, AND 3. THE RESTRICTION ON TWO EVENTS TAKING PLACE ON SUCCESSIVE WEEKENDS, FOR EVENTS OCCURRING IN THE "COCONUT GROVE SPECIAL EVENTS DISTRICT, TO ALLOW FOR THE CARNAVAL DE BARANQUILLATO TAKE PLACE ON MARCH 12, 2011. 11-00160-Legislation. pdf Motion by Vice Chairman Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. City ofMiami Page 156 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 NA.2 11-00209 Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Carollo, Suarez and Dunn II Absent: 1 - Commissioner(s) Sarnoff R-11-0071 Chair Gort: Consent agenda. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chairman, ifI may. Chair Gort: Yes. Commissioner Suarez: Just take one item -- Chair Gort: Sure. Commissioner Suarez: -- out of order. Thank you. This is a non -economic item. It's not a pocket item 'cause it was distributed to all the Commissioners within the five-day rule. It didn't make the printed agenda, but it was e-mailed (electronic) on Tuesday of last week, I believe. It's a District 2 item. The District 2 Commissioner's not here today. It's essentially allowing for an exemption from the requirement that there's no more than two events per month will occur in the Coconut Grove special events district. It was brought to me by the applicant -- or by the Carnaval de Baranquilla festival owners. And it was also -- it's also been supported by the BID (Business Improvement District), the Coconut Grove -- Vice Chair Carollo: So move. Commissioner Suarez: Second. Chair Gort: It's been moved by Commissioner -- Vice Chairman Carollo and second by Commissioner Suarez. Any further discussion? Being none, all in favor, state it. The Commission (Collectively): Aye. DISCUSSION ITEM DISCUSSION BY CHAIR GORT REGARDING A REQUEST FROM LESTER SOLA, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS, FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI TO MOVE ITS GENERAL ELECTION DATE FROM NOVEMBER 8, 2011, TO NOVEMBER 1, 2011. DISCUSSED Chair Gort: Okay. My understanding SR.1, you're -- Tony E. Crapp, Jr. (City Manager): SR.1 has been deferred, Mr. Chairman. Chair Gort: Okay. Mayor Tomas Regalado: Mr. Chairman. Chair Gort: We go to -- at this time, Mr. Mayor, if you don't mind, we have the -- Lester Sola from the -- Mayor Regalado: Oh, yeah. Chair Gort: -- Department of Elections for the County. We'd like to ask him some questions. City ofMiami Page 157 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Yes. Mayor Regalado: And ifI may. I would like to thank the Supervisor of Elections for his actions in doing what the residents in the Brickell area wanted. As you know, there was a change of a polling place from the UTD (United Teachers of Dade) building to Jose Marti Park, and the residents said that it was about two miles or three miles and they had to drive so -- a lot of them walk to the polling places. And working with Commissioner Carlos Gimenez and Commissioner Sarnoff and our office, we were able to work with the UTD board and the Supervisor of Elections was very interested and he already had the contract signed for the polling place so it's back to what it was in the past and we want to thank Lester Sola for that. Chair Gort: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Sola. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): IfI might give some history, please, Chair. Chair Gort: Yes, ma'am. Ms. Thompson: This is before you today because we -- the City Clerk's office have sent to the Mayor and Commissioners and the Law Department information regarding a request that was made by the Supervisor of Elections regarding our upcoming November elections. Based upon that packet that I sent out to you all -- Chair, you said you had some questions that you would like discussed at this meeting. Therefore, I advised Mr. Sola, and he's more than happy to be here to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. Chair Gort: Thank you. The -- one of the reason -- I know it's three of us is going to be affected by the change. I don't have any problem with the change, especially when it shows that the City is going to be able to save, my understanding, in the long run about $1.2 million or something like that. And l just want to make sure that if any of the Commissioners had any questions, they go ahead and ask you. Lester Sola: Good morning, Mr. Chair. For the record, Lester Sola, supervisor of elections, 8700 Northwest 27th Street. I come before you in hoping to bring about some discussions or clam some thoughts that may be out there with regards to our request. We come before you every two years to make a similar request to move your election date. And we ask that you move your election date for coordination and for the benefit of the voters, and most importantly probably, considering these financial times, the cost savings that are generated to the City. We are asking that you move your election -- your first general election, which is scheduled for early November, November 8, to the date of November 1 in conjunction with the cities ofMiami Beach, Hialeah, and Homestead. That movement of a one -week time period will save the City approximately 50 to $75, 000. And we're asking you to consider that, and in the future, take