HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal-Nathan KurlandFwd: MIMO BISCAYNE ASSOCIATION RESPONSE TO PHONE ADV... Page 9 of 12
• F
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item RE.19 on 06/27/13
Todd B. Hannon
BACK UP TO THE MIMO BISCAYNE ASSOCIATION'S CONCLUSIONS
BASED ON DOCUMENTS SENT TO THE ASSOCIATION ON JUNE 9, 2013
ALONG WITH A LETTER FROM SIMON FERRO SENT TO THE
ASSOCIATION WITH MR. FERRO'S RESPONSES TO THE MIMO
ASSOCIATION'S ORIGINAL LETTER TO HIM ON MAY 20, 2013
FOLLOWING A MEETING WITH HIM AND THE MIMO ASSOCIATION
BOARD OF DIRECTORS.
iN RESPONSE TO AN EMAIL TO HAROLD DESDUNES FROM THE MIMO
ASSOCIATION REGARDING THE TELEPHONES ON BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MR.
DESDUNES RESPONDED:
"Our staff conducted site inspections along Biscayne Boulevard between 62nd &
87th Streets and found there are 12 payphone kiosks along this stretch of the
highway. Following the site inspections, our staff contacted the telephone
provider listed on the equipment. Our research concluded with the following
information:
• All the kiosks are located within FDOT right-of-way according to our R/W maps;
equipment were installed by First American Telecom Corporation;
permit was issued by the Department to First American in 2007 per a Master Application
or 200 locations. The permitted locations did not include the right-of-way between 62nd
and 87th Street. This permit expired in December 2008.
t American Telecom has assumed this permit was a blanket permit and any installations
thereafter were under this permit. The 2007 permit did not allow advertisin_g_on any
payphones located within state road right-of-way."
MR. DESDUNE'S LETTER CONTINUES, 'With regard to the current status of pay
phones, this is covered by Section 7, Ch. 337.408, Florida Statues, which
regulates the placement of pay phones on state roads. If the payphones are
located within the boundaries of the municipality then our interpretation of the
existing law is that the pay telephone provider must obtain authorization from
the municipality to install the payphones (this is in addition to meeting the other
criteria under the law). The providers do not have to obtain a permit from us. If
the installations somehow endanger life or property, OR ARE NOT IN
12- 096?,3 nathan ('(ur
arid
• 1046 " ory A
_1
/— i.,3;iiPr;ritMessape.asnx 6/26/2013
Tzwd: MIMO BISCAYNE ASSOCIATION RESPONSE TO PHONE A,_ Page 10 '-
CLIVIPUANCEVVO[H EXISTING LAWS OR RULES, FOOTcan direct the removal or
relocation of the pay telephones. This law took effect in July 2009."
[NR.DESDUNE'S EMAIL CONTINUES: "Florida law under Section 337.406,Florida
Statutes prohibits unauthorized use of the public right-of-way. Under this |avv
the payphoneswould besubject toremoval. However, the City, under Section 7,
Ch. 337.408, has the authority to issue permits for payphones within the state's
right of way. The City can send us a formal letter indicating their decision as to
whether ornot they will bepermitting paVphones.|fthe City will not permit
payphones,the Department can proceed with process ofremoving the,
encroachments from the right ofxvaV'"
3.On.December 4, 2007,the FOOT Master Application #07K69I-069that First
American Telecommunication Corporation assumed covered the
phone/advertisingWosksdeadYstatesthat''noadvertisernen1sm/H|beaUom/ed
mnany paVphonestructure within FO[)TRhzhtofVVan1hn�s^.|na—ddition,Fi�t
-_.
'American's phone plans that assurnedly were permitted in other parts of Miami
Dade County show noadvertising.
3. The list of permitted phones that were included in the documents Mr. Ferro
sent tothe Association lists only lphone at74D4,2phones at7BOIBiscayne,
and one phone at750IBiscayne (750Idoes not appear nnthe MAP that Mr.
Ferro included in his documents.)
x[The phones that First American Telecommunication Corporation presumably
believed that were included under FDOT's Master Application are listed in Mr.
Ferro's documents as: 165, 30I3, 3499^ 3501, 3610, 3103, 330I, 14200, 9020
Biscayne.
