Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEOPW OMNI CRA 2007-12-27 Marked Agenda-y16, 111 City of Miami Marked Agenda SEOPW and OMNI Community Redevelopment Agencies Michelle Spence -Jones, Chair Marc David Sarnoff, Vice Chair Angel Gonzalez, Commissioner Joe Sanchez, Commissioner Tomas Regalado, Commissioner ************************** CRA OFFICE ADDRESS: 49 NW 5th ST, SUITE 100, Miami, FL 33128 Phone: (305) 679-6800, Fax: (305) 679-6835 City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 www.miamigov.com Thursday, December 27, 2007 2:00 PM CITY OF MIAMI CITY HALL 3500 PAN AMERICAN DRIVE MIAMI, FL. Minutes are transcribed verbatim. Periodically, agenda items are revisited during a meeting. "[Later...]" refers to discussions that were interrupted and later continued. Present: Commissioner Sanchez, Commissioner Regalado, Chair Spence -Jones and Vice Chair Sarnoff Absent: Commissioner Gonzalez On the 27th day of December 2007, the Board of Directors of the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) for the Southeast Overtown/Park West and Omni Districts of the City of Miami met in special session at Miami City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida. The meeting was called to order by Chair Michelle Spence -Jones at 2:13 p.m., recessed at 3:36 p.m., reconvened at 4:04 p.m., and was adjourned at 4:24 p.m. ALSO PRESENT: James H. Villacorta, Interim Executive Director, CRA Clarence Woods, Assistant Executive Director, CRA Gail A. Dotson, Assistant General Counsel, CRA Priscilla A. Thompson, Clerk of the Board RESOLUTIONS 1. 07-01559 CRA RESOLUTION A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST AND OMNI REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO APPLY FOR COMMUNITY BUDGET ISSUE REQUEST GRANTS FOR THE NORTH BAYSHORE DRIVE REBUILD, THE OMNI WATERLINE UPGRADES, THE N.W. 3RD AVENUE STREETSCAPE, THE RENOVATION OF OLD FIRE STATION NO. 2, AND THE RENOVATION OF THE WARD ROOMING HOUSE; AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. Cover Memo.pdf, Legislation.pdf City of Miami Page / Printed on 827/2009 SEOPW and OMNI Marked Agenda December 27, 2007 CRA-R-07-0060 MOVED: Joe Sanchez SECONDED: Tomas Regalado Motion that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. AYES: Vice Chair Sarnoff, Chair Spence -Jones, Commissioner Regalado and Commissioner Sanchez ABSENT: Commissioner Gonzalez Chair Spence -Jones: Jim, you can take it over from here. James H. Villacorta (Interim Executive Director, Community Redevelopment Agency): The first item is an authorization to apply for CBIRs (Community Budget Issue Request) grants. Florida's legislators use Community Budget Issue Request grants to provide an avenue for cities, counties, and nonprofits to present funding requests for new and continuing budget issues. If supported by the legislators, the funding requests are included in the State's budget. A requirement of the process is that the project request is heard before a publicly noticed meeting of a body of elected officials. Hence, you have in front of you a resolution authorizing me to apply for Community Budget Issue Request grants for the North Bayshore Drive rebuild by Margaret Pace Park, the Omni waterline upgrades, the Northwest 3rd Avenue streetscape project currently underway, the renovation of old fire station number 2, and the renovation of the Ward Rooming House. Chair Spence -Jones: Any questions on this item? Commissioner Sanchez: Madam Chair, so move this item. Commissioner Regalado: Second. Chair Spence -Jones: I have a motion; I have a second. All in favor? The Commissioners (Collectively): Aye. Chair Spence -Jones: All right. This item passes. 2. 07-01558 CRA RESOLUTION A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST AND OMNI REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, BETWEEN THE SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, THE OMNI REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, THE CITY OF MIAMI AND MIAMI-DADE COUNTY RELATIVE TO THE IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING OF CERTAIN PROJECTS OF BENEFIT TO ALL PARTIES; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE ALL OTHER DOCUMENTS DESCRIBED THEREIN OR ATTACHED TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT. Cover Memo.pdf, Legislation.pdf CRA-R-07-0061 City of Miami Page 2 Printed on 827 2009 SEOPW and OMNI Marked Agenda December 27, 2007 MOVED: Joe Sanchez SECONDED: Marc David Sarnoff Motion that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. AYES: Vice Chair Sarnoff, Chair Spence -Jones and Commissioner Sanchez NOES: Commissioner Regalado ABSENT: Commissioner Gonzalez A motion was made by Commissioner Sanchez, seconded by Vice Chair Sarnoff, and was passed unanimously, with Commissioner Gonzalez absent, to allow comments from the public on the item. A motion was made by Vice Chair Sarnoff, seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, and was passed unanimously, with Commissioner Gonzalez absent, to direct the Interim Executive Director to hire outside counsel to represent the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) regarding the issues surrounding Miami -Dade County exercising the reverter clause outlined in the global agreement. Chair Spence -Jones: Going to move on to number 2. James H. Villacorta (Interim Executive Director, Community Redevelopment Agency): Item number 2 is a joint resolution of the Overtown and Omni CRAs (Community Redevelopment Agencies) authorizing execution of an interlocal agreement, sometimes known as the global agreement, between the Southeast Overtown/Park West Community Redevelopment Agency, the Omni Redevelopment District Community Redevelopment Agency, the City of Miami, and Miami -Dade County relative to the implementation and funding of projects deemed to be of great benefit to all parties. The Miami City Commission, by Resolution 07-0716, passed and adopted December 13, 2007, authorized the City Manager to execute this interlocal agreement. The Board of City Commissioners, by Resolution number R-1372-07, passed and adopted on December 18, 2007, authorized the County Manager to execute this interlocal agreement. This resolution authorized the CRAs to enter into the agreement. Chair Spence -Jones: I believe this -- I have Commissioner Regalado that has a point to make, and I guess we all have some discussions on this item, but -- Commissioner Regalado: No. Chair Spence -Jones: -- would -- this is a public hearing also I was told, so we need to do -- do we need to officially open it, Madam City Attorney, now, or do you want to make your comments or --? Commissioner Regalado: I just -- I have a question for the City Attorney. That's -- Chair Spence -Jones: Sure. Commissioner Regalado: -- all. I have a question, and then -- Chair Spence -Jones: Okay. You're recognized, Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam City Attorney, can this agreement be changed by the CRA? Gail A. Dotson (Assistant General Counsel, Community Redevelopment Agency): If the agreement is changed by the CRA, then it will not be consistent with the document that was executed or authorized by the City Commission, as well as the Miami -Dade County Board of Commissioners. Commissioner Regalado: And so the City Commission approve the global agreement? City of Miami Page 3 Printed on 8'27,2009 SEOPW and OMNI Marked Agenda December 27, 2007 And in -- Ms. Dotson: Yeah. Commissioner Regalado: -- the global agreement -- Ms. Dotson: Yes. Commissioner Regalado: -- there was the reverter clause for the parcels, and then in the County, although it wasn't taken out of the agreement, the spirit of the motion of the County -- not the letter, but the spirit was to eliminate those three parcels, so that was considered not a substantial change. Suppose that this Board decides to make some change, which -- I mean, not to say not fund the tunnel or -- but a change. Would that be something that can be done? Ms. Dotson: We don't believe there was a substantial change from the agreement that the City approved as well as the Board of County Commissioners approved, but I will let another assistant city attorney speak on the specifics. Chair Spence -Jones: And -- thank you -- Commissioner Regalado: Well, I didn't say the letter; I said the spirit of the agreement, so in the spirit of the agreement, the agreement approved by the City Commission, there were the Crosswind [sic] parcels. In the agreement of the debate of the County, the CountyMayor on the record said he would veto any resolution to revert the parcels to the City or to keep -- let the City keep the parcel. That doesn't change the agreement at all. Chair Spence -Jones: Commissioner -- can I also add on Commissioner Regalado's point? It was just not only the Crosswinds block, but it's also -- it was the Block 36, which we had actually put out a bid for -- proposals for and we accepted bids on and we approved, so it was not just the Crosswinds blocks that were a part of that, but it also was Block 36, which we approved maybe a week or so ago, so it was both things, so I want to be very clear. It's not just about Crosswinds; it's about all the blocks. I consider that to be a pretty big change, and I agree with Commissioner Regalado on that point, and then aren't we also changing something else now, which would be Parrot Jungle, in my understanding, correct? Olga Ramirez-Seijas: Okay. My name is Olga Ramirez-Seijas. I'm an assistant city attorney. The agreement that the City Commission approved did not include the extension of the reverters. It said that the County agreed to place an item on the agenda to consider an extension of the reverter due date or to consider a reconveyance of those properties in the event that the reverter had already occurred or had been exercised. I think we all heard at the County Commission meeting that they do intend to exercise the reverter right as soon as possible, but I think that the agreement that the City Commission approved on December 13 recognized that possibility because the reverter date really is December 31, and my understanding was that there was an understanding that that was going to take place, so the County Commission did not change the reverter clause as it appears in the agreement. Commissioner Regalado: But -- Ms. Ramirez-Seijas: With -- I'm sorry. Commissioner Regalado: Excuse me because I wasn't there, but I watched it on TV (Television). The City Manager of the City of Miami pled with the Commissioner doing that saying that this could endanger the whole deal. I don't know what he meant by that. Ms. Ramirez-Seijas: I think that the County Commission made it very clear -- at least one of the Commissioners -- that they intended to exercise the reverter right as soon as possible after December 31, but the agreement that was approved by the County Commission still contains the language that was approved by the City Commission on December 13 that the County would place an item on the agenda for the first meeting of City of Miami Page a Printed on 8 27 2009 SEOPW and OMNI Marked Agenda December 27, 2007 the Board of County Commissioners in January to discuss the extension of the reverter, and in this case, it would be to discuss a reconveyance of the property to the City if the reverter had been exercised, so there is really no -- I think other than an expression on the part of a Commissioner and the County Mayor that they were going to exercise the reverter right, the document is exactly the same, except for the Parrot Jungle issue that I'd like to address, if I may? Commissioner Regalado: What Parrot Jungle issue? Chair Spence -Jones: You're recognized. Ms. Ramirez-Seijas: Okay. The agreement that the County -- that the City Commission approved contained the possibility of using, to the extent legally permitted, the increment revenues from the Omni CRA in order to allow the City to pay to HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development) the amounts that the City is required to pay under the Section 108 loan that it used to make a loan to Parrot Jungle. The agreement that the Commission approved said "to the extend legally permitted," with the understanding that there may be some legal difficulties in authorizing that payment. Since the date of the City Commission meeting, we have retained outside counsel to advise us on a number of CRA issues, and we have a preliminary opinion that it is not legally permitted to use the CRA TIF (Tax Increment Fund) monies to make a payment on a Section 108 loan, and therefore, the absence of that provision in the County agreement -- we said to the extent legally permittable -- legally permissible. If it's not legally permissible, then there's really not a substantial change from the document that the City Commission approved. In other words, the Section 108 loan that had been included as a potential payment with the TIF money is no longer a possibility, so that change is evident in the County agreement and not in the City, but it cannot be used for that purpose, so the change is really not a substantive change. It's not significant from a realistic fiscal -- Commissioner Regalado: It is for the general budget. Ms. Ramirez-Seijas: I'm sorry. I -- Commissioner Regalado: It is for the general budget of the City. Ms. Ramirez-Seijas: Yes. Well, it continues to be. The City has that existing obligation. Commissioner Regalado: Yeah, it continues to be. Ms. Ramirez-Seijas: Correct. Commissioner Regalado: That was one of the promises -- Ms. Ramirez-Seijas: Correct. Commissioner Regalado: -- of this magic -- Ms. Ramirez-Seijas: Well, it said to the extent legally permitted. We were not certain that that would be the case, and that's why it was caveat in those terms. Chair Spence -Jones: Okay. Any other comments from staff? I'd like to open it up for -- I'm sorry. Commissioner Regalado, you have any comments before we -- Commissioner Sanchez: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) public. Chair Spence -Jones: -- hear the public? Commissioner Regalado: I would love to hear the public. I mean, if she continues -- Chair Spence -Jones: Is there anything else? City of Miami Page 5 Printed on 8/27/2009 SEOPW and OMNI Marked Agenda December 27, 2007 Commissioner Regalado: -- speaking, we're only going to be paying for the Performing Arts, if you keep taking off items, but that's okay. I'm done. Chair Spence -Jones: Thank you, Commissioner Regalado. I'd like to officially open up the hearing, public hearing. Madam Clerk. Ms. Dotson: Madam Chair. Chair Spence -Jones: Ma -- Ms. Dotson: Oh. I just wanted to let you know, this is not really a public hearing, but you can allow members of the public to speak. Chair Spence -Jones: Okay. Commissioner Sanchez: Let's open it up to the public. Chair Spence -Jones: Okay. I'm opening it up to -- Commissioner Sanchez: I make a motion to allow public hearing. Commissioner Sarnoff: Second. Matthew Schwartz: Thank you. Matthew Schwartz -- Chair Spence -Jones: All in favor? The Commissioners (Collectively): Aye. Chair Spence -Jones: Madam Clerk, did you have a point that you'd like to make? Priscilla A. Thompson (Clerk of the Board): I only wanted to ask the Chair if she was going to time -- Commissioner Sanchez: Oh, yeah, two minutes. Ms. Thompson: -- set up a time limit? Chair Spence -Jones: Two minutes is fine. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Mr. Schwartz: Thank you. Matthew Schwartz. I represent Crosswinds Communities, but I also was the former Overtown planner. I was involved in this project for many years, so our concern isn't -- Crosswinds does no way want to derail the global agreement, hope you understand that, but we request that the City take action to stop the County transferring the property block -- the three blocks, 36, 20 -- 36, 45, and 56 on December 31. For five years, Crosswinds has worked very closely with the City to develop a viable plan, and you know more about this -- the history of this project, but the interesting thing that, in 1978, when the project really began the planning for it, the federal government told Dade County stop concentrating low-income housing in Overtown. That's what began the whole process that ended up 25, 30 years later. The City Commission recently approved the MUSP (Major Use Special Permit) agreement for this second time, and we lost over a year in that process, and on Friday, the Third District Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of Judge Wilchen (phonetic), which upheld the City of Miami's disposition process in this project, so right now the legal hurdles are over. We get to the stage when we finally want to put the project together in the next six to nine months, as the agreement calls for, and now the County drops that on us, and it was our understanding that this was going to be part of the global agreement, and I just want to bring to your attention what the City does lose if this -- the blocks go back to the County. It still retains liability for this lawsuit that underlines this whole project, the six and a half million dollars to Weisel; the conveyance of 50 completed units of low-income City of Miami Page 6 Printed on 8/27 '2009 SEOPW and OMNI Marked Agenda December 27, 2007 housing to the City, which has probably a value of 12 to $14 million; 160 affordable housing units that the developer has to cap the sale price. This doesn't depend on other public money going into the project, and that doesn't exist in any of these other projects. This is the only mixed -income project that's ever been really developed by the City and the County, and seven -- Chair Spence -Jones: Matt. Mr. Schwartz: -- hundred and forty workforce -- Chair Spence -Jones: Matt, I'm sure -- I think your two minutes are up. Anything -- your two minutes are up, Mr. Schwartz. Mr. Schwartz: I'd like to just request that the City initiate some action so that the City can retain -- so we can get forth on the project. Thank you. Philip Bacon: Madam Chair and Board of Commissioners, my name is Philip Bacon. I'm with the Collins Center for Public Policy. We have been working in the community of Overtown for the last ten years, five years since I've been here, on trying to bring about revitalization in Overtown, and we believe that, sitting as a body of the CRA specifically, it ought to be noted that revitalization under this proposal occurs almost in every other part of the City of Miami, except Overtown, particularly in the short run. We believe that it'll take years to bring about another project of this type where there's private investment being invited into the City itself. We believe that there -- that the CRA is essentially charged with the revitalization issue, and we would hope that that would not be lost in this entire discussion, and we would simply ask that that requires the expansion of -- the creation of jobs and the expansion of the tax base. Chair Spence -Jones: You got -- still got a few more minutes. Mr. Bacon: Okay. The -- and we've said over and over again that in order -- we believe very strongly that in order for this CRA to be successful, that it's simply going to have to not lead -- it does -- it is not sustainable for, we believe, the government to try to lead economic revitalization. We think that private investment is the only way that you're going to have sustainable revitalization, so we would just simply ask the CRA that, as it goes about to approve these global agreements and so forth, this body is specifically charged to bring revitalization to Overtown, and we do not see -- we see that falling through the cracks, particularly in the short run, if this global agreement goes without the -- some assurances that the land that is to be reverted would, in fact, be made available for the Sawyer's Walk project. Chair Spence -Jones: Thank you. Any other comments from the public, please? Elvis. Elvis Cruz: Thank you. Elvis Cruz, 631 Northeast 57th Street. Commissioners, the speed with which this global agreement is being ramrodded through is appalling and frightening. Only two weeks ago, this global agreement was on the City Commission agenda for the first time. I had seen it on the City Commission agenda, the supplemental agenda. It was listed as a discussion item. You know I've been an activist for many years, 28 years. It was the first time in my experience that a discussion item was voted on as a resolution. I looked at the attachment to that item. There was one document attached to that item on the agenda. That item listed the total cost for that item as being zero dollars, but the newspaper reported that the cost was going to be $2 billion. It's quite a difference between zero and two billion. There are some who would have us believe that the people have voted on these projects that are supposed to be funded by this. There was no vote of the people on museums in Bicentennial Park. We did vote on general obligation bond issue number eight, but the word "museum," nor the word "bicentennial," nor the word "park" was on that ballot question. Instead, there were 14 words about Head Start programs for underprivileged children. It was a manipulative attempt to get people to vote for a child's program that was disguised when it was really about putting museums in the park. We have never voted on the streetcar. We have never voted for Marlins Stadium. They will say that the bond issue called for renovation of the Orange Bowl, and that's correct. That's exactly what it called City of Miami Page 7 Printed on 8i27;2009 SEOPW and OMNI Marked Agenda December 27, 2007 for, but as City Commissioners who look and listen at Planning agenda items, you know perfectly well there is a world of difference between renovating an existing structure versus demolishing it and building entirely a new structure. That should have gone back to a vote of the people. There was certainly no vote on a soccer stadium, and I would like to finish by reminding you that the Supreme Court of the State of Florida ruled that the people must vote on large CRA projects. !would like to ask will we, the people, be given the opportunity to vote on these projects? Thank you. Chair Spence -Jones: Any other comments? Kelsey Dorsett: Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Board. My name is Kelsey Dorsett, in the District 5, Overtown. I'm here to speak in behalf of -- urging this board, the CRA, to take all actions necessary to save the Crosswinds project, and I'm hedging on that because I'm still not totally clear as to what Commissioner's [sic] Edmonson's actions were or what she's trying to accomplish. I happen to have a copy of a 1979 document that was adopted by the City of Miami, which clearly set out the redevelopment vision and concepts for Overtown, and it did, in fact, include -- and I'll read one paragraph to you. It addresses the Overtown transit station, which is already accomplished. This project entails a major acquisition and clearance of four blocks west of the Overtown transit station, bounded by Northwest 6th Street, 8th Street, et cetera. The intent of this project is the development of a new residential and commercial facilities that will act as an economic stimulus for Overtown, and so on. I think, if the property reverts back to Dade County, it will be a major setback for any kind of revitalization of Overtown. It will be the worst thing that happens to my community -- which I was born and raised -- since 1-95 and 395, and it will set back any kind of cleaning up or revitalizing that area, and I think this Board, if it would take all actions necessary to clear the air, or whatever's necessary, to get this project moving. That's jut the first leg of a major thing that could be done to revitalize Overtown, so I don't know what you plan to do or what the City is intending to do, but I would really strongly encourage you to -- let's take some action to preserve and get Crosswinds moving so that we can continue building in Overtown. Thank you. Chair Spence -Jones: Thank you, Mr. Dorsett. Any other comments? Grace. Grace Solares: Thank you, Commissioner Sanchez, for allowing us to speak. This was not a public hearing. I'm a bit confused by what was said at the beginning when you asked Mr. Spring to come in here and say why was the reason that this hearing was taking place today and not when everybody comes back, you can see, from vacation, and I believe he said something to the effect, we were just about ready -- if it's not done before the 31st of December, we're just about ready to lose what, a million dollars -- Chair Spence -Jones: No. It was not -- Ms. Solares: -- a billion dollars -- Chair Spence -Jones: Yeah, a billion -- Ms. Solares: -- if we don't -- Chair Spence -Jones: -- almost a billion dollars is what they stated. Ms. Solares: -- rush it through? So who's going to give us a billion bucks? Chair Spence -Jones: Mr. Springs [sic] -- Ms. Solares: How are we going to lose it? Chair Spence -Jones: -- can you please make sure Ms. Grace knows exactly --? That's why I wanted you to make sure you put it on the -- Commissioner Sanchez: It's the -- City of Miami Page 8 Printed on 8/272009 SEOPW and OMNI Marked Agenda December 27, 2007 Chair Spence -Jones: -- record officially. Commissioner Sanchez: -- FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation). If we don't approve it by the 31st, we lose the "X" amount of dollars, which is -- Mr. Spring: Yes. Again, we have -- as you know, we've approved the tunnel agreement. The Florida Department of Transportation has informed us that they are -- they have negotiated the remaining of the prices -- the current pricing on the tunnel until December 31. After that date, the concessionaire will not hold the prices, and thus, it puts the entire project at risk 'cause they -- the prices will double, triple, or whatever potentially. Chair Spence -Jones: Mr. Spring, can I ask you a question? Mr. Spring: Sure. Chair Spence -Jones: 'Cause -- I'm sorry, Grace. 