Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1977-01-26 MinutesCITY OF MIAMIu 11(:O VVE{) 18 1 SPECIAL COMMISSION MINUTES EXECUTIVE SESSION MAYOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM JANUARY 26, 1977 F MEETING HELDON - PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL r RALPH G. ONGIE CITY CLERK INUTtS OF SPECIAL METING CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA * * * * * * * * * 'h the 26 day of January, 19/7, the City Commission of Miami, 'Florida, met in the Mayor's Conference Room at City Hall, in said City, in Special Executive Session, to discuss the following matter: the open and.active litigation of the F.E.C. parcel adjacent to Bi- centennial Park. The meeting was called to order at 4:34 P.M. by Mayor Maurice A. Ferre with the following members of the Commission present: SO PRESENT: Vice Mayor (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner Manolo Reboso Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOTE* Joseph R. Grassie, City Manager V. E. Grimm, Assistant City Manager George F. Knox, City Attorney Michael E. Anderson, Assistant City Attorney Ralph G. Ongie, City Clerk Matty Hirai, Assistant City Clerk OTE*., Commissioner Rose Gordon entered the meeting at 4:40 P.M. 7 ..a C::: PJTY CLERKS •\I .44 BELL E TiN,LtY G. ONGIE CLERK tr o .�►� t i J f ttr of Or Q'.itg C rrk . Cap �iitttl 5011 Vatt Awl -trait Driut Miami, Flurida 33133 mi, itirte. WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: . This shall constitute an Addendum to page 3 of the Special Commission Minutes of the Executive Session, Mayor's Conference Room, held on January 26, 1977. This Addendum is intended to verify a remark made by Commissioner Gordon at the time she entered the meeting, at 4:40 P.M. In the interest of clarification, we hereby state that when the door to the Mayor's Conference Room opened, at 4:40 P.M., and Commissioner Gordon entered the roots she stated: "What's going on here?" Due to the positioning of the microphones, placed on the center of the Mayor's conference table, the equipment could not pick up the remark and, therefore, did not show in the verbatim transcript. As the City Clerk and the Assistant City Clerk, and having been present at such meeting, we hereby attest to the fact that the remark was in fact made by Commissioner Gordon. DATED: February 16, 1977. MVrTY HIRAI Assistant City Clerk MAyotPare: The purpose of this Meeting is this is an Executive Session on the legal matter on ongoing litigation and MI. Knox, for the record, since we are keeping a copy of this, we have your legal opinion attd Mould you repeat it for the record. Mr. Knox: This session, as much as it involves a discussion on the strategy of open and active litigation, I think the City Attorney is protected by the Attorney - Client privilege and thereby entitled to be held in Executive Session. Mayor Ferre: However, so that we don't have any possible claim that we're conducting City business out of the public light, I've asked the Clerk to keep a tape re- cording of this session and that once this matter becomes public in the course that it then be released so that anybody in the public who wants to go through this will be able to do so. Mr. Plummer: For establishing the record, I think you should also indicate, Mr. Mayor, who is here and who is not here. Mayor Ferre: Well we have all members of the Commission but Rose Gordon and representation by the Administration and from the City Attorney's Office which is Mr. Knox and Mr. Grassie and the City Clerk's Office. Alright, Mr. Grimm) are you going to talk to this? Mr. Grassie: Let me, Mr. Mayor, lay the basic ground work on where we are at. You know the court case has been delayed, well the two part is, the FEC and the City are presummed to be in active negotiations. Now the initial statements that we get from our appraisers, although they are not based on firm appraisals, are that we are probably talking about $20,000,000 to $25,000,000 worth of property that we would need to acquire if we were to carry out stated intent of the City Commission which is to get all of the FEC parcel. You know that we have 1411 million dollars left in the bond issue designed to pay for this project. Now the obvious dilemna that we have is that if we go forward in court and succeed in the condemnation, we may not have enough money to carry forward so maybe if, with that brief introduction, Vince, if you could talk about some of the alternatives. Mr. Vince Grimm: ...Wilson Appraisers have worked with the City in coming up with the value that Mr. Grassie mentioned and the City wrote him a letter and asked that without giving his firm appraisals on each of the parcels if he could give us an estimate. Unfortunately he was out of town and in order to have this meeting, we tried to sit down and come up with some possible number so that we'd know ballpark figures, at least, of what we're talking about. Now to help you understand, the area that you see entirely in green is the property that we're talking about including this area which is water. The City has, in court, parcels 1, 3 and 4 for which they've paid or suggested payment amounts to about 3.3 million dollars. Based on the fact that we have limited funds and trying to come up with some idea as to what property we still might acquire and place a value on it, we said, what would it cost us if we acquired all of the property West of the extension of this line which includes parcels 2A, 2B, 2C, 2E and 2F and this area of water. Mayor Ferre: Is that the area designated in blue? Mr. Grimm: Yes, sir, it's the area designated in blue which would give the City then, continuity of all the property joining Bayfront Park with Bicentennial Park abutting Biscayne Boulevard. Mr. Grassie: With the exception of the Railroad Right -of -Way and you would have to provide some way to get into this property, either off Biscayne or off Port Boulevard. Mr. Grimm: So using the value that we've paid here as a guide which comes up to be about 8/10 of a million dollars per acre, the total amount required then to acquire what's left; assuming that the value of the water is about half the value of the land, we're talking about a little over $8,000,000, almost $8,400,000. Mayor Ferre: To acquire from here to the Boulevard... Mr, Grimm: Yes, and please keep in mind that that's a guess, Mayor Ferre: $8,000,000? Mx, Grimm: Yes, sir. JANN Mr.UMMas: Aut they will still have the opportunity to conduct from that, Mr, Orina: Yes. Mayor Ferre: No question about it. Mr. Grassie: The remaining property is more than the property that the railroad had until about 3 years ago when they filled this part that I've got my hand oft right now. They only had this - (INDICATING ON MAP)... Mr. Grimm: Yes, this jagged line that you see here was the approximate shoreline before filling. Mr. Grassie: Until about three years ago. Well they can definitely, from my estimation, operate on this parcel. Mayor Ferre: Well let me ask you this question. This parcel is not zoned at the present time so I would imagine that they would then have to force the issue in court. We have to zone it and if it's not a reasonable zoning, then they could go to court and challenge the zoning. We obviously wouldn't zone it residential. Mr. Grassie: My impression, Mayor, is that in fact it is zoned, it is zoned as industrial and the City can change the zoning and propose C-3. Mr. Anderson: That was zoned I-1, (Light Industrial) or (Waterfront Industrial), one of the two. (PLEASE NOTE THAT AT THIS TIME, 4:40 P.M., MRS. ROSE GORDON ENTERED THE MEETING) Mayor Ferre: Let me interrupt, let me explain. This is an executive session under the legal opinion of Mr. Knox, this is active litigation in which we are going to be discussing property values on the FEC taking which is coming up in court very soon. This is being done at the recommendation of the City Manager and my recommendation that this be discussed because obivously we have a very important or series of very important decisions to be made which, at this time, as far as the dollars and cents are concerned, cannot be made public because it would prejudice our case before the court. However, so that there won't be any questions as to what we are doing, we are taking a tape recording, I've asked the Clerk to be present to take a tape of everything that's being said and he will file it or the City Attorney will keep it while the litigation is going on and then we will make it available to anyone in the public who wants it once this matter is made public in court. Mrs. Gordon: Has there been any discussion prior to my coming into the meeting? Mayor Ferre: We started three minutes ago and I think, Vince, it's worthwhile your repeating what you said. Mr. Grimm: We have gotten to the point, Mrs. Gordon, where weknow that parcels 1, 3 and 4, which are in court, have a value, at least an assummed value now, that hasn't been finally decided by the court but of $3,360,000. Using that as a guideline, we then took and assigned a similar value which is about 8/10 of a million dollars per acre. Mayor Ferre: How much? Mr. Grimm: 8/10 of a million. It's a little bit more or less than that, Mayor Ferre: $800,000 per acre. Mr. Grimm: Yes, sir. We did it three ways; we did it on 9/10, 8/10 and 3/4 of a million. To come up with a guestimate