S'Phmmp/adxertising kiosks are also shown onMr. Ferro's Map, but presumably
not included |nFDOT'sMaster Application are: 7800/6800/6900/7301/ 6075/
5800/6200/5398 Biscayne Boulevard. |nfact, your May 7'2O13letter from
FDOTtothe M|PNoAssociation claims that, "the permitted locations (for the
Master Application inZDO7) DID NOT INCLUDE the state right ofway between
��
62 nu and8' streets nfBiscayne Bou/ewand."Could this possibly bebecause
Biscayne Boulevard was under construction atthat time?
G. In a letter from Mc Ferro to Commissioner Sannoff. April 5, 2013 he states
el provisions of Chapter 54(city code) relating to pay phone advertising kiosks
within CITY RIGHTS OFWAY, predicated and survived aone-year pilot program,
conducted in 2001 — in which FAT.0 participated pursuant to C,ity Resolution #01-
449" In the documentation Mr. Ferro sent to the MiMo Association, it is clear
/
i
Submitted into
nnection w
Todd B. Hannon
I ^"
N}3
Fwd: MIMO BISCAYNE ASSOCIATION RESPONSE TO PHONE A_ Page l} mf]7
`
4.
that Chapter 54speaks ONLY TOCITY R|GHT-OF-VVAYS'|naddition, city
ordinanoe#l1g37datedJune29l20OUstatesthat°anYpayte|ephmnepernlit
issued by the city shall continue in full force and effect so long as the permitee is
incompliance with all applicable Federal, State and Local Ordinances and
Regulat\ons".FOOT'SREGULATION [)N STATE ROADS |5VERY CLEAR THAT
THEREVV|LLBEN{JADVERTISING MSTATE A|GMT-OF-VKAYS.
"~
As a matter offact, in Mr. Ferro's May 30, 2013 "courtesy" letter to NzenibG
|hekm/aba, Miami Director ofPublic Works, regarding his interpretation of pay
phones within the State RCJVV, Ferro indicates, "that regulatory authority for the
permitting of payphones within the state right of way resides with the State and
has been delegated bythe State D0T"
7Jm addition, Mr. Ferro states that the 2009 amendment to state statute
#337.408 did not alter FOOT'sregulatory jurisdiction over pay phones other
than to uniformly authorize pay phone advertising according to statewide Size
standards". This section did not delegate regulatory authority for state right-of-
mvBytolocal governments.
8. A letter to First American Telecommunication Corp from Michael Schloss,
General Council, District 6, to First American's attorney, David Tobin of Tobin
and Reyes, it is stated, "the Department FDOT will regulate payphones on FDOT
Right of Ways pursuant to Rule #14-46.001. 9. Payphones must conform to all
applicable laws and rules. Rule #4-ADVERTISEMENTS will not beallowed on
permitted structures". ~ '
10. A letter to First American Telecommunication Corp from Stephanie Ghnde|i
Miami Public Works Director dated September 7, 2006, states that, "pay phones
located onState Roads shall beapproved by FDOT. If
11. In addition, Mr. Ferro states in his May 30, 2013 letter to Nzenibe Ihekwaba
that, "Subsection 337.400 State Statutes limits local regulation of phone
placement to locally owned right-of-ways.
12.Aofor the list ofcalls Mr. Ferro included inhis response tothe MiMo
Association, ofthe 7Ophone/advertising kiosks onBiscayne Boulevard there
were 311,383SOCIAL CALLS and 8O,S6O911calls. The Association questions the
need for 70 phone kiosks for a little more than 80,000 calls on the Boulevard. As
we have indicated to Mr. Ferro, the purpose for the phones was originally,
according to Theodore Guba, independent Auditor General in a March 21, 2013
letter tothe Miami City Commission, "to promote revitalization and
redevelopment inthe city and toLencourage thprpdurtinnufViuum|Might" The
_
/
1 ''
Fwd: MIMO BISCAYNE ASSOCIATION RESPONSE TO PHONE A... Page 12 of 12
phones that are currently standing on every block of MiMo Boulevard.with
three advertising panels hardly meet that standard.
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item REM on 06127/13
Todd B. HannOn' - -
-7Q-2 A 1 1 1 b-ard-AAan-licirrIgii/PrintMPCS2Cre.aSnX
6/26/2013