HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1977-06-09 Minutes.j.
R 1V1 1
COMMISSION
MINUTES
OF MEETING HELD ON JUNE 9' 197
PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY HALL
RALPH G. ONGIE
CITY CLERK
INDc
isTEINNIENna
SUBJECT
D!NANCE OR
SOLUTION No. PAGE NO.
1,
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10 .
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19,
20,
DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS PRIORITIES.
WATSON ISLAND DEVELOPMENT - INSTRUCTING CITY
MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE WITH FIRMS.
PERSONAL APPEARANCE: ERNIE FANNATO REGARDING
DOLPHINS' USE OF THE ORANGE BOWL.
ACCEPT SEALED BIDS - COLUMBIA SANITARY SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS SR-5420 (C) AND (S).
PRESENTATIONS, PLAQUES AND SPECIAL ITEMS.
SECOND READING ORDINANCE: AMEND MIAMI CITY
GENERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT PLAN - DELETE
REQUIREMENT OF 4% INTEREST PAYMENT (LABORERS,
WATCHMEN OR CUSTODIAL WORKERS), ETC.
APPROVE PROPOSAL - LIMITED TECHNICAL STUDY OF THE
CITY'S COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS.
CONSIDERATION OF EXISTING PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT
(PAD) 21 UNITS - 3495 MAIN HIGHWAY (ABITARE).
ESTABLISH CITY COMMISSION POLICY - FRAMEWORK FOR
DECISIONS AFFECTING CITY OF MIAMI PENSION
SYSTEM AND PLAN (DEFERRED).
ACCEPT BID: HEAVY EQUIPMENT FOR PUBLIC PROPERTIES.
ACCEPT BID - FINGERPRINT IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM FOR
POLICE DEPARTMENT.
PROGRESS REPORT - MIAMI DOLPHINS' USE OF THE
ORANGE BOWL STADIUM.
PERSONAL APPEARANCE: ROBERT HOROWITZ REQUESTING
ASSISTANCE FOR "GROVE HOUSE."
PERSONAL APPEARANCE: MORTY FRIEDMAN - REPORT ON
INTERNATIONAL FOLK FESTIVAL.
PERSONAL APPEARANCE: JOSEPH BONGIOVANNI -
REDIRECTION OF RESOURCES.
CANVAS RESULTS OF STRAW -VOTE QUESTION ON ORANGE
BOWL IMPROVEMENTS FOR $15,000,000.
AUTHORIZE CITY ATTORNEY TO NEGOTIATE FINAL
AGREEMENT WITH JOHN L. FARRELL AS SPECIAL
COUNSEL ON THE F.E.C. CONDEMNATION
PROCEEDINGS.
ESTABLISH TIME AND DATE FOR DEDICATION OF SPORTS
LIGHTING AT SHENANDOAH PARK.
SECOND READING ORDINANCE: AMEND SECTION 36-5 OF
THE CODE - DISCHARGE OF 18 MONTH -AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY & LEWIS A. PITZELL (CONCERTS
INC,) FOR USE OF ORANGE BOWL,
FIRST READING ORDINANCE: AMEND SUBSECTION G OF
SECTION 13-10 OF THE CODE (DOWNTOWN
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BOARD).
DISCUSSION
M-77-463
DISCUSSION
M-77-464
PRESENTED
8659
R-77-465
M-77-466
DEFERRED
R-77-467
R-77-468
M-77-469
M-77-470
DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION
R-77-471
R-77-472
DISCUSSION
8660
(1st reading)
1 - 2
2-39
39-42
42
43
43-44
44-45
46 - 57
58 - 66
66 - 74
74-75
76 - 85
85 - 87
87 - 88
88 - 90
90-91
91
92
92
93
ll+tl�(
Ct4 isTmlE8REPORILA
iE�l tJ�,
SUBJECT
DINANCEOR
SOLUTION NO
PAGE NO.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35
36.
37.
38,
FIRST READING ORDINANCE: AMEND APPROPRIATION
ORDINANCE 8589; RE -APPROPRIATE $486,632 FOR
31% SALARY ADJUSTMENTS FOR POLICE; AND RE -
APPROPRIATE $437,179 FOR SALARY ADJUSTMENTS
FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT.
FIRST READING ORDINANCE: AMEND ORDINANCE 8589 -
ADJUSTING CERTAIN GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATIONS.
EMERGENCY ORDINANCE - AMEND ORDINANCE 8589 - INCREASE
SPECIAL PROGRAMS AND ACCOUNTS.
AUTHORIZE TRANSFER OF $50,778 FROM CONTINGENCY FUND
FOR SUMMER RECREATION PROGRAM.
ALLOCATE $210,000 FROM HIGHWAY BOND FUNDS FOR
PAVEMENT AT STREET INTERSECTIONS.
ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK - ORANGE BOWL SANITARY SEWER
PROJECT.
ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK - OLD COAST -GUARD BOAT RAMP -
MODIFICATIONS 1976.
PROVIDE DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE DEPT. OF OFF-
STREET PARKING PROPOSED BUDGET.
PROVIDE DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR GUSMAN HALL AND
OLYMPIA BLDG. PROPOSED BUDGET.
CREATE AND ESTABLISH "CITIZENS' COMMITTEE FOR
DEVELOPMENT OF WATSON ISLAND."
CREATE BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE TO STUDY ANNUAL
BUDGET PREPARATION PROCESS.
AMEND RESOLUTION NO. 76-1018 - CONTRACT WITH
WACKENHUT CORPORATION.
RE-ESTABLISH CITY OF MIAMI COMMITTEE ON ECOLOGY
AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT W/:
BUREAU OF BLIND SERVICES (FOR FOOD AND BEVERAGE
CONCESSION AT FLAGLER MINI -PARK).
APPROVE PROPOSAL OF STAR ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEX, INC.
TO STIMULATE USE OF CITY OF MIAMI PUBLIC
FACILITIES.
CERTIFY EXISTENCE OF OF VALID PUBLIC EMERGENCY FOR
CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE VIRGINIA KEY
DISPOSAL FACILITY.
AUTHORIZE PURCHASE IN LIEU OF CONDEMNATION - 6
VACANT LOTS - N.W. 2ND AVENUE BETWEEN 52 AND
53 STREETS.
AUTHORIZE PURCHASE IN LIEU OF CONDEMNATION - 2
VACANT LOTS - N.W. 53RD STREET, WEST OF N.W.
2ND AVENUE.
7
(1st reading)
(1st reading)
8661
R-77-473
R-77-474
R-77-475
R-77-476
R-77-477
R-77-478
R-77-479
R-77-480
R-77-481
R-77-482
R-77-483
R-77-484
R-77-485
R-77-486
R-77-487
93 - 94
94
94 - 95
95
95 - 96
96
96
97
97 - 98
98
99
100
100
101
101
102
103 - 104
104
INDEX
tt4 ���isgiaN[ntM
SUBJECT
AUTHORIZE PURCHASE IN LIEU OF CONDEMNATION - 1
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE - 2568 N.W. 3 STREET
APPROVE INCREASE OF CONCRETE SEA WALL SEATING FOR
PAYFRONT PARK OF THE AMERICAS.
AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AGT. WITH:
MIAMI-DADE COMMUNITY COLLEGE FOR RECREATION
LEADERS,
AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT GRANT FOR U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR SUMMER FOOD
SERVICE PROGRAM.
AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT GRANT AWARD FROM
COMMUNITY SERVICES ADMINISTRATION FOR RECREATIOt
SUPPORT PROGRAM.
CLAIM SETTLEMENT: RAMON AND MARIA REYES.
CLAIM SETTLEMENT: MARIA A. MORALES.
ACCEPT BID: N.E. 80 TERR. - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PAVING PROJECT, PHASE II BID "A" (HIGHWAYS).
ACCEPT BID: N.E. 80 TERR. - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PAVING PROJECT, PHASE II BID "B" (DRAINAGE).
ACCEPT BID: ALLAPATTAH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PAVING
PROJECT - PHASE I AND ALLAPATTAH SANITARY
SEWER MODIFICATIONS- 1977.
ACCEPT BID: CULMER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PAVING
PROJECT- B-4413-1977 AND CULMER SANITARY SEWER
MOS. B-5429- 1977.
BRIEF DISCUSSION ITEM: FEES FOR CITY -OWNED SWIMMING
POOLS AND EXPOSITION AT DINNER KEY.
CONFIRMING RESOLUTION: AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH MIAMI DOLPHINS, LTD.
FOR USE OF THE ORANGE BOWL STADIUM.
rINANCE 0R
OLUTION NO,
R-77-488
R-77-489
R-77-490
R-77-491
R-77-492
R-77-495
R-77-496
R-77-497
R-77-498
R-77-499
R-77-500
DISCUSSION
R-77-501
PAGE NO,
105
105
106
107
107
108
108
109
109
110
110
111
113
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
* * * * * * * *
ON THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 1977, THE CITY COMMISSION OF
MIAMI,._ELQRDA MET AT ITS REGULAR MEETING PLACE IN THECITY
t AL-L, FAN AMERICAN DRIVE, MIAMI, LORIDA IN REGULAR SESSION.
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 9:10 O'CLOCK A.M. BY
MAYOR MAURICE A. t-ERRE WITH THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS OF THE
COMMISSION FOUND TO BE PRESENT:
Commi44 Lonek Mano.eo Rebo4o
Commi44Lonek J. L. Ptummek, Jn.
CommL44ioners Ro4e Gorsdon
VLce-Mayon. Theodore GLb4on
Mayon. Maunice A. Fen.n.e
ALSO PRESENT:
Jo4 eph R. Grsa44..e, City y Managers
R. L. Fo4moen, A44i4tant City Managers
George F. Knox, CL-ty Attorsney
Ralph G. Ong..e, City C.Lersk
Malty H Ln.aL, A44L4.tan.t City Cten.iz
AN INVOCATION WAS DELIVERED BY REVEREND GIBSON WHO THEN
LED THOSE PRESENT IN A PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG.
A MOTION TO WAIVE THE READING OF THE MINUTES WAS INTRODUCED
AND SECONDED AND WAS PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS PRIORITIES,
Mayor Ferre: We now have item # A, which is the discussion of Public Works Projects
Priorities. As I understand it Mr. Manager 'everyone of the Commissioners have
expressed their preference and you tallied that or somebody has in the Administration.
Why don't you read us the tally and see if anybody has any further discussion on it?
Mr. Grassie: Following the last meeting Mr. Mayor and members of the City Commission.
in which you indicated that you wanted us to produce a concensus of priority listing
for Public Works Projects. We have had the first ten projects prioritized by each of
the members of the City Commission. The result is this. And, what we have done is
use a very simple system. We've assigned ten points to your number one priority and
nine to your number two and so on. The Convention Center was your highest priority
with 49 points. The Administration Building next with 41. The Little Havana Community
Center next with 40. After that.... The Little Havana Community Center was number
three with 40 points. Bayfront Park Auditorium was fourth with 22 points and Community
Buildings was tied with the same amount of 22 points. So you can consider either one
of those to be fourth and fifth.
Mayor Ferre: Well, I only heard Community Buildings. What was the second one?
Mr. Grassie: The fourth was the Bayfront Park Auditorium. The fifth then was the
Community Buildings, and you remember that that was improvements to Community Buildings
in several parks. The sixth was the Orange Bowl ...
Mr. Plummer: I think that you should tell them that that paper you're reading from is
in the supplemental agenda. That's what I just handed
Mayor Ferre: Is that the one we received last night?
1
JO% 091971
Mt. Plummer: Yes. Yes, hey delivered it to my house. 41".,
Mayor Ferre: The delivery service on Brickell Avenue is not working too good these
days.
Mt. Grassie: It's slow. I'm sorry for that Mayor. The Municipal Justice Building
was next with 15points. Phase IV of the Bayfront Improvements and the Marine Stadium
was the next after that.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Grassie, let me ask this question? The mechanics, I read in the
paper this morning that the city will be the recipient of approximately 7.5 million
dollars.
Mr. Grassie: That is the first indication that we have. That's correct sir.
Mr. Plummer: Alright, now is that 7.5 million designated by the federal government
where it shall be spent or does the Commission have some latitude by our designation
in this area or is this for an additional grant?
Mr. Grassie: No. The priorities that you're establishing now are for the money that
you have just mentioned that is the 7.5 million. Now there are two things that we
don't know. One, we do not know the way in which the federal government will treat
the applications that you made on the first round. And, you know that some of the
projects for example, the Convention Center was applied for on the first round. The
second thing that we do not know is whether or not they may find some problem with
some one of our applications as they did the first time in the Convention Center in
which they rejected that, because of the environmental impact analysis that they wanted.
So, there are those two elements of uncertainty. But aside from that, what they want
is your list of priorities and as far as we know the amount of money that they have
announced 7.5 million is what we're likely going to get.
Mr. Plummer: So what I understand is they set aside in a bulk and it will be applied
toward, hopefully these projects which we recommend.
Mr. Grassie: That's correct. Now, in order to get the maximum amount of money that
is available to the city. We have more projects than money, yes. But also we have
projects of all sizes. So we at the last minute may have to take a small project
that is not one of your priorities in order to make sure that we get all the money.
Mr. Plummer: Ok.
2. WATSON ISLAND DEVELOPENT - INSTRUCTING CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE
WITH FIRMS.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, just for clarification of the record. Mr. Grassie, I asked
you yesterday in our corrected agenda, there was an amendment on this Watson Island,
would you tell me what the difference is from the original?
Mr. Grassie: Yes. Let me ask John Gilchrist to go through that for you in detail.
Mr. Plummer: Just tell me what the difference is John.
Mr. Gilchrist: There was a typographic error in that Mr. Plummer.
Mr. Plummer: Which is what?
Mr. Gilchrist: On page 2 of 2 of the financial characteristics --
Mr. Plummer: Yes.
Mr. Gilchrist: Under where it says "City" missing 50% remaining funds.
Mr. Plummer: Ok. Thank you.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, Mr. Manager, the procedure I think we're going to use on this
unless somebody objects is that the Administration will make its presentation. You
recommend the firm of Tuttle, as I understand, and then we'll hear from them first,
and then we'll hear from Mr. Freeland's group second, and then we'll open it for
discussion at that time.
Mr. Grassie: Very well sir. I would like to introduce the process only in this sense.
We have several things that we would like to do for you. One, we would like to have
JUN 09197/
the staff discuss with you the process of analyzing the plF:osals. We would also
like to have as you have said the Tuttle people speak for themselves, and you know
that you have established a Citizens Committee for Watson Island. The Chairman of
that committee has reviewed this and is available to speak, as well as the Chairman
of Chamber of Commerce Committee. So, if we can we would like to go through those
things for you.
Mayor Ferre: I think that's very reasonable. I see the two Co -Chairman from the
Chamber that are here. I haven't seen the Chairman of the Citizens Committee.
Mr. Grassie: He intended to be, and possibly he's be here in a few minutes Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: Oh, there he is. Ok. Very good. We'll proceed.
Mr. Grassie: Now, what we'd like to do is to ask Charles Crumpton, who was one of
the five members on the Technical Selection Committee start the presentation Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Crumpton: Mr. Mayor, and members of the Commission, as you recall back in February
the City Commission passed a Resolution 77-204, which requested the staff to proceed
to advertise as well as direct solicitation for proposals to develop Watson Island.
Also, you may recall that prior to that time we had a pair of consultants on board ,
Fowler, Ettinger, Potter, and Hart, as well as Economic Research Associates.,who develop-
ed with the city a conceptual plan and an economic report for Watson Island. These
particular documents were a part of the request for proposals prepared by the city and
were made a part thereof. And, as the advertisement proceeded we prepared documents
to be sent to anyone who inquired. We had over 40 inquires for this,so that this material
was sent to more than 40 people and/or organizations. As a result of the advertisment
and the due date of April 26th we had five proposals that came to us. One, Collins
Tuttle and Company. Another one, Diplomat World Enterprises, Hernly Brothers Company,
The International Group out of California and Gene Schoor Associates. There was a
committee set-up to evaluate and review these particular proposals. The staff proposals
were reviewed by the staff and three of them we felt did not meet the responsiveness
of the city and this left two proposals they were strong and valid. The committee met
with both of these in May and further reviewed with them their proposal and made any
questions of clarifications on their part as well as our part. As part of the RFP
that went to all proposals as you recall that we asked them to look into the develop-
ment operation of a park for all of Watson Island. Also there were a whole set of
general concepts that had been developed out of the previous reports. The Ettinger,
Fowler, Potter editing a report and ERA report. Certain important considerations
that we felt the developers ought to look into. These were contained in that particular
report. One of these among other things was that they should take a look at the entire
island and see how the development will be in harmony with the entire island so that
island would look as one rather than being separated by a causeway. Also in the report
the word "should" were used, which the words that are not mandatory but are suggesting
for instance, as I have already indicated that the entire island ought to be looked
at. But it's not mandatory that a proposal submit something for the entire island
per se' or that there should be top quality in design and landscaping and other such
suggestive types of activities, such as they should respect the location of the island
in relationship to the islands that are to the north and to the east of the area. And,
there are other indicators through the RFP particular kind of
activity. There were a set of selection criteria that were general in nature. That
were used and these are included in the report that was sent to you and I presume you
have that before you . If not, there are copies here that you can have so that you
could follow along if you so desire. These particular considerations for a financial
stability, experience, development concept, development team, capacity to obtain
sufficient financing and the like. The committee founded both of these organizations
known as Diplomat World Enterprises and Collins Tuttle and Carl Marks combination were
both financially stable and have the financial capability in our minds to do this part-
icular project. We also found that both organizations presenting proposals
represent experience in developing and operating projects of this magnitude and are
currently involved in the management and operation of visitor attraction enterprises.
Although neither of them have the experience specifically in the management and operation
of an item that is such as analogous to the proposal of Watson Island. Both submitted
a concept. One was much more specific and detail. The other was more of the philosophy
which both followed the spirit and intent of the project proposal in that we did not
restrict the detail that one could go to. In the experience of teams, both submitted
teams, that have great capability. The Collins Tuttle team proposal said that their
design consultants would be jointly selected by developer in the city and formerly
approved by the City Commission and that the design would be prepared jointly under
supervision but subject to the direction and control of the city. And, the inquiries
of both as I had mentioned when we met with them, There were certain clarifications
made and these are before you. One the Diplomat World Enterprises team of R. Duell
and ERA, and Hank Meyer Associates were spelled out and that they felt they were
committed to this particular group in our inquiry of them. Additional people were
added by Mr. Tuttle when we inquired of them in our interviews and they were Frank J.
3
.11.1N 0 91977
Kooney—LOfl LLUL L1V11 LV31 a c.1I Giatu pt.cyc aw.7a iaaaau ruui+ aaZa ivaao. a�aau, a.aao� Laacy
also indicated that if their particular firm was chosen a.... that they were able to
work with us and then negotiate directly with the design team that they would pay for
all of that. These particular items will be presented in more detail in a moment.
I would like to mention to you and present to you that representatives of these two
firms are here with members of their teams but I would like to take this time to
introduce Mr. Ronald Fine. If he would stand who is represents the Diplomat World
Enterprises and then Mr. Wiley Tuttle who represents the Collins Tuttle/Carl Marks
proposal. I would like now to ask John Gilchrist who is the Project Director for
Watson Island if he would go through the charts that are before you and talk about
the financial characteristics of the two proposals. Mr. Gilchrist.
Mr. Gilchrist: Commissioners, first of all I want to point out that the Resolution
77-204 that instructed us to advertise and solicit developer proposals established
that we include the minimum standards which would substantially conform to the written
recommendation of the City Manager presented to City Commission on February 24th.
These parameters were established during the negotiations Mr. A. N. Pritzker and the
initial column on your left --- after the item for item listing the initial column
represents the parameters that had been developed during that negotiation period.
And, on the next two columns, first, Diplomat World Enterprises and Collins Tuttle/
Carl Marks. We've carried through each of the items to show how they responded. The
Commission instructed us that we should come up with equal or better conditions that
were established in this earlier negotiation. So, I'd just like to run through the
items to make sure that everyone understands them. If there is any questions on any
item along the way please ask them. First of all, Diplomat World Enterprises in
response to the pre -financing situation have stated that they will carry all cost
through bond sale. This is primarily preliminary design development and financial
feasibility or development feasibility. In the case of Collins Tuttle they proposed
to put up a$500,000 good faith deposit and to split 50/50 with the city, the preliminary
cost which they estimate to be $200,000. The next item which is total projected cost
in both cases are equal. The projected cost by each developer suggest that the project
can be done for $45,000,000 in our earlier parameters : that we've developed, I
should also point out that the initial development cost was suggested to be $45,000,000.
This is incorrect on here plus the infra -structure. The total did not include infra-
structure in that parameter, but in the resolution that was instructed as specifically
said that we should include $10,000,000 to cover the infra -structure and contingency
fund. So the Fiimary difference between these two proposals. One is that Diplomat
World is telling us that for $45,000,000 that they would hope to be able to develop
the island, including a Marina Facilities on the eastern side of the island. Why this
proposal here suggest the attraction alone and the infra -structure.
Mayor Ferre: John, let me ask a question so I can understand this. Are they both
saying that they're going to spend $35,000,000 in the attraction itself?
Mr. Gilchrist: I believe that's correct. The reason I would say that is in the Diplomat
World Enterprise proposal there's a letter from Randy Duell Associates saying that they
believe that the attraction can be built for $35,000,000 and so I would interpret that
to say they were both...
Mayor Ferre: So in other words the Marina which is the difference between both of these
things would come out of the $10,000,000?
Mr. Gilchrist: Well, I would say that's true if you looked at the proposal from
Diplomat World. It also includes a suggestion that either it can come out of there or
additional funds can be raised by selling additional bonds or if the city is able to
acquire any of the infra -structure through other sources as is federal funding. Those
funds could be applied to the Marina Development. Alright, in terms of the financing
Diplomat World Enterprises has proposed that similar to our stated parameters that the
city would issue a $45,000,000 revenue bond issue and would guarantee a portion of it.
The remainer to be standing on the revenues of the project itself. In the case of
Diplomat World they have suggested that the city would be required to guarantee by a
non advalorem revenues $20,000,000 and that $25,000,000 would stand on the revenues
of the project itself. In the case of the Collins Tuttle /Carl Marks proposal it split
50/50 suggesting that the city would guarantee 22.5 million by a non advalorem tax.
The proposal from Diplomat World includes a letter of intent from a managing underwriter
representing a team of underwriters. In the Carl Marks proposal the partnership includes --
I'm sorry the Collin Tuttle/Carl Marks proposal partnership includes Carl Marks which
is a major investment banking firm in this country and has stated their intent to handle
the bond sale. Revenue to the city, the Diplomat World Enterprises proposes a 4% of
Gross. Later we'll describe how that's distributed and the Collin Tuttle proposal
proposes a percentage based on the amount of income generated in any given year, that
is 10% of the first 15 million , 12% of the 15 to 20 million and 15% of everything over
20 million. And, that's called a percentage rental in their proposal. In addition
they have a proposed fixed rent which is stated $750,000 parameters. The management
fee in the case of Diplomat World Enterprises is 4% of Gross. And, in the case of
Collins Tuttle/Carl Marks is 5% of Gross. In trying to explain these, what we next have
‘)9971
4
described here is the distrffilition of revenue. That is assun'I that the bond system is
used for financing the distribution of gross revenues carries tirst and I'll go through
Diplomat World Enterprises first, entirely. That the current operating expenses be
covered and reserve for renovation and then debt service. Well, I've stated these
under developer on one side and city on the other. It's really a convenience for putting
this out on the chart. Debt service is put on the city side because $45,000,000 revenue
bond is in fact the responsibility of the city. Following that, these funds are covered.
From the remaining funds the first 2% is rent to the city under the Diplomat proposal.
The next 2% is the management fee. If additional funds are available the next 2% is an
additional rent to the city. And, the next 2% is an additional rent to the city and the
next 2% is an additional management fee to the city. The proposal then states that 20%
of the remaining funds would be distributed to the city. Therefore, I concluded that the
other 80% of the remaining funds would be distributed to the Diplomat World Enterprises.
Now, these are in the priority listing as funds are available. In the Collins Tuttle/
Carl Marks proposal the current operating expenses -reserve for renovation and debt service
are put in the same sequence and the percentage rent follows that . Now, it's a little
more complicated than that in that if all fees were covered in essence the percentage
rent comes off the top. If it broke even I would say all the percentage rent comes off
the top. But as funds are not available then the percentage rent to the city follows
debt service. Following that is 5% management fee. 5% reserve for expansion, and
then the fixed rent follows that. The remaining funds....
Mayor Ferre: John, I noticed up on the top it says $750,000 annual fixed rent.
Mr. Gilchrist: Right, and that's...
Mayor Ferre: And that's where that comes in.
Mr. Gilchrist: That's where that... that's intended to a minimal.
Mr. Plummer: But, John let me understand. Getting to the same thing that he just brought
up. It's a 750 minimal, alright. Is that an and/or, or is that 10,12,15 , but not less
than?
Mr. Gilchrist: But not less than.
Mr. Plummer: In other words, under that proposal there would be no less $750,000?
Mr. Gilchrist: Right.
Mr. Plummer: Alright. In other words, let's assume. Let me ask a question.
Mr. Gilchrist: Well, I think that's not quite true Commissioner.
Mr. Plummer: Well, answer it.
Mr. Gilchrist: Ok. I believe as funds are available. Now, I'm trying to read these
on face value, same as you have, and the way I read it is that this fixed rent is
subordinate to other items which are listed above it. That is the management fee and
reserve for expansion.
Mr. Plummer: So in other words, on that proposal their 10% plus debt service has to
come out first before the city would get the first dollar.
Mr. Gilchrist: It's not correct to state it as their 10%.Because the 5% reserve for
expansion is the project and not for the developmer. I put it in that column because
it's used...
Mr. Plummer: Then 10% in debt service have to come out before the city receives the
first dollar.
Mr. Gilchrist: No. I believe that's not correct. My understanding of this is and
we've raised this question with Mr. Wiley Tuttle and if you'd like I'll have him
respond to it as well. There's a difference between percentage rent and fixed rent.
Mr. Plummer: Well, that's what I asked. Is it an alternative? I'll ask the developer .
I don't care who answers it.
Mr. Crumpton: Let me clarify here. As on the chart shows after debt service. Current
operating expense, reserve for renovation and debt service, then comes the percent rent
to the city. Prior to any management fee or any reserve for expansion fund, And, then
comes fixed rent, assuming that that would be a minimal. But the percent of the city
comes before...
Mr. Plummer: Charlie, the question I'm trying to derive in my mind is the percentage
one way paying revenue to the city and the minimal annual fix another or is it tied together?
JIM 091977
Mr. Crumpton: They're tied kogethet, in that, when you excr $700 in the minimal
rent then you go into the percentage.
Mr. Plummer: That's what 1 need to know:
Mayor Ferre: Ok. Go ahead.
Mr. Gilchrist: The other point I wanted to make about this was after the fixed tent
it stated in the proposal that the remaining funds would first be used to retire the
entire debt. Prior to any distribution between the city and the developer. So in
some future time after the entire revenue bond debt is retired then there's a 50/50
split of the remaining funds. Ok. Under these other items which are included are
the lease which really should have been stated as term. Under the Diplomat World
Enterprises proposed to be the duration of the bond but not less than 30 years plus
a 30 year option. In the case of Collins Tuttle that was not included in the proposal
and it's intended to be negotiated. The construction financing is suggested by
Diplomat World Enterprises to be...
Mr. Plummer: Wait, wait a minute, back up John. Let me have an understanding so
there's no problem later. As I understand what you said from the beginning that the
parameters on the left are a minimum criteria.
Mr. Gilchrist: Yes sir.
Mr. Plummer: Then I am to assume that under Collins Tuttle where it says negotiated
that it is no less than 20 and 20.
Mr. Gilchrist: Yes sir. That was clarified with Mr.
Mr. Plummer: Well it doesn't state that.
Mr. Gilchrist: Ok. The construction financing is suggested by Diplomat World Enter-
prises to be one of two ways and I presume since they were in order that the first
one would be attempted. That is that the bonds would be pre sold and the money from
bond sale would be used for financing interim construction and that if that was not
was proved to be a dual process than the interim construction loan against thebond
commitment would be used. In the case of Collins Tuttle /Carl Marks they have
suggested just that the interim construction loan against the bond commitment would
be used. The only other thing which is listed down here and it seems like it was
significant to the issue. I have discussed it earlier but that is that the Diplomat
World Enterprises suggest that they in fact can develop the entire island within the
constraints of this proposal. The Collins Tuttle/Carl Marks proposal suggest that
they're still talking about the 30i acre attraction, and that in fact the city would
provide the infra structure that is parking,etc. to service the 30 acres.
Mayor Ferre: How is the parking? How many acres would be parking?
Mr. Gilchrist: Well, a lot depends on the nature of the project there. The assessment
of it in the Fowler, Potter, Ettinger .... was somewhere between 16 and 20 acres. If
service parking ...
Mayor Ferre: I didn't hear you, 16?
Mr. Gilchrist: 16 to 20 acres if surface parking were used. The structure obviously
is difference.
Mayor Ferre: How many acres does the island have net usuable acres other than roads
and expressways?
Mr. Gilchrist: About 70 acres.
Mayor Ferre: Net usuable ?
Mr. Gilchrist: Net usuable acres, yes.
Mr. Plummer: Approximately how many cars would that park?
Mr. Gilchrist: Well, I would reflect on this. I believe they proposed 2,700 car
parking in the Diplomat World Enterprises.
Mr. Plummer: On flat.
Mr. Gilchrist: On flat. And, there acreage is larger. T didn't refer to their
proposal here. I haven't measured their acreage frankly. I'd have to call them
then to ask that, but in the Fowler, Ettinger, Potter, Hart report they were talking
around 2,000 cars parked.
JUN 091971
Mr. Plummer: on a ri.at strut are,
fir
Mr. Gilchrist: On a flat structure, with relatively lush landscaping involved in it.
100 cars per acre is a very lush kind of parking, and you know, you can progress
away from that to the degree that you have straight asphalt parking. I have one additional
page to the charter if I can get it over here. Excuse me a second. This charter is
also in the document that was submitted to you and what it attempts to do is to take
the projections that were developed by Economic Research Associate in substantiating
the Fowler, Ettinger, Potter, Hart planning concept and to adapt the formulas for revenue
sharing as proposed by each of the developers. So, I would like to go down the items
and then we can cross through it. The attendance in the first full year of operation
proposed by Economic Research Associates which is a third year in their time structure
shows 3 million visitors, gross revenues of 22,08 million, cost of goods sold 5.07 million,
operating expenses is 9.73 million. Now, I applied a constant figure for what debt
service might be on a 45 million dollars revenue bond issue and that's carried throughout
the entire diagram. I will just point out that all these figures above are then carried
as constant, the year 5 the projection from the ERA was such. In year 10 they projections
were such. The fifth column takes the ERA projections and projects them instead of in
years in terms of the visitation to the park. One of the reasons I think this seems like
a legitimate way of looking at it is that ERA at that time did not propose any expansion
to the Fowler, Ettinger, Potter, Hart projections and they carried out a 10 year projection
based on just the normal tourist increase over that time. So, straight line projection
just by increasing the percentages the figure was used. Now, in the revenue for renovation
and expansion there was no percentage given on the revenue for renovation. In normal
situation the bond underwriting process would determine what that percentage was. Now,
we were in the Collins Tuttle/Marks proposal they had a 5% figure on the expansion reserve.
So I used 5% throughout which again is constant through both projections.
Mayor Ferre: Repeat that again, I didn't follow that. You're saying that on the revenue
for renovations and for expansion?
Mr. Gilchrist: I put them together at 5%.
Mayor Ferre: You put them 5%?
Mr. Gilchrist: I could have put them at another percentage but there is no figure
applied in either ERA original projections, nor in either the Collins Tuttle or the
Diplomat World projections, except that Collins Tuttle had stated 5% for expansion.
Mayor Ferre: But, now wait a minute. On the other one was there an expansion provision
at all?
Mr. Gilchrist: There was not an expansion but there's a ... it just says that in the
initial funds in order of distribution that after current operating expenses they reserve
for renovation. There may be a couple of other words in there but the word expansion
was not in there. It may say revenue for renovation and improvement, but there was no
percentage put on that and that's true also in the other proposal.
Mr. Plummer: John, excuse me. Maybe my mathematics is bad, but I did some quick
figuring here. And, it seems like if my figures are correct please tell me if I'm wrong.
The better they do the worse we are.
Mr. Gilchrist: In which case are you talking ?
Mr. Plummer: Let me give you what I'm looking at. On the first column -operating
expenses, you have 9.73.
Mr. Gilchrist: Right.
Mr. Plummer: Ok. You have 3.80.
Mr. Gilchrist: That's debt service.
Mr. Plummer: And, you have 1.10.
Mr. Gilchrist: 1.10 is expansion .
Mr. Plummer: Is that correct.
Mr. Gilchrist: That's 5% for expansion and renovation,
Mr. Plummer: And.. go ahead...
Mayor Ferre: J.L. the reason it goes up is because obviously 5% of 22 million dollars
and 5% of 25 million dollars is more than 5%, you know?
SUN 0 9197?,
4114
Mr. Gilchrist: It may be wrong and I would like you to correct me along the way but
let me go through the entire thing. This is based on putting together the two percent
items that were considered revenue to the city and therefore 4% of the 22.08 is .88.
The management fee is .88 as well. And even though these are split 2%, 2%, 2% I put
them down here as they are putting the management fee after the revenue to the city.
The remaining funds was by taking all of these expenses now deducting them from the
gross revenue that is taking cost of goods sold, operating,debt service, renovation,
revenue to the city, management developer. We're still a fund left over, and it was
split by taking 20% of it as a remaining funds to the city and 80% as the remaining
funds to the developer. In the case of Diplomat World, it's an attempt at applying
their formula. Now the total funds to the city is derived by adding the .12 and the
.88 therefore in the first full year of operating under the ERA projections of revenue
total funds to the city would be one million and the total funds to the developer would
be 1.38. This is repeated for the 5 year projection, for the 10 year projection, and
repeated by taking the attendance projections up to 5 million. And, you questioned the
mathematics and in one figure were incorrect there in principal it's basically the same.
There's a percentage split and it's demonstrated by that. Now, the Collins Tuttle/
Carl Marks proposal going down the their first operating year is 22.80 gross revenues.
The cost of goods sold , the operating expenses, debt service, and then the 5% revenue
for renovation and expansion. Now the remaining funds in this case were not adequate
to apply the. entire formula . Let me just slip this to the side here. That is that
10% of the first 15 million would be 1.5 million. 12% is based on the 22 million.
12% of the next 5 million is 600 thousand and 15% of everything over 3 million brought
the total to 2.4 million. For the sake of putting this in the prospective that we
believe was correct we gave the 5% management fee to the developer and reduced the
percentage rent to the city to the figure of what was left, the 1.28. There was nothing
left for distribution beyond that, and that's the formula which was applied in each of
these cases.
Mr. Plummer: John, if we use these figures, my question then goes to that column of
10% of the first 15 million.
Mr, Gilchirst: Well, I was taking that, you know based on 10% of this. This is 1.5,
and as you see it only comes to 1.28,
Mr. Plummer: Yes. But the way I had it figured we're talking about based on your
based on your projections or ERA projections, that at best from what I see here if those
projections are correct that you're coming up with a total dollar of 6 million dollars.
Mr. Gilchrist: I don't follow ...
Mr. Plummer: Ok, if you deduct from the proposal based on the first year, yes first
full year of operation we should come up with a 3 million dollar surplus or monies to
be distributed. That's the way I have it. Deducting the cost of goods, the operating
expense, debt service, and expansion.
Mr. Gilchrist: Ok, it's adding these three figures together.
Mr. Plummer: No sir. The top three figures. The cost of goods,...
Mr. Gilchrist: Oh, adding these together.
Mr. Plummer: Right.
Mr. Gilchrist: And, deducting them from this.
Mr. Plummer: Four of them, including expansion which is part of ... before . Ok?
Mr. Gilchrist: Yes.
Mr. Plummer: The first year of operation we would show about a 3 million dollars surplus.
Deducting those figures from the 22.08 .
Mr. Gilchrist: I thought it was 2.38.
Mr. Plummer: Well, I come up, you might deduct something else. Ok. Now, if you go to
the last column, I show when you deduct those same four figures that you come up with a
total of 6 million. What do you come up with?
Mr. Gilchrist: Well, I'll have to add these together very quickly, but it's roughly
6 million, that's everything below there, yes sir.
Mr. Plummer: Alright, now my question and I'm getting back to that same point. If in
JUN 091977
tact the maximum... ana .19 dbbuming LnaL LnaL is.ana cpuJrp t noia many more tnan
5 million a year.
Mr. Gilchrist: Yes, I guess that would depend on the project again.
Mt. Plummet: .... that 5 million is pretty well near tops of what you could handle
in capacity.
Mr. Gilchrist: Yes sir.
Mr. Plummer: Now, if that's the case, aren't we really talking that the percentage
10% of the first 15 million will never really, there's no way we can ever get above
that figure.
Mr. Gilchrist: Alright, I think this figure right here 4.62, 10% of 36.81 just in
rough terms would be 3.6 million and what we're saying is that the ...
Mr. Plummer: John, wait a minute, when you figure gross, are you talking about every
dollar that goes across the cash register without any deductions?
Mr. Gilchrist: No. For the sake of the generalized terms of this agreement at this
point we're talking about the entire gross.
Mr. Plummer: That's without debt service deducted, without any deducts..Is that correct?
Mr. Gilchrist: That's right. That's the way these figures are calculated.
Mr. Plummer: So in other words, what you're talking...
Mr. Gilchrist: So, you see if you say the first 10% of the first 15 million it would
have been 1.5 million and then you'll have to take the next 5 or deduct 20 from this
and then 15% of the remaining 16 million. And, you have to apply that formula and
this is the figure that I got by applying that formula.
Mr. Plummer: Ok. Go ahead.
Mr. Gilchrist: Alright, at this point, if there are no other questions you might have
regarding this.
Mr. Plummer: The only question which I asked of you the other day which I want to
put on the record, in the first proposal there is the proposal of a Marina and was
your answer at that time and still is that none of the revenues that would come from
the Marina is included in these revenues to the city. Is that still correct?
Mr. Gilchrist: No, I don't believe that was the answer. If I could correct myself?
Mr. Plummer: Please, that's why I want to put it on record.
Mr. Gilchrist: I would also say the developer is here. My interpretation of the
proposal is that these figures are on ERA which is another issue, but their proposal
is saying that the city would get and if I am incorrect, I'd like to have them correct
me. The city would get 4% revenue based on the entire operation including the Marina.
Is that correct ? And, beyond that if the total gross comes to eventually a
split the city would get the 20% of that. That does include the Marina. If I mislead
you in the first time you asked the question I apologize.
Mr. Plummer: The question in my mind as I recall the ERA there was no Marina in their
proposal.
Mr. Gilchrist: That's correct sir.
Mr. Plummer: So how can you base something on a proposal that was not in the original
concept.
Mr. Gilchrist: Well.
Mr. Plummer: Because we just had to admit that there's no... I don't see any equating
between the tourist attraction and a Marina operation it's too, you know one is a daily
event, the other is a long term event. How do you...
Mr. Gilchrist: Yes sir. Matter of fact, normally a percentage of revenue back to the
city on a Marina would be based on a different formula than that, However, for the sake
of getting this in some prospective. In fact all of these figures are constance down
9
to here, it's just apply the percentage to those gross'"l'gures,
Mr. Plummer: Alright, so what I understand you, do that I understand you. that the
gross revenue is a figure which represents no deductions.
Mr. Gilchrist: No deductions.
Mr. Plummer: And, the column that addresses itself to percentage is based upon that
figure as you represented called gross revenues.
Mr. Gilchirst: Yes sir.
Mr. Plummer: Ok. And, I want both developers to speak to that.
Mr. Gilchrist: If there's any difference in that I would like to hear that too. If
I'm misinterpretating ... yes sir Mr. Tuttle.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Tuttle and Mr. Fine, let's not have any answers until your opportunity,
just take a pad , write it down and you'll each have half an hour or 45 minutes to
do anything you want and answer any questions. Let's just keep it... at this point.
Write down the questions...
Mr. Gilchrist: I'd like to turn it back over to Mr. Crumpton.
Mr. Crumpton: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners you had a review of the evaluations that
the committee has made of the two proposals and you also have before you the recommend-
ations...
Mayor Ferre: John, don't take that down now. We want to see it. If you want you can
put it on the floor so we can see the full spectrum of it. Ok.
Mr. Crumpton: That we have made a recommendation to you and these recommendations are
based upon primarily the return to the city the revenues of the project by a prospective
developer.The kind of formulas that are depicted in their proposals as well as, the
kind of formulas that are depicted in their proposals as well as the pre -financing
cost and also based upon the selection process for the design team which is in page
8 of your prospectives.That as you recall we had gone through a review as solicitation of
4 firms for the development of Watson Island and some 17 responsed. Of that we had
six firms come in for interview and it would be that from these six firms they would
present themselves again before the selection committee which then would include
whatever developer is chosen and our recommendation. I'll give vou.You could work
with that and proceed from that point so that is a part of the proposal. So it is
our recommendation that you authorize the Manager to negotiate a successful agreement
with the firm of Collins Tuttle and Co,Inc., and Carl Marks and Co. Inc. and that in the
event that a agreement cannot be reached that's mutually agreeable to both the city and
that firm that the Manager then be authorized from the same resolution to proceed with
the No. 2 firm in our recommendation to you of the Development World Enterprises,Ltd.
I would like at this time to call upon Mr. Herb Simon, who is your Citizens Committee
Chairman and then the Chamber Committee Chairman to speak. I would call Mr. Simon,
who is your Chairman of the Citizens Committee for Watson Island.
Mr. Simon: I'm not going to get into the merits of one firm against another. I merely
want to say that representatives of our committee have met on numerous occasions with
representatives from the Chamber of Commerce and from the City, and as you've heard
of all of the proposals that were submitted. We felt that both of these firms would
qualify with the choice of course, is up to you. I do say that the wheels of government
move rather slowly. This concept was conceived by the Mayor and the Commission I
believe it was 1975 during something with Watson Island with the Tivoli Gardens concept
and it was supposed to jell in 1976 as a Bicentennial Project. We're now in the middle
of 1977 in private enterprise. As you know I'm in the Real Estate business. We do it
a little more quickly. We have to make decisions and judgments a little more quickly
than than that and I'm sort of getting my feet wet or sinking in government mire . But
as original can see this by the Mayor this was and is to be a marriage of private enter-
prise and government. I feel it can be done. I think that the area , Miami area
desperately needs a family oriented amusement entertainment area and which ever choice
you make. Whichever firm choice you make. I think Watson Island is a good bet and please
let's get going. Thank you.
Mayor Ferre: Herb, I only have one correction to make. It's not 1975. It was 1969
and the first time this thing came up was as a recommendation by Edward Durrell Stone, Jr.
to make a historic village and amusement semi small amusement center on Watson Island
which the City of Miami Commission accepted the recommendation. It was subsequently brought u;
again by myself before Chuck Cobbs Committee in 19 late 73, and early 74 with the discussion
of what to do with Interama where I recommended at that point that the amusement park
portion of it be transferred to Watson Island, 6o it's been a long time. The gestation
10
JUN 491917.
ry
Mr. Crumpton: I would like also to call upon the Chamber Watson Island Committee, Ca-
Chaired by Mr. Earl Powell and Mr. Chuck Cobb and Mr. Earl Powell is here to say a
word or two.
Mr. Powell: Good Morning Mr. Mayor, Commissioners. The Mayor started off a speech .3`
the other day to a group of Chamber Officials by saying'; Behold the lowly turtle
he only makes progress when he sticks his neck out.' Apparently, we haven't stuck
our neck out far enough with respect to Watson Island because we sure haven't made 1L
much progress. I think today represents maybe the first step in consummating some- al
thingwe've had on the drawtino boards for a long time. During the last few days
-we've had severalconvPrsa n with Alvah Chapman, who is the Chairman of the New s
World Center Action Committee for the Chamber, whose sub -committee Chuck Cobb and I .g
chair. Unfortunately, Alvah and Bill Colson from the Chamber couldn't be hbre this
morning. Chuck Cobb was here for about an hour but had to leave for another appoint
ment. I'd just like to say that we're very much behind the Watson Island Project.
We feel that it's a viable concept. It's a needed project for the community._ We'll?
delighted that we have two quality bidders that we believe are capable of developing
the island in a first class way. The Administration has had a difficult task''ir ' r
trying to evaluate the merits, demerits of the two bidders. Obviously, they're both
high class organizations. We don't take a position as to which firm you should select
but we certainly wish you to select one and let's go on down the road with this project.
We'll be available to help in any way we can and we've set up a meeting on the 22nd
of June between Mr. Simon's group and the Marina Council and the Chamber's group to
solidify our positions with respect to the type of project that ought to gq on the
island. But in the meantime we would certainly like to see the Commission act on this
matter in a very positive way.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Manager, let me ask you a question? Basically, and I'll maybe need
to ask the developers. Along the line of what these two gentlemen, the last. two
speakers have said. Has there any parameters been mentioned as to a time table or
time schedule as to,let's say that you negotiate the contracts by the first of July, just
using that hypothetically. When will the first person go through the turnstop? Has_
there been any talk about how long? ' n` `=
Mayor Ferre: J. L. I would respectfully ask , because I think that's a general
question that we ought to ask after these two firms have made their presentation.
Mr. Plummer: I'm only asking was there any minimum or any parameters set in that area
as to the time schedule?
Mr. Grassie: Only the time schedule outlined by the Fowler, Ettinger Study. Once a
developer is selected by you then one of the first steps would be to determine how
long it would take them to get the project done.
Mr. Plummer: And, what do you look at realistic?
Mr. Grassie: We have not had an estimate less than 21 years for the basic design and
construction projects, that's optimistic.
v.
Mr. Plummer: Ok. So we're looking at then 212 plus.
Mayor Ferre: Alright at this time then I'll recognize Mr. Tuttle. Mr. Tuttle and
Mr. Fine, here's the way I think we're going to do this if it's alright with both
of you gentleman: The chair will allow you each half an hour to make your prgsent-
ation , discussion, whatever you want and I will retain the prerogative of extendin
either/or both another ten minutes ifyou should need it and �''
give you ample time
for rebuttal if anything, you know, This is not a debate and I don't intend.or• it
to be a debate, but if there are questions that come up during each other's discussion
you'll have plenty of opportunity if you wish to address yourself to the points that `
come up.
Mr. Tuttle: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Vice -Mayor Gibson, Commissioners. First of all,
started so I'll be very brief. I'm very grateful no matter what your decision rhnayJ.
pe,
today. I'm very grateful to be considered for this project. I'm grateful to get to
know a little• more about your area which has brought so much pleasure to so matiy
millions of visitors, myself included, and to the inter lecturer stimulous of consider-
ing this exciting challenging project. My company is small in numbers and large in
volume and large in experience. And to maintain to our volume and to expand it we
have to continue to maintain a steady record of successful quality projects. So when`
we consider whether we want to make a proposal on Watson Island we considered three` iings.1
We considered whether its profitable for the City and for ourselves of course, we
considered whether there would be adequate revenues to properly operate maintain arid�
renew the projects so that would insure the long term possibility of the project ariagwe
11 ,SUN o 9 197011
`"C
I'll address myself to time limit, half an hour. I'm anxious to get this thing
quality of Collins Tuttl.F'ther projects. The answer was ,es. And, consequently we've
made our proposal. We've assembled a team of people that we think are which I'd like
to present which we think are nucleus a good team to do this project. We'll do
it with a good deal of enthusiasm. t plead to you that if I'm selected we will build
a project of which both you and we could be proud. I would like to first present the
Project Manager of the Collins Tuttle if were selected. Mrs, Barbara Cobbs ,Vice-
President of our company. Sitting next to here, that handsome young fellow, I think
you all know is Steve Nostrand of Communicate who will be out Public Relations Director,
Leon Frazier the firm of Morse Diesel Company, Now Morse Diesel Company is probably
the World's Largest Construction Consultants and one of the largest general contractors
in this country. They've been the construction arm of our company since we started it
25 years ago and they've worked very closely with Frank J. Rooney in the South Eastern
part of the United States. We've heard some criticism expressed that we're not local
residents. That's a valid criticism to the extent that it would deminish the economic
benefits to the community. Of course the economic benefits of the community will insure
its acceptance by the community . And, to demonstrate our commitment to maximize the
economy benefits to the community we have retained Frank J. Rooney as our construction
consultants, really consultants to Morse Diesel and the Florida area Costly. We have
here Mr. Bill Southern from Frank J. Rooney. I might add that Frank J. Rooney and Morse
are collaborating on a similar project in Memphis. It's similar in the fact that it is
a development of a theme park on an island in Mississippi and Frank J. Rooney just been
awarded the contract and Morse Diesel are the consultants for the City of Memphis for
the project and I'm open to any questions. I'd like to first respond to your question
Mr. Plummer concerning the gross revenues. The only acception to gross revenues that
I've made in my proposal is sales tax. Every dollar taken in with the exception of
sales tax. No, I'm talking about I won't pay a percentage rent on the sales tax is
what I'm saying. And, that's the only...
Mr. Plummer: Are you finished with your presentation?
Mr. Tuttle: Yes sir.
Mr. Plummer: I want to get into that particular area. It's two areas that I want to
get into on your particular proposal. First of all, starting at the top . As I under-
stand it and John said the other day and it is not clarified there John, so I want it
clarified for the record. It is my understanding that you have made some comment to
the Administration that you would pay the entire preliminary cost of $200,000 if you
were able to negotiate. What was the wording on that John?
Mr. Gilchrist: If I can negotiate the design contract to a designer that I would
designate with the approval of the city, of course.
Mr. Plummer: Then, you would pay the entire cost.
Mr. Gilchrist: I would pay the entire cost, yes.
Mr. Plummer: Why?
Mr. Gilchrist: Because Commissioner Gordon asked me to.
Mr. Plummer: What?
Mr. Gilchrist: Because Commissioner Gordon suggested that.
Mrs. Gordon: Let's clear the record. In the interview that I had with you, and in
general discussion. I said this proposal includes this. Is this something you would
do? That's all.
Mr. Gilchrist: That's correct.
Mrs. Gordon: I'm not suggesting that you do that.
Mr. Gilchrist: No, no, I meant at your resquest,
Mrs, Gordon: And, I want the reflect that.
Mr. Gilchrist: At your request Commissioner Gordon.
Mr. Plummer; So in other words, then I understand that there
what's on the paper,
Mr, Gilchrist; Yes sir.
Mr, FlUMmer; O),
12
is something more than
JUN 0 9197
Mr, Plummer: Now, really I don't know whether I want to get to you or just in general
I'm still not satisfied with the terminology gross and how it will be paid. is it
your interpretation ?L.et me ask it this way, Your understanding the 5% gross as a
management fee, is that deducted from the gross figures as it relates revenues to the
city?
Mr, Tuttle: No sir. The city would get it's full rent before i get my Management
fee,
Mt, Plummer: Before?
Mr, Tuttle: Before.
Mr. Plummer: Alright. Now in your proposal under distribution of revenues, As I Under -
Stand it current operating expenses and reserve for renovation, does that come out prior
to debt service?
Mr. Tuttle: Yes sir.
Mr. Plummer: Prior to debt service. Now, you say a percentage of rent to the city but
then down you come under that masking tape, the first item is fixed rent. I'm confused
there. What is the difference?Since it's under, I assume the 5% management fee and thats
why the tape was put there that what is the difference between percentage of rent to the
city and fixed rent? What is the difference as you understand it?
Mr. Tuttle: Assuming that there was a year in which the percentage rent did not equal
$750,000 and a year in which at the same time there was adequate revenue to pay the debt
service and pay the city $750,000. The city would receive the $750,000 after my manage-
ment fee and before any remaining distributions. In other words, let's assume there was
a million dollars left after paying my management fee and after paying the debt service
there was a million dollars left. The city would recieve $750,000. Then the $250,000
remaining would then be divided 50/50 between us and the city. Even though the percent-
age rent formula would only come to $600,000 for example.
Mr. Plummer: So then, you are not offering a minimum annual guarantee of $750?
Mr. Tuttle: No sir.
Mr. Plummer: Ok. That's really the bottom line. Well, no, that's what I'm trying to
get Rose understanding, because to me it's confusing. In other words, that $750 minimum,
John, please if I'm wrong interject. As I understand it that $750 is not a minimum
guarantee. Now, am I correct sir?
Mr. Tuttle: Well, nothing is guaranteed before the debt service to start with. After
the debt service is paid there is a percentage rent, which let's take an example .Let's
say with the percentage rent formula there will be $600,000 due on the percentage rent
formula but there was a million dollars left after payment of the management fee,
operating cost,reserve, etc. there was a million dollars left. Instead of paying
you $600,000 having $400,000 to split 50/50 I would pay you $750,000 and have $250,000
left to split with you 50/50 so in a sense it's a minimum guarantee. It's a minimum
guarantee in the priorities where rent falls in the picture.
Mr. Plummer: Joe, you understand it that way?
Mr. Grassier The way he's explained it?
Mrs. Gordon: In other words, are you now saying that the $600 would be an addition
to the $750 ?
Mr. Tuttle; No ma'am. I was saying that if the percentage rent calculation using
my table came to $600,000 and there was a million dollars left after payment of all
the other expenses in the debt service then the city wouldn't get $600. The would get
$750,000 and there would be left $250,000 instead of $400,000 to split. That's what I'm
saying.
Mr. Plummer; Yes, but let's get to more basis, Let's assume it's only $400,000.
Mr. Tuttle; Then the city only gets $400,000.
Mr. Plummer; Ok.
Mr, Tuttle; But I don't get a management fee, (repeat)
Mr, Plummer; That answered my question. Ok, So in other words, what you're saying
is that the percentage only comes in after debt Service,
13
JUN 09197?
Mr, Tuttle: After debt service and before my management fee, yes sit.
Mr, Plummer: Is there anything else? bebt service comes out of the gross.
Mt, Tuttle: And operating cost.
Mr. Plummer: And operating cost. Ok. What about the reserve the renovation?
That all comes out. And that comes out before you get a management fee?
Mr. 'Tuttle: Before I get a management fee, also debt service comes out befote I
get a management fees. Also the percentage rent cones out before I get a nanagetneht
fee.
Mr. Plummer: Well, I'm trying to get to a point before we get to the rent, Ok7
W. Tuttle. Ok. Alright.
Mr. Plummer: In other words, all of those items have to come out before the rent
to the city.
Mr. Tuttle: That's correct sir,
Mr. Plummer: And, then it is possibe that the city could come up with nothing.
Mr. Tuttle: Yes sir. It's possible.
Mr. Plummer: And, you still get your percentage?
Mr. Tuttle: No sir. No sir, I would get nothing either.
Mr. Plummer: Well, then management doesn't come out of that.
Mr. Tuttle: No I said none sir. I said management fee comes after the percentage
rent. But if there is augmentation of the rent to the city because of the difference
between the percentage rent and the minimum rent then that augmentation comes after
I get my management fee.
Mr. Plummer:
Ok.
Mr. Tuttle: Before I get anything.
Mr. Plummer: Before you get anything. But still there is coming out operating
expenses, reserve and debt service prior to the city getting the first dollar?
Mr. Tuttle: Yes sir. That's correct.
Mr. Plummer: And the 750 minimum only applies after that.
Mr. Tuttle: No sir. You get the percentage rent,then I get a management fee.
Then you get the $750,000 minimum. That's where that comes in.
Mr. Plummer: Well, your 5% comes out before the city's?
Mr. Tuttle: Before the city's augmentation. But not before the city's percentage
rent. Before I make up the difference between the percentage rent and the minimum
rent, then I get my management fee. You understand that Commissioner?
Mr. Plummer: I understand. Yes. You see where I'm confused is on the bottom chart
where it refers to gross revenues and they are trying to determine through gross revenues
what the revenue to the city would be. And, it doesn't quite jive.
Mr. Tuttle: Well, sir I think that's because in this particular example ...
Mr. Plummer: Well, he said he was finished Maurice. Excuse me sir. Didn't you
indicate you were finished with your presentation?
Mr, Tuttle: Oh yes.
Mr, Plummer: Oh yes. I didn't start anything. I didn't ask the first question,
Ok, That's where I'mn confused because when you start trying to equate your formula
to their formula (I don't want to say a discrepancy ) there's a difference.A big different
Mr. Tuttle: Yes there is a difference. Because my formula has obviously a much
higher percentage rent than the city in their formula,
Mr. Plummer: Yes. Well _ anderstand that, But I'm just tying to get it clarified.
Ok. Sir can you indicate beside the word ''negotiate" what you feel about the lease,
the year?
Mr. Tuttle: Sir, I simply follow the instructions as I understood them for the bidding.
And there was no instructions there to suggest what term. The term would naturally
have to be something at least equal to the term of the bonds and I would like to have
an additional term equal to that first term, For example, if it was 30 year bonds,
I'd like to have 30 years plus a 30 year term after that so that I would have the
possibility of capitalizing on the past re -payment of the bonds, But there is no
indication in the bidding documents as I understood them. Perhaps there was but I
didn't understand it if there was an indicating of a term to be specified.
Mr. Plummer: Ok. Let me ask one other question of him. John, is it realistic based upon
their formula that we would ever get to the 50/50 remaining?
Mr. Gilchrist: I believe it is sir, Yes. But you have to take into consideration
that in their proposal, first the remaining funds to retire the entire debt before
that would happen. Then,I believe it's possible,
Mr. Plummer: So in other words, what you're ... I'm getting back, and, maybe I'm
try to over simplify. Assuming that would take 15 years, then it's not really
realistic on either proposal that that percentage would ever come into play. Is it?
Mr. Tuttle: After the 15 years, the assumption is that it would.
Mr. Plummer: Ok.
Mayor Ferre: You're talking about a long term contract, so I would imagine that once
the debt is paid off you don't have a debt burden that that becomes a very important
660.
Mr. Plummer: Well, according to this it would be 3.8 additional funds that could be
up.
Mayor Ferre: Well, you see again you got to be careful with simplicity charts. I'm
not saying that this is a simplicity chart per se.But you can't cover all the different
varieties of things that could happen. For example, I guarantee that those charts don't
take into account the point after debt retirement. Because if you take for example,
if you say, well this is true the fourth year or the fifth year or the tenth year.
Suppose you projected it and said what happens on the thirteenth or the fifteenth year
once you get debt retirement than those figures change completely.
Mr. Plummer: Ok.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, any other questions of Mr. Tuttle at this time?
Mr. Tuttle: Thank you very much.
Mayor Ferre: Thank you Mr. Tuttle. Mr. Fine?
Mr. Fine: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission. If I may,first I'd like to pass
out some additional information? If the Manager would kindly distribute these to the
Commission it would save us some time?
Mayor Ferre: Do you have an extra copy so that the press... extra copies for the press?
Mr. Fine: Yes. Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission. I'd like to first take the
opportunity to thank you for the privilege of allowing our group to bid on Watson Island.
Also too, selecting us as one of the two bidders whom you will consider today. I think
it's important that the Manager and the Commission meet the entire member:- of the team.
Most of whom will participate in our discussion.In as much as,the specialty areas to
which has been addressed before will be covered by us. I think because of the nature
of the proposal we will address ourselves to our proposal. The distinctions between
our proposal, the Collins proposal and the Pritzker proposal and also to the distinctions
between the bid documents themselves. The information indicated by staff and those
that are making the proposals. I would like first to introduce the members of our entire
development team. The first gentleman that I would ask to stand is our guiding factor,
our elder statesman known to you all who provided the inspiration and the essence that
we consider developing and presenting to the city the finest possible attraction and
cvelopment ,and Marina, and international village possible to be developed in the
United States on Watson Island. The combined residency of the members of our developing
team in the Greater Miami area far exceed 100 years and his activities in this area
ranging from the development, ownership of the acquisition of the Diplomat Complex.
The defeating of a majority of the people in our county, the retail grocery business
15 JUN 49197i
f� r�
is leadership to us as a -team. Due to a civic philanthrophy, charitable and
religious activities have set the tone for the style, the completeness and the
quality of both our presentation and our staff, I'd like to introduce to the Commission
Mr. Samuel Freedland. I would also like to take this opportunity to introduce my
partner. Another partner in the Venture who has provided leadership in the development,
operational, entertainment, amusement attraction, for many years. Probably the out-
standing quote, young man in the field, in this state and perhaps the United States
with whom we've very proud to be associated. The President of the Diplomat Hotel
and Resort Complex, Irving Cowan, The representative of our next major aspect of the
team is the firm of Randell Duell, I have distributed to you as additional information
o th e r than those cited in our presentation which include detail background resumes of
our entire team. A copy of the american annual 1975 Encyclopedia Americana Yearbook
which on page 3 quotes the following from the Encyclopedia Britannic a, "building a theme
park since Disney's death".Randall Duell, an architect and former motion picture art
director has become the number one force in theme park architecture. Duell who has
designed most of the nation's theme parks has a set of basic guidelines for theme park
design. First, Duell investigates the area in which the park is to be built and secondly
he studies the area's population and the modes of entertainment presently offered in the
area. As a result of his findings Duell establishes a specific theme for the new park.
I would like to introduce representing Duell a gentleman who has been Vice -President of
that company since his completion of duties as a U.S. Naval Officer in 1966 and his
activities doing this past period of time has been such that he will be the Project
Manager based cn his participation in most dual projects. He holds degrees from the
University of California at Los Angeles and is a member of the American Society of Interior
Designer Mr. Ira West. There's another essential member of our team. We have
quoted here this morning by both the city and by Mr. Tuttle, Economic Research Associates.
We are pleased t, have with us as a working member of our team, the President of that
Company who holds a B.A. from Duke University, an M.B.A. from the University of Southern
California who since 1966 has direct and indirect involvement and the initial planning,
redevelopment and operation planning for most of the major theme parks in the United
States whose clients include Disney World, Marriott Corporation, Sea World, Bush Gardens,
and Six Flags and who recently served as general manager of the revitalization of Circus
World in Orlando, Mr, Wayne Wilson, who will speak to the economics presented here today
and the projections related to and the returns to the city and the economic viability.
Mr. Wayne Wilson. We're also pleased to have a member of our own staff whose family
has resided in Miami since 1937, a Vice -President of Venture Development Corporation
who is a trained and experienced Market Economist having spent all of his business
career in the Economic and Marketing Research of Real Estate Processes, who holds his
Bachelor of Economics from the Warden School of Commerce and Finance, the University of
Pennsylvania and who is presently obtaining his masters in Business Administration at
the University of Miami. He was past President of the Miami Chapter of the American
Marketing Association and is currently serving on the Industrial Institutional and
Commercial Council of the National Association of Home Builders. As well as, the Sales
and Marketing Council of the National Association of Home Builders and who will represent
Florida this month in Denver, Colorado as the national expert on commercial development
relating to home building and residential areas, Mr. Jay Lewis. We are pleased to have
with us two gentleman from the Underwriters who issued the letter of intent set forth
in our proposal based upon the extensive work that was accomplished by our development
team in some 26 days which is almost half the time it took for city staff to read and
evaluate the proposals and bring them here to this Commission. The General Partner of
the firm of Prescott,Ball and Turbin who has spent 23 years in the security field, primarily
tax exempt, financing for industry and local government. He presently serves on the
legislative committee of the Securities Industry Association and is a Trustee of the
Ohio Security Dealer's Association and recently served as Vice -President, Vice -Chairman
of the N.A.S.D. Business Conduct Committee Mr. Norman Reed,Jr. We're also pleased to
have with him the Senior Partner of that firm who executed the letter of intent whose
input,concern, willingness, experience and ability allowed us to be the only bidder to
produce to the Commission at the time of the opening of the public bids or through today
a letter of intent indicating to the City the vitality of the economic parameters set
forth in our proposal, Mr, Don Chadwick.
Mrs. Gordon: Would you repeat the name of the firm please Mr. Fine?
Mr. Fine: Prescott, Ball and Turbin. You'll find that within your brochure. The letter
of commitment is in the section entitled,"Financing". In light of the staff figures and
memorandums furnished to the Commission we will within the time allotted to us by different
members of our team demonstrate to the Commission that our proposal is complete professional-
ly and competently prepared with the interest of the city and the taxpayers foremost in
our consideration. It will be a quality designation for an attraction. It will generate
revenues to the city at the earliest possible date and will be a minimum risk to the city.
In terms of its pledge of non ad valorem taxes and franchise fees. It is a tried and
proven concept, and it will impact beneficially in three ways on this community. Employ-
ment in construction. Employment in parks staff. Primarily,under employed youths. Increase
tourism and regeneration of the image of Miami as a city on the go. It will also provide
for our taxpayers and residents family entertainment. Urgently needed marine facilities.
16
JUN u$1977.
We will also demonstrate that we have the flexibility to design the development at
maximum return for minimum investment. Because of the quality, qualifications,
experience, and performance of our team and others. Including cooperation from the
Danish Government, which I mentioned at this point because we had some time during
the discussion a discussion that originally was initiated in some relationship to
Tivoli Gardens, And, we will pass around to the members of the Commission, a letter
that we have received from the Royal Danish Consulate on behalf of the Danish Govern-
ment arrising for our meetings with the Consul General of Denmark last week and the
C o ns u l of Denmark located in Miami, where we reviewed with them our concepts. Invited
their participation in terms of attractions in Tivoli, in terms of input from the Danish
Agricultural and Marketing Departments who supervise and develop the.Danish Government
Exhibit at the New York World's Fair. As an indication of one positive step forward to
create an international atmosphere in the free village available to the citizens and
taxpayers of Miami outside the paid Theme Amusement Park. We will demonstrate as we
have in our bid proposal that our developing is financiable under our proposed agreement
at the best possible rate in the shortest possible time. We will address ourselves to
the representations that were made here today. We will address'ourselves to the line
items set forth in the city staff memorandum. We will explain to the city that the list-
ing of $500,000 letter of credit constitutes in our judgment a sham. That the $200,000
figure for free developing cost has no supporting data, either by the city nor the
developer that sets that amount. And, we will remind the Commission that we have reduced
the city's exposure in this project by over 21 million dollars. We've heard the word
flexibility. We will demnonstrate that flexibility is being interpreted as having no
shape or form, no defined concept, except perhaps for a hotel. That without the concept
you cannot develop a financiable project and without the concept the city will have
substantial risk of their entire secondary pledge funds in such a project.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Fine I don't mean to interpret you and please forgive me for doing this.
But I want to remind you that we do have a time limitation and I expect that you will follow
that and you seem to have a lot of things that you do want to bring out. I just want to
remind you that I think what, ten minutes have gone by or fifteen?
Mr. Ongie: Almost twenty minutes has gone by. We have eleven minutes left.
Mayor Ferre: Basically, you have about ten minutes and then the extra ten minutes left.
Mr. Fine: In keeping with the time requirements Mr. Mayor then I will then ask for the
next section of our Presentation to be presented by the Design Consultant, Mr. Ira West
of Randall Duell & Associates.
Mr. West: I'll try to be as quick as I can with this explanation. Basically, what I'm
going to go through is an explanation of what we've accomplished today and how we arrived
at this, and why we arrived at it. To start with this first plan you see here. This is
a second in a series of two plans that we arrived at. It's very preliminary in concept
but we feel it's very definitive at the same time. It was arrived at with input from
ERA as to sizing and we had to do this in order to prove the viability and that a park
could be built for $35,000,000 or less. It would have been presumptuous of us to say it
could without going through this process. As I say it looks definitive but it has a great
deal of flexibility built into it. But the area is basically, or somewhat fixed in their
parameters as far as spacing goes. We do need this space. We know. First of all, it
falls within the parameters of the city's traffic study. We know that we can accommodate
the number of cars required for the success of the project and that it won't affect traffic
adverserly. What we have done is we've moved the major highway to this side of the island.
The reason for that was to have as much flexibility between the park, theme park proper
and the parking lot. We find that as the park must expand in size it'll have to generate
space in the parking lot. The parking lot will either shrink, become muti stored, removed
completely off the island onto the mainland. We need this flexibility in the future.
What you see here basically is approximately 23 acres of theme park which includes 4 acres
of maintenance area and 19 acres of park. Along with this we have roughly 31 acres of a
village, a thematic specially center which is free of charge to the public. This works
in conjunction with the park so that we have a paid area and a free area . In order to
generate traffic returning again and again we have to have this sort of arrangement. We've
maintained everything that was called for by the staff in that we have kept the Japanese
Village. We have a Marina with 400 slips. We have Chalk's Airline. And, of course, we
have the highway. We've made special allowances to take traffic off the highway. Move
them into the parking lot as quickly as possible. We have only one overpass over the
highway and we have no cross traffic on the highway which will make it safer than it is
now. Traffic will pass through. In order to leave the highway we have off ramps and we
have an overpass. We also have additional underpass and it is existing bridge to save
the additional cost. Just to give you some statistics on the park to show you what we've
done. We compute that the park is capable of handling nearly 22,000 people theoretically
per hour. Now this actually translate into the park's ability to hold slightly over
13,000 people, that's what we call a peak in park. And, we anticipate at least a 4 hour
stay. And, we're talking about this area now. With this kind of a stay and that kind of
a peak the maximum daily attendance of what you see here is $17,000 people and this trans-
17
JUN 091977
lates roughly into somen1ere between 2 and 3 million people a year. Now, these figures
are rough because it will require further study by ERA to refine them. We know that we
are in that area but we can't tell you exactly what the final number is. The sizing
of the park may go up a few acres or down. And, the parking lot may go up or down, but
it works basically.
Mayor Ferre: Let me ask you a question? Is the new road going to be part of the
10 million dollar infra structure expense?
Mr. West: Yes it would, We found that it was cheaper. We think it is. If it's not
cheaper it's a toss up to move the road and miniminize a number of overpasses. The
first plan we had showed the road as it was. But it meant we had to cross over it.
Because it was creating tremendous traffic conjestions. This one is somewhat more
refined and we feel if it is a toss up it's well worth it. We need that flexibility.
If this .is to exceed three million in attendance it won't work the other way. What I've
done is I've brought some photographs along from five projects. Not that this project
will look like any one of these but only to give you some idea of the quality. The type
of quality that we build in other projects. The five projects include Magic Mountain
in Los Angeles. Opera Land in Nashville,Tennessee. Park in Pennsylvania. C
winds in Charlotte, North Carolina and Marriott is Great America in San Francisco
and Chicago. I'll pass these around so you can look at them. There was some concern
about landscaping and how the island will look from both the steamship terminal and from
the islands with residential housing. So we did just a quick little section. We call
a section through critical areas to show you that we consider those things. Now, this
is really premature but because the subject was brought up we thought we ought to talk
a little bit about it. Basically, we use what we call berms, trees and landscaping to
hide things thatare not attractive. For instance, where we have a fence.You can see
a small fence here. This is actually an 8ft. fence., to hide that fence from the water
side we built a berm up on this side of the fence and plant trees. So that the fence
litter is invisible. Generally speaking we have variations of topography all around the
park. Where ever there is something that we feel isnt's attractive we either hide, we
cover it or we change it. I think we can guarantee you that the park will be attractive
from all areas and that's not going to become a problem. And, lastly, I think we should
stress that the final shape of the project will definitely be unique. It will be unique
to this area. In no way will it be like any others except in concept. We have to use
approving concept, The risk is quite high and no one here is prepared to take that
kind of a risk.
Mrs. Gordon: I have a question. Just from the standpoint of the re-routing of the road.
Has this been checked out with the State Road Department or the Authorities that would
have jurisdiction over final say of the routing?
Mr. West: No. There hasn't been time to go into that much detail. We know that in
principal it's possible and unless there is some very unusual soil problems. It's not
that difficult a task.
Mrs. Gordon: I don't mean that. I meant would that present any problem from some other
agencies?
Mr. West: I don't know. I doubt it. But I can't answer that.
Mrs. Gordon: In event there would be a problem are you prepared to develop it without
that concept of moving the road? Your original proposal ...
Mr. West: It can be done, but I think it's a better project to do it this way. But it
can be done the other way too.
Mrs. Gordon: Yes, but since we're at the very beginning of decision making we have to
know that if one didn't go would another be able to be done?
Mr. West: I think it would. Yes. This is the original. This is how we start it. And,
you noticed we had a cross over here and we had another cross over at this point. But we
loose flexibility by not doing this. In short,you have a fixed area in this side of the
highway and you have a fixed area in this side.
Mrs. Gordon: I recognize the merits of your chance. But I'm asking for a point of
information.
Mr. West: Yes it will work the other way.
Mayor Ferre: Could you go back to the other map? I have one question there. The 400
boat slips, how will those people- where will they park and how would they get to their
boats?
Mr. West: That's a separate facility in that we have parking all along here.
1.8 JUN 091977
Mayor Ferre: Oh I see. ok.
Mr. West: And, they come off the highway, This particular case they come off here
or going the other direction. You notice we have an off ramp. We show four lanes so
we can stack as many cars off the highway, They would continue and go over the bridge
and come back down,
Mayor Ferre: Alright. I see.
Mr. Plummer: The difference between your proposal and the other. Both state a total
project cost $45,000,000. Your proposal includes the Marina Facilities in that $45,000,
000, My concern is what are you doing so radically different? What are you doing
differently, or less or more that you can put a Marina in your proposal for $45,000,000
and their's doesn't include a Marina? You understand the question?
Mr. West: I'll let Mr. Fine answer that question,
Mr. Fine: We developed plans that could be estimated to determine cost. And, therefore
we're able to validate the city's $45,000,000, Had we not developed plans to develop
cost we would be unable to validate the city's $45,000,000. What we eliminated from the
city's prior cost of $45,000,000 was approximately $2,000,000 to get into the ferry
service business, which we believe was a business that should be financed and operated
by private enterprise or the Metropolitan Transit Authority and not by the City of Miami.
Mr. Plummer: So in other words you took that money as proposed for that area...
Mr. Fine: And applied it toward the cost of the Marina.
Father Gibson: Proceed. Go right on.
Mr, West: That's all I have. Unless there are any more questions.
Mr. Plummer: Well, just for the record. This is a proposal on your part? This is
not etched in concrete?
Mr, West: No, this is just a concept to prove that one could be done for that money.
Without this we couldn't write a letter.
Mr. Plummer: Final question sir. You very boastfully made mention of the fact of all
of these parks that you've done, Are they all making money?
Mr. West: As far as I know they are. Yes.
Mr. Fine: I will pass around to the Commission because I only have one copy by circum-
stance. A publication entitled,"Travel and Leisure", published, I guess by American
Express or perhaps I could read it to you. But nothing but glowing comments. And, out
of these I would say 90% were done by Duell. Cedar Points ,•Sandusky , Ohio. Great
Adventure, Jacks, New Jersey. Hersey Park, Hersey Pennsylvania. Magic Mountain,
Valencia, California. Marriott Great America, Gurney, Illinois. Worlds of Fun, Kansas
City, Missouri. Six Flags over Georgia, Atlanta, Georgia. The essence of all of these
being the success of the park is in the essence of the design. And, the experience of
the designers are an essential part of the security of the park. I would also like to
state that the economic validation and the underwriting were done on the first proposal
with the roads splitting the island and we hopefully think that if we're able to
effectuate the second change that it would be better than what we discussed and validated
on the first proposal.
Mrs. Gordon: Question. Same kind of question that I asked Mr. Tuttle, which was that
that their proposal says 50/50 split of the final profits, whatever they may happen to
be, Your's is something less than that, Are you flexible on that?
Mr. Fine: Let me relate to the proposals in the financial area so that we explain that
it's more than that. Number one is I'm going to ask the financial people to come up now.
But second is that we take no money up front. We supply the front money. The only time
we get any money is after the city's gotten its first profit and we come second. We're
not taking 5% off the top. Now, if we went technically according to the specifications,
where the proposals had to be better than Pritzker. Pritzker only took 2% off the top.
The other proposal you're considering today, not ours takes 5% off the top and would
technically disqualify it if the Pritzker proposal was to be the bottom line. We've
structured it so that all of the debts. All of the expenses are paid then the city gets
2% before we see the first 2%, then the city gets the next 2% before we see the second
2%, then the city gets the next 20% before there's any remainder. And, we're going to
show you that it's impossible for you to obtain the 50/50 view under the bid documents
as submitted at the time that the public bids were opened. And, with that in mind I
would like to call ....
1,9 JUN 0 91977
Mr. Plummer: Wait a minu,:e.... whoa, whoa. Are you sayi,.�,, that the remaining dollars
are not split 80/20? But the city gets 20 then you get yours?
Mr. Fine: Whatever is left. That's correct.
Mr. Plummer: It's not a 50/50 or an 80/20 split?
Mr. Fine: That's correct. There may be nothing left for us. The city gets the first.
20. They get the first too. Then they get the third too. Then they get the first
20. They come before the developer all the time. The burden is upon us to develop
quality, profitable project before we can be compensated .
Mr. Plummer: Let me just one more time understand this. When it comes to the bottom
line split.
Mr. Fine: The city gets the first 20% of whatever the remainder is.
Mr. Plummer: Is that the way you understand it?
Mayor Ferre: Ronnie, the thing that I see that I don't... If you're saying we get 20%
of whatever is left. If there is a million dollars left we get $200,000.
Mr. Fine: Can we read to the real numbers ? I'd like for the economist now. We've
been quoting... We have two economist here. One, R.J.Lewis and two Wilson, who did the
Pritzker economist and who has done ours. We have charts here and we can show you where
we think it stands.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, let's get into that then.
Mr. Lewis: My name is Jay Lewis and as Mr. Fine mentioned I have been involved in Real
Estate Economics for quite some time. Quite a few projects in this area and elsewhere
in the southeast.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Lewis, what's the name of your firm?
Mr. Lewis: Pardon me. I'm associated with the Venture Development Corporation Mr. Mayor.
And, we took a good hard look at two things. First, we wanted to find out if in fact the
park would ever reach a revenue level at which the 50/50 split would come into play. That's
very important because as we look at these things from both the economic standpoint and
from the standpoint of the eventual terms that will be negotiated. It is inconceivable
to us that the city would enter into an agreement which might look very well on the surface
but might not really have any real reward until some fictitious time way out in the future
or if certain absolutely impossible parameters were to be met. So we looked at that first
and to do that we involved another member of our team, Wayne Wilson. And, I'd like Wayne
at this point to address himself to the fact or the point at which a 50/50 split would be
possible under the Collins Tuttle proposal. Wayne?
Mr. Wilson: Well, just to say that in doing a calculation of the revenue projection
and what the cuts would be it came out to $35,000,000 would be the point at which the
50/50 would take into effect. Which is I guess what we saw earlier. But the point I'd
like to make . . . What I want to do this morning is clarify something. John Gilchrist
mentioned that the first full operating year was 3,000,000 and in fact our projection was
2.25 which gave a revenue number of 16.5 million. The other point I wanted to make is
that we did not make projection of 5 million and I would be concerned that that number
could ever be achieved given the density problem that would result and by taking the 10
year range of, say 16 million to 22.8 million. I think kind of sets the parameters within
which we should measure the two plans and Jay could you pull that other chart? Ok. What
we did was to do an analysis of both plans based on a range of revenues from 14 million
to 24 million which is outside the limits that we just discussed of 16 to 23 million roughly.
And, to see what would happen at these various revenue numbers. And as you can see ...
well,it's difficult for you to see, but at the 16 million dollar level.
Mayor Ferre: Well, why don't you explain first the green, red, and blue?
Mr. Wilson: I'll be happy to. The green is the money that is received the the City of
Miami in terms of rent equivalent or profit distribution. The black in this case is the
Diplomat Group and the red is the Collins Tuttle Group in terms of what they personal
receive. So, what happens is that at the 14 million dollar level all of the excess funds
are distributed to the city and not to the developer. Under the Diplomat Plan. Conversely,
under Collins Group, they receive all of the funds, the city receives nothing And, the
same thing occurs under the 16 million dollar level where Collins Tuttle distributes
nothing to the city, whereas the Diplomat Group distributes rougly half to the city. And,
it continues on until you reach the point of roughly 20 million where there's almost a
parity between the two plans and then as you get up to a higher 10 year out level the
Collins Plan begins to over take in terms of distribution to the city. So, basically I
20
JUN 091971
think what this demonstrates is that the Diplomat Plan operate more downside protect-
ion to the city. It pays out money first. There's nothing off the top. Whereas, the
city would benefit from the other plan on somewhat of a basis really, if
revenues really do go very high which as I mentioned before I would be somewhat
doubtful about, Jay?
Mr, Plummer: Wait a minute, please, On that proposal sir, at what point under your
team would the city receive it's ,,, excuse me, At what level of dollars would your
team start realizing the first dollar of the 80% factor? You follow My question?
Mr, Wilson: Yes I do,
Mr, Plummer: In other words I'm trying
Mr, Wilson: About 18 to 20 million .., .
Mr. Plummer: 18 to 20 million before your team Would get the first dollar Of the 80%
factor,
Mr. Wilson: I believe that's right. I have to check it,
Mr. Plummer: Ok. The second question, in that factor, what would be the city's
dollar factor of that 20% at that 20 million dollar level?
Mr. Wilson: Hold on just a second.
Commissioner Plummer of the 20 million dollars the city would receive...
Mr. Plummer: No, 20% sir. On the 20 million level.
.... would receive 4% of the 20 million which would be $800,000
and at that level, .. Wayne,..
Mr. Plummer: Do you understand my question?
Yes. Yes I certainly do.
Mr, Wilson: At the 20 million dollar level your question was what is the amount of
money received by the city verses D.W.E. on that 20/80 split?
Mr. Plummer: Assuming we get to that point as a 20 million dollar level, what dollars
does that represent in the city's first getting the 20%?
Mr. Wilson: Approximately, four thousand dollars.
Mr. Plummer: Four thousand dollars?
Mr. Wilson: I'm sorry. I got my decimal points wrong, forty thousand.
Mr. Plummer: I don't think that's right, but go ahead. I'll accept your answer.
Mr. Lewis: Basically, the point of the chart and the point of the display is to
indicate the fact that under the Diplomat World proposal the downside risk which I
think we'd all have to admit is the most critical list. The downside risk is obsorbed
by the developer. (repeat) In the Collins Tuttle proposal as we view it. With 5%
coming off the top for/and let me make this point. Not a management fee but an
additional management fee. Now if in their proposal you were referenced section 6,
where they discussed the fact that a management contract will be negotiated with the
city at a date sometime in the future to be established. Without any consideration
of what the management fee in that contract to be negotiated will be. No mention of
it. It could be 5%, 10%, could be anything and that that management fee would in all
probability be considered in the operating cost of the development. There is no way
at this point to determine precisely the amount of monies that would be available for
debt service and consequently the amount of monies that could return to the city under
the fixed or the percentage rent. Let me say it again. What I'm saying is that in
all probablility we do not know at this point. I certainly don't and nobody does until
a contract is negotiated. The true management fee of Collins Tuttle which would have
great bearing on two things. Number one,obviously has great bearing on the bottom line.
But number two, it has great bearing on the amount , the net interest cost to the bonds.
Now, that's a little technical but what it revolves is the amount of coverage above
the debt service. How many multiples of the debt service is available for coverage?
Depending upon the Bond Underwriting Regulations if that figure gets too low the bonds
are in technical default. Now, let me make a very important point. If there are
charges that come out ahead of that debt service other than operating expenses and
reserve for repairs and maintenance, if there are charges that come put ahead of those
21
JUN 0 91977
V
two things it's entirely possible to have bonds and technical defaults within
operating part. And, if that situation should occur the remedies, frankly, are
to accelerate the debt service which further reduces the position the city is in
other remedies which might involve removing the managing team from the park. So,
what we did in order to work out a program that was financiable and furthermore a
program that could be financied with tax exempt municipal. This is another very
important point which Don Chadwick will address in a moment. Finally, it's a project
with tax remissible. We had to come upon a formula which would at the same time
render the bond tax exempt, turn out to be a formula that was most beneficial to
the city. And, so in our formula we don't take out the first dime . The first
return to the developer occurs at 102% of break even. 102% and then we begin to
participate with the city, Now because I mentioned the subject of bonds and bonding
I'd like to turn this over to some people who are very expert in the field and it's
Don Chadwick. Don?
Mr, Chadwick: I'll only take a few short minutes of your time. I want to describe
our involvement from inception with Mr. Fine's group. Mr, Fine consultated with us
and asked us to give our expertise in industrial revenue bonds.
Mayor Ferre: What's the name of your firm?
Mr. Chadwick: Prescott, Ball and Turbin. Giving our expertise taxing, financing, and
revenue bond financing, specifically. How he could structure his proposal so that
it would meet the marketability test that bunderwriters are going to impose upon any
transaction which is to be structured in instance. We described what we as Underwriters
would require and that is an issue which is issuable as tax exempt bonds personally.
That he should minimize the downside risk of the bond holders . Secondly, to the city
and then lastly, he would be the fellow that would stand last in line. We also said
it would have to be structured legally. Such that these bonds will be tax exempt
and the bond purchasers will rcccive complete full assurance that they have a tax
exempt security. Lastly, we were given the opportunity to review and consult with
the design consultants as Mr. Fine has mentioned earlier ERA. And, we looked over
primarily numbers and determined that the bond issue could be marketed. That debt
service would be met from the revenues of the park, but to make it a truly marketable
high quality security the pledge of the revenues from the franchise tax should be in-
cluded in the proposal. With that, w II��1 ac ituation and we felt very comfortable
with and issued cur letter of intent.ENt note for the record that we so advise
staff that if you structure this proposal in the form of a ground lease as was proposed
by the Collins Tuttle people it will not meet the requirements of Internal Revenue to
provide for tax free exemptions and therefore these bonds would never be sold under
the structure of that type of a proposal. Number two is had some concern about the
State Authority for the city to engage in this type of venture. And, to avoid litigation
and to create absolute assurance that we would have no difficulty in marketing these
Aume. aTat we would have nodifficulty in establishing the public purpose of
amusemenli parks. At request of bond counsel I contacted Mr. Grassie and requested the
assistance of the city's lobbyist in Tallahassee to amend the Florida Statutes which
were passed by both the Senate and the House in order to assure that there can there
be no interruption or interference in the development of this project. Something the
staff has not put forward to this Commission has been our total input in corporation.
Mayor Ferre: Let me make sure I understand now. Was this passed by the Senate and the
House?
Mr. Fine: And the House. It passed both sessions of the legislative.
Mayor Ferre: Has the Governor indicated whether he's signed the bill?
Mr. Fine: He's indicated that he will sign the bill.
Mayor Ferre: And, what you're saying is that that bill gives us a clear sailing....
Mr. Fine: Absolute, clear, public purpose and bond financing authority to issue bonds
for theme and amusement parks.
Mayor Ferre: So that in other words the city could then proceed in issuing bonds that
would be within the law of the State of Florida?
Mr. Fine: In the judgment of our counsel. In the judgment of counsel for the Under-
writers who have committed themselves to furnish the money under the descriptions
described in their letter of intent the answer is an absolute affirmative "yes".
pro
Rev. Gibson: Let me ask a question? Mr. Grassie, you heard what that gentleman is that
true?
Mr. Grassie: It is absolutely true Commissioner. We have been working with Rick Sisser
22 JUN 0 91977
in Tallahassee, And, Sisser has got
for the last step.
this through the legislature and it is waiting
Mrs. Gordon: The last step is what?
Mr. Grassie: To go to the government.
The Governor's signature?
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Fine and also W. Knox says it's a legal point, This does not have
to go the Electra of the State.
Mr. Fine: That's correct, The bond financing statutes presently provide for the
city that's public purpose, etc. under the statutes and bonds that have been validated
for such purposes,stadiums, marinas, utilities, etc. and it require the modification
of those same statutes underwhich all city bond financing has taken place before.
For the inclusion of the definition of theme and amusement parks.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Grassie do we have a copy of that bill?
Mr. Grassie: I don't have one, but I think the staff does. If you would like a
copy of it.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, Mr. Fine, anything else?
Mr. Fine: I'd like to read into the record, Senate Bill 1350 by Senator Winn . A
bill to be entitled an act relating to the bond fiancing...
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Fine, let me just save time, I've got a copy of the bill. I'll
pass it around. We'll put it into the record. So, you go ahead and proceed and
let's wind it up.
Mr. Fine: Without going into more definite clarification which we're prepared to do
item by item on what we consider misinterpretations by the staff of items that are
set forth and the memorandum dated June 3, 1977. We can go through item by item if
you want what we consider , lack of authority, misinterpretation and the
evaluation performed by staff, In the memorandum furnished to the Commission as the
basis for the staff's recommendation in terms of ranking. I'd also like to note that
there's...
Rev. Gibson: I didn't hear that. Please repeat that again.
Mr. Fine: I said that we are prepared if the Commission desires to go through item
by item the items within the staff memorandum furnished the Commission dated June 3,
1977 setting forth the ranking. It is our belief by the information we've set forth
before and we're prepared to give more information that this is a misleading incomplete
evaluation of the public bid documents that were opened.
Rev. Gibson: I see. Ok.
Mr. Fine: The staff is not further mentioned and addition to our advice and counsel
and legislative support of the city in their report to you which I believe you have
knowledge of, A letter of recommendation from the Greater Miami Hotel and Motel
Association addressed to the Commission copies of the City Manager which said that our
association has thoroughly examined the proposal submitted to the City of Miami on
April 26, 1977 relative to the above captioned matter. We believe the that community
concurs without finding.That there is a critical need to immediately develop Watson
Island for a major family oriented attraction both to service the existing tourist
and potential that would be attracted by this major undertaking as well as taking
another positive step. In filling tremendous void of family oriented activities in
the City of Miami and South Florida. A proposed development would enhance both the
cultural and economic prospects for our entire community and we urge your immediate
action on finalizing and accepting the best proposal. However, we would like to
recommend to you that in our opinion the concept of the New World Center Park represent-
ed by Diplomat World Enterprise Ltd. highlighted a theme Amusement Park Marina, New
World Village, and related facilities best meets the needs of all citizens of Miami
as well as the tourism industry of which we are apart. Respectfully yours, Greater
Miami Hotel and Motel Association, Robert Jackson, Executive Director. Nor did the
staff read into the record a memorandum furnished to us from the Greater Miami Chamber
of Commerce from Earl W. Powell and Charles E. Cobbs,Jr. dated May 4, 1977 addressed
to Alva H. Chapman, Jr.; Subject: Conclusion of combined Watson Island
subcommittee, of the Chamber New World Center Action Committee and the
citizen committee for Waston Island. In
— ---- 4 SimnD, G. Gilchrist,
L. Freeman, C. Cobb, E. Powell.
Only two of the five
proposals, to develop Watson Island, met the specifica^
23
JUN 0 91977
tipns, outlined in their request for proposals Of the two bidders, who
met the minimum criteria required, this Committee recommends that the
City enter into ► negotiations for a priliminary contract in the follow-
ing priority; 1. Diplomat World Enterprises 2. Collins -Tuttle
& Company, Inc. It is the Committees' .understanding that the preliminary
contract to be negotiated will provide; 1. That the City establish a
semi-autononmous governmental agency, to negotiate the final contract
... supervise the completion of final plans and then oversee the operation
of the project. 2. That the final financial conditions contained in the
contract, will be at leas as beneficial to the City, as the preliminary
agreement with Mr. , including a requirement that the develop -
or have a significant sum at risk. However, we urge the parties to re-
member that final financial aspects and distributions. of revenue could
very well be dictated by the bond underwriters... end of memorandum.
: I'm sorry that I only caught the last part of that, but...
Mr.yor Ferre: He did as I intended... he read the memorandum, which is...
: Furnished to us by staff.
Mayor Ferre: Which is dated when?
. May 4, 1977. That memorandum is addressed, to whom?
Mr. Fine: Its from Earl W. Powell and Charles E. Cobb, Jr. to Alva H.
Chapman, Jr., that was a copy of which we furnished to the commission.
. well, I don't know that they need a copy of that
to the Commission... the official position of the Committee,
was that... which was released from the press... alright, -this vas a
—preliminary draft of a meeting we have, there was a subsequent meeting
for that... I believe everybody was invited to attend it... in which the
Committee, recommended the two firms, and there was no priority. we de-
cided at that time not to take a position as to which should be it.
We didn't feel that was our job, it was the City Administration's job...
Mayor Ferre: Correction, City Commission.
Mr. Fine: Let me summarize... very briefly for you, because I know that
it is involving, I'm sorry for taking your time, but I strongly feel that
this is a major and important aspect of the development of this City and
its our desire to put out all of the plat , so the City can make the best
judgement in terms of whats good for the City, whats good for the tax
payers in terms of risks of its money, the growth and the immediate develop-
ment of the City,'protection of its employment and industry levels, and
therefore, we have taken the time to go through and to bring to you today
the developing team... the specialists... some of whom are quoted by the
City, add of context improperly, in terms of presenting information within
that memorandum to you... there is no 'highlight that our bid proposal
said that we would take a unlimited'responsibility for all of the front
money required. There is no highlighting in that, and if it runs above
$200,000 today, there is still no answer where the money is going to come
from. 2. That we have reduced the City's monetary risk by.21/2 million dol-
lars. 3. That we have put the burden upon ourselves, not to be rewarded
in terms of fees or commissions or compensations, until after the project
is successful and the City has received an additional 2% profit on the
project. And with that I want to thank you, for your time and end our
presentation and stand ready to answer any additional questions.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, Mr. Fine, first of all are there any other question
of, Mr. Fine?
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Fine, the only question... well basically two, but one
directly. Since, there has been some things that were not on the chart
I'm going to ask for the record. Is there anywhere in your proposal or
in your discussions with staff... was there any fixed annual minimum in-
come discussed; 2. Speaking for your team you have heard the Manager state
that 21 years plus, is a reasonable ;figure. What is your opinion?
Mr. Fine: It depends upon the ability of staff to perform their obligations
under the agreement.
Mr. Plummer: If it is a Utopia ability of staff. Is 21 years too, long
too, short... what is your opinion?
24 JUN 091977.
V
Mr. Plummer: This is strictly an opinion.
Mr. Fine: Under a Utopia, I believe that the bonds can be financed be-
fore the end of this year and in the City's construction of account and
we could be prepared to commence construction the first of next year.
And construction can be comnleted as rapidly as conditions permit and I
would think that 21 would be a reasonable' period of time.
1
Mr. Plummer: The final question I have of you sir,... Other than the
amusement park, the thing that interest me is the marina. Is your pro-
posal, tied with the marina?
Mr. Fine: The only affective way of developing this island in our judge-
ment, is as a unit. All of the studies and information, distributed to
us by the City, including a request for proposal to include a marina.
We gave the City Manager and staff a two page memorandum, outlining the
call in our judgement for a marina in this proposal. It would be un-
feasible at this point to start all over... break out the economics, break
out the cost, break out the concepts and destroy the unity of development
of the entire island and in my opinion, it will be most affectively, most
efficiently and most quickly done under one total development program.
Mr. Plummer: I don't disagree, but what of... the answer I'm trying to
derive, if in fact the marina was taken out of the concept, are your
group still interested in the proposal? In other words is that a maker
or break type of situation?,
Mr. Fine: I say that we are flexible, but I say to you that the economic,
that we've done, the commitment that we have from the underwriters, the
plans that we have done that they are talking about doing at sometime in
the future, are such that to withdraw, would require a total reevaluation,
a total new economics, a total study for g new underwriting letter of in-
tent and would probably delay the project for at least six months to a
year.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, further questions?
Mr. Plummer: Not of Mr. Fine, I want to go back to the other...
Mayor Ferre: Well, we're going to give you ample opportunity to do that.
Now, are there any other questions of Mr. Fine, while he's on his feet.
Mr. Fine: I want to speak to some points that disturbed me greatly. One,
is that, the...
Mayor Ferre: I thought you'd winded up your statement.
Mr. Fine:
Mayor Ferre:
Mrs. Gordon:
Mayor Ferre:
. you asked me if I had something else to say.
No, I didn't ask you, I asked the Commission.
I want to hear what he has to say.
Alright, Mr. Fine.
Mr. Fine: The Collins -Tuttle proposal, doesn't come forward with a con-
cept... has no design plans, but they've already picked a construction
consultant, the construction consultant for what? The request for pro-
posal by the City, specifically said, that the construction consultant
would be selected after the Commission had selected and awarded to the
development. So, what the staff has affectively done... is, although,
they talk about selecting design consultants and concepts later, they have
already, acquiesce and radified the selection of who's going to do the
contract. Because, if you would also, address, which they haven't furnished
you, a letter given to me yesterday, by the City...
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Fine, may I suggest, that even though I think thats a
interesting point, I don't think that it really speaks to the...
Mr. Fine: The second point is the proposal called for open construction
bids.. Their amended information said that they intend to give this con-
tract to . Now, thats in direct violation of the intent of
the request for proposal.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, anything else you want to add?
JUN Q 91977.
245
Mt. Plummer: Well, 1 thihk that should be clafi ied, tf dt t
Mayo/ram Perre: Well, You,,,
Gr
assie: rassie: ..i
Mayor Ferre: Well, it looks like Charlie,,,
Mr, Plummer: No, i want it clarified by you, it was my understanding
that the construction would be on competitive bidding, am I correct in
that assumption?
Mr. Grassie: Of course, there is no other way that we can do it.
Mr. Plummer: Ok, well, we got that point clarified.
Mayor Ferre: Well, Charlie, why are you shaking your head? Whats that
all about?
Mr. Plummer: He's got a twitch.
Mr. Crumpton: I'm shaking my head, because that
was not correct.
statement of Mr
Fine,
Mayor Ferret Mr. Crumpton,... Charlie, into the microphone for the re-
cord.
Mr. Fine: Ok, may I just read...
Mayor Ferre: No, let him answer...
Mr. Fine: No, he can answer because its Collins-Tuttle's letter, just
let me read the words and then i'll give him the letter and he can...
It says;... All things being equal within the limitations that might be
imposed by the law, Frank , will be given the priority to build
the project.
Mayor Ferre: Ok.
Mr. Fine: Now, thats very clear'to me.
Mayor Ferre: Well, but... you want to answer?
Mr. Crumpton: Mr. Grassie, has answered the question... there is only
one way that this project can be built and that is by open bids.
Mayor Ferre: So, in other words , participation is as a consultant
on construction, of course, I understand.
Mr. Plummer: Well, lets ask the obvious question, so there is no misun-
derstanding. Mr... is it Tuttle or Collins? Is that your understanding
sir?
Mr. Tuttle: That letter is correct...
Mr. Plummer: But, you understand that it must go to open competitive
bidding.
Mayor Ferre: Alright.
INAUDIBLE
Mayor Ferre: Of the law.
Mr. Plummer: Ok, as long as you understand it...
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Fine, anything -else you want to add?
Mr. Fine: Yes, I do, If the city said that we would perfer to have
Frank , as a contractor, what type of notice is this to the
general contracting community? Who do you think will bid on the plans
and specifications?
Mayor Ferre; I think we've covered that sufficiently, now, is there any-
thing else?
JUN 0 91971,
26
Mr. Fine: Last ' oin
P , _ , is represented in the pro-
posal, as an experienced Municipal tax free exempt dealer. We have made
a diligent search to find his experience in municipal tax free bonding.
I hold before you and submit to you, the Bond Buyers Directory of Municipal
Bond Dealers of the United States, the bible of those firms qualified to
deal and experienced in dealing with municipal bond issues. And I re-
present you that no where in this bible... no where in the listing of
qualified, experienced Municipal Bond Dealers, is listed the firm of
& Company. And I leave this with the City Manager.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, Mr. Fine, thank you, very much. Mr. Tuttle, I
imagine you would like to address the Commission?
Mr. Tuttle: I would like first to point out, that I cannot design a
Theme Park in 26 Days, so I can respect the 30 minute limit. Mr. Fine,
used the word "sham", a few minutes ago, I'm surprised that he'd use
such word.
Mayor Ferre: I don't think he was referring to you or to your firm, I
think he was, unfortunately referring to the staff... as I understood
Mr. Fine.
Mr. Tuttle: I'm going to refer to his conversation as a sham... if any-
body can tell you that the first 20% of a set sum of money is the first
20%, is trying to fool you, thats all... just plain ordinary, trying to
fool you. 20% is 1/5 of something thats there... I'm going to give you
the first 50%, instead of the first 20%... how do you like that... thats
better, huh. That kind of stuff I don't understand at all. Four times
they've said that I get my management fee before the debt service are
payed, before the City gets rent. Thats absolutely not true, its printed
right on the chart, sir, we discussed it , I get my management
fee after the debt service and after the City gets its percentage rent.
Thats clear, its clear in my proposal, its clear on that chart there and
we discussed it at , i think four different times includ-
ing an economist, if thats an economist who can't read a chart, I don't
understand.
P•1r. Plummer: Wait a minute, now. You've, udderly confused me, sir and
I'm not an economist, I admit to it, sir.
Mr. Tuttle: Well, I think I can make it very clear one more time, the
priorities are...
Mr. Plummer: Let me ask the questions in my vernacular and then you
answer them, sir. As I understand under your proposal, its a fifty, fifty
split... for every dollar you get 50and I get 50.
Mr. Tuttle: You get the first and I get the second, according to the chart.
Mr. Plummer: Alright, but before the second dollar comes in to play its
split again, is that correct?
Mr. Tuttle: No, no.
Mr. Plummer: Its not.
Mr. Tuttle: No sir, you're addressing to fifty, fifty in a ...
Mr. Plummer; Forty years sir, I've been under a misunderstanding of what
fifty, fifty means.
Mr. Tuttle: Yes, if we got a dollar, you get a half dollar and I get a
half dollar... thats what fifty, fifty means. You don't get the first
and I can't give you the first. You're going to get half of what ever
there is... it isn't possible to give you the first. Neither, the first
20% or the first 50%, thats all there is to it. I'm just...
Mr. Plummer: So, that isn't the way I understood it, now.
• I think the point, Mr. Plummer, is that we are talking about
on the fifty, fifty and the eighty, twenty, is all of the remaining funds,
after everything else has been done, including rent.
mr. Plummer: Thats right.
Mr, Tuttle: How can anybody give you the first 20%7
27
JUN 091977.
Mr. Fine: Noone cal.1give the first 20%.
Mr. Tuttle: Nonne can give the first any percent of anything, by de-
finition. Thats what the word percent means, its part of a specified
sum, thats what percent means and he comes up and tries to tell you that
you're going to get the first 20%, well, I'm going to give you the first
50%... thats even better. Getting back to the management fee, which is
much more important than this, because they've got some charts on the
down side, up side stuff I don't understand at all. But, I've said re-
peatedly, that first the operating expenses will be payed, next the debt
service, next the City's percentage rent, then my management fee. First
the City gets its percentage rent, then I get my management fee. Now,
they've said repeatedly , I don't know why there should
be any confusion on it, I just want to make it very clear. The last thing
is the ridiculous remark about the management contract. I copied the
lanugage out of the mono contract you sent me. The management contract,
will be the management fee, to be payed on the management contract...
will be payed under the terms and conditions of the proposal. That is
my 5%, after the City gets its percentage rent and the debt service, and
not a cent till then. So, what Mr. Fine, has said is such a ridiculous
effort to confuse... the people I'm sure can't be confuse... that there
is nothing more to say, really.
Mr. Plummer: May I ask, sir, basically the same question of you? You've
heard the manager speak of the 21 year time. What is your feeling on
that matter?
Mr. Tuttle: That would be very unprofessional of me to tell you the tine,
I haven't designed a concept to this thing, I would think that the proposal
that we've made sets forth following the time limit, set forth in your
contracts... sets forth a period of six months, to obtain a
preliminary design, a period of 60 days thereafter, to obtain a financing
commitment priliminary designs, with the
underwriters and then we will be getting pricing information. I might
try to clarify roll. roll, is to be consultant to
is my consultant on all
works in the south -
my consultant,
the projects that we build and when
east part of the United States, they take on Frank J. to give
him local imput a;; to pricing, thats very important. The method of
building, any kind of a building within a budget. Is to
set up a budget of $45,000,000 and then design within that budget. No
trick goes within a $45,000,000 budget. You will simply have to design
within that budget and to design within that budget you would have to
have constant imput r.bout what are Florida conditions for this kind of
materials... this kind of construction, etc., etc. And thats what
job is in this thing, strictly that. And as I said in my letter, within
the limitations of the law and all other things being equal, they will
have a priority in the... to do the construction. Within the limitations
of the law, I've put that very specifically, that I'm aware of the fact
that it absolutely has to be over public bidding.
Mr. Plummer: Do you feel that the 21/2 years is a realistic figure, too,
little, too much?
Mr. Tuttle:
Mr. Plummer:
of a hotel..
My guess would be, yes.
My final question to you, sir. In your proposal, you speak
. Is that wed to your proposal, is it manditory?
Mr. Tuttle: No, its not manditory Mr. Plummer, I said that I would like
to do it. I was trying to be responsive to your proposal document...
your proposal asked me what else would I like to do? And I mention two
things I would like to do very much. One is to have a hotel there be-
cause I think its important. I think that a lot of people would be in-
timidated... might arrive at the port, right across from the amuse-
ment Park and want to spend a couple of days there. Would be intimi-
dated of the idea of going over to Miami Beach expensive high-rise hotels
... would like to know there is a place right there, I think its im-
portant for the success of the project. Its also, a revenue producer,
because a motel could be created without any additional investment by
the City, and would produce some income to us.
Mr. Plummer: But, in other words you're not wed to it, you would do the
proposal without it?
Mr. Tuttle: I would do the proposal, without it, There is a second
JUN 0 91977,
28
1
feature in my proposal which I insist is a good one, also, and that is
I would like to get some commercial exhibits.
Mayor Ferre: Some what?
Mr. Tuttle: Commercial exhibits. Some big companies, f:r example, the
first thing that come to mind is Good Year, with their Good Year Blimp...
then we might get Good Year to build some kind of exhibit of the history
of flight of an aircraft. And keep the blimp there, which is a big at-
traction in Miami. These commercial exhibits will give us, first of all
some free entertainment, which is important and secondly the ability to
pick the brains of multi -million dollar corporations, designers and sales
people, promotional people, advertising people, to come up with different
concepts...different ideas.
Mr. Plummer: Why. does your concept not include a marina?
Mr. Tuttle: Well, my concept didn't even consider whether there would
be a marina or not, there Mr. Plummer. I didn't have a concept, I fol-
lowed the documents of the... my bid is based upon the documents that
was presented to me by the City,because I didn't have a time to consider,
I consider it totally unprofessional as a designer with all due
respect to these gentleman, it is totally unprofessional to design an a-
musement park in 26 days... I mean its just incredible... you just can't
be serious about it. And I think that we ought to be serious about it,
when we put something in paper with our name on it.
Mr. Plummer: Mr, Grassie, as I recall, one of the actions of this Commis-
sion was, when the Pritzker deal fell through... that the new proposals
that would be solicited... it was indicated in the proposals about a
marina to the north and I think the Mayor, made that proposal. And it
should be reflected... now this gentleman is saying that that was not in
the bid documents and I'm questioning why?
Mr. Tuttle: No, I didn't say that, maybe I misspoke myself, Mr. Plummer,
I didn't say that I said that, I said that I based my proposal on what
was in the bid documents, if it was a marina in the bid documents, the
marina...? I haven't got a concept about... I didn't even consider the
concept...
Mr. Plummer: The bid documents contain the idea or concept of a marina?
Mr. Grassie: Yes, the concept of a marina is part of the Potter Ettinger
study, and that study was referred to and made a part of the documentation
which every bidder would need to be acquainted with in other to make a
proposal.
. Put. its not a requirement.
Mr. Plummer: Nothing was a requirement, as I understand.
Mr. Tuttle: You got to be either for or against the marina, I got to
start off with a main thing...amusement park and we certainly want to
keep as much of whats there, now. The beautiful Japanese Gardens, for ex-
ample, you want to keep those... you don't want to just throw them away...
and I am way ahead of myself... its not the kind of designing of an amuse-
ment park, but I certainly have nothing against the marina.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, any further questions of Mr. Tuttle, at this time?
Mr. Fine:
Mayor Ferre: Alright.
Mr. Plummer: I doubt it.
Mr. Cowan: Unfortunately, what does not seem to have been brought out
here, let me preference it by saying...
Your name sir.
Mr. Cowan: Excuse me, " Irving Cowan", I'm sorry. I'm a general partner
of Diplomat World Enterprises. When these bid documents were distributed,
we bid in good faith based on what we read in the documents and tried to
follow them very closely. What I have seen in the charts, presented by
JUN 091977
29
./
staff... by the City's staff and what I have heard, Mr. Tuttle, stated
today, unfortunately I'm not in the contract. Now, I want to be speci-
fic, I'm not going to be long worded or windy, but if you have copies
of the Tuttle Agreement, you will look and see that #2, under rent, on
page 2; It states the developer shall pay to the City a minimum rent,
during the long term lease, $750,000 per anmum, payable etc., etc.
That is on page 2... which sounds like the City is being guaranteed a
$750,00 figure, that is absolutely not true, there is no $750,000 figure...
this is a very cleverly worded document, that is a rehash of the original
agreement. If you will turn from page 2, where they talk about
fixed rent and go to 2.7, on page 5, you will find...
Mayor Ferre: On page what?
Mr. Cowan: On page 5, 2.7, you will find on page 5, 2.7; payment of fixed
rent to the City, shall be payed from funds available, after payment of...
and shall be specifically, subordinate to and only to.
Mayor Ferre: Well, thats quite clear, I mean...
Mr. Cowan: Well, we keep talking... I don't think it is clear. We keep
talking about a $750,000 guarantee and that $750,...
Mayor Ferre: But, the $750,000 guarantee is after current operating
cost, sufficient funds for reserve, renovation, repair, painting... debt
service of revenue bonds, payment of the sum equal to 5% of gross revenue
to management. 5% of gross revenue shall be reserved as a fund for the
future improvement of the park and after that, I would imagine, is when
we get to the $750,...
Mr. Cowan: That is correct, but...
Mayor Ferre: Isn't that correct... I'm not confused about it.
Mr. Cowan: If there are funds available, only if there are funds avail-
able. A guarantee implies, that it is a guarantee. There is absolutely
no guarantee, by the Collins -Tuttle...
Mayor Ferre: There is a guarantee after these things are done.
Mr. Cowan: But, are...
Mrs. Gordon: Its not the way I read it, Mr. Mayor,... the way I heard it
its not a guarantee at all and if Mr. Tuttle, would correct me if I'm
wrong, there is not guarantee on the $750,000 at any point in time.
Mayor Ferre: Commissioner Gordon, this document speaks for itself, it says
very clearly...
Mr. Cowan: But, in staff's original list, as it was layed out, they charged
us and the staff, with an additional 5%, which we have not set aside...
which is not correct and they show up on top percentage...
Mayor Ferre: Ok, I get your point.
Mr. Cowan: Now, lets look at page #2, again and go to the next..., where
we say percentage rent: the developer shall pay to City as further and
additional rent, after the $750 the difference between the minimum rent
as here and above determined, and the total amount, which shall be the
sum of the ollowing. And then it goes into that. Now, I'm not an at-
torney, but, thats very clear, that percentage does not enter into this
agreement, until after the $750,000 and the $750,000 is a complete fiction
of the imagination.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, anything else?
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Tuttle, would you clarify that point of the $750,000?
Please, because it is extremely confusing, at this point in time, after
the verbal conversations took place here today and the written document
before us.
Mr. Tuttle: Wouldn't it be better if I spoke for my proposal and these
gentlemen spoke for theirs.
Mayor Ferre: Yes,
0
JUN Ui1977,
1
Mr, Tuttle: I think that would be very much better,.,, pow, is
INAUDIBLE
Mr. Tuttle: Sir, you are misreading...
Mayor Ferret Well, lets...
Mr. Tuttle: This document... like you have 'misread everything else, and
misspoke everything else, here.
Mayor Ferre: Please, Mr. Tuttle, and Mr. Cowan, I apologize for both of
you and to both of you and Please, lets... this is not a debate, this is
an important thing for both of you, its important for the City... why
you just... both of you address yourself to your own proposals...
Mr. Tuttle: Thats what I'd like to do, sir.
Mayor Ferre: And then lets move along.
Mr. Tuttle : Once, again the priorities in my proposal, are the follow-
ing; First out of the revenue, first comes the operating expenses, next
comes the debt service, next comes the percentage rent, next comes my
management fee... oh, excuse me, operating expenses and the 5% for replace-
ment and renewal.
Mayor Ferre: Its spelled out in page 5.
Mr. Tuttle: Then comes the percentage rent to the City, then comes my
management fee, then comes the difference, if there is still the sum• of
money and if the City has not received $750,000 lets assume for a moment
I'll use it again if there is $1,000,000 left after all those payments,
but, the City has only received $600,000 through the application of per-
centage rent formula. Out of that Million dollars that left, the City
will then get the first $150,000 and the $850,000 will be available to
be split. Now, thats where the guaranteed percentage rent... the cleverly
worded document that they are referring to is the model of contract, word
for word, that was included in the bid proposal, which I followed. Did I
answer the question Commissioner, because I'm sorry, I don't want to be
excited.
Mrs. Gordon: Yes, you answered the question...
Mr. Tuttle: ... the question properly... once again; operating costs,
5% replacement--- renewal, debt service, percentage rent, management fee,
the difference between percentage rent and minimum rent, if there is any
and then the fifty, fifty...
Mrs. Gordon: In other words the $750 is a guarantee at the tail end,
if there is ...
Mr. Tuttle: If there is a surplus and you have not received $750,000
by application of the percentage rent... you will receive the difference
out of the surplus, before the surplus becomes a matter for division.
Mayor Ferre: Very good, Alright, anything else?
Mr. Cowan: Yes, we want get into tackling the credibility of the collins-
Tuttle agreement, since obviously everybody is getting edgy in times of
the essence, I don't think we'll get into staff's charts, because we've
kind of rehash them at that. I do not think that they clearly represent
what was written in both proposals... if both documents were completely
gone over, I think that the recommendations as provided by the staff letter
probably... well, in my opinion might not have been the same. But, in
closing I would like to say that we have been in tourism all our lives.
As a local individual, what ever assets I've accumulated I owe to the
City, when I say to the City, I mean South Florida. 90% of my net worth
is still located here in the state of Florida and all I'm... I want to
close with saying, that regardless of our gets this proposal, I want to
see Watson Island built, because of my deep concern with tourist and whats
needed with the City. I think that we layed out, what in my estimation
would have been the best proposal, but again the final determination is
with City and I thank you, for your time.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Tuttle, anything else you want add? Alright, sir, Now,
JUN 091977
31
the... are there any questions from the Commission, at. this time? hoes
the Manager, want to make any further statements or anybody in staff?
If not I think...
Rev. Gibson: Wait, let me ask... I'm concerned that the marine people...
where are they in this business?
Mr. Grassie: There is a person from the marine council here Commissioner,
if you'd wish to have...
Rev. Gibson: Well, I'd like to see that man up here for the record.
See, because that Watson Island, right now houses a very important part
of the marine industry, here. At least the people are there... we can't
kick them out and if we're going to develop, we ought to make some pro-
visions. I'd like to hear your reaction to both proposals.
Mr. Graves: Thank you, very much. I'd like to introduce myself.
Rev. Gibson: Sir, please.
Mr. Graves: "Richard Graves", I'm the Executive Director of the Marine
Council. Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, we are very concerned about the
matters you are talking about, the reason we have not stepped forward
earlier today, is because we're... this mostly has been a matter... it
seem to me at any rate, of which is the better proposal, financially for
the City and we are not gr'ing to interject our views and so forth, when
all of you are capable of that more than we are. We have already addres-
sed a letter to Mr. Grassie,... two letters as a matter of fact, concern-
ing our very vital interest in several issues that concern us regarding
the use of Watson Island. We think that this is a critical piece of land
in the City of... in the heart of the metropolitan area of Miami, that
should be utilized to the extent that is feasible for marine uses... we
think that,.that will be good for tourism, we think that, that will be
good for the City, we think that, that would be good for the whole area.
Not just the boaters, not just the people who are in the marine industry,
but, the entire community and we feel that, when it gets to the point
where the... you have selected a developer and the design concept is being
gone into detail, that we would like to have as great an imput as we can
to make sure that, that concept includes a maximization of use of these
facilities for marine purposes and thats really our position.
Rev. Gibson: One other question, Mr. Mayor. I never heard before that
we were going to do something to that street. What will happen... I'm
concerned about what will happen if we do happen to do something to that
street.
Mr. Fine t It was our discussion with staff and to be finalized in the
negotiations, that when the new marine was built, that the right of first
refusal would go to the members and the owners of those votes presently
being utilized and presently stored on the island.
Rev. Gibson: Now, the street... I heard thats now the street.
Mr. Graves: Excuse me, sir.
Mr. Plummer: I don't understand.
Rev. Gibson: That...
Mayor Ferre: Oh, you mean the causeway,...
: Yes, the causeway.
Mayor Ferre: Whats the question?
Mr. Fine: Again, Rev. Gibson,...
Mayor Ferre: You understand the question?
Mr. Fine: Yes, The street?
Rev, Gibson: Yes.
Mr, Fine; As to what would happen with the
Rev, Gibson: Yes, sir,
road?
JUN 0 194
32
Mr. Fine: The road would be so design, subject to the approval of the
City. Everything we're doing today is subject to the approval of the
City. The plan will be subject to the approval of the City, the finaliza-
tion of who stays and who goes, will be subject to the approval of the
City. What we have discussed with staff, was relocating the exsisting
people into the new marina and giving them the right of first refusal
if they wanted to remain on the island.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, further questions?
Mr. Plummer: The only other question Mr. Mayor, I think that really
should be said or should be asked, is of the staff. Now, I've heard
a lot of things here today that were not in any of the documents. You
heard the same as I have, is there anything that you have heard here
today, that you feel is any different than what you understood from the
documents in the meetings with these people? You follow me?
Mr. Fine: From... If I understand your question Mr. Plummer, from what
we have presented, which is what our understanding of the two documents,
have we heard anything_differently today, that would change our mind
from what we have presented...our understanding of the documents.
Mr. Plummer: Not in just... I'm not limited. Is there anything you
heard today, that in any way is a different opinion than you had prior
to hearing these things today. Was there anything brought up here today
in your opinion, that was new? ... that need further clarification? Mr.
Grassie, or anyone...
Mr. Grassie: Well, go ahead and answer first and then I'll answer next
Commissioner.
INAUDIBLE
Mr. Grassie: I guess my answer is different, Commissioner,... there is
one thing that I think needs further clarification and its that chart
right in front of you. I think that we need to understand the assumption
behind it and we need to understand what it implies... not today obviously,
but, we need to do that in some detail or one of the individuals who pre-
pared it. And I would suggest that, thats a necessary step.
Mr. Plummer: You mean as part of negotiation?
Mr. Grassie: Well, maybe even prior to this.
Mr. Plummer: That one point, thats...
Mr. Grassie: Well, I would like... you know, before I would make a re-
commendation to you, I'd like to know what appears to be on that chart,
is the case as you project the specifics of the two statements. Because
I have not understood the two proposals to give the results that appears
on that chart.
Mayor Ferre: Well, there is obviously a contradiction between the two
statements.
Mr. Grassie: There is obviously a contradiction and I would like to have
that analyzed in some detail.
Mayor Ferre: Well, thats something that we're going to get to after the
will of this Commission is... whats going to happen? Is there anything
further that you'd like to add, Mr. Grassie? Any other questions Mr.
Grassie?
Mr. Grassie: No, sir.
Mayor Ferre: You stand for what purpose, Mr. Fine?
Mr. Fine: I stand to identify that, that was prepared by Economics Re-
search Association...
Mayor Ferre: Alright, I think that these... that this information will
be part of the record and obviously will have to be looked at.
Mr. Grassie: Just so Mr. Fine, understands,.. we're not questioning the
paternity of that chart, what I'm saying is...
JUN Q 91977,
33
Mayor Ferre: You better be careful, now you're jkcting...
Mr, Grassie: You know, what I think, at least from my information, the
information that I have from staff does not present from the two proposals,
the picture that you showed. I am starting by assuming that, that chart
is well done, what I'm saying is that I would like to understand from the
proposals, how you arrived at that chart.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Grassie, I'd just like to correct you, that in todays
vernacular, you don't talk about paternity or maternity, you talk about
parent hood.
Mr. Plummer: No, today you can talk about it.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, No, are there further questions? If not, I think
the appropriate way to do this is we have a recommendation from the Manager
and from staff, and therefore, I think I would like to ask if there is a
motion, for the acceptance of that recommendation, on the part of the
Commission. I think thats the appropriate way of approaching this thing
at this point. Is there a motion, for the acceptance of the Manager's,
recommendation? Alright, that obviously, leaves us with a second proposal,
which is Diplomat World Enterprises. Is there a motion for Diplomat
World Enterprises?
Mr. Plummer: Mayor, like I've always said, when everything else is down,
I'll make the motion. Even though this is not the norm of the way that
we handle it, I will accept it, because we're down to two people, so its
no big surprise... we normally would have taken and put our choice 1 and
choice 2 and...
Mayor Ferre: Do it that way, I don't...
Mr. Plummer: Its immaterial Mr. Mayor, we're down to two people,'its
either A or B.
Mayor Ferre: Thats why I think this would be simpler and quicker.
Mr. Plummer: 'fir. Mayor, with the clarifications of everything here today
and of all the study which I have given to this proposal, there are three
things that are very foremost in my mind, as to the presentation of Dilop-
mat World... or what ever... D.W.E.; #1. For something I've been criticiz-
ed before and it doesn't bother me, not the first bit and I'm sure will be
criticized in the future. All things being near equal, I want local people.
Thats #1.
Mayor Ferre: Local people.
Mr. Plummer: Local people, as Father Gibson, has said in the past, they
were here before and they'll be here afterwards.
Mayor Ferre: We misunderstood, we thought you said local people... you
didn't mean that, you meant local people.
Mr. Plummer: Thats only people who, well I won't say that... although,
that was a good one too. #2. The area of design monies... this was a
big thing in my craw, with the formal proposal. As I see it, and on the
chart, that I understand fully that it is negotiable. D.W.E., will pay
the entire design concept. With both proposals, by the way, as I under-
stand it... John anything I say, please correct me if I'm wrong. That
the City holds final control. And Mr. Mayor, as you and the rest of this
Commission, are fully aware of my great and keen interest. On behalf of
the voting public, one proposal does definitely address itself to the
entire concept, including the marina. #4. --- Mr. Grassie, please, don't
take this as a detrimental to you. But, Mr. Grassie, in seven years that
I have sat on this Commission, I have consistently seen beautiful pictures
drawn and only half completed. But, somewhere along the line we get a
100%, but, we never get a completed 100%. I like the concept of the en-
tire design of the island, rather than piece -meal. The only question that
I raised, which I would like to further, but, I'm not going to, because
I'm sure thats something, but, its for you to look deeper into, is that
both proposals are $45,000,000. But, one proposal includes the marina
and the other one does not. Now, I will accept that Mr. Fine's answer,
but, I want you to go into it deeper... that, that money is derive, through
.,. as he referred to the steam ship. To me it offers the first class
tourist attraction, with the marina and the other one does not. And that
34
JUN 0 91977.
1
interest me tremendously, we need without question a tourist attraction
of first caliber, that is paramount, but, there is no question e to the
need of marina facilities in this community, as we addressed many times
in the past. Based on that or the main criteria, I would make the motion,
we accept Diplomat World Enterprises as A, and Collins -Tuttle as B. And let
me just merely conclude by saying, I think the City should be very pride,.)
that what I had somewhat predicted could not be done, has been doA_ati'd
that is that we have two of the finest proposals, I think that are a-
vailable and I think Mr. Grassie, not you sir, but, staff is to be com-
plimented... you for whipping them into line, but, the staff for really
doing the hard work.
Mayor Ferre: We'll give you some credit too, Joe.
Mr. Plummer: I offer that...
Mr. Grassie: I can't stand these kind of compliments very often.
Mr. Plummer: I offer that sir, in the form of a motion.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, is there a second to the motion?
Mr. Plummer: You mean I made all of that speech for nothing?
Mayor Ferre: Is there a second to the motion, that Diplomatic World
Enterprises, be considered #1 and Collins- Tuttle #2?
INAUDIBLE
Mayor Ferre: Commissioner Reboso, seconded the motion. Now, under dis-
cussion, Father Gibson.
"ev. Gibson: Thats alright, Mr. Mayor, I had my mind pretty much made up
to accept the recommendation of the staff, only because I thought they
had some answers there. But. I became a little distressed that I didn't
have the same evidence and this kind of bothered me. You know I'm not
always the smartest guy... and nor do I see. But, they tell me that
a picture is worth a thousand words... and what I see I like and I like
the whole thing being done. I have some reservation, you spend $45,000,
000, on that piece of property and then you only go half of it... that
bothered me, in making my decision... and I don't know. But, I have to
say this... I got some evidence... I didn't have it from the others...
and I don't know whether they had the same opportunity and the same chance.
Yes, sir?... You want to say someting?
Mr. Fine: If I may, the plan that you see before you, "yes", was shown
to staff in part of the discussion proposal, it was not a part of the
original proposal, per -se. And also, when you speak of marinas or also,
where... that a marina activity as a separate activity can return more
than 4% gross to the City. We have a current one that is producing some-
where in the neighborhood of 10% gross.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, any other discussion.
Mr. Plummer: Well, you know, that can't go on answering Mr. Mayor. You
and I have been doing this marina thing just a little bit too, deeply.
Charlie?... you know, lets be fair. And fairness tells us the City has
great ideas of building a marina, we've had a great idea of building a
marina, right behind this City Hall, but, you know whats held us up?...
the money as well as the state permission. to I understand this concept
from the papers that you showed me the other day, 311 million dollars will
be dedicated money to the marina. Is that correct?
Mr. Fine: We've looked at it as somewhere in the neighborhood of $4,000,
000.
Mr. Plummer: Alright, what ever your figure was. And thats where in my
estimation, the City has always... the money. Thats why we don't get
projects completed, we put a dollar amount... inflation eats us up and
we never get them finished.
Mr. Fine: Let me clarify a point. I'm not talking about City, per -se to
do it. But, for City to get a marina operator to build and construct for
the City... not the City doing and you can get a better return... lets
say better than 4%. By doing it as a separate.,.
JUN 0 919774
4 s
Mayor Ferre: Alright, are there any other comments before...
Mrs. Gordon: Let make a few comments Mr. Mayor. On my observations
this morning... which really I came here with a very open mind about the
whole thing, I had staff recommendations, I read both reports and I had
really no position when I came to this meeting. However, I've heard
many things that have had an influence on me and have lead me to... as
you know I've been opposed to the whole concept of the developing on
Watson Island, in its entirety, you know that and I've said so. But,
... Father be patient... I've listened today, to a presentation thats
exciting... I'm really excited about it, even though I still have some
fears about traffic that might be a problem for the causeway and hopeful
that the re-routing and the imaginative use of the road... that road
that will be leading into the development might eliminate some of those
concerns that I have. I also, am pleased as I can be about this marine
development on the north side, because it had been my hope that the en-
tire island would be a marine centered area and I think by doing it this
way we've got the best of two worlds... we've got a large percentage of
marine involvement, we also, have other attractions. So, I'm very much
opposed to the concept of a hotel on public land and would be oppose to
that at any time and so, therefore, these... this proposal does not even
have room for any hotel development. So, that takes care of that. Again
the local developer is an important part of my consideration...its always
has been and I've indicated that in many votes that I have made on dif-
ferent subjects, on this commission level. I'm not taking anything away
from the out of towner who has, tremendous track record all over the
world and... but, never -the -less, with all things being equal, the home
boy gets my confidence first, because I know, I've lived in the community
with those people for a long time and I can look at many successful ven-
tures that have been put together in this community, which add to the
benefits that the and the county are receiving right now. So, with all
these things and with the fact that the... one of my objections was that,
the City would have to put forth $100,000, toward a initial planning ven-
ture, was objectionable to me. I found that very objectionable... thats
why I mentioned it in my initial presentation that I was given of it,
by Mr. Tuttle. I find that... and I did not discuss it with Mr. Fine,
when he showed me his presentation. Because, he already had it in there
and I saw Mr. Tuttle, first and I had read both proposals. So, here a-
gain I didn't twist anybody's arms to not include that initial investment
to the City's expense and yet, here we have it, its part of their report.
So, everything taken into consideration, I'm going to go with the motion.
Mayor Ferre: Any further discussion? Well, I have some comments that I
have written here, that I'd like to put into the record and I would like
consideration to be given to these things and final vote. First place
I want to say that it is the intent of this City Commission, as I under-
stand it and as I perceive it, that we not end up with a Corny Island on
Watson Island. We did not want a Corny Island. We have been using the
concept of Tivoli, all along because we want to express the image, that
we're not going to have neon signs and lot of rides and that type of a
thing, without taking into account a vegetated, well design, pleasing
esthetics location. This piece of property in my personal opinion, is
without any question the single best, most beautiful piece of property in
Florida. Its at the entrance to Miami, its at the end of the sea channel,
its the beginning of biscayne bay, from there it opens out... its an ex-
citing location and I would hope that as was made... the statement that
Mr. Fine, made, that... and Mr. Tuttle, that they would be respected for
the location and respected for the natural attribution of the island...
that would imply, that what ever you design here, would take that water
and the location into account. That you're not going to put a wall ten
feet high around it and that once you get inside the amusement park, that
it would not... the theme park... that it would not... you could just as
easily be in Chicago, or Cincinnati or Cleveland or Los Angeles or in the
middle of Texas. I would hope that you would take the design concept of
the location into account. #2. I think the question of a hotel... and
I'm against a hotel, but, just for the record... I'm against the hotel
in this location. Just so that we don't box ourselves in, in the future,
in other properties. I might point out that the City has, for example,
very successfully put restaurants in public property, when they are for
the public good and I think... not for this case, but, for future situations
that we need to leave ourselves flexible in that, because we might find
ourselves in a situation someday, some place, where a hotel might make
sense on public property and I wouldn't want to preclude that. Again,
not in this location, #3, The thing that really concerns me the most,
are two things, first of all the economics of it. I think that we have
JUN 0 91977.,
to... before we start retributing 20% or 80% or 50%. I think its im-
-important that we try to lower the debt. So, therefore, I would like
an negotiation package, Mr. Manager, for you to discuss with Diplomat
World, the concept of... first of all reducing the debt as quickly as
possible... before we go into the distribution of any monies. Then re-
garding the economics, the only thing that concerns me... I accept Mr.
Fine and his associates, concept that in the lower end of this thing its
a fairly equal type of a distribution and as a matter of fact, it looks
like Diplomat World, at the lower end is probably more... its better
for the City. I think once and I would agree that its highly unlikely
that we would have more than five million people. But, we're talking
about a concept that maybe with us for sixty years, they we're negotiat-
ing this and we don't know what the future is going to hold and it seems
to me, that at the higher end we really should have something that should
fifteen or twenty or thirty years from now, because of inflation, because
tickets might be more, but, the income might be higher, that we really
should try to protect ourselves and get a little bit better than a 20%...
at the very high levels. Now, #4, I am concerned about the design and
the City's control over the design. After all, the City of Miami is go-
ing to put up $20,000,000 and is putting up this unique piece of property.
And therefore, I think its essential that in your negotiations, that the
City have firm control... based from an approval point of view of the de-
sign. I recognized that the investor, obviously, does not want to come
up in a revenue bond with $25,000,000 unless they know its going to be
successful and obviously, we cannot have another Bicentennial New World
Center Park... a pasture type of a park here, because thats not going to
be able to payoff the debt, on the other hand I think we've got to
balance this thing out, so that it is... that it does not become a Corny
Island. I think thats an important part of it. Now, lastly #5, on the
aspects of the Marina. I think there was a point stated here that the
formula for the Marina Revenue, perhaps should be different than the for-
mula for the Theme Park. And I would like to include that as part of the
negotiating a-pects of it, that the development of the Marina and the pay
back in the formula income... perhaps be studied somewhat to see what
kind of a direction we could make on that. Now, in regards to Marinas,
I'm concern... v7e do have two Marinas there, one is the Out Board Club
and the other one is the Miami Yacht Club. I notice in the Herald story
by Gail , that reporting on the Dade County Marina Counsel Endorse-
ment of the concept, they specifically refer to the expansion of the pre-
sent yacht clubs... Miami Yacht and the Out Board, including the train-
ing and education program for the public. I think its great to end up with
400 additional slips. I think that we have to take into account,that the
City has a certain responsibility to the marine world and to the marine
aspects, that we not end up with rentals at such a high level, that what
in effect we're going to do is eliminate these two small clubs... you got
to remember that these two clubs are made up of small, middle class, work-
ing people who can not afford to pay what the large luxurious marinas pay.
And I think that some where in the scheme of things in your negotiation...
we've got to have some type of protection in the area for the small user...
the guy who works all day and happen to have a 18 foot boat that he main-
tains to great expense because he loves it and I think we ought to have
some consideration somewhere in these negotiations for that type of boating
activity on Watson Island. And lastly the Good Year Blimp. We've heard
discussion that Good Year is not going to leave... they're going to be in
Miami. I personally don't think you're going to be able to fit the Good
Year Blimp into this project, because there is just no room. I think we've
got to be very careful that what ever we do, that we keep Good Year here and
we satisfy them with a good location for the Good Year Blimp to be... perhaps
we might be able to do it in Virginia Key or some place that... where there
is ample room. I think that should be a very important part, not of their
consideration but of your consideration in solving these problems. Now,
does anybody have any objections to including those five points into your
motion?
Mr. Plummer: I have no objections.
Mayor Ferre: Do you have any objections, Mr. Seconder, to include those
five points? Alright, with that in mind then I'm ready to vote. Is there
any...
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I just want to interject, because this is merely
sending it to the Manager for negotiations. To both proposals, I want to
reiterate one thing that the Mayor has said. And I'm only speaking as one
out of five votes. I am greatly concerned in the concept of this proposal.
I will not accept anything, except the highest degree of an attraction.
JUN 0 91977.
37
•
..--t Will not under any circumstances, be agreeable to a ___ amuse -
tent type of park, and I merely made that mention of it now, because un-
der the proposals as I read them and understood from staff, we hold final
approval. And what I'm really saying to both proposals is, that you better
in my estimation, consult this Commission as you go along, so that you
don't come up at the end with a concept and spent $200,000 and this Com-
mission tell you no. So, all I'm saying to you is... speaking for one
I have intentionally avoided the terminology amusement park and used the
terminology a first class tourist attraction.... theme park if you will,
but I didn't by accident use that terminology, so...
Mayor Ferre: I'll tell you on that point, I think its important for those
of yoo that will be designing this... this is not the wild west, you know,
so we don't... I hope you avoid having that type of a cowboy... you know...
we have a natural historic aspect of Florida. Old Florida, the Key West
aspect of it, the Carribean aspect of it... we are the gate way to the
amexicas... I hope that you and your design will make this unique, so that
it reflects :the history... the past and the future of our community. Al-
right, any further discussion? If not, call the roll.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer who
moved°its adoption:
MOTION NO. 77-463
A MOTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE
AN AGREEMENT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF WATSON ISLAND WITH FIRMS RANK-
ED IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER:
a) DIPLOMAT WORLD ENTERPRISES, LTD., or
b) COLLINS-TUTTLE, INC.,
ENCOMPASSING THE FOLLOWING GUIDELINES TO BE USED BY THE ADMINISTRA-
TION IN THE NEGOTIATION PROCESS:
1. THAT THE UNIQUE LOCATION OF WASTON ISLAND BE RESPECTED,
i.e., DESIGN AND DEVELOP A THEME PARK UNIQUELY REFLECT-
ING MIAMI AS A GATE -WAY TO LATIN AMERICA, ITS WATER -ORIENT-
ED POSITION AND ITS HISTORY;
2. THAT NO CONSIDERATION BE GIVEN TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A
HOTEL ON THIS PARTICULAR SITE;
3. TO DISCUSS THE CONCEPT OF LOWERING THE DEBT AS QUICKLY AS
POSSIBLE PRIOR TO DISTRIBUTION OF ANY MONIES;
4. ATTEMPT TO NEGOTIATE AND INCREASE THE 80/20 SPLIT FOR FU-
TURE HIGH LEVELS;
5. THAT THE CITY OF MIAMI IS TO MAINTAIN CONTROL OVER THE
DESIGN PROCESS AND THAT SAME SHALL BE SUBJECT TO CITY
COMMISSION APPROVAL;
6. THAT THE FORMULA FOR PAY -BACK AND INCOME FOR THE DEVELOP-
MENT OF THE MARINA PORTION BE DIFFERENT THAN THE FORMULA
DEVELOPED FOR PAY -BACK AND INCOME ON THE THEME PARK PORTION;
7. THAT CONSIDERATION OF THE SMALL BOAT -TYPE ACTIVITY ON
WATSON ISLAND BE INCLUDED IN THE NEGOTIATION PROCESS; and
8. THAT CONSIDERATION BE GIVEN TO A SUITABLE AND CONVENIENT
LOCATION FOR THE GOOD YEAR BLIMP TO INSURE ITS STAY IN
THE CITY OF MIAMI.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Reboso, the motion was passed
and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner Manolo Reboso
Vice -Mayor Theodore Gibson
Commissioner Rose Gordon
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
Mr. Plummer:. Now, the next question.
Mayor Ferre: Ladies and gentleman, thank you, very much for your patience...
Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute ,
Mr, Grassie, we have now sent
to hear back from you as to a
30 days, 60 days.
Mr, Grassie; Let ne voice an
I think its something we all should hear.
our recommendations you, when do we expect
final negotiation? Within what time frame?
assumption with regards to -the negotiations,
38
JUN 091977,
And I -think that it is important for all present to be on the same wave
lihk'with regard to what you intend. My assumption is, that the proposal
it you have heard, is a zero ground... its a being point for the dis-
cessions that we are going to have and that in fact there will be modifi-
cations in those proposals as they come back to you. And hopefully we're
talking about improvements. Now, assuming that we all work at this diligently
... is 30 days... 30 working days reasonable from your Point of view?
Then I would say 30 working iq the time that we're going to shoot for.
Mr. Plummer: So, the point I'm trying to get at is, that we hopefully...
Mr. Grassie: ...?
Mr. Plummer: The last meeting in July, because we're going in August.
And I think from what I have heard by everyone. is, lets get moving...
that we didn't want to delay the month of August... that we would definitely
like something done before we go on vacation at the end of July.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, further discussion on this? klriyti`t, thank you,
very much ladies and gentleman for your patience. And Mr. 'Tuttle, to
you sir, and specially your group... our appreci:.tion for yotr interest
and your involvement.
3. PEES AL APPEARANCE: ERNIE FANNATO REGARDING PJLPHINS' USE OF
THE MANGE BOWS..
Mayor Ferre: You want to be heard on "E". Alright, Ernie if you'll make
it quick we'll listen to you, so that you won't have to come back this
afternoon and then hopefully we'll adjourn, and we'll pick up the Items
C, D, and E, in the afternoon.
Mr. Grassie: You want us to order...
Mayor Ferre: Well, let me ask... let me pull the Commission on this.
Al has his big celebration today... unfortunately its up at the
Jockey Club, which is a half hour ride. I told Mr. we'd try to
make it, but I thought it was going to be just impossible for us to get
up there because its Commission day and we've got to back in session at
2, and just driving time will take 45 minutes or 50 minutes to get up and
back. Now, does anybody intend to go to lunbh?
Mrs. Gordon: I can't Maurice.
Mayor Ferre: You can't. Can you? are you going to go J.
Mr. Plummer: This is the first I know about.
Mayor Ferre: Alright. Yea, I think what I'll•do, is I'm going to ask
Frank... Alright, now Ernie, we'll listen to you and then we'll adjourn.
Mr. Fannotto:
Mayor Ferre:
Mr. Fannotto:
Honorable Mayor, men of the Commission...
First of all Ernie, before you...
Yes?
L. ?
Mayor Ferre: Before you speak... I wonder... you and I in ten years have
maybe disagreed in maybe two things, we disagreed on whether or not to put
that Orange Bowl thing on the ballot and I'm... excuse me for telling you
in public, but you were wrong and I was right.
Mr. Fannotto: Oh, Mayor, let me tell you about that, let me just answer
you fast on that. That was not the war, thats only a drill, because the
real war is going to come up in November, when you vote on the box. But,
anyway "Ernie Fannotto", is my name and I'm president of the Tax Payers
League Miami -Dade County. I just like to discuss the Orange Bowl... spending
for $15,000,000, in the Orange Bowl. You know, I don't mind spending money
for the Dolphins, I always said they are an important factor in this com-
munity, they give us a lot of advertising and they give a lot of people
business... hotels, motels,.. but I do want to do business in a business
like manner. If you're going to spend $15,000,000, and the Dolphins only
39 JUN 091977,
•
have a three year contract and you're going to have $20,000,000, bond
issue... t mean $15,000,000, bond issue osier a period of years...
Mayor Ferre: Mt. Grassie, why don't you join us here and then later on
we Could do... lets finish here... we'll let you go on television just
for a little while.
Mr. Fannotto: In plain words what I'm saying is, what is the point of
spending $15,000,000, on the Orange Bowl, if Mr. Robbie, is going to leave
in three years, who's going to pay for it?
Mr. Plummer: Ernie, do you really believe there is a...
Mr. Fannotto: Say, wait a minute, you got fooled... yourself, didn't you
Plummer?... before with Mr.... all come on. You know what you cause the
City when you got fooled?... plenty. Listen, a verbal agreement is no
good, you've got to have a written agreement with Mr. Robbie.
Mr. Plummer: Would you like to see it Ernie?
Mr. Fannotto: What? Where is it?
Mr. Plummer: Since you said I got fooled... this fool read the agreement.
Mr. Fannotto: You remember when you took Mr. Robbie's agreement?... If
you remember Rev. Gibson, speak up Mr. Reverend... talk up a little bit,
just go ahead Reverend... lets go, wait a minute, lets let the Reverend
speak a little bit.
Rev. Gibson: Thats right, I want to agree with you.
Mr. Plummer: Ask me, you said I got fooled, not the Reverend.
Mr. Fannotto: Yes, you did get fooled, you fooled... and the public got
fooled, too.
Rev. Gibson: Right, I was for putting it to him, I was the one guy that
stood out to put it to him and everybody thought I was a 'SOB".
Mr. Fannotto: I commend you.
Rev. Gibson: And I came up and you found out that I wasn't and I still
am not.
Mr. Plummer: ...?
Mr. Fannotto: No, it just goes to show you, if you're aoina to do busi-
ness, you have to have written agreements.
Rev. Gibson: Right.
Mr. Fannotto: Thats what I mean by this here. Where is the written agree-
ment, that Mr. Robbie, is going to stay here for ten years?
Mr. Plummer: There is none.
Mr. Fannotto: I... then why do you want to spend $15,000,000, of tax payers
money, if he is going to leave in three years and maybe go in the other
county? I ask you that, why do you want to spend $15,000,000,... and you
won't have anybody to plan the Orange Bowl.
Mr. Plummer: Can I answer it for you?
Mr. Fannotto: Yes.
Mr. Plummer: And not argument it.
Mr. Fannotto: No, go ahead.
Mr. Plummer: No argument it,,, but, you're asking my opinion, which 2'n'
entitled to.
Mr. Fannotto; Yes Sir,
Mr. Plummer: There is no way in god green earth', that Mr. Robbie, is
JUN 091977,
40
IT 411
going to do anything to move from that Orange Bowl., period, linen,
Mr, Fannotto: Mr. Plummer, I told you before.,,
Mr, Plummer: He asked my opinion and I gave my opinion.
Mr. Fannotto: Wait a minute, Mr. Plummer, you got fooled in a verbal
agreement and Rev. Gibson, knows it, now you want to do the same thing.,.
we got $15,000,000, of the tax payers money and we should have a written
agreement he's going to be there ten years in writing, before you spend
$15,000,000. I'm going to tell you this, if you fellows were directors
of a bank and you pledged $15,000,000, without any security, everyone of
you would be fired.
Mayor Ferre: Alright,...
Mr. Fannotto: And you have a responsibility to the tax payers, don't
spend $15,000,000, unless you have a written agreement where you're going
to have so much revenue to pay off the bond.
Mayor Ferre: Ernie, I think that you're right this time, I disagreed with
you last time... I think you're right... I think that there is no way we
can spend $15,000,000, without having a major user, but, we're not at that
point, we're not crossing that bridge--- what you're saying is make the
decision now and I guess what we're saying is, we'll make the decision
when we get to the bridge. Ok, we've got between now and November to worry
abcut it. This may not go on the ballot in November, I don't know, we'll
have to see. Now, I think that it will, but, I think we have to discuss...
Mr. Fannotto: I say this...
Mayor Ferre: I think... did you read between the lines, between now and
November I'm sure Mr. Robbie, is going to be doing a lot of thinking and
I hope some serious negotiation. Alright, you get the picture.
Mr. Fannotto: Well, if he comes up with a written contract...
Mayor Ferre: Thats right.
Mr. Fannotto: ---where the tax payers won't suffer a financial loss,...
Mayor Ferre: Yea.
Mr. Fannotto: ---I'll go along with it. And maybe he should give it a
25 a head on these seats,...
Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute,...credit me personally, go ahead.
Mr. Fannotto: ---so as to go on and get the tax payers out of debt on that.
But,
Mayor Ferre: Ernie, we got a long way to go between now and then and there
is going to be a lot of water under the bridge, so just be patient and just
assume that this is not a foolish Commission, that we're not going to Vote...
Mr. Fannotto: As far as this vote's concern, this hasn't been anything.
There was nothing at stake for the tax payers, it wasn't binding.
Mayor Ferre: Alright.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Fannotto?
Mr. Fannotto: It will be bind in November.
Mr. Plummer: May this fool educate you? Are you familiar with page five
of the proposed agreement, Section 3, Article D?
Mr. Fannotto:
Mr. Plummer: Are you familiar with it?
Mr. Fannotto: No I don't... I maybe...
Mr. Plummer; Ok, then Mr. Fannotto, the fool is not Plummer, because only
a man who is half informed is dangerous and obviously, you're not informed
at all, JUN 0 9 1977.
41
IR
Mr. Fannotto: Give me the.,,
Mr, Plummer: And let me tell you what it says, for your edification,.,.
for your edification, that which I just quoted you, sir,,, clearly states
that no improvements,,,major improvements which this is, will be done
without renegotiating with the Miami Dolphins, for a better deal than
what is in this proposal. Amen,
Mayor Pierre: Mr. Fannotto?
Mr. Fannotto: Well, I'm going to answer you Mr. Plummer,
Mayor Ferre: No, now Mr. Fannotto,,,
Mr. Fannotto: Let me answer Mr. Plummer, now, if I don't mind, You know,
negotiate then one thing and negotiating in writing is another thing, thats
what you didn'tdo before, if you had did it before you wouldn't have got
in trouble, like Rev. Gibson, says. You know, I remember how much you
caused the City in that deal, you've been a good Commissioner though Plummer,
I'll give you credit, but you lost the City a lot of money that time, be-
cause we didn't have a written agreement.
Mr, Plummer: The rest of you be fools and you'll be a good Commission.
Mr. Fannotto: No, no, listen Rev. Gibson, knows, he was the one who spoke
up.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, Ernie, thanks for your opinion and we'll be back at
2 O'Clock.•
ACCEPT SEAIEU BIDS - COuxIBIA SANITARY SEWER Iti'Rov isJTS SR 5420
(C) P D (S) .
Mayor Ferre: Alright, ladies and gentleman, our apologies... we broke up
a little bit later than usual and so, we're behind schedule. We're going
to get the open bids now... Father Gibson, moves... Rose Gordon, seconds,
that the bids on the 2 O'clock agenda be opened. These are sealed bids
for construction of Columbia Sanitary Sewer Improvements SF.-5420, C.
This being the date and time advertised for receiving sealed bids for,
the Mayor announced that the City Commission was now ready to receive seal-
ed bids:
The following motion was introduced by Vice -Mayor Gibson, who moved
its adoption:
MOTION NO. 77-464
A MOTION TO RECEIVE, OPEN, READ AND REFER TO
THE CITY MANAGER FOR TABULATION AND REPORT BIDS
AUTHORIZED TO BE RECEIVED THIS DATE FOR:
(Here follows body of motion, omitted here and
on file in the Office of the City Clerk)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gordon, the motion
and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Manolo Reboso
Commissioner J. L. Plummer
Commissioner Rose Gordon
Vice -Mayor Theodore Gibson
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
BIDS WERE RECEIVED FROM THE FOLLOWING FIRMS:
Intercounty Construction Corp.
Bac Construction, Inc.
Paul N, Howard Company
Sullivan Long & Hagerty
Southeast Underground Const,, Inc,
was
passed
Iacobelli Construction, Inc.
Goodwin, Inc.
Chas, F. Smith & Son, Inc.
Anzac Contractors, Inc,
42 JIM 0 9 197b
PP EiffATIl , P1P ES AIM SPECIAL f l8'u6
Presentatioh bf Black _Intie City i gh__g o01 At fete s bay
proclamation to Mr. Nathaniel Spooky-" Miller, Sports Director,
WEDR Radio Station and Ms. Dee Alexander, Community Service
Director, WEDR Radio.
B) Presentation of plagues to all members of the Child Care
Executive Committee for their hours of
of Miami without remuneration.
Anne Wilson, Chairperson
Dr. Alma David, Co -Chairperson
Maria Allen
Pernella V. Burke
Dr. Jo Crown
Maria Hernandez
Wanda Slayton
Ruth Wasky
Helen Weinstock
C) Presentation of We Are America Day proclamation to Mr. Dan Engel.
D) Presentation of Central Presbyterian Church proclamation to
Rev. W. Robert Polland and Mrs. Gladys Baker.
Presentation of a Commendation to Mr. Angus Smith, in appreciation
of hos many years of service with the Downtown Development
Authority and with our best wishes on h s new position as
Executive Director of the Orlando Central City Neighborhood
Development Board.
Presentation of a Certificate of Appreciation to Mr. Carlos
S. Villagra for his efforts to increase tourism and understanding
between the citizens of the City of Miami and South America in
his position as promotion director for a major airlines.
Presentation to the City of Miami of a bowling trophy won by
the team of the City. Mr. Tom Johnson will make the presentation.
Presentation of plaques to Fire Department personnel upon their
retirement:
Chief Fire Officer Christ A. Anderson - 26 years
Fire Captain Jimmie C. Conner - 37 years
Fire Lieutenant Donald T. Fortune - 25 years
Fire Fighter. Edmunc R. Cathels - 26 years
Fire Fighter Joel C. Lossing - 26 years
Fire Fighter John R. Cisco - 25 years
Fire Fighter Jack M. Starr - 25 years
Presentation of Miami Swordfish Tournament Week proclamation to
Mr. Bill Ward, Co -Director of said event.
service to the City
SECOND READING ORDINANCE: AMEND MIAMI CITY GENERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT
PLAN - DELETE REQUIREME T OF La INTEREST PAY-
MENT (LABORERS, WATCM1EN OR CUSTODIAL WORKE2S),ETC.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, take up Item #4.
Mr, Grassie: Item #4, Mr. Mayor, is a second reading on a ordinance
change that you had seen the last time. At that time we indicated to you
that we would probably want to provide for some additional latitude for
the people that would be covered by that provision of a waiver of interest,
And we would like to suggest that to you now, that is that the ordinance
be changed as Mr. , memorandum suggests, so that we would insert
in it the phase of such payments to be completed prior to retirement. What
this does, is it allows the employees who were not able to join the system
before, to have as long as possible in order to make the repayment and of-
Aq JUN 0a1,97
ig doutse you know that this otaihande dhahtje is w-..11
Vihg the 4 ihtere§t, so
there would be ho interest oh those repayMehts. mid we'd like to tedOM,,,
Mend that we do that,
tteV. Gibson:
Mayor Perre:
I move.
Alright...
Mrs. Gordon: We're not removing anything that we passed, we're just add-
ing to it ah additional tiMe. Is that correct/
Mr. Grassie:
Mrs. Gordon:
Mr, Grassiet
Mrs. Gordon:
We are liberalizing it in the... to the benefit of...
---of the employee...
--- the individuals coveted.
I second the motion.
Mayor Ferre: Moved by Gibson, second by Oordo1-i,.. further discuasion on
item 2? Read the ordinance.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MIAMI CITY GENERAL EMPLOYEES'
RETIREMENT PLAN (ORDINANCE NO. 5624, MAY 2, 1956, AS
AMENDED): AS APPEARING IN CODIFICATION FORM AS PART OF
CHAPTER 2 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA,
1957, AS AMENDED, BY DELETING THE REQUIREMENT OF THE
4% INTEREST PAYMENT ON THE PART OF CERTAIN EMPLOYEES
EXERCISING THEIR ELIGIBILITY TO BUY BACK CREDITABLE
SERVICE IN THE PLAN FOR THE PERIOD OF NON -MEMBERSHIP
COVERED UNDER ORDINANCE NO. 8568 WHICH CREATED ELIGIBIL-
ITY FOR PRESENT MEMBERS OF THE PLAN WHO WERE EMPLOYED AS
LABORERS, WATCHMEN OR CUSTODIAL WORKERS BETWEEN APRIL 1,
1955, AND SEPTEMBER 30, 1962, AND WHO WERE DENIED MEM-
BERSHIP STATUS IN THIS TIME PERIOD; REPEALING ALL
ORDINANCES, CODE SECTIONS OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT,
INSOFAR AS THEY ARE IN CONFLICT; CONTAINING A SEVERA-
BILITY PROVISION.
Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of April 14, 1977,
was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On
motion of Vice -Mayor Gibson, seconded by Commissioner Gordon, the Ordinance
was thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and
adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Vice -Mayor Theodore Gibson
Commissioner Rose Gordon
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner Manolo Reboso
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 8659.
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and
announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission
and to the public.
7, APPROVE PROPOSAL - LIMITED TECHNICAL STUDY OF THE CITY'S COMMUNICATIONS
SYSTIBMS.
Mayor Ferre: Take up item #13,
and Associates, for $28,488 for
cityls Communications Systems.
and J, L. Plummer.
approving the proposal of Sachs/Freeman
conducting a Limited Technical Study of the
This is recommended by the City Manager
Mr, Plummer: Wait a minute, item what?
13.
Mayor 'etre: Mt, PlunMet, moves,
Mt, PlU tMer: I did? Let me hear front Mrs �...� Who's ._ irect1 y
volved, from the d.epartitent, Mt, Grassie?
Mt, Grassie: Commissioner, by way of reminder, this itnpletitehts the dew
cision that you took about a Month or five weeks ago,
Mr, Plummer: I remember.
Mr. Grassie: In which you approve generally the plan.,,
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Grassie, what I'm speaking to.,, Ism sorry l should
have clarified it. Was this a proposal that was put otit to a number of
people?
Mr. Grassie: Yes sir, this was put out to six different consulting firms,
that responded and four additional ones that did not respond, A total of
ten firms and the staff have selected this one for your consideration.
Mr. Plummer: I'll move it,
Mayor Ferre: Plummer moves,,,,
Mrs. Gordon: Seconded.
Mayor Ferre: Gordon seconds.'
roll.
PUrther; discussion
13? Cali the
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 77-465
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROPOSAL OF
SACHS/FREEMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. IN THE AMOUNT
OF $28,488 FOR CONDUCTING A LIMITED TECHNICAL
STUDY OF THE CITY'S COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM; EQUALLY
ALLOCATING FUNDS THEREFOR FROM THE POLICE HEAD-
QUARTERS CRIME PREVENTION FACILITY BOND FUND AND
THE FIRE FIGHTING, FIRE PREVENTION AND RESCUE
FACILITIES BOND FUND; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH SACHS/FREEMAN
ASSOCIATES, INC.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here
and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gordon, the resolution was pas-
sed and adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer
Vice -Mayor Theodore Gibson
Commissioner Rose Gordon
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: none.
ABSENT: Commissioner Manolo Reboso
•
NsIbERAfiioN OF EXISTING PLANNil AREA DEVELOPMENT (PAD) 21 UNI1`t
3495 MAIN HIGHWAY (ABITARE) i
Mayor Ferre: Take up item No. 15, a tesolution tequesting consideration of
change of existing P.A.D. Has that been withdrawn?
Mt. Grimm: Mr. Mayor, I just passed out a request from the Applicant for
withdrawal of this item.
Mayor Ferre: The Applicant has withdrawn his request. Mr. Simonhoff, you
are raising your hand, would you?
Mr. Simonhoff: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, my name is Mike
Simonhoff, of 3503 Main Highway, it is immediately adjacent to this parti-
cular property and it was my understanding that the City was the one that
required that this come back before the Commission because of certain dis-
crepancies and violations and not the Applicant, the developer, and I would
like to have a ruling on that because if there was any question in the past
I would have gone..I would have ask that they come before the Commission in another
way or have the State of Florida do it.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Grassie, would you answer the question?
Mr. Grassie: I'm sorry Sir, Commissioner Plummer was asking me a question.
Mr. Grimm: That is a very difficult question to answer with a finite type
of just yes or no. Yes we did request that the Applicant resubmit his ap-
plication because the plans which the City has permitted were different from
those of the P.A.D. application. He has subsequently stated to us and is in
the process of revising his plans to conform to the P.A.D. application so as
a consequence re -application is not, at this date, necessary; in other words,
if he were going to build according to the approved plans then this would be
necessary, if he revises his plans to build according to the P.A.D. applica-
tion, it's academic.
Rev. Gibson: I'm sorry, the reason I ask this...I remember this particular
project very distinctly and it's a very peculiar thing; I don't understand
how a building permit was issued if the man did not conform with the stipula-
tions in....
Mr. Grimm: You want my simple answer to that, Father?
Rev. Gibson: If you have a simple one I would like to hear it.
Mr. Grimm: The simple answer is we shouldn't have ever granted the P.A.D.
application the way it was permitted because we have laws that would not
allow us to build it that way. We have laws 011 the books which require that
we fill land south of Rickenbacker Causeway to a minimu elevation of plus 6.
The original P.A.D. application was to be build to natural grade which did
not comply with that minimum elevation. I can't give you something that, you
know, says this is right and this is wrong. The review I have made of this is
that we should have never approved that P.A.D. application, now what the Build-
ing Department did was approve a set of plans which required the developers
to comply with minimum Federal Flood elevation. Now the question then comes
up as to how do you get there?..Do you build that building let's say on stilts
or do you fill the land? That then becomes a matter of professional judgment
but since this was subject to review by several different agencies and since
the plans as permitted were not the same as presented at the P.A.D. we felt that
this clarification was necessary. Now what I'm telling you is that the developer
is withdrawing that and is going to redesign his project to comply, so at this
date in time, it's academic.
Mr. Plummer: This time that we, the City, where a mistake has been made are
better off with having him re -design and comply with the new Code.
Mr. Grimm; Yes, .Sir.
ae
JUN 9 1977
Rev. Gibson: And let me ask, are those people,...because you know„ I know
Coconut Grove...
Mt, Grimm: All of the people who ate involved in this project ate here
in this room right now.
Rev. Gibson: Well, the point I make is do the people who agree willingly
and those who object..have they been notified?..that you have changed and
that we ate going to go through it again; I mean, you know, I know how
Coconut Grove is.
Mr. rlummer: Father, you are not going to go through it again, as I under-
stand tt. If he complies there will be nothing to go through again, is there?
Mr. Grimm: That's right, if he complies with the P.A.D. application as
originally presented, there is nothing more to go through.
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Simonhoff, would you clarify some things for me, please?...
regarding that entire situation?...
Mr. Simonhoff: Yes. It really is not quite as simple as Mr. Grimm is stating.
First of all, this is an R-1 PAD. The working drawings that were submitted
for permit to the City indicate certain parts of some buildings over 40 feet
and 4 stories. R-1 indicates that the restriction on height are 35 feet or
2-1/2 stories. That, in conjunction with the eleven feet of fill required
out at the shore on Biscayne Bay with a 13-1/2 bulkhead compounds this....
it's really not simple enough to just say --the developersare going to go
ahead and re -submit plans....They are under construction now!, and one of
those buildings that is going up to 40 feet or over 40 feet is under
construction, and that's right next to me and I feel that this Commission
is being made fools' of by having any developer come before you, say some-
thing and then go back to the City's Building Department and get a permit
on something else, and I'm an affected property owner and I'm here today
personally along with a number of other people to ask this Commission to re-
voke that permit and to have the developers then come back with the proper
things under an R-1 PAD. This thing is under construction right now.
Mrs. Gordon: I agree, I think it's incredible if that is the case. Mr. Grimm,
how could we have allowed that to happen?
Mr. Grimm: Well, you have an opinion stated by Mr. Simonhoff....
Mrs. Gordon: No, I heard a fact, that it is a 40-foot building, is that an
opinion or a fact?
Mr. Grimm: You heard a fact of opinion, Mrs. Gordon, Mr. Solomon is here, who
is the Director of the Building Department and he can adequately explain to
you why he issued a permit for the height of that building.
Mr. Solomon: My name is Gerardo Solomon, I'm the Building Director of the
City of Miami. The elevation zero, which we consider the elevation of that
group, should be taken to consider the height of the buildings...is an average
elevation between Main Street and the bulkhead. Main Street at this point is
plus 20 more or less, the bulkhead is plus 3, so the average elevation is....
excuse me, plus 6, so the average elevation would be plus 13, so 13 is the zero
elevation at which we start considering the elevation of any building that is
to be built in that lot. Mr. Simonhoff has stated that it has 4 stories, that
is incorrect. Mr. Simonhoff is considering the story a flat roof that's used
as a deck for sunbathing or whatever they want to do with it. It is considered
as a fourth story the mechanical equipment which is the elevator box and the
stairs going to that floor which is incorrect. As long as this area is not
more than 10% of the whole, this area is not considered as a built area, it is
considered as an accesory use to the area which is not considered as part of
the height, so the height is to the flat roof which is 261 feet from the first
floor or elevation 13, so I think that Mr. Simonhoff is completely wrong in
his appreciation and he is accusing the Building Department without knowing
too well the building code.
Mr. Simonhoff: Axe the plans here?
Mr. Solomon: Yes, here they are,
47
JUN 9 1977
Mt, Simonhoff: I would like to show them to the Mayor and to Commissioner
Reboso. They are involved in consttuction and I'd like to point out...
Mt: Solomon: This is the approved Master Plan that I'm showing now to you
Mr: Reboso. This is plus 11...that's what we approved,...this is plus 13,
the minimum elevation that a land can go is plus 6. But this means...it
does not mean that it can go over the minimum, so when we approve we approve
a legal thing. It's always the minimum. His wall is plus 13.6, he can go
according to the zoning in an R-1 area, 8 foot of established elevation.
The established elevation is plus 6, 8 feet is plus 14, so 131 feet is under
the established elevation that he can go with the wall, so that is legal too.
Now, the floors. This is one level...or level one, excuse me, let me start
at the beginning. We are talking about a group of three units, the center being
higher the two lateral being lower, let me show you. This is the second level,
this is the third level,...and this is the so called fourth level. As you may
see, here we've got the stairs going to the roof, here you have the elevator
and the mechanical equipment room; this is well established that this is not
counted as another floor....
Mr. Simonhoff:People show up in that area,..and they stand up on the fourth
level, pedestrian traffic is up on that level.
Mr. Solomon: What pedestrian traffic?...
Mr. Simonhoff:The people that are in there, that's not the principle of the
intent of R-1. If you look at the elevations and the dimensions on the eleva-
tion I think you'll see the...what I'm talking about.
Mr. Solomon: Now we go to that. Okay, here is the section that Mr. Simonhoff
is worried about. Here we've got the floors, here is the elevation of that
I call it a deck, it's a flat roof, here is the stairs, and back of the stairs
is the elevator space with the mechanical equipment. What he had is..as an
artistic thing if you want to call it that way. Let me go to the floor plan.
We've got an entire roof here and an entire roof there and the area that he
is so using(the blue area here) as a deck. 'there is no roof it's only a deck,
that's not considered as a floor. Now, ...
Mr. Simonhofff: That's a usuable space, if I came to this City and I wanted
to design a house in an R-1 area and I came to this Commission and I asked you
to do it, you wouldn't let me do it; it's against what the R-1 says, it's against
the height elevation, this is an R-1 PAD and if this was ever submitted at the
time that it came before the various Boards of this City or this Commission I
don't believe it would ever have been granted. This is not what was submitted.
Mr. Solomon: May I continue Mr. Simonhoff? This is part of the P.A.D. applica-
tion which was approved by the Commission and us..
Mr. Plummer: Let me stop you right there, the man has withdrawn, what are we
arguing about?
Mr. Simonhoff: It's under construction, if he has withdrawn it where are we
then, are we going to stop construction until new permits are brought forth?,
that's what I'm asking.
Mr. Plummer: If the man has withdrawn it, does that stop construction?
Mr. Solomon: It will stop construction in the areas that will be conflictive,
but there isn't any that is conflictive.
Mr. Plummer: If the man has withdrawn his application and he is only going
to build in those areas that are legal, where is the discrepancy?
Mr. Simonhoff: I contend it is not legal.
Mayor Ferre: Ladies and gentlemen, now..please sit down and I'll recognize
each one of you who wants to speak. At this time, I think....
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, point of personal privilege, you know, I don't mind
sitting here all afternoon if we can accomplish something, but now, if I'm
not mistaken when a man who is the Applicant withdraws an item that ceases
the situation.
48 JUN 9 1977
Mayor I'ette: Rio, it's not quite that Sit ple. So ) I'd like I'athet) if l tray,
th tecognite...
MAi Reno: My name is Janet Reno) I represent David Swetland, he is the
property owner text south of Mr. Sitnonhof. f . Mr. nuttier) you heard a state
meat by Mt. Grimm that the Building Department had asked that it be put oft
the Agenda. Now, that the Building Department was in effect withdrawing
it because the Applicant was going to comply. Commissioner Gordon asked
how did this happen and asked for a simple answer. She got a simple answer
that the P.A.D. should never have been approved in the first place because
it wasn't legal and I want to see how it can comply with something that
wasn't legal.
Mr. Plummer: Ms. Reno, that's all well and good except you hear the man who
issues the permit stand here and tell you and they are only going to allow
them to build that which is legal.
Rev. Gibson: But, wait a minute J.L., a P.A.D. takes into consideration the
totality of the program.
Mr. Plummer: Father, I understand that.
Rev. Gibson: Well, then you can't build parts and then don't build the other
part....
Mr. Plummer: Oh, I see what you mean...
Rev. Gibson: You see?..no, no, no, if he wants to build he has to put the
whole package together, go before the various Boards again...
Mr. Plummer: But Father, didn't I also hear Mr. Grimm say that the builder
was in fact withdrawing to the point and was going back to the drawing boards
to comply with that which he was granted. Did I hear you say that, Mr. Grimm?.
Mrs. Gordon: I don't think so, J.L.
Mr. Grimm: Yes, you heard me say that with a little bit of a qualification.
Mr. Plummer: Well, qualify it.
Mr. Grimm: The qualification is that two of the units, and when I say two of
the units I'm talking about two of a collection of three, is in an area that
needs to be filled in order to bring that area of the site to minimum eleva-
tion which is plus 6. Now, in that frame of mind, the answer to your question
is yes.
Ms. Reno: That is a new answer that Mr. Grimm is now giving.
Mr. Grimm: That's not a new answer.
Ms. Reno: The P.A.D. that was approved by the Commission, he is saying now
illegal but this was the same plan that was submitted to surrounding land
owners which they agreed. I would like for the Commission to consider one
final thing. Flood criteria is established by 33-4 of the Metro Code, and
it does not establish a 6 foot minimum level in all instances and it provides
for variations, and I see nothing in that nor in any City Ordinance that would
prohibit the City from approving the natural slope.
Mr. Plummer: Well, let me ask so I'll understand, Ms. Reno. Is it your belief
in your being here today that the entire...as Mike says, that the entire permit
should be pulled?
Ms. Reno: That is correct.
Mr. Plummer: Okay, then I know where you are coming from, let's see if we can
get somewhere in here.
UNIDENTIFIED: May I make a statement?
Mayor Ferre: Yes, Sir, your name and address for the record.
49
Mt. Wright: My name is Carson Wright, I'm an architect practicing at 2951
Soy Bayshore Dr., I'm also one of the owners of the property. We came today
to request a withdrawal because we found that we could comply with the minimum
6 foot fill requirement. I merely came here saying, I don't want what I was
asking for, I'm going to stay with what you approved. I am going to go back
and then I'm going to go to your professional and satisfy him, he should have
the final word. Now, I've sitting here with my mouth shot and he came before
you and stated that he, your professional, finds nothing wrong with the height
of the building, your professional has said that my plans will now comply with
the Flood Criteria and I wonder why you won't let me go home and take this
application away. I don't want what I was asking for. I don't want to modify
the P.A.D., I promise you that our building permits will be suspended in only
those areas that are in conflict; there are a lot of buildings on this site
that are not in conflict. Now, if anyone has an objection or wants to challenge
the Building Director he should do it in another manner. I'm almost ashamed
to be in this room to see Gerard Solomon standing here being questioned that
his decisions are right by someone who is not your building professional. All
I'm saying is I'm going to have to comply with P.A.D. as approved in order to
finish this project, why don't you let me just do that and withdraw my applica-
tion, why would you want to make ask for something that I don't want..I don't
want to modify it, I just want to go home and go back to see Mr. Solomon and
satisfy him. What is this this isn't even a hearing, now, I haven't even been
able to ask for my request yet.
Rev. Gibson: I want to say as a member of the Commission...you know, every so
often I get the feeling up here that the people forget, that the people out
there put us up here to protect their interests and equity and not the staff,
okay? When people come to us and we agree with the people under certain
circumstances to proceed, it seems to me only fair, right and just morally
so that these questions ought to be answered, and for us to permit a builder
to do something on their P.A.D. and then modify and all that later on, either
we want the P.A.D. --and...or since I've been here when you talk about P.A.D.s
you are talking about the totality of the land.
Mr. Wright: Absolutely.
Rev. Gibson: All right, either we want that and stop all of your doing until
suth time as you are able to come up to the requirements or, you know.., the
other thing. I see too many people come here, I want to mention something
else later on around here, people come here and say to us we want you to do
thus and such and we take them at full face value, trust them, and then later
on we get caught in this kind of thing so I understand your problem, and all
I'm saying to you is I hope you will understand our problem.
Mr. Wright: Rev. Gibson, absolutely Sir, except I will ask you one question.
In keeping with what you just said, may I go build what you approved?
Rev. Gibson: It isn't that simple, it isn't that simple because when you
came here we agreed to let you do certain things on the totality of the land
and that's not what's happened now.
Mr. Wright: Rev. Gibson, may I just respond? I thought for a moment that
I was articulating well but evidently I'm failing. This whole issue is a
differential between plus 6 and plus 10. We felt that if we get a bad storm
we may get a bad wave down there and we wanted to build our project up, it
was our solution to combating a potential harsh storm on that site. Now, if
in the interpretation of the City,..and believe me the City stood out and
said we issued you a permit, we don't think you can go to 10 only because of PAD so
II went back and I said -okay, let's go to 6, I'll make it work, I'll make it
comply. What more can a man do? I'm not coming here asking you to change
from what you had. I just want to build it as you approved it prior. Pardon
me, Sir, I'm repeating myself, I'm sorry.
Mayor Ferre: Anything else you want to add?
Mr. Wright: No, except that I'd like to have a ruling on whether I can
withdraw.
Mayor Ferre: You will, all right.
Mr, Simonhoff: I would like to just say one thing, because I have never, in
50 JUN 1977
•
all the time that I have been before any Commission, listened to such bold
face lies as I have just heard. There.is no way, ..I want them to go and do
that P.A.D. the way this Commission approved it, they showed it with 35 feet
in height, they made testimony that there would be parking underneath and
two livable floors with pitched roof. You look at the plan that was submitted
there and it shows 35 feet. There is no resemblance whatsoever to what came
in for working drawings and what these people submitted to the Environmental
Preservation Review Board, to the Urban Development Review Board and to your
Commission. Now, if you want to draw this line and say, you can start building
heights of over 40 feet and if there is no way that you can say those plans..
that the bathroom height do not exceed 40 feet; and if they don't exceed 40 feet
then they are either drawing out of scale or the people are going to have to
become midgets in order to live in there.
Mr. Wright: Oddly enough, I just want to point out that as part of our P.A.D.
you approved two buildings 4 stories which I have the plans here to support it.
It shows on the site plan and it shows here. We chose not to build those 4-
story buildings but you approved them and I'm not building them.
Mr. Simonhoff: We are talking about density in an R-1 P.A.D.
Mr. Wright: Density has been approved. We are not over the density.
Mr. Simonhoff: The density was the main factor that we are all concerned
about. I, as an architect, feel that if a person cannot rely on the integrity
of the zoning and of the Ordinances of the City and believe that architect
or developer that comes in is going to abide by those, then we are into a pretty
bad state of affairs. I design under R-1 and I keep it within the 35 feet and
I'm going to be designing R-1 right next door to it, and I don't want to have
buildings in excess of that.
Mayor Ferre: Mike, let me understand that, your objection is the height, is
that the only objection that you have?
Mr. Simonhoff: No, there is..you know, this is under a cease and desist by
the State, the County, the court is coming in, there are violations, there are
all sorts of various things..
Mayor Ferre: So it's more than just the 35 foot height.
Mr. Simonhoff: Yes, it's more than that, it's an entire thing, they have a
letter from also Mr. Solomon, the Building Director, which says they are not
going to get a C.O. on the building because they destroyed the hammock that
they were not supposed to touch; it's been a sour project from the word "go"
and I don't think that it should be condoned by this Commission at this time
and say- continue with that and allow this project to go on without having a
real soulsearch as to where we are and the total part of it.
Mayor Ferre: All right, first Mr. Solomon and then Ms. Reno.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Simonhoff I don't allow you to put words in my mouth, I
never said that they were destroying the hammock, would you present that
letter. No, right? because it just doesn't exist.
Mr. Simonhoff: You informed me through Amparo Cardenas, who is the Administrative
Assistant to the Environmental Preservation Review Board upon which I sit, that
they were put on notice that they would not get a Certification of Occupancy
because...
Mr. Solomon: IF they destroyed the hammock...present,..give me that letter.
Mr. Simonhoff: I'll withdraw the wording because...
Mr. Plummer: Well, wait a minute Mike, we are throwing charges back and forth
and accusations, do I understand that you told them IF they destroyed the pro-
ject they would not get it.
Mr. Solomon: Of course.
Mr. Plummer: Mike, do you accept that?
W. Simonhoff: I accept what he said, however, the fact is in the pictures
51 JUN 9 1971
that are there that.the hafllock was destroyed in violation of that Ordinance
8301 and that's only one part of the entire parcel here.
Mayor Ferre: All right, Ms. Reno,..I'll recognize you in a moment,..counselor.
Ms. Reno: Just so we understand, the plan that the Commission approved provided
for essentially a natural slope without the 6 feet that they now say they are
going to put in. This is the point as I understand Mr. Grimm is now saying
it could not have been approved by the City in the first place and should not
have been approved because it needed the 6 feet at the mean sea level, to meet
the flood criteria. That is what was approved and they can't go home and build
what was approved according to Mr. Grimm..
Mayor Ferre: Well, then we are in a hiatus...
Ms. Reno: but I would suggest to you that no one has addressed himself to
the flood criteria Ordinance that was furnished to me, the County Ordinance,
that controls here, and what it says is that nothing shall be allowed in the
premises in any district which would in any...other than crops, groves, nursery and
grazing purposes or similar uses. There is no other use other than open space
that's going to be made down by the bay. He is not talking about safety, he's
talking about the fact that he doesn't want to redo his building plans. The
same flood criteria Ordinance provides that you can build below grade living
rooms, you can build below grade parking garages, what you have to make sure
is that it provides for the proper elimination of water. The truth is that they
can construct, at least the way I understand it and as I read the Code and I
have not heard anybody dispute it, they can construct according to the plans
that they submitted to the Commission, but that is not what they are going to
go back and do, they are going to go back and construct now a 6 foot wall
that will not blend in with the environment, particularly of the Barnacle
to the north, and is not what this Commission approved or the surrounding
land owners agreed on when they looked at the plans.
Mrs. Gordon: Where would that wall be?
Ms. Reno: What they propose are retaining walls down the side on either side
to retain the fill that they are going to put in and then a wall along the bay.
Mr. Gassin: My name is Joseph Gassin, I'm an attorney at 101 E. Flagler Street
I represent the owner. Really, I'm kind of non plus as to what is going on in
here. We've withdrawn an application for any change, is this meeting going to
be a forum between the neighbors and the owner to argue about what the legalities
are? If so, then I submit to you that we have nothing before us on which to
argue legalities. There is nothing here, there is no application to cancel our
building permit, there has been no suit filed by anybody to cancel our building
permit.
Mayor Ferre: Excuse me, counselor, that's the first time that I've ever heard
that, ,..the building permit, will it be cancelled?
Mr. Gassin: No, there has been nothing to suggest that, then why are we
arguing about something that is not an issue before anybody, including this
body?
Mayor Ferre:
second. Yes,
us and argue
good or bad,
I personally
because this
Well, let me answer your first question and try to answer your
this is a public forum, yes —every citizen who wants to come before
about anything and every thing they want to this is a tradition,
that the City of Miami has for long had, and, as a matter of fact,
think this is one of the reasons that this City has survived is
is an open forum for people to come before us and talk..
Mr, Gassin: Even when there is nothing before the City to make a decision about?
Mayor Ferre: But that's your opinion, you see, but there are a variety of opinions.
We have another well known attorney here, just like yourself who happens to have
a different position.
Mr. Gassin: Well, what is it that is before the Commission that the other
side is arguing...
Mayor Ferre; Well, counselor, ..et me see if I can mower that second
52
JUN 9 4977
question. I thinks as I understand it, what's happened is this. The City of
Miami Commission made a mistake. The mistake that was made is that we approved
and really it was a mistake also that staff has to bear, something which cannot
be, and the reason we made a mistake is because we agreed to pass on something
which did not require any filling but on the other hand does require now a 6
foot filling, and therefore, I think we are in a very tight situation where we've
approved something that we were really not entitled to approve. Now, what happens
is that in view of the fact that you didn't want 6 feet but you wanted 10 feet, now
you say well, we withdraw that and these people are saying, well, you can't quite
do it because that doesn't solve the problem. The problem is that if you go back
and build it to 6 feet that hasn't been approvedby this Commission and therefore
you can't..you really can't do that. As I understand the argument, did I mis-
represent it?
Ms. Reno: Except for one point, your Honor, again the way I read the Flood
Criteria Ordinance, they don't have to build the 6 feet if they meet the condi-
tions of that Ordinance. You could have done what you did if you look at this
Ordinance and if you construe it the way I do, and I have not heard any one
construe it to the contrary. It provides there buildings are going to be
down there by the bay, there is no provision --I haven't seen them try to put in a
plan that could be designed and constructive and contains the necessary equip-
ment to prevent an infiltration and provides for runoff. There is no showing that
they can't do what this Ordinance requires and what the Commission approved.
Mayor Ferre: I'll tell you my only concern, Ms. Reno, from a practical point of
view. I hope, and now I am not accusing any of you of this because I know you
are just not that type of people, nor your clients, but you know, I was just telling
Father Gibson, we get more problems from Coconut Grove than from the rest of Miami
put together, there isn't one project or property that does not come before us
with all kinds of...and it's always a problem, whether it is a P.U.D., or...always
somebody, some neighbor, or Ms. Bettner or some group, or somebody is always coming
down with petitions to close up the streets, open the streets, do that, do this,
accusations of trees being cut and what have you. Now, sometimes, like there was
a lady, a very nice lady, who got very angry with a hat..what was the name of the
lady who came down with the hat?,she kept saying- "you just don't understand, we don't
want anything to be built on that property." And I tried to tell that lady, look,
we live in the United States of America, you just can't tell a property owner that
they can't develop the property, now what you are saying is that it's got to be
within the law, which is what you are saying, I understand, I hope that we are not
going into an exercise of trying to stop construction of a project.
Ms. Reno: Let me respond to that Mr. Mayor, because I think that it's very im-
portant and I think you should hear from representatives of the Barnacle. My
client met with these people, he approved plans, he approved a building, which
is not what they are constructing.
Mayor Ferre: Thank you for clarifying, I think that's very important for the
record because we get a lot of misconceptions around here that the neighbors in
Coconut Grove are always trying to stop everything and that just is not the case,
is that right?
Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor, for the record I want to say this, when that project was
approved, I was amazed that this man was agreeing, I was amazed and I said to
him, do you mean to tell me that you are agreeing and he said yes. This is the
thing that really surprised me at least that neighborhoods had come together
and agreed to what we okayed. And then I was very disturbed when I heard to the
contrary, just within the last three or four days.
Mr. Kolsky: My name is Jay Kolsky..,I'm an assistant state attorney in the
llth Judicial Circuit here in Miami. And I would just like to say that as the
result of an investigation that has been going on between State Attorney's office
and the Dade County Department of Pollution Control and the increased height,
the fill that was placed in this property on May 26, a cease and desist order
was issued to the construction in this particular property because of run-off
into Biscayne Bay. In the water samples taken on that particular date by the
Dade County Pollution Control Board indicates in excess of 50 units of turbidity,
130 and 200 units of run-off into the bay, and when you are dealing with an
aquatic reserve as Biscayne Bay is, the State Attorney's office feels that it
is not just a neighborhood complaint now, it is a situation where people in
Dade County are being involved with pollution in Biscayne Bay and we are going
to continue to file any charges that we feel are necessary to prohibit that
sa
JUN 9 1977
pollution and I'm here just to adjust thyself to the Commission on that patti=
culat aspect of the building.
Mt. Kolsky: Mr. Mayor, just briefly, I agree with everything you've said
that there should be open, complete discussion of every issue that is properly before
the City; however, there is another democratic concept which is that you should
have a notice of what is going to be discussed, the due process of knowing what
is going to be presented, there are various conflicting opinions here there are various
co nflicting allegations of fact here, no one is prepared to conduct a hearing
today on what is a fact, what is an opinion, what is the law. I submit to you
that it is grossly unfair to submit this issue to the charges and counter-
charges and I guess we could go on until midnight and just rail at each other
about what has happened and what is going to happen and we are speculating
about this and we are speculating about that.
Mayor Ferre: Counselor, unfortunately we sometimes do on until midnight
because of reasons like that much to our regret, but let me asnwer if I may
your question; Mr. Grassie and Mr. Ongie, I notice that this is on item 3 PM
it says Public Hearing, it's a Resolution, was it properly advertised as a
Public Hearing?
Mr. Ongie: No Sir, I was not told to advertise it.
Mayor Ferre: Tell me what the procedure is.
Mr. Davis: As required by the City Code, Mr. Mayor, notices were sent out
to property owners within 375 feet 10 days prior to this hearing. Also, as
required by the Code the sign was posted on the property 10 days before this
hearing. These were the only two requirements to provide for public hearing.
Mayor Ferre: So what you are telling me for the record is that you have done
what was required under the law.
Mr. Davis: Yes, Sir.
Mayor Ferre: Well, counselor, your answer is that what was advertised was
"Requesting consideration of change of existing PAD consisting of 21 units
at 3495 Main Highway granted by Resolution 76-559 to modify elevation of
structure and fill land as required by the Federal Flood Control Criteria."
Mr. Kolsky: That request has been withdrawn and I don't know now what we are
having a hearing on.
Mayor Ferre: Well, you may have withdrawn it but the problem still exists.
Mr. Kolsky: What are we having a hearing on?
Mayor Ferre: What we are having a hearing about is item No. 15 which is
the fact that Resolution 76-559 which was granted is in question. That is
exactly what Ms. Reno,..and that's what you said, am I wrong?
Mr. Wright: Excuse me, may I respond to that?,.... the permits on only those
items affecting the filled area have been suspended, so there is nothing going
on there right now. Obviously, the only alternative we have is to satisfy
whatever it takes to satisfy the PAD. You know, it sounds pretty bleak but
what I want to tell you is that it is not a bad project. The turbidity in the
bay, the fill that's been put on the property, we don't want to pollute Biscayne
Bay but I have to tell you, the condition of that shoreline as it stood right
there was a filthy mess. Now, that doesn't make the rain washing the
fill down at the bay, we want to build our wall and the fact that the wall isn't
built there now was not an intent in malice. I want you to know that, we weren't
trying to do something around the law. The other thing is, ..that's been brought
up about is the height. There has been no citation by the Building Department of
a violation of height so it shouldn't be an issue here and the fact that we are
having discussions with the State of Florida is not an issue here, it's an issue
between the State and us. Obviously, we'll have to satisfy that problem and
we are making every effort to do so. Now, we are not our project on
only those units in filled land. Now, I hope you'll also think about would you
deny filling the land so we could get flood insurance? Do you know what this is
all hinging on?..a graph that was drawn to show the elevation height of build-
ings and if you lay a scale on it it's almost to six considering mean low
JUN 9 107.7
watet, So, it's a very mute point, We ate only going to fill to satisfy
flood ctiteria so that we can get insurance on out buildings, and we
will do that: And we can build a property line wall by Ordinance also,
I want you to know that, it.isn't.that by filling the land just creates,
there is an Ordinance in the City of Miami that permits a man to fill an
8 foot sideline perimeter wall; now I wasn't even doing that, we don't want
to build a wall that high.
Mayor Ferre: Well, look, I think what we are doing is repeating the same
statements three and four times, Mr. Grassie, I'll now turn over to the
Administration and in what is a rather complicated...because I see arguments
on both sides, I'd like to ask for your best counsel and advice from the
staff's point of view.
Mr. Grassie: I understand Mr. Mayor and members of the City Commission that
the Building Department is in the process -one, of making sure that no illegal
work continues and that whatever work does take place conform to City Ordinances.
Now, it seems to me that, in addition to that proces§we obviously have a second
process which should take place which has to do with an understanding between
the property owners adjacent.
Mayor Ferre: Between the property owners and who?
Mr. Grassie: Adjacent, the adjacent property owners. They should understand
what restrictions are being placed on this particular development and I would
suggest that that should be the next order of business that our Building
Department make sure that they do understand what the law requires and what is
being required of this particular development.
Mayor Ferre: And therefore your recommendation is what.
Mr. Grassie: First that the request for withdrawal be honored obviously, you
know, we really don't have too much of a choice about that but second, that we
make a special effort so that whatever provisions of the Ordinance are applied
to this project are clearly explained to the neighbors and they have a chance
to express themselves about that.
Ms. Reno: They did not make the application, they can't withdraw. This whole
hearing began by the Building Department being asked, well, we can say yes or
no, but what they told us they are going to do is required by what you approved
so that in effect withdraws it. They are not, and it has nothing to do,...
there is a third possibility that the City Manager has not enumerated, and that
is for the property owner and the City Commission and what the City Commission
approved. And it's simply a matter that they have said they are going to comply
with what you approved.
Mayor Ferre: Well, Janet, if we pass a Resolution reiterating our action under
76-559 and s aY that that's what you have to live up to, does that satisfy your
problem?
Ms. Reno: That would be great. but that's not what the Building Department...
Mayor Ferre: I'm not saying what the Building Department says..if the City of
Miami Commission says we ratify 76-559 and instruct the Administration to live
up to it...does that cover?
Ms. Reno: That would cover it.
Rev. Gibson: I move.
Mrs. Gordon: Second.
Mayor Ferre: There is a motion and a second by Mrs. Gordon that the Adminis-
tration be instructed to comply with the previously passed Resolution 76-559.
Mr. Plummer: Well, wait a minute, okay, okay,..under discussion. What does
that accomplish?
Mr. Grassie: The Building Department is in agreement with the Resolution
proposed by the Mayor, we will see that it gets accomplished and it seems to
Me that if the neighbors feel that this accomplishes their purpose that everybody
55
JUN 1977
ought to be satisfied if they give the ptoject and the City a little time to
wake sute the Otdinace is cotiplied with,
Mayor Ferre: Is.that acceptab1e.counselor? All tight.
Mr, Roberts: I would like to say something. Dick Robetts, I am biologist
for Division of Recreation and Parks, I also did the historical work on this
site, Something that we would really like to do is to work with the developer
on the site. We have reviewed the.plans previously and we are on firm denial
.of these plans, as they have been changed.We've got a pretty good investment
here on this site historically and monetarilywise. We are trying to create an
image and it is going to be darn hard to do if you are talking about the air
of the bay, if you are talking about the early part of this century and if you
are going to walk down that site and see a bunch of concrete beside the side,
How can we get the visitor into this feeling of the site if the developer of
the other adjacent side does not work with us, I think this is something that
we could really...
Mayor Ferre: I think it's pretty important; on the other hand I'm sure your
preference as probably mine would be to have nothing built there, right? I'd
prefer not to have anything built there because this is park area and really
it should be preserved the way it is.
Mr. Roberts: Well, I would hope that the developer would go ahead and blend
into our site instead of being apart and above our site.
Mayor Ferre: The problem is that in all these things I guess you need to go
through due process and just compensation, you just... that's a middle
ahppy ground, that's what you are trying to come up with and I hope...
Mr. Roberts: I think, you know, we did try to work that out with the developer
earlier, you know, we think that we have something that we can live with but
now we are still talking about, you know, another ten more feet or so and
they are right down our lawn right now, it's going to be pretty hard.
Mayor Ferre: Well, you see, if we go back to Resolution 76-559, according
to what I understand from two attorneys here, that will accomplish, I think,
what you are trying to accomplish.
Mr. Roberts: A11 right, the point I want to make is that also we get into
some kind of discussion or review of the plans at a later date.
Mr. Wright: Mr. Mayor, to help clarify this the State has put up a wooden fence
in the property, I don't believe that our wall of retention will even come to
the top of their fence, so they wouldn't even see it in the first place and
maybe since we are discussing it the State would like to put the trees back in
Main Highway, maybe we could get together and do that....It really doesn't
but you know, we are really trying just as hard as you are, that was my analogy.
Mayor Ferre: All right, for a last statement, Mr. Simonhoff.
Mr. Simonhoff: I just wanted to remind the Commission that an R-1 P.A.D. is
not something that is anything other than a conditional use and when we are
talking about the terms of what R-1 really is we are talking about P.A.D.
being able to allow for flexibility and creative of design within the limita-
tions of what that Ordinance says, so we are talking about 35 feet or 21 stories
and I believe that if any construction is allowed to continue at this point
which, Mr. Mayor, there is a building under construction, I'm asking that until
this is resolved that this building part of which is going to be over 40 feet
and four stories should not be allowed to continue.
Mayor Ferre: Mike, the trouble with you and me is that we are architects
instead of lawyers, you see, but I think these lawyers have got this thing
properly...I think they've got it properly under control because if we comply
with 76-559 one of the things that was approved was a specific height, wasn't
it?
Mr. Simonhoff: That's correct, but..,
Mayor Ferre: ,,therefore, if we say comply with it then that satisfies your
56 JUN9 1977
prObitm, dneatilt it?
4fs imonhaff: That/a rights
MAW Vette: I bath, you knov4 veva said thin about four
a6 I think its plenty Oh the !wird* Call,the toll.
The folloving motion VAS introduatd b Commiaaioner Cibaonl who moved its
adoption.
MOT/ON NO. 77-466
• A. MOTION TO RATIFY RESOLUTION NO, 76$ PASSED AND ADOPTED ON
JUNE 9i 1976 AND INSTRUCT THE,CITY MANAGER TO COMPLY W/TH:THE
PROVISIONS CONTAINED THEREIN.
. 'Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gibson the totied was passed and
adOpted by the folloving vote-
. AYES: commissioner Hanolo Reboso
Commissioner 3, L. Plummer) Jr.
Commissioner Rose Gordon
Vice Mayor (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson
Mayor Maurice A. Verne
1977 •
ESTABLISH CITY COMMISSION POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR fECISIONS Aff ECtING
CITY OF MIAMI PENSION SYSTEM Aft PLAN
(RD)
Mayor Ferre: Take up item #18; Establishing policy of the City Comte
Mission providing a framework for decisions affecting City of Miami's
Pension System and Pension Plan. City Manager recommends. Now, who are
the people who want to speak on this? Anybody?... Anybody here want to
speak on it? Lieutenant, you want to speak on this?
Lt. March: I didn't know what it was... I was concerned... I saw the
item on the agenda and didn't have a copy of the proposed resolution...
I'd be interested to hear the...
Mayor Ferre: Alright, you reserve the right to speak on it after you
hear the presentation. Alright, sir?
Mr. Grassie: Mr. Mayor and members of the City Commission, we have two
things that we would like to do on item 18. One... I would like first to
ask Howard Gary, Mr. Mayor, to do what the City Commission had ask, and
that is that we report to you once a month on the budget... this is a
budget update to begin with, the reason that we are doing it now, is it...
because it relates directly to item 18.
Mr. Gary: Commissioners and Commissioner Plummer, I submitted to you
last night our second budget estimate,... first before I forget, I have
to let you know that this is only a projection and it includes reasonable
objection about those things that are known as of today. Other changes
may occur as information becomes less certain...
Mr. Plummer: But, its not going to be for the better?
Mr. Gary: No comment, I don't think so. The second estimate... the dif-
ference between the second estimate and the first estimate, is only one,
all other assumptions remain the same as they exsisted in the first esti-
mate. The second estimate has a new budget problem of $9,540,000, and
that assumes that we maintain the 1976-77, millage rate of 9592 in 77-78.
However if we increase the millage rate to ten mills, our budget problem
would be $8,018,658. The difference between the old budget problem, on
the first estimate and the new budget problem is approximately $1,896,414.
This is mainly attributable t-.n some information that we received recently
regarding a increase requirements for the pension fund.
Mr. Plummer: Information received from who?
Mr. Gary: From actuarial studies by way of the finance director.
Mr. Plummer: Who's actuary?
Mr. Grassie: The Pension System.
Mr. Gary: The Pension System.
Mr. Plummer: The ones that are hired by the City or the one by the Pension
System?
(INAUDIBLE)
Mr, Gary: No, what we have done as of today, is to assume that we will
increase it to ten mills and that our budget problem, the first estimate
of $6,000,122, will now be $8,018,658, which would require additional re-
ductions by the departments of the City of Miami.
Mr. Grassie: Very briefly then Mr. Mayor and members of the City Commission.
What Mr. Gary is saying is that the latest report by the actuary would add
to our budget problem, an amount slightly over $2,000,000 It is with
that in mind then, that we bring to you item 18 and I would like to ask
Jim Gunderson, the Finance Director, to speak to that.
Mr, Gunderson: Mr, Mayor and members of the Commission. Item 18, presents
to you the continuing saga, the increased cost relative to the Pension
�JH 091977,
System and Pension Plan. What you're witnessing in this memorandum and
in this year, is an increase in the system from 31.8% to 40% and in the
plan from 10.7 to 11.8. Now, that is a net increase of approximately
$3,000,000, over and above last year's cost. In order to put...
Mr. Plummer: that we understand and the Commission understand,
what Mrs. Gordon and I already know, please, tell them what that $3,000,
000, primarily addresses itself to.
Mr. Gunderson: Its composed of two major factors, first is the change
in assumptions to both the system and the plan. Those assumptions in
the main relate to the way that the actuary applies his percentages, re-
lative to one salary. Salaries for instance in the system worth 1.5 as
a factor, were raised to 4%. Now, the reason for the raise was to make
it to comply more with actuality. The other factor that was raised, was
the investment return. It was formally computed at 4.75, it has now been
raised to 6, in the system. In the plan side the figures were raised from
2.7 per salary , up to 5% and for investment purposes were raised from
4.75 up to 7%. Now, over and above the changes and the assumptions...
and I've just given you two of the major ones, there were the normal things
that occur during the course of the year, that the actuary is very, very
interested in and has to make his computation based upon. One of those
is the fact... what was your assumption about salaries and what was the
realities. The realities of that... last year's effort in the system,
were that your salaries increased 7.3%, as opposed to his assumption .of
1.5, that was the biggest increase and the reason for the change. The
second reason for the change was the estimate that he uses on terminations.
In terminations he anticipated terminations in the system approximately
99 and he got about 50, so it caused increase. The third thing that was
affected in the system was a change in the way that the losses, previously
incurred in 1974, were actually going to be booked. Now, that change a-
mounted to a 1.8% salary, although it means that $7,000,000, were booked.
Basically what we'll have before you then, is an attempt to put the peri-
meters around the pension plan within the prospective and the criteria
that the City Commission itself has outlined as the two major factors.
One is to make certain that equity is done to all employees, both within
the system and within the plan and between them. Secondly is to curtail
the continuing rise of cost relative to the operation of the pension system.
But, as proposed here before you is to do exactly that in terms of a policy,
the policy is to do equity and the last portion of it is to curtail the
amount of money that is going to fund this and that both the plan and the
system boards, go back and alternately ask how this can be done within the
frame work of the three mill limitation that is set for it within the
memorandum before you.
Mr. Plummer: How do you address the question for the provision which -says
. not that I agree... how do you address the thing which says that the
City shall make a contribution and amount to keep the fund the actuarial
sound.
Mr. Gunderson: The actuarial sound will apply to the assumptions... we
would not have changed the assumptions as to the mortality rate, as to
the aspected retirement times for instance...both the system and the plan
The system anticipates that they will retire at age 53, they're actually
retiring at age 52. The plan has an identical -type of approach, their
retiring slight... those assumptions would not be changed and that is
maintaining the actuarial financial stability of the. plan, by maintaining
the components on an actuarially sound basis., those assumptions. And
I think that what both the system board and the plan have now adopted as
their basic assumptions applying to all those elements, are actuarially
sound. Now, the only thing is,'is to keep the other components of the
plan and the system in to prospective. For instance, it is not an actuarial
need that the assumption be made that you must pay 21% on the average final
compensation of an employee,... thats not an actuarial question, thats a
benefit question and thats the kind of question, that the City Commission
would address itself in keeping and controling the cost within each the
system plan and.the system.
Mayor Ferre: Come on.
Mr. Grassie: What we are asking then of the City Commission, Mr. Mar
and members, is that you consider the policy that is in front of you, if
you agree with the two basic points that are being made. One is that we
need to seek egity in all of the retirement plans of the City and two, that
we need to control the costs of these plans ,.,. if those two points are
59
JUN 0 91971
acceptable basic policy points and we need this kind of di.tection, if
we are going to put together any kind of a budget for you for this com-
ing year.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Naples?
Mr. Naples: Mr. Mayor and members of this Commission, my name is"Gene
ME
Naples", and I'm here representing the Miami Association of Fire Fighters.
Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, as you recalled when Mr. Gunderson, -
came before this Commission, before, I suggested at that time, that since mm
we had a reopener in our contract to negotiate for pension this year,
that we might consider the possibility that he would be infringing on
that particular negotiating process. I was assured at that time that !_
there would be some input... that he would accept some input from our
organization and what ever he came back with. I haven't been notified... a
this is the first time I've seen this document. Let me just suggest to
that there is a strong possibility in my mind at least at this point,
that we maybe in fact, getting involved in the negotiating process of
which we are negotiating right now, on pension. Now, I have every intention
of showing this to our attorney and to seeing what his thoughts are, on
what has been suggested here. I don't know what equitable means, from
the stand point of either Mr. Gunderson or the_ Manager and I thought that
some of the things that are mentioned here are subject to collective bargain-
ing. Now, I see down here on item 4, that it says here this would in no
way inhibit the collective bargaining process. I'm not too, sure that
it wouldn't and I suggest to you that you look into that particular thing
... I don't knew if the City Attorney has looked into this and I'm very,
very surprised and shocked really, that Mr. , is not present to
have something to say about this thing, because I do believe that he would
agree with me, that there is a possibility that this may infringe on our
rights under collective bargaining. So, I bring that to your attention
.. I think it ought to be examined a little more closely... unless some-
body could explain something that I don't see here that might be...
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Mielke, right now.
Mr. Naples: Well, I suggest that you ask Mr. Mielke, if he thinks there
is a possibility or not that this would be something that might infringe
on the process.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Grassie?
Mr. Grassie: Yes, of course he's walked in on the end of this conversation
and hasn't heard the comments, but, basically... while you're coming up
to the mike... I think that it bares pointing out although, I'm sure that
all the members of the City Commission have seen it... that the policy
specifically speaks to the question of this being a policy which estab-
lishes perimeters to guide the staff, that is the purpose. It also, speci-
fically recognizes the bargaining process under the statute of the State
of Florida. Now, you know... I feel that, thats quite clear and we say
in the body of the policy, that the bargaing process is clearly recognized.
But, this is your policy, management policy and it is our point of depart-
ure. That is not to say that we can do this unilaterally.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, Mr. Mielke, do you want to add anything to that?
Mr. Mielke: Not particularly, I agree with what the Manager says, that
there are items that you cannot take suit from unilateral action on...
Mayor Ferre: Alright.
Mr. Mielke: collective bargaining and I recognize that we will
have to negotiate...
Mr. Naples: Mayor, my point is, that if you're putting some perimeters
on there and you have some particular point, it would just be like saying
that the City's budget, will be such and such and then something thats
bargained that is over and above that City's budget, then that... I think
that it would be that you're limiting the extremes if you will...
Mayor Ferre: So, what you're asking is...
Mr. Naples: One might be bargaining.
Mayor Ferre: Is to set policy on an item, which is obviously, perhaps
60
JuiV Vy1971
one of the most impoant things affecting the r`y of Miami.
Mr. Naples: I don't think there is any question about that Mr. Mayor.
Mayor.Ferre: And you know, the question is whether or not we should
leave it completely in the hands of the Manager or whether or not the
City of Miami, Commission, should take the... Isn't that basically what...
Mr. Grassie: Thats exactly it, and you know.. without trying to be dis-
agreeable Gene, about it. This is in fact one of those dreas about which
the City Commission and Management, if you wish, should be able to take
a posture just as your executive council can take a posture on negotiat-
able items that you want, without our interference... you know... we
don't try and come down and condition the sorts of demands that you're
going to make and this is basically a City Commission policy.
Mr. Naples: But, I think you are taking a unilateral action here...
what I'm saying, is you're going to put the limits on it, then the negotia-
ting process will be limited to what ever that limit is, and I don't think
thats proper, but, what ever.
Mr. Grassie: Mr. Mayor, I should point out that we would like for that
to be true... I wish it were true... I wish it were in fact true that
we could adopt a budget that said that everybody would get a 2% increase
and that would be it, but, thats not the way it works and you know...
Mr. Naples: I understand your problem, don't misunderstand I'm not sym-
pathetic to your problem, but the thing that is never mention,...never
... in all the news paper articles, in all the television appearances by
the Manager or people who come before the television cameras, is why the
City is in the posture that its in. And its simply because the City has
never funded the unfunded portion liability properly. And their
trying to put it on to make it looK like the employees are responsible
for the problem. The employees are given a contribution rate that is fixed
and they have contributed that without question. And when it come out in
the papers that you are spending some absorbed amount to fund the system
nobody says why we're in that process.
Mayor Ferre: Yea, but Gene, as I am telling J. L., over here... he says
five years ago there was $2,000,000, unfunded, now there is a $180,000,000
unfunded, now where is the City of Miami, going to get a $180,000,000?
Mr. Naples: Mr. Mayor, I'm not arguing that point, there is a law coming
down the pie by the way that is going to tell you how you're going to
have to do that. They're coin¢ to tell you how to do that
Mayor Ferre: Well, you know... that law may come along and that maybe
bye-bye City of Miami and then we'll have to worry about something else.
But, I mean we're trying to face up to this thing as best we can and I
think what we've got to do, is we've got to take some... this City Com-
missionor who ever is going to be here in the next four or five years
is going to... and it may not be that long... is going to have some very,
very tough decision to make.
Mr. Naples: And we're going to help you Mr. Mayor, in every way that we
can... like we always have in the past. And we'll do what ever we can
and we'll try to do whats responsible, but I think you're infringing on
the law now, is what I'm talking to.
Mayor Ferre: I understand Gene. Alright, Lieutenant.
Mr. March: My name is " Don March", of the Fraternal Order Police_ Walter
Headley, Jr., Miami Lodge #20. I have similar concerns as express by Mr.
Naples, and I can't wholly subscribe to your thought that you're doing the
similar thing that we do. I think what you've done here, is you've prepared
something based upon a staff recommendation and as the path that you should
take -while involved in the negotiations. You've decided that this is
• the positioneu'wart_ to-take:and you're now coming to the City Commission
and saying please t.el.1.4$._to fake this position. I think thats entirely
different than... its a different posture than what you earlier outlined.
I have concerns as to the fact that this is brought the open in this form
here while this is a subject of negotiations and as is Mr. Naples, I too,
am going to consult with our attorney, as to the verification of this
particular event. We weren't given a courtesy copy of this resolution,
we weren't given the opportunity to intelligently rebut anything that
might come here to perhaps persuade the Commission, to take a different
61 JUN 091977,
t
and I think that this issue is the kind of thin? that we could have
established in the environment of negotiations, in good faith and we
could have looked into with the benefit of actuarial asistance. And
arrived as conclusion, possibly even consistent with your recommendation.
I wouldn't shut the door on that kind of thing. But, we do have our
concerns.
Mr. Plummer: Grassie,for the record, let me ask a question. Just for
argumentive sake if we go to the 3 mill cap... is then do I understand
that it is these figures that is being presented to us in the second
budget estimate, are the applied figures?
Mr. Grassie: No sir.
Mr. Plummer: Are if we do not go.
Mr. Grassie: That is correct.
Mr. Plummer: Ok. Mr. Gunderson, may I ask a question of you sir?...
through the Manager. You did not in anyway address the point that if
we were to place into law 3 mill cap... has there any study been given to
what that within itself will do to unfunded liability?
Mr. Grassie: Commissioner?
Mr. Plummer: Excuse, do you want to answer it.•
Mr. Grassie: Yea., if i could, because I don't want to give you inadvert-
ently the wrong impression. We are not suggesting that you convert this
to law. This is prepared as a City Commission, policy. This is direction
to us and particularly direction to us in the budget making process. Now,
obviously, as we say in the policy itself, this has to be done through
the negotiating process in part at least. And we recognize that, but this
is a policy it is not law, it does not shut off the bargaining process,
it simply sets a ground rule for us... we are asking you to set a ground
rule which v'e feel is a proper ground rule, principally to guide us as
we approach this next budget year.
Mrs. Gordon: I don't know how in the world we can proceed in this direction
for more than one reason and in effect it we set our own arbitrary 3 mill
cap, we're in effect also saying we're going to permit the unfunded lia-
bility to remain unfunded to... you know, or increase.
Mr. Grassie: In no way Commissioner.
Mrs. Gordon: Well, how can you prohibit that, how can you stop it?
Mr. Grassie: You have to assume that everything stays as it is or gets
worse.
Mrs. Gordon: Thats right.
Mr. Grassie: And thats not our assumption. Now, it may turn out in life
that, thats the way things are, right?
Right.
Mr. Grassie: It may turn out that in fact things will get worse, but, thats
not the assumption we start with and certainly we don't want to set a
policy which will perpetuate the existing circumstance and make it worse,.
what we're asking you to do is to at least adopt a policy which tends to
make it better.
Mrs. Gordon: I don't think it makes it better Mr. Grassie.
Mr. Grassie: Well, Commissioner, what I'm trying to explain is that if you
assume that current expenses will continue and if you interpret this policy
to mean that we will contribute less to the pension system, then you're
right, but those aren't reasonable assumptions. You know, we cannot as-
sume that everything is going to stay the same and we're going to con-
ribute less money, thats not reasonable. What we're trying to do is to
make sure that the unfunded liability does not get any worse, that means
that some of the expense considerations are going to have to change. Some
of the things that make the pension system expensive are going to have to
change, Now, what we're talking about is setting a policy, which will set
62
JUN 0 91971,
us in the direction of decreasing the cost of the pension system, We
ate also saying that you can't do this unilaterally... you can't just
do it by adopting a policy, but, this has to be part of the negotiating
process. But, if you don't even start out with a policy knowing where
you want to get, its very unlikely that you're going to get there.
Mrs. Gordon: Well, then what you're saying to me in effect, is that at
the bargaining table you would then be asking to remove or reduce some
of the benefits,... am I correct?
Mr. Grassie: We are going to have to reduce cost, that is correct.
Mrs. Gordon: And cost are benefits, correct?
Mr. Grassie: Cost one way or another, well, not all of it... but, many
many cost reflect themselves in benefits... you're right.
Mr. March: Mr. Mayor, it that doesn't inject itself right in the process,
I don't know what does. And if you're telling the Commission, that they
will be able to assess a lesser millage, then you definitely have to do
something about decreasing the benefits. And what I'm. saying is, you're
getting involved in the bargaining process.
Mrs. Gordon: You're doing one of the two... you're either doing that or
you're doing the other, right?
Mr. Grassie: Let us be clear once again, we are not talking about chang-
ing the law as it affects imposition of millage... what we're talking a-
bout is out of the millage that you impose, what ever it is... whether
its 91%, or 917 mills as you now have it or whether you go to 10 mills,
what ever the millage is. What we're talking about is limiting the
of tax millage money going to the pension system and limiting that
to 3 mills. Now, that does not affect the tax rate, this is not law...
this is not a statement which has anything to do with imposing the taxes
or limiting the taxes. This is simply a policy statement with regards
to how much of the tax money you're going to have put aside for pension
purposes. And --hat we're indicating to you is that we cannot continue
to have the amount of your taxes going into pension, continuouly go up.
Look its almost, you knotty... we're moving towards forty percent right
now.
Mayor Ferre: Look you've already...
P^rs. Gordon: I understand the problem probably as well as anybody could
understand and I don't see any solution in your recommendation.
Mr. Grassie: Commissioner, again this is simply the first step, it is
not a magic solution by itself, this is simply the first step... if you
don't even have a policy, how do you expect to have any implementing action.
What we're suggesting is that you've got to start with a reasonable policy.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Grassie, it is 4:30, we've only handle five items, so
far today and I don't want to be here 9 O'clock, again tonight and therefore,
I think unless somebody has something new to add, lets get over and either
vote yes or no or do what ever the major of this Commission want to do.
You want to add anything else Gene?
Mr. Naples: All I know is that Mr. Mayor, I'm not very good at math, but
if you're going to put less money into the pension system,... the benefits
... and the less money you're putting in now and you're going into a great-
er unfunded acquitted liability... you're going to put less money in it.
The only way that you can do that is by bringing benefits down and if that
doesn't involve itself directly into the negotiate, he is going to limit
what is negotiated at that table. He is going to tell them the
only way that you can go is down. Ok, and we're sitting there spinning
our wheels and I'm saying its an unfair
Mr. Plummer:.. There is another way Gene, you don't like the other way either
and neither do I, and that is that the unfunded liability goes up.
Mrs. Gordon: Thats what he said.
Mr. Plummer: Thats right.
Mrs, Gordon: He said that.
JUN 091977,
63
Mr. Grassie: Thats not one of our
Mr. Plummer: I say that is one of the options of what could happens
Mayor Ferre: Alright, but, thats been said before now and now that you're
repeating it... please lets not repeat anything. If you have something
new add it, otherwise, whats the will of this Commission?
Mr. Plummer: You know as I sit here Mr. Mayor, and I know you don't
want to hear this... but, its...
Mayor Ferre: I want to hear it.
Mr. Plummer: Very, very poor consolation that I brought this very thing
to the Commission, four years ago, that this day had to come.
Mayor Ferre: Well, Mr. Plummer, the day has come and I'm glad that your
vision then has brought it to a fore front now, I'm sorry that this Com-
mission, didn't have your vision to act on it and now its something that
needs to be done, one way or the other. So, as you had that vision four
years ago, he have that vision today. So, whats... you go ahead and make
the motion.
Mr. Plummer: You don't want to hear the motion that needs...
Mayor Ferre: I ,-ant to hear the motion, make the motion. I think its
time for us to stop talking and have the courage of our conviction on
these things. Now, if you got something that you think is so earth shaking,
that should have been done four years ago, I recognize you to make that
motion sir.
Mr. Plummer: I tried to make it four years ago.
Mayor Ferre: Make it right now and stop talking about it. You know these
people who are prophets, who keep saying, oh, dooms day is coming and
something horrible could happen... alright, I recognize you right now and
you make your motion... four years late... make your motion.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, now that the cat is out the doer don't ask me
to make a motion that I could have made and did make four years ago. Thats
what I'm telling you, the cat is gone, we're now going from a liability
of $2,000,000 to a $150,000,000. I gave this Commission, at your direction
... I believe, 13 recommendations to try to turn this thing around, un-
fortunately, only five were accepted. Now, you're asking me to try to
turn around something which I tried to do four years ago, when the un-
funded liability has now gone up a $150,000,000, no sir I can't so it.
Nobody can do it except Jessie James, with his gun and rob a bank.
Mayor Ferre: Is there anything else that anybody wants to say with re-
gards to item. 18? What is the will of this Commission? I think we've
got to be one way or the other, I think we got have the courage of a con-
viction and state our decision. How ever we feel on this.
Mr. Plummer: Well, you know...
Mayor Ferre: When everthing else fails...
Mr. Plummer: Yea, I'm trying to think what...
Mayor Ferre: Plummer is ready to make a motion. Make your motion Plummer.
Mr. Plummer: My motion has to be for deferral.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Plummer, moves that item #18 be deferred.
Mr. Plummer: It has to be, Mr. Mayor, you know the one thing that you
have to remember, that we're not talking here in this item to these people,
these union heads or these people in the audience. We're talking to
people who have died and their families are looking to this for their very
survival.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, whats... you know got it deferred for four
years. How long are we going to defer it for?
Mr. Plummer: Well, I don't know... what are we going to defer it for?
.4
These people are in negotiation,
Mayor Ferre: You're the one thats making the motion,
Mr. Plummer: The Manager is in negotiation.
Mayor Ferre: But, are you making a motion? Yes or no Mr, Plummer?
Mr. Plummer: I'm making a motion for deferral, 1 want to give some more
thought to the answer.
Mayor Ferre: There is a motion to defer, is there a second?
Mr. Plummer: Yes sir, we can address this again on the 28th.
Mrs. Gordon: I'll go along with the deferral, but, I know whats going
to happen and by deferring it or anymore than if we don't act on it,
because the Manager is in labor negotiations, thats his job... he's got
to negotiate. Whether we do this or we don't do this, he's going to
negotiate to the best of his ability and the people that work for him...
he's going to still negotiate. Ok, go ahead who's stoping you Mr. Grassie,
go ahead and negotiate. I don't think we have to pass this for you to
negotiate.
Mr. Grassie: Two things Commissioner, no you don't have to pass it for
us to negotiate, I just hope that I don't hear from you, that we never
consult you on policy about things like this. And the other thing is
that the basic thing that we are trying to achieve has to do with the
budget. Now, it is very difficult to disassociate in peoples minds, the
budget from the negotiating process and we understand that.
Mayor Ferre: You know what she is telling you Joe, she's telling you
look you're going to do it and you take the heat and its your job,, why
should we take the heat off of you. You go ahead and stand up to it.
Mr. Grassie: 1 understand that Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: So,... if he's stronger than you are and you up and start
blinking, when you guy start eye balling, well, thats your problem. Why
are you putting it on us. I think thats what being said.
Mr. Naples: Mr. Mayor, it maybe small consolation to you, but you're
in no different position than Jacksonville, with about $200.000,000, in
unfunded liability... but, it was all for the same reason, because City
Managers, in the past have asked their actuaries how much money was available
for that particular year and the actuaries came back and they set their
assumption to what the City Manager, told them they had. We have letters
to this effect, ok. And so thats what created the problem. So, I'm sure
thats small consolation to you, there is a law thats coming down the pike
that is going to take some 472 retirement systems... municipal systems
and county systems in the state. And telling them for the first time
there is about 30% of them that had never had an actuary review and thats
going to tell them that now you will have an actuary review, now you will
find out in fact what your unfunded committed liability is and now you will
that based on... and you know everybody is getting very uptight
and we've talked about this and you said you're not afraid of thirty five
years... I'm not either. Detroit is currently funded, as long as the City
is in existence, they're going to fund that. But, they have to be realistic
about putting the money in thats necessary to fund it on a annual basis.
Mayor Ferre: Ok, you heard the motion, there is a second, further dis-
cussion? Call the roll.
Mr. Plummer: Motion to defer.
Mr. Ongie: Yes.
Mr. Plummer: May I ask a question? Mr. Grassie, if we don't defer, what
is the alternative? ...on a policy.
Mr. Grassie: If you don't defer Commissioner, the alternative is that you
would either approve the policy or you'll disapprove it. Maybe you're
asking a different question, maybe what you're asking is, what is the
consequence of'defer?
Mr. Plummer: Sure,
65
JUN 0 91977
Mr, Grassiet The consequence of deferring is, that you continue basically
the same kind of no policy, no constructive action, Lets take care of
little problem as they come up, lets acede to little requests .as they
come up and compoufd the problem from-hete into the future, That basical-
ly is the alternative to continue the kind of action that has gotten you
from'$2,000,000 to $180,000,000 of unfunded liability.
Mrs. Gordon: You know, every time I hear that, I think back to that
study. You know, that was a management sponsored study and that
what really increased the big load on our back, if I'mn not misstaking,
Thats when it happen, it didn't just...you know, happen for anyother
reason.
Mr. Grassie: You're entirely right, it did not just happen and if the
City Commission, would like I would be happy to give you a summary of
what has happen in the last four years that has made major contributions
to your unfunded liability.
Yea, I think that might be a good idea.
Mayor Ferre:
Mr. Plummer:
Mr. Grassie:
Mayor Ferre:
Five years.
Five years would cover that problem very nicely.
Without any further discussion, call the roll.
Thereupon the proceeding motion to defer introduced by Commissioner
Plummer and seconded by Commissioner Gordon, was passed and adopted un-
animously..
10. ACCEPT BID: HEAVY EQUIPMENT FOR PUBLIC PROPERTIESI
Mayor Ferre: Alright, take up item #42, a Heavy Equipment, Public Pro-
perties, replaces equipment beyond repair. A total of $739,966. 42,
accepting the bid and authorizing the Manager. The low bidder was? Who
is the low bidder?
Mrs. Gordon: Which number are you on Maurice?
Mayor Maurice: 42 is the next one that the people are here for.
Mr. Plummer: Well, Mr. Mayor, there is a number of successful bidders
here.
Mayor Ferre: Oh, I see... these are the different things, contractors
for all five international harvester and so on. Ok, are there any ob-
jectors?
. Yes.
Mr. Grassie: Mr. Mayor, could we have Mr. Ed Cox, speak briefly to this
bid, so that the City Commission has some back ground on it.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Cox, you speak to it and then we'll hear the objectors,
and then we'll vote.
Mr. Cox: If I might Mr. Mayor... Commissioners, I have a chart here on
the only item that I feel there is going to be any discussion on. We are
basically recommending in all items, that the award be made to the low
bidder. However, in items one and two is the garbage packer units, which
consist of a body and a chassis . If any of you would prefer, I have
copies of that, that I can pass out if thats not really plain. As you
see on the chart, item 1, was for the and beside each one of the
bids we have the FOB cost for delivering of that to the body manu-
factory. And as you will see, FOB Leech, FOB Howell, FOB Packmore and
FOB Garwood. The International ... International Harvester
was the lowest acceptable bid on the -item of the truck body. If you'll
notice in Leech and Howell, in the basest price without option, there is
only two dollars difference in their bid on the bodys... two dollars. We
bid three options, which are outlined on the chart. We chose to accept
options two and options three. You will note then, if you go across the
66
JUN 0 91977,
chart, that when you consider options two and options three combined
with the FOB cost, this makes Leech... the Leech body or in your brochure
HF Mason Equipment Company, the low bidder by some $51.00... $53.00,
something like that. So, thats why I think that the discussion will
be on this item. We had to combine the unit to make the entire garbage
packer to identify all of the options in the bid, which we do call in the
provisions of our document. We call for the FOB price to be identified,
otherwise, if one were left out there might have to be an addition to the
bid after the fact. We may in fact have to eliminate a bidder because
he did not include ar. FOB delivery price.
Mayor Ferre: Make your recommendation.
Mr. Cox: The recommendation therefore, is that the award be made on item
1, to the International Harvester Company, for 15 and to the
HF Mason Equipment Company, for 15 bodys, for the GMC Coach and Truck
Division, for item three... Motors for item 4, Massey -Ferguson
for item 5, South Florida Mac Truck for item 6, which by the way was for
used vehicles. Its unusual that we purchase used equipment, however,
the need at this time for the Virginia Key, field operation is urgent.
We therefore felt that we should go out for equipment that was available
immediately. There is an awful lot of used equipment available. The
total of our bid being $739,966:
Mr. Plummer: So we can get a point of discussion, I'll move that we
accept the recommendation.
(INAUDIBLE)
Mr. Plummer: I'll make a motion and then get a second so that they can
discuss it.
Mrs. Gordon: Second.
. Yes, we're open for discussion purposes... she was a seconder.
Mr. Plummer: Alright, sir.
Mr. Provone: My name is "Dan Provone", and I own Florida Municipal Sales
Company and my prime reason for being here is on the HF Mason award. I
sell the Packmore garbage packers and we have quite a few in the City of
Miami, at present... in fact a majority of them are Packmore. But, the
reason that I am here is because the way the award is or the way that
that break down comes about is a base unit option 1, which is for a 1 to
2 cubic yard pick container system and as option 2, which is for the over-
head through a 6 yard container system and item 3, which is a
washout system. I believe that my unit is low with all options except the
ones that was awarded with options number 2 and 3. My question to the
City, is this... presently they only have up to 2 yard containers in the
City, being picked up by the City trucks. And if they award the trucks
to the HF Mason Company, overhead system, they might be creating
a frankinstein. Number 1, does the City plan on buying 6 yard containers
or having the commercial uses by themselves?... and if they are doing so
... you know, then its fine if you're buying the units as they are. But,
I just think that you would be creating a problem for the City itself,
without questioning it a little further. And the second question that
I have,... on the bid they ask for a cashier's check. I don't believe
that HF Mason, said that they would comply with this... they would give
them a performance bond, which is a major issue at hand. The performance
bond cost relatively nothing and enters into the fact that the money in-
volved in the... per each price. I know that I included in my bid pro-
posal the cost of this additional cost. So, I'm questioning whether the
City or not should question HF Mason, as to their complying with this or
not. The only reason I'm here is to that reason and to enlighten the
council. So, thats my questions.
Mr. Grassie: We'll have... I'm assuming that the City Commission, want
some answers.
: Yes sir.
Mr. Grassie: We'll ask Mr. Cox, to answer them.
Mr. Cox: I'll answer that to the best of my ability, As the Council
Commission knows my department purchases and provides all using depart-
67
JUN 091977
rents equipment throughout the City and provides maintenance of that
equipment. We order what the using department requires. What their
requirements are based upon... whatever objectives or future plans that
Using department has. We go over each purchase with each department,
based upon their needs and based upon the equipment that we're planning
to replace. Option 2, was the decision made by the using department.
We don't question that decision where it deals with options. We assume
that the using department has plans for using this type of equipment.
The only thing that I can say to that or add to that is if you want ad-
ditional information, Mr. is here and I'm sure that he can
give you that.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, sir.
Mr. Yettiger: My name is " Earl Yettiger", with Roland Trucking Equip-
ment of Miami.
Mr. Plummer: Roland who sir?
Mayor Ferre: Trucking Equipment.
Mr. Yettiger: Roland Truck Equipment and I'm here on the same deal about
the ward to Leech.
Pair. Plummer: Well, excuse me... for my edification which one are you?
Are you Howell, Packmore...
Mr. Yettiger: I'm Howell. We represent Howell and Howell is the largest
manufacture of rear loaders and municipal units. We current
have sixty units in operation at Metro -Dade County, eighteen at the Beach
and eight at the Gables. But, the big thing that I want to state is that
I am low bid. I am low bid by two dollars and I wish I could get all your
attention on this. I am low bid by two dollars, now I talked to Mr. Cox,
and he said that they had to take into consideration that the rate on the
to the garbage packer company would put me $50.00 high. But,
also on the bid there is statement in there which calls for a discount
on parts and I offered a 10% discount on parts , HF Mason offered zero.
These are very expensive packers that you all are going to purchase and
over the period of the next five, six or seven years. I feel sure that a
garbage packer, which receive such extensive use that the 10% discount
on parts... over what?--- seven year period of time, will more than offset
the initial out lay. However, I... I won't take the ten minutes Mayor,
I promise you.
Mayor Ferre: The problem is that we've got bo... we cannot make unilateral
decisions like that here.
Mr. Yettiger: Yea, I...
Mayor Ferre: We've got to be guided by what staff tells us and I'm sure
they've taken all that into consideration.
Mr. Yettiger: No sir, because noone asked me for my parts list to com-
pare with Mason's.
Mayor Ferre: Well, let me tell you this...
Mr. Yettiger: But, let me...
Mayor Ferre: Well no let me tell you, that you're talking to the wrong
people. You really... you said nobody asked you, well this information
then should have been gone to Mr. Cox and his people, long before this
Commission Meeting and this Commission is not going to substitute...
Mr. Yettiger: Oh, no... no I realize that, I did offer it to them, but
they said that this would be too, hard to determine Mr. Mayor, and I a-
gree it would be a very difficult item to determined on something like this
of where this $50.00, over a period of five, six, seven years... However,
I do want to state that I do agree with Mr. Provone, on his statement
about... that some of them should have some container lists. And what T
would like the Council to recommend and I'm suggesting, is that they buy
five units from Florida Municipal Sales, five units with the container
lift attachment, five units from Roland Trucking Equipment--- with the
attachment and five units from HF Mason, with the at-
tachment. If HF Mason is also, willing to put up a certified check like
JUN 091977,
the other of us are. Which was also, called for in the bid and which
should become an exception in that instance. This would give the City,
the opportunity to evaluate all three packers and if you're going into
this high density equipment purchasing over from here on out, then certainly
you should want to evaluate three packers when actually purchasing them
as I am requesting, would actually mean a substantial savings. Not a
substantial savings but, a small savings, because we're right close to-
gether. So, I sincerely hope that you will consider a split award of
five units each. I think this would be a just and equitable award.
Mr. Cox: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, I am not in accor0 with that
recommendation, I stand that we're satisfied with the low bid, it is
our recommendation that we award to the low bidder based on these figures
before you. On the 10% for parts this does appear in our bid items and
has appeared for sometime, that is primarily to encourage the suppliers
to give us a discount. There is no way that we can evaluate any percent-
age put in there, its merely to encourage a discount. We cannot evaluate
it... the price structure in any catalogue is subject to change without
notice but, it is there to encourage bidder to give us a break on parts.
Mr. Plummer: Vice -Mayor, I've heard nothing to make me change my mind,
I call for the vote.
Mr. Provone: I'd like to say something, we didn't have an answer on that certified
check business.
Mr. Plummer: On what sir?
Mr. Provone: 6n the certified check.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Cox?
Mr. Cox: The certified check as I understand it will be fore coming when
the award is made by the HF Mason Company... I think they are here. Is
that correct?
Mr. Plummer: Within the frame work.
Mr. Cox: They had this under an exception, that they would post a per-
formance bond. I took no exceptions, and neither did Florida Municipal
Sales, it states that a performance bond... where your bid clearly states
that a certified check or a cashier check must be posted.
SPEAKER UNKNOWN: Mr. Mullins, would you like to speak to that?
Mr. Mullins: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, the City Code...
Mr. Plummer: Please, state your name and position.
Mr. Mullins: My name is "Art Mullins", and I'm the City Purchasing Agent.
Mr. Plummer: Yea, I've heard of you.
Mr. Mullins: The City Code gives the City Manager, the option to accept
a performance bond on any purchase.
Mr. Plummer: Are you telling me that everything is in order?
Mr. Mullins: As far as I'm concerned it is.
Mr. Plummer: I call for the vote.
Mr. Cox: Mr. Plummer, could I ask you then, why is it stipulated in the bid... and this
is a big stipulation.
Mr. Plummer: Let me answer you sir, I didn't see the bid, I didn't ana-
lyze the bid. I am merely saying to this department sir, is this thing
in order and if it is I'm backing the recommendation, Now, if you find
something to the contrary sir,: and you have done it... well you don't
understand. I've ridden pretty hard on these people, ok, But, all I'm
saying is that if they're not telling me the truth or what they're saying
is not the truth, they're not going to get the opportunity to be asked
a question like that again. Now, I have knocked down any deviation from
fact in what they have been telling me, These people say to me that the
man has... the City Manager has this right, Sir I can't go on anything
Ivil!9e1'!'11
69
JUN 0 91977
else.
Mt, Provone: Mr. Plummer, t would like to say something on that, When
I took into consideration the price that I was giving to the City of
Miami, I put in that the cost prorated over 15 units for the cashiers
check that was going to be held, probably somewhere in the vicinity of
four to six months. Now, if you'll notice the price on the sheet up
here, there is probably a difference of $50.00 between the three awards
or three low bidders. My cost for that cashiers check over six months
is a lot more than $50.00 a unit. And I just like to,.. I'd like to
know in the future whether you'd accept the performance bond from every-
body instead of just calling out for cashiers check. Now, my bid probably
would have been lower and so would have Roland Truck, I'm sure.
Mr. Plummer: The only man that can answer that sir, will be the City
Manager, in the future can they do it... yes or no. Sir, I can't answer
that.
Rev. Gibson: May I ask a question out of fairness for me? Did all of
them have the same option.... the same right to put up a performance bond
or a cashiers check?
Mr. C:ox: No, in the bid it clearly states that we should put up
either a cashiers check or a certified check in order to insure that if
we are late on delivery, that the City will be allowed to deduct a certain
amount of this check as a penalty. It becomes pretty difficult to deduct
on a bond. S figured also, on my units the interest on the money that I
had to put up. Otherwise, -I could have been lower.
Mr. Provone:
the city.
Mr. Cox: Thats thrue and I think that I would put up a certified check or a cashiers check
check or a cashiers check.
And this is done in the City's protection, we're protecting
Mr. Plummer: Father, I'm not arguing the point, I'm arguing... not arguing
... I am stating that the Manager and his people have asserted to me,
that what they have done is perfectly in order and they still recommend
this company and thats all I'm voting on.
Rev. Gibson: But, what worries me is if we were... if they were told to
put up a certified check or... you know, the same thing happen to us with
the dolphin business... you remember that. Instead of the dolphins putting
up that money, the dolphins put up a performance bond,... put up a bond,
isn't that right?
SPEAKER UNKNOWN: Yea.
Rev. Gibson: ... tell the public.
Mr. Grassie: They put it in
•
Rev. Gibson: No, they didn't put no money up, thats the point I make...
isn't that true?
Mr. Grassie: Thats correct.
Rev. Gibson: Alright, now if we say to them put up money... now I know
one thing, if I have to go to my church and take out of the treasury of
the church $50,000, which we don't have but, if I have to get it and if
I could promise to put up a bond which I'd put up a fee, thats a different
story... thats what these men are saying.
Mr. Plummer: I'll ask my question...
Mr. Cox: Thats exactly..,
Mr. Grassie: Lets ask...
Rev. Gibson: Thats what they are saying.
Mr. Grassie: Lets try and answer your,..
Mr. Cox: Thats exactly what I'm saying, could I make some,,, this is'why,
are down here,,, and we're talking about a big bid
when the bids
70
JUN 091971
and Cohen we all get down within like $50.00 a.,. we're really trying to get the bid
fot the City. So, I either think then if someone is going to take an exception that
the City shouldn't honor it, either they should put it up for rebid again and give us
all a chance and say hey, you can each put up a performance bond or like I said... hey
pick five of each. This will give the City a chance to evaluate these packers as you
go along and then you won't have any problems next go around. But, give us all a chance
because, we all really got down and try fot it as you can see, By either throwing it
out or...
Mr. Provone: In the long run the City benefits no matter what happen here. If you
throw the bids out you're going to get lower bids the next time out of here, because
we all know each others prices. You can't loss,
Mr. Cox: Mr. Mayor,...
Mr. Grassie: We're still... Commissioner, we're still trying to answer your question.
(INAUDIBLE)
Mr. Grassie: Ok, just answer the question.
SPEAKER UNKNOWN: In the time I've been with the City, we have always accepted a per-
formance bond as a deposit... a bid deposit, in lieu of cashier checks and
this is because of our interpretation of the Code that says that the City Manager,
has the option to accept a performance bond or a performance deposit. All of the people
that have ever done business with the City, in the time that I've been here who have
requested to submit a performance deposit bond in lieu of a cashiers check, have
been granted that permission.
Mr. Grassie: So, the answer to your question Commissioner, is yes. They all have
the same opportunity.
Rev. Gibson: Mr. Grassie, that doesn't answer my question. If you say in a bid that
you must... that your bid must be accompanied by or with a cashiers check that one
thing, it doesn't say in lieu of that or a bond. Thats what I'm trying to understand.
And what these men are saying to you is that there was no discretion given them, there
was a specific direction. Now either we're going to be specific and carry out what we
say we're going to carry out or we aren't and this is what those two men are saying.
Mr. Yettiger: Mr. Commissioner, the actual specifications'did not offer an option.
Rev. Gibson: But, it said a check.
Mr. Yettiger: It said a cashiers or certified check. However, I might point out
at this point. That the cost in dollars of a performance bond exceeds the cost of
a cashiers check.
SPEAKER UNKNOWN:• No.
Rev. Gibson: You know, I hope you're right. But, that isn't the way that the dolphins
situation was...
Mr. Yettiger: No sir it.... no not... depending on the size of the company and
what business you... there is no way. I could get a performance bond for next to
nothing , putting up a cashiers check means putting up money, its actual cash right
there that once you deposit it you are drawing the interest off of it. You do not
draw the interest off of a performance bond and the interest that you draw I lose.
And this can also, more than offset any bid down there where you're coming within
dollars, like this bid has been call for. Therefore, I'm saying that you either got
to give us the fair right by calling for a rebid or give us five each, hey, I'm happy
with that... I'm not greedy.
Mr. Plummer: No way.
Mr. Plummer: No way which sir?
Mr. Plummer: No way that I'm going to split it up into three different parts where
you three different kind of replacement parts, three kinds of mechanics, oh no.
Mr. Yettiger: Mr. Plummer, this would give yo':... you've never gone into these high
density machines before. This would give the City a chance to evaluate each machine.
Now wait, don't worry about the parts because I carry plenty of parts. Because, next
year it could be... you're going to advertise 15 again and then you could end up with
an entirely different theme like you're talking about ending up with five.
Mr Plummer; Let me tell you thus, if I find out that these people haven't aready eval-
JUN 091977
bated... let tie tell you they have. x
N±4 'fettigett We have.
Mt. Gtassie: We still have the tecottendatioh in ftoflt of the City Cotissioh, it is
that we award to the low bid and I think that you have heard the statement from the
purchasing agents that the process followed has been proper, it has followed the pro-
visions of the Code and it has been a process that the City has followed for years.
Rev. Gibson: Mr. Manager, I want... I dontt know about another Commissioner, I have
difficult to bid this way. The successful bidder will be required to submit a per-
forinance guarantee prior to the issuing of a purchase order. This performance guaran-
tee shall be a certified or cashiers check, in amount of not less than 5% of the bid.
I just want to read what I ...
Mr. Plummer: Father, there is no deviation from that.,, prior to the purchase order.
There is not any purchase order been given,...
Rev. Gibson: But,...
M'dutemser: Excuse me sir, I didn't want to interrupt you aiid Ill ask the same
There is purchase order given until approval of this Commission. There is no problem
with that at all Father.
Rev. Gibson: I see.
Mr. Yettiger: Yes, because he took an exception to it. Now, if you are allow to say
that you will do it on a bid and then after the purchase order comes through then change
... hey, he took an exception and said he would put up a bond, I took no exception,
Ism willing to put up the cashiers check.
Mr. Plummer: Let me ask a question. Mr. Cox, I got a awful lot of faith in you and
I always have. Mr. Cox, I want to know another question totally unrelated of what these
people are bring out. Mr. Cox, in your estimation is this the finest equipment we can
buy for the City?
mr
•
•
Mr. Yettiger: Wait a minute, would you put that in another phase and say would you•
ask Mr. Cox, whether the other two machines that have been bid are as equally as fine.
Mr. Plummer: Fair question, Mr. Cox, if you just open the door, I think...Mr. Cox,
was these machines used in Rochester?
Mr. Cox: Are you speaking of the Howell machines?
Mr. Plummer: Yes sir.
Mr. Cox: Yes.
Mr. Plummer: Whats the results...
Mr. Cox: In my discussions with the...
went.
Mr. Plummer: Where is he from Mr. Cox?
Mr. Cox: Rochester.
Mr. Plummer: Did he have new machines?
Mr. Cox: Yes sir.
Mr. Plummer: Well tell us what the results were.
Mr. Cox: The results as quoted to me was extremely poor. It resulted in much down
time of the equipment, there were many problems in manufacturing that had to worked
out after the machines were delivered. There is in fact some on going problems at
this moment as I understand it.
Mr, Plummer: Thank you, sir.
MT, Yettiger: Now, could I introduce fir. ,John Thomas, of the Howell Company, who was
with these Rochester deals right from the beginning and so that we here two sides.
Mr. Cox: Yes sir.
our present director of the sanitation depart -
ME, •
■
■
Mr, Plumper: Please do,
72
JUN 0 91977,
Mr, Thomas: My name is 'John Thomas", and I'm the sales manager for the Howell Co►
I kind of hoped that I didn't have to come up here and talk at all, I was hoping
we'd go without this. The City of Rochester, is primarily ; they recently
received approximately twenty units and there was some difficulty. The difficulties
have since been solved and I can report today that the City of Rochester, recently
bid another 16 units of identical nature to these and or nearly identical to these,
the same type of bodies. I was informed this morning by telephone, that Com-
missioner Watson, at the City of Rochester and the purchasing agent at the City of
Rochester, have approved and purchased 16 more Howell Mark V Collect-o-matics. In
discussions with Joe , the purchasing agent, for the City of Rochester, he assured
me that they are delighted with the performance and current servicd they're getting
out of their Howell equipment. Thats really all I can say.
Mr. Yettiger: Would that answer...
Mr, Plummer: I've called for the vote three times, I'm not going to call for it again.
Mr. Yettiger": Well, I know Mr. Plummer, but could you also, think about calling for a
rebid?
Mr. Plummer: Sir, let me tell you something,... I 11 tell you again, I've told you
three times and I don't mean to be mean.
Mr. Yettiger: No, I realize that.
Mr. Plummer: I am not an expert in garbage trucks, I must rely on my people who get
paid pretty good salaries to give me the best advice available. I have dealt with
Mr. Cox, now for seven years that I've been a public official and not one time has
that man lead me wrong. It is his recommendation, he is indicating to me that, that
is the low bid, he is well pleased that this is the thing and sir, I've got nothing
else to say.
Mr. Yettiger: No sir, the only thing I was talking about was the exception on the bid.
Mr, Plummer: Sir, you're bringing out a technical point on a check, am I correct? That
technical point, if Father will read it again... as far as I'm concerned, the administration
has complied with. That before these people... who ever the winners are--- this Company
here, they get a purchase order--- they have got to put up that check. Sir,...
Mr. Yettiger: Make an exception Mr. Plummer, they said they would put up a bond in
their bid.
Mr. Plummer: will you admit that whats in this bid is an option.
Mr. Yettiger: No sir, I figured on putting up... the way that is written, I figured on
putting up either a certified check or cashiers check, which gives the City of Miami,
the opportunity not only to draw interest of it, but then I lose interest and this is
where my bid is $50.00 higher. And thats the way its written.
Mayor Ferre: Look I'm going to tell you... Mr. Plummer, if you'll forgive for doing
this, but you know we're getting into deep water in this thing and these are matters
that are very, very technical in nature and very difficult to follow and frankly, unless
its something that... if its illegal and somebody has been dishonest or something, then
you take it to the State Attorney or to the Grand Jury. Otherwise, as far as I'm con-
cerned I'm following the Manager's recommendation, I might be putting myself in a position
to get involved in wading through some very difficult things which either staff is capable
of doing and if Mr. Cox, is not capable of doing, then Mr. Cox, shouldn't be working for
the City of Miami and if he is capable of doing it I'm going to follow his recommendation.
Now, whats your recommendation Mr. Manager?
Mr. Grassie: My recommendation Mr. Mayor and members of the City Commission, is that
we concur in staff's recommendation that we award the bid to the low bidder.
Mayor Ferre: Any motion at this point?
Mr. Plummer: There has been a motion made.
SPEAKER UNKNOWN: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Ferre: I'm sorry, when was the motion made?
Mr. Plummer; I made the motion.
Mayor Ferre: Whats your motion, I'm sorry I was..,
4r. Plummer; Accept the recommendation of the low bidders,
73
JUN U919fl
Maya tette: A1tight;is there a e and 'to them tiuml
Mrs. Gordon:
Mayor tette: Rose totdon,..l further diacussiofi oii this1
MAKER UNKNOWN: Mt. Mayor, One thing before you make M watch I just like to say
that in this City, you have two of the finest then uotking tut you! btgani2Stion and
hooking out for the Cityts interest in Mr. Rush and Mr. Cok and I have nothing futthet
to say.
Mayor Fette: Thank you, vety much. Altight, further discussion tin this/ Call the
roll.
The following resolution WAS introduced by Commissiohet Plummer, who moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 77-467
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE FOLLOWING BIDS FOR FURNISHING
HEAVY EQUIPMENT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC PROPERTIES:
BID OF INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY FOR SIXTEEN CAB
AND CHASSIS AT A COST OF $405,445; BID OF H. F. MASON
EQUIPMENT FOR FIFTEEN REFUSE BODIES AT A COST OF $200,520;
BID OF GMC TRUCK & COACH DIVISION FOR THREE TRUCKS AT A
COST OF $65,196; BID OF CALLAHAN MOTORS COMPANY, INC. FOR
ONE TREE CRANE AND THREE DUMP BODIES AT A COST OF $23,250
BID OF MASSEY-FERGUSON , INC. FOR ONE LOADER-BACKHOE AT A
COST OF $16,055; BID OF SOUTH FLORIDA MACK TRUCKS, INC.
FOR TWO DUMP TRUCKS AT A COST OF $29,500; ALLOCATING
FUNDS FROM FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING FUNDS AND THE REPLACE-
MENT RESERVE FUND; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER AND THE
PURCHASING AGENT TO ISSUE THE PURCHASE ORDERS FOR THIS
EQUIPMENT.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file
in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gordon, the resolution was passed
adopted by the following vote-
AYES: Commissioner Manolo Reboso
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner Rose Gordon
Vice -Mayor Theodore Gibson
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
None.
11. ACCEPT BID FINGERPRINT IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM FOR POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Plummer: Mr. Vice -Mayor, I would like to move item 43.
Rev. Gibson: Alright, moved. Do I get a second please?
Mr. Plummer: 43.
Rev. Gibson: 43, this fingerprinting identification system,
Mrs, Gordon; Second.
Rev, Gibson; Alright, call the roll please,
JUN 0 91977
1wiftg t 1utio t, A i!ti8duted by Com i rioter Pin e
1ES6LUTION NO. 77.468
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE EIt) OP ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL
IN THE AMOUNT OF $403,187 FOR PURNISlING AN AUTOMATIC •
• PINGERPRINT IbENTIPICATION SYSTEM; ALLOCATING FUNDS PROM THE
POLICE HEAWAkTERS ANL CRIME PREVENTION FACILITIES EONb PUNO
AUTtORIEINO'TRE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT
WITH THE APORESAIb FIRM; ANb INSTRUCTING THE PURCHASE
!APARTMENT TO ISSUE A.PURCHASE ORDER POR SUCH EQUIPMENT.
(here follows body of resolution, omitted here and oft file
in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gordon, the resolution Was passed atd,,
adopted by the following vote-
AY
Commissioner Manolo Reboso
Commissioner ,. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner flose Gordon
• Vice -Mayor Theodore Gibson.
Mayor Maurice.A. Ferre
NOES t
one.
m i 11 Er a iI ■ II !IIIIIII!II IU 11 III!II!4I!!II!IIJIIIII
JUN 0 91977
. PROGRESS SPORT - MIAMI DOLPHINSUSE OP THE ()PANG BOWL
STADIUMI
Mayor Ferre; Mr. Grassie?
Mr. Grassie: Mr. Mayor, this item Was listed on the agenda a progress report because
at the time we prepared the agenda we did not have a completed document representing
a 10 year contract between the City and the Dolphins. The last changes were made by the
Dolphins on this yesterday. Yesterday morning we received it. We have tried to get it
around to each of the members of the City Commission during the evening and this morning.
I'm sorry for that time crunch. The one thing that puts us a little bit on the timetable
that's tighter than I would like is the whole question of going to New York to make a
representation for the city with regard to the Super Bowl. You know that thats place
next week.
Mayor Ferre: What does that have to do with this? You mean to
make a representation for the Super Bowl until we have a signed
Mr, Grassie: No. I'm not saying that to you. I'm saying that
delegation, particularly our staff. I believe that this is the
would prefer that this not be an issue. That this still not be
limbo.
Mayor Ferre: Is that ---
Mr. Grassie: It's simply preference. I'm simply explaining to
only reason that we are not dragging....
Mayor Ferre: These are opinions not facts.
Mr. Grassie: It's simply a judgment that's all.
tell me we can't go and
contract with the Dolphins?
the people in that
case of Mr. Plummer also,
hanging out there in
you that that's the
Mayor Ferre: Judgment. Judgmental value. Ok. Alright, so what do you recommend that
we do now?
Mr. Grassie: I would if you... I know that you're pressed for time, I would like to
go through this and point out the major elements if you think that that's necessary.
I think all of you had a chance to read through it. Would you like me to go through
and mention the major points? Would you like me to go through the document and mention
the major points? What this does is it puts on paper the agreement reached in principle
between the City and the Dolphins with the assistance of the Chamber of Commerce and the
Orange Bowl Committee. You remember that we were in the process a couple months ago of
trying to reach that agreement. Now, what this document does is makes specific what the
city has agreed to. The basic provisions are that it is a 10 year agreement. It does
provide that the Dolphins can indicate a willingness to cancel the agreement on three
year notice if a new stadium is built. It does provide for doubling of the rent, and
it does provide an increase in those rental rates. I said it was a 10 year agreement.
It also covers 1976, You remember we wanted to pick up that one year. So, in reality
it covers 11 years.
Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor, I have some problems with this contract. I, Theodore Gibson,
finds it difficult to be dealing in good faith and you're telling me you want a three
year out and you want me to go before the people and invest their 50 million dollars
to renovate the Orange Bowl, that's number one.
Mr. Grassie: No, that's not what the agreement says sir.
Rev. Gibson: Say what?
Mr. Grassie: No, that is not what the agreement says. What the agreement says is that
if the City and the Dolphins agree on major improvements that at that time we would agree
on how the rates would go up and we would agree that when the improvements are made the
rates will go up and there would be no escape clause. There will be no 3-year clause.
Rev. Gibson: Suppose it is the judgment of this Commission not to do anything, then you
mean to tell me.... you know ?
Mr. Plummer: Then the 3-year escape clause stays in Father.
Rev. Gibson: Let me raise another thing. I don't particularly like that. But let me
raise another thing. I hope before we sign this agreement and I'm going to insist for
Theodore Gibson, otherwise I'm going to vote against it. I hope before we sign this
agreement that we get clarity. I don't know what the term is but you could go to a
11111111111 IIII!!'uil!!!uIIIIII II I IIIII1
76 JUN 0 91977i
Judge and ask for advice or an advisory judgment on whether this is taxed or whether
this is rent. Now, you know, you ain't fooling met
Mayor Ferrel See, they took us to court and fought us on whether it was a tax or not
and beat us.
Rev. Gibson: Right!
Mayor Ferre: Now, they got themselves into a trap. Now they want it to be a tax.
Rev. Gibson: Right!
Mayor Ferre: See, because they want to get away from paying.
Rev. Gibson: That's right and I'm doing.... let me tell you this. I Will not sit on
this Commission as a governmental agency and be party to HUD taking advantage of another
governmental agency. I will not!
Mayor Ferre: Especially, when they took us to court and argued the other side.
Rev. Gibson: Right. It was expedient and to their advantage at that time and they
ought to live with it. See, my mother taught me and she wasn't no college graduate.
She was no big financier, said when you dig one ditch you ought to dig two.
Mr. Plummer: Boy, I'd go broke under those circumstances.
Rev. Gibson: And, I am not going to be party too. I'm going to hold up the conscience
of this Commission. Doggone it. He went to court, won, bravo, bravo. Now, he want me
to lie and mislead the Federal Government. No, pay your tax! The State Government.
Go in there in the stadium and you have one of those rock and roll , they pay their
taxes. Let him pay his tax. I ain't buying them. Right Rose. Right! Right! Right on!
Mayor Ferre: Alright. Mr. Grassie, I guess while we're on it. We're going through this.
We may as well just get on the record one,question of the scoreboard. Two, the matter of
the concessions beyond 1980, and three, the question of security guards and who pays for
them.
Rev. Gibson: And, four, whether this is a tax or rent.
Mayor Ferre: Wait a minute, you made that point. I'm adding mine to yours.
Rev. Gibson: Oh I see. Fine. Fine.
Mayor Ferre: One is the scoreboard. The other one is the -- who pays for the security.
Three is the concession. I had another one. I forget what it was. You remember?
Mr. Grassie: The Guards. The Guard Service?
Mayor Ferre: I've already mentioned that. Mr. Jennings what was the fourth item that
I mentioned to you. I mentioned four. One was the scoreboard. One was the concession.
Mr. Jennings: I only recollect three Mr. Mayor. The three that you've talked about.
The Security Guards, the Scoreboard, and the Concession. That's the only three that I
recollect.
Mayor Ferre: Yes.
Mr. Grassie: Just so that I can understand. I take it that what you're saying is that
you feel that we should get this question of the tax fee clarified.
Mayor Ferre: You want me to spell it out?
Mr. Grassie: No. If the City Commission is basically in concurrence with the position
of Commissioner Gibson,then the direction that I understand is that we would have to go
to the court and try to get that clarified.
Mayor Ferre: Yes, I think the court would have to clarify that portion.
Mr. Grassie: We can't do it by ourselves.
Mayor Ferre; If the court