1 just want to add on. Do you mind if I add on to your question, Grace, real fast just to --? Ms. Solares: No. That's all right. Chair Spence -Jones: Okay, so I'm a little lost, so in other words, you're saying, by December 31, we needed to vote on that, which I under -- make a decision on this -- Mr. Spring: Right. Chair Spence -Jones: -- because we're going to lose the money. We did vote on a separate item, though, for the port tunnel, correct? Mr. Spring: On the port tunnel item, yes, you did -- Chair Spence -Jones: So -- Mr. Spring: -- but that -- in your discussion of that item, the approval of the global globally, i.e. the City and the County and all -- and the CRA, were contingent pieces, if you will. Chair Spence -Jones: But we voted on it already. We voted to -- from -- Mr. Spring: As a City Commission, not as a CRA. Chair Spence -Jones: Right, so as a City Commission, we voted on the fact that there was a separate item altogether for the port tunnel, right? Mr. Spring: Yes, but -- Chair Spence -Jones: Which means what the State needs from us at this particular point from that item we've accomplished, correct? Mr. Spring: In your discussion of the port tunnel, the signing and the execution of the port tunnel agreement was contingent on the overall approval of the global because the global included the financing structure of our contribution. Chair Spence -Jones: Right, but this is what I'm asking you, Larry. I'm saying the item -- the first -- I mean, the second item that we voted on -- and maybe the city attorneys could clear this up for me. I remember us voting on the second item, which was the port tunnel item -- Mr. Spring: Yes, you did. Chair Spence -Jones: -- correct? -- that was a separate item altogether that would have given the State what they needed in order for them to continue what they need to do, City of Miami Page 9 Printed on 8.'27 2009 SEOPW and OMNI Marked Agenda December 27, 2007 correct? And in that item, there was not really any reference to -- you know, that this particular global agreement had to be approved before we could say yes on this item. We said it verbally, but it was not a part of the overall item. Ms. Ramirez-Seijas: It is part of the record -- let me go back. The actual resolution -- Commissioner Regalado: Excuse me. Can I -- Ms. Ramirez-Seijas: I'm sorry. Commissioner Regalado: -- just ask a question? Because I'm more confused now. She's right. Chair Spence -Jones: I know I'm right. Commissioner Regalado: She is absolutely right because the briefings that I got from the Manager, from the County, from DOT (Department of Transportation) said that they only needed the approval of the City, and before anybody -- at least before me -- knowing about this global agreement, the Manager explained to me that the money will be pay in installment being taken from somewhere -- Ms. Ramirez-Seijas: From the TIF. Commissioner Regalado: -- so the tunnel was totally and absolutely different issue than the global agreement. The fact that you all decided to put the tunnel in the global agreement is a different thing, but she's right. They voted -- I didn't -- on the tunnel on a separate issue, and the only thing, according to the FDOT secretary in my office, that they needed was the commitment of the City of Miami, and they didn't needed the money at that time. Either Johnny Martinez lied to me, either the Manager gave misinformation to me, or we all crazy here because she's right. The tunnel thing was a totally different -- Chair Spence -Jones: Separate item. Commissioner Regalado: -- aspect of this agreement. The fact that you found a piggyback, you know, to fund the tunnel is a different issue, but I was given the briefing saying don't worry. The money -- the City is not under the obligation to pay now. It could pay installment; we could do it in 30 years, and the money will come from the -- you know, from selling the Orange Bowl toilets or something, whatever, so the point that she's making, she's correct. They voted for the tunnel; I didn't, but they voted for the tunnel on a separate issue, so there is no reason to say that if there is no agreement now, there will be no tunnel because how can things change so quickly? Chair Spence -Jones: And Commissioner Regalado, if you don't mind me adding. Commissioner Regalado: No, I'm done. Vice Chair Spence -Jones: I -- it -- and this is not really even about a project, period. I don't even want to even mention the project name because it seems like whenever that project name appears with my name, it always means there's some sort of scandalous lie or something attached to it, so I don't even want to go there. For me, it's about progress and seeing something happen in Overtown, and that's what it's always been. That's what I -- that was the reason I ran for office is 'cause I wanted to leave an impact in that community, so -- or make an impact in that community, but it's just really hard to swallow. On one end you telling me that the County's saying or someone's saying by December 31, if we don't make a decision on this, then the port tunnel's not going to happen, right, on December --? But on the same -- in the same breath, you're saying that the County's saying by December 31 the land reverts back, and I'm talking about Block 36. Let's say I'm talking about Block 36 and not even including these other blocks that have caused me much drama in my life, but you know, we worked very hard in the CRA to finally get those lots out to really do something positive; hopefully, for the first time, have a major grocery store coming in the area, and the people of Overtown need it, okay, so you know -- and I don't want to get into, you know, a contest going back and forth City of Miami Page 10 Printed on 8.'27'2009 SEOPW and OMNI Marked Agenda December 27, 2007 with the County because I do understand that a lot of the ball is in their court, and I want to respect my colleague and her viewpoint and what she feels over there, but on one end of this, you know, you're asking me to swallow a pill, which we swallowed, about the port tunnel by December 31, but then on the other end, I'm being told, okay, well, no, you're not going to get that either. By December 31, the land's going to stay with the County -- or revert back to the County, and it's going to be over, so I'm just trying to understand what incentives I have. What do -- what are you offering me for Overtown? Mr. Spring: Well, I -- Chair Spence -Jones: I mean, so my -- Mr. Spring: -- want to -- Chair Spence -Jones: -- only point in the thing -- in the comment that Grace -- and I'm sorry, Grace, that you brought all of this up -- well, I'm glad you brought it up, actually. Why couldn't we just handle, you know --? Just like they were able to make a friendly amendment on the floor and say, well, we support this base -- the port tunnel because we understand that there's an urgency to do this right now; send that message to them, you know, strongly that we want to do this, but we need to make sure that we have everybody on the dais, all five of us on the dais, so we all can vote and decide what we want to do. I mean, that's not going to stop the port tunnel. I understand $600 million -- if I had to vote on that today, guess what? We need to do that immediately, but what is - - I'm just trying -- I want to understand what is the rush? Mr. Spring: Okay. Chair Spence -Jones: Nothing's going to happen from now to the beginning of January. What is the rush? Mr. Spring: Okay. You've -- several things have been proffered from Commissioner Regalado to yourself, questions. I'm going to let City Attorney deal with the issue of the urgency related to the port tunnel, right, and then I'll answer those questions. Ms. Ramirez-Seijas: The resolution for the port tunnel allocates the funding for the payment of the port tunnel from the TIF from the Omni CRA. It presumed -- You are correct, Commissioner Regalado, that payment is not going to be due until substantial completion of the tunnel, which will probably be 2012. However, the resolution had to identify a funding source, and it identified as the funding source the TIF from the Omni CRA. That is the reason that the global agreement was decided and was voted on before the port tunnel, and even though the resolution itself does not say the port tunnel resolution is subject to the global agreement being executed because a resolution was drafted and it went to print prior to that happening, the fact that the global agreement was voted on first and that the funding source is the TIF -- without that TIF being iden -- without the funding source being identified -- Chair Spence -Jones: Olga, you -- Ms. Ramirez-Seijas: -- we cannot proceed. Chair Spence -Jones: -- you're not saying anything different than what Commissioner Regalado and I am saying. We voted on it, and we -- FDOT was sitting right here and said we just read -- we needed the legislation -- basically needed approval from the City Commission to say that the City Commission was going to make these dollars and provide the support. We did that. That happened with the second resolution, so I'm just trying to understand, and I'm still not getting a clear answer on -- I mean, bottom line, we have to vote today. Ms. Ramirez-Seijas: Okay. Chair Spence -Jones: We have to make a vote today -- City of Miami Page 11 Printed on 8/7712009 SEOPW and OMNI Marked Agenda December 27, 2007 Ms. Ramirez-Seijas: The urgency -- Chair Spence -Jones: -- and I'm going to be honest with you. I don't feel all that comfortable making a vote on something like this when I really feel like I'm not gaining anything in Overtown. Ms. Ramirez-Seijas: I would like to answer the question on the urgency. The price of the port tunnel is -- depends on the pricing of the concessionaire. The concessionaire has agreed to hold down the price until December 31. The agreement that this Commission approved provides that the City will be liable for any delay costs. If we have the price being held until December 31, it is in the City's interest to execute the agreement prior to December 31 because once this global is approved and the tunnel agreement is approved, then we -- then the City Manager has been instructed to execute that agreement. We have a very tight window here with respect to the pricing from the concessionaire, and that is the reason of the urgency. Chair Spence -Jones: Yeah. Ms. Ramirez-Seijas: I don't know if I answered your question. Chair Spence -Jones: Yeah. I mean, if -- Commissioner Sanchez: You did. Vice Chair Spence -Jones: Yeah. Commissioner Sanchez: It's -- Vice Chairman Sarnoff: Well, let me say something -- Chair Spence -Jones: Well -- Commissioner Sanchez: -- crystal clear. Vice Chairman Sarnoff: --'cause this is the way it was briefed to me. We were going to vote on the tunnel, and we were going to have a second vote on the CRA because we needed to have a funding source, and without a funding source, our vote is meaningless, so while the City Commission acted, the CRA needs to act as well to create the pledge of the TIF. Pledging the TIF is what holds the December 31 price in lock, if you will; locks it in. This is the way I was briefed from the beginning, and this has always been my understanding that there was going to be a vote at the Commission, and then there had to be a CRA vote to create the pledge to the TIF. Chair Spence -Jones: Well, again -- I mean, I hear you, Commissioner Sarnoff. I guess my viewpoint really in all of this is -- and again, I'm just one single vote and always has been one single vote. I just have a concern with, you know, the fact that we did vote on an item, you know, and a second item, which was the port tunnel part of it, which gives the State what they need to move ahead on whatever, and I'm not saying that we won't support it in the end, but I just would feel much more comfortable if all five of us was here. This is a major decision that we're making for the City, and I'm saying I'm prepared to say just like, you know, our fellow colleagues in the County, I would like to, you know, see whether or not we can also, you know, do the same thing like they did there, and just simply add to whatever we're about to vote on now that the overall global we'll come back and make a decision on, and because the port tunnel needs to be handled right now, we can vote on that now and be done with it. Mr. Spring: Keep -- Ms. Ramirez-Seijas: You already voted on the port tunnel issue, subject to the funds being available. Without the global agreement and the commitment to allocate that TIF for the port tunnel, you cannot execute the port tunnel agreement because the port tunnel agreement has a funding source of the TIF. In order to do that, all of the parties City of Miami Page 12 Printed on 8/27; 2009 SEOPW and OMNI Marked Agenda December 27, 2007 to the global agreement must have approved it; otherwise, you have a commitment without the funds. Commissioner Regalado: Can I ask something -- Mr. Spring: Well -- Commissioner Regalado: -- because now I'm more confused? Larry, I don't know if you were there, but Johnny Martinez was -- Mr. Spring: 1 was not in any -- Commissioner Regalado: -- the Manager -- Mr. Spring: -- of those briefings, so -- Commissioner Regalado: You were not? Mr. Spring: I was not, but I know -- what I was going to -- if allowed by the Chair, what I was going to -- Commissioner Regalado: No, but what I just want to establish is