HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal-Correspondece-Grace SolaresMarch 7, 2012
Mr. Chairman and Commissioners:
I find myself again having to request that the City Administration and Commission
comply with the City Charter and to be open and candid with regard to City business and
projects. In this instance the subject matter is the Marine StadiumNirginia Key Master Plan
Project. More specifically, my comments relate to the Resolution and Memorandum of
Understanding ("MOU") that are on the Commission's Agenda for March 8, 2012.
1 have reviewed the Resolution and revised MOU. I have also gathered a number of other
documents relating to this Project and to the proposed MOU among the City, MSEA and Friends
of Miarni Marine Stadium ("Friends"). As I wrote in my email to you on January 25, 2012, it is
obvious that an arrangement or deal has been made and that the City is again attempting to use
MSEA to circumvent the City Charter. The MOU is skillfully written to hide the obvious fact
that the City is giving Friends authority and control over the development of the Stadium and
surrounding land area. MSEA has been added to the MOU simply as window dressing because
somebody is under the erroneous belief that the insertion of the MSEA name solves all Charter
problems. MSEA presence in any MOU or Agreement relating to waterfront land does not cure
or satisfy Charter requirements and in particular the requirements of Section 3(f)(iii).
Section 29-B does provide an exemption from competitive bidding if there is a transfer of
City land to implement a plan of a governmental agency or instrumentality. The City's
waterfront land, however, is also governed by Section 3(f)(iii) which does not contain a similar
exemption even if a governmental agency or instrumentality is involved. If anyone doubts the
significance of Section 3(f)(iii) and the fact that it applies in addition to other Charter provisions
applicable to a transfer of an interest in City land when City waterfront land is involved, I invite
you to read the Opinion of the Third District Court Appeal in the case entitled Homestead -Miami
Speedway, LLC v. City of Miami, 828 So.2d 411 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2002). It is also noteworthy that
the facts involved in the Homestead -Miami Speedway case arose before the citizens voted and
approved further restrictions and limitations in Section 3(f)(iii). The present version applies to
both a lease or a contract with a for -profit and a not -for -profit entity.
The proposed MOU is a clear attempt to lay the ground work to ultimately lease all or
part of the Miami Marine Stadium Project to Friends and/or its affiliates without complying with
the Charter. The proposed Interlocal Agreement referred to in my earlier email, demonstrates
this point. Reliance upon the Resolution and the MOU also follows the same modus operandi
employed by the City when there is an unacknowledged plan that will not comply with the City's
Charter, i.e., Children's Museum and others.
As previously mentioned, the proposed Resolution and MOU attempt to the lay the
ground work for implementing an undisclosed plan that will circumvent the following Charter
requirements, to name a few:
12- 000/2 - Corrondeic
e So lares
Submitted Into the public
record in connection with
item fit IS on 0310T1I2.
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
(1) evading procurement methods;
(2) permitting leases and/or subleases for periods of in excess of five years which
is not allowed by 3(f)(iii);
(3) permitting leases to include automatic renewals, which are not
permissible under 3(f)(iii);
(4) permitting leases that will not result in the return of fair value to the City
based on two or more appraisals, which is required by 3(f)(iii);
A later Interlocal Agreement or lease that does not satisfy the requirements of Section 3(f)(iii)
will result in a null and void agreement or lease because 3(f)(iii) also states: "Any such lease or
contract or proposed extension or modification of an existing such lease or contract which
does not comply with EACH of the above conditions shall not be valid unless it has first
been approved by a majority of the voters of the city."
The heart of the issue boils down to the present failure to be open and candid about City
business. With regard to this failure, I also call your attention to the County's Citizens' Bill of
Rights which is a part of the County Charter and which is applicable to the City of Miami.
Section (A). 2, Citizens Bill of Rights Miami -Dade County Charter, states:
Truth in Government. No County or municipal official or employee
shall knowingly furnish false information on any public matter, nor
knowingly omit significant facts when giving requested information to
members of the public.
The County Charter, Section ( C) contains the remedy for a violation of the Truth in Government
provision above:
Remedies for Violation.... Any public official or
employee who is found by the Court to have willfully
violated this Article shall forthwith forfeit his office or
employment.
I suggest that the Administration and the Commission withdraw the pending Resolution
and Memorandum of Understanding. This matter should only be brought back when there is an
intent to comply with the requirements of the Charter, or a decision is made to present the matter
to the citizens for their approval by way of a referendum, which is also an alternative provided by
the Charter. If you prefer to vote on the matter, then I request that you vote NO to the Resolution
and MOU.
Respectfully,
Grace Solares
Submitted Into the public
record in connection with
Item E I C?' on 05-0S-/Z
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk