HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-77-0472Lig:YL%c ULs -
44
REgbLUTtoN No, 77 47
A kRSOLHCITY . ATTORNEY TO �`ION ,�'I��Oi�l7,I�fiC.. THE .-.r
Ot iT d0 R. FARRELI, AS A..8.15ta ASSISTANT,
AnTO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT RELATIVE THERETO,
TO HANDLE ALL ASPECTS OF THE FLORIDA EAST COAST
RAILWAY COMPANY CONDEMNATION CASE, INCLUDING
ALL WORK IN THE CIRCUIT COURT AND ALL WORK IN
THE APPELLATE AND SUPREME COURTS, IF NECESSARY,
IN ACCORDANCE WITH HIS PROPOSAL ATTACHED HERETO
AND MADE A. PART HEREOF, AND AUTHORIZING AND
DIRECTING THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO PAY THE
AMOUNTS REQUIRED FROM THE PARKS FOR PEOPLE HOW)
FUNDS.
WHEREAS, the City Attorney is tot at the present time
position to fully prosecute the Florida East Coast Railway
Company condemnation case due to the complexities thereof; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney has recommended that the
City hire outside counsel for this case;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The City Attorney be, and he is hereby,
authorized to appoint John R. Farrell as a Special Assistant, and
to enter into an agreement relative thereto, to handle all aspects.
of the Florida East Coast Railway Company condemnation case,
including all work in the Circuit Court and all work in the
Appellate and Supreme Courts, if necessary, in accordance with.
his proposal attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Section 2. The Finance Director be, and he is hereby,
authorized to pay the amounts required from the Parks for People
Bonds funds.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9TH day of �JUNE , 1977.
dr"-
City Clerk
PREPARED AND APPROVED BY;
MIC1iEI E , ANPER ON ,
Atp gtant ,C.y Attorney
..ORGE F,
City Atto
APP
MAURICE A. FERRE
VF
MAYOR'.'
1T
AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS;
AIM
o4.
0x, J
y
Aftwommv
• M t1 7OF
-JUN 9 1977
ma,.,naminR77•472
•
r 1 s t VA It tt:141
AC7RiE=� f L4�IV'
c Sc{ '6O!J',14'7 iAM1 iil4/E�'J
t#seihitiA
FiOPK4A?.i Iti•
ALiwsici
eoke P.'• kfiom err. # t§quire
City %ttorhey, City of Miami
14 Batt Plaglar Street •
Olympia Building
Miami, Florida 33131
1e: City of Miami . Florida
Bast ..00ast .T2ai,lfay b= ..._
t r•
1r1`
eat Mr. Xnok:
Subsequent to my letter of March 21, 1977 regarding
the subject eminent domain litigation our conferences re-
sulted in my agreement to withdraw the March 21 letter pro-
posal in favor of a modification thereof. Accordingly,
this letter proposal is submitted for consideration by the
City and supersedes our prior March 21, 1977 proposal.
We understand that the above referenced matter involves
eminent domain proceedings by the City to acquire a tract of
land owned by Florida East Coast Railway Company lying between
Biscayne Boulevard and Biscayne Bay, between, roughly North-
east 6th and Northeast 9th Street, Miami, Dade County, Florida,:;
Ourproposal is as follows:
First, we understand that the subject case will involve
legal representation including, inter alia, a hearing on neces-
sity, pre-trial activity including a pre-trial conference, a
trial, post trial motions and hearings, a possible appeal by
either side from verdict and final judgment and the possibility
of certiorari proceedings thenfrom to the Supreme Court of Flo-
rida. It is contemplated that our firm would assume full re-
sponsibility for the foregoing immediately upon the City's ac-
ceptance of this proposal and continued legal representation
throughout the above described proceedings. All costs involved
including fees of all consultants and experts other than legal
would be borne by the City of Miami. Where possible,these costs
would be billed directly to the City; otherwise, to be reimbursed
to us for actual expenditures. Of course, the City Attorney's
approval would be first obtained should any unique or unusual
expense arise.