as to how much it might cost to acquire all of the land East of this blue line including this portion of water and arbitrarily, I assigned a value to the water of half the value of the land. Now adding all of these areas together, which are well defined over here by this survey, we've come up with a little bit over $8,000,000, $8,394,000. Mr. Plummer: Does the appraiser agree with you? (INAUDIBLE) us— JAN 6 197;' Mayas ttet No, this is total, Mts, Gotdoh: Including the three Mr. Gtiti : Yes, including the three Mrs. Gordon: Okay, you're estimating that to be our Mayor Ferre: Vince, are these your figures or ate these the appraiser figures? Mr. Grimm: My figures. Mayor Ferre: Who is the appraiser on this? Mr. Grimm: We don't have one. Let me say this that J. I. Wilson► worked with the City in their court case. Mayor Ferre: Well how are we going to go to court without an appraiser? Mr. Anderson: J. I. Wilson is the appraiser and he appraised these three properties. They're our order of taking. He estimated the remainder of the tract would cost about $20,000,000. Mr. Grimm: For the record then, we wrote Mr. Wilson and requested, I'll read it into the record. "It is my understanding from your conversation with Mr. Grassie that you are in a position to provide the City with an approximate cost should the City proceed in acquiring parcels 2A, 2B, 2C, 2E and 2F. In addition, when the City acquired parcel 4, the court deleted from parcel 4 the eastern most portion as defined by an existing fence. We would also like..." Mayor Ferre: Is that the water? Mr. Grimm: The access is the water. "We would also like an estimate of that strip of land plus all of the waterfront area that would run to the eastern boundary cf parcel 2A." The parcel numbers are identified and I read this drawing and I have passed a copy of it. Now when I phoned Mr. Wilson, Mr. Wilson was unfortunately out of town till Monday so we had to guess so we did. Mayor Ferre: Well when is the court case actually coming up? Mrs. Gordon: Where does the $8,000,000 come in? I don't understand your $8,000,000 figure. Mr. Grimm: Alright, if you look down this chart, Mrs. Gordon, you'll see each one of these parcels identified with an area assigned. So taking and adding those up and assigning $800,000 per acre to them, that's where the $8,000,000 comes in. Mrs. Gordon: ...we delineate what $8,000,000 will buy. Mr. Grimm: Everything west of this line plus this little parcel here. Mr. Plummer: With the exception, Rose, of the railroad right-of-way. Mr. Grimm: With the exception of this strip of railroad right-of-way and recognizing that we may have to increase this with 50 or more additional feet because we know that subsequently the County plans to run another rail spur to the port and we also might have to provide this parcel of land access from the Boulevard. Mayor Ferre: Well let me ask you this question. I've got two questions. First of all,... Mrs. Gordon: We were not voting for this? Mayor Ferre: That has not been decided, Mrs. Gordon, that's what's being discussed now. In other words, I've got two questions. How did you arrive at the figure of $8,000,000 and I guess once you answer that one, then I think what you did is you said well what $8,000,000 worth of land do we want and you drew a line some- where. Is that how you came about this? Mr. Grassie: No. Mayor Ferre: Well how did you,,, Why t$,000,000 NIM JAN e 1977 Mr, 'Orassie' The line, because this is a line that defines existing pardels. These parcels happen to be existing... Mayor Ferret Okay, so we've backed into the $8,000,000 - figure. Mr. Grassie: Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: Okay, let me, for the record, say several things in here. First of all, Mr. Dan Paul, local attorney, has been active in trying to act as an ombudsman to the community in trying to put this whole thing together. The first thing that he did, going way back into last year, he went to the then Manager, Ray Goode, and tried to work out some kind of a land swap and as it ended up, it ended up in the hands of a fellow named Bill Law? Mr. Grimm: With the County Manager's Office? Mayor Ferre: Yes, I think Bill Law is his name. He's the Assistant County Manager and I went over to see him at Mr. Paul's request and at that time, of course, the idea that he was proposing was, and I want to say that it broke down completely because it ended up being something else completely different, was that we would have Lummus Island appraised and then we would have this property appraised. the idea was that the County would give, this is Dan Paul's basic idea, that the County would give the FEC a piece of property on Lummus Island once they put a bridge and developed it as a port, as a permanent sort, and that we, in turn, would end up with this piece of property but as it ended up, the County didn't propose that at all. They would take over Lumus Island and they would pay us, as it ended up, some ridiculous sum of money and then we would... (INAUDIBLE) Mayor Ferre: What? Mr. Grassie: 21 or $3,000,000. Mayor Ferre: 21 or $3,000,000, we would end up with nothing, still stuck with the FEC and the City would end up getting nothing out of it so at that point I said, well, that doesn't make any sense and so that was kind of... And then the next idea came up which was, why don't we give Bicentennial Park, Bayfront Park and all of our Bayfront property to Metropolitan Dade County and I said that I personally would go for that provided, however, two things were done. One, that the County would come up with the full amount of money to take this property other than the 31 that we've already put up or locked into putting up and that they would finish the development of this property the way Edward Doral Stone had drawn it. Well of course they didn't want to take it on those conditions because that would be committing too much money to the downtown area so we're back to page 1 or ground zero again. In the meantime, the law case is moving ahead and we've got to kind of make up our mind what we want to do. Now Dan Paul called me again on Friday or last week sometime and he said, you know, you are heading for a major embarrasment in the City because in the first place, I get the scuttlebut that the FEC is going to come up with very, very strong recommendations that this property is worth an excess of $40,000,000 and that they're going to really bring in the documentation for it, number one. Number two, if you keep on horsing around with this thing, you're going to end up with the same situation you had at Ballpoint, you're going to have to back out of the situation, be highly embarrassed and somebody is going to sue you for $1,000,000 worth of law fees and appraisal fees and what -have -you. Number three, you don't have sufficient money to buy this piece of property so I would recommend that you go back to the idea of giving all of this to the County plus your bond money. So I said, well Dan, there is just no way that anybody on the Commission, in my feeling, that would even get near to accepting something as absurd as that and he said, well... I said, well, the other alternative Mr. Grassie has recommended and we have to talk about it in the Commission is that we modify the lawsuit and take as much as we possibly can with the money that we have under our own appraisal under the theory that our own appraiser, Mr. Wilson, says that this land is worth 22 to $25,000,000. Now when you go into a lawsuit of condemnation or taking of property and you take a piece of property and you go up before a court and you yourself say it's worth between 22 and 25 and the other guy says it's worth 40, most Juries will make a decision somewhere in the middle that's certainly not going to decide for any less than what we say it's worth so if we say it's worth 22, just to use the smallest figure that we've got, and the Jury awards us, then we have to come up with $22,000,000. Now the fact is that the City of Miami does not have $22,000,000 and if it did, I think there is some very serious question as to whether or not the people of Miami, under these conditions, and the City r-• J JAN t,1377 COMMitSiont would put $22,000,000 to buy 35 acres of land. Now we might, I don't knot, that's something that has to be discussed by the Commission. Now in the meantime today, and this was not at my request, it just came in completely, this Came in after a meeting, that's for the record, I had a meeting with Joe Grassie, Alvah Chapman and Dan Paul at Alvah Chapman's request. The purpose of that meeting was to discuss this whole matter because the Chamber of Commerce is very concerned about the direct'.on we're taking since Mr. Dan Paul has been saying that the City of Miami is going to lose this case and that we're going to get embarrassed again and nothing is going to happen and he wants to bring this matter to a head. We discussed, more or less, what's been said here this afternoon with 'Alvah Chapman and his capacity as Chairman of the Downtown Committee for the Chamber and Lan Paul as an Attorney who has been interested in this whole thing. I received today the following letter dated January 24th addressed to myself, as Mayor, and Joseph Grassie. "Dear Maurice and Joe:", this is from Alvah Chapman with a copy to Dan Paul. "I have discussed the FEC park situation with a