legislative action to approve that change. I'd be more than happy to answer any questions that you or your fellow committee members may have. Chair Gort: Thank you, Mr. Sola. Appreciate it. Any questions? Commissioner Suarez: I'm supportive of it. If it's -- I know I have an election this year. I'm supportive of it if it's going to save 50 to $75,000. I have no problem with it. Commissioner Dunn: Mr. Chair. Chair Gort: Yes. Commissioner Dunn: I would give deference to those on the Commission who are in fact in an election, but certainly the fiscal benefits raises my antennas, but I definitely will give deference to those who are actually in an election cycle. City ofMiami Page 158 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Chair Gort: Frank. Vice Chair Carollo: There's no question about my fiscal responsibility so -- Chair Gort: As long as we save -- Vice Chair Carollo: -- I'm all for it. Chair Gort: Okay. We don't have -- Thank you very much. We don't have to take any action on this. Ms. Thompson: No. Actually, the ordinance will be presented to you at the March 10 meeting wherein you would then give your legislative approval of the request made by Mr. Sola and we can move forward from there. Thank you. Chair Gort: Thank you, Mr. Sola. Mr. Sola: Mr. Chair, thank you very much, but would like to just take a moment of personal privilege. I would be remiss ifI didn't thank the -- obviously, the Mayor for the kind words, but most importantly for his involvement in rectfing that polling location that we lost the opportunity to use and we've regained. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Chair Gort: Thank you. NA.3 RESOLUTION 11-00208 District 4- A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH Commissioner ATTACHMENT(S), URGING GOVERNOR RICK SCOTTAND THE MEMBERS Francis Suarez OF THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE TO SUPPORT FUNDING OF THE LOCAL SERVICES PROGRAM DURING THE 2011 LEGISLATIVE SESSION; DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO TRANSMITA COPY OF THIS RESOLUTION TO THE OFFICIALS DESIGNATED HEREIN. 11-00208-Submittal-Letter Alliance for Aging, Inc..pdf Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Vice Chairman Carollo, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Carollo and Suarez Absent: 2 - Commissioner(s) Sarnoff and Dunn II R-11-0076 Chair Gort: Okay, next. Vice Chair Carollo: Commissioner, I think that is the last item and we should go on recess. Chair Gort: I think that Commissioner Suarez has a pocket item. Commissioner Suarez: I have one and this is a noneconomic -- Chair Gort: Yes. Commissioner Suarez: -- item. I think it's my first pocket item ever, so -- City ofMiami Page 159 Printed on 3/14/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2011 Vice Chair Carollo: My -- hey, my pocket item, they made me -- they asked me, hey, point blank, is it an emergency. And this dumb Commissioner said no, but anyways -- Commissioner Suarez: You know, it's really not -- I mean, if we can take it up -- Vice Chair Carollo: Do it, do it. Commissioner Suarez: -- we can take it up. Vice Chair Carollo: Yeah, do it. Commissioner Suarez: This is very simple. The governor has proposed in his budget to cut LSP, which is Local Services Program, to the tune of $7, 465, 811, okay. What that would mean, if you flip to the backside, it shows the breakdown by agency of how the agencies are going to be cut. I was just put on the Alliance for Aging board. And you'll see, if you look on the back, that Allapattah -- this is a citywide issue. This is not a district -specific issue. Allapattah Community Center is going to be cut -- could potentially be cut with a loss in federal matching money, 305 clients. Little Havana Activities and Nutrition Center could be cut $265, 000, or 87 clients, with their federal match; Southwest Social Services, which has a senior center in my district, almost 800 -- actually, over $800, 000, which is 450 clients. So my resolution would be to urge the governor and the Legislature -- and to provide them with copies -- that this funding not be cut. It would be a resolution from the City Commission and it would be transmitted to the governor and it would be transmitted to the Legislature, whether they be senators or state representatives. Vice Chair Carollo: I will happily second that, Commissioner Suarez. Chair Gort: Okay, it's been moved by Commissioner Suarez, second by Vice Chairman Carollo. Any further discussion? Being none, all in favor, state it by saying aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Commissioner Suarez: Thank you. Vice Chair Carollo: Stand in recess? Commissioner Suarez: Thanks for the courtesy. Chair Gort: Recess. You need a motion for the recess? Ms. Thompson: No, no, no. No, no. Vice Chair Carollo: No. Chair Gort: No? Okay. Ms. Thompson: You're just recessing until 8 a.m. on Wednesday, March 2. Vice Chair Carollo: Second. Chair Gort: Thankyou. Thankyou, guys. Appreciate it. ADJOURNMENT On March 2, 2011, a motion was made by Vice Chair Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, and was passed unanimously, to adjourn the February 24, 2011, Miami City Commission Meeting. City ofMiami Page 160 Printed on 3/14/2011