at the briefings that I got, nothing about the CRA money was said to me. It was, we don't have to pay right now; it's -- we will pay later. We could get the funding out of the general fund and pay like a million a year, or something like that. Maybe the briefing that I got was different than other briefings, but to me, the global agreement was a surprise, and I wasn't brief not until the day before, but all the briefings that the Manager requested and I requested about the tunnel were before the global agreement was published, and then we were brief on it, and there wasn't any discussion about the expansions of the boundaries of the CRA during that meeting. I just want to say that on the record and, you know, state - Chair Spence -Jones: Okay. Can --? Mr. Spring: Madam -- Chair Spence -Jones: I'm sorry. We were in the middle of a public hearing. Let's -- can we -- is -- was that -- is -- was there anybody else from the public that had to speak on this item? I mean, 'cause I really want to -- Larry, you can go ahead and add, but I want to get the public out of the way so it can come back to us so we can close out on it. Larry, do you have something you want -- else you want --? Mr. Spring: Yeah. Chair Spence -Jones: Okay. Could you --? Mr. Spring: Several things. Commissioner Sanchez: You need -- Larry, you need to clarify -- Mr. Spring: Yes. That's what I wanted to do. With regards to your briefings, Commissioner Regalado, you've said several factual -- factually correct things that are consistent with what I -- my understanding occurred in your briefing. Chair Spence -Jones: Thank you. Mr. Spring: We do not have to pay today; that is correct. We can pay along with the concession agreement that will be executed by December 31. However, the funding source has -- and it's in the resolution -- always been identified as the CRA TIF, which was part of the global agreement. With regards to what was passed by the County Commission, the County Commission passed the same document that we are substantially passing today, that is in front of you today for consideration, so although City of M,ami Page 13 Printed on 8/ 27/2009 SEOPW and OMNI Marked Agenda December 27, 2007 they discussed making certain changes, removing this, taking that out, at the end of the day, they passed the same resolution that you're approving today, so, Commissioner, I want you to understand that. Also, when we talk about what is Overtown getting out of this, you know, what are you getting? One, we did get the extensions that we talked about, and they've agreed to do that. Obviously, we do need to go through the process, and a definite unin -- well, I don't want to say it was an unintended consequence, but it was a great benefit. We realized that the existing sunset date was actually further out than we had initially thought, which creates a 95 percent TIF revenue into the Overtown CRA, which before was, I think, around $80 million. Now that I've updated my calculations, it's probably in the $200 million range now, so additional benefit to the district, plus the benefit of the extension. You know, I realize there's been a lot of discussion about the whole issue of the Crosswinds and the statements that were made by the district Commissioner and the Mayor. What I would suggest is that, you know, this is the same agreement; let's go ahead and, you know, consider this agreement, and that we -- you direct me, the City Manager, the executive director of the CRA and staff on both sides that we go ahead and hire the attorneys to deal with that mat -- you know, the legalities of that issue as a separate matter 'cause right now what was approved was they would have an item brought to Commission in January to consider either the extension of the reverter or the reinstatement -- Commissioner Regalado: Extension of the deadline. Mr. Spring: -- or reconveyance of the properties, so -- Commissioner Regalado: No. It says here on the pages that Jim just handed, the interlocal agreement provides that the County will consider extending the deadline or reconveying the properties to the City -- Mr. Spring: That's what I just said. Commissioner Regalado: -- at its first meeting -- Mr. Spring: In January. Commissioner Regalado: -- in January 2008 -- Commissioner Sanchez: That's what he said. Mr. Spring: That is correct. Commissioner Regalado: -- so it doesn't say anything about the County taking the land. It says extending the deadline for the City to build -- Mr. Spring: Or recon -- Commissioner Regalado: -- or reconvey -- Mr. Spring: -- veyance of the properties. Commissioner Regalado: -- to the City, but it doesn't say for the County -- according to Olga, it just said place it on the agenda and vote whatever, but here on the CRA document says the interlocal agreement -- Mr. Spring: In the document that was approved by the County, the -- and I don't have it verbatim in front of me right now -- it states they will bring an item to the Commission their first meeting in January to either extend the reverter deadline or reconvey, so consistent with what you just said -- Commissioner Regalado: Okay. Chair Spence -Jones: Okay. City of Miami Page 14 Printed on 8/27/2009 SEOPW and OMNI Marked Agenda December 27, 2007 Mr. Spring: -- and again -- you know, I want to emphasize, you are approving the same document substantially. The benefits are still there, and that the legalities of what was stated, you may have to con -- you know, do that as a separate item, you know, direct us to move forward with protecting our interests, you know. Chair Spence -Jones: Thank you, Larry. Mr. Spring: Thank you. Chair Spence -Jones: Let me just finish the public hearing. Grace, you have a minute and twenty-two seconds left. Ms. Solares: Great. Chair Spence -Jones: Sorry for interrupting you, though. Ms. Solares: Thank you, Mr. Spring, for answering my question. It was just -- he just wanted to lock in, that's what he said, the price. I heard you say what's in it for -- and he repeated it just now -- Overtown, and he said it was the extension of the CRA period of existence. I venture to say that was going to happen anyway because everybody in town has figured and have seen that it's a cash cow, the CRA, so you didn't have to worry about that. When the gentleman said something before about Overtown falling through the cracks, and he was actually focusing actually on the Crosswind [sic] project when he said that, but it is falling through the cracks because you're going to be taking five hundred and some odd million dollars from the CRA to give to the PAC (Performing Arts Center), so consider really what you're doing in here. Vice Chairman Sarnoff: That's Omni. Ms. Solares: Okay. Who's going -- Vice Chairman Sarnoff: Grace, that's -- Ms. Solares: -- to --? Vice Chairman Sarnoff: -- Omni. That's not -- Commissioner Sanchez: That's Omni. Vice Chairman Sarnoff: -- Southeast Overtown/Park West. Commissioner Sanchez: That's not Overtown. It's not -- Ms. Solares: But one of the CRAs is going to be taking -- Vice Chairman Sarnoff: Omni. Ms. Solares: -- not yours, per se. I understand, but I'm just saying the whole deal of the CRAs, what's being done in here, and with reference to the tunnel, I just want to say, Commissioner Sarnoff, I disagree with you as to your rationale as to why voting for it. It's not going to be the tunnel who's going to give actually the port something. It's the recently approved dredging of the channel by Congress that's going to make the Panamex from the Panama Canal come down here, and it is impossible ever to compare the Port of Miami to the Everglades, Port Everglades, Tampa, or Jacksonville. Port Everglades, that's the smallest, goes from Dania Beach, Hollywood, and Fort Lauderdale, three municipalities. We have a tiny, little island, and we're huge compared to that, so it's not the tunnel -- I disagree with you -- that's going to do that, so I would like you to reconsider. Vice Chairman Sarnoff: Grace, 30 percent of our imports have left the Port of Miami and have gone directly to Port Everglades. Most of the reasons cited is the ingress and egress to the Port of Miami. I don't think you could challenge the facts upon which I City of Miami Page 15 Printed on 8.,27 2009 SEOPW and OMNI Marked Agenda December 27, 2007 base the fact that we have a $16 billion port; 13 billion of that comes from cargo alone; 3 billion of that comes from passengers. You're mixing your passengers and your cargo on the same route. You're decimating 6th Avenue and 8th, and arguably, all the way up to 11th. Ms. Solares: But that is the reason, with all due respect, sir, if you read, you know, a couple of days ago, the write-ups with reference to the Congress approving -- Vice Chairman Sarnoff: I did -- Ms. Solares: -- the dredging -- Vice Chairman Sarnoff: -- the 50-foot dredge -- Ms. Solares: -- what they expect for us to get in cargo is enormous, just by the mere dredging of the channel -- Vice Chairman Sarnoff: Grace, there are -- Ms. Solares: -- in our things -- Vice Chairman Sarnoff: -- 25,000 -- Ms. Solares: -- but in any event -- Chair Spence -Jones: Okay. Ms. Solares: -- don't worry, Commissioner Sarnoff. Chair Spence -Jones: Grace, I was just trying to give you a little extra time because I know we interrupted you -- Ms. Solares: That's fine, Commissioner. Chair Spence -Jones: -- but thank you. Any other comments before we pass -- Ms. Solares: No other comments. Thank you so much. Chair Spence -Jones: Okay. Thank you so much. We're going to turn it over to Mr. Joseph. Is this our last comment? One more comment and that's it. We're going to close the public hearing. Fred Joseph: Fred Joseph, Omni Advisory Board. I would like to address a few issues. One is the interlocal agreement expansion would be wonderful for the TIF. The boundary expansion is questionable as far as slum and blight. When they first talked about expansion, they did it in the northern range and across the railroad tracks, but the primary thing that I need you to look at is representation. If the Omni benevolent, as you seem to feel like it needs to be because of our ability to be able to bring in large developers, you forgot the fact that at one time nobody would even meet there, not even yourselves, not your body, but bodies before you because of the slum and blight. We'd like to see representation for those funds. I would be very happy to see where you're going to pull in other tax revenues from the Watson Island. They mentioned Flagstone; we'd like to see that. It's only been nine years in the works. Parrot Jungle, I don't know if they've paid any taxes, but we'd be happy to see that that base is generated. We know that the Performing Arts, all of the owners and stakeholders in the Omni worked for the Performing Arts; knew it was coming; knew we would need to fund it. Unfortunately, the County -- one of the County managers was on the Performing Arts, then they moved him to the airport. Remember that? Two hundred and seventy-five million went to five hundred million. The same gentleman went to the airport. It went from a half a billion overrun to now over two billion overrun. What's the tunnel going to be? So be very careful with your projection of Omni monies, and we do know that they've said, as Commissioner and the Chair mentioned, those monies weren't needed today. They City of Miami Page 16 Printed on 8.77 2009 SEOPW and OMNI Marked Agenda December 27, 2007 would be out over time. Commissioner Sarnoff brought up very well those property values may be tumbling. If you read New York Times last week, the condo market in that area is not going to sustain that TIF. In closing, we're not against, but we just wanted more facts. We'd like to see more knowledge of what we're asking to fund, the Omni. Everybody wants to use that, and your district, Madam Chair, we saw that 300 million was left in the TIF, and rightfully so. That's where it belongs and it should be. I sat on your panel trying to get housing. Thank you very much. Chair Spence -Jones: Thank you so much, Mr. Joseph. Last comment. Thank you, sir. Is there anybody else before we take the last person? You're recognized. Mark Coats: Okay. My name is Mark Coats, one of the owners of the Crosswind [sic] project, which we're speaking of the 21st anniversary of vacant land again, and we would just simply ask that you -- Commissioner of the district, we want to salute you, first of all, 'cause it's been a hectic project, particularly for us, but most certainly for you, but I commend you for doing what is right, and irrespective of what the paper has said about you, you've done a good job, and I hope and wish you well. There are about six things that I want to say, then I want to make a recommendation to you and your colleagues, if I may, concerning the project. We've -- and excuse my attire today. I didn't expect to be here this afternoon, but we have already spent $3 million in good faith in this project, first of all. I want that to be known. It's not like we're developers that come to town and take the money from the government and run off and nothing gets done. We have -- without anything happening, we've