number of our community leaders. The consensus is that the City should proceed in court to condemn the FEC property using whatever resources are available to complete the condemnation. Following such condemnation or negotiated purchase that results therefrom, the basic question of Dade County taking over the City of Miami's parks would be open for discussion. I will be in California for a few days but will be back in the office on Thursday, the 26th if you would like to discuss this. Warmest personal regards. Sincerely yours, Alvah Chapman." Now that was a joint letter to Joe Grassie and myself. Now, this recommendation is pretty heavy. What he's saying is proceed the battle, win, and then we will discuss who comes up with the money. Now the problem with that is that that is all very nice but we're going to paint ourselves into a box where some Jury is going to end up awarding this thing and then we don't have the money and we've got a very serious matter in our hands and then we're going to be completely without defenses because for us to proceed at that point, we're going to have to concede everything that the County is going to want and all I'm saying is, before I get married, I want to know what the conditions of the marriage are going to be. I want to know who's going to give what and how much and when and where and what we get out of it because otherwise, we are in one hell of a bind. Mr. ?lummer: Well let me ask this question. Why are we even going to court with an appraisal of $22,000,000? Mayor Ferre: Well how else are you going to take the property? Mr. Plummer: Were you going to go to court with that yo—yo's appraisal who got us into trouble in the first place and that's Saul Bennett whose appraisal said what? Mayor Ferre: We're not using him. Mr. Plummer: Now wait a minute. What did his appraisal say? Mr. Grimm: I don't remember. Mr. Plummer: How about just under $10,000,000 or right at $10,000,000. Mayor Ferre: When was that, J. L.? Mr. Plummer: That was what we passed the bond issue on, his appraisal of that one being worth about 8 or 7 and the other one at Ballpoint being worth about 7 or 8, we've already been embarrassed there, this is something I've been screaming about for four years. You're going to win the battle and lose the war. Now what I want to know is, you had that appraisal of Saul Bennett to originally go out and establish a figure for the bond issue. Now let me tell you something. If you go into court with any other appraisal other than that one, then I'm telling you that somebody, in my estimation, is making a damn serious mistake based on what the Mayor has said. Mayor Ferre: Excuse me, J. L., let me tell you what the problem is. Under the law, and George, you correct me now, under the law you've got to go in there with the current appraiser, you cannot go with an... What was the year of that bond issue? When was that? Mr. Anderson: It was a 1972 bond issue. Mayor Ferre: You can't go in there with a 1972 app a property in February of 1977. JAN N 1977, Mr. 0rassie: The most important consideration, in my estimation, is that we not kid ourselves. Regardless of what Bennett or anybody says, we've got to know What we're going to expect out of this process and if we're going to expect that we're going to have to pay at least $20,000,000, let's not get into it and after we're over our head, then we're deciding that it's a bad deal. Let's just not get into it. Mayor Ferre: Well what is your recommendation, Joe? Mr. Grassie: It seems to me that there are only two intelligent courses of action that represent anything like an alternative for the City. One is to decide that you're going to re -zone, that you're going to be willing to re- zone this property, go to the FEC and try to strike a bargain with them so that they will develop it in a way that is compatible to you and I don't know whether you'll succeed. Mrs. Gordon: It is presently zoned C-1. Mr. Grassie: Yes, but the point is that they want it C-5. Mayor Ferre: What is C-1? Mrs. Gordon: Local Commercial. Mayor Ferre: Well how can they have a C-1, I don't understand this whole thing. Mrs. Gordon: Because it is there as non -conforming. Mayor Ferre: Well can't we take them to court and stop them from using it as an industrial... Mr. Anderson: We're involved in litigation on that. Mayor Ferre: Yes but isn't that the first thing to determine because obviously we can stop them from using that as a port. It seems to me that we've knocked their basic argument out. Shouldn't we go to court on that one before we do anything else? Mr. Anderson: Well we're in court on that. Their contention is that we would be interfering with Interstate Commerce which comes under the United States Constitution and is superior to our local zoning law and we are in court on it but we haven't proceeded... Mayor Ferre: I've got news for you. That's exactly what Mr. Ball told me 5 years - ago when I first, or 7 years ago. He said, after you've finished with us and the state court, we will take you to federal court and then we'll take it all Zt the way to the Supreme court and I want you to... Mr. Plummer: Alright, what's the rest of your recommendation? Mr. Grassie: So that's one alternative is to try and not get into court with these people but negotiate something with them. I don't know whether that's possible because of the terrible history that we have with these birds. The other alternative is to try to go into court with an amending plea. Change our plea, not try to condemn the whole thing, go for something that we can afford, and then we can make it real. So either we try to negotiate for redevelopment of the property to achieve whatever your objective is, whatever you decide your objective is, and it can't be for park purposes because they're not going to redevelop parks obviously, that's one alternative. The other is to change our plea and take as much as we can afford. Mrs. Gordon: ... How long do they have to operate under non -conforming use? Is it endless, timeless? Mr. Anderson: No, it was 5 years and what happened was, this is not non -conforming, they expanded onto the property that they've built and our argument was that you can't expand under non -conforming use and their argument was that you can't interfere with Interstate Commerce by local zoning and our argument back was, well we're not interfering with it, you knew what the zoning regulations were on the property, you filled it and now you've expanded onto it and that's where we stand -- Mrs. Gordon: Are we still in court on it? Mr. Anderson; And we're still in court on it. JAN 2191 Mrs. Cordon: bkay4 then why should We decide we've drowned when gene uhdet? Mayor 'ette: :What judge is considering this? Mt. Anderson: I think it's Judge Kehoe. Mayor Ferre: Well let me ask you this. SHouldn't we ask judge Kehoe that we don't want to hear anything else until he decides on the merits of that Caae because that obviously will determine as to what our second step is. Mr. Anderson: Well in this lieu we felt that the condemnation case would eliminate that case if we took the property... Mayor Ferre: Well we don't have the money right now to take the property so the question simply is this. Can't we ask the Judge, say Judge, before we decide what we're going to do and proceed and go forward on this condemnation, you've got to rule as to whether or not we're right on the fact that these people can't use this property for this purpose. Mr. Grassie: Have we said that or have we said they can't expand? Mr. Anderson: We said they couldn't expand their industrial use, the waterfront industrial use onto that property. Mr. Grassie: But they can always use the original... Mayor Ferre: They filled it and they can't have any water now. Mrs. Gordon: Let me explain the whole situation because this is something we've lived with for a long, long time and I don't know about, I'm not going to argue merits of the appraisal and the value, I'm not going to argue the point but there is a point to be considered because at the time of the original appraisal, this was all water and even on the basis that split up the value of water as compared to the value of land... Now if we have taken that into consideration in the valuation of today's market, I don't know but nevertheless, when it was land and water, they operated the activities that they needed in this area. When they filled it, they went on land that was not grandfathered and they started using the vessels in here. I agree with Maurice that this determination should be the first determination. If, in fact, they have no claim in that regard, then our whole picture changes because of value. Mr. Anderson: The value is going to be the highest investments anyhow, it won't really change. Their argument is similar to what you said. They used it, it was used as a seaport before only there was the waterfront and now it's still a seaport only they have filled in and it's used with storage and so forth so they're using it for the same purpose even though it was water before and land now, that's their counter argument to ours. Mr. Grassie: Well what is your estimation about the City's chance of bringing the case on their not being able to use this as they are? Mr. Anderson: I think we'd have a tough time with the... Mayor Ferre: In Dan Paul's opinion, we're going to get whipped. Mr. Anderson: Well I don't say that, I just say we're going to have a tough time and I don't know. Mayor Ferre: Furthermore, Dan Paul's opinion is this. He said, the longer we take in making this decision, the weaker we are because the more the property is worth and the less money we're going to have because we're going to eat away at the money all the time like we've done and therefore we've got to get on with this thing quickly because what the FEC wants is to keep stalling it because the longer they stall it, the better off they are. Mr, Grassie: Could I suggest then that maybe what you have instead of the two alternatives that I talked about is three and in addition to the two is to agree to re -zone and to work with the developer and purchase a piece. In addition to those two, you have a third alternative which is to pull out all the stops and get ,is much legal counsel as you can and try to win the case. Mrs. Gordon; I'd go that route. 