Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2011-04-21 MinutesCity of Miami City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 www.miamigov.com Meeting Minutes Thursday, April 21, 2011 9:00 AM SPECIAL MEETING 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 II, Commissioner District Five Tony E. Crapp Jr., City Manager Julie O. Bru, City Attorney Priscilla A. Thompson, City Clerk City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 9:00 A.M. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ORDER OF THE DAY Present: Chairman Gort, Commissioner Sarnoff, Vice Chairman Carollo, Commissioner Suarez and Commissioner Dunn II On the 21 st day of April 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 special session. The meeting was called to order by Chair Gort at 9:32 a.m., recessed at 11: 29 a.m., reconvened at 11:46 a.m., recessed at 12: 55 p.m., reconvened at 2:19 p.m., and adjourned at 3: 50 p.m. ALSO PRESENT: Julie O. Bru, City Attorney Tony E. Crapp, Jr., City Manager Priscilla A. Thompson, City Clerk Chair Gort: (INAUDIBLE) and welcome to the April 21 special meeting of the City ofMiami. The members of the City Commission is Vice Chairman Frank Carollo, Commissioner Richard Dunn, Commissioner Marc Sarnoff, Commissioner Francis Suarez, and me, W fredo Gort, Chairman of the board -- Chairman of the Commission at this time. With -- also with me is City Manager, I thought -- okey-doke -- Julie O. Bru, Priscilla Thompson along with us. At this time I will now begin the regular [sic] City Commission. City Attorney will state the procedure we (UNINTELLIGIBLE) 9: 33: 24 have at this meeting. [Later...] Chair Gort: Thank you. At this time I'm going to ask Commissioner Suarez to do the prayer and Commissioner Sarnoff to do the pledge of allegiance. Commissioner Suarez: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Invocation and pledge of allegiance delivered. Julie O. Bru (City Attorney): Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, members of the public, City Manager, Madam City Clerk, Mr. Mayor. This is a special meeting. This meeting has been scheduled to consider only the following items. The first item is an emergency ordinance amending Chapter 62, Division 6, entitled "Billboards" of the City code. There will be another item, a resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into a settlement agreement with South Florida Equitable Fund, and a third item to be considered at this special meeting is a resolution of the Miami City Commission modifying the policy expressed in Resolution 09-0451 concerning the pilot program which allows thousand foot spacing of outdoor advertising signs along expressways in the City ofMiami. I believe that the items will all be discussed together and then they will be taken up individually for votes. City ofMiami Page 2 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 S P.1 11-00328 Department of Building and Zoning ORDINANCE -EMERGENCY ORDINANCE First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, AMENDING CHAPTER 62 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "ZONING AND PLANNING", BY AMENDING ARTICLE XIII, ENTITLED, "ZONING APPROVAL FOR TEMPORARY USES AND OCCUPANCIES; PERMIT REQUIRED", BY AMENDING DIVISION 6, ENTITLED, "BILLBOARDS"; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE. 11-00328 Summary Form.pdf 11-00328 Legislation .pdf 11-00328 Summary Form 04-21-11.pdf 11-00328 Email -Billboards 04-21-11.pdf 11-00328 Legislation (Version 3) 04-21-11.pdf 11-00328-Submittal-Grace Solares-Map Of Area To Be Affected By Proposed Legislation.pdf 11-00328-Submittal-Administration-Update By Intergovernmental Affairs Liaison On HB 1363.pdf 11-00328 Summary Form SR 06-09-11.pdf 11-00328 Legislation SR (Version 5) 06-09-11.pdf 11-00328 Exhibit 1 SR 06-09-11.pdf Motion by Vice Chairman Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Sarnoff, Carollo, Suarez and Dunn II Chair Gort: Mr. Johnny Martinez, you're recognized. Who's -- item one, the emergency. And one of the reasons we ask, what was the emergency? Johnny Martinez (Assistant City Manager/Chief of Infrastructure): Emergency ordinance number one amends Chapter 2 of the City code by amending Division 6, entitled Billboards." The proposed amendments are to expand the areas where billboards are not allowed, in addition to the gateway map. There will be a circular area with a radius of 1,500 feet where the center line of southboundl-95 intersects the center line of Coral Way. There will be a 1,500 foot circle where billboards will not be allowed. Also it was determined in the best interest of the City, it allows the City to go to a one-to-one ratio of takedowns to put -ups if determined that it's in the best interest of the City. It also changes the restrictive zoning from T6-8 to T5-O. Chair Gort: Thank you. At this time, since this is a public hearing, what I would like to hear before we hear from the Commission, I'd like to hear from the public, if it's all right with you all? All right. Okay. This is the public item. All those who would like to address the Commission, please step forward. Grace Solares: Good morning, Mr. Commissioners, Mr. Chair. If you would indulge me, please, I will be speaking on behalf of the Roads Association. But there is -- besides the emergency hearing, which is a public hearing, there are two additional that actually go dovetailing these -- Chair Gort: Yes, ma'am. Ms. Solares: -- things. So if you could allow me -- City of Miami Page 3 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 Chair Gort: Sure. Ms. Solares: -- a little bit more. Chair Gort: Sure. Ms. Solares: Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Grace Solares, the Roads Association. Gentlemen, with respect to this emergency motion, I have great concerns with it. I do recognize that there is a radius from a certain portion of the south lane -- bound down to 1-95 -- I mean, down to Coral Way, of 1,500 feet. However, within that same emergency motion, on page, I would assume, it's 3 -- it's not numbered -- you have item C that says west and east side of 1-95 -- of Interstate 1-95, between Southwest 1st Avenue and 81st Street. I want to give you, for purposes of showing you -- Chair Gort: Excuse me, Ms. Solares. Let me interrupt you for a minute. Since we're going to be discussing all of the items, I want to make sure that the public hearing, that we're going to be addressing all three of the items that we have in front of us, okay? Ms. Solares: Thank you so much. Chair Gort: Thank you. Continue. Ms. Solares: Thank you. Let me give you this. Chair Gort: Thank you. Ms. Solares: You see in this section east and west ofI-95 from Southwest 1st Avenue to Northwest 81 st Street. You will -- this is the Roads area. You will see there is an east and a west of 1-95 in the middle of the Roads area. You will see that 1st Avenue is the avenue which is the perimeters of the Roads area. My question is why is it -- number three still there if you are putting in 1,500 radius from the center of 1-95 south, which I would assume is by the 15th Road, and leaving at the same time on C the area included where they can put signs? I mean, it's really, really -- it's counter to what you're saying in the back. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair. Ms. Solares: Besides, in a resolution that is coming after this, you are going to put the people from -- some recommended people from Outdoor or SFEF to participate in the 1, 000 foot radius. If that takes place, then these 1,500 go away 'cause you cannot have an ordinance of a municipality doing something totally different than what the state statutes tell you, so the 1,500 radius will be reduced -- the moment your RE.13, I believe it is, maybe 14, will take effect, if you vote on it, the radius will be reduced. I would like some clarification or for you to get some clarification at whatever time thereafter whether or not that section -- that number 13 on the -- on your proposed -- or number 3(c) on your proposed amendments to be clarified. If it could be actually removed, I would greatly appreciate it because you're giving it to us on one, but you're taking it away on the other. You're passing one thing here and you're taking it away later on on the other one. It is a danger to create laws, which is exactly what is before you right now, which is the ordinance, that could give anybody any interpretation. Make it very clear. Clarity, specificity. So I object to that which -- Vice Chair Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Ms. Solares: -- on that one with -- City of Miami Page 4 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 Vice Chair Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Chair Gort: He has a question. Yes. Vice Chair Carollo: Since there are, I would assume, going to be a lot of issues, is it possible just to address this right now so then later on with all the issues that are going to be coming up, we don't lose one or forget one or so forth. It is possible to address that? Chair Gort: We could do that, but my understanding, the -- suggestion I want to make is make sure that staff writes all the questions and make sure they can answer them all together later on, if you don't mind? Vice Chair Carollo: I'm okay if -- Chair Gort: Because we can't be going back and forth all the time. I'm making sure -- she's asking specific questions. I'm sure you're taking notes. You can answer those questions. Vice Chair Carollo: You have trust that the staff will -- Chair Gort: They better. I'm writing it down. Vice Chair Carollo: Okay. Chair Gort: Commissioner. Commissioner Suarez: I mean, I have proposed language that could solve the problem if you want to hear it? Chair Gort: I beg your pardon? Yes, go ahead. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. I think what she's concerned with is what appears to be an inconsistency between 1(c) and 2(b). Chair Gort: Right. Commissioner Suarez: And what -- the reason why it appears that there's an inconsistency is because 1(c) was part of the ordinance as it now exists and 2(b) is an additional language. So what I would suggest, if it -- if Grace and the Roads Homeowners Association and district Commissioner agree is that you add the language on C that says Except as provided below. " Comma, except as provided below, period. "In other words, it would say west and east side of Interstate 95 and Southwest 1st Avenue and Northwest 81 st Street, comma, except as provided below, period." Ms. Solares: Fine. But once you remove the 1,500, once you pass that -- Commissioner Suarez: Right. Ms. Solares: -- where do we go now? Commissioner Suarez: No. I think you -- Ms. Solares: Where are we? Commissioner Suarez: -- have another issue which has to do with -- I think your secondary City of Miami Page 5 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 issue -- and I think that the City Attorney can opine on better than I -- was the resolution that goes to the 1,000 foot versus the 1,500 feet. I think that's your secondary issue. Chair Gort: Mr. Vice Chairman, it seems like you were right; we're going to be doing that then. Commissioner Suarez: I'm sorry. Vice Chair Carollo: Yeah. Chair Gort: Go ahead, ask -- Vice Chair Carollo: And as a matter of fact -- Commissioner Suarez: I'm sorry. Vice Chair Carollo: -- the issue that you just addressed, that you find a solution, I already had addressed with Warren Bittner. We had a solution for it too and it was similar. I just went down to 2 and said the provision section above, so you went below. So if Grace is okay with that, you know -- and again, I think it's just to make sure that there's no -- Chair Gort: Irregularity. Vice Chair Carollo: -- confusion and there's better clarity. Chair Gort: Right. Okay. Ms. Solares: Okay. So that -- Vice Chair Carollo: You have -- Ms. Solares: -- will be addressed then later? Chair Gort: Yes. Vice Chair Carollo: No. Well, as far as that -- either the way Commissioner Suarez said as far as putting some type of clause mentioning the number 2 below or the way I was going to write it was that number 2, stating Notwithstanding any provision in subsection one above,'then we continue. And if you're okay with that? Chair Gort: Mr. Bittner, I want to make sure that you have this and you're going to address it later on also, the request by the Commissioners? Warren Bittner (Deputy City Attorney): Yeah, I do have that. Mr. Chairman, I would prefer Commissioner Carollo's suggestion. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): I'm sorry, Chair. We're not hearing. The microphone, is it on or -- Mr. Bittner: It's on, yeah. Ms. Thompson: -- can you speak --? Okay, thank you. Mr. Bittner: Mr. Chairman, I would prefer Commissioner Carollo's proposal as opposed to Commissioner Suarez on that one. City of Miami Page 6 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 Commissioner Suarez: Of course you would; you wrote it. Chair Gort: Okay. Well -- Vice Chair Carollo: I go to the attorney, man. Chair Gort: Listen, he's the accountant and attorney. Fine. But I want to make sure we address it later on. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Solares: Mr. Chair, I'd like to ask then, if he's saying that, once you pass, if you pass, the resolution with respect to the recommendation to the thousand feet pilot program, where would the radius fall down to? 'Cause you cannot have the 1,500 radius if the -- if they fall within the 1,000 square feet of being able to put, where will the radius then fall down to? Mr. Bittner: In my judgment, we're comparing apples and oranges right there. The 1, 000 foot pilot program is for spacing along state roads and interstate highways. The 1,500 foot radius as -- is a restricted area where you can't put anything -- Ms. Solares: Okay. Mr. Bittner: -- like a gateway. Ms. Solares: Okay. So I'm supposed to trust you on that one? Okay. Thank you, sir. Chair Gort: Whatever question -- Vice Chair Carollo: It's on the record. Chair Gort: -- I got to assure you, whatever question comes up in here, it's going to be addressed by them and it's going to be addressed by us also. Ms. Solares: Okay. With respect, sir, to the 1, 000 feet program it is said that's going to be in benefit -- beneficial for the people ofMiami because it will make less -- it will produce less billboards. In Mr. Echemendia's deposition, he was asked question: But it is contemplated that some of the seven permits could be used on sites which had 1, 000 foot spacing under the pilot program? "He said, That is conceivable. Yes. I knew'=- he goes below -- that the 1, 000 foot space would provide more locations. "So if it's in his own words that you're giving him the opportunity to be part of the 1,000 foot pilot program, you will have more proliferations of billboards in this City if you -- I see you saying no, sir. But with his own words, in his own deposition, he's looking for billboards because you are -- Chair Gort: Right. Ms. Solares: -- reducing the space within which you'll be able to put the billboards. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chairman. Ms. Solares: So -- Chair Gort: Thank God, that gentleman doesn't work for the City of Miami, so that's fine. Go ahead. City ofMiami Page 7 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 Ms. Solares: What was that? Chair Gort: That gentleman does not work for the City ofMiami, so -- Ms. Solares: Okay. Well -- Chair Gort: -- whatever he says, he can say whatever he wants. Ms. Solares: -- this is the gentleman who's getting the agreement from you. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chairman. Chair Gort: Yes. Ms. Solares: I know with respect to -- Commissioner Suarez: Okay. Chair Gort: Excuse me. Ms. Solares: -- then the -- Chair Gort: I have attorney who wants to ask you a question. Commissioner Suarez: No. I just -- I have a disagreement with the statement that she just made. The way I view it -- and maybe the City Attorney can opine on it -- is by reducing the foot limitation along the highways, it would allow for more eligible locations along the highways. If you look at the ordinance as before us, the ordinance reduces the number of billboards in neighborhoods. So what you're essentially saying is we're taking down a billboard, we're taking it out of a neighborhood or facing a neighborhood and we 're putting it along a highway. To put it along a highway, you need to have more eligible spaces along the highway. Ms. Solares: Right. Commissioner Suarez: So I have to correct that record. Because it's actually -- there's been statements made, and I've received e-mails (electronic), that the proposed ordinance proposes to increase the number of billboards in the neighborhoods and it does exactly the opposite and that has to be clarified. And ifI have to go through the sections of the ordinance that it, I will. I have no problem doing that. So what the ordi -- what the proposed ordinance does is that it says we will reduce from a two -to -one ratio -- two -to -one takedown ratio to one-to-one takedown ratio if that billboard that's being taken down comes from or faces a neighborhood. So it is actually reducing the number of billboards that are in or face a neighborhood, and that has to be fairly clarified. Now to move a billboard from a neighborhood, it has to be moved somewhere. That's eligible. And the only eligible place that's palatable is by the highways. Ms. Solares: Right. Commissioner Suarez: So that's why the spacing requirement has to be, my understanding -- Ms. Solares: My -- Commissioner Suarez: -- of what -- City ofMiami Page 8 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 Ms. Solares: -- statement -- Commissioner Suarez: -- that's what I was told. Ms. Solares: Commissioner, my state -- Chair Gort: Thank you. Commissioner Suarez: Am I correct? Am I incorrect? Chair Gort: Vice Chairman. Mr. Bittner: You're correct, Commissioner. Chair Gort: Vice Chairman. Vice Chair Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Chair Gort: Yes. Vice Chair Carollo: Thank you. I don't disagree with what Commissioner Suarez is saying. I actually agree with you. However, the definition of neighborhood is very decent from what I think the average person's definition of neighborhood is. As a matter of fact, one of the locations that is considered for takedown, we took pictures of it so you see if that is considered a neighborhood. According to the language here, it's considered a neighborhood. However, I think the average person out there will not consider that a neighborhood. They don't consider it, you know, a business section or a busy street or so forth, so it's a little deceiving. Because although you're correct, the definition of neighborhood, again, is not what the average person's definition is, and we could probably get into that now or later or so forth. So that's the only issue. It's a little deceiving 'cause it seems like oh, well, we're taking them out of the neighborhoods where it's not going to be, you know, a burden to the actual neighbors and so forth, neighborhoods like, let's say, Bay Heights, Shenandoah, Silver Bluff, but no. In essence, if you really read what the definition within this settlement of neighborhood is, in all reality, it seems like just about any sign that is not near a highway is a neighborhood. So -- Chair Gort: Gentlemen -- Vice Chair Carollo: -- I just want to clarify that. Chair Gort: -- let me go to the suggestion once again. Let's hear all the questions. Let's make sure staff writes all the questions. Make sure we write all the questions. And we're going to have a lot of debate afterwards ourselves. So could you please finish, Ms. Solares? Thank you. Ms. Solares: Thank you, sir. Now with reference to RE.13, is that the settlement agreement? Okay, thanks. As you know, Mr. Echemendia filed a lawsuit, which he lost, and Judge Ungaro said in sum, none of SFES [sic] claims are (UNINTELLIGIBLE) 9: 52: 27, means that he didn't have a basis to have filed. So the only reason why -- and this I'm going by his deposition -- that he filed a lawsuit against the City was at the recommendations of the City Attorney because he had purchased the rights to a board called Boardwalks, and that Boardwalks since 2001 had code violations. He assumed that by going before the code violation board or the general master of the board, he was going to be able to actually settle not only the Code enforcement violations by a mitigation process, but he also thought he was going to be able to utilize that vehicle in order to get into a settlement with the City ofMiami and get what is before you today. He met with Pete Hernandez and Pieter Bockweg. They said, oh, yeah, you have two City ofMiami Page 9 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 that you're taking down, Boardwalk and the Hampton Inn. And that sound like it's good. But then they went to the City Attorney and the City Attorney said, no. Sue us. Sue us. It was an invitation from the City Attorney for these people to sue the City. He didn't have a basis. Judge Ungaro says he didn't have a basis. But that is the way this settlement agreement is now before you, on what I would assume is a sham settle [sic] agreement because -- a sham of a lawsuit pursuant to Judge Ungaro. I believe the appeal they have filed with the court of appeals is equally as (UNINTELLIGIBLE) 9:54:12. I ask you -- I wrote you an e-mail andl sent it to each one of you, that I thought this was extortion and blackmail. If you abdicate your abilities as elected officials to cave in to an entity or an individual or two or three individuals that are blackmailing the City under any basis, you're going to be opening this City and therefore the resources of the taxpayers of this City to future extortionists and blackmailers that they say to you if you don't do this for me, I will do this against you. So I please ask you, Commissioners, to be very careful what you approve. And also in his settlement agreement, his indemnification agreement in here, which is on page 3, is quite problematical because they say that they are indemning the City with respect to CBS (Columbia Broadcasting System), only CBS, coming after you for any claims that may arise as a result of this City. I suggest that you include here any and all individuals, entities, companies, anything that comes after the City, they will all in be in not just SFEF alone 'cause SFEF is a corporation. It doesn't have a dime. It doesn't have to pay you a dime. But the individuals here, personally, should be liable. Chair Gort: Thank you. Ms. Solares: Thank you so much. Chair Gort: Thank you. Next. Commissioner Suarez: Grace, what page was that indemnification on? I didn't catch it. Commissioner Sarnoff. Mr. Chair. Chair Gort: Yes. Ms. Solares: What was that? Commissioner Suarez: What page was the indemnification? Commissioner Sarnoff. I think could respond -- Ms. Solares: Twenty-three. Commissioner Sarnoff. -- to you for that. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. Commissioner Sarnoff. 'Cause I actually -- Commissioner Suarez: Oh, 23. Ms. Solares: Twenty-three, I think. Commissioner Suarez: I heard -- Commissioner Sarnoff. You want to work on that right now. Is it all right, Mr. Chair? City of Miami Page 10 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 Chair Gort: Go right ahead. Commissioner Sarnoff. It's section 15(e), indemnification. If you just change it from -- it presently says SFEF and you add and the joining parties "cause joining parties are defined in the agreement. And it would be not just brought by CBS. It should be by any party who may have any claims. So if you go to 15(e) of the agreement and again -- Vice Chair Carollo: Page 22. Commissioner Suarez: Twenty-two. Commissioner Sarnoff. Right. -- and you look at SFEF and add the language and the joining parties,'and then Commissioner Suarez can ver joining parties is a defined term in the agreement. If you come down just two sentences where you see the word CBS, line through CBS, and it should be brought by any party who may have any claims. Then if you go to 18(o) of the agreement, and there you'll see a second indemnifi, and hold harmless. And if you just go down one, two, three, four, five sentences, and you'll see where it starts with consequently, and you'll see it says Consequently, SFEF"-- and if you just add the language -- and the joining parties'and then it takes off with agrees."Go down one more sentence and you'll see where it says Ihall defend with counsel designated by SFEF'and then you add and the joining parties." That covers the issues that the Roads Association has brought up. Chair Gort: Okay. Vice Chair Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Chair Gort: Yes, sir. Vice Chair Carollo: Just real quick. I'm not saying that I'm going to be in favor of the settlement once we come to a vote. But already I can say we're making it a much better ordinance and a much better settlement. So already, it's paid off that we took a little extra time Commissioner Suarez: Absolutely. Vice Chair Carollo: -- to review this, so thank you. Chair Gort: That always helps. Yes, sir. Nathan Kurland: Nathan Kurland 3132 Day Avenue. Good morning, Commissioners. Good morning, citizens ofMiami. When thinking about today, I've had a hard time in my mind to decide where to begin. On this discussion we have a Commissioner who's called what's taking place blackmail and extortion, and we have another Commissioner who's called it leverage. Politically wealthy -- politically connected wealthy people have always had influence everywhere since the beginning of time. Usually, they kept it a little on the quiet side. I'd like to thank Chuck Rabin, but in Patricia Mazzei -- I've been a newspaper reader all of my life -- for the article that they wrote yesterday regarding billboards because oftentimes we don't actually get to know the story here, and this story embarrasses me. And the point want to make today is about precedent. We have a state government right now where there is no sunshine law, none. You're under sunshine. Every board here in the City ofMiami's under sunshine and, yet, we have a state government where now it's become practice where state representatives can actually say to the paper yes, a number of influential individuals have pushed this provision of the bill which will penalize and punish the City ofMiami if they don't go along with it. This is a bad precedent. Because when people begin to feel that it's okay for City ofMiami Page 11 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 people to do things like this, then it becomes the rule of -- then it really becomes what you expect our government to do. This is wrong. This is incorrect. We have a state representative -- I mean a representative today -- a state representative today on the front page of the paper who says, Yeah, I haven't lived in my own district for nine months, but when we were consider kids, we used to go 'take back, take back. "'And he says okay, take it back. I'll move next week. We have a state rep -- a U.S. representative who listed on his application jobs that he supposedly was receiving money from. Well, it was found out that he didn't have those jobs, and he said Fake back, take back. I really didn't earn money from that. I earned money from something else. "And people -- and the people watching over, the ones who were supposed to oversee these ethics are the same people doing the very same thing. Is this going to be okay? You're faced with a very difficult decision today. I'm not opposed to the City ofMiami trying to make money and stuff back up, you know, our bleeding condition, but I'm also not in favor of setting a precedent where we can be penalized for doing the right thing if it happens to be the right thing. Blackmail, extortion, the rights of a few to make money as opposed to the rights of the citizens to have quality of life, this is not a good precedent to set, and that's the one you're going to be setting today. Thank you. Chair Gort: Thank you. Anyone else? Anyone else? Please, whoever want to speak, line up. Yes, ma'am. Linda Caroll: Good morning. My name is Linda Caroll. I'm an attorney, and I represent Andres Monsalve. Mr. Monsalve doesn't have a lot of money, doesn't have any friends or influential people in Tallahassee, and therefore, he's probably one of the -- among the millions of people who usually don't get heard. Andl appreciate the time that you give to me this morning. Mr. Monsalve owns the property at the intersection of Southwest 17th Road and Coral Way. Now that property has a three-story commercial building on it. It rises and it overlooks and fronts onto the southbound lane ofI-95. That may not -- you may not be able to picture it so much as ifI put the words that's where the famous Hampton Inn sign was that you've heard so much about. I've sent letters to you all a couple of months ago. I -- explaining in some detail the fact that my client never authorized the inclusion of his property in any prior settlement agreement with anyone. In 2008, however, despite the fact that my client owned the property, despite the fact that the City ordinance always said you have to have the property owner's approval, my client's property at the doing, the specific doing and fraudulent representations by Santiago Echemendia, my client's property got put into a settlement agreement. My client went through litigation before FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation). Again, Mr. Echemendia made false representations to FDOT with regard to 7 have this permit for this property, 'except for the fact that there's a certification that's supposed to be on the permit transfer that says have the property owner's approval. Nobody would listen to him. Again, he's one of the millions that people don't seem to want to listen to unless, of course, you have influence. Now, my client wouldn't settle with Mr. Echemendia's other company. I guess the one -- the SFEF 'cause before, he was trading under Outlook Media. He wouldn't settle with him when we were back here back in -- end of February. My client has been trying to get back to where he was in mid-2008. He just wanted to have his property, pay his taxes, and have a sign on his building, not a freestanding monopole. He just wanted to have this little sign on his building that he's had since his family bought the property in 1989, but again, nobody's listening to him. And in fact, after that hearing, at the end of February when Commissioner Carollo was not going to be bullied and pushed around -- andl thank you, Commissioner -- my client made another application to the City for his little bill -- for a permit for his little billboard on that building because -- everybody talks about Hampton Inn came down, the content that said Hampton Inn came down, but that wasn't the removal of a billboard. My clients had that structure on that wall going back years, but nobody's listening to him. He has today an application pending and nobody's listening to him. The department that's charged with the responsibility of approving or denying a permit application -- it's been over 30 days; not one word has been heard. But now, since we were here I guess a week ago, we now -- or City ofMiami Page 12 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 maybe -- last week. We had an amendment proposed that's under your consideration now to put this radius -- and magically, what is this radius? It's the centerline ofI-95, south bound lane, and the centerline off Coral Way. So if -- you know, you drill a hole for I-95 down to Coral Way, guess what's abutting that hole? My client's property. So again, ifyou pass this as an emergency ordinance, which, for the life of me, I don't know what the emergency is -- to justify the procedures, so we object on that ground. But getting over the procedural posture, how can this Commission for the second time in two years take my client's property rights? Just because he's a little person and doesn't have influence in Tallahassee, he would request that you pay attention to his rights. Outlook Media, South Florida whatever they call it, they never had a permit. They never had a right. They don't own land that upon which you could even have an outdoor advertising sign. My client's not looking for a big structure or a monopole. He wants to have his little sign on his building, but nobody will listen to him. It's not right. It's not fair. It's not constitutional. And if you pass it, which I really suggest and hope that you don't do because -- please, listen to a resident who's been paying taxes all along. When did Outlook Media pay a dime of taxes? When did SFEF pay a dime of taxes? When did either of those two companies even pay attention to the people around that location? They haven't. Chair Gort: Thank you, ma'am. Ms. Carroll: Thank you very much. Chair Gort: Thank you. Commissioner Sarnoff. Mr. Chair. Chair Gort: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff. Mr. Bittner, as long as Monsalve's come up, explain do you have to have an FDOT tag before you can put a billboard up? Mr. Bittner: At that location, yes, you would. Commissioner Sarnoff. Do they have an FDOT tag? Mr. Bittner: Not that I'm aware of at this time. Commissioner Sarnoff. So if they don't have an FDOT tag, what is their --? Everyone in the City ofMiami, in order to put something up next to the Interstate, must have an FDOT-approved permanent and tag, correct? Mr. Bittner: Unless it is not facing the interstate highway. Commissioner Sarnoff. Andl believe that was conceded by Ms. Caroll to be facing the interstate highway? Mr. Bittner: I heard her say that too. Commissioner Sarnoff. All right. So I'm trying to understand, if she doesn't even have a tag, what entitlement does she have to put a billboard up there? Mr. Bittner: Well, I believe she has none. And in addition to that, the ordinance as it exists right this very second before you amend it excluded gateways and this property is within the Coral Way gateway. So as it even stands right now, a sign cannot be erected at that location. City ofMiami Page 13 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 Chair Gort: Commissioner, let me continue my suggestions. Let's write down all those questions and answer them later. Let's hear the public hearing. We'll close the public hearing and we'll have those questions. Ms. Carroll: May I please -- Chair Gort: Thank you. Ms. Carroll: -- just respond because misinformation is being given. Chair Gort: Two minutes, ma'am. Ms. Carroll: My client's property is already in a settlement agreement that the Commission gave to -- gave my client's property away. That's number one. Number two, my client's property had a tag. Chair Gort: Okay. Ms. Carroll: That tag was fraudulently taken away by Mr. Echemendia's lies or his company's lies on a permit application. And three, the City ofMiami Zoning administrator, back in 2008, joined with Mr. Echemendia in preventing my client from getting the permit that he was applying for at that time with FDOT. Chair Gort: Okay. Thank you, ma'am. Ms. Carroll: Thank you. Chair Gort: Anyone else? Anyone else? Thomas Julin: Good morning. I'm Tom Julin of Hunton & Williams. I reside at 808 Brickell Key Drive. I have not previously registered as a lobbyist. I wanted to disclose that at the outset. I filled the papers this morning with the Clerk and spoke to the City Attorney about that. I'm the counsel for South Florida Equitable Fund in the litigation that is the subject of the settlement that we are discussing. And I client asked that I address the Commission in order to protect its rights. I understand there's an issue, though, with respect to whether the Commission would allow me to do that because of the lobbyist registration issue, and I just raised that with you initially. Commissioner Sarnoff. Mr. Chair. Chair Gort: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff. Is there a pending appeal, Mr. Bittner? Mr. Bittner: Yes, Commissioner, there's a pending appeal. Commissioner Sarnoff. Can he discuss as an attorney his side of the litigation? Mr. Bittner: I see no reason why he shouldn't, although I would counsel you all to be careful of what you say. Chair Gort: Not to say anything. Commissioner Sarnoff. Okay. City ofMiami Page 14 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 Ms. Thompson: And ifI might, Chair. Chair Gort: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Andl apologize because the ordinance says that they must register and they must have their certificate. So what we've done in the past, having the attorney speak, the Commission has decided or determined whether or not they would let that continue for the record, so if we can make sure that's clear on the record. Chair Gort: Okay. Commissioner Sarnoff. Are you suggesting -- I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. Is that all right? Chair Gort: Yeah, go right ahead. Commissioner Sarnoff. Are you suggesting that we do a motion --? Ms. Thompson: No. We've not done a motion in the past. You just made a statement saying that taking into consideration the facts with the understanding that at -- you know, within a certain period of time, he meets the requirements for the -- registering as a lobbyist and bringing in a certificate. Chair Gort: Does he meet the requirements? Vice Chair Carollo: (UNINTET,TIGIBT,F) 10:11:52 ordinance. Mr. Bitmer: We have allowed that in the past. He has already indicated he's going to take the course at the earliest possible opportunity. We've permitted that courtesy to attorneys in the past. Chair Gort: All right. What's the wish of the Commission? Commissioner Sarnoff. I want to hear what he has to say about their legal rights. Chair Gort: Okay. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Chair Gort: Go right ahead. Mr. Julin: Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. This -- the lawsuit that was filed, as you know, was filed not because my client wanted to file the lawsuit. We felt that we needed to file the lawsuit in order to have a settlement agreement with the City. That was the genesis of the case, as Ms. Solares points out. We certainly had hoped not to get into litigation. We hope not to have to pursue this as far as it was pursued, and we hope not to have to pursue the appeal that is currently under way. We would like to have a settlement agreement as other outdoor advertising companies have with the City and we hope that's what we achieve today. We think that the settlement agreement that has been negotiated is a good and fair settlement that will result in substantial revenues obviously to the City, something in the neighborhood of a million dollars here in fees. There is a provision in the proposed settlement agreement that I'd like to point out should not be there, and that is there are statements that are made in the settlement agreement with respect to a sign that has been acquired from Clear Channel Outdoor. We had hoped that Clear Channel Outdoor would sell the sign. That's why City of Miami Page 15 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 it's in the draft. It's been in many different drafts all along. And there were extensive negotiations with Clear Channel Outdoor about acquiring that sign, but that sign has not been acquired. Clear Channel has advised us that it will not go through with the sale of that sign and so that should not be a part of this settlement agreement. I just wanted to make that clear, that that should not be a part of this agreement. The settlement offers many, we think, benefits to the City. Obviously, the City has included in this draft settlement agreement a provision which provides that the settlement is not effective if the Legislature passes the bill that is pending there that would limit the fees that the City can impose on all types of signs in the City. That was something that was put in at this request of the City, and it would give our -- my client obviously a great incentive to oppose that legislation. It's been characterized in lots of different ways, blackmail and extortion and so forth, but the fact of the matter is that this is simply a provision in the settlement agreement that gives a strong incentive to our client to oppose that legislation. That's all that this really is. And then as far as the lawsuit itself, there's been some characterization of the lawsuit as a sham, and l just wanted to respond briefly to that, and then answer any questions that you might have about the lawsuit or the settlement agreement. The lawsuit, we felt, brought very serious first amendment claims. As you know, it raised equal protection issues, it raised vagueness issues, and it raised other issues about the ordinances that were in place. The City in fact responded to the lawsuit by amending some aspects of the ordinance that were in place, I think, because of concern that there was validity to the lawsuit that was filed. The ruling by the judge is not a ruling on the merits of the claim. The ruling is simply saying that there wasn't enough that was done in order to get a final ruling from the City Commission. That's a major part of the ruling of the Court, and she does not address the merits of the claim. So in the -- in resolving this matter, this would avoid any further litigation over the merits of the ordinances that are now in place. It certainly would avoid the appeal. And we think again that the settlement would be a very good one that results in substantial revenues for the City and gives my client every reason to oppose the legislation that is pending in Tallahassee. If there are any questions, I'll be glad to answer them about the status of the litigation or the settlement. Chair Gort: Thank you, sir. Anyone else? Glenn Smith: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. I'm Glenn Smith. I represent CBS Outdoor. My address is 200 East Broward Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301. We would like to go on record as opposing this settlement. We're not here to say to the City or take a position the City shouldn't try to settle litigation when it's to their best interest. However, we think this one goes far beyond what's right and affects a lot of people. First of all, there is no legal emergency for this ordinance. I just want to go on record for that. If you look under state law or local law, your own local ordinances, your own charter, this does not qualify. Going beyond that, though, keep in mind CBS Outdoor has a settlement agreement with you. CBS has owned an inventory of signs which have been in existence since the '60s. They are not a Johnny Come Lately who goes out and buys an illegal board work sign, such as Outlook did, which the City has already determined is an illegal sign, and then use that to provide a springboard leverage, if you will, to seek a settlement agreement with you today for nine new signs on the expressway. They don't have an inventory. They're going to furnish takedowns from an after -acquired signs. Now go back to CBS. CBS has paid this City $2.6 million already and that's growing. They will pay the City far in excess of the million one that SFEF might pay sometime in the future. They've already paid more and will pay more. Now here's -- keep this in mind. The million one that's in the agreement, SFEF may be illusory. CBS will pay you money on your settlement agreement with CBS depending on how many locations it's able to acquire, same with SFEF, but there are only a very limited number of locations on expressways because of the gateways and other restrictions you have put in the agreements. There are only a limited number of signs. So if CBS gives a location that SFEF doesn't, that just means SFEF pays less money and vice versa. Now we're not here to say that you shouldn't approve SFEF's agreement because -- to stifle competition. CBS competes with City of Miami Page 16 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 major international corporations everyday around the world. We're not afraid of that. All we ask of you is to have a level playing field. The CBS agreement says the takedowns are two -for -one and the fees, of course, are much larger. But let's focus on the two -for -one. The agreement you're being asked to approve says no -- one -for -one. Now that gives SFEF a great competitive advantage against CBS. I won't even speakfor Clear Channel. They'll speakfor themselves. But Clear Channel has a two -for -one requirement also. Why should the playing -- the rules of the game be different for this applicant, for this person seeking a settlement? Let me also tell you very briefly another story. In -- we were here before you, I think, on March 2, and then again, I think, a week later on the issue of whether to approve the Sevennine's location. Andl informed you at that time that Outlook, SFEF, and CBS had been in mediation the day before and had reached the terms of an agreement to make into a global settlement involving the City to get rid of all the number of cases and appeals that are pending, that all of it would go away and the City would be out from under this burden, CBS would, everybody would, and a deal was made. And the deal was SFEF -- I have trouble with that acronym -- would get four locations, four. We had a deal. A deal was in place. Four locations. City staff approved that. Everybody approved that. What happened was you, in your judgment, felt that Sevennine should not be one of those locations, so that sent us back to the drawing board because that took away one of the four. So we started negotiations, the City, SFEF, and CBS, to try to come up with that fourth location. So we were talking. Everybody's engaged in that. Then all of a sudden everything goes dark. CBS cannot get anything from the City about what's going on. Certainly can't get anything from our competitor, SFEF, and so, for a number of weeks, nothing happens. Then all of a sudden -- now, let me back up. The four that SFEF was going to get was a two -for -one requirement. CBS and Clear Channel were going to participate to make that happen so they have the takedown sort. Then all of a sudden -- going back now -- the City's gone dark. Everybody's gone dark. Now there's a new deal. Nine locations, nine, four to nine for the same applicant who owns one illegal sign in the City. Now it's nine and it's one -for -one. We don't understand why that's happening. Just make the level playing field, everybody. What we're hearing is this applicant is saying, you know, if you give me nine, I'll make this legislation go away in Tallahassee. I don't know what your lobbyists are telling you. I guess you're going to discuss that later. All I'm saying is okay. If you want to settle, we understand you want to settle. We think it should be a global settlement. We've said that from day one. Get rid of everything that's pending, and the rules should be the same. The rules should be the same for everybody. Thanks for your time. Chair Gort: Thank you. Commissioner Suarez: I have a question. Chair Gort: Anyone else? Let -- Commissioner Suarez: I have a question for him. Chair Gort: There's a question for you. Commissioner Suarez: Just a question. Mr. Smith: Yes, sir. Commissioner Suarez: I'm assuming you have lobbyists as well in your company. Mr. Smith: Yes, sir. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. What are your lobbyists telling you about the bill in Tallahassee, just out of curiosity? I'm just curious. City of Miami Page 17 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 Mr. Smith: I don't know that information. I'd have to ask my client. I'm just a mouthpiece in Miami. So let me -- if you want me to ask him, 171 ask him. Commissioner Suarez: Sure. Mr. Smith: Okay. Commissioner Suarez: I'm just interested. I mean, I -- it doesn't really bear on my decision, but it'd be interesting to know. Chair Gort: Yes, sir. Mario Moncada: Hello. Good morning, everyone. Well, my name is Mario Moncada. I live on 2555 Southwest 16 Terrace. My ZIP (Zone Improvement Plan) Code is 44 -- 33145. I'm here because I'm against the law because I thinkl vote for you guys and this company is trying to treat you like a puppet just because -- this is not good for the City 'cause you're letting yourself being forced to settling by someone because the client has political connections in Tallahassee. And how can the City get these people? I mean, like I am against this because I live here. And I think we vote for you guys because you're taking care ofMiami. I don't care Tallahassee. I don't care. No. I care about City ofMiami. Andl think ifyou let this law go on, you -- someone else is going to be like (UNINTET,TIGIBT,F) 10: 24: 59 and then going to force you guys to do the same thing with them 'cause you let them once like do the same thing. That was -- that's all I have to say. And thank you for your time. Chair Gort: And thank you for being here. Thank you. Betsy Araujo: Good morning. My name is Betsy Araujo. I live in 5765 Southwest 50 Street. Ms. Thompson: Ma'am, just -- excuse me, ma'am. Just pull the mike down so -- Ms. Araujo: Okay. My name is Betsy Araujo. I live in 5765 Southwest 50 Street. My husband andl were listening to the radio yesterday andl can't believe that Tallahassee is trying to push the law down our throats and the people we vote for are not standing here for our interests. Thank you. Chair Gort: Thank you, ma'am. Yes, sir. Mr. Smith: I'm sorry. Chair Gort: No. You get to answer. Mr. Smith: Just to answer the Commissioner's question, obviously, there's no certainty in life, and particularly in Tallahassee, but CBS believes the bill can be stopped. That's -- Commissioner Sarnoff. Would CBS be willing to indemnf us for the amount of money we would lose? Mr. Smith: No. Chair Gort: That was quick. Commissioner Sarnoff. Let me ask you -- Mr. Chair. City ofMiami Page 18 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 Chair Gort: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff. You indicated that you've paid the City $2.6 million -- Mr. Smith: Yes, sir. Commissioner Sarnoff. -- Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith: Yes, sir. Commissioner Sarnoff. How many billboards do you have? Mr. Smith: Total? Commissioner Sarnoff. Yes, sir. Mr. Smith: Fortyish. Commissioner Sarnoff. Forty-two, I believe. Mr. Smith: The total inventory, I think, is 40. In the -- Commissioner Sarnoff. Forty-two, correct? Mr. Smith: I think that's correct. Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff. And how many of those did you buy? Mr. Smith: Did personally? Commissioner Sarnoff. No, not you personally. When I mean you, I mean CBS. How many of those billboards did you acquire through purchase? Chair Gort: We got, I think, one more and we'll close the public hearings. Mr. Smith: Certainly -- you -- whether we bought them already existing, is that what your -- the question is? Commissioner Sarnoff. You made a statement that the other folks are buying billboards that were inventory billboards. I'm asking how many inventory billboards you bought. Mr. Smith: Well, none -- let me just finish -- to provide the basis for a lawsuit against the City. We -- CBS over the years has acquired approximately -- a majority of the 42 -- Commissioner Sarnoff. Thirty, correct? About 30 of them? Mr. Smith: I think it's around 30, yes, sir. Commissioner Sarnoff. Right. You've purchased 30 billboards from inventory. Mr. Smith: Yes, as part of the inventory. Commissioner Sarnoff. Okay. City of Miami Page 19 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 Mr. Smith: And we also built a number. Yes, sir. Commissioner Sarnoff. Thank you. Chair Gort: Thank you. Mr. Smith: Thank you. Chair Gort: Yes, sir. Jermaine Robinson: Good morning. My name is Jermaine Robinson. I live at 3409 Franklin Avenue. And Commissioner, I live in the district andl usually don't come to these meetings ever, but after reading the paper yesterday and seeing it, I was very disappointed. I believe that it's like a bully trying to threaten you. This is a guy who steals your lunch money and now you're settling to get half back. First they threaten to sue and that didn't work, and now they're resorting to threatening to passing law in Tallahassee. I believe this is wrong, and I'm just against it, andl believe that we can do better than that. So I just want to make that statement. Chair Gort: Thank you. Mr. Robinson: Thank you. Chair Gort: Thank you for coming forward. Anyone else? Anyone else? Being none, close the public hearing. Comments. Vice Chairman. Vice Chair Carollo: I'm probably not going to say everything that I have to say in this first round, but I do want to begin the same way that I began in the last meeting, which is I remember about a year and a half ago all this talk about transparency, transparency, and one of the reasons thatl ran was to have more transparency in the government. Andl think that what has occurred here has begun to be reported. I thank the Herald. I think the TV (Television) channels. Because the truth of the matter is we're starting to see realistically what's happening and how government works or appears to work. Again, I have a question. Mr. Assistant City Manager, why is this an emergency? Mr. Martinez: I'm going to speak about the ordinance of why it's an emergency, but I have to put in the context of a settlement. The Administration believes that the settlement that will be before you later is fair and in the best interest of the City. It releases the City from liability and claims made stronger by the Commission a little earlier. It resolves pending litigation. It waives on rights against the City. And it resolves Code enforcement proceedings. And it brings a million dollars of permit fees to the City. However, although I think the phrase the sky is falling, '7 don't believe the sky is falling. I do believe it's cloudy and gray. And on a parallel course, we have the pending litigation and we also have the legislative -- proposed legislation that's going on a parallel course to the things that we're doing today. I -- we can't predict the outcome of what's going to happen in the Legislature. We can't predict the outcome of the settlement. From a business perspective, I think it's prudent to at least consider those things that are happening in that parallel course, andl believe that the timing -- that the settlement is fair and it's good, but the timing has to be -- coincide with the ordinance. If the ordinance takes its normal course -- first reading, 30 day second reading -- the legislation would have already passed, which we can't predict the outcome. So I believe it's an emergency from a business standpoint for the City. Vice Chair Carollo: Second time around was a lot better, huh? Chair Gort: Have practice. City of Miami Page 20 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 Mr. Martinez: Yes, sir. Vice Chair Carollo: Yeah. Anyways, with that said, I understand that we need to amend our ordinance in order for -- to be in agreement with the proposed settlement. However, why are we not going through the normal course, the 30 days? I know you mentioned it. Say it again. Because the truth of the matter is, let's say we do this and it passes through the Legislature. What makes us think that if we actually settle, it's going to die in the Legislature and it's not going to pass? Mr. Martinez: We have a provision on the last page of the settlement that if the legislation doesn't go away, the settlement is null and void. Vice Chair Carollo: Right. But my question is -- I understand that. However, my question is what's the hurry of settling? Because in all fairness, if it goes after the legislation, then there's no big deal. If it goes beforehand, they could still pass the legislation, right? It seems like we're -- it seems like we are hurrying up before this year's session finishes. Is there a reason for that? Mr. Martinez: I think the reason is the session ends May 6. If we take the 30 days from -- assuming that the ordinance passes today on first reading, 30 days from today goes beyond the May 6 legislation, and we don't know what the outcome is going to be. And l just think that if we look at the settlement on the basis of itself, it's a good settlement, but we need to consider the effects of what happens in the Legislature as it affects the City. Vice Chair Carollo: Well, we could discuss the merits of the settlement later on. However, as I think we all have known and have actually stated publicly in different ways -- some have called it blackmail, like I have; some have called it leverage or we are being handcuffed -- the bottom line is that we have a company that sued us. They weren't happy with what we thought was reasonable settlement. It went to a federal judge, which ruled in the City's favor, and then know that was specifically told by the Administration if you don't settle with them, they're going to go to the Legislature and they're going to propose a bill which will get into the Legislature because of their contacts and we're going to need to settle with them. "That is actual -- that's actually blackmail. And again, we have hired five to six lobbyists for the state alone. I really think it's an insult that they have not given us a proper update on what's going on. I remember Chairman Gort in the last meeting saying? want them to give us an update letting us know what happened. "Either very late last night or very early this morning, however you want to call it, I sent an e-mail to the Manager asking whether is it, where is this update? I finally received it at 8 something in the morning, which just showed, once again, the bill language and that it will be heard again in the House or one of the committees in the House today, and it's still -- it's not proposed in the Senate, which there was discrepancy in the last meeting. Andl can tell you, there's been a lot of misinformation because I know for a fact any one of my colleagues here in the dais will not outright say it's in the Senate right now just by saying if someone had to tell them andl believe that there's a lot of misinformation. Again, I stand by what I said. I think it's an insult that our five, six lobbyists have not given us a proper update. In other words, what are we doing? Well, let me back up. Let me rephrase that. One day prior to the last Commission meeting, which was a week and a day ago, an e-mail was sent by our liaison with an update and four updates from our lobbyists, four different updates for four different lobbyists. And there -- as a matter of fact, I brought it out andl still have it. Here they are. Here they are. Mr. Menendez, our liaison, didn't even bother to mention this bill. So my interpretation is it's not that much of an emergency. Some of our other lobbyists didn't even bother to mention this bill in their update. So again, I foresee it as it's not much of an emergency. And one of our lobbyists even went as far as saying it's not going to go in the Senate. So you know, I think that the Chairman and this Commission spoke loudly in the last Commission meeting requesting information so there wouldn't be discrepancy whether it's in the City of Miami Page 21 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 Senate or not, what's going on, is there a strategy. And all got was an e-mail today at 8: 53 in the morning, 8: 53 in the morning, 7 minutes before the start of this meeting, saying that there's going to be a committee meeting in the House and there's nothing (UNINTELLIGIBLE) 10: 38: 36 in the Senate as of 8:11 this morning. That's it. I mean, I don't know what my colleagues think. I feel we deserve better, especially when we have five, six lobbyists just for the state, our legislative liaison. All I'm asking is for information. I mean -- sure. I mean, I'd like to hear from you, Mr. Menendez. Kirk Menendez (Intergovernmental Affairs Liaison): Kirk Menendez, Office of the City Manager. The reason why the communication was sent this morning is just to confirm for the Commission here -- as all of you, I'm sure, understand that an amendment could be filed at any time before the Florida Legislature. So we made our best effort to provide you up -to -the minute update on where it is currently in the House and its prospects with regards to a committee hearing today. So the communication was based on try to give you an up -to -the minute update instead of old news. With regards to our lobbyists, the four lobbyists firms that we use, the -- I have a small statement that I'd like to distribute, if you don't mind, just as an update on -- with regards to this legislation. Let me make it clear, however, that since there is pending litigation, it was agreed upon among the firms and the Administration that it's not in the best interest of the City, because of the pending litigation, to put an extensive amount of information in writing, as you, I'm sure, well can understand. So let -- if you don't mind, let me -- The issue at hand is that this -- the language that is the point of discussion here is in the House transportation bill, HB 1363, and until the session ends on May 6 at midnight, it can be entered or included in any senate bill. There are many vehicles of which are available for this to occur. And as Deputy City Manager Martinez said, that at that point in time, the -- if it passes, the City Commission and the City itself will not be able to turn back the hands of time to redo or undo the actions that the Legislature will have taken if this moves forward. With regards to updates, as this communication expresses its -- the transportation bill itself has been moving rather swiftly through the House. It's moving forward. And it's also moving -- it'll be moving quickly in the Senate as well. Problem with this language being in the transportation bill is that as Governor Scott and others have mentioned, this particular bill is of importance to the state of Florida as a whole because it spurs -- help spur economic development. So the fact that it's already in the House bill is of concern just because A, the bill itself that it's attached to and also because of the parties that are in support of the bill and the language . Vice Chair Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Chair Gort: Yes, sir. Vice Chair Carollo: You said that it will be moving swiftly through the Senate? Mr. Menendez: It's -- the bill it's, transportation bill. Vice Chair Carollo: Okay. But now there's nothing -- Mr. Menendez: As of this morning, no. Vice Chair Carollo: -- included there? You also -- in the piece of paper that you gave me that Mr. Menendez: I have the original e-mail in case you want that -- you prefer that. Vice Chair Carollo: It says it is possible that an attempt may be made to pass amendments into the Senate Transportation bill or even on the Senate Transportation Conforming Budget bill during the conference committee process to mirror the language in the House bill. City of Miami Page 22 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 Mr. Menendez: Yes. Vice Chair Carollo: Anything is possible. Mr. Menendez: In the Florida Legislature more than -- Vice Chair Carollo: Right. Is it probable? Mr. Menendez: The possibility definitely exists. Vice Chair Carollo: Again, that's possible. Is it probable? Mr. Menendez: The fact that it's been filed in the House increases the probability that it will filed in the Senate. When that happens -- can't pin it down -- but there is a likelihood that between now and the end of session efforts would be made to get it into the Senate. Vice Chair Carollo: So -- and are you speaking on what you believe or are you speaking on what the lobbyists have told you, our lobbyists, the City's lobbyists? Is it probable that it will go into the Senate? Mr. Menendez: It's probable that efforts will be made. We will do everything in our ability to not allow that to happen or to not let it take place, but it is my understanding that it's expected that efforts will be made to get into the Senate. Vice Chair