already expended $3 million into this project. You, the City, have already spent -- Mr. Villacorta, if I can ask you to tell us on the record how much the City has already spent on this land itself. How much? Mr. Villacorta: The City and the CRA, in excess of $12 million. Mr. Coats: You've already spent in excess of 12 million, and if the land is taken, there's another 6 million will be owed to Mr. Weisel, and then whatever you stand to gain in your CRA, I believe it's 12 million after the TIF -- after 2014, whatever the case may be. What I would recommend to you, Commissioners, maybe -- perhaps, maybe you could request that the reverter --'cause I -- and I'm kind of agreeing with Commissioner Regalado. I don't know what happened over at the County. We're sort of like in the little sequel with Shakespeare, to be or not to be; that is the question for us, but maybe you can request that the reverter not be enacted prior to that public hearing meeting, and then maybe, as Mr. Spring has suggested, you could direct the two staffs to get together and see if there's a way that we can work this out. That's all I have to say to you. Thank you. Chair Spence -Jones: Thank you. Last -- this is the last comment, correct? Any other pe -- before we close the public hearing? Okay. Stanley Krieger: Yeah. My name is Stanley Krieger. I live at 1717 North Bayshore Drive, and I also was -- probably still am on the CRA advisory board. I -- in addition to the problems with the speed with which you people have voted on it, it's -- I don't know how you can vote to spend TIF money from the Omni to go to a tunnel when right now -- when the Watson Island hasn't even been put into the Omni map. I mean, suppose it isn't? How can you possibly vote? I don't even know if it's legal to vote on it now, and in addition, it's outrageous, notwithstanding what Fred says, to have the Omni area pay 100 percent of the debt of the PAC, 100 percent of the -- well, the Jungle Island has now been removed, I guess, but -- and to pay for the tunnel. These are county projects. These are countywide projects that going to benefit the entire county. To have the Omni area alone fund these is outrageous, and then to -- you know, to give -- for the County to give private money -- public monies to private enterprises like Major League Baseball or a soccer stadium -- the first time we ever heard of a soccer stadium it was in the newspaper -- is equally silly, so -- and finally, all this is going to do is to keep real estate taxes high because what would have gone -- the money that should have gone from the Omni TIF money at the end of the CRA should have gone into the general fund to be used for the general purposes and to reduce taxes on everybody in the county. Thank you. Chair Spence -Jones: Thank you. I think that was our last comment. I really don't want City of Mrami Page 17 Printed on 8.'27'2009 SEOPW and OMNI " Marked Agenda December 27, 2007 to open up the floor anymore. I think we've -- I'm sorry. Mr. Coats: He was in traffic. Don Patterson: Thirty seconds. Mr. Coats: Thirty seconds. Chair Spence -Jones: I'm going to let my fellow Commissioners -- okay, 30 seconds. Go ahead. I don't want anybody to feel like I'm giving favoritism, so -- Mr. Patterson: Thank you, Chair. Chair Spence -Jones: -- I don't need it. Mr. Patterson: Thank you, Commissioners, for the opportunity to address you on such an important item and topic. I won't keep you long because the context has been gone over a number of times, and so we're all on the page in terms of the importance. I think the only thing I wanted to point out to the Commission is -- Vice Chairman Sarnoff: You're going to need to put your name on the record. Mr. Patterson: Don Patterson, president and CEO (Chief Executive Officer) of BAM Development Corporation of South Florida, 245 Northwest 8th Street. Over the last couple weeks, you know, we've seen a dramatic turn of events in terms of this project. I think it's important, however, that everyone realize that it's important to recognize that the constituency that we're trying to serve here is not necessarily limited to the folks that actually live there in the Overtown community who might benefit from the Crosswinds project, but the constituency that would like to return to the Overtown community, many of whom are either students -- college students that are about to graduate, former members of Greater Bethel AME (African Methodist Episcopal) Church, who would also like to return to a community that's redeveloped at a level that is at a quality we can all appreciate, and I think, in a nutshell for me, it's recognizing that -- I think we all want to see quality development happen within the Overtown community, but I think it's about establishing a certain will within the Commissioners to will this effort to make the Crosswinds project happen, which will ignite redevelopment within our community. Chair Spence -Jones: Thank you, Don. Mr. Patterson: Thanks, Michelle. Chair Spence -Jones: Okay. The public hearing is officially closed; bring it back to the CRA. Any comments or questions? Commissioner Sanchez: Madam Chair. Chair Spence -Jones: You're recognized, Commissioner Sanchez. Commissioner Sanchez: Madam Chair, thank you so much. The global agreement that is in front of us today is basically the same, with two drastic changes that are in front of us; one, it pertains to the defaulted Parrot Jungle Section 108, which the County has clearly stated that it's inappropriate to use CRA dollars. Now the question lies that we, the City, are going to have to pay that out of our general fund. We understand that. It's important for people to understand that; that that money will have to come out of the general fund. Having said that, a lot of the questions that have been answered through the discussions, at least the questions and concerns that I have, have mostly been addressed. One question that has not been clearly addressed is the question that I would like to ask either the executive director or the City -- or the CRA attorney, and that is, does a vote approving what the County approved with the blocks going back to the County in days effectively kill Crosswinds? And that's a concern, I think, that we're getting from the City and from the people that are in front of us today. That question City of Miami Page 18 Panted on 8.,27 2009 SEOPW and OMNI Marked Agenda December 27, 2007 needs to be clearly answered, so I will like for someone to answer that. Would this kill Crosswinds? If the County reverts the property -- which the County holds the deed; we all know that. All they have to do is record it, and it's their property; simple as that, but we need to get an answer. That needs to be answered because it's -- Vice Chair Sarnoff: Well, Commissioner Sanchez, wouldn't we be crazy -- and I mean that euphemistically -- but wouldn't we be crazy not to employ a lawsuit based on estoppel principles as to what the County has put us in the position for -- Commissioner Sanchez: Those are options. Vice Chairman Sarnoff: Right. Commissioner Sanchez: Legal options -- everybody's got legal options. We'll get to those legal options. I just want to know, from the City -- for the City to answer that question clearly; yes, it does or it does not. Because there are options; there're legal options; there are options from this legislative body directing the CRA and City Administration, sitting down with the County administration and seeing how we could work this out because, ladies and gentlemen, this is $12 million already wasted that -- and six more, possibly, so you're looking at -- Chair Spence -Jones: Twenty. Vice Chairman Sarnoff: Eighteen and a half million. Commissioner Sanchez: -- the City and the County, if we represent the people and work for the people, sitting down and finding a solution to this because, listen, I've heard the concerns from our district -- the City district Commission [sic]. I've heard the concerns from the County Commission -- the Commissioner that represents that district, and I've certain have heard the input and concerns that the residents have had, and I think we have a situation here where, once again, if we were able to put this agreement together, we're able to work something out to have a win -win situation, but that has clearly not been defined as to that, but legally, absolutely, we could take legal actions against the County. I'd rather kill a bear with honey than have to shoot him. That's always been my style, but that's an avenue that we could take. Now as to what has been said back and forth with a lot of misinformation and a lot of information that people need to be very aware is that what's in it for Overtown. Well, what's in it for Overtown? If we don't expand the CRA, there isn't much for Overtown; there isn't much for Omni; there isn't much for the City because if we don't do this, we're certainly not going to get all these projects done, we're certainly not going to have the opportunity to redevelop certain areas that need redevelopment, so the question here is, what's in it for Overtown? Well, if you look at this entire deal -- and I've looked at it, and I think that it's -- on a business sense, it makes a lot of business -- any business individual you give this local -- agreement to looks at it and knows that, dollar for dollar, your interest is way more than just a dollar. I mean, you're making money -- you're investing money, but making a lot of money out, but the beauty of it is that this 30 -- $237 million is going to be out there that could go into Overtown because that's been, once again, from the input that I've listened to my colleague and I've listened to the County -- because I was at the County meeting -- and I've heard the residents. You have a golden opportunity for $237 million going into Overtown for affordable housing, workforce housing, infrastructure, which is very important, and the responsibilities and the goals and objectives of the CRA, job creation, economic development, parks and open space, arts and cultural, and many other things that will improve the initiatives in the CRA redevelopment area. [Later...] Commissioner Regalado: I am so concerned because, number one, I remember famous phrases that we all study in elementary, in high school, like no taxation without representation, and yet, the people from the Omni have not been able to say a word about, you know, the way that the money will be spent. I understand, you know, their elected representative should sometimes take the lead, but such a big step should have a more public input. I also remember the phrase you can -- what is it? You can fool all City of Miami Page 19 Printed on 8.27 2009 SEOPW and OMNI Marked Agenda December 27, 2007 the people -- or some of the people all the time, but not all the people all the time. I heard the Mayor of the City of Miami say that this plan will be pay not with taxpayers' money, but with tourist development money, et cetera. That is not so. The plan basically is being pay with property taxes from the people of the Omni, but you know what? That money that is going to the tunnel to pay the debt of the Performing Art [sic], it could have gone to the general fund of the City of Miami in the next 20 years, and the people sitting here, not us, will be the ones deciding how to use that money. The County is doing a favor to the City of Miami because it's extending the life of the CRA. Well, they should have extended the life of the CRA because it was the right thing to do, not because the County needed a bail -out for the Performing Arts Center, which is a debacle, and it always will, and you know, the guys from the Omni are going to pay up to $25 million a year for the Performing Art [sic], and we only have three votes in a 30-board -- -member board of the Performing Art -- the trust that runs the center. That is wrong, and it should be changed by this Board. It's a small change, but it should. The City of Miami should have more representation. I cannot make a motion because I will not be voting for this. I think it is wrong to do this without the public's input. I think it's wrong to mortgage the City of Miami for the next 20 years because the money that will be used to pay the Performing Arts, the tunnel, the streetcar, and probably building a Taj Mahal, whatever somebody feels like it, is money that we are denying to the general fund of the City of Miami, the city where I grew up. I have lived in this city for 48 years, never moved out of the city, and my three children live in the city; my grandchildren live in the city, and I don't plan to move, and I'm scared about the services whenever things happen that the taxpayers will decide to cut the revenues of the City of Miami. I think it's -- this should had been a more transparent process; a secrecy of three years, and then boom, on the Herald one day, and boom, another day on the City Commission. It's wrong, and this is why people are not trusting government. This is why people are fed up with government. I just hope that this is think twice. I agree with the Chair that people need more time for public input, but now we're told that if you don't do this, the tunnel will fall. It is an irony -- and this is my last statement. I'm not going to upset nor my colleagues or the Administration anymore, but you know, it is an irony that the deadline for the port tunnel will be in December 31, 2007 because on December (UNINTELLIGIBLE), 2007, the port tunnel of the bay of Boston will be officially open. They call him the big dig, and it started with a budget of $2.6 billion, and now it's done with a budget of $14,800,000, only $13 billion more than what it was budgeted for. God willing, the port tunnel of the City of Miami will not be as complicated as the Boston tunnel, but it should teach us a lesson. You know, some people say the other day here that we shouldn't have the Performing Arts Syndrome or the North Terminal Syndrome of the airport of Miami, but the fact of the matter is that in South Florida, when we talk about construction, governments cannot get it right, and hopefully, we pray that this time something will be right, but I think it's wrong not to have the public input on this -- all big decisions that you all are taking. Thank you, Mr. [sic] Chair. Commissioner Sanchez: You're chairing. All right. Chair Spence -Jones: Do you have a comment? Because at this point, I'm -- I was really trying to get more clarity from Legal on this issue because I'm really -- at this point, I'm very uncomfortable, so you know -- Commissioner Sanchez: All right. Chair Spence -Jones: -- I'd like -- if I could take about a ten-minute break, that would be very helpful for me, if you don't mind. Commissioner Sanchez: Ten-minute recess -- Chair Spence -Jones: Ten-minute recess. Commissioner Sanchez: -- is fine with me. Chair Spence -Jones: Thanks. [Later...] City of Miami Page 20 Printed on 827/2009 SEOPW and OMNI Marked Agenda December 27, 2007 Chair Spence -Jones: I'd like to officially call the meeting back to order. Thank you for the break, and thank you, Mr. Executive Director and Madam City Attorney, for making sure that I have real clarity on the issue -- Olga also. I'm going to turn it over to Commissioner Sanchez. You have a point to make? Minutes Continued for Item 2. Commissioner Sanchez: Yes, Madam Chair. I think the concern here that has been proffered -- and I tend to agree with the public input and comments you've made as to the reverter. I think that is a very sensitive issue. I honestly don't think it's fair that after the City's invested so much time and so much money and effort working with the entire community in trying to get something done in Overtown, that the City should right now just, you know, throw his hand up in the air and say, fine; let the County have it. I understand the legality of it, and the County holds the deeds to it, and they've record the property, so be it, but I think that we need to take a position before we vote on this issue whether -- what it may be -- some of the recommendations made by my colleague, Commissioner Sarnoff -- may be legal action on it, that we take legal action. Before we do that, I'd like to get a better understanding, for the sake of clarification, from the executive director, and then from the City -- I'm sorry, the CRA attorney, as to what are the avenues that we can take. If it's the avenue that we choose to take legal action, then we need to proffer a motion directing the CRA, or whoever it may be -- in this case, it's the CRA -- to take legal actions against the County, but I think we should get their input and their recommendations or suggestions they may have, both on the executive director's point of view and also on the legal's point of view. Executive Director. Mr. Villacorta: I just want to say, in the discussion of these blocks, it was implied that nothing had been done for the last 20 years, and today we sent around a six -page document of the actions we've taken to develop these blocks; you know, the RFPs that have been out, the development agreements that have been entered into, the construction that has been started, the litigation that has ensued in some of these cases, the start and stops when these blocks were asked to be preserved; had surface parking so that the Miami Heat franchise could come to Miami. To characterize this as three blocks that we have done nothing to develop is a total and gross misstatement of the facts, and you've received that document by e-mail (electronic) today. One of the things we did do was, in May 2006, submit the Crosswinds plans to the County for approval. At their July Commission meeting, their own people stood up and said this project could not go forward without County Commission approval. We submitted that approval and have asked for it. The County has not responded. They have brought some of this on themselves, and I think that is an element of the reverter settlement agreement that we could go to court and ask a court to look favorably upon either injunctive relief or asking them to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement and rule that the time for transfer was told. Chair Spence -Jones: And let me -- thank you. I just want to just add, and then we're going to go head [sic], I'm assuming, and take comments from everyone. I want to be very clear about these issues of the blocks because, you know, I respect my colleague in the County, and I'm sure Commissioner Edmonson has a very strong reason why she is not in support of the project. I don't want to make this about the project. I really want to make this about the lots, you know, and if there was a situation where something was not done right, or incorrect, or it's not the project that they are in favor of, then that's a different story, but I think that because we have invested a lot of time, money, and resources and because these are lots, whether or not it be 36, 45, or whatever they are, where we could really create something that would really make a difference in the lives of people of Overtown, so for me, I just want to make sure that I put it on the record because I don't want to have a ridge with my County Commissioner. We have a pretty decent relationship, and I don't want it to be affected by a project. I think that my biggest concern is really not about whether or not it's Crosswinds or the man on the moon; it's the fact that the land itself -- you know, if we have invested these resources into these lots, that they should remain within the CRA, and that's, you know, really what it's about for me, so I just want to very clear on my position of that is if the Tots remain with us, I'm cool with it, you know, and if the County even came back -- and I know that City of Miami Page 21 Printed on 827 2009 SEOPW and OMNI Marked Agenda December 27, 2007 my folks over here and the folks over there are feeling -- may not feel comfortable with that, but if the County decided if, you know, they want a more open process, or they felt that the process need -- that's different, if they would have came back and said that, but just to say all of the lots leave, you know, and -- I just -- I really just wanted to make sure that I put that on the record. I mean, it's about the investment that we put in those lots, and here's something that we can really do great in the area to make a difference in the lives of people. Mr. Villacorta: And it's not just that project. This would stop the Gatehouse project that we're currently in negotiations for, which includes 220 low-income rentals and a supermarket. Chair Spence -Jones: Which we need. Commissioner Sanchez: All right. On the legal, I mean, what -- I think it's important that we know all the avenues that we could take. I want to be able to explore all my avenues. As I stated it before, you know, I'd rather have you and the City sit down with the County before they exercise their reverter rights and see if we could come to an understanding. If not, then there're other options, and I would support taking legal action, but I'd rather do it the most diplomatic way as possible, since we're able to be communicating and working together with the County resolving these issues. Vice Chairman Sarnoff: Can I make a suggestion that --? First off, I agree with Commissioner Sanchez that you always catch -- capture a bear with honey, but -- Commissioner Sanchez: No, not always. Vice Chairman Sarnoff: Well -- and I was just going to say, but if I was going to go bear hunting -- and I'm not a hunter -- I know I'd have one in the chamber, and with that one in the chamber, what I'm suggesting is maybe we have two parallel tracks. One is obviously to communicate as best we can with the County, but I do recommend that this Board hire outside counsel, immediately create an issue called equitable estoppel and tolling of any limitation period as a result of action or inaction, which is a very well briefed topic and there's much jurisprudence on it in the state of Florida. We should get that from outside counsel. We should maybe put a limit, if you'd like, on how much we should spend, but we should know if we have one in the chamber or not have one in the chamber, and fully research and understand our legal issues so that we, if indeed need - - in the event it's necessary that we do take action against the County, that it's well researched and well thought out and it occur, very possibly, before too much time passes because I don't think we want to get ourselves into a position of allowing the reverter to go -- to happen by operation of law. Commissioner Sanchez: Commissioner Sarnoff, is that in the form of a motion? Vice Chairman Sarnoff: I'll make -- Commissioner Sanchez: And if it is in the form of a motion, I would second it, as long as you put a clause in there with an amount not to exceed. Vice Chairman Sarnoff: Not to exceed $20,000. Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Chair Spence -Jones: All in favor? The Commissioners (Collectively): Aye. Chair Spence -Jones: All right. This item passes -- Commissioner Sanchez: All right. Chair Spence -Jones: -- and we're back to what we originally speaking of. City of Miami Page 22 Printed on 8, 27, 2009 SEOPW and OMNI Marked Agenda December 27, 2007 Commissioner Sanchez: Madam Chair, if I may -- Ms. Dotson: Point of clarification. Commissioner Sanchez: Yes. Ms. Dotson: You are directing the -- Vice Chairman Sarnoff: Director. Ms. Dotson: -- CRA to hire outside counsel to look into this issue? Vice Chairman Sarnoff: And I would do it on a very expedited basis. Ms. Dotson: Okay, and just to let you know, this is also a City issue as well, but the counsel will look into that because the City is a part of the lawsuit, and then -- Ms. Ramirez-Seijas: And the reverter will happen. Ms. Dotson: Yeah, and the reverter will be exer -- well, according to the County, the reverter will occur on December 31. Vice Chairman Sarnoff: Which is a concern of mine because if I were litigating on behalf of the City, which I'm not, I would want to have injunctive relief filed before December 31, which gives you some time, but not very much, and I strongly urge, as a Commissioner, not as an attorney, that you hire outside counsel today and that you get your opinion by Friday, and you have your lawsuit drafted by Monday. That's if 1 was a lawyer, but since I'm the Commissioner, I can only make that recommendation. Mr. Villacorta: Well, there may be a potential for conflict between the City and the CRA since, should the blocks revert, we have the six and a half million dollar payment that's due. These blocks and the agreements with the developers that are on them were entered into with the City; just who would pay and how that might work -- Chair Spence -Jones: Well, Jim -- Mr. Villacorta: -- might be an issue. Chair Spence -Jones: -- you're going to han -- that's going to be all handled with the issue of the lawsuit. Commissioner Sanchez: That's a battle for another day. Mr. Villacorta: Okay. Chair Spence -Jones: Okay. Commissioner Sanchez: 1 mean, I -- Chair Spence -Jones: All right, so -- Commissioner Sanchez: -- could see your concern, but that's a battle for another day. Vice Chairman Sarnoff: Well, does everybody agree --? Let me just rephrase my motion to make sure it's clear. In the event --'cause we're not going to meet again -- but in the event it becomes recommendation of counsel that a lawsuit be filed, and I surmise it might be for injunctive relief to prevent the reverter from happening, is everybody here in agreement that we should allow them to file the lawsuit? Commissioner Sanchez: Oh, yeah. City of Miami Page 23 Printed on 8;27.2009 SEOPW and OMNI Marked Agenda December 27, 2007 Chair Spence -Jones: Yes. Vice Chairman Sarnoff: Okay, just for point of clarification. Commissioner Regalado: Are the courts open on Monday? Vice Chairman Sarnoff: They are, are they not? Ms. Dotson: Yeah. Commissioner Regalado: Well, they weren't on the 24th. Ms. Dotson: Howev -- Vice Chairman Sarnoff: We could occur before the 31st. Ms. Dotson: Just a point of clarification. I do know that Commissioner Sanchez -- or Board Member Sanchez mentioned the fact that you wanted to go through the diplomatic process. The only reason why I raise