Rtiam#
1_§77
Page, lives
Ltd
••:,.-..—Wt..kouldPropo6e-to•ulidert4k0.::-thdforeeibihg01..;
the.:athouht-OLIAihi6oillA bt-Oal'eulatjd
.*bh the'.batit of '6-he one half percent 1406) Of the*,
•,average of the. City' t appraitalt- by Met§rts Wi16oh • to16
he Aiiakiftlum fee for legal. tervibet• payable. ,t6 bur fists Will .•• -- • '
exceed $27:50000,00, hestWithetehdihq the poetibility,that
::,:these•calculatioft8 could result Li a Greater fiqute. Payment,'
:H6E thege fees would be tChedUled a8followtt. One thitd (lit)
_HAftet Pte-ttial conference; onethird (1M after trial:. Ohe
• WthitA '(1/) after atqument of certiorari bt the tittle for tili•hg
;:Certiotati empite8. 8ettlemeht wouldof coUreet only. efftot.
tinting of paymeht. 8hould,outpropo8a1- be 'accepted 'and
the.o.ity'a,right to take be disallowed, our :tees would be
trto
•::)dified by a Seventy fiVe 'percent (7SWroducti-onV.that igt.
-'.',:Hr,Hih-guch-event our fees would be .112% of the average the
appraisals asafbreMentioned. -
•
It , clarification of. the above.: 8eettith:',de8,itab16;'.
feel free to contact out firm.
..". • ,
•
• ,
•
'John 'Re Farrell
•John 1 Farrell#
2825 South Miami Avenue
Florida 33129
(305) 854-7000
• :,!
•
} O t.y t`b it;'t t {L�r,'Jy,�'t iyE7`�1,�lyy
•.ttO,t ei ME Mb RH('�)tJ'OEM
on ra" i Mett1et6 .
the City Coistlhn
otge
` 'ity
,Knorr
tOthey
bi rt.
51fi#JECi!
hr•.r etrrri
i osURC ;
t'J till6.'
peeal;toun§e:for
the : PtC Co tdeiat et
soli.�ltion
Pursuant to instructions of the City Commission, I 'tnet with
Cahn 1z Farrell It an attempt to negotiate a limitation oft the
amount of his attorn►ey's fee in the above -captioned case, The
Commission had requested a maximum of $250,000. Mr. Farrell
has, by his letter attached to the resolution, agreed to limit
he amount of his attorney's fee to $275,000.
I am recommending approvalof the attached resolution.
GFK: MEA, bk
Attach,'
PROM:
• IN z f 'It€
HMI rabid Mehbers of
th ity GoMmission
eorge Knox,
City A orney
thift6 8s 1977
Status Report SSE
Cohdettetieti
The Third district Court of Appeal ordered that the City's
petition in eminent domain proceedings against the FEC
Railway Company be dismissed. The reason for the dismissal
was the fact that the City did not have a proper authorizing
resolution passed and adopted in 1971 prior to filing the
condemnation suit:
This office is recommending that no petition for rehearing bE
filed with the District Court and that no petition for
certiorari be taken by the City to the Supreme Court of Florida
for two reasons:
1. The requirements of the condemnation petition
have been outlined in numerous cases decided by the Florida
Supreme Court. Since the City's resolution did not contain
those requirements, the City will save time by filing a new
case.
2. My opinion, which is shared by Mr. Farrell, is
that the City will be better off filing a new condemnation
suit. The City, by entering into a "quick take" proceeding in
the former case, would have been required to prove necessity
for the remainder of the property and would have been required
to conduct a trial on those parcels which were taken and a
separate trial for the remainder of the tract that it intended
to take. In addition to the cost of two separate trials and
the possibility of severance damages as a result of the "quick
take", the City could have been faced with two times the amount
of appeals.
The City must now file a new condemnation action after first
adopting a proper authorizing resolution.
GFK: MEA: bk