4� JAN 2 6 1977 Mr. Orabsie: Now if you lose, you're in real tough shape. Mayor Ferre: Well what do you mean "lose"? There's no way we can lose. The only thing that has to be determined is the value, not our tight to take. Mr. Grassie: That's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about if you Inge the case that has to do with whether or not they are allowed to fill. Mayor Ferre: You mean the zoning aspects of it. Mr. Grassie: The zoning, the first case. Mayor Ferre: Which the odds are that we're going to lose. Mr. Grassie: Well I have been told that and I've been operating on that assumption. Now if I'm wrong, then my calculations change. Mayor Ferre: Now at that point, once we lose that, then we go on to the taking of the property but what Dan Paul says is that that's exactly what the FEC wants us to do because what the FEC is going to do if we narrow our arguments down to the zoning aspects of it, is they're going to hear this thing, take it to court, they've got all these lawyers on retainers that'll take six months and if they lose there, they're going to appeal it and then it goes to an Appellate Court and then they're going to go to the Supreme Court of Florida. And then after they've gone to the Supreme Court of Florida, they're going to go to Federal Court and they're going to say this is a federal matter because this is intervention in Interstate Commerce and blah, blah, blah and then they're going to go for federal jurisdiction and they're going to start the same process all over again and what he says is, with all due respects to you fellows, is that their Attorneys are smarter than our Attorneys and they're going to keep this thing in court for a long, long time and you're just kidding yourself and what they're saying is there's only one of two things... What Dan Paul is saying is, you have three choices. One, you drop the whole thing; two, you do what Joe Grassie is recommending which is take a piece of park property which he is violently opposed to because it leaves the FEC operating a seaport in the middle of our park; and three, that we go for a total condemnation of the property immediately, vigorously, forcefully, win it and then sit down, according to Alvah Chapman's letter, and negotiate who is going to come up with the money. The problem with that is that if we're snookered into that position and it's not a question of winning or losing, there is no winning and losing, we've already won. The question is how much do we have to pay for it?, and once we get to that bottom line and the Judge says, gentlemen, the Jury says it's worth $25,000,000, then the City of Miami either has to come up with the $25,000,000, drop the case and be embarrassed and pay a million or . two million dollars in legal fees and so on, or find somebody to come in and come up with the money. At that point, we've got to go with our begging hat to the State and to the County and that's exactly where Dan Paul wants to put us becau:,,e at that point, that's the end of the City of Miami because at that stage of the game they're going to say, alright, you got into this bind, now you get out of it and for us to get you out, we want this and this and that including the Police Department. Mr. Anderson: George is asking me to give you our legal position. Let me explain one thing. I don't think that with $14,000,000 and an appraisal for $25,000,000 or $20,000,000 that we can go in and go for this property in good faith because you have to deposit that money in 20 days and you know you're not going to get anything out of anybody in 20 days. Mr. Plummer: Where does this appraisal of $24,000,000 come from? Mr. Anderson: Well let me explain. You said Saul Bennett's appraisal was 10, I thought it was 15 but you have to remember that when he appraised the property, that land was not filled in. Mr. Plummer: Mike, answer my question. Where does the appraisal of $24,000,000 come from? Mr. Anderson: This comes from J. I. Wilson, Mr, Grassie: But it is not an appraisai, it is an estimate based oiyal of these three parks... Mayor Ferre; Well who asked him to 4 0 kw JAN 26 19; Mr. ' 1Uer: `hat's what tied getting at. Mayor Verret Who asked Wilson to get in the middle of all the' Mr. Anderson: We asked Wilson to appraise Mayor Perre: Who's "we"? Mr. Anderson: The Law Department, to go for the order of takingthe quick these three, we had to get an appraisal in court. Mayor Ferre: Who made that decision? John Lloyd? Paul Andrews? e Oh Mr. Anderson: Yes, I think it was John Lloyd and probably went to the Commission to get authorization to pay him for it. Then we asked him to come up with some sort of an estimate for the remainder of the tracts because everybody was asking what it was going to cost so we could figure this thing out and he said well, someplace between 171 million and 222 million, say 20 million for the remainder of the and now we're talking 23.6 and that's with that cost and everything else. Mr. Plummer: Alright, let's bring it to a head. Mr. Anderson: I'd like to just tell you what our position is on these parcels in court just so that you know. We own these parcels subject to the appeal that the FEC is taking. The lower court has given us these three parcels without hashed yellow area. Now the way it happened was I think if we had owned that we would have the riparian rights to the remainder of that submerged land so that the court allowed tnem to break it off at the fence. And the FEC took an appeal on two grounds. Number one is jurisdictional grounds and they said we never had a proper authorizing resolution to begin with when we started this lawsuit in 1971. If that appeal succeeds, in other words, if they succeed on that point, it would mean that we would have to start all over again. Mr. Grassie: In the lower court. Mr. Anderson: We'd have to file a new petition all over again. And the reason it happened was that the Commission passed a resolution saying the City Attorney is authorized to condemn 33 acres of land, of the FEC land on the east side of Biscayne Boulevard between 6 and 9th streets. The Statute says in the condemnation petition you must state the legal description, you must state the type of estate you want to take, fee simple, we want it, the total estate, they said that you have to have surveyed your property and so forth. Well that's what is required by the Statute in the petition. Now the court decisions have said that you have to have all of that in a resolution because how can an attorney go in and decide that you have to do all of that in a petition. Mayor Ferre: And we didn't. Mr. Anderson: We didn't. Now what happened was, a few days after the suit was filed, you did have a proper authorizing resolution but the courts have said in later cases it has shown that that's not sufficient. Our argument is that those cases were later and were decided later and that we obtain jurisdiction at the time. So that is where we stand. Mayor Ferre: When is that particular case coming up? Mr. Anderson: We have argued the appeal and we're just waiting for a decision. Whoever loses more will obviously go to the Supreme Court on that. The other point that they made was they claimed that our expert witnesses at the lower court did not testify as to the needs of these three particular parcels, separate and apart for the whole tract That the testimony related to the need for the whole tr:3c:t ussummir.g ue were going to get the whole tract and not separating these three parcels out. We have taken fairly good position against both of those points. Mayor Ferre: When are these appellate matters going to be decided, in your opinion? Mr. Anderson: I expect a decision shortly. Mayor Ferre; A month? Six months? A year? Mr. Anderson; Within a month I would hope to see something come down from the Appellate Court and then one side or the other is going to be going to the Supreme Court. !In'ill 1IIIIIIIII PIIIIIIIII,@IIIIII!,RI JAN 2 61P7 Mts. Gordon: Do you knc ►hether or not Guy Bailey is mf ".ng with any successor on Ball Point? I have nut been in touch with him. Mr. Anderson: I've always believed that we didn't have any title for that, Mts. Gordon: You're not in touch with it, you don't know. Mr. Anderson: I got a small bill from him. Mts. Gordon: Under that Statute that he claims that we have a tight to the was filled, why wouldn't we have the same right to this one that is filled? land th t Mr. Anderson: We've alleged in that the complaint that the FEC is the owner of the property to begin with. The problem with that whole thing was that it said subject to the rights of the riparian owner. It only gave us right, title and interest which was subject to the rights of the riparian owner and the riparian owner had rights, at that time, to fill it in. Mayor Ferre: Let me further claim that that particular item on Dupont Plaza and Ball Point was a very specific area that went back when that land was filled, 80 or 90 years ago and that was the question on the title but that has nothing to do with this particular area. Mrs. Gordon: 1919, as I understood that Statute, it pertained to this is in the same local vicinity. I am not an attorney. Mr. Anderson: I'm just saying that our deed read that we had the subject to the rights of the riparian owner.. Bayfront Park and baybottom land Mayor Ferre: While we're on the other subject, that's a matter that we really have to discuss openly and publicly tomorrow but it certainly seems to me that we've paid how much, $25,000, I heard that full amount has been paid and I think that fellow ought to, it's been a year or a year and a half, I think he owes us the decent courtesy to come and give us a report as to where he stands. Mrs. Gordon: He is still working on it. The briefs were sent over and distributed. You've got a copy of the brief, Maurice. Mayor Ferre: But that was about six months ago. Would you ask the Attorneys to report to the Commission whenever they feel ready, in the next month or so. Mrs. Gordon: Anyway, coming back again, I missed your earlier discussion so I don't know the significance of Dan Paul's... Mayor Ferre: You came in almost at the beginning. Mrs. Gordon: Yes but Danny Paul was what you referred to as a trade with Lummus, didn't get that point. What was the point of that? Mayor Ferre: The idea was that the City of Miami has something the County wants, Lummus Island; the FEC has something the City wants, the FEC property on Bayfront Park; so the original idea was, alright, City, you give the County Lummus Island, County, you take care of the FEC with a private port somewhere in the County port and FEC, you give the City of Miami this property. In theory, that's all very nice except that when you get to the dollars and cents, what would happen is this. We would get $3,000,000 for Lummus Island, according to them... Mrs. Gordon: Is that the price they put on it? Mayor Ferre: That's the County -appraised price, they say that's what it's worth and we've got to come up with $20,000,000 and then... Mr. Grassie: Besides that, the FEC would have the right to stay on this property for 10 years until the County developed Lummus Island. We pay $20,000,000 for this, lose Lummus Island and have the port there for 10 years. Mr. Grimm: And then thirdly, on top of that, the County wouldn't pay us the 31 million until they paid off the existing debt on the port. Mayor Ferre: Insult to injury. This is the most unbelievable... The arrogance of these people to even suggest that and with a complete straight face and Dan Paul is all upset because he says that we're a bunch of fools, that we're going to have to end up doing that anyway. Mr. Plummer; Let's forget about Dan Paul, let's decide, 11 JAN 2 6 1S:' i Mayor ter±et When 1 say ban pattlb 1 Meah the Chamber of Commerce. Mts. Gordon: Is that a possiblity? Has that even been done where the two goveinmelts go together and join hands in... Mayor Ferre: Are you talking about the County? I specifically requested the County, thru Ray Goode, to do this and I've talked to several of the Commissioners including Steve Clark and the answer from Ray Goode is, the only way that we'll do it is if you give up the whole Bayfront Park including Bicentennial Park plus the bond money. Now what kind of a deal is that? (INAUDIBLE) Mrs. Gordon: ...well I don't know where we're going but go somewhere. Mr. Grassie: Again, the alternatives that I see, and I don't think that doing nothing is an alternative, I don't think that simply backing off the problem that we've created for ourselves in the last 5 years is an alternative because as you say, it's going to cost us a million dollars just to drop it. Mayor Ferre: And the credibility factor. Mrs. Gordon: We're going to look like first class fools in the eyes of the taxpayers of the City of Miami because we had a bond issue passed which we promised them. Mr. Plummer: Do you want a motion? Mayor Ferre: No, we can't make motions here. Mr. Grassie: Two alternatives... Mayor Ferre: Oh, yes we can, you're right, I'm sorry. Mr. Grassie: One alternative is to try to take part of the property and the other alternative is to try and work out development of this property with the FEC. Mayor Ferre: Alright, let me give you my reaction to it and then let whoever wants to make a motion. In the first place, I agree with the premise that we cannot back off, I just think we're i:oo far into this thing to do nothing so I agree with that. That, to me, is not a libel alternative. Number two, I am not and totally against proceeding with this thing for a total condemnation unless we have earmarked specifically, before we get into the amount of money that our appraiser says it's going to cost us and that means that, in answer to Alvah Chapman's recommendation, the only way the City... I would vote for the City proceeding to take that property if the County commits to us beforehand, and the State, that they will come up with the money and what the conditions are for them coming up with the money and aside from that, I'm not for proceeding on something which legally our City Attorney has just told us that it is not legal for us to proceed because it would be a subterfuge, in fact, since we would be acting in bad faith. In other words, we cannot go into a con- demnation suit when our own appraiser is going to say it's worth $20,000,000 when we don't have $20,000,000, that would be bad faith. Mr. Grassie: Put it in the bank immediately. Mayor Ferre: And whatever lawyer took that matter on would be debarred if he were privied to that information and therefore, what I'm saying is that that, in my opinion, is not a choice so that leaves us with only one choice and that's the Manager's recommendation that we proceed with the taking of whatever property we have for whatever money we decide and that we simultaneously tell Metropolitan Dade County and tell the State that we are willing to reinstitute the taking of the whole property if they're willing the come up with the short fall of the monies between what we have and what we estimate it's going to cost to take it. Mr. Grassie: In other words, in your suggestion you're eliminating the possibility of going for a redevelopment? Mayor Ferre: I don't know how we can do that, Joe. I think that may be a secondary step for some future Commission to take up after we've gone through this whole mess because I'm surely not going to be around to do it. Mr. Anderson: Could I make one suggestion. If we go for this and we're still fighting on removing them from the other portion of the property, maybe we are in some position of strength to say that you can't agree to zone it and it might be distasteful i 7 JAN to 1eaVe that operation there but nevertheless we could say that we'll study it, we could study that area in light o Maybe dropping the lawsuit against theft and changing the zoning to something that would, Maybe oh the outskirts, be able to fit with the park. Mayor Ferre: Like what? Mr. Anderson: Listen, enough landscaping and enough, you could live with practically anything... Mayor Ferre: Dan Paul and the Chamber of Commerce and Alvah Chapman are convinced that the FEC really doesn't care about a port, they think that what they're really doing is that they're using that as a wedge because the real value of this eventually is high-rises. I don't believe that, I really don't. I really think that those people fully intend to use that as a port for as long as they can. Mr. Grassie: Commissioner, let's assume that you're right. I think you may be right. Let's assume that the real motivation is economic with the FEC. Now where is the interest of the City? Are we automatically opposed to their developing that? Mr. Plummer: For high-rise or for what? Mr. Grassie: You can't develop a $20,000,000 parcel of this size for anything except high-rise. Mrs. Gordon: We will have bad faith with the voters of the City of Miami when we went to them and passed the $39,000,000 bond issue in order to have total open space on the waterfront from the point to the Expressway and I don't see how in the world we could deviate from that in any way and I would prefer that we negotiate with the County on joint venture than to contemplate giving in or knuckling into the FEC or any other project developer on the waterfront. I'm going to tell you another thing. It's not going to be easy to refuse them a C-3, what is equivalent is C-3, when you have the OMNI sub -division just a few blocks down with a heavy intensity and this C-1, you have to face that. (INAUDIBLE) Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Grassie: the property. from now of Mayor Ferre: Mr. Grassie: No, but from the zoning aspect, that woulc be terrible. Commissioner, let's assume that we're successful here and take this part of I think you ought to ask your Attorneys what chance we stand two years denying a re -zoning of this. That's what she just said, she just agreed with that. Yes, but that's the position we are headed for. Mrs. Gordon: Well I, personally, never have been totally convinced that these three parcels were the right thing to do because Biscayne Boulevard has got to be straightened out and widened and all we were really doing is making the land available for the state, for the federal government since this is a federal highway. What we're really doing, and I don't think they're going to pay us what we're paying for it. Mr. Grassie: What's the chance that they'll pay for right-of-way? Mayor Ferre: Can't take it any other way, unless you gave it to them. Mr. Grimm: Unless you give it to them, they can't take it any other way but what happens to you if you get yourself in this bind, since that is a primary road, the federal government won't spend primary funds for acquisition right-of-way, they pass it down to the state and the state, in turn, passes it down to the County and the County winds up using secondary funds to acquire right-of-way. Mr. Grassie: They don't build any of our secondary roads. Mayor Ferre: That may be, but the point is that if we had to purchase that property and we've had to take it the hard way... Mr, Grimm: You could get your money back, Mayor Ferre: No question about it, 33 JAN 2C197' Mr, Grassie: Unless the City Commission wants the project. The question is,'okay► you wait the project, where's the land. Mr. Grimm: Right, and that could happen to you, it has happened before. Mrs. Gordon: Now the question is how much money would they be giving us for the right-of-way that they would be taking to help us offset the total cost of that, position? They want it, everybody is talking about it, it's going to be widened and straightened out, there's going to be a parkway... Mayor Ferre: Yes, they want it but they want it with our money. Mr. Grimm: You have to assume this, Mrs. Gordon, I think, at least at this stage of the game the value of the right-of-way wouldn't be anymore than the value of the land that you're paying for. Mrs. Gordon: I agree. Mr. Grimm: So at best, then you'd get into... Mrs. Gordon: But that was refused to the amount of dollars that would have to be paid by us in the court because the actual land area that we would be requiring would be... Mr. Grimm: Area wise, you might be talking about $1,000,000. Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Anderson: Mr. Grassie: what the City Mayor Ferre: I would imagine it would be more than that. You could put out another 100 feet if it's 100 feet from Biscayne... You give some direction to the staff, Mr. Mayor, you want to find out Commission thinks about... Yes, Plummer is about to make a motion. Mr. Plummer: I'm willing to make the motion. one thing you can do in my estimation and that modify our procedures report or our application That's what we can afford and I'll tell you, as you can do anything else so I'll make a motion case from whatever the indication of the map is my motion. As far as I'm concerned, there's only is to take from the blue line west, report from the blue line west. far as I'm concerned, I don't think at this time that we modify our court from the blue line west and that's Mayor Ferre: Alright, is there a second to the motion? Is that your recommendation, Mr. Manager? Mr. Grassie: It is one of the two recommendations that I have, yes. Mayor Ferre: Is there a second to that motion? Rev. Gibson: I'll second that motion. Mayor Ferre: Alright, now under discussion. May I ask that your motion be modified to this extent. Number one, that we follow the Manager's recommendation to modify, so instruct our Attorney, from the blue line on this map west. Number two, that we, in writing, immediately notify the County Manager, the Mayor and the County Commission that we do not have the monies available in our estimation to complete this the way we had originally intended because 5 years have gone by and it seems that there are some questions as to the values as we originally perceive them and as to what we think it's worth now. Therefore, we inform the County of what our action is and ask them to joint venture on the taking of the whole property on a 50-50 basis and request that they earmark, either decade or progress bond money or any other sources that they would feel appropriate. Number three, that we write a letter to the Governor of the State of Florida with a copy to the members of the Cabinet asking them, doing the same thing as in number two and asking the state to participate in this project on a priority basis. Number four, that we send the identical type of letter drafted again by the Manager and passed in resolution form or a copy by this resolution, to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House with copies to the heads of the Dade Delegation for Disemination in the Dade Delegation to ask them to take this up in this legislative session on a priority basis to see if we can get state participation on this important project of land preservation throughout the state. And lastly, that a copy of all of this be sent to the Chamber of Commerce and ask them to support our position and help us put all this together. JAN' ►9/? Gordon: 1 think that it is not time to retreat at this time when all the Other things that you have said indicate, really, willingness not to retreat aht the motion was seconded. I'm going to vote against it... I don't want to retreat. I want to go for the whole hike. I went out and campaigned for that 1Ond issue and I worked day and night and promised the people something and I'm trot about ready to back out without trying first to acquire the whole thing. Mayor Ferre: Rose, for the record I want to state again that I have met with representatives of the County, namely Mr. Law as requested by Ray Goode and then Aeting County Manager, Dewey Knight, and that the offer that the County has made to the City at that point is'completely unacceptable, that they want the bond Money, they want all of Bayfront Park and Lummus Island to boot, and that that just is not an acceptable joint venture. Mrs. Gordon: We can still retreat in our condemnation suit at a later date. Mayor Ferre: But there is no later date because this is coming up for court hearing within the next few weeks or less. Mr. Anderson: Let me say that we've put off the court hearing awhile ago pending the negotiation settlement which has never arrived at anything. Mr. Grassie: Which I have worked with the management and in person other than with the President of the FEC and I gave them a number of proposals but nothing that he would buy or that we could accept. Mr. Anderson: We have not set a date for the necessity hearing. We've got to still prove that the railroad is not using it therefore we have a greater right to take it than the railroad. That was when the first case went up to the Supreme Court... Mayor Ferre: Well when is that going to come up for a hearing? Mr. Anderson: We have to set that date up and what we wanted to do was find out what the Commission's decision was going to be before we... Mayor Ferre: Then I'll tell you that under those circumstances, in my opinion, even though I would like to then, J. L., ask again that it be reworded to this extent, that we say that that is our fallback decision but that we not tip our hand yet until this matter be followed up in court as Mike just expressed to see where we stand on that. Because there's no use in our coming to a conclusion at this point when it's not time to do any of this. Mr. Plummer: We don't have to retreat at this point, then don't, but what I would say to you is this. If we immediately, through the Manager, who will draft a letter to submit to the Commission for approval, put on notice the state and the county that there are problems existing and that if they cannot see their way clear to assist the people of this community to use this on a regional basis that the City is possibly faced with an alternative, a modification of our lawsuit. I have no objection to that. If we don't have to retreat at this time, let's don't but let me here again, and I'm sorry to have to be the one, I have no faith whatsoever in the fact that the county or the state will help us. Mayor Ferre: I think that's quite correct. Mr. Plummer: I have no faith in that at all. I'm willing to try but you're kidding yourselves. Mrs. Gordon: J. L., I think we should have an actual appraisal, not a guestimate or an estimate, but a modified appraisal... Mr. Anderson: You want us to go and try and get this whole necessity approved with the entire thing. Mrs. Gordon: Yes. Mr. Anderson: I'll just throw this out. It may not occur but when we drop off part of it, they're going to say well you just proved necessity to the whole thing, you didn't prove in a court that you needed just this piece. Mayor Ferre: Oh, well that changes everything, you didn't tell us that, Mr. Anderson: Well that's what I'm saying. THey're going to pick up everything they can,,, 1.5 JAN 2 6 1977 Mayor Ferret Look, 1 don't know why you guys and lady have a big hangup about ban Paul but there is one thing about ban Paul be he whatever he May be, he is a stet lawyer. Mrs. Gordon: You never heard me dispute that. Mayor Ferre: And I'm going to tell you something. He told me, you either gotta fish or cut bait. Now you've got to make up your mind which one because if you keep on playing and stalling, you are going to end up not having anything, you're going... Mr. Plummer: Mr. Grassie, our time ran out, sir, before the bond issue ever went to the public... Mayor Ferre: Because it was a completely unreasonable and illogical bond issue, that's why. Mr. Grassie: Anyway, I'm trying to make the best of the situation that we've gotten ourselves into in the last 5 years and let me suggest to you that we cannot continue to kid ourselves. If we don't have the money and if there's no expectation, and I agree with Commissioner Plummer, there's no expectation that we're going to get money from anybody else, let's not kid ourselves. We'll work ourselves into a hole. It's simply not responsible to talk about doing something you can't afford to do. Mayor Ferre: That's why my recommendation, J. L., is not we ought to pass that, I'm for it but I think it ought to that that's the intent of this Commission and we tell the our orders to these attorneys who are representing us and a reasonable amount of time, you're instructed to proceed to kill your motion, I think be conditioned on the premise state and we tell that that's if they don't come up within this way. Mr. Plummer: Talking about 60 days from Monday before the Legislature even meets. Mr. Grassie: Let me tell you that it is strictly my estimation, I think that at any time the FEC can ask for this case to be put on the docket and that it will be put on the docket within two weeks. Mr. Anderson: The threat was that, look, I'm going to give you continuance but this is a 1971 case and if you don't come to some reason, I may put it on the court docket. The FEC probably will never want it to go on court docket because they're going to delay it as long as they can. Mr. Plummer: Mayor Ferre: Mr. Plummer: Mayor Ferre: Mr. Plummer: Mayor Ferre: I think it's that came to tell me that money and we Mr. Mayor, I'm going to make another motion. Wait a minute, you've got a motion on the floor. No, I'm going to withdraw that motion and I'm going to make another motion. Well what do you do then? Very simple, Amen. Okay, you ready? No, before you do that, there's something that I want, this is important. important that you recognize...I remember now. I wanted to ask a question mind. I think about two or three years ago my memory is beginning to we passed a motion asking the State and the County to come up with some wrote the Governor because I remember writing and signing the darn letter. Mr. Anderson: That was on Ballpoint because you didn't have the money that your appraiser had said that it would probably cost. Mayor Ferre: Would you get a copy of that somewhere, Mr. Ongie, because I think we've already done what we're talking about. Mr. Plummer: That's exactly why I'm saying that we don't... Mrs. Gordon: Can we go home and go to sleep on this? Mr. Plummer: If my motion fails, you can. Mr. Mayor, my motion is very simple That the City modify its application for acquiring the property that which we can afford and that we modify our application to the courts to be all property west of the blue line. Mrs, Gordon: That's what you said before, JAN 2 6 197 ? Mr. PluMtter: That's right and I'M now reiterating... Mrs. Gordon: But you realize you hurt yourself in this case that's pending, Mr. Plummer: Rose, it's not a pending case, you're never going to be able to afford that. You don't have it, where are you going to get it? Mayor Ferre: Alright, you don't want to put any other... Mrs. Gordon: Could we table this motion for 30 days or two weeks or a week? Mayor Ferre: You could make a motion to table, there's no question about that. Is that a motion? Mrs. Gordon: I'm asking you. We're not in a formal session and I'm asking you, stop sparring with each other and let's get down to business. I'm asking you to consider the reasonableness of not passing that motion today because I think it's premature. I realize that you've had meetings and you've had meetings but there are other of us who have not had meetings. Mayor Ferre: We were struggling with this thing since 1971. Mrs. Gordon: We have not been kept up to date on this thing and it's the first time that I'm getting all the facts about it and... Mayor Ferre: Okay, I'm willing to go with whatever you want to do and whatever the Commission wants to do so let's get on with this thing. Rev. Gibson: Well it seems to me that we don't have that money saved up and this money to deal with this but what I don't understand is the County's position and I don't understand the State's position in that the state has no response. Mrs. Gordon: That was too long ago and that was a different case. Rev. Gibson: Okay, look... Mr. Plummer: They responded, Father, the State, by silence. Rev. Gibson: By saying nothing. Why can't we take this land? A bird in the hand is worth two in the bushes. Okay, so we would have said to the people, okay, we couldn't get it all so we got this. It seems to me that whether we could do it publicly or otherwise, I don't care, I'm not hungup in all that business, I'm sorry about the Sunshine Law about a lot of things. I think we ought to go to the County and say look, you fellows have been bullying us for a long time. Mayor Ferre: You want it, you take it. Rev. Gibson: Look, I'll We will learn to let you not willing to negotiate I'm willing to buy this, tell you what we want to do. You want this piece of land? go out and get it. Okay, I want to serve notice now. I'm a development process over there, I'm not willing to do that. say to the County and the State, you know this is a good thing. Mr. Plummer: But then he would fall for direction on them. Rev. Gibson: Are you going to help us? Why don't you help us? Let them tell us why they can't help us. If they help us, fine and if they don't help us then we have this and say well I'm shooting marbles today. I won one, I want to win three. Mayor Ferre: Okay, what do you want to do? Mrs. Gordon: I'd like to see you defer this for a week or two weeks or for short period of time so that we might each have our opportunity to do some talking to some different people. Mr. Plummer: Have we got two weeks? Mrs. Gordon: Furthermore, this was not scheduled for any discussion today, this'was an unscheduled item... Rev. Gibson; Rose, if you sleep tonight would you feel any better tomorrow? Mrs. Gordon: Yes, sir. I don't mean tomorrow morning, I've got to have time to talk to a few people. If you feel like there's been some talking done and you haven't gotten anywhere, maybe you won't and I will. 17 !Are 618?/ Mayor Petret t thine that's reasonable. M Et Mr. Anderson: t just wanted to make sure. I wasn't sure if he felt that we needed guidance and to give you an honest protestment of our position, that's all. Mayor Ferre: Look, Mike, let's do this on a very informal basis. I think this is such an important item for the City that I think Rose is entitled to the tithe that she may want to go out and talk with whoever she wants. Mr. Plummer: Fine, I'll withdraw my motion. Mayor Ferre: Wait a minute, J. L., I want to make a statement. Father has seconded your motion which means, as I see it, that he agrees with going back. I'm going to ask Manolo how he feels about it and I'm going to say that I'm in agreement with you so that you know what the consensus is of this Commission but not in a formal motion. Mr. Reboso: My opinion is that two weeks from now J. L. is going to make the same motion that he just made and I am going to vote for that motion because at stake her is the survival of the City. These people are recommending that we go into this battle in court with the same people who want to abolish the City of Miami and you can go, Rose, and talk with them... Mrs. Gordon: Well give me that chance. Mr. Reboso: ...to give you the money. If we win in court, we have to deposit the money in 20 days and we don't have the money. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I make you a motion, sir, that in lieu of Mrs. Gordon, who seems to be the only outstanding figure different of the other four, in lieu of her coming up with some legitimate situation prior to February 15th, that our position then is this. Mrs. Gordon: Oh come on, J. L.. I claim the 5 day rule. This was not scheduled for any kind of action today and we... (INAUDIBLE CONVERSATION) Mayor Ferre: Hey, she happens to be entitled, I think, to claim the 5 day rule and she happens to be entitled to seek that kind so I will then do it this way. As Mayor of the City of Miami, under the powers granted under the Charter, I am informing you that I will call a Special Commission Meeting of this Commission in 5 days. Today is Wednesday, in 5 working days which means... Let's make it next Thursday so that there are no "if's" or "but's" or questions about it. Okay? At 9:00 for Special Commission on this item and Mr. City Attorney, you will have to decide whether or not this can be an open, public meeting or whether because of the legal situation it might have to be like today, and Executive Meeting. Mrs. Gordon: Would you also furnish us with an appraisal at that time that we cannot speculations but actual facts... (INAUDIBLE CONVERSATION) Mr. Grassie: We've got to get a couple of things straight. Now this was an Executive Session principally for the City Attorney to give you background on a pending legal case. Now there is no way... Mrs. Gordon: Not to take official action. Mr. Grassie: Official action, no, Commissioner, to give guidance to the legal staff. That's the purpose of this meeting. There's no way that we're going to give you a whole bunch of written information. Second, we do not have the $40,000 appraisal because we have not known, apparently it has never been ordered, we have not known what you want to take and you're not going to get it in a week. Mayor Ferre: What do you mean you haven't known? This Commission went on record saying to take the whole thing. That goes back two years. Mr. Grassie: For whatever reason, Mr. Mayor, the appraisal has not been.,, Mr. Plummer: Joe, let me say something, Really what you wanted and what George wanted was the consensus of opinion of this Commission, Now as I understand the consensus of this opinion, and it doesn't take any magician, there's four people telling you JAN 1.77 �r. that we Modify it from the blue line west and there is one that says "he. Shots ,not saying "no", she is saying, let me look into it further, NoW i thit you've got what you wanted, a consensus of opinion. Mrs. Gordon: But you're not taking any actioh, Mr, Anderson: No, we're not: Mr. Plummer: You can't do it, Rose, if you want to pass a motion, you've got to do it downstairs. Mr. Anderson: ...we will probably have to get a resolution reconfirming your desire to take the whole thing, finding this necessary and just, you can't say you don't have the money or something. Mayor Ferre: No, this is it. Mr. Anderson: Then we will go back to court later on, we Won t take any action now, (INAUDIBLE) Mr. Plummer: Rose, we deferred because you weren't here, oh the selection of the Zoning Board member. Mr. Grassie: One last thing, Mr. Mayor. You might want to ask the City Attorney whether they want some kind of authorization from you to proceed on the second case which...on the question of the right to fill. Mr. Anderson: It's not the right to fill, it's the right to use the property for a port... (INAUDIBLE CONVERSATION- SEVERAL PERSONS TALKING AT ONCE) Mr. Grimm: Mrs. Gordon, what we will try to have for you at the next meeting is an appraiser's estimate of... Mayor Ferre: Rose, I think Plummer is right. We can't be meeting on all these things. The point is this. I think there's a consensus of four here. If you have something to add to it that you think would change, I'll leave it in your hands and you tell me and I'll call a meeting otherwise I think you already know what the consensus is with this Commission. Mrs. Gordon: Okay, well there is no time element on this. Mayor Ferre: You said two weeks. Mr. Plummer: Well I can tell you, Rose, from what I said that if you don't do it<by the 15th of February, I'm going to do it, that's what I'm saying. Mayor Ferre: Look, let's put it this way. You've got a consensus of four on this informal meeting. If, in the next couple of weeks, you have something that you think is substantial to this, two or three weeks, I don't really care, before this law case gets here, then you bring it up. I recommend that you talk to Steve and you talk... We've got a new County Manager and I think you ought to go... Rose, I'll tell you what. Why don't you and Joe Grassie go and see the new County Manager and you talk to Steve CLark and let's see if you can, you might be able to do something... I want to admit to you that I was not able to do it. Mrs. Gordon: I will go to Washington if necessary. Mayor Ferre: Well you're not going to get funds in Washington. Mrs. Gordon: I will go anywhere to fulfill what we attempted to do, Mr. Plummer: Mr. Knox, if there's nothing changed, then I expect you to have,'on the meeting of the 24th, a resolution prepared outlining the... Mayor Ferre: Or before because you might end up somebody calling the shots on the court case.,. Mr. Plummer: gven if they set the court case, it's going to be after the 24th, Mayor Ferre; Oh, no, 111 JAN e 19/ fabaid: Yeti oant in that afflouht of time. We're running very close... Mayor 'etre: Wait a inintue. it seems to ine that the one thing, there are two things that We haven't discussed here that t think have to be determined and you're going to have to forgive me for this but you have to have an appraisal. Now I don't see how in the world, i really am absolutely shocked and amazed that here we are in the end of January 1977 and we don't have an appraisal. Mr. Grassie: I asked about that three months ago, Mayor, and the answer that t got was that the decision had been taken a year ago not to order the full appraisal until we knew that we were going ahead. Mayor Ferre: But that seems absurd because this Commission is on record ordering the Manager and the City Attorney to proceed. Mrs. Gordon: How can you retreat without having... If you make a statement to the fact based on estimates which are not... You're not going to hold J. I. Wilson to that figure. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Grassie, do you need any authority at this point to ask for an appraisal to made of the blue line that way after the whole thing? It's not going to cost a lot more to do one than to do the other one. Do you need any... Mr. Grassie: To do it officially, yes, but what can do is tell him to get started on his homework and we will give him... Mayor Ferre: Wait a minute. This is a motion of intent. J. L. or any one of you moves that you bring up tomorrow on an official resolution the re -affirmation of what the Commission has said and you research it out, that you go ahead and finalize this appraisal. Mr. Grassie: We will go ahead tomorrow and tell them to get started on it. Mayor Ferre: You've got all the authority to do it. Mr. Grassie: We will do it. Mayor Ferre: Alright, the second point that I want to bring up. Mr. Grassie: on J. I. Wilson, we're going to tell him to go ahead, we're not giving him a contract yet because I don't want to bring it up officially in the City Commission. Mayor Ferre: Why not? Mr. Grassie: Because as soon as you do that, the FEC is going to be on notice and they're going to put us in court, probably, before we're ready. Mr. Grimm: Don't you think that what you're saying should be handled by Mr. Knox? Mr. Anderson: I was advised, when I took over the case, that J. I. Wilson was told not to make up an appraisal because at that time we wanted an estimate and once we got the estimate, it looked like we didn't have the money to buy so that's why he never made up a... Mrs. Gordon: I have faith and confidence in Mr. Wilson. He is a very esteemed... Get an appraisal and then you can always, if I join you on retreating after you have an appraisal, I will have facts in hand to substantiate it. Mayor Ferre: I think it's long overdue. Next point that I have. Mrs. Gordon: It shouldn't take more than two weeks for him to complete that. (INAUDIBL,E) Mrs. Gordon: He can do it in less time if you want it. Mayor Ferre: Now the next point and I say this, please don't misunderstand, George or Mike. You're dealing with a very, very highly technical aspect of the law. I asked a question, since we're really talking about something which is a specialty just like any other specialty, should we consider retaining assistance from a lawyer that specialized in condemnation proceedings. We've got three lawyers and I'll tell you who the three best lawyers are in this town in my opinion; Leon Black, Toby Britian .nd John Farrell. Those are the three best and I would recommend that you talk to all 2 JAN 2,,1977 three and perhaps consider retaining one of them to help us and give us assistandet Mr. Grassier Would you authorize the signature to do that if he'otants to at his discretion to retain one of them? Mayor Ferret I need to know how much money is going to be involved, Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Anderson: so that leaves Mrs. Gordon: Or anyone else that he thinks he would rather have. Those are the three, as I understood it, won't Work for the gcvert ert . us with John Farrell but we'll talk to all three of them anyWayi Or anyone else that specializes. (INAUDIBLE) Mr. Plummer: Well first of all, I want to hear George Knox tell Me that he feels he needs the help. Mr. Knox: I think that Mike needs a specialist and could use the assistance. Mrs. Gordon: If you mean business, J. L., if you have got a heart condition, you go to a heart specialist. Mayor Ferre: There's something else in all this and that is that the moment that you hire one of these top three guys in this town, the FEC is going to take you serious. Right now, as Dan Paul says, we may have the best attorneys in house but the FEC is not going to take us serious until we get one of the recognized pros in the business. Mrs. Gordon: If you're afraid they're going to find out the fiduciary of an Attorney is to keep his client's business to himself, is that correct? (INAUDIBLE) Mayor Ferre: Well wait a minute, do you need a motion to that effect? (INAUDIBLE) ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Commission at this, time, the meeting was adjourned at 6:00 P.M.. ATTEST: RALPH G. ONGIE City Clerk MATTY HIRAI Assistant City Clerk MAURICE A. FERRE MAYO R JAN26i97