that is because if you're directing -- if this counsel decides -- Commissioner Sanchez: Well -- Ms. Dotson: -- that a lawsuit is warranted, do you want -- Commissioner Sanchez: -- I don't think we have time -- Ms. Dotson: -- to be briefed? Commissioner Sanchez: -- for the diplomatic process. Ms. Dotson: Right. No. Do you want to be briefed before a lawsuit is filed? That -- and I think -- Vice Chairman Sarnoff: No. I think that's -- Ms. Dotson: -- that's the issue. Vice Chairman Sarnoff: -- what we're trying to do is -- Ms. Dotson: Right, okay. Vice Chairman Sarnoff: Am I right, Board? I mean -- Ms. Dotson: Just clarify that. Vice Chairman Sarnoff: If it's deemed -- Commissioner Sanchez: Based on the circumstances -- Vice Chairman Sarnoff: Right. Commissioner Sanchez: -- being that it's on the 31st and we -- certain -- time is not on our side, and in the best interest of the CRA, which we are the representatives of the CRA, I think this motion that was passed and approved should move forward, and you should file as quickly as possible, and then, you know, deal with it 'cause we don't have time to sit down and, you know -- Chair Spence -Jones: Okay, so we have officially dealt with that issue. Any other questions on that? I just wanted -- again, just to make sure I put on the record this is not about a project for me. It's about the land itself and us having the ability to really get something done. That's what it's about for me. All right, so we're going to move back to City of Miami Page 24 Printed on 8,2 7; 2009 SEOPW and OMNI Marked Agenda December 27, 2007 the item that we were supposed to be voting on. Commissioner Sanchez: Madam Clerk -- I mean -- Chair Spence -Jones: Madam Clerk? Commissioner Sanchez: -- Madam -- no. Vice Chairman Sarnoff: He's used to being Chair. Commissioner Sanchez: No, no, no. Wait, wait. Madam Chair, on the issue -- and we'll vote on this when we get a first and a second. There's been a lot of confusion and a lot of statements have been put out there that have really, you know, muddied the water. I think it's important that, for the sake of clarification, we look at these questions and make sure that they're properly answered to clear the record, and if I could have the attorney, executive director, and the Finance director, Larry, everybody needs to be -- it's very important that we clarify some of these things that have said here. Now this must be voted on today, or in practicality, the entire global agreement falls apart. Is that correct? Mr. Spring: It needs to be voted on today because, in practicality, the port tunnel agreement cannot be executed; thus, things would fall apart. Commissioner Sanchez: All right, all right. The City Commission vote did not seal the deal for the port tunnel. The CRA is the funding source, and the CRA Board must approve the global agreement today. Is that correct? Mr. Spring: That is why we're here. Commissioner Sanchez: All right. If this is not approved by the 31st, the guaranteed price for the tunnel goes away, and therefore, the -- Mr. Spring: Potentially goes up. Commissioner Sanchez: -- they would have to renegotiate everything, and the tunnel may cost more money. Mr. Spring: Correct. Commissioner Sanchez: Is that correct? Mr. Spring: And -- Ms. Ramirez-Seijas: May. Mr. Spring: -- may -- Commissioner Sanchez: May. Mr. Spring: -- go up, and the State may pull their funding. Commissioner Sanchez: All right. That's the most important thing here now. Mr. Spring: Right. Commissioner Sanchez: If the 31st -- if we don't take action before the 31st, we possibly jeopardize losing the money coming in from FDOT -- Mr. Spring: Yes -- Commissioner Sanchez: -- for the tunnel. City of Miami Page 25 Printed on 8/2712009 SEOPW and OMNI r„A Marked Agenda December 27, 2007 Mr. Spring: -- and that was stated on the record by their representative at the City and County Commission meeting. Commissioner Sanchez: Okay. Now I think that the issue of Crosswind [sic] has been taken care of. I'm comfortable with it to move forward. Once again, I just wanted to make sure that all my avenues and our avenues were open and explained to us. Based on the circumstances, I feel comfortable with this resolution, and so for move the resolution. Chair Spence -Jones: I have a motion. Vice Chairman Sarnoff: Second. Vice Chair Spence -Jones: Okay. I -- before I take the overall vote, I just want to say this in closing, and I guess this is our last thing before we leave. I really think that, you know, as we move ahead on all of the things that we're trying to get, you know, happening in the CRA, that it's really important for all the Commissioners to take part in these meetings, you know, whether or not it's in our districts or not because we're talking about spending a lot of money on a lot of projects, so I just would want to make sure that we push very hard, Mr. Executive Director, to make sure that all the Commissioners are well notified and really understand that these meetings are happening and the importance of them being involved in the meetings, and that was one of my biggest concerns before we made a vote on that. Vice Chairman Sarnoff: Madam Chair, could I just say something? Chair Spence -Jones: Sure. Vice Chairman Sarnoff: First off, 1 want to thank Matthew Schwartz for coming in, Phil Kagan [sic], Elvis Cruz, Grace Solares, Kelsey Dorsett, Fred Joseph, Stanley Krieger, and Don Patterson, who have all presented very effectively as to their point of view. This has always been a very simple issue for me in that it was always tied to the port tunnel. The port tunnel, to me, is imperative that it be preserved and it be enhanced or it imperils the City of Miami being a port town, a maritime town. Without it being a maritime town, it will have no engine, no life support. 1 often find us here speaking in terms of affordable housing, but we don't talk about jobs up here very much. We don't talk about the 17,000 jobs that that port brings and who in their right mind would do anything to put those jobs in peril, and those jobs are in peril if you just look at the statistics and the quantum of the ports business. Since 2001, the port has lost cargo business; it has lost it to Port Everglades; it has lost it to Jacksonville, and it is beginning to lose it to Port Tampa. I already discussed Port Mariel, which received $350 million from Dubai. It's not very hard to figure out that Port Mariel and Port Jacksonville have common interests in ownership now, and it's not hard to put the two together to see what may or may not happen. I was always briefed and understood that the port tunnel would be imperiled if this vote did not take place, and I've heard people talk about and explain what if the tunnel goes over. Who's going to pay for the overage? Well, the port tunnel's contract is private -public partnership, and in that particular realm, the first $150 million or thereabouts of any overages is borne by the actual contractor himself, and I cannot imagine a contractor that's looking to go over so that he imperils a hundred -- or 150 million of his own dollars. The next amount of money comes from the County. That means that if there's an overage, the County then pays, and the final person who would pay beyond that would be the State. The City of Miami is capped at its $50 million. Now while some up here believe that it is not our place to pay at all for a port tunnel, it will be our roads that will benefit, and it will be, as I explained before, 9,000 Miami jobs that will be enhanced or imperiled should we not act, so to me, it was always an easy decision for the port tunnel. Sometimes when you're elected to govern, that's exactly what you do; you govern. You do the best you can with what's presented in front of you. The global settlement provided a great deal of information and a great deal of interest for each Commissioner in their respective districts, and I understand that that's how sometimes politics works; that in order to achieve a vote on one area, you've got to give and compromise on another area. I may not like the entire global agreement, but in whole and in package, it does do something that I find most significant to the City of City of Miami Page 26 Printed on 8-27 2009 SEOPW and OMNI Marked Agenda December 27, 2007 Miami. It provides and enhances jobs, and it does so for the Port of Miami, and if this Commission needs to do one thing in 2008, it is to realize that a man gets up in the morning with a purpose, and that purpose is a job, and he goes to bed in the morning feeling satisfied, and that satisfaction is the job he did that day. Everything becomes affordable once you have a job, but the -- to consider and just not consider how jobs are created in the City of Miami has been a product of many previous administrations that has been a product of the county, and if we don't start thinking in terms of Tong -term jobs for the City of Miami, then we truly are not doing anything but governing up here, so today I say to everybody, let's govern. Let's vote for what is not a perfect package, but let's vote for what will provide for Miami in the years to come jobs, and from that, you will find everything becomes affordable. When a man gets up in the morning with self-respect, he respects others and he goes to bed with some respect for others, and that is what the City of Miami could use, a little more self-respect. Thank you. Chair Spence -Jones: Thank you, Commissioner Sarnoff. With that, we'll officially take roll call on this issue. Ms. Thompson: Roll call. Commissioner Regalado? Commissioner Regalado: No. Ms. Thompson: Commissioner Sarnoff? Vice Chairman Sarnoff: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Commissioner Sanchez? Commissioner Sanchez: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Then Chair Spence -Jones? Chair Spence -Jones: It just seems like I'm always the one left holding the bag. Yes. Ms. Thompson: Then the resolution is passed -- Commissioner Sanchez: Move to adjourn. Ms. Thompson: -- 3/1. Chair Spence -Jones: This meeting is officially adjourned. NON -AGENDA ITEMS NA.1 07-01564 CRA DISCUSSION BRIEF DISCUSSION BY CHAIR SPENCE-JONES REGARDING A CLAIM THAT SHE OWNS A ROLLS-ROYCE. DISCUSSED Chair Spence -Jones: I'd like to officially call the meeting to order. I hope everyone had a wonderful Christmas, and before we get started with the official meeting for the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) for December 20 [sic], I'd like to at least officially put this on the record that I do not own a Rolls-Royce, never liked a Rolls-Royce, and had no intentions of ever getting a Rolls-Royce, so I just thought that it was important for me to say that because it seems as though I'm answering a whole bunch of questions about a Rolls-Royce, so for those that are not just here, you know, in the audience, but those that are watching at home, Spence -Jones does not have one and does not wish to own one. Officially, you heard it from me, okay, so we can officially get down to City business. NA.2 07-01565 CRA DISCUSSION City of Miami Page 27 Printed on 8/27 2009 SEOPW and OMNI Marked Agenda December 27, 2007 DISCUSSION REGARDING THE NECESSITY FOR TODAY'S SPECIAL COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT MEETING. DISCUSSED Chair Spence -Jones: We're going to go head [sic] and start. I guess we're here regarding the issue of this global agreement. I have to do -- I would like to also just put on the record real fast that this -- I'm a little disappointed with how and how quickly this meeting was set, and I understand why it was set, but I think that it's important for the public to understand why this meeting took place, almost an emergency meeting, in this very short period of time to make a decision that really will affect the whole entire city, and I got several phone calls regarding this issue and concerns that this would be happening during a time when most people are out of town, they're not available, and it was basically a last-minute call to actually put this on the agenda. I think that we have responsibility, as elected officials, to communicate to our public as to why we're dealing with this issue at a last moment, and I'm going to ask, before we get into any of the real business of this, for at least somebody from the Mayor -- the Manager's staff, which has been working on this, our CFO (Chief Financial Officer) or COO (Chief Operating Officer), whatever -- which one is it, COO? Larry Spring (Chief Financial Officer): CFO. Chair Spence -Jones: CFO to explain why we got here and how we got here, and why we're dealing with this a few days before the new year. Mr. Spring: Thank you. Larry Spring, chief financial officer. I'll give you some preliminary, but we have our City Attorney also available. As you know, the last few weeks we've been working in concert with the County to move a global agreement, which is a -- in essence, a memorandum of understanding between the City and the County regarding the financing of several large infrastructure projects. The global agreement, as we've now come to call it, has as parties to it, the City, the County, and