Carollo: Right, efforts. But are those efforts going to be matched by our efforts and our lobbyists' efforts that it not be placed? Mr. Menendez: Our efforts -- 100 percent effort. Both sides are determined, I'm sure. I know we are, andl would only imagine the people that submitted the language in the House are as well. Vice Chair Carollo: Have we spoken to our senators, our local senators? Mr. Menendez: We've reached out to the Dade Delegation. This is an issue that deals with leadership in the House and as such, items or bills that have the support of leadership, I would say, move traditionally in ways that other bills that do not have the support of leadership do. Vice Chair Carollo: Leadership in the House. How about leadership in the Senate? Have we spoken to our senators? Mr. Menendez: We've spoken to the Senate. Vice Chair Carollo: Our local senators? Mr. Menendez: Out local senators, we've reached out -- Vice Chair Carollo: Reached out there, but -- Mr. Menendez: -- to them on this issue. Vice Chair Carollo: -- what I'm trying to see is what have they told us? Are they fighting for us? Are they not? Where are we in this? City of Miami Page 23 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 Mr. Menendez: The feedback we've got -- that we have people on the Senate side that are not as they are -- do not welcome this piece of legislation. However, because leadership is involved, anything and everything is possible, especially as we count down the days towards the end of session. Especially the last day of session, there's a flurry of amendments to every bill that is before the Florida Legislature as a last ditch effort, so things have been submitted at the last moment. So as we approach the final day, the activity increases and the probability of items being attached to moving bills increases as well. Vice Chair Carollo: When you say you have spoken to the Dade Delegation, can you be more specific? Mr. Menendez: Our lobbyists -- Vice Chair Carollo: Representatives, senators? Mr. Menendez: -- have reached out to members of the Dade Delegation with regards to this issue and discussed it and communicated the City's position, a vehement opposition to this particular legislation with regards to the billboards. Vice Chair Carollo: And what was their opinion, decision? Are they backing us? Are they not? Who is backing us? Who is not? Mr. Menendez: They're aware of the City's concerns and share the City's concerns, but I prefer not to go into specific discussions or comments by individual members of the Dade Delegation. I don't believe that that is prudent. Vice Chair Carollo: Okay. Just see it from my point of view. Right now, under a so-called emergency ordinance, I'm being asked to do a settlement which I think is horrible and it's going to set horrible precedents, because there is legislation up in Tallahassee that is being pushed by the leadership. Yet, I'm here scrounging for information out of our legislative liaison, which is yourself and our six lobbyists which we've hired, and it seems like all get is this, it's possible. I mean, I don't know what my colleagues feel, but it just seems like this is unacceptable. I don't know what the Mayor thinks. But the truth of the matter is this is unacceptable, Mr. Mayor. We got six lobbyists. Mr. Menendez: IfI may, prior to our last Commission meeting, we did have a conference call on this issue at length, a discussion. Andl believe at that time, the issues were all addressed, brought up, and our lobbying team communicated their efforts, their strategies in terms of how to address what's been presented in the House side. The conference call was at least an hour, I believe, at length. And since then, I'm aware that at least a few of you, if not all of you, have been reached by our lobbyists on this issue, on an individual basis, to give you up update. Our position's not changed. It is what it was when we had the conference call. Chair Gort: Vice Chairman, let me ask you a question. How many items do we have in Tallahassee at this time that are important for the City ofMiami? Mr. Menendez: We have a minimum of our own bills. A minimum of ten legislative items that we're pushing through. Chair Gort: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Sarnoff.. Mr. Chair. Chair Gort: No. Go ahead. City ofMiami Page 24 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 Vice Chair Carollo: So in other words, if each lobbyist takes one and one and a quarter or one and a half, you know -- Chair Gort: I don't know about the lobbyists -- Commissioner Sarnoff. Mr. Chair. Vice Chair Carollo: And in all fairness, you know, I appreciate that one of our lobbyists, you know, telephoned in and we had a conference call with him. Here's where the discrepancy starts happening because I know what I heard there. I know the discussion I heard. I know the feelings he had as a professional as far as where this may or may not go. And it seems like it's much, much different than what it is being portrayed after that conference call. As a matter of fact, I was told by the Administration you need to settle, you need to settle. It is going into the Senate and they have the commitment of the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) 10: 51:10, the whole nine yards. Andl say shoot, from one day to the next? And it so happen that then I spoke to this lobbyist again or his right-hand person and they told me Frank, nothing has changed since the conference call. So I'm saying to myself, what the heck is going on? There's all this misinformation left and right, all this hearsay, so that's why I'm asking questions. Andl'm asking questions because I want to make sure that before any of us, and especially myself, take a vote, we have all the information that we need, that we have requested. I mean, I specifically remember Commissioner Gort -- Chairman Gort asking last meeting, I want all the lobbyists present, and if not, I want an update on this issue alone, and it seems like it went on deaf ears and that's why either very late last night, early this morning, I sent an e-mail to the Manager andl said there's still information that we haven't received. Chair Gort: Commissioner, you know what amaze me, and we discussed this before, the legislative [sic] pass the sunshine law that applies to all of us, all our boards. And when you talk about the disclosure, I think we disclose a lot. I think this Commission has show that we're open. Our doors are open to anyone that wants to meet with us. We meet with everyone. We let them -- even the public and all that. They can come in my office. They come right in. But unfortunately, Tallahassee works differently. The sunshine law does not apply to them. Tallahassee do not want to give statements. They wait -- my understanding is -- I've talked to a lot of people over there. The leadership can ask by party, you got to do this if you want to maintain your committee and people will follow that. Unfortunate, we also need to understand Miami -Dade County and the City ofMiami has been paying taxes for the rest of the state. When you go to Tallahassee, it's a different world completely. Once you go north ofBroward County, it's a different state, it's a different world. How many legislator we have? How many are the total legislative from central Florida and north Florida? And this is something that people don't understand, but our legislators got to fight that every day to try to get what's right for the City ofMiami. And my understanding is, they'll put priority to their own needs for their districts, and this is something Tallahassee sent them. I'm glad they wrote the story. Maybe they should write some more stories about what takes place in Tallahassee. I mean, there's a lot of -- we got to disclose everything in the open. I mean, you andl cannot talk or discuss any issue. We got to do it on the open like we're doing here today. Over there, they'll go anywhere and they'll discuss -- and they'll trade favors. Let's face it guys, there's a lot of polifics up there. I think it's important that we understand that. Andl'm sorry to interrupt you, but -- Vice Chair Carollo: Can I do a follow up? Commissioner Sarnoff. Mr. Chair. Chair Gort: Sure, go ahead. City ofMiami Page 25 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 Vice Chair Carollo: Mr. Menendez, who recommended all these lobbyists to us? Do you remember when it was? Mr. Menendez: An RFP (Request for Proposals) went out in, if I'm not mistaken, 2007. There's a pool of lobbyists and that RFP expires in the next year or two and from that pool, a handful are selected to meet also the budget constraints, so -- Vice Chair Carollo: And from that pool, do you remember how we selected which lobbyists we were going to use? Mr. Menendez: The selections process is made by the Administration and the Mayor's office. Vice Chair Carollo: The Administration and the Mayor's office? Do you remember that long budget meeting we had? Mr. Menendez: I do. Vice Chair Carollo: Where I went to the line item and said, oh, this is how much we're paying for lobbyists. Well, wait a second. Andl requested specific information on who was getting paid what -- Mr. Menendez: Yes. Vice Chair Carollo: -- and we went through the lobbyists, and it seems you like you talked up each one of them. Why didn't you mention Mr. Harkley? It seems like he's a pretty good lobbyist. Mr. Menendez: He wasn't selected by the evaluation committee of the City ofMiami. Commissioner Sarnoff. Mr. Chair. Chair Gort: Yes, sir. Commissioner Sarnoff. First, I share the frustration of the Vice Chair. This is not science. I don't even know that this is even an art project. I think he's right when he says it's hearsay upon hearsay, innuendo upon innuendo, and rhetoric upon rhetoric. But Mr. Menendez, you did sit down with me finally on April 18. I had two people sitting next to me to make sure that we wrote a document down that, I think, accurately stated what you told me. Andl want put on the record what you told me. And ifI get it wrong, you say stop, Commissioner. That's not what I said. You told me there is a 40 to 60 percent likelihood of this piece of legislation passing the Florida Legislature, correct? Mr. Menendez: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff. You said equally it could be said it's 50-50. You said you're receiving this from multiple sources. You then went on to make a statement, there is a probability -- not possibility -- of this passing, despite the best efforts of the City because of the leadership of the House personal involvement in this issue. Mr. Menendez: That's true. I believe the wordl used -- phrase was reasonable probability. Commissioner Sarnoff. Okay. And then we agree that this constituted an emergency because it will pass before the second reading of the ordinance. I equally asked you in that particular meeting have I influenced you in any way, shape or form to provide me the statements that I've City ofMiami Page 26 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 just made here. Mr. Menendez: No, you have not. Commissioner Sarnoff.. Okay. Andl think the dirty little secret that none of us want to put up here is the fact that many of our lobbyists are engaged in many different lobbying efforts for many different lobbying issues. Chair Gort: That's it. Commissioner Sarnoff.. And they just don't see conflicts of interest maybe as a lawyer does or maybe as a CPA (Certified Public Accountant) does, and they're not going to extend themselves to the point where they offend leadership because they have other issues that they believe they have a reasonable opportunity and chance of passing because if they do offend leadership, those other issues will die or be harmed. And therein lies, as you said a moment ago, what is it, ten -- just for the City of Miami, ten issues and, of course, I think you said one and a half per lobbyist, and that's actually pretty -- probably accurate statement. But remember, those same lobbyists we hire, one of them is hired by Miami -Dade County, one of them is hired by 37 private corporations, and by 12 homeowners associations. So think about when he gets up there and he has the County -- andl would assume that their issues are -- let's multiply by three of ours -- and then all those various other people, and he's got upwards of probably 70 to 80 laws he'd like to effect. And if he angers or frustrates or gets under the skin, if you will, of leadership, he becomes ineffective for his 68 other clients. And that's the dirty little secret that we're not talking about. And you know, I share the frustration of the Vice Chair and I think his questions are well said. Andl share what the Chairman says, which is, you know, they put us under this cone of silence and then undress us on the dais to show our sunshine, which means none of us talk about any of this prior to getting here. We can only talk about it in the public and in even talking about it in the public, there is a reticence to even naming the people who we talk to in Tallahassee for fear of angering, agitating, or in good old Brooklyn-ese, pissing them off so that they won't push other legislative items for us. And it's really hard. It's frustrating. You know, give the Herald some degree of credit because they brought some light on this. But this Commission is faced with a Hobbesian choice. There's nothing good coming out of us today. There's no right result to be heard today. It is necessarily, by definition, hopefully the lesser of two evils. And you know, there's a budgetary evil. There's a principle evil. You're absolutely right; we set an interesting precedent today if we do it. And these are choices that we can be second-guessed. I could easily take a side maybe that the Vice Chair takes 'cause I completely understand it and appreciate it. I think he could easily take a side that I might be expressing because he's probably the one that watches the budget closer than any of us. And the end of the day, a loss of revenue, a dedicated source of revenue from the general fund, a reoccurring general revenue fund and a reoccurring revenue stream could potentially be lost that has to be borne by somebody. Somebody has to bear that. It's either going to be the taxpayer, which I don't think Commission's willing to do, or it's going to be borne on the expense side of the ledger sheet and that probably is going to mean loss of services, reduction in compensation. It comes out one way or the other. And that is the balancing act that this Commission is faced with, plain and simple. It's a Hobbesian choice. Andl said before, and maybe I'll explain myself. Never ask a butcher how the meat is. And what mean by that is the butcher's always going to tell you the meat's great. Don't ask a lobbyist how's the bill going? Well, Commissioner, we're going to use our best efforts at stopping that bill. I think know what that means. But the end of the day, I've asked the butcher how the meat is. And you know what he's going to say? Meat's looking good today. Commissioner Dunn: Mr. Chair. Chair Gort: Commissioner Dunn. City of Miami Page 27 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 Commissioner Dunn: It's amazing because -- cannot as eloquently and legally express what you just said in terms of some of the comments that have been made in a strong, valiant position that our Vice Chair has taken andl respect and admire that. But I've asked some questions in my own laymen's perspective andl -- and it kind of speaks to that, and we're not asking for an answer. Question number one was how did we get here? Given the fact that we know we're here, how can we minimize the City's potential collateral financial damage? This is a very uncomfortable position to be in andl don't like it, andl don't think any of us like it. And then are we willing to take this type of financial risk given our financial state of affairs? I think those are things that -- and then of course the principle of doing what is principally right. And I don't say this humorously because it's not funny, but the worst thing in the world is to feel that you're being violated or taken advantage of. It just doesn't feel right. And -- but at the same time, we're in a bad spot and we've got to try to figure out what is the best choice we can make given the position that we're in, and that's what I've been wrestling with truthfully. And you know, there are some things that need to be dealt with I know now, but definitely, we need to look at some things down the road. Andl have to concur with you, Mr. Chairman; Tallahassee is a whole different animal. Once you leave West Palm Beach, it's a whole new ballgame. So I think those are some things that -- for whatever that's worth, that's what I've been grappling with in my own spirit of trying to understand and deal with this in the right way. Chair Gort: Was Commissioner Suarez. Well, there's a couple of things that I would like to say. There's three options that we have out of this and we got to look what is the biggest benefits for the City ofMiami. I, like you, never allowed bullies to take my lunch and -- because, thank God, I was pretty big in high school and junior high and all that, so I didn't have that problem. But at the same time, if somebody wanted to buy my lunch, I would let them buy it. Vice Chair Carollo: Was it Harkley big? Chair Gort: Huh? Vice Chair Carollo: Was it Harkley big, Harkley Thornton big? Chair Gort: Yes. And in looking at this, I hate it, the way it is. At the same time, I'm not in favor in -- I think we need to change and modin, some of the agreement. I think we have to make it fair for everyone. I don't think we should make it something very exclusive to this agreement. I think some changes got to be made. I mean, original we sold two for one. Why are we going to do one for one now? So go ahead. 171 take my privilege at the end, like always. I yield to you, sir. Commissioner Suarez: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, I respect everything's that's been said andl, you know, like the fact that the Vice Chairman wants to hold the people in the process accountable at all the different levels. Andl looked at it completely backwards from the way that he looked at it. He starts from the prospect of why do we need to do an emergency ordinance, and then goes from there and -- actually, it's hard to get beyond that because if you start from that point and you can't have a good answer to that question, how do you get beyond that question. Vice Chair Carollo: Exactly. Commissioner Suarez: My -- I looked at it in the opposite fashion. I looked at it as, you know -- and -- which is why I saidl don't -- I wasn't influenced in the last meeting by the pending legislation. From my perspective, I looked at it as what are we adopting as an ordinance in substance. Is this a good ordinance, which is what decisions we have to make when we either adopt or reject ordinances. That was my number one -- my first question. Then my second City ofMiami Page 28 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 question was well, is this a good agreement or is it not a good agreement, and why is it a good agreement or not a good agreement. My last and final question is if we've come to the conclusion that this is a good ordinance and this is a good agreement, should it be done on an emergency basis. Andl thought if you've already gotten that far to say that it's a good ordinance and it's a good agreement, the -- whatever minimal risks there may be of having deleterious legislation passed that we cannot control, it would make sense to me to do it in a way that would minimize or eliminate that risk. So I looked at it in a completely different fashion. So I don't know if you want to look at it -- it doesn't matter to me. I think you get further along in this process if you start analyzing the ordinance, deciding whether it's a good ordinance; then looking at the agreement, deciding whether it's a good agreement, and then finally making the final decision as to whether or not it makes sense to pass it on emergency basis. Vice Chair Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Chair Gort: Yes, sir. Vice Chair Carollo: You know, Commissioner Suarez, the truth of the matter is you're right. If you start -- if you begin by how I started, yes, it's hard to pass that first question why is this an emergency? And that's why I -- we didn't get past it. And that's why, you know, I had significant issues because this is not an emergency. It's -- you know, I've called it blackmail, you know, leverage, whatever you want to call it. The reason why it's an emergency is because if we don't pass this and we don't hurry, then the legislation -- or the legislators have a good chance of passing a law in Tallahassee that's going to be very detrimental to the City ofMiami. And yes, I've tried to -- to a certain degree, try to hold various people accountable. In other words, what are our Dade Delegation doing to prevent this. Why would leadership up in Tallahassee pick on the City ofMiami? Obviously, there's reasons for it and it's obviously blackmail and so forth or leverage, as some may want to call it. So you're correct. Now, I am willing to go your route. Let's look at the legislation. Let's see if it's good. Let's see if it's a good ordinance and if it's a good settlement. And you know what, and maybe we could come back to saying, you know, yes, whether we pass it or not, but I don't have a problem actually looking at it because in all fairness, I also do think it's a bad ordinance and it's a bad settlement, and we could discuss the merits of it. Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. Andl have no problem doing that either. At the end of the day, you know, the decision as to whether or not to pass it on an emergency basis is, you know, a decision that we all have to make. And if this Commission wants to go through the analysis, we can go through the analysis. If they don't, we don't have to. I mean, I can go either way. Vice Chair Carollo: I don't have a problem going through the analysis. As a matter of fact -- listen, I think everyone has seen, at least my tenure here in the so-called year and half that I've been here and so forth, I've always welcomed discussions, I welcome debate. We've had them in and so forth. And at the end of the day, each person votes their mind. Andl actually respect andl think we respect one another for our decision. However, it is debated. And once the vote is taken and so forth, we leave it there. You know, we respect each other. Andl think we should continue and follow suit with the way we've been doing it. Andl think it's healthy to debate it. I think it's healthy to have dialogue. And then I know for a fact, I would have my reasons whether to vote for it or against it as each one of you will. Andl can assure you thatl will respect, just like I have in the past, each one of yours decision whether to vote for it or against it. I think in the last meeting, Commissioner Suarez, you wanted to get into the merits of the ordinance and the settlements and, you know, you didn't receive that opportunity or you yield until I passed the -- or invoked the five-day rule. And you know what, maybe it will not be a bad decision to get into the merits now of the ordinance and the settlement, and if that's the will of this Commission. City ofMiami Page 29 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 Chair Gort: Yes. Vice Chairman, you need to understand, we -- the discussion that we have here are very important 'cause right now the radio yesterday andl understand the radio went out saying all kinds of things without having all the information they should have . I mean, it's very easy to criticize when you only hear one side or you only see one issue and not all of the issues in front of us. People need to understand when we sit here, we have to make a decision according to what we believe -- at least, I do and we all do -- what's best for the City ofMiami and that's a decision. Unfortunate, sometimes in the radio talk shows and all that, people start saying things that not really have all the information they should have. Andl have to tell you, I understand some of our legislator were criticized last night and all that. Our legislators battle in Tallahassee. It's a big one and people need to understand that. Tallahassee is not easy. And I agree with you; I think we should discuss the merit of the ordinance. So first of all, I think some of the questions that were asked, at this time I would like for the staff to answer some of the questions that were asked during the presentation from the public. We had a couple of questions that we come up with a suggestion and you stated Carollo's -- Vice Chairman Carollo's suggestion was the best. Can you incorporate it again? Mr. Bittner: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I can do that. The issues Grace Solares raised was -- Ms. Thompson: I am so sorry, Chair. We want an accurate record. We need you to come forward so we can get -- thank you. Mr. Bittner: Okay. Grace Solares raised a number of issues. The first was an apparent -- an alleged inconsistency between 1(c) and 2(b). We appreciate the fact that she brought this to our attention yesterday. Commissioner Carollo came up with some good language; we can put it in there. It was -- we -- I mean, we put it on the record just a few minutes ago. Vice Chair Carollo: I can say it again, if you give me a second. On page 3 of 6, number 2, instead of beginning an amended permit shall not allow, it should begin -- or I propose for it to begin notwithstanding any provision in subsection one above comma an amended permit shall now allow -- shall not allow and so forth. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chairman, ifI may. Chair Gort: Yes. Commissioner Suarez: Thank you. The -- there's a small scrivener's error and -- at least on my copy. I don't know if it's on everyone else's copy. The one before that -- this is a very small scrivener's error -- doesn't have parenthesis around it. I don't know if that's in your copy or not. Commissioner Sarnoff.. Where is this? Commissioner Suarez: The one above the two -- Vice Chair Carollo: Right. Chair Gort: What page? Commissioner Suarez: -- does not have parenthesis between -- you know, before and after the one before the period. Vice Chair Carollo: Three of six, number one. City ofMiami Page 30 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 Commissioner Suarez: Here's my issue, andl think we can debate -- there's three things about this ordinance that actually very much like. The first thing that like about it is that contrary to popular belief the declared intent of the ordinance and of its amendment is to actually reduce the number of billboards in our neighborhoods. Now we can debate and maybe even modify what is the definition of a neighborhood so as to make sure that that statement holds the absolute truth, and I'm very open to that. I know the definition. I think it's 600 feet from a high -- anything beyond 600 feet from a highway, so I'm flexible on that, as long -- you know, to the extent that we are enacting an ordinance that actually does that. I think that is a good and legitimate cause for mod4ing this ordinance. So the question becomes why would you reduce someone's ratio from two to one to one to one? And the answer is well, in the case of two to one, there's no requirement that either of those two billboards be taken out of neighborhoods. So if we want to advocate for a policy of getting billboards out of neighborhoods, it would stand to reason that we would be more flexible when the billboards that are coming down specifically come from neighborhoods because that's what we want to promote. So one for one, as long as it's coming out of a neighborhood to me seems like a very, very good objective. Now we can argue and debate about the actual definition of a neighborhood, and may agree with you on that, but I think it's a good modification to the ordinance. By the way, this modification to the ordinance can be taken advantage of by any person, as far as I understand it. City Attorney, you can correct me if I'm wrong. It could be taken advantage of by any company, correct? This would not be something that would be specific to one company taking advantage of it -- Mr. Bittner: Well -- Commissioner Suarez: -- in a sense. I think know where you're going to go, which it has to do with the actual settlement agreements themselves. Mr. Bittner: Right. Commissioner Suarez: Right. Mr. Bittner: The rights that the settlement -- the settling parties have now, they have. Commissioner Suarez: Right. Mr. Bittner: This would be applicable to newcomers to the marketplace. Commissioner Suarez: Or old comers that want to fall under the ordinance. Mr. Bittner: The old comers are governed by the terms of their settlement agreement. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. So in other words, what we're saying is from this point forward, anyone who acquires billboards and wants to take them down would have to take them out of neighborhoods or facing neighborhoods? Mr. Bittner: Except for those folks who have existing settlement agreements. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. Mr. Bittner: If you have a settlement agreement, that governs our relationship with them. Vice Chair Carollo: Commissioner Suarez, hold on. Let me just do a follow-up question to the issue that you're bringing up. The takedowns right now, wouldn't the majority of them, just by the way everything has been crafted, be from so-called neighborhoods defined how we define it here anyways? City of Miami Page 31 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 Mr. Bittner: Well -- Vice Chair Carollo: In other words, other two to one realistically are coming from neighborhoods anyway, the large majority. So that's why I say this neighborhoods thing is sort of like a guise because in all fairness, they're going to be coming down from there anyway. Mr. Bittner: It is true that the majority of settlement agreements that exist right this second are -- have a two -to -one takedown requirement. Vice Chair Carollo: And in order to take them down, realistically all those signs are in neighborhoods. We're just -- we are just now highlighting neighborhoods, but the truth of the matter is -- and again, the meaning of neighborhoods in this settlement agreement is much differentfrom what the laymen's term or what the average person out there will consider a neighborhood. This isn't Silver Bluff Shenandoah, the Roads, Bay Heights. This is any large street that could be in a business. Andl could have pictures of you know, one of the -- one or two of the locations that they thought of taking down in this settlement and you would see it's clearly not a neighborhood as most people would define it, so -- but going back to my original question, realistically, when these other companies are taking down signs two to one, those signs they're taking down just by where all the signs are located and by our parameters are within neighborhoods, correct? Mr. Bittner: They're at least 600 feet away from an expressway or not facing and serving an expressway. Vice Chair Carollo: Right. So in essence, even though we're putting the word Neighborhoods," which sounds good -- I mean, it really does -- the truth of the matter is we're getting gypped because we're going from taking down two to erect a sign to now taking down one to erect a sign so we're never going to have a net zero now and again, because of this word lieighborhoods,'ivhich is defined as -- Commissioner Suarez: Six hundred feet from the highway basically. Vice Chair Carollo: Right. Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. Vice Chair Carollo: It's not what the average -- Commissioner Sarnoff. But the problem is that if we're looking at this piece by piece, which I know we're not; we're looking at this thing together, we do not have definition of a neighborhood in our ordinance. What you're looking at is the definition of neighborhood in the settlement agreement. What we have in the ordinance is language that says the City Commission finds the reduction in the best interest of the City and the reduction will substantially advance any of the declared public goals of this ordinance. And the public goals of ordinance, as you know, are reduction in neighborhoods. What you might want to do -- this is up to you, guys. This is up to all of us. Do we want to put -- leave it subject to the will of this Commission or do you want to put a definition of neighborhood in the ordinance? 'Cause the ordinance is out there for everyone. The settlement agreement is for South Florida Equitable -- well, let's just call it the OutlookMedia/South Florida Equitable -- the joining parties. Let's call it the joining parties. What we're doing is we're thinking that the ordinance itself has a definition of neighborhood. It doesn't. If you just look at page 4 of 6 and you look at the underlying language -- City of Miami Page 32 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 Vice Chair Carollo: I saw it already. I know what you're talking about. Commissioner Sarnoff.. Okay. Vice Chair Carollo: I'm following you. Commissioner Sarnoff.. Okay. Vice Chair Carollo: But it's still allowing -- okay. We are changing -- -- we -- okay, it goes back to we are changing our ordinance to allow a one -for -one takedown instead of a two -for -one takedown only for the sole reason to be able to settle with this company that's blackmailing us, andl think that's wrong. And we're not even going through the normal process; we're doing it in an emergency manner. In other words, we're not going to vote on it today, wait, you know, the two weeks until the next Commission meeting; you know, have time to think about it and then vote on it again. No. We're saying we have to vote on it twice today so it passes today, and that's just not the way -- at least not the way I want to set policy. Andl really do think it's wrong. Andl don't see the benefit to the City ofMiami. When you actually look at the ordinance and you study it, it -- you do not see the benefit to the City ofMiami. In other words, those signs were actually going to come down anyways on a two -for -one and now these same signs are going to be coming down on a one -for -one. So in essence, it's a little bit of a guise, this neighborhood word, and the City's getting ripped off or we're getting gypped. We're getting gypped. Applause. Vice Chair Carollo: Well, I guess I'm chairing. Chairman Gort's not here. Commissioner Sarnoff.. Now you have to act like a Chairman. Commissioner Suarez: No. I think it's a persuasive argument. I mean, what do you want me to tell you. I think it's a -- I do. I mean, I'm being honest. I think it's a persuasive argument. I think, you know, it's a persuasive argument. There's really nothing more I can say about it. I mean, if that is in fact true, if there is no other signs that can be relocated other than signs that are outside the 600 feet, you know, then in fact the neighborhood issue is not -- is more of like a red herring. It's not really a legitimate issue. I mean, I know that you combine that, andl think part of this was combining it with a thousand foot, which would give it more spaces to take neighborhood signs -- Vice Chair Carollo: Right. Commissioner Suarez: -- and put them along the highway. So I think that does take some neighborhood -- that would take some signs legitimately out of a neighborhood, assuming that that's what we agreed was a legitimate neighborhood definition and putting them along the highway, so -- I mean, I think the resolution does -- that accompanies all this -- to a certain extent allow for potentially more signs being removed from neighborhoods and being put along highways. Vice Chair Carollo: That was what the normal person would interpret and that's what we all would interpret. However, pragmatically, the reality is not so. Those signs -- Commissioner Suarez: 'Cause it's not two for one. Vice Chair Carollo: Right, it's not two for one. And not only that, the reality is the signs that you have to take down have to come from those areas which, by our definition, are City ofMiami Page 33 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 neighborhoods anyways so, realistically, we're getting gypped. Instead of actually taking two signs, we are now only going to take down one sign because we put a word hey, it's in the neighborhood. Commissioner Sarnoff. Here's the question you have to ask yourselves, the threshold question. Let's say, for instance, we sat up here and we decided three hours, we're going to figure out what are all the neighborhoods. Let's pick a neighborhood. Let's pick your neighborhood, Shenandoah. I don't even know if it has any billboards. Let's say we decided that Shenandoah would be a neighborhood and we decided that one billboard had to come out of Shenandoah. Not two but the one. 'Cause we went about a five -hour debate and we figured out what every neighborhood in Miami is as opposed to the 600 feet. And the threshold question, you have to ask yourself, if we did the due diligence and did that for that six -hour exercise, would this then pass enough muster for you to vote for the substance of this ordinance? Vice Chair Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Chair Gort: Yes. Vice Chair Carollo: I would say no. Commissioner Sarnoff. Okay. Vice Chair Carollo: I would say no, and I'll tell you why. Because first of all, in our settlement there's nothing there saying that we're stipulating which signs. I mean -- Commissioner Sarnoff. That we're what? Vice Chair Carollo: That we're stipulating saying which signs are going to come down, okay. We're just saying they're from the neighborhoods. That's one. Second of all, there is a finite amount of area where you could erect a sign, so realistically, it may not be in the best interest of some of these companies to erect a sign and take down, you know, whichever. Do you understand what I'm saying? There's a finite amount -- in other words, if we want to get rid all the neighborhood signs, we really can't because there's a finite amount of spaces to erect the one sign on the highways. Commissioner Sarnoff. Yeah. I don't know ifI -- I don't know that that math -- I've heard that statement made before. I don't know if that mathematical equation has occurred. I -- Vice Chair Carollo: And here -- Commissioner Sarnoff. In your earlier sentence you said something which spurned a memory cell of mine as well. There are, I think, some neighborhood signs that they consider it way valuable that they're not willing to take down. Chair Gort: Right. Vice Chair Carollo: So -- Chair Gort: I have to tell you. I do have a problem with one for one from the first time I read it. I think it should be even for everyone. Please, please don't. Please don't. We got still a lot of arguments to do. You might not be very happy later, so -- But I'm a great believer in that. I think it should be square everyone. We've been working -- let me tell you, this is something we inherit from the past and we have inherit, all of us, quite a few things that we're trying to fix and we're working at it. This is one that we're trying to do. I do believe in the two for one and City of Miami Page 34 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 we'll go on from there. What else -- what are the other ones? Commissioner Suarez: I don't this there's really much of a need to go on from there because if this is going to be passed on an emergency basis and there's two Commissioners that don't -- at the very minimum don't want, you know, there to be a one-to-one basis -- unless we're going to back to the two for one, there's really no need to -- I mean -- Vice Chair Carollo: I understand what you're saying. I mean -- Commissioner Sarnoff. You could do a straw poll and see if this went to two to one if you could pass it on an emergency basis, which may be philosophically against something you're doing. But to move the discussion along -- there's no reason to spend all day here if two to one is the day mover -- Chair Gort: The other thing I'm thinking about also the people that you represent. My understanding, you need to understand we have inherit a lot of the problems. We're trying to work with the problems that comes from way back. I'd be willing to see -- pass it on first reading today and second reading and make it emergency next board meeting and have them not to take any action. And we can also talk about the other settlements here and make whatever changes we think we should make. In that way, it's a two-way street. Suggestion. Vice Chair Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Chair Gort: Yes, sir. Vice Chair Carollo: Before we make a decision, can I take a two -minute bathroom recess? Chair Gort: Let's take five. [Later...] Chair Gort: Okey-doke. Need the Commissioners here. Commissioner Sarnoff, you want to be recognized? Commissioner Sarnoff. Yeah, I would, but was going hoping that we'd have everybody up here. Chair Gort: Okay, let's wait five minutes. Commissioner Sarnoff. Yeah. Can the sergeant of [sic] arms make sure the Commissioners come up? Chair Gort: Handcuff them. Commissioner Sarnoff. Mr. Chair. Chair Gort: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff. I have a suggestion because I know that we seem to be stuck with regard to two to one, and obviously we're just speaking right now about the ordinance. If we all turn to page 4 of 6 of the ordinance, and you'll see that the two to one still exists. However, it does say that the removal may be reduced by one existing legal and freestanding sign with two bulletin -size faces if the City Commission finds that the reduction is in the best interest of the City. And let me just extrapolate. I think that means that we find one of these billboards to be City of Miami Page 35 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 compelling, that it needs to come down. Having said that, and that the reduction will substantially advance the declared public goals of the ordinance. I would put in there by a four fifth vote so that it would have to be a compelling circumstance with a super majority of the City ofMiami Commission. I bring that up merely to say whether this could get us off the two -to -one issue, to see if it would move us along. If it doesn't, you know, I'm just coming up with different ways of protecting -- different ways of us promoting an ordinance that in the event we find one of these signs to be so repugnant or so in need of being taken down, that we would use our discretion as Commissioners -- as a Commission and vote on a four fifths basis to do that, and see if any of the two who are -- I don't want to say stuck, but are principally in the vein of wanting to have a two -to -one takedown, whether that would move you at all, you know, your stance. Vice Chair Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Chair Gort: Yes. Vice Chair Carollo: By the way, I appreciate that suggestion, Commissioner Sarnoff. And, you know, funny. Before the -- after the re -- when I took the recess -- when we did the recess, I was just told oh, you screwed up. Oh, don't -- one, when a recess happens, you know, all -- everything gets all scrambled up and so forth, so -- Anyways, I appreciate your suggestion. What I'm seeing with this, Commissioner Sarnoff, is that -- I mean, yeah, I could -- I think we all can choose one or two signs in our district that wow, this is real ugly, I mean. And the chances of us -- you know, each us could, I'm sure, pick two or three. I know I can easily. And I think your suggestion is good, but pragmatically, I don't think it really works because we will all have one or two signs that we really want to take down and what's to say that one of these companies will take it down or, as a matter of fact, would take it down anyways. And once again, we're kind of gypped because instead of taking two signs down, now they're just going to take one for one and we're not eliminating the total amount of signs, which I think was originally the intent of the two -for -one takedown. Commissioner Sarnoff.. Well, I could give you a tangible example, which would be Bird Road not Bird Avenue, so Bird Road being -- Vice Chair Carollo: Gotcha. Commissioner Sarnoff.. -- across US 1. I call that sign haven, andl think you guys would agree that there's a lot of signs up there. It has always been sort of my desire to take down as many billboards as I could there 'cause I thought that was one of the C'ntrances'lnto the Grove or entrances into the City ofMiami that should be somehow enhanced. And it's interesting you bring that up because there are many MUSPs (Major Use Special Permits) filed on Bird Avenue that will never -- well, I shouldn't say will never happen -- are not happening. And you're right, they did come to us and say well, we're going to take this sign down and -- you know, we're not dumb. We said -- of course we called Building and say is there a MUSP plan here. You know, yes, there is. So, you know, we don't consider that a takedown. We said look, obviously, you know, you're going to have to take this down with a MUSP anyways. And then all of a sudden, the MUSPs don't happen and the signs stay up and you make policy decisions, you make decisions that you're voted up here to make. So there are tangible -- you're right, there are circumstances that that happens. I -- you know, I just -- I'm merely coming up with suggestions, ideas, thoughts. If the two -to -one folks and their principal are stuck on two -to -one, I don't think we have much to do up here. Chair Gort: Let me tell you what the -- my understanding you have some history in this, this has been discussing with the -- with all the firms for two years, even before we were here, and it was agreed by everyone in the global agreement of two to one. All of sudden we're now trying City ofMiami Page 36 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 to get -- settle with the new firm for all the reasons that has been stated in front of us, andl think we should try to settle. But at the same time, I think there should be a compromise from both sides. I mean, the other side should compromise with us too. I mean, we are being put in a -- hell of a spot, excuse the language. I mean, like you said before, the one -- the thing that I'm looking at, which at the end I'll mention, is the numbers and the benefit for the City of Miami. That's what going to help me make the choice. But we've heard from the industry. A lot of people believe they should continue to be two to one. That was the agreement among everyone, andl think the new settlement should have that. Commissioner Dunn: Mr. Chairman. Chair Gort: Personally. Yes, sir. Commissioner Dunn: IfI may ask the Manager, why the change from what was previously the norm? Why would we go with that? I don't think -- Mr. Martinez: Fair question. The previous settlement agreement that was brought to the Commission was a two -to -one, but it included access to the Sevennine site. Once the Sevennine site was taken off the table, that was not agreeable to the other party, so we negotiated a one-to-one with a 50,000 public benefit fee attached to each sign. That public benefit -- and an NEA payment of $4, 285. Both of those payments can go into the neighborhood to clean up lots and unsafe structures and things like that, so it's -- the reason was that the Sevennine site was taken off the table. For the certainty of not constructing anything there, we came to a one-to-one negotiation with the other party and a $50, 000 public benefit fee attached to each sign that they put up and the NEA payment, a recurring NEA payment. Vice Chair Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Chair Gort: Yes, sir. Vice Chair Carollo: Okay. Once again, this sounds great. You know, they paint a pretty picture. And say they, I mean the Administration paints a pretty picture and so forth. But just like the neighborhoods, I had to point out that it's really not neighborhoods. I hear now there's $50, 000 being put out there. And this was actually a discussion that was going to save till later, but the $50, 000 is actually not a good deal for the City ofMiami, I can assure you. Andl have the numbers where we could start tallying them and it's actually not a good deal for the City ofMiami. As far as that money going into neighborhoods, any money can go into neighborhoods, any of the money, you know, that we collect from this 'cause it's all going into the general fund. And l just want to verify. Is that -- am I correct with what I'm saying, Mr. City Attorney? Mr. Martinez: I believe so. Vice Chair Carollo: Yeah. So saying -- you know, we're getting into the merits of how much money we're going to receive of the fees and so forth and he's just -- you know, I'm not saying it in a bad way. I'm saying it, you know -- I understand you're trying to prove your point or at least be persuasive with your point, but the truth of the matter is just part of the money, he's saying, we could put to neighborhoods. But the truth of the matter is, if you look at the whole as far as the different fees and so forth, it's not a -- it's definitely not a good deal for the City of Miami. And if -- we could go into all the merits andl -- you know, when we get into the merits, I can go into more detail with as far as all the fees and so forth and how much money. But again, it's not a good deal. It just sounds good because oh, $50, 000 for the neighborhoods. It's not. It's just like oh, we're trying to take them out of the neighborhoods. It sounds great. You City ofMiami Page 37 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 know, I admit it. I had to look like really into it because it sounds great. However, when you really look into it, no. We were getting gypped because those signs were going to come down anyway and they were just using the word neighborhoods. Chair Gort: Okay. That was the answer for the reason why they selected one to one instead of two to one, okay. That was answered. Any further discussion on this issue here on the ordinance itself? Vice Chair Carollo: According to what Commissioner Suarez says, it -- again, I want to see what's the will of this Commission -- doesn't appear like we have the votes for an emergency ordinance. I don't know if we have the votes for -- to pass it on first reading. Do we want to go into that first before we continue and spend all day here or --? I don't have a problem. I wiped out my calendar for this meeting so it doesn't make a difference to me either way. I'm prepared, thanks to the five-day rule, to discuss each and every item and get into all the details that we need to, but again, I don't want to waste everyone's time either, so you know. Chair Gort: I think -- somebody wants to make a motion on first reading? Vice Chair Carollo: Well, if we do that, did we want to follow that -- pretty much we'll have a straw poll that we don't have it for the emergency -- we don't have the votes for an emergency ordinance; however, possibly for a first reading, and then do we continue? And again, I'm just, you know -- again, we're a team up here so I'm asking my colleagues, you know, what you all think so, you know, we have discussion on how to proceed. Commissioner Sarnoff. I'm going to be candid with you guys, and maybe this will hurt me somewhere along the way. I don't know. I mean, the reason I'm considering this whole issue is because what could happen in Tallahassee. I just don't want to see us lose a $4.1 million or 3.2 or however we want to describe it -- Vice Chair Carollo: Right. Commissioner Sarnoff. -- funding source that does a lot of good for the City of Miami not only for what we take in, but I believe it takes in -- and you know, I've never been about billboards. I've been about the murals. Maybe because as one of the drafters of the actual bill itself and maybe because we went from utter chaos to utter regulation, you know -- I just want to put this on the record. We've been able to establish about 15 million in direct payments comes into the City ofMiami annually. There are 30 to 35 property owners that, in economic tough times, have benefited from these murals and we've estimated -- and we tried to do this as best we could -- that murals hire approximately 300 people annually a year indirectly. And my only concern is if we lose that funding source not as a result of something we do but as a result of something Tallahassee does, you know, it does a number of things. First and foremost, it puts us in a much worse deficit position for the budget and it's -- no one's better up here than the Vice Chair in telling you ledger in, ledger out; less ledger in, less ledger out. So we're going to have to tighten our belts even tighter, either cut services or, you know, reduce compensation again. It's going to affect or potentially could affect property owners, potentially, and it could affect the number of people that would become employed, again not through actions taken by us but actions taken through Tallahassee, and that is why -- Vice Chair Carollo: We call it blackmail. Commissioner Sarnoff. Yeah. I -- I'm trying to be -- I called it leverage andl -- it's the leverage that I didn't -- you know, you can't -- what you cannot get in litigation, you're getting in legislation. City ofMiami Page 38 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 Vice Chair Carollo: Yeah, um -hum. Commissioner Sarnoff. And you know, I could make a lot of -- you know what, I'm going to make a couple statements 'cause this just demonstrates the checks and balances of government, and it just demonstrates that the checks and balances of government are no longer present. You have a legislator in Tallahassee that is so dominated by one party and, you know, for all of you that took politics and for many of you that came from different countries, they used to have a saying, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. And there are no checks and balances in government up there, and it is a shame. And the same thing will happen to the federal government. If you don't have a vigorous opposition, you'll become powerful. And when you become absolutely powerful, you could become absolutely corrupt. I'm not suggesting that they are, but whatl am saying it's out of balance. And the second thing is the judiciary. There is an assault on the judiciary going on in this country and an assault going on in this judiciary up in Tallahassee. And I'll tell one thing that I've learned since being a Commissioner. If you don't think you need three branches of government, think about how fast -- and you're always complaining, the Vice Chair, how fast we do things, how we don't have all the information, but we pass these ordinances, we pass legislation. Just consider what goes on in Tallahassee. And if you don't have judges that know how to interpret laws, then there is no hedge against tyranny. Andl don't mean to get more profound than that, but that is exactly a slice of what you're seeing. You're seeing a tyrannical government happening. And you take away the Florida judiciary and you put one party in power, and I'm telling you what, you're not going to have a good -- you're not going to have well reason, well thought out legislation. Chair Gort: Okay. Let me tell you the one thing I'm looking at, which is very important. And the reason sleep well at night, because any decision that make is what believe is the best for the City ofMiami. Here's the three alternatives that I'm looking at. What's the benefit of the City should the above item be approved. You're talking about the $4.95 million here, there. You -- they got the numbers. We can go over the numbers later on. What happens if Tallahassee, we lose? Comes down to about 22,000 -- maybe 200,000 for billboard and 22,000 for mural. What is the financial impact to the City should the billboard, we pass it? Did we pass it and so on? We get $3.9 million -- 3.9 million. In other words, we'll lose the one million for the original settlement, andl agree with you. I think we're being forced into this, we're being pushed into this. But at the same time, we don't have to accept all this being offered to us. I mean, this settlement, we can change it. And we showing good faith. And I'm glad the attorney's here representing him. We showing good faith. But at the same time, we need to compromise, both sides. And the two -to -one is something that looked at it before and that asked many a times andl think this is the -- what we have in front of us. The different decisions that's going to affect the reoccurring revenues for the City ofMiami, andl think that's important. We need to understand that. Vice Chair Carollo: How does my colleagues want to proceed? Do we continue with the discussion? Do we --? Chair Gort: I think we should continue the discussion and make it as best we can. Vice Chair Carollo: Do we then amend it for two to one? Chair Gort: I would like to see it two to one. Vice Chair Carollo: So then what we do is take out the part of the one for one. Commissioner Sarnoff. Page 4 of 6, you would remove the underlined provision. Vice Chair Carollo: Exactly. City ofMiami Page 39 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 Chair Gort: What other items do you -- we're looking at? I know - Commissioner Suarez: I don't have a problem with that. I'll go with the will of the Commission. Chair Gort: Yeah. Commissioner Suarez: If the will of the Commission is to delete that language, that's fine with me. Chair Gort: Do I understand that we want to make this ordinance the best that we can. My understanding is you had some issues you guy want to discuss on this ordinance. Vice Chair Carollo: Oh yeah. I want to continue. Okay, so just for the record, we're deleting the -- Commissioner Sarnoff. Second paragraph ofB. Vice Chair Carollo: -- underlined paragraph on page 4 of 6 of the ordinance that we're considering. Commissioner Sarnoff. And we'd be also advancing the language you put in. Vice Chair Carollo: State that -- Commissioner Sarnoff. Remember the language you put in earlier? Vice Chair Carollo: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff. We'd be advancing that language as well. Vice Chair Carollo: Okay. Commissioner Sarnoff. Correct? Vice Chair Carollo: With the Roads area. The -- Commissioner Sarnoff. Correct. Vice Chair Carollo: Okay. Another thingl want to bring up, the T5-O. We are now under special emergency ordinance considering from a T6-8 to a T5-O. My first question, did you consult with our Planning director? Mr. Martinez: Yes. Vice Chair Carollo: And he's okay with it? Mr. Martinez: Yes, he is. And he's here to verin, my answer. Mr. Garcia: Yes, sir. I was actually walking back to the chambers as you were asking the question. Chair Gort: And you are. Mr. Garcia: I'm sorry. Francisco Garcia, Planning director. Thank you, sir. City of Miami Page 40 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 Vice Chair Carollo: I was just asking as far as consulting with you with regards to -- from a T6-8 to a T5-O. Mr. Garcia: Yes, sir. Vice Chair Carollo: Are you okay with that? Chair Gort: Insofar as it provides for greater flexibility for the location of some of these billboards, yes, we are. Vice Chair Carollo: Do you have a map -- or is there a map that shows us where these locations are, like where is it changing from a T6-8 to a T5 or --? I'm sorry; where are the T5-O areas that this applies to. Mr. Garcia: Well, it -- I believe that is -- as it -- andl was not a part of the drafting of this, but as I believe, it would actually make all T5-Os citywide available for the location of these structures, subject of course to the remainder of the terms of the settlements. Vice Chair Carollo: Okay. All T5-O areas within the highway, within 600 feet, are there any of these areas? Mr. Garcia: There are some, yes. Vice Chair Carollo: Is it possible to see them? I know we spoke about it yesterday or whenever andl didn't have the map at that time, so I want to, you know -- Mr. Garcia: We can produce one in a very short time, perhaps in a matter of minutes. Vice Chair Carollo: I would like to see that. At leastl would. Mr. Garcia: By all means. Commissioner Sarnoff. Are we considering then passing this on an emergency once we make the amendments? Chair Gort: I don't have any problem. Commissioner Sarnoff. Well, I mean, if you really want to put the ball back in somebody's court, at least they know what -- at least they know the square peg they have to fit within. Vice Chair Carollo: Now, you know that means that the settlement also -- Commissioner Sarnoff. Has to be changed as well. But I'm -- what we did the last time was we gave them a change of a settlement, which obviously they didn't agree to. Vice Chair Carollo: Which -- and I don't want to cut you off -- I thought was extremely reasonable since we were -- since we actually took their alternative sites that they had chosen, but anyways. Commissioner Sarnoff. Fair enough. Vice Chair Carollo: Sorry. City of Miami Page 41 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 Commissioner Sarnoff. So what I'm suggesting maybe what we do is -- and maybe it's just a feel good -- but we make a counter proposal -- Chair Gort: Sure. Commissioner Sarnoff. -- so that we've done everything we can do, and maybe it's absolutely unacceptable to them, and then the consequences fall as the consequences fall. Chair Gort: Yeah. Commissioner Sarnoff. It's out of our hands. Vice Chair Carollo: Now you do understand that, in principle -- I mean, we're actually working as a team here to make this better, but I -- in principle, I may say, you know what, show good faith -- Commissioner Sarnoff. That's -- right. Vice Chair Carollo: -- go back to the Legislature, pull the bill out or, you know what, let's discuss this settlement after May 6 when the Legislature is over and so forth, and show good faith and pull that legislation from the committees -- from the Florida House and the Florida Senate, which is not there yet but it potentially could be, and show good faith so I don't sit here and say, you know what, this is blackmail. In principle, it's just a bad precedent. And we look at the -- we look at their settlement, you know, at face value; is it a good deal for the City of Miami. Commissioner Sarnoff. Well, alterna -- and I hear what you're saying -- alternative to that, you could create the chess board upon which they could play and let him decide whether he wishes to fit within the bounds of -- the boundaries you set. Your way of doing it -- andl hear what you're say 'cause you're making a principle statement that I will never vote under -- I actually did a memo on it -- economic duress, but we would not fit the terms of economic duress, but that's the term that's been thrown around -- Vice Chair Carollo: Right. Commissioner Sarnoff. -- as you would say, the walls of City Hall. Vice Chair Carollo: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff. That is a principle vote. Vice Chair Carollo: Yeah. Commissioner Sarnoff. The other, I think, principle vote you could do is to say these are the boundaries upon which this Commission has agreed to. If you fit within these boundaries, you then can become a settler -- and I'm -- it's not that I'm promoting the second 'cause I suspect we both know how it's going to come out. But I wonder which -- I wonder when the dust settles and history is written and we all face this Commission in August, September, where we'd like to be sitting. Vice Chair Carollo: And -- if I may, Mr. Chairman? Chair Gort: Yes. City of Miami Page 42 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 Vice Chair Carollo: You bring a valid point. You bring a very valid point. Let me -- I'm going to outright tell you how I feel. Yes, this is blackmail. And if we vote for this under the cloud of blackmail, we are setting precedents. Now I understand your point clearly. We face to lose X" amount of money. Well, the way I see it is, X'amount of money is nothing compared to everyone that's going to line up outside to sue us and to blackmail us and so forth. So if we set the precedence, we're going to lose way more money in the future, and that's the way I'm seeing it. Chair Gort: Well, I believe the -- we've had people come in front of us that have stated they will sue us and we still voted against it, so I don't think -- Vice Chair Carollo: Commissioner Gort -- Chair Gort: -- (UNINTET,T IGIBT ,F) 12:13:45 time. Vice Chair Carollo: -- they got the thing passed. Chair Gort: Okay. Vice Chair Carollo: And they got the thing passed after they told us that they were suing us and they still got it passed and we're still waiting to see what happens and we're still not receiving the maximum amount of money that we could get from there. And as a matter of fact, I joked about it, even though it's not a joking matter. I joked about it in the last Commission meeting. Because in all fairness, you know, that was one of the reasons that we asked -- or that I pushed for the five-day rule, andl appreciate the support that receivedfrom this Commission. Chair Gort: Sure. Vice Chair Carollo: Because it was just unfair that they would give us the things in the last minute or the items that we were going to vote on. But yes, I remember specifically when they came and said, you know, we'll sue you. Andl even -- I remember stating, it seems like every time you come up here, you threaten to sue us. Unfortunately, they got the votes. They got the votes and it passed. Commissioner Sarnoff. You know, when --you weren't up here. But when we passed Miami 21, three people came up here with checks -- you know those big checks, like you've just won $30 million -- and put those checks up there and said this is what the City ofMiami will pay us, $30 million dollars for Miami 21 if we passed it; this Commission, which I was member of at that time, passed it. And I'm struggling. I like your principle -- I like the principle you're saying. I'm not sure pragmatically, as you would say, or practically what other circumstance -- and that's not to say you can't think of everything on the dais. But what other circumstance would we be in these shoes again? Vice Chair Carollo: That is a question that I take whenever someone tells me, Frank, what could happen? And that's why we have attorneys that every time they've draft a contract, it's 50 pages or so forth, because it just seems like things that you would have never thought of happen. Chair Gort: Come up. Vice Chair Carollo: And really believe we're going to open up the flood gates and we're going to be -- or at least there's going to be a lot of companies, individuals that are going to try to bully us and sue us and so forth and -- I mean, you heard it today. In order for us to get a settlement, we had to sue you. You heard it today. In order for us to get a settlement, we had to sue you. So realistically, it's just going to open up the flood gates for everyone suing us. And City ofMiami Page 43 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 I'm not saying we're going to settle or not, but you know, we're setting precedent. And yes, I understand the X'amount of money that we could lose or potentially lose because -- and that's why I'm asking is it an emergency. Are we really going to have that legislation pass or can we call their bluff or where are we? And that's why, you know, I'm asking so intensely at our legislative liaison and our lobbyists, you know, to see, realistically, are we really under fire? And the bottom line is yes, we have the potential of losing some revenues. However, I think it's going to be way more in the future if we set this precedent. Commissioner Sarnoff. Well, if history is going to be recorded today, I would like this Commission to act in consensus so that we all -- when we face September and October, we all did it as one. Chair Gort: Politics is the ability to compromise from both sides, andl think that we should compromise and we should try to -- like we stated, we don't have to take the agreement the way it's signed. I mean, we can make some changes to it and make it a lot better for the City. Yes, sir. Commissioner Suarez: By the way -- Commissioner Dunn: Mr. Chair. Commissioner Suarez: -- I mean, I hate to disagree with -- and get into this whole philosophy and back and forth about precedent and what we decide today establishes precedent, what we decide tomorrow establish precedent. Actually, legally, doesn't establish any precedent at all. We make our decisions independently. The last decision that we made was to reject this company's offer on the basis that we felt we had a very strong position, number one, legally. And number two, it was in a neighborhood, in one of your neighborhoods that we chose, correctly I think, to protect. And thankfully, we were vindicated by the federal court's decision subsequent to that decision. That -- I think we've -- I think if there's any kind of precedent, which is not even the right word to use, but if there's any kind of a pattern that this Commission has set is that we are going to scrutinize everything very meticulously. We're going to do what we believe is in the best interest of the residents of the City ofMiami at the end of the day, regardless of who that may benefit economically beyond this point. There's no precedential values to any decisions that we make. We take every decision, you know, individually. We weigh the pros and the cons. We understand the consequences of our actions. And we make a decision. And the next time that that happens -- andl think we've demonstrated a pattern where we make responsible decisions and where we make decisions that are in the best interest of our residents, so -- I mean, I don't -- you know, I don't want to get into the whole speculation about precedent and whether we're going to get sued in the future or not get sued. We're going to get sued a bunch of times in the future. We get sued every day, okay. We get served lawsuits every day, think, and Madam City Attorney can attest to that. Chair Gort: I can show the report. Commissioner Suarez: Almost every day probably. Mr. Bittner: Every day. Commissioner Suarez: Every day, okay. So we get sued every day. This is not going to slow down or increase the number of lawsuits that we get. We're going to get sued. We're going to get sued on a multitude of issues and we're defending them very well, by the way, andl commend you for that, Madam City Attorney. We've been winning a lot of the big ones lately. So this -- there was, by the way, another one that we took a very principled stance on, which was the prior litigation where maybe from an economic perspective to get into a dispute over a City ofMiami Page 44 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 contract where the loss that we could have and the money that we had spent on fighting that loss far exceeded, you know -- so we took a principle decision and we said, we don't feel it's appropriate to settle the case with someone -- we didn't -- we don't think it's a good signal to the public to settle a case where someone has in effect defrauded the City ofMiami, and that's what --- that's the statement we made that day. When this issue came before us last, we said we don't think it's acceptable to put a billboard in that neighborhood. Now let's be clear. Two other companies can put a billboard in that neighborhood, let's be honest; if we're being -- we're putting all our cards out on the table here. What we did was prevent that company on that day from doing it, not any other company, not the other two companies; only three companies. Not the other two companies. So that site is still vulnerable to billboards. What this legislation does, not the agreement, the legislation, is it not only protects that site, it protects that neighborhood, so it goes even further than protecting that site. It protects the entire neighborhood. Andl think that's the integrity of this Commission. We're saying we're not only -- we don't only want to just protect the site; we want to protect the entire neighborhood from the potential of their being an intrusion. The 600 feet and whether that's defined as a neighborhood or not, we can debate that. I just went -- and you're right, sometimes it is bad that we have recesses. I just went to the back there and actually pulled one in my district. Six hundred feet was not very hard. It was like a block and a half in my district. We could make that 300 feet or whatever so that it -- you know, feel -- and so that we feel that a neighborhood can be defined as, you know -- a sign can be defined as a sign; doesn't go in the neighborhood, as we would all colloquially refer to it and as all our residents understand it, or that it faces a neighborhood. Because, clearly, I think what this Commission has demonstrated time in and time out is that we want to protect our neighborhoods. I can't think of a vote where we haven't done that, so -- at least not in my district, so -- Commissioner Dunn: Mr. Chair. Chair Gort: Yeah, I'm glad you brought the point of the -- when we were discussing Miami 21 and people was sitting there and saying we're going to sue you if you pass the Miami 21 and so on, and we did pass it because we thought it was the best. We did make some amendments because they needed to be made and there's -- I imagine some other changes are going to be made and to make the best zoning ordinance that there is. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Commissioner Dunn: That's okay, Mr. Chairman. Again, the beauty of this Commission, I believe, is our diversity not just racially and ethnic -- from an ethnic standpoint, but also really vocationally. The diversity brings -- in diversity there's strength, once the diversity is hashed out, rationalized. We have always had -- andl appreciate very much the legal perspective that Commissioner Sarnoff and Commissioner Suarez bring to the table; the accountability from the financial aspect that you bring, Mr. Vice Chair, and you do it in a very valiant and prudent way, and in many ways, it has helped us relook and revisit some of the decisions that we made and it has helped us very much. Of course the Chairman is from the business perspective. My angle is shaped, andl know a lot of people have problems with it, but I don't apologize. It's who I am. It's based from a theological perspective. And there's a simple but very profound prayer, poem, whatever you want to call it, called a serenity prayer. And it says God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change. What is it that we're facing now that we may not be able to change? There may be some things -- and I'm -- based on what I'm hearing, we -- it's a quagmire. We're in a tight spot. The courage -- Vice Chair Carollo: To change the things we can. Commissioner Dunn: -- to change the things I can, andl admire your courage andl like to think at times when it's necessary -- I don't mind. All of us have. We've taken some bold stands, some risky stands, some politically risky stands. The courage to change the things I can. And here it is. This is what summarizes it, and the wisdom to know the difference. So we have to City ofMiami Page 45 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 figure out how to apply that principle to this particular issue. And I'm not one that's afraid when I have my mind made up on certain things. There are certain things that don't frighten me that might frighten normal people. Certain things I'm not afraid of but that's not a braggadocios statement. That's a fact. But when I -- the thing that does frighten me is the possibility of losing or taking a risk on losing whatever that revenue might be. I know there's some discrepancies on whether it's three or four, whatever; still a lot of money at the end of day that we've got. Then the principle aspect is to be fair to those persons, andl know we're very -- been very supportive in that in terms of fighting in neighborhoods. How do we deal with that? How do we make a decision on a fair -- that's a level playing field? And it's -- I believe my colleague Commissioner Sarnoff proffered a thought that we -- at least that we might can consider. Because I don't want to personally take that risk of not having no control over Tallahassee. I don't know. I wish I knew. And I know you've been asking for that from our lobbyists. But as it's been pointed out, they've got, you know, multiple items and one City of Miami or two City of -- whatever the number is items that we have before them is not -- might not be a priority for them as it is for us, which may cause us to -- maybe we need to revisit on how we select and that kind of thing. But that's a situation right now that we cannot change. So I just -- you know, I'm with the consensus today. I'm with the consensus. But I have to put on record, putting ourselves -- our backs up against the wall September, October is -- it bothers me. It concerns me, I'll say that. And let me just say this while I do have the floor. There's probably a typographical error on page 2 of 6. Would be paragraph 6, gateways, where it talks about gateways. The resolution is referred to as 08.00431. Just for the record, it should reflect 08-0258. So I just -- while we're making those adjustments and -- I think -- right at the bottom, City Commission Resolution 08-00431 and it's labeled 08-00431, exhibit 2, but it should be 08-0258, andl do have the resolution right here. So I -- that's my spill on it. I -- give us the serenity to accept the things we cannot change, the courage -- many times we've come -- I've come, all of us have come up here and we've been very adamant about our positions and strong, and there are some things we might have want to change and couldn't get it changed, and you -- you know, at the end of the day -- I think heard you say this, Vice Chairman -- we're going to vote and we're still going to be respectful of each other. But I do -- it does concern me as it relates to the fiscal risk. That concerns me, with respect to the communities and those individuals who have brought out issues in terms of principally being fair. So I -- how do we balance that? Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chairman, ifI may just chime in? Chair Gort: Yes. Commissioner Suarez: Thank you. Andl apologize for stepping off when you were making your remarks. I got a call from Senator Miguel Diaz De La Portilla, who happens to have overlapping jurisdiction over my district. Andl very briefly mentioned to him what was going on and asked him, you know, what his stance was. And he, unlike others, said you can quote me on it. So he basically said that he will be looking out for that language if it comes to the Senate to strip it out of the senate bill. So he says that as far as he knows, it hasn't been in the bill. He says that -- I explained to him that it's a transportation bill, that it's a big bill, and that he should, you know, look out for it; that it could be a one line in a big bill. And he said as long as your legislative team keeps me apprised everyday to look out for that, I will try to strip it out. So I have his commitment. He saidl can quote him on it. I asked him, can I quote you on it. He says, you can quote me on it. I said I'm about to. Chair Gort: That's good. Commissioner Suarez: I'm literally going to go in there and quote you on it. And you know, like I said from day one, I've never been too persuaded by the legislative thing, just like I was not persuaded by your argument on the lawsuit, you know. So I just wanted to put that out there City of Miami Page 46 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 and I don't know to what extent that influences anyone, but I thought it was information that should be shared with the Commission. Commissioner Sarnoff. And Mr. Chair. Chair Gort: Good. Yes, sir. Commissioner Sarnoff. I was just told by the Administration, House Bill 1363, which was heard by the House Economic Affairs Committee at 11 o'clock today, just passed with our language in it. Commissioner Suarez: With the language that would reduce the cost? Commissioner Sarnoff. Yes. Commissioner Suarez: So now it would go to the Senate. I'm assuming they will have to have their own companion DOT bill. Commissioner Sarnoff. I think -- you know the system better than I do. Vice Chair Carollo: Let Mr. Menendez earn his job. No. Come on, man. I'm throwing you a softball. Mr. Menendez: Thank you for the opportunity again. Yes, that's correct, the House bill passed its last committee in the House. It'll go to a full vote by the House, it's anticipated, sometime next week. It has to be put on special calendar. But once it's past its last committee, it'll go to the House for a full vote. Commissioner Suarez: Let me ask a question, Mr. Chairman, if I may? Chair Gort: Yes. Commissioner Suarez: We have a commitment from a senator who represents my area. I don't know if he represents any of your other -- he represents Commissioner Carollo's area as well, Vice Chairman. Chair Gort: My area too. Commissioner Suarez: And Chairman Gort's area. How much ability does he have to deliver on that promise? In other words, from a mechanism standpoint. I mean, I know he knows what he's doing -- Mr. Menendez: Yeah. Commissioner Suarez: -- 'cause he's been there. His brother's been there for -- as a senator and as a state representative, so they understand the legislative process probably a heck of a lot better -- definitely a lot better than I do. I just want to make sure that we feel strong that they can, you know, follow through and come through on that promise. Mr. Menendez: Since day one we've been garnering support from senators and actually representatives also on this issue to help the City battle what we're facing in Tallahassee. Senator Diaz de la Portilla is a, like you say, veteran, forceful, effective senator and -- but I go back to the key issue is leadership is involved. And as history has shown us in the past when legislation deals with leadership, there's certain dynamics that come into play that create City of Miami Page 47 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 additional difficulties, but to have someone of the stature of Senator Diaz de la Portilla, I agree. I think it's fantastic for the City and it's fantastic for our cause. Commissioner Suarez: I guess my follow up is -- I mean, I -- as I've said and I've maintained from the first meeting, I'm not persuaded too much in my analysis of this by the legislation, but I think everyone can acknowledge here that it hangs like a cloud over this process. Andl think even the media has made many, many references to how it may have -- may be tainting the process. So maybe the best thing to do is to take this up once the legislative session is over. Vice Chair Carollo: Yeah, which is what proposed. Yeah. Commissioner Suarez: And -- Vice Chair Carollo: That way the cloud goes away and we look at it within the merits. Commissioner Suarez: There's no -- Vice Chair Carollo: Exactly. Chair Gort: Okay. What we're saying -- what I'm hearing is we can change this. We can change all these agreements and pass it on the first reading and show, somehow, that if they agree to the changes that we had made, we're committed to pass it on the second reading. Is that what I'm hearing? Vice Chair Carollo: I'm hearing it a little different. Chair Gort: Okay. Vice Chair Carollo: The way I'm hearing it is no matter what we change here and there, there's going to be a cloud hanging over us due to the way this settlement has come about using, you know, tactics that we've used, you know, various names for. So I think -- andl don't want to put words into anyone's mouth, butl want to see how I interpret it. Is that -- andl think it's exactly like what I thought before. I think, in order to make this a process that is transparent and no sign of coercion or blackmail or so forth is that they show good faith, they pull the legislation or we'll beat the legislation in Tallahassee, and then we'll contemplate a settlement with them and -- Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. The other thing we could do is we could pass it on first, okay -- just hear me out -- or pass whatever version we feel comfortable with on first, not in an emergency basis. Chair Gort: Yeah. Commissioner Suarez: Second would be some time after the legislative session, if I'm not mistaken. So we could say -- we're demonstrating our good faith in terms of moving forward with this, and we can allow them to demonstrate their good faith in terms of you know, either A, them taking away from their legislative effort or, you know, whatever -- having the bill -- the language revoked; or B, we defeating the bill, and then take it up on second reading after the legislative session. Commissioner Dunn: Mr. Chair. Chair Gort: Yes. City of Miami Page 48 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 Commissioner Dunn: Question, I don't -- what is the risk on that, though? That's the -- is it still the same? Chair Gort: It still have a risk, yeah. Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. Commissioner Dunn: That's the part that I'm -- and I'm not a -- I'm not scared, but I'm just trying to be, you know, realistic to some extent. Commissioner Suarez: I don't think anybody -- Commissioner Dunn: Andl know everything's a risk. Commissioner Suarez: We -- Commissioner Dunn: Everything's a risk. Commissioner Suarez: -- have projections from as much as, you know, probable to -- you know, talks about probable to my personal perspective, which I don't think it's very likely. We have commitments from a state senator, but we also have a, you know, Speaker of the House, a powerful Speaker of the House on the other side, so you know -- and by way, the state senator told me in the legislation -- I mean, in the conversation that I had with him that, yes, the Speaker usually gets his way. He does get his way. It's very -- Commissioner Dunn: Okay. Commissioner Suarez: -- common that the Speaker gets his way. He said, you know -- and he said he would look out for our language to try to pull it out of any senate bill. He said he's not aware of it being in a senate bill, so -- andl told him, yeah, that's the information that we have. We don't any have information that indicates that it's in a senate bill. So he said he would look out for it. As Mr. Menendez said, he is a wily veteran of you know, state politics. You know, he's our advocate up there. He's the one that's fighting for us up there just like we're here fighting for our residents, you know. It's a kind of a chain of command in a sense, you know. We can't make decisions for them. Commissioner Dunn: Right, right, right. Commissioner Suarez: They can't make decisions for us, you know. It's not a tough -- it's not an easy situation. Commissioner Dunn: Oh, I know. Commissioner Suarez: I mean -- Chair Gort: This is my question. Vice Chair Carollo: And -- Commissioner Suarez: We don't know what's going to happen. I mean, that's the bottom line, you know. Chair Gort: And we're taking a 50/50 chance and think that's what we're talking about today. What we're saying -- my understanding, what we're saying is, and correct me if I'm wrong, we're City of Miami Page 49 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 telling the individuals in good faith that we will, after the bill is pull out, does not pass by the legislators or the senators, that we still be willing to sit down with them. And we don't have that cloud over us. Is that my understanding? 'Cause we got to send a message. Commissioner Suarez: No. I was going to say -- I just was handed a note, which actually makes a lot of sense, which is -- Vice Chair Carollo: And not to mention, we got to continue and look at the settlement and -- Commissioner Suarez: Right. Chair Gort: Right. Oh, yeah. Vice Chair Carollo: -- take it on its merit. Commissioner Suarez: And if we're stripping from the ordinance the language on the two for one, one for one -- Chair Gort: Right. Commissioner Suarez: -- you know, I don't know why there would have to be a reason for an emergency ordinance at this point. I mean, just to say we're going to give you -- we're going to go back -- 'cause it's not changing the ordinance. I mean, it is protecting a neighborhood, which is great, I think -- Vice Chair Carollo: Yeah. Commissioner Suarez: -- you know, but it's not -- that's the only other change in the T5 and that's it. You understand what I'm saying? In other words -- Vice Chair Carollo: And (UNINTELLIGIBLE) 12: 38: 59. Commissioner Suarez: -- if we took out this language, the only other modifications to the ordinance are the protection of the neighborhood and the T5. Vice Chair Carollo: And there's one more. Commissioner Suarez: What's that? Vice Chair Carollo: On page 5 of 6. Commissioner Suarez: As they may be amended from time to time? Vice Chair Carollo: Yes. Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. That's it. Vice Chair Carollo: So realistically, this is staying as is. I mean, it's staying as what -- in other words -- Commissioner Suarez: That's exactly what I'm saying. Vice Chair Carollo: -- if we don't pass our -- City of Miami Page 50 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 Commissioner Suarez: That's exactly what I'm saying. Vice Chair Carollo: -- ordinance stays the same, so we don't really have to pass this to work out a settlement with them or potentially or so forth. In other words -- Commissioner Sarnoff. But doesn't that further protect the neighborhoods? I understand. Commissioner Suarez: Going to what, the one to one? Chair Gort: No, no. Commissioner Sarnoff. No, no, no. Chair Gort: Leave it. Two to one. Vice Chair Carollo: Okay. Chair Gort: We change it two to one. We leave it at this, but -- Commissioner Suarez: Oh. Chair Gort: -- it'll protect a lot more. Commissioner Suarez: I have no problem passing this additional language which protects the Roads, of course. Vice Chair Carollo: Yeah. Commissioner Suarez: I support it wholeheartedly. Commissioner Sarnoff. 'Cause if -- I'm saying, if you just wanted to walk away -- I don't mean walk away -- leave it the way it is, then you wouldn't have -- then you would have exactly what you said, which is two other settlers having the ability to go in there. Chair Gort: Yeah. Commissioner Suarez: But I think passing this -- the reason why I kept saying I wanted to do it backwards was 'cause the final question would be why do it on emergency basis, right? And this is -- Commissioner Sarnoff. Yeah. Commissioner Suarez: -- my thing. If we had gotten to a point where we had agreed on the ordinance, the settlement agreement, and even ifI thought it was a 5 percent chance, a 2 percent chance that the legislation would pass, it may still make sense to do it on emergency basis because you want to eliminate that 2 percent chance. Commissioner Sarnoff. Oh, well, then -- Commissioner Suarez: You understand what I'm saying. Commissioner Sarnoff. -- I have to push for an emergency 'cause I think there's better than a 5 percent chance. City of Miami Page 51 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 Commissioner Suarez: Right. But I'm doing it the opposite way, which is to go through this. But when you -- Commissioner Sarnoff.. I gotcha. Commissioner Suarez: -- go first with the ordinance and you're saying we're going to strip out the two for one language -- Vice Chair Carollo: Right. Commissioner Suarez: -- okay, and that's pretty much -- the only other changes to it are the protection of the Roads and the amendment which, you know, clarifies the C and the B part of the two and that other -- as may be amended from time to time, the change in -- you know, little small things, and the T5 -- Commissioner Sarnoff.. There's one more that, if you remember, at the last Commission meeting I had mentioned and it would completely keep us out of one of the -- I don't think it's a lawsuit, but I think it's a permit -- appeal that they're coming to the City Commission with. If we were to add number 15 on page 5 of 6 -- just hear me out once. Listen to it. At the time the City is requested to sign off on the FDOT form -- I think it's a 575 -- the applicant must demonstrate site control of the sign to be removed prior to the City execution of the FDOT form. There is something coming before this board where they're alleging that we should have -- we didn't have discretion and they didn't have site control. So if we change the ordinance that says prior to anybody coming to us, they must demonstrate site control. Vice Chair Carollo: Right. Commissioner Sarnoff.. Then we'll never get in this situation again. Commissioner Suarez: What about ownership also aside from site control, ownership -- Commissioner Sarnoff.. Well, site control -- Commissioner Suarez: -- of the site. Vice Chair Carollo: And actually, I think it's -- Commissioner Sarnoff.. You don't -- rarely do they own the site. Commissioner Suarez: I'm sorry? Commissioner Sarnoff.. Rarely do they own the site. Ordinarily they -- site control is a term of art -- Commissioner Suarez: Okay. Commissioner Sarnoff.. -- correct me if I'm wrong -- Commissioner Suarez: You guys would -- Commissioner Sarnoff.. -- in the City -- Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, I don't -- City of Miami Page 52 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 Chair Gort: A lease agreement with the individuals. Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. Vice Chair Carollo: Andl be -- Commissioner Suarez: I'll accept your language. If you think it's fine, I'll accept your language. Mr. Bittner: Yeah, it's okay. But site control is that they have a lease -- Commissioner Sarnoff. Right. Mr. Bittner: -- or some sort of right to -- Vice Chair Carollo: Right. Mr. Bittner: -- erect a sign on that property and so therefore they have owner consent. Vice Chair Carollo: Andl believe we have it in the settlement, but we don't have it in -- Commissioner Sarnoff. Correct. Vice Chair Carollo: -- the ordinance. Mr. Bittner: That's correct. Commissioner Sarnoff. In this way it would be -- Vice Chair Carollo: Right. Commissioner Sarnoff. -- policy going -- Vice Chair Carollo: And as we heard earlier, there are issues with site control and so forth. Mr. Bittner: Definitely. Vice Chair Carollo: So, yes. Commissioner Sarnoff. And one -- I believe there's a Code enforcement issue come -- not a Code -- an appeal coming before us that that was the underlying basis for that appeal, so I would hope somebody would accept and -- Chair Gort: To add it. Mr. Bittner: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff. Yeah. And we would call it Section 15 again. At the time the City is requested to sign off on the FDOT -- I'm going to put (Form 575) -- the applicant must demonstrate site control of the sign to be removed prior to the City's execution of the FDOT form. Chair Gort: You have it? City of Miami Page 53 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 Mr. Bittner: I'll get it from Commissioner Sarnoff. He's got it written down. Vice Chair Carollo: So -- Mr. Chairman. Chair Gort: Yes. Vice Chair Carollo: So in essence, with this emergency ordinance, what I hear my colleagues saying, and I'm actually in agreement, andl think we actually may get a 5-0. Again, anything could happen up here, so I don't want to predict anything. God knows, I always come up here knowing anything can happen. This is the Magic City. But anyways -- Commissioner Sarnoff.. Always knowing he could enforce that five-day rule. Chair Gort: You know, it's important the people understand the participation by the public does influence. And a lot of time I have people come to me says, how you're going to vote on this issue, and I tell them I don't know. The reason I don't know because I might say I'm going to vote for it or I'm going to vote against it, but during the public hearings, some items, some issues might come out where I might change my mind, andl don't want to be liar. So I think that's what's important, the public participation. Vice Chair Carollo: Okay. Chair Gort: And the discussion among ourselves, make things better. Yes, sir. Vice Chair Carollo: Mr. Chairman. So -- I also wish Commissioner Suarez was here so -- just to make sure we have the consensus. It's my understanding that we are willing now to actually pass this ordinance -- amendment to our ordinance in an emergency fashion that does not include the one for one, which is what we actually needed for the settlements or that -- however, we actually make our ordinance stronger and more neighborhood friendly by including the language in page 3 of 6 which, for argument sake, will be, you know, the Roads area, the 1,500 radius. We leave everything else the same, the T5 and as they may be amended from time to time, and we include the language that Commissioner Sarnoff wanted with regards -- help me out, Commissioner. Commissioner Sarnoff.. Site control. We call it site control. Vice Chair Carollo: With regards to site control, correct. Andl will even make the motion for that. Commissioner Suarez: Second. Commissioner Dunn: Sec -- okay. Go ahead. You got it. Chair Gort: Move and second. No further discussion. It's an ordinance. Mr. Bittner: I wanted to add that Commissioner Dunn had added a change also to the -- Chair Gort: A typo. Mr. Bittner: -- resolution number. Commissioner Sarnoff.. Typo, right. Commissioner Dunn: Yeah, typo. City of Miami Page 54 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 Mr. Bittner: Okay. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Assistant City Attorney Warren R. Bittner. Ms. Thompson: This is the roll call on your modified emergency -- Vice Chair Carollo: Modified. Ms. Thompson: -- ordinance. You will have two roll calls. Commissioner Suarez: I have a question before you do the roll call. Sorry. My question is the emergency -- it's being done on an emergency basis because we presuppose that we 're going to approve some sort of a settlement agreement? Something. I mean, not necessarily what's before us, but some sort of a settlement agreement in the next item and so therefore that's why we're doing it on an emergency basis. Just want to clam that for the record. Vice Chair Carollo: No. No, no, no. I -- Commissioner Sarnoff. So you don't want to go beyond this ordinance, right? Vice Chair Carollo: No. I don't mind going and speaking about the merits of the settlement. Chair Gort: Yeah. Vice Chair Carollo: Again, Commissioner Sarnoff -- Commissioner Sarnoff. I know where Suarez is going. He's saying then why vote as an emergency. Why not just do a regular vote. He's making a clean record for us. Vice Chair Carollo: I understand what you're saying, and I don't mind voting on it on first reading then and bringing it back. Commissioner Sarnoff. Okay. Vice Chair Carollo: Either way, whatever is the will of this Commission. Commissioner Suarez: We can bring it back at the next Commission meeting or -- no. That would also be an emergency basis. Vice Chair Carollo: Right. No. We would have to bring it back -- Commissioner Suarez: The one following, I think. Vice Chair Carollo: Actually, Madam City Clerk, what Commission meeting will we have to bring it back? I think it's the first meeting in May. Ms. Thompson: It's according to what you're trying to do, okay. If we have this now as a first reading and you want to go ahead through the process prior to the end of the Legislature, then you have to meet on it either May 3 or May 4. May 12 is after, okay. So what -- it's all according to what you're trying to do. Commissioner Sarnoff. I think what they're asking, if they don't treat this as an emergency, City of Miami Page 55 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 Madam Clerk, when's the next time this would come up for second reading in a regular juridic process. Ms. Thompson: In a regular process, we have enough time now for -- to schedule -- I'm sorry -- to advertise for a second reading. And you could, C-O-U-L-D, bring it back on March 12. I'm sorry, May 12. Vice Chair Carollo: May 12. Ms. Thompson: May 12. Chair Gort: You can also pass the ordinance an emergency ordinance and you don't have to approve the settlement. Vice Chair Carollo: Well -- Commissioner Sarnoff. But -- Vice Chair Carollo: Right. We're -- Commissioner Sarnoff. Now he's setting a precedent, which is what is the emergency. Vice Chair Carollo: Right. Chair Gort: Okay. Vice Chair Carollo: And I agree with you as a matter of fact. I don't mind passing it on first reading. I mean, in essence, there's -- Chair Gort: Okay. Vice Chair Carollo: -- no reason for this emergency. And this doesn't mean that we're approving the settlement. You know, we'll have time not to discuss the settlement. So Mr. City Attorney, do I have to make any modifications to my motion? Just -- I just want to clam that we are voting on this on first reading. Mr. Bittner: That's fine. Ms. Thompson: No. IfI might, I'm sorry to interject. I think the cleanest thing to do is to withdraw your motion on the emergency ordinance. Commissioner Suarez: I withdraw the second. Ms. Thompson: Just withdraw that. And then start with the new motion on a first reading modified ordinance. Vice Chair Carollo: I withdraw my original motion. Commissioner Suarez: Andl withdraw my original second. Vice Chair Carollo: Andl will make a motion on first reading exactly how I stated it -- Commissioner Suarez: Previously. City of Miami Page 56 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 Chair Gort: And amend it. Vice Chair Carollo: -- a few minutes ago. Commissioner Suarez: Second. Vice Chair Carollo: And -- Chair Gort: Roll call. Vice Chair Carollo: -- this will be as modified. Ms. Bru: Okay. And the title stays the same. We just need to then make modifications to the ordinance to reflect that it's not an emergency ordinance, and we will make those modifications. So the ordinance has been now moved for first reading, as amended, and not to be taken effect as an emergency. Vice Chair Carollo: And just verify. I'll say it again. To include the area -- the statement notwithstanding any provisions in subsection 1 above, comma -- in the beginning of number two, on page 3 of 6, to -- everything else to -- remove the second paragraph in page 4 of 6 to include the language that Commissioner Sarnoff wanted as far as sites, andl believe that is it and correct me if I'm wrong. Commissioner Suarez: That's it. Vice Chair Carollo: No? Commissioner Suarez: And all the other amendments -- all the -- okay. 'Cause that's already as before. Vice Chair Carollo: Yeah. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. I second that. Ms. Thompson: Then your -- Mr. Bittner: And l just want to remind you, Commissioner Dunn made a change on page 2 of 6, the resolution number. Commissioner Suarez: Andl also made a small change on the -- Vice Chair Carollo: On the number 1. Commissioner Suarez: -- paragraph. Vice Chair Carollo: Right. Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. On the -- Vice Chair Carollo: The quote -- not quotations. Commissioner Suarez: No. The parenthesis. Vice Chair Carollo: Yeah, instead of the period. We're good? City of Miami Page 57 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 Mr. Bittner: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Okay. Chair Gort: Roll call. Ms. Thompson: Your roll call on first reading of your modified 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, 5-0. Chair Gort: Do we want to go into the agreement now? Vice Chair Carollo: SP. 2. Chair Gort: SP. 2. Commissioner Sarnoff. Warren, what needs to be removed to fit the two -to -one? Vice Chair Carollo: One-to-one. Unidentified Speaker: Condition number. Mr. Bittner: Commissioner can -- Commissioner Sarnoff. Yeah. What needs to be removed or modified? Mr. Bittner: In this settlement agreement? Commissioner Sarnoff. Yeah. Mr. Bittner: Well, certainly the one -for -one has to be modified -- Vice Chair Carollo: Right. Mr. Bittner: -- that's on page 8, paragraph 4. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chairman, ifI may? I'm sorry for interrupting, but maybe the best thing to do is for us to have lunch and let them have an opportunity to look at the settlement agreement and make it conform with the ordinance that we just passed on first reading Mr. Bittner: That would be best. Chair Gort: Come back in an hour? Commissioner Suarez: Yes. Vice Chair Carollo: Yeah. Chair Gort: One hour. Commissioner Suarez: An hour only? City of Miami Page 58 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 Vice Chair Carollo: Yeah, yeah. Commissioner Suarez: Okay, fine. Vice Chair Carollo: Let's knock this out. Chair Gort: We'll make it 2 o'clock. Commissioner Suarez: Is an hour sufficient time? Mr. Bittner: Yes, Commissinoer. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. Vice Chair Carollo: Back at 2 o'clock? [Later... Chair Gort: Good afternoon. Welcome back to this afternoon's session. Point of order. Commissioner Suarez: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chair Gort: Commissioner Suarez. Commissioner Suarez: Thank you. When we started analyzing this issue, andl wasn't sure how much to get into it or not because it is a citywide issue. I thought about -- the first thing that came to mind was well, you know, I've -- I had to campaign myself andl went door to door a lot for basically a year. And in my going door to door and speaking to an enormous amount of registered voters and people in my district, I found it a little strange that not one of them at any time mentioned the fact, in my district -- andl don't know how your districts are -- that -- you know, that -- any concerns over billboards, none whatsoever. No complaints. No concerns. No 1'don't like the way that one looks. "Nothing. So that was my election. As a City Commissioner, since I've been elected, I -- we have resolved in our office -- we track the resolution of our complaints and we've resolved over 600 complaints in just over a year. No complaints about billboards. Not one. We don't even have a category for complaints about billboards, and we have over 20 categories of constituent complaints in our office. So I found it a little bit strange that today three residents of the City ofMiami came up to speak on this issue and two of those three residents happen to live in my district. Andl said, God, that doesn't make any sense. How it is possible that I have walked the district; that I've been a Commissioner for a year, and then no one's ever brought up an issue. And all of a sudden today, when we have an item before the Commission, three people come, and two-thirds of the people who are here speaking on the item happen to live in my district. Am I missing something? Am I not paying enough attention to my district? What's going on? So as a good Commissioner, I asked the Clerk to give me the names of the people who spoke in support of the item because clearly, I wanted to meet with them right away, call them up and say I need to meet with you right away. I'm missing something. And so I went to the -- Chair Gort: I can tell you the answer. Commissioner Suarez: -- Web site ofMiami-Dade County and put in the names of the first person who spoke. No recordfound. That's odd. Well, maybe they don't own the property. Maybe they rent. Let me try a different variation of the name because the name -- you know, this is a Y;'£t could be a G. "So I tried the other variation. No recordfound. Again, maybe they rent. So I put in the address that they put. No recordfound. I said, no recordfound? Well, City ofMiami Page 59 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 that's Dade County's Web site. So I said well, the City ofMiami has its own. I think it's GIS (Geographic Information System) or some kind of a system on our zoning application. Andl put in that address in the City's system. The address doesn't exist, so -- and by the way, that was for both of the people that came and spoke. So I said, well, there's a number here. Let me call the person. Let me make an appointment. Have them come, make an appointment. I called them. The lady answered the phone. I said, ma'am, this is Francis Suarez. I'm a City of Miami Commissioner. And you came up and you spoke before on this item. I'd like to make an appointment with you. I'd like for you to come in. I'd like to talk to you about this issue and why it concerns you. I said, can you just do me a favor and confirm your address for me? So she starts fumbling around in her papers and says, Oh, it's 5765 -- Well, you know, I really can't come see you because I have a lot of doctor appointments. "I said, okay. Well, you know, we can meet at some point when it's convenient for you. It's really no -- not an issue. And all of a sudden, the line went dead. So I just want to say for the record that, you know, I'm not going to be intimidated into making a decision one way or the another, not by anyone. And there has been, as the Vice Chairman would say -- and by the way, I took his advice. You don't assume; you veri. You know, I'm not going to be blackmailed. And there's all kinds of things happening on both sides of this issue, andl just want to be clear about that. And you know, this is the kind of stuff that is just unacceptable and I'm not going to accept it and it's not going to work with me. So I just want whoever pulled this little stunt to know that and to understand that it's not going to influence my decision one way or the other. If I'm wrong, I stand corrected 'cause it's possible that I'm wrong. There's always that possibility in life. Chair Gort: All right. Well, I have to tell you, I've had the same experience. We have meetings, Crime Watch meetings all the time because of what's happening in different neighborhoods. And the complaints that I get is sometimes about cars breaking into it, people looking for jobs, a lot of people looking for jobs, a lot of people employment, a lot of people having problems paying their mortgages. I have never had a complaint against the billboards. I think people understand -- andl think it's important to understand, we're not against billboards andl don't think people are really against billboard. I think it's the way you place it, where you put it, and so on. And at the same time, we got to look at the City ofMiami. We have to start working on next year's budget already and we need reoccurring revenues. I mean, we were able to balance the last year's budget because of one-time shots that we received from different organizations, but we can't continue to have that. And we have to make some tough decisions. Okey-doke. That said, anyone -- okay. My understanding is, the idea today is -- and look at the agreement and see the changes that we like to make and not necessarily do we have to make a decision. You just want him to make the changes. And my understanding is we will committed to those changes. And if it's accepted by the -- whatever you call the other party. Am I correct? Vice Chair Carollo: I think it's a bad settlement. I mean, we could get into the merits now and I'm sure we will and we'll start discussing. Andl don't know, you know, if my colleagues are okay with it or not or what parts they're okay with it or not. I do feel, on the merits of it, it's a bad settlement. You know, that's how I feel. And again, I don't know, you know, who wants to start off or if you want me to start off you know. Commissioner Sarnoff. Let me -- you know what, let me at least excise out so we could at least get to the bones of what we did parallel to the ordinance -- Vice Chair Carollo: Gotcha. Commissioner Sarnoff. -- and then from there we can debate what we need to debate. Can you help us along by excising out what we need to excise out to parallel the ordinance we just passed? City ofMiami Page 60 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 Mr. Bittner: Yes. Over the lunch hour I reviewed the entire resolution and the settlement agreement, and we need to make the following changes to these documents. First, following along in your agenda package, the resolution, the third {4hereas'blause of the resolution. Commissioner Sarnoff. Wait, wait. The resolution. Mr. Bittner: This is the resolution approving -- Chair Gort: One or two). Vice Chair Carollo: Yeah. Mr. Bittner: -- the settlement agreement. Okay, so the third {4hereas'blause needs to be stricken so we'll just delete it because this talked about the reasoning for going from two -to -one to one-to-one. Chair Gort: Right. I did that already. Commissioner Sarnoff. I'm not -- I'm -- Mr. Bittner: This is the resolution approving -- Commissioner Sarnoff. The third -- Mr. Bittner: -- the settlement agreement. Commissioner Sarnoff. Right. The third whereas clause, one-to-one, okay, comes out. Mr. Bittner: Okay. Now onto the settlement agreement, the first change occurs on page 2, recital C. This discusses the fact that they had acquired the CCO (Clear Channel Outlook) sign. And we learned this morning that Clear Channel is not going to give them that sign, so this entire recital C deleted. Vice Chair Carollo: Whole C. Mr. Bittner: The next change is on page 5, paragraph 3, second line where it says board work sign and the CCO sign. "The words and the CCO sign'heed to be stricken. Yes, Commissioner. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chairman, ifI may. I think on page 4 -- andl don't know what version everyone else has, but I have -- I found a typo in F, where it says {Mich is the date'and then it's supposed to say tf is signed'£nstead of is it signed." Mr. Bittner: That's correct, so I'll change that. It is signed. And while we're on that page, I just noticed that J'bn page 4, which defines Clear Channel, there's no need for that, so we can strike it. On page 6, in the paragraph on the -- beginning at the top of the page, second line, after the board work sign it reads find the CCO sign. "That -- those four words should be stricken. And the fourth line again and the CCO sign'Should be stricken. On the sixth line 5r the CCO sign "should be stricken. Commissioner Sarnoff. Sorry. One more time. Mr. Bittner: Yeah. Page 6 -- Commissioner Sarnoff. Right. City of Miami Page 61 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 Mr. Bittner: -- the three places where it says and the CCO sign'Should be stricken on the very top of the page. Commissioner Sarnoff. No. I got that. I didn't hear your next one. Mr. Bittner: Oh, okay. The next one is paragraph B on page 6, the entire paragraph should be stricken. Okay. Page 7, paragraph G, in the second line at the very end, it begins 5r CCO sign, 'which should be stricken. Page 8, paragraph 4A, second line, after the board work sign, it says the CCO sign. "That should be stricken. In subparagraph 1, second line, it reads based on SFEF's removal of signs on a one -for -one basis, 'ft should be changed to a tivo for -one basis." On the sixth line of that subparagraph 1, it reads Ihall remove one existing legal and freestanding. "That should be changed to Ihall remove two existing legal and freestanding. "At the end of the -- of that sentence, it reads tivo bulletin -size billboard faces,7md we need to insert the word aach. "Then at the bottom of the page, on the second line from the bottom, it reads 5ne amended permit described in the preceding sentence upon the removal of CCO sign." That language I just read should be deleted. On page 9, subparagraph 2 -- Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chairman, ifI may just jump in before he gets to subparagraph 2. There's another typo. I think three lines above subparagraph 2, it should be CBS,'hot CSB." Mr. Bittner: Commissioner, can you repeat that? I didn't follow that. Commissioner Suarez: It's okay. The last sentence of subparagraph 1, which is on page 9, it says, notwithstanding the foregoing, CBS Outdoor, Inc, CBS relinquishes and waives any claims that they may have in order -- may have (UNINTELLIGIBLE) 2: 33: 45 to that certain sign known Hampton Inn sign under the existing CBS, not CSB. Mr. Bittner: Oh, yes. Thank you. Okay. And subparagraph 2, we -- at the end of the -- of that subparagraph, we need to add the following language from the ordinance, and I'll read it. An amended permit shall not allow a billboard to be relocated and reconstructed 1,'along those portions of interstate highways and state roadways which are located within those areas designated by the City as gateways; or B,'ivithin the circular area defined by the 1,500 foot radius emanating from the point of intersection of the centerline of the southbound lanes of Interstate 95 and the centerline of Coral Way. Commissioner Sarnoff. I take it you'll be handing that to us? Mr. Bittner: Pardon me? Commissioner Sarnoff. You'll be handing that to us. That's a lot for us to write. Mr. Bittner: Okay. Commissioner Sarnoff. Just have somebody photocopy it and you want us to put it at -- Ms. Thompson: I am so sorry, Commissioner. We can't hear a thing you're saying. Commissioner Sarnoff. Sorry. Mr. Bittner: Okay. Let me repeat that. Commissioner Sarnoff. Well, don't repeat it 'cause it's a lot to write. Why don't you have somebody photocopy what you just wrote? We'll add that to subparagraph 2 on page 9. City of Miami Page 62 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 Mr. Bittner: Okay. Subparagraph 3, in the third line, it reads and CCO sign'and that should be deleted. In paragraph -- excuse me. On page 11, at the very bottom of the page, after the phrase .1igns structure is proposed to be relocated,'ive need to add a comma and to provide proof of site control of the signs to be removed." Commissioner Sarnoff. One more time. Mr. Bittner: Yeah. After the word relocated, comma -- Commissioner Sarnoff. On page 11, subparagraph B -- Mr. Bittner: Yeah. Page 11, at the bottom of the page, the last word on the page is Pelocated." Commissioner Sarnoff. I gotcha. Sorry. Go ahead. Mr. Bittner: Add a comma and to provide proof of site control of the signs to be removed. Chair Gort: Of the sign to be removed? Mr. Bittner: Removed. On page 21, subparagraph B, which is entitled Assurances to the City," we have a whole laundry list here of things that they won't sue us for and challenge us for, et cetera. At the very bottom, before the sentence beginning furthermore,'J'ou should -- we should add a semicolon and the following language. Make any attempt to influence the Florida Legislature to enact legislation that would in any way alter or impair the obligations or covenants of this agreement." Commissioner Dunn: Could you repeat that, please? Mr. Bittner: Yes. This is -- I'm adding language to paragraph 15B, found on page 21. And this would come right before the sentence that begins furthermore, the assuring parties shall. "Right there adding to the laundry list, it would read /hake any attempt to influence the Florida Legislature to enact legislation that would in any way alter or impair the obligations or covenants of this agreement. "Okay, page 22, subparagraph E, entitled 1ndemnfcation. " Commissioner Sarnoff passed or gave me at least copies of language. Has everyone else seen that already or do you want me to read that? Commissioner Sarnoff. It's -- they're minor changes, but why don't you read it in? Mr. Bittner: Okay. This would be changed to read 15E, SFEF and the joining parties'=- V ce Chair Carollo: Right. Mr. Bittner: That's new language. -- Hereby agree to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims, suits, actions and causes of action of whatever nature that may be brought by'=- delete CBS; add any party who may have any claims'=- and then the language continues -- against the City arising from the City's entry into this agreement and from and against all costs, attorney's fees, expenses and liabilities incurred in and about the defense of any such claims. SEF [sic] and add and the joining parties'=- that's new language. And then we continue -- shall be entitled to select counsel to defend the City in accordance with this paragraph, subject to the City's approval, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed. The parties agree that the City may reasonably withhold its consent to counsel, selected who is a party to this agreement or to counsel who is employed by or is a member of the law firm associated with any party to this agreement. In which case, SFEF"-- City of Miami Page 63 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 and we're adding and the joining parties'=- and it continues on -- Ihall select other counsel subject to the City's approval. "Okay, and the final change is on page 28, subparagraph 0, beginning with the third sentence, beginning L'onsequently,'ivhich should read, Consequently, SFEF"-- and we're adding the language -- iind the joining parties -- it continues to read -- agrees to indemnify the City from any lawsuit and shall defend with counsel of designated by SFEF"-- and we're going to be adding here find the joining parties'and then continue with what's written on the page. And that's all have as changes. Chair Gort: Okay. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Vice Chairman. Vice Chair Carollo: Okay. The first issue that have a problem with, andl think you mentioned, Commissioner Gort, is on the original settlement that we had discussed, we had one location, allowing them to erect a sign in one location. However, now in this settlement we are offering nine locations. My first question is why are we offering nine locations in this settlement? Mr. Martinez: Part of the logic of having nine locations was to compensate for the Sevennine site being not on the table. Vice Chair Carollo: Who made that decision? Mr. Martinez: It was between ourself -- the Administration, legal, and the other party. Vice Chair Carollo: Okay, let's start defining -- let's start having a little accountability in defining who's the Administration. Mr. Martinez: Vanessa and myself. Chair Gort: Was the Law Department involved? Mr. Martinez: Excuse me? Chair Gort: Was the Law Department involved? Mr. Martinez: Yes, the Law Department -- I stated the Law Department was involved. Vice Chair Carollo: Well, let's define this a little bit more because in the last meeting or the last time we took the issue with the settlement, I asked a question that was answered. And although I knew it was answered incorrectly, I just let it go because I didn't think it would either -- it was indifferent towards my point. However, I want to clarify it now. When you say the Law Department was part of it, the Law Department as far as you all or the Administration, Vanessa and yourself, doing the business decision and then giving it to the Law Department where they're just put it in writing. Is that correct? Mr. Martinez: In theory, that's correct, yes. Vice Chair Carollo: Okay. Because I remember that when we discussed the last settlement agreement, I asked Mr. Bittner who was responsible for the negotiations, and he said he was 100 percent, but he -- I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think later we spoke. And the truth of the matter is, yes, he was 100 percent the one who put in writing what the Administration had given him as the business terms. Is that correct, Mr. Bittner, or --? Mr. Bittner: I put into writing the business terms that are given to me. I also suggest, where I can, and give advice to the Administration as we're negotiating. City of Miami Page 64 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 Vice Chair Carollo: Did you suggest to give nine locations? Mr. Bittner: That's something that came -- that was a product of negotiation. And that wasn't -- you know, I don't think that was anyone's idea but Mr. Harkley's. Vice Chair Carollo: Mr. Harkley. Mr. Bittner: Harkley Thorton. Vice Chair Carollo: Harkley Thorton. However, the Administration or the City that I have a fiduciary duty to now is presenting this to me saying, hey, nine locations. Andl think that it is reasonable to ask how are we coming up with this nine locations. I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, the answer is since Sevennine is off the table, then we agreed to the nine locations. Is that correct? Mr. Martinez: Basically, yes. Vice Chair Carollo: Did you consult with Finance Department or Budget Department on this? Mr. Martinez: I did not. Vice Chair Carollo: No. Are you or anyone that was negotiating this either a CVA or a CBV; CVA, Certified Valuation Analyst, Credited Business Valuation? No? Did you hire an accounting firm that does -- so how do you possibly know the value of the Sevennine site? Mr. Martinez: Agree. I don't have a value for that. It could have been nine sites. It could have been seven sites. In my mind, it's nine sites that leave the neighborhoods that go toward the expressway system andl thought it was a good thing. Vice Chair Carollo: You know, usually there's a methodology to how we come up with X" number of sites or so forth. Usually there's a methodology to coming up with a value. I mean, I think it's erroneous just to throw numbers up on the air, you know. And that's why, you know, I begin by stating that, you know, this -- and I've said it during this whole meeting -- is a bad settlement. And in order for me to at least get comfortable -- and again, this is stepping aside from the principle issue. This is now just looking at the merits. -- you got to justify how you're negotiating. At least to me you do. And when I mean you, I don't -- I'm not trying to pick on you, Mr. Martinez. I'm not trying to pick on you, you know. But again, from your statement, you and Ms. Acosta were the one who were negotiating on our behalf. Mr. Martinez: Correct. Vice Chair Carollo: So I feel, at the very least, there needs to be justification on why some of this is before us and why will we give up nine when originally it was one. And if you're saying because Sevennine, what's the value of Sevennine. How did you come up with that value? What's the methodology? I can tell you, unless those answers are given to me and they're justifiable and so forth, right off the back, I think we're giving way too much. Why nine locations? Mr. Martinez: Part of the justification in my mind, it could be nine or ninety. It would be limited by the spacing. In other words, there's a finite number of signs that can be placed 1,000 or 1,500 feet apart, so he has the ability to put up nine sites if he can find nine sites to do so. It will be nine sites that have to come out of the neighborhood, which I understand we need to define the neighborhood, into the fringes of the expressway system. City of Miami Page 65 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 Chair Gort: Let me ask a question. What's the total signage of the projections or the total signage that can be put up with the new ordinance? Do we have projections? Mr. Bittner: Are you asking me, Commissioner? Chair Gort: I'm asking the Administration. How many billboards can go up can according to the new ordinance and the guidelines that we put up? Mr. Martinez: Well, there are only a finite number of locations. I cannot tell you how many locations are out there -- Chair Gort: Okay. Mr. Martinez: -- that are feasible. That's a matter of plotting it on a map. Chair Gort: The question is anyone that gets a sign has to take off two. Mr. Martinez: Yes. Chair Gort: Is that correct? Mr. Martinez: That's right. Chair Gort: Okay. Existing signs, right? Okay. Do they have nine signs? Mr. Martinez: They don't have nine signs. They have to get them from other companies. Chair Gort: Okay. Mr. Martinez: I think now they have one less 'cause Clear Channel did not give them the sign. Chair Gort: In other words, for them to get signs, they would have to negotiate with the existing property owners of sign permits? Mr. Martinez: Correct. Chair Gort: Okay, thank you. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Vice Chair Carollo: Oh, no problem, Mr. Chairman. To conclude with this point, I will not support a settlement -- again, separate from the principal issue; just on the merits now. I will not support a settlement when you're telling me we just threw a number up in the air. You need to justify that number ifyou're negotiating on my behalf. Thank you. Chair Gort: Thank you. Anyone else? Commissioner Sarnoff. Let me try it from a different angle. How many potential signs does CBS have? Is there a number in their agreement? I'll askyou the same question of Clear Channel andl'll askyou the same question of Carter. Orlando Toledo: Orlando Toledo, director of Building and Zoning. I mean, I haven't been around this for a while, but I believe CBS has 54 and they're here and they're -- it's either 50 -- okay. Because you've -- well, there's 15 amended permits, but they have a lot of about 56 signs. City of Miami Page 66 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 Commissioner Sarnoff. Okay. What is a lot of 56 signs? Mr. Toledo: Meaning that the inventory is between 48 and 56. Commissioner Sarnoff. And that means -- does that mean there's -- let's just use a round number of 50. That means there's 50 potential signs to be taken down in the event they can find spacing on the 1-95 corridor? Mr. Toledo: If they go two for one, yes. Vice Chair Carollo: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff. So that's the lot that you're talking about? Mr. Toledo: Right. Commissioner Sarnoff. And is it fair to say that -- are they -- they're competing then with -- or are they competing with Clear Channel, with Carter for that spacing on the 1-95 corridor? Vice Chair Carollo: Yes. Mr. Toledo: Yes, but when you're looking at Clear Channel, I mean, the allotted 15 that was agreed as per the agreement, I believe they only have two left. And again, I'm going by -- Commissioner Sarnoff. All right, so -- Mr. Toledo: -- memory. Commissioner Sarnoff. -- Clear Channel, you think, has two; CBS, fifty, about; and Carter, zero. Mr. Toledo: Zero. Commissioner Sarnoff. Okay, so good. We're only talking about Clear Channel, CBS, and now South Florida Equitable. Mr. Toledo: Right. And Carter's also here, so I'm sure they could object to what I'm saying. But I've always made the -- back when I was doing this -- was that Carter is pretty much done. CBS is the one really that's looking for these 14, 12 -- the 15 allotted ones. Commissioner Sarnoff. So is it -- I don't know how else to describe it. Is it a race to who gets Chair Gort: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff. -- these --? Okay. Mr. Toledo: Absolutely, yes. Commissioner Sarnoff. So -- and we know the number's going to be less than 50, I would assume, right? Mr. Toledo: Yes. City of Miami Page 67 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 Commissioner Sarnoff. So in a way of speaking, does -- it really doesn't matter whether we granted them two, five, ten, twenty because, in essence, it's going to close up before anybody gets in there? Mr. Toledo: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff. And -- go ahead. I'll yield. Vice Chair Carollo: But it does matter and I'll tell you why. Granted they don't have the signs to take down, so they're going to have to negotiate or so forth. However, they pick nine sites and they're ahead of let's say, someone like CBS that we've had a settlement with for, you know, X'humber of years, they pick those sites prior to them and they filed the proper -- yeah, the paperwork they first have to file with the City and -- if they follow the process, then yeah, they take up that space and CBS cannot because once again, the consensus here has been there's a finite number of spaces. Chair Gort: But my understanding -- Vice Chair Carollo: So nine they could potentially take out -- not take out. And I mean take out like where you can't use these -- Commissioner Sarnoff. Space out. Vice Chair Carollo: Yeah. Commissioner Sarnoff. Space out. Vice Chair Carollo: Space out -- Commissioner Sarnoff. Right. Vice Chair Carollo: -- nine. Yes. Chair Gort: Okay. Vice Chair Carollo: So it is important because, in essence, there may only be ten good sites or nine good sites or nine, you know, sites that -- yeah, good sites, for lack of better words -- and they may take them up or at least -- I don't know -- put their marking on them and worry about the rest later. So yes, it is important. Chair Gort: But my understanding is you can have one site where you're not get the permit unless you remove two. Mr. Martinez: Exactly. So if you were to find nine sites to put up, he would have to take down 18. Chair Gort: Eighteen. And if they don't have ownership, they can't get the permit. Mr. Martinez: Exactly. Vice Chair Carollo: Right. But why offer them -- allow them nine sites? And again, it goes back to my point. And by the way, there are very reputable accounting firms that do do valuations and so forth. I'm quite familiar with one of them. But -- City of Miami Page 68 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 Mr. Toledo: Commissioner, just to throw something out there in regards to the nine. And again, I wasn't part of the negotiations, butt knew --I know the site. I was involved with the site when it first began two and a half years ago. When you look at the site, it's a very good site. The fact is that you have everything that is going north and south on 1-95 and US 1 -- Vice Chair Carollo: Are you helping me? Mr. Toledo: -- is going to be able to see the billboard. Commissioner Sarnoff. Oh, Sevennine? Mr. Toledo: Sevennine. Vice Chair Carollo: Are you helping me? Mr. Toledo: Well, no. I'm just saying how important Sevennine is and maybe that is the reasoning why we we're willing to give away the nine, okay. Let me give you -- first, you got -- you have north and south 1-95 US 1. Everybody who's driving to West Kendall on US 1, Grove, Coral Gables is going to be able to see that sign. Second, you have Coral Way. Vice Chair Carollo: Can you put a dollar amount to it? Mr. Toledo: That's something that -- no, I cannot because -- Vice Chair Carollo: Okay, then -- Mr. Toledo: -- then -- Vice Chair Carollo: -- it's irrelevant. Mr. Toledo: Well, the reason why I cannot is because the companies have never given us the ability to see the numbers. Vice Chair Carollo: Then it's irrelevant. Mr. Toledo: I understand. But let me -- you also have Coral Way, which is another way to get east/west through the City, Coral Gables, and even further down. Third, you got the gateway to Virginia Key in which everybody who travels at least going north and south, you're going to be able to see that sign that goes into the Key. That's just an explanation how important -- or that site was -- Commissioner Sarnoff. There's one -- Mr. Toledo: -- to the companies. Commissioner Sarnoff. -- last piece that would fit into this geometric equation and that is how many sites are there -- how many takedown sites exists? Is that the way of putting it? The so-called neighborhood sacrifice -- well, let's not call them sacrifice. The takedown neighborhood sites, how many of those exist? Mr. Toledo: I want to say there's enough to be able to take care of that number. You have everything on 27th Avenue that is pretty much a neighborhood, even though it's a main avenue. You have 42ndAvenue. You have 17th Avenue. There's actually billboards on each of these avenues that I would rather have them out of there and have them on the expressways than City of Miami Page 69 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 instead of having them on 27th, 22nd, and 17th. Commissioner Sarnoff.. Wait. I want to make sure I heard you right. So you're saying you'd rather keep them on 27th --? Mr. Toledo: No. Chair Gort: No, no. Commissioner Sarnoff.. That you'd rather not. You would take them out and -- Mr. Toledo: I mean, that's -- Commissioner Sarnoff.. -- you would trade them out? Mr. Toledo: -- my opinion. Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff.. Okay. And you said there's enough for the nine sites or there's enough for how many? Mr. Toledo: Oh, there's enough for more than nine. Commissioner Sarnoff.. So -- Mr. Toledo: Just -- Commissioner Sarnoff.. -- and then the last thing we don't know is how many are available on the interstate. Vice Chair Carollo: That's -- Commissioner Sarnoff.. That's the unknown. Mr. Toledo: Well, that's the unknown. Yes. Chair Gort: That's the unknown. Mr. Toledo: Because the thing -- Commissioner Sarnoff.. And do you have a ballpark just -- I know CBS has a ballpark. You guys always do. Mr. Toledo: They do. Vice Chair Carollo: They may know one that's close. Joe Little: Joe Little, CBS Outdoor, 6904 Cypress Park Drive, Tampa. Your question is how many -- I believe your question is how many potential legal signs there are on the expressways outside of gateways. I think you should think about this. Since last year, since you changed the ordinance, anyone who has inventory can take down two signs and move a location to the expressway. And in fact, Clear Channel, Carter, CBS, and maybe an independent or two have hundreds of signs in the City that are eligible for removal on the ordinance basis, forget the settlements. So they could go out there today and do that. The fact is, so far as I know, no application was made after the change in that ordinance for any of those sites. It wasn't like City of Miami Page 70 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 there was a land rush to go out there and find any location. CBS does not have its full 15 applications it's allowed under the ordinance. We don't have locations for all 15 of those. If there were a site out there that we knew of we would certainly have applied for it. You know -- Commissioner Sarnoff. Is the reason you don't have the 15 applications because you haven't gone to land owners out there and negotiated or what is your impediment? Why? Mr. Little: The impediment is even though it would appear -- looking at a map of the City, it would appear that there are numerous sites. After all, you only need to really be a thousand feet apart. The reality is that's just not the case. For large, large portions of the expressways, the land isn't properly zoned for FDOT purposes. It's primarily residential. I mean, there are cross streets where there are, you know, commercial crossing across expressways so you got a half a block here and half a block there. But as you come down 95, it's largely residential coming into the City. So there really are just these little -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE) they're there. Chair Gort: 1-95 is right next to 7th Avenue. Mr. Little: Yeah. You get down south of 395 coming into downtown and that's all commercial and industrial, and every potential legal site is either already permitted or is the subject to an application. One hundred percent of the sites are there is subject to an application already. Commissioner Sarnoff. So the last question I have then, 'cause I think you've educated me as much as I've ever been educated, a nonsettling billboard operator. That person's only option -- they exist, I guess, right? Mr. Little: Right. Commissioner Sarnoff. Okay, so these people exist or these corporations exist. Their only option is to sell you one of their sites for a takedown so you can find one on an interstate? I don't mean you. I mean your -- the settlers. Mr. Little: Potentially. I mean, the problem isn't the standing inventory because there is plenty of that. The problem is where do you go for that alternate location. There just aren't the sites out there. And we're left with scrambling around for the handful that are still there. Where an enterprising operator is left with trying to find locations that are appropriate for rezoning, you know, the -- that fits the class so maybe they can rezone into something to open up a site, but it's not -- from the industry's perspective, it's not any sort of open territory where you can just take your permit and go out and find a site and solve it, or it would have been done three years ago when the CBS settlement was entered. Commissioner Sarnoff. But want to make sure I'm right about one thing, Mr. Little. If I'm one of these people that are a nonsettler, my choice is to remain where I am or to resolve with a settler as a donor site? Mr. Little: No. If you own -- since the City changed its Code last year, if you are a nonsettlement company and you own two signs, you have the right, like anyone, to find a site along the expressway, trade in those two signs, and move to the expressway so long as you stay outside of the gateway. You know, there are restrictions that are on all of us, but anybody who owns inventory has the right to do that since the City changed its Code. Chair Gort: Thank you. I'm not an expert, but I was doing some work about ten, fifteen years ago, andl can tell you the income that produce according to the amount of rides that go up and down either way. At the same time, the national companies, what they do, they put a whole package together -- in other words, rather than sell one site, they sell the whole program in City of Miami Page 71 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 different cities throughout (UNINTELLIGIBLE) 3: 05:10 and that's very valuable. So it is a very profitable site. Okay. Yes. Commissioner Suarez: I'm almost afraid to ask. I'm -- believe it or not, I'm actually a little confused. I've read these agreements pretty carefully so much so that I've picked out typos in them and, yet, somehow after all this and after all the months of hearing about this, I'm still confused. My understanding was -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- right now sites that are along billboard -- along highways have to be 1,500 feet apart. Is that correct or incorrect? Mr. Bittner: That's correct, unless they qualin, for a -- the pilot program -- Commissioner Sarnoff. Pilot program. Mr. Bittner: -- of a thousand foot. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. And how would they qualify for the pilot program? Mr. Bittner: Their zoning has to be correct, and our pilot program is set forth in a resolution that you passed two years ago. Commissioner Suarez: I didn't pass it two years ago. I wasn't here two years ago. Mr. Bittner: It's R-09 -- Chair Gort: None of us did. Mr. Bittner: -- 0451. Commissioner Suarez: Yes. Mr. Bittner: And at the moment you can -- you have to be CBS, Clear Channel, or Carter to have a qualified settlement agreement. Commissioner Suarez: To partake in the pilot program, is what you're saying. Mr. Bittner: To take advantage of the pilot program. Commissioner Suarez: Right. And so what you're saying is that -- 'cause we're -- we've been tossing around two numbers, 1,500, 1, 000 feet, whatever. One of the resolutions before us today is to make it a thousand feet so -- I mean, I don't know how we're going to vote to it, whether we'll ever get to it. We may get to it about 4 o'clock in the morning at the -- you know, at the rate we're going. But if we were at a thousand feet per location, are we saying here that there are no eligible locations along the highways if we were at a thousand feet? Mr. Bittner: No. I mean, if they can find something and have the zoning work, they -- if they're -- at the moment, if they're CBS, Clear Channel, or Carter, they can put a sign there. The resolution before you today, the third item in the agenda, is to allow the South Florida Equitable Fund settlement to -- Commissioner Suarez: To go into that pilot program. Mr. Bittner: -- to qualifi, for a thousand foot spacing too. Commissioner Suarez: Right. I see. But you're saying right now there are no eligible sites City of Miami Page 72 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 along the highway 'cause that's what -- Mr. Bittner: Well, I don't know that. Commissioner Suarez: -- has been said here today? Mr. Bittner: Apparently -- Vice Chair Carollo: It's hard. Mr. Bittner: -- in the view of CBS, that's their view. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. Mr. Bittner: I can't tell you if that's right or wrong. Commissioner Suarez: So they have no way of -- then it appears they have no way of taking down and getting the remaining 15 boards. They have 15 amended permits left? Vice Chair Carollo: I think it would be fair to say that they're having difficulty, not because of the takedown; because offinding locations within the highway. Commissioner Suarez: So they have the inventory -- Vice Chair Carollo: Right. Commissioner Suarez: -- which is the 30 approximately and they don't have the 15 sites? Mr. Bittner: That's correct. Vice Chair Carollo: Right. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. So I'm starting to kind of understand it from your perspective here, which is to say that by allowing -- by opening up this Pandora's Box and saying to somebody who doesn't have any inventory, look, we're going to allow you guys to battle it out over, you know -- there's a deficiency. They don't even have the inventory. If they had the inventory, you're saying, okay, well, you guys have the inventory. Let's battle it out over -- you guys battle it out over whatever is eligible. That would be one thing. But in this particular case, they don't even seem to have the inventory. Mr. Bittner: That's correct. They have one sign. Vice Chair Carollo: Can I just ask a question just to add a little bit to what you're saying? This pilot program, how did this pilot program came to be? Can you give us briefly a little background, and again, briefly? Mr. Bittner: Okay. Briefly, the pilot program came about when CBS and Santiago Echemendia were partners and Harkley also was a partner. They teamed up and Harkley went to Tallahassee and with his influence. got the Legislature to enact legislation that had Hillsborough County and the City ofMiami qualq5, for thousand foot spacing. That happened. And then CBS and Harkley and Echemendia did not see eye -to -eye anymore. And then Harkley went back to the Legislature and got the legislation amended to make it almost impossible for a sign to qualq5, for thousand foot spacing because of a change of definition in zoning -- in the statute. City ofMiami Page 73 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 Vice Chair Carollo: Are there any pending lawsuits with regards to the pilot program? Mr. Bittner: Yes, there are. Mrs. Thornton has filed a lawsuit in, I believe, Osceola County to challenge the constitutionality of the thousand foot pilot program, and she's claiming that it was a special law of local application, which is unconstitutional. Vice Chair Carollo: So let me see ifI understand this. Chair Gort: One question. Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, I have a question too. Chair Gort: When did all this take place? What year? Mr. Bittner: Over the years. Chair Gort: No. No. Let's go back because I think it's very important people to understand where we're at. Mr. Bittner: Okay. Chair Gort: And why (UNINTELLIGIBLE) 3:10: 58 and what we've been doing for a year and a half right now. Vice Chair Carollo: And who we're -- Chair Gort: I think it's very important that people understand that. This goes back two or three years. Mr. Bittner: Yeah. This -- Chair Gort: Or four years. Mr. Bittner: -- all started when we, the City Commission, passed the CBS settlement agreement. Chair Gort: Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Vice Chair Carollo: No. No. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And again, it's all about transparency. You know, it's all about, you know -- when you mentioned the pilot program, I thought it was important that, you know, let's put it in the record. Let's give a little history of how this came about, who was behind it. And ifI understand correctly, let's say Harkley Thornton, Echemendia, maybe CBS were part of a group that pushed this legislation in Tallahassee, and subsequent to that, Mrs. Thornton actually has filed a lawsuit claiming that it's unconstitutional. Is that correct? Mr. Bittner: Correct. Vice Chair Carollo: Okay. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chairman -- I think you're the Chairman now 'cause the Chairman stepped off so can I be recognized? Vice Chair Carollo: Go ahead. City of Miami Page 74 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 Commissioner Suarez: This is so confusing. I find it interesting that as we're talking about the history of it -- and this actually goes back to another point that we were making about the effectiveness as -- of this person, this person being Mr. Thornton, enacting legislation and we're weighing how effective and how the probabilities of legislation being enacted and now we're saying that this person has enacted legislation and then gone back and changed the legislation to oppose the legislation that was initially enacted, and so he's pretty effective at enacting legislation from what it appears has happened historically. So are we going to assume now that we weren't able to influence that process before but now we're going to be able to influence it this time? Vice Chair Carollo: It's a different legislation. Commissioner Sarnoff. Oh, yeah. It -- yeah, you're right. He passed it the first time. Then what, opposed it -- Vice Chair Carollo: No. Commissioner Suarez: -- the second time? Vice Chair Carollo: No. You're misunderstanding me. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. Yeah. Vice Chair Carollo: I would say probably anywhere close to half the legislators have changed. Commissioner Suarez: Oh, no. It's definitely a different Legislature. Vice Chair Carollo: Yeah. Commissioner Suarez: But he's been very effective at passing legislation, which -- Vice Chair Carollo: In the past. Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, in the past, and he seems to have a very good relationship with someone who's able to pass legislation in the present. But -- I mean, we just keep going around in circles and in circles and in circles. I mean, it's been the frustration that I've had having dealt with this issue from day one. It just seems like that's all we're doing. We're always going around in circles and circles. And then when it looks like we're getting close, somebody puts in a little poison pill, and that's what's happened every single time. It's a little poison pill here, a little poison pill there very, very nicely timed; people coming up to the podium that don't live in districts. You know, little things here, little things there, threats in Tallahassee. You know, I mean, this is like afreaking circus, you know. This is like a novella. You know, this is an novella and it's all about money. Chair Gort: Of course. Commissioner Suarez: It's all about money. So you know, I -- because this is frustrating. It's frustrating we have to spend -- Commissioner Sarnoff. So let's get off the hamster wheel. Commissioner Suarez: Sorry. Vice Chair Carollo: If you want, we could continue discussing the merits of this -- City of Miami Page 75 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 Commissioner Suarez: Sure. Vice Chair Carollo: -- settlement that -- Commissioner Suarez: Sure. Vice Chair Carollo: -- is what I think we were doing. Commissioner Suarez: Sure. Vice Chair Carollo: We could continue with it. Commissioner Suarez: That's -- please. Vice Chair Carollo: Is there any points that you want to --? Commissioner Suarez: Sure. Vice Chair Carollo: Go ahead. Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. Well, one of the points that I wanted to make was under the two for one and that I really didn't understand because we didn't get when we came back. We didn't get a marked up copy. I appreciate the City Attorney taking his -- all his lunch time to mark it up, but we didn't actually get one so we couldn't really track the changes. So I really couldn't tell what happened. One of the things that was in the agreement before that I'm not sure where it went now was that on the ratio of takedowns there was a monetary payment that was made with the takedown. I don't know if that's still in there, that's not in there. Vice Chair Carollo: It's still in there. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. So the person then -- so that makes it, to a certain extent, richer for the City ofMiami under this current settlement agreement than under already enacted settlement agreements and that has to be clarified 'cause I don't think people understood that. If you're -- if it's a two -to -one takedown and the City gets 50,000 -- you're nodding your head no. Would you like to --? Vice Chair Carollo: Keep going, keep going. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. I don't know. That's why I'm trying to get clarification 'cause we don't have a marked up copy so I don't know what we changed or didn't change. Vice Chair Carollo: The $50, 000 is per sign regardless whether it's a two -to -one or one-to-one. The $5,000 is per sign, so nine different $50 -- $50, 000 fees. Commissioner Suarez: So what you're saying is that the fee remains the same, the takedown ratio remains different -- changes? Vice Chair Carollo: Correct. Commissioner Suarez: Right. So what I'm saying is this particular agreement -- Vice Chair Carollo: And by the way, you know, I always yield to the assistant City Manager and definitely in this case, the assistant City Attorney. But that's my interpretation, that the City ofMiami Page 76 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 takedowns, yeah, they increased to two, but still the $50, 000 per sign times nine is whatever amount it is. Mr. Bittner: Yeah. I didn't remove any of the compensation. Chair Gort: Four hundred and fifty thousand. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. So -- Commissioner Sarnoff. I think what you're -- Vice Chair Carollo: Right. Commissioner Sarnoff. -- concerned at is -- if you look at page 15 and 16, and I think what you're looking for is the public benefit fee. Commissioner Suarez: No. What I'm looking at is -- my question is, first of all -- Vice Chair Carollo: Right. Commissioner Suarez: -- it doesn't make sense to do nine on a two -for -one takedown because you can't take down half a sign, so -- Vice Chair Carollo: Right. Commissioner Suarez: -- that doesn't -- mathematically doesn't make sense. But aside from that, the way it was a one -for -one, it was because there was a fee -- an additional fee that was being paid. That's my understanding. It was a neighborhood sign and $50, 000 fee, one time fee. Commissioner Sarnoff. Right. Mr. Bittner: Right. Commissioner Sarnoff. Public benefit -- Commissioner Suarez: Right? Unidentified Speaker: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff. Page 16, public benefit fee. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. So that's -- Commissioner Sarnoff. That's the one -- Commissioner Suarez: -- in addition to the permit application fee? Commissioner Sarnoff. Correct. That's the one you have -- Vice Chair Carollo: Yep. Commissioner Sarnoff. -- to take out to make -- City of Miami Page 77 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 Commissioner Suarez: Okay. So there's an extra $50, 000. Commissioner Sarnoff. Correct. Vice Chair Carollo: Yep. Commissioner Suarez: So that makes this agreement -- Commissioner Sarnoff. Richer. Commissioner Suarez: -- richer for the City than the current agreement? Commissioner Sarnoff. Correct. Commissioner Suarez: So there is a reason why we would want to support something that brings more money back to the City, correct or incorrect? Commissioner Sarnoff. Unless you felt like you wanted to keep it parallel to CBS, Carter, the others. Now understand historically, each one of their agreements was different based on how hard they fought the City. And CBS, being the one that fought the City the hardest, I think paid $2.6 or $2.2 million. Vice Chair Carollo: Two point six. Commissioner Sarnoff. Okay. Carter, I don't think, fought very hard or didn't fight at all. And I think Clear Channel was the -- what was it, the middle one, ifI remember. So there was always some disparity historically in the agreements themselves. Commissioner Suarez: Oh, the agreements are completely different There are some agreements that have certain types of board that other agreements don't have. There are some agreements that are one for one. There's other agreements that are two for one. And I'll -- you know what, I will -- I'll clam my one for one statement. There are other agreements that move one board for one board out of necessity, okay. They're not one for one. They move the board out of necessity. A board can be moved out of necessity with no payment to the City, okay. That's a -- what I would consider a one -for -one. So -- Commissioner Sarnoff. And who determines necessity? Commissioner Suarez: The company has determined necessity, and the City has never fought them on that, so that's an existing settlement agreement that we have right now. So -- I mean, all the agreements are different. I think what we need to look at and focus at is what's in the best interest of the residents of the City ofMiami and what's going to benefit the City the most, not all of the various actors here. So that's my point. My point is -- my question was did we take out that additional $50, 000 fee in the two for one takedown? Vice Chair Carollo: No. Commissioner Suarez: And the reason why it's significant is because that's the only thing that would, in my opinion, compensate or make any sense for giving them permits for signs that they don't have. Commissioner Sarnoff. Or the one-to-one that was -- you're saying two for one, plus the 50? Commissioner Suarez: What we're saying here is that -- what we're saying in here is that we're City ofMiami Page 78 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 giving them the eligibility of putting up nine permits, correct, which is 18 signs? Commissioner Sarnoff. Oh, so the -- multiplying -- Commissioner Suarez: They don't have the inventory. There's a current two for one. Does the City get a million dollars for that -- for those two takedowns for one if they were able to get -- take those 18 signs down in the other agreement? Does the City get a million dollars? Does anybody understand my question? Commissioner Sarnoff. Yeah. Vice Chair Carollo: No. Commissioner Sarnoff. I think you're saying, is there a public benefits in the CBS agreement that in the event they were able to take town 18 signs that would net the City about a million bucks. Commissioner Suarez: Right. Mr. Toledo: In the CBS agreement -- Commissioner Suarez: Right. Mr. Toledo: And again, they're here and they could correct me because I haven't read these things for a while. If you were C-1 and you were putting a sign on C-1, it was $50, 000. Vice Chair Carollo: Right. Mr. Toledo: If you were putting a sign on C-2, it was $20, 000. Vice Chair Carollo: Right. Mr. Toledo: So it all had to do with where exactly they were placing the actual billboard. Commissioner Suarez: And here they get -- Mr. Toledo: It was with CBS and with Clear Channel. Carter has completely a different agreement -- Commissioner Suarez: And here they have to pay -- Mr. Toledo: -- when it comes down to that. Commissioner Suarez: -- a $50, 000 permit amendment fee, a $25, 000 sign surcharge, and a $50, 000 public benefit fee for each permit. So there is -- they're paying an additional $75, 000 per permit? Mr. Toledo: Yes. Commissioner Suarez: So that is more beneficial to the City per permit? Mr. Toledo: Yes. Commissioner Suarez: Am I missing something? City of Miami Page 79 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 Mr. Toledo: No. Vice Chair Carollo: Yes. We're all missing something 'cause it seems like this is actually a better deal for the City; and in reality, once again, no, it is not. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. Well, can you explain? Vice Chair Carollo: Yes, I could explain. And actually, I wish Ms. Acosta was here because -- actually, the Chairman was the one -- which by the way, I applaud -- requested this information originally with regards to any benefit to this settlement and if we can attach a dollar value to it. So she made a nice little -- I don't know if you want -- it's not a schedule, but she outlined the monies that we would receive and so forth, and that was part of the information that I didn't receive on time. And now that have received it and I've had time to analyze it, I could tell you that, once again, it is a bad deal for the City ofMiami. And settling this, once again, is a bad deal for the City ofMiami. Chair Gort: Big time. Vice Chair Carollo: Mr. Manager -- Mr. Assistant Manager, do you know if Ms. Acosta is here so we can go over something? Mr. Martinez: She's in surgery. Chair Gort: She's in surgery. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chairman, ifI may? Vice Chair Carollo: Our prayers will be with her then. Chair Gort: Let me ask a question and maybe we can simplify this a little bit. My understanding is the bottom line is the settlement is to bring this -- whatever the name is, and I'm confused with all the different names -- to be able to participate in the pilot program. Am I correct? Mr. Bittner: That's RE.14. Chair Gort: Right. Mr. Martinez: RE.14 allows them to join in -- Chair Gort: In other words -- Mr. Bittner: -- with the other three companies. Chair Gort: -- this whole agreement, the whole thing is for give them the right to participate along with the other firms in the pilot program. Am I correct? Vice Chair Carollo: No. Chair Gort: No. Okay. All right. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chairman, if I may, 'cause I -- City ofMiami Page 80 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 Chair Gort: Yes. Commissioner Suarez: -- thinkl have a better understanding of this. Before it was a one -for -one and the justification for a one -for -one, in addition to it being a neighborhood sign or one that faces a neighborhood, was that we were getting additional monies that we were not getting on a two -for -one basis, okay. So now we have essentially modified our settlement to be a two -for -one. So we're getting the same amount of takedowns, okay, as someone else who had 18 two for one, but we're getting an additional $675,000. Is that right or is that wrong? Six hundred and seven five thousand dollars is seventy-five thousand dollars times nine permits. Mr. Martinez: Yeah. Commissioner Suarez: We're getting down the same number of boards. Mr. Martinez: Yeah, the -- Commissioner Suarez: We're getting -- the City ofMiami is getting an additional $675, 000 in a one-time, assuming they could acquire and take down those boards, which is a -- which seems to be here to be a very large assumption because I don't think anyone here wants to sell them any boards, number one; and number two, there may not even be any eligible sites. Vice Chair Carollo: Exactly. Commissioner Suarez: So -- but the deal itself is if they were able to acquire the sites and they were able to take them down on a two -for -one basis, the City would net an additional $675, 000. Vice Chair Carollo: That's incorrect. That's incorrect. Commissioner Suarez: Okay, so -- Vice Chair Carollo: Why is it incorrect? It is incorrect because there is no additional money that the City's going to receive because in order for CF -- I never get it right. Mr. Martinez: SFEF. Vice Chair Carollo: -- SFEF to acquire one of those locations -- andl think we've discussed here that there's a finite amount of sites and CBS is having difficulty finding sites and so forth. If they obtain that site, okay, then yes, they'll pay us X'amount of money, but realistically, it's not additional because what has happened is they took the site away from, let's say, a CBS. Commissioner Suarez: Can I -- may I? Are you finished? Vice Chair Carollo: Um -hum. Commissioner Suarez: They didn't take away the site. They bought the site. Vice Chair Carollo: Well -- Commissioner Suarez: So if -- Vice Chair Carollo: Okay. They (UNINTELLIGIBLE) 3: 25: 31 -- Commissioner Suarez: So what I'm saying is -- City ofMiami Page 81 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 Vice Chair Carollo: Yeah. Commissioner Suarez: -- if they buy another site, let's say, site number one that they buy and then they take it down, so that's two for one, the City would get an additional $75, 000 that it would not get in any other two for one regime that we currently have in the -- am I right or am I wrong? Does anybody see it differently? Commissioner Sarnoff. No, no. You're definitely right. I mean, it's a race. If they win the race and they beat CBS, they bring in additional $675, 000 that CBS or Clear Channel would not bring. Vice Chair Carollo: However, if CBS obtains that site and not as if South Florida Equity [sic], then in reality, the City receives even more money than it would if SFE -- if South Florida would obtain that site. So realistically, it's not additional money. What we're doing is we're replacing one for the other and -- Commissioner Sarnoff. I don't -- Commissioner Suarez: I don't understand that logic. Commissioner Sarnoff. -- think you're right. I mean -- Vice Chair Carollo: I am. Chair Gort: Let's ask the staff. Commissioner Sarnoff. In the CBS agreement, do they have a signed surcharge fee of 25, 000 and a public benefit fee of 50,000? Mr. Bittner: They don't have the public benefit fee. Commissioner Sarnoff. All right. So we know it's at least 450, 000. Mr. Bittner: Right. Commissioner Sarnoff. Do they have the sign surcharge fee? CBS, you guys know what you have. Mr. Toledo: They have a permit fee of $50, 000 if it's property in the 11000 code, which was -- Commissioner Sarnoff. It's not going to be easy. Mr. Toledo: -- C-1. Presently then it will be T5. Vice Chair Carollo: However, also include the initial amendment fee and the sign surcharge fee that they paid, which I think that equals the $2, 600, 000. Mr. Smith: No. There's a sign surcharge of $2, 250, 000 -- Chair Gort: Name and address, please. Mr. Smith: -- which has been paid. Sir? Chair Gort: Name and address, please. City of Miami Page 82 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 Glenn Smith: I'm sorry. Glenn Smith, 200 East Broward Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. I represent CBS Outdoor. Under the agreement CBS paid a sign surcharge of $2, 250, 000. Already been paid. In addition to that, for every amended permit they get, they pay $50, 000, okay. The sign surcharge for SFEF is 25,000 as opposed to two million two fifty, if you missed my -- where I was going. May I just --? Chair Gort: Sure. Mr. Smith: We also make -- CBS also makes annual payments to the City, depending on a -- Vice Chair Carollo: We haven't gotten there yet. Mr. Smith: Oh, okay. You want to hear that -- as far as that $150,000 a year and goes up -- of course, it all kind of depends on how many signs we get. But over the years, assuming CBS got all 15 of its amended permits, assuming that was possible, they pay in a range of eight million -- six, seven million dollars total over the year. Commissioner Sarnoff. An additional six to seven million? Mr. Smith: That would be the total amount paid under this. That includes the two million two fifty, the hundred fifty thousand a year -- Vice Chair Carollo: Uh-huh. Mr. Smith: -- and all the other -- of course that includes the NEA payments. Mr. Toledo: For 15 signs. Mr. Smith: Pardon me? Vice Chair Carollo: The other -- Mr. Smith: Fifteen. Mr. Toledo: For the 15 signs. Mr. Smith: Fifteen. Chair Gort: The one thing we're missing is my understanding, even -- we can give them nine and they can go and get the location, but they got to have an inventory to -- supplies two to be able to put down one. Now if this is a race, I am very positive that CBS, Carter, whoever has inventory is not going to sell it because they want to use it for themselves [sic]. So that's something you really need to look into it. Yeah, you can say I'll give nine sites, but it doesn't mean they're going to be able to do it. The reason being, they have to go into inventory that they don't have and I'm sure none of the present people they have inventories are going to give it away because they want it for themselves [sic]. Commissioner Suarez: That -- Chair Gort: That's -- Commissioner Suarez: -- makes total sense. I mean, they're not -- I mean, people are not going to do things that are not in their economic self-interest. So if it's not in their benefit to sell the City of Miami Page 83 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 signs, then they won't sell them, then there won't be any amended permits. I mean, that's the bottom line, you know. Commissioner Sarnoff. Well, let's put it like this. I think it's been reasonably demonstrated that there may be a financial benefit to have CBS theoretically win the race versus -- which I didn't concede, but now I understand the differential. Right. Vice Chair Carollo: Now you got it. Commissioner Sarnoff. I got it. And so now the question is what do we do with the number of poten -- is it worth right now changing the number of potential signs that SEFF [sic] can get? That's where we are. Is the number two? Is the number four? Is the number zero? Zero, I'm sure, they won't accept. But where are we? Vice Chair Carollo: That's why you have a CPA here. And the truth of the matter is it really is the City's benefit that they receive no locations because if they take a location away from CBS, in essence, what we're doing is we're losing money because if CBS obtained that location first, we will obtain a lot more money from CBS than we would have South Florida Equity [sic]. So that's why I'm saying it's just -- if you're looking at the merits like you wanted to -- Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. No. I -- Vice Chair Carollo: -- it's just a bad settlement. Commissioner Suarez: And -- Vice Chair Carollo: It's a bad deal for the City of Miami. Commissioner Suarez: And I get that. I mean, I get what you're saying. Vice Chair Carollo: Now there's under that guise that we were going to receive additional monies, but that necessarily is not the truth 'cause chances are, we were going to receive that money anyways and actually even more from another company. Commissioner Suarez: I don't -- but -- go ahead. Chair Gort: The bottom line here is the only reason this has been put together and has made this way 'cause I think the Administration was trying to avoid the problem in Tallahassee. That's the only reason we have this in front of us, and that's the only reason (UNINTELLIGIBLE) 3: 31: 46 the Administration sat down with them and talk to them and all that. Let's face it, this is the only reason why we're doing it. Now going back -- and like they say, this goes back -- when I first came in here, they started talking about this. Settlement with this. Settlement was the other one. I mean, I don't know how many different settlements there are. Finally, they came out with a global settlement, and like you stated before, Commissioner Suarez, they were ready to sign. Only somebody says no, no, I don't like this one. I like the other one. And everybody's been negotiating for years now. Our decision today is very simple. We do it or we don't. That's it. I don't think there's really -- there's no way we can be here all night. I don't think we're going to come to a compromise. Vice Chair Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Chair Gort: Yes, sir. Vice Chair Carollo: If -- again, principle aside because, you know, my principle says, you City of Miami Page 84 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 know what, have South Florida Equity [sic] show good faith, pull the legislation out from the Florida Legislature and -- Chair Gort: Okay. Vice Chair Carollo: -- then we can negotiate. That aside -- Chair Gort: That aside. Vice Chair Carollo: -- this is a bad settlement. Chair Gort: But we have to give them an idea of what they can expectfrom us in order for them to pull. Vice Chair Carollo: I'm sorry? Chair Gort: In order for them to pull and wait and show good faith, we have to give them at least some idea of what we expectfrom them. If not, that doesn't work. So I understand nine is a problem. What would people like to change it to? Commissioner Sarnoff. I'll make an amendment to four. Vice Chair Carollo: Well, my thing is this. How do we know? You know, we may be saying four and, realistically, four may actually be too little. I don't know. It may -- you know, we're doing things and we're actually negotiating a possible settlement just by throwing numbers up in the air. How do we know four? I mean, I just want to be more professional about it where we can justify the number. And that's why I asked our negotiating team, how did you come up with that number? Justify it. Did you do a business valuation? Did you consult with an accounting firm? How did you come up with that number? Commissioner Sarnoff. Well -- Vice Chair Carollo: So -- Commissioner Sarnoff. But here's my point. At a certain point in time -- Vice Chair Carollo: Right. Commissioner Sarnoff. -- we're going to prepare a settlement based on -- it's -- really it's -- this is our offer to them. Vice Chair Carollo: I gotcha. Commissioner Sarnoff. And if we don't give them something -- if we don't put a worm on the hook, there's -- they're not going to do anything. In which case, what we will find out whether legislation goes through -- Vice Chair Carollo: I gotcha. Commissioner Sarnoff. -- andl thinkl know -- well, pretty confident, I think they're going to refile their litigation. Although I will be candid with you, I think page 22 and 23 of Judge Ungaro's order is pretty clear, that she thinks this is a constitutional, you know, arrangement. So the only reason I'm coming up with four -- and I'm really just figuring it's -- you have to give them two in theory, and I'm just trying to come up with a number a little bit above that in an City of Miami Page 85 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 even vernacular. Commissioner Suarez: Can I just -- Vice Chair Carollo: Okay. Commissioner Suarez: -- ask a question? Chair Gort: Once again, you might give them four. They might be able to go and get four sites. But if they don't have eight takedowns, that contract is no good so they cannot get a permit. And this is the things we have to look at. Andl am sure, I'm positive 'cause business people do not give profit away. So I'm sure the inventory at this time the people have, they're not going to sell it and they're not going to give it, and that's the thing. To get your permit, you got to bring down two. I'm sorry. Go ahead, sir. Commissioner Suarez: Thank you. I mean, I think a lot of this is very academic 'cause we don't even have the party here. Chair Gort: I think we're learning a lot. I'm glad we're finally bringing all this and maybe we can come up to a conclusion. I mean, let's face it, we have inherit lot of things, and all we've been doing for the last year and a half is fixing a lot of things. Andl am sure there are going to be a lot of other things that are going to come up that we 're going to have to work on it and that's why we got in. Commissioner Sarnoff. And remember, they're going to be in front of us two more times on appeals? Mr.Bittner: That's -- Outlook Media has appeals. Commissioner Sarnoff. Well, okay. Whatever corporation you want to call it. Chair Gort: Everyone has appeals. Commissioner Sarnoff. Under a scenario very similar to this, there's going to be two appeals in front of this Commission. Mr. Bittner: Concerning signs under CBS's settlement agreement. Commissioner Sarnoff. Okay. Vice Chair Carollo: Commissioner Suarez. Commissioner Suarez: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've become very, very good at reading these things very quickly, scanning through them. So let me see ifI get this right. I just want to -- I don't mean to harp on your question, but -- Vice Chair Carollo: Go ahead. Commissioner Suarez: I think the issue is, from what you're saying, that CBS makes an annual payment, which this agreement doesn't contemplate. Correct? An annual recurring payment. Vice Chair Carollo: That's even separate from what I'm saying. I'm talking initial payments, initial dollar amounts, CBS -- City of Miami Page 86 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 Commissioner Suarez: Right. Vice Chair Carollo: -- has actually paid us already a lot more -- Commissioner Suarez: Right. Vice Chair Carollo: -- than what South Florida Equity [sic] is going to pay us. So it's deceiving when I heard all this talk that we're going to receive additional revenues and so forth. The reality was or the reality is if those locations are available, we were going to get that money anyhow. However, we were probably going to get a lot more if another company obtained those sites. Now, aside from that, recurring revenue, that's a whole different ball game. And once again, it is a very bad deal for the City to do this settlement because, once again, if the other companies obtain that site, they will pay us a lot more. I may be even -- I don't think it gets down to ten times more, but a lot more recurring revenues than what South Florida Equity [sic] is set to pay. Commissioner Suarez: I don't see that in their agreement. What I see is that they have a recurring revenue payment that is $150, 000 per year and it escalates over time from 150 to 175 to 225. That's their recurring annual payment. Vice Chair Carollo: For how many signs? Fifteen sites? What's the recurring payment for South Florida Equity [sic], 1,500? Commissioner Suarez: No. And -- no, no, no, no, no. We can get to that. I agree with you on that. That is ten times larger. But the per permit fee that this agreement contemplates is $75, 000 per permit more on a one-time basis. Vice Chair Carollo: No. Commissioner Suarez: How do you figure? Vice Chair Carollo: No. Commissioner Suarez: They have to pay between 50 or $25, 000 per permit on the basis of the zoning classification. This agreement says you got to pay 50 -- so there's no 50 or 25. It says 50. -- plus 25, plus another 50 per application. Now I think your initial issue -- you have two issues andl think -- still make this deal with CBS kind of -- that's still, I think, kind of unfair, vis-a-vis CBS, if we don't put the same things in this other deal with SFEF. One of them is a sign surcharge and the other one is a recurring payment, right? Vice Chair Carollo: Recurring payment aside, while you're calculating 75,000 -- it's actually more, but let's say 75,000, I'm calculating anywhere from 193,000 to 223,000 per -- Commissioner Suarez: Per sign. Vice Chair Carollo: -- sign with CBS. Commissioner Suarez: How do you figure? Vice Chair Carollo: You're not taking into consideration the $2.6 million Commissioner Suarez: No, I'm not 'cause that was paid before. Vice Chair Carollo: But still -- City of Miami Page 87 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 Commissioner Suarez: I'm not taking that into consideration. Vice Chair Carollo: Well, there's a reason why they paid it. Commissioner Suarez: Because what they paid us last year, the year before, the year before that is not going to help us balance our budget next year or the year after that or the year after that or the year after that. That's why I'm not taking it into account. Vice Chair Carollo: But there's a reason why they paid that. Commissioner Suarez: There is a reason why they paid that, and I think that SFEF should be made to pay one as well. Vice Chair Carollo: Well, then -- Commissioner Suarez: And a recurring payment as well. Vice Chair Carollo: Then if that's -- Commissioner Suarez: It should be a fair agreement. Vice Chair Carollo: Then -- Commissioner Suarez: But it's disingenuous to say that they are paying more per permit -- Vice Chair Carollo: They did. Commissioner Suarez: No. Vice Chair Carollo: They actually paid it upfront which makes it even -- you know, they actually paid it upfront -- Commissioner Suarez: And we're going to make these people pay it upfront if -- by the way, they're not going to agree to this anyway so I don't even know why we're talking about this, but you know -- yeah, it's true. But we could -- what I'm saying is we could put it in equivalent upfront payment and an equivalent annual payment and make it an equal deal and that would be actually richer for the City ofMiami. You can agree. You can disagree. They're not going to agree to it anyway. So I don't really want to talk about it anymore. Vice Chair Carollo: So the bottom line is it's a bad settlement, as it is right now, which is what I've been saying; it's a bad settlement. Commissioner Suarez: Well, as it is right now. I don't think anybody here likes it as it is right now or as it was initially. Vice Chair Carollo: And by the way, CBS made that payment without even obtaining the sites, so they've paid us ahead of time. Commissioner Suarez: I agree. And we should make any other company that comes before us do the same thing. Vice Chair Carollo: That's like saying -- City ofMiami Page 88 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 Commissioner Suarez: That's a fairness issue. Vice Chair Carollo: -- before you can even obtain the sites -- before you can even obtain those nine sites, pay us X'amount of money. Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. Vice Chair Carollo: Okay. Well -- Commissioner Sarnoff. Before we anoint Saint CBS, how much did we spend in the CBS lawsuit in terms of outside counsel fees? Mr. Bittner: Two million. Commissioner Sarnoff. So before we call you Saint CBS, let's call you NBC. Vice Chair Carollo: Question. And again, this is just, you know, being fair. I'm just trying to, you know, put everything out there. How much have we spent with, you know, S -- South Florida Equity [sic]? Chair Gort: SAVEF [sic]. Mr. Bittner: Well -- Commissioner Sarnoff. We finally trained Warren -- Mr. Bittner: Yeah. Commissioner Sarnoff. -- in the CBS lawsuit. Mr. Bittner: (UNINTET,TIGIBT,F) 3:42: 54 myself, right. Vice Chair Carollo: Yeah. But Warren still has a salary and so forth and the time spend and --you know, I mean -- so I mean -- Commissioner Sarnoff. No. I don't -- Vice Chair Carollo: They're there's -- Commissioner Sarnoff. I don't -- I just wanted to keep your $2 million in perspective because when I was here first year, all we kept on hearing about was how much we were spending on CBS. And just to put it in perspective, they paid 2.25 million; 2 million of that was to reimburse us for outside counsel. I mean, they fought like cats and dogs. Chair Gort: Gentlemen -- Commissioner Sarnoff. No disrespect. Commissioner Suarez: So basically, if we charged SFEF a $250, 000 upfront fee, they would be paying the same amount of money, correct? Vice Chair Carollo: I charged them 2.6. Commissioner Suarez: Well, they didn't have 2 million -- they didn't incur $2 million worth of City of Miami Page 89 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 legal fees, so we can charge them Warren salary for the last couple of years. Commissioner Sarnoff. No. I think we are in some respects too. Chair Gort: My understanding is we're not making a decision today. We just giving them an idea what they can expect if they really compromise. Andl think this is -- if this is what we want to do, let's go at it. Vice Chair Carollo: Is it even worth it? Commissioner Sarnoff. Well, why don't we give a policy decision to the Administration that we try to make this compatible -- comparable to the CBS solution. We don't know what those numbers are, you're right. As we sit here right now, you don't know. And if you want to include Bittner's salary, I mean, nothing wrong with that. But why don't we give them direction that the settlement agreement numbers should coincide with the CBS settlement so that everybody's treated equitably and equally. And every time CBS made a payment for a category offees, they equally have to pay that same category offees based on their litigation, based on what they did. And if they pay annual fees, they should be paying annual fees. 'Cause it's the reoccurring revenue that everybody is interested in. It's the reoccurring revenue that we're all concerned about. Vice Chair Carollo: Right. And the difference is approximately ten to one and I'm seeing that and -- again, I stand by what I'm saying. It's a bad settlement. If you really look at the merits, how can one -- how can another company that came beforehand be paying ten times more than South Florida Equity [sic]? I mean, yeah, I could say the reason why is because they blackmailed us and they put us in this position. But besides that, there's no reason why we should settle them. Commissioner Sarnoff. So we should give Administration direction to pattern it off of the CBS settlement for those category of payments made by CBS based on the pro rata basis that we've fought with South Florida Equitable. Do you understand what we're saying, Warren? Mr. Bittner: You want to have an equivalent -- Ms. Thompson: I am sorry. Mr. Bittner, can you turn your mike on? Thank you. Mr. Bittner: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. You wanted a equivalent per sign charge -- is that what you're asking for -- between CBS and South Florida Equitable Fund? Commissioner Sarnoff. I think the same categories of payments that they make should be the same categories of payments that are made in this agreement and that they should be -- I think the Vice Chair's saying like pro rata or what's the better accounting term for that? Equitable or some -- Mr. Bittner: Warren knows what we're talking about. Commissioner Sarnoff. Some basis to reflect the same involvement that CBS had. Chair Gort: And by doing so, we agreeing with the -- with all the documents that have been together before with the global agreement that we had so we're not -- we're being very fair. In other words, we're not being unfair with the SFEEF [sic]. Vice Chair Carollo: And to make it even more fair, they should pull that legislation from Tallahassee so we don't have a cloud looming over our heads, that cloud of -- that we're acting City of Miami Page 90 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 under duress or anything of the sorts. Chair Gort: Do I have a motion to --? Well, let's -- Vice Chair Carollo: I don't think we need a motion. We just need a direction. Chair Gort: We don't need a motion. This is a direction for you to do that, okay? Mr. Martinez: I'm trying to understand the direction also. A value analysis of the number of signs we're going to allow them to -- sites that we're going to allow them to erect signs on. Vice Chair Carollo: I could go with what Commissioner Sarnoff said -- Mr. Martinez: Is it nine? Is it four? Vice Chair Carollo: -- of four, even though I usually don't do something like that unless I had justification, unless I have -- you know, I view everything, you know, in a professional manner. And being a CPA, I look at it differently. I can go with just for compromise and so forth the four signs that Commissioner Sarnoff said, but I'm -- I mean, that's up to you all. And I would prefer -- will obviously have some type of money calculation or dollar calculation. In other words, what was the worth of Sevennine as compared to, you know, some of these other sites that it could possibly have and so forth. Mr. Martinez: So if we do something other than four, we would do that value analysis. But at four, we don't have to do the value analysis. Okay. Vice Chair Carollo: I will always want an analysis, butt mean -- Mr. Martinez: Okay. Chair Gort: I would contact a national firm that is not in any other transaction here and get some information from them. I'm sure they can tell you according to the amount of cars, automobiles that go through the area in x'amount of time, they can tell you how much they charge per sign. At the same time, they can tell you if they have a global agreement or a national agreement, the cost is -- the income is a lot higher than if it's only a local agreement. Commissioner Sarnoff. It's really easy actually. I mean, you have a company that you just did business with, Fuel. They did that analysis on the MRC (Miami Riverside Center) building. They did that very analysis on the Miami Herald building. And for anybody that doesn't know this, apparently the annual income of the people who drive 95 is $20, 000 less than the annual income of the people who drive 395. 395 is like the gold rush. We're the silver rush, I guess, up and down I-95. So everybody -- the preferable sites exist on 395. MRC did not turn out to be as valuable as I think we'd hoped for, whereas I think the County's chiller facility is considered ground zero because that's 395. Vice Chair Carollo: Exactly. And again, I'm not an expert in it. However, it seems like if the private companies do it -- and there's a reason why they do it -- I don't know why the City of Miami, when we're negotiating, doesn't do it; and it seems like we need to start raising the bar and negotiate, you know, from a good standing. And again, it's not to point any fingers or throw anyone under the bus. I just think that little by little, we're going to start raising the bar on how we negotiate. Commissioner Sarnoff. But just so you know, it was done. It was under the MRC. If you remember the first RFP wasn't reached. So we actually have it. Maybe we don't know we City of Miami Page 91 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 SP.2 11-00329 Department of Building and Zoning SP.3 11-00330 Department of Building and Zoning already have it. Chair Gort: Okay. Do I have a motion to adjourn? Commissioner Sarnoff.. So moved. Vice Chair Carollo: Motion to adjourn. Second. Chair Gort: Okay. Thank you. END OF EMERGENCY ORDINANCE RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH SOUTH FLORIDA EQUITABLE FUND, LLC., ETAL., 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.: 010-21032-CIV-UNGARO. 11-00329 Summary Form.pdf 11-00329 Legislation.pdf 11-00329 Exhibit 1.pdf 11-00329 Summary Form 04-21-11.pdf 11-00329 Legislation (Version 3) 04-21-11.pdf 11-00329 Exhibit 1 04-21-11.pdf 11-00329-Submittal-Grace Solares-Map Of Area To Be Affected By Proposed Legislation.pdf 11-00329-Submittal-Administration-Update By Intergovernmental Affairs Liaison On HB 1363.pdf DISCUSSED Direction by Commissioner Sarnoff to the City Attorney and Administration for the numbers in the South Florida Equitable Fund (SFEF) settlement agreement be comparable with the CBS Outdoor, Inc. settlement agreement; further directing that the SFEF settlement agreement include the same categories of payments made by CBS Outdoor, Inc. Note for the Record: For minutes related to Item SP.2, see Item SP.1. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION MODIFYING THE POLICY EXPRESSED IN RESOLUTION NO. 09-0451, ADOPTED SEPTEMBER 24, 2009, CONCERNING THE PILOT PROGRAM ALLOWING 1,000 FOOT SPACING OF OUTDOOR ADVERTISING SIGNS ALONG EXPRESSWAYS IN THE CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY"); FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NOTIFY THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OF THE CITY'S AGREEMENT WITH SOUTH FLORIDA City of Miami Page 92 Printed on 6/9/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2011 ADJOURNMENT EQUITABLE FUND, LLC., TO ALLOW IT TO PARTICIPATE IN SUCH PILOT PROGRAM. 11-00330 Summary Form.pdf 11-00330 Legislation.pdf 11-00330 Summary Form 04-21-11.pdf 11-00330 Pre -Legislation 04-21-11.pdf 11-00330 Legislation (Version 2) 04-21-11.pdf 11-00330-Submittal-Grace Solares-Map Of Area To Be Affected By Proposed Legislation.pdf 11-00330-Submittal-Administration-Update By Intergovernmental Affairs Liaison On HB 1363.pdf DISCUSSED Note for the Record: For minutes related to Item SP.3, see Item SET END OF RESOLUTIONS The meeting was adjourned at 3: 50 PM. City of Miami Page 93 Printed on 6/9/2011