the CRA, as well as Major League Baseball. What we have done in passing the agreement, the City has passed the agreement; the County has passed the agreement. In order for the CRA to officially be able to sign -- although you all voted on it as a City Commission, the CRA, as a board, would also -- Commissioner Regalado: Not all. Mr. Spring: Excuse me? Commissioner Regalado: Not all. Mr. Spring: Well, I said voted. Commissioner Regalado: You all. Mr. Spring: 1 didn't say in favor. Chair Spence -Jones: He said you all -- Commissioner Regalado: You all voted. Chair Spence -Jones: -- but go head [sic], Larry. Mr. Spring: So the CRA, as a board, would need to consider the item so that they could also direct the executive director of the CRA to be able to execute the document. Chair Spence -Jones: Okay. My -- Mr. Spring: It is -- Chair Spence -Jones: -- question, though, Larry -- I know you had more to add to it -- City of Miami Page 28 Printed on 8.27/2009 SEOPW and OMNI Marked Agenda December 27, 2007 Mr. Spring: Yeah. Chair Spence -Jones: -- but -- so basically, in a nutshell, this had to be done because of baseball? Mr. Spring: No. Chair Spence -Jones: Okay. I just wanted you to be clear because people that are watching this need to understand why we're having to have an emergency meeting called during people's vacations, so you need to make that real clear to them. Mr. Spring: I would say the real reason of the extreme nature -- timeliness nature of this issue is the issue of the port tunnel. We -- the City Commission approved the port tunnel agreement at the last Commission meeting. In order for the City to execute that document, which was contingent upon the global overall approval and execution, the CRA would have to consider the global item, so that is the reason why it is so necessary to have this very critical, critical meeting at this very critical holiday time, which, as you can see, I'm also here -- Chair Spence -Jones: Right -- Mr. Spring: -- from vacation as well, so -- Chair Spence -Jones: -- so, Mr. Spring, I just want to understand, so from the port tunnel standpoint, there is a deadline in which this needs to -- I mean, 'cause you're not -- still not -- you mentioned port tunnel, but -- Mr. Spring: Right. Chair Spence -Jones: -- I mean, we can't make a decision after January? Because we are missing a -- Mr. Spring: No. The -- Chair Spence -Jones: -- Commissioner on the dais, so I'm just trying to understand. Mr. Spring: -- document needs to be executed prior to December 31, which is next Tues -- next Monday. Chair Spence -Jones: Okay, so the reason why we're having this emergency meeting is because by December 31, if we do not vote on this item or vote to deal with this situation -- Mr. Spring: We cannot -- Chair Spence -Jones: -- then we would lose the state monies. Mr. Spring: We can't -- yeah. We would not be able to execute the port tunnel agreement, which would then, I guess, potentially result in the loss of -- Chair Spence -Jones: How much? Commissioner Sanchez: Six hundred and something million. Mr. Spring: Yeah, six hundred and something million dollars -- actually, no. It's actually nine hundred because they're paying the 0 & M as well on the port tunnel, so close to a billion dollars. Chair Spence -Jones: Close to a billion dollars we would lose. Mr. Spring: Yes, the region -- City of Miami Page 29 Printed on 8'27'2009 SEOPW and OMNI Marked Agenda December 27, 2007 Chair Spence -Jones: Okay. Mr. Spring: -- would lose -- Chair Spence -Jones: Okay, so -- Mr. Spring: -- and not just the City, but the region, so -- Chair Spence -Jones: Okay. Thank you for putting that officially on the record. Mr. Spring: Not a problem. NA.3 07-01567 CRA RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY WITH ATTACHMENTS, DIRECTING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO BUDGET APPROXIMATELY $237 MILLION OVER THE NEXT TEN YEARS FOR AFFORDABLE AND WORK FORCE HOUSING; INFRASTRUCTURE; JOB CREATION/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT; PARKS AND SPACES; ARTS AND CULTURE; AND QUALITY OF LIFE IMPROVEMENT INITIATIVES IN THE CRA REDEVELOPMENT AREA. Exhibit A.pdf CRA-R-07-0062 MOVED: Joe Sanchez SECONDED: Marc David Sarnoff Motion that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. AYES: Vice Chair Sarnoff, Chair Spence -Jones and Commissioner Sanchez NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Regalado Commissioner Gonzalez Commissioner Sanchez: Now the question is, would this be another one of those empty promises for the residents of Overtown? Would this be another one of those pies in the sky for the residents of Overtown? Well, if we commit ourselves -- and I think that the commitment is here to work with the City and the County to resolve a lot of issues that have not been resolved for quite some time in the best interest of both governments working together. The issue here is, once again, how are we going to distribute that money? And before I even vote on this, I think that we need to look at that, based on what are we going to do with that money, and I put -- we put out a resolution that breaks it down how I think that it should go into Overtown so the residents of Overtown could say, you know what? I'm going to benefit from it, not like in the past where things were promised and never delivered; things that were passed here -- because we could just pass this and talk about it, but if we don't put it in writing, if we don't establish records where the residents of Overtown could come here ten years from now and say, I have a resolution such and such and such, where you allocated $237 million into Overtown, and I haven't seen a penny, so based on this resolution that I would read into the record -- and I would like to vote on this resolution before we vote on this interlocal agreement because it lays out the foundation for that amount of money going into what really needs to be happening in Overtown for the redevelopment and future of the people who live in Overtown, and it's a resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the Southeast Overtown/Park West Community Redevelopment Agency, with attachment, directing the executive director to budget approximately $237 million over the next ten years for affordable and workforce housing, infrastructure, job creation/economic development, City of Miami Page 30 Printed on 8/27 2009 SEOPW and OMNI Marked Agenda December 27, 2007 parks and open space, arts and culture, and quality of life improvements initiatives in the CRA redevelopment area, and in that resolution, the $237 million are broken down into what I think -- based on the input that I've gotten where the money should go. Twenty-five percent should go into affordable and workforce housing; that's $59 million. Fifty-nine million dollars. If you were to match that, expect it to generate with the private sector, you're looking at $592 million generated to affordable housing and workforce housing; 25 percent also, which is $59 million, going into infrastructure for the Overtown area. Job creation -- I think it's very important that we focus on finding jobs for people. You know, people come here all the time and say, well, I can't afford a house, or I can't afford to rent, and I -- you know why? Because he can't get a job, all right? And if they get a job, then that opens up the opportunity for them to go out and sustain themselves and be able to be productive citizens of Overtown in the City of Miami, so that's 25 percent; it's also $59 million going into job creation and economic development. Ten percent, which is $23 million, 23.7, should go into the parks and open space. Five percent should go into arts and cultural aspect because I think that if you don't -- if you have a community that lacks art and cultural aspect -- Why do I fight so hard for the Performing Arts Center? Why do I fight so hard for the museums? Whether you like them or not, if we want to be a world -class city, we better have museums, and we better have places where people could take their children; students could go and have an education based on the arts and -- if you don't, then you do not have a world -class city or a decent community. Five percent of that, which is also $11.8 million, should go into the quality of life that should be used at the CRA discretion, the executive director, as to improve the quality of life in that area, and it's also very important that we sustain the CRA by providing five percent for administration costs to be able to administer their roles and responsibility under Chapter 163 of the CRA, and that is $11.8 million, so that is a resolution that I have forth -- that I would like to present focusing this overall aspect because I think that the residents of Overtown can accept this agreement because now not only would they have a resolution passed putting the City, the CRA, and the County's money where their mouth is, but just not another empty promise, so having said that, I move this resolution, Madam Chair. Chair Spence -Jones: I just want to commend you, Commissioner Sanchez, for your leadership. You know, sometimes I feel like I'm always pushing the Overtown banner and always pushing the Overtown banner, like I'm not -- I'm blinded by, you know, other things that need to happen in the City, but, you know, it was great -- it's great to see that you take -- you're taking a leadership role and not -- in supporting me and not, you know, just putting a figure out there. We hear numbers all the time, and these -- my community's heard too many numbers; 20 million there, 30 million -- and they never see it -- Commissioner Sanchez: But it's in writing. Chair Spence -Jones: -- but now we have an official resolution, and I really appreciate you supporting and making sure that something is officially put in writing so at least the residents know that we are going to make sure that we take care of Overtown, so I want to commend you for your leadership -- Commissioner Sanchez: Thank you. Chair Spence -Jones: -- and your support for my district. Thank you so much on that. Any other comments? We did get a second. Is there anything -- all --? We didn't get a second? Priscilla A. Thompson (Clerk of the Board): No. Chair Spence -Jones: I said second. Ms. Thompson: You're the Chair. Commissioner Sanchez: You got to pass the gavel. Chair Spence -Jones: Oh, I'm sorry. City of Miame Page 31 Printed on 8/27.2009 SEOPW and OMNI Marked Agenda December 27, 2007 Vice Chairman Sarnoff: Second. Chair Spence -Jones: Okay. All in favor? Commissioner Sanchez: Aye. Vice Chairman Sarnoff: Aye. Commissioner Regalado: One "no." Commissioner Sanchez: Okay. All right. Madam Chair Spence -Jones: You're saying -- Commissioner Regalado: Can I explain --? Commissioner Sanchez: -- Chair, my -- if I may on -- Chair Spence -Jones: Well, I want -- I just want him to at least -- Commissioner Regalado, what was your --? Commissioner Regalado: Thank you, Madam Chair. This is not -- this vote is not about Overtown because, as you all remember, at the board, I urge the Chair and the executive director to set aside millions of dollars for housing in Overtown. I just think that it is very wrong to make more promises that we don't know if we can fulfill, and I tell you why. I'm very concerned because when I have all the briefings about the tunnel and the last-minute briefing about this global agreement, I asked, well, what if the voters approve amendment one in January 29? Well, you know, we have sort of work around that, and we think we still have money. Well, what if Marco Rubio and other leaders get the signatures and they have it in the ballot, not next November, but in the general election of November '09, and they have the rollback of 1.5? Well, we have not done that -- the numbers, but the fact that is real -- if you look at the map of the United States, last November 6 there were 29 items in the ballot of seven states for tax increase; two of them were increasing the tax on cigarettes so they can buy medicine for children without insurance. You know, cigarettes, I'm sure, are the most unpopular item in the United States now and medicines for children are, of course, one of the most basic needs that we need to address in this country, but the voters rejected that measure in Oregon, 80/20. All the increases for traffic, for school vouchers, for emergency services were defeated at the polls. Not only that, in Texas, 80 percent of the voters requested an amendment -- approve an amendment that only a super majority of the legislature can impose new taxes or increase taxes, and if they don't get the super majority, they will -- it will have to go to the voters for any tax increase. I'm saying this because there is a revolution on the taxpayers in the United States. People want less government, less taxes, and people want more services, so we don't know if this figure -- even the Herald, which is the biggest cheerleader for the tunnel and the PAC and everything, is been on the record questioning with several articles the feasibility from the economic point of this global agreement. City of Miami Page 32 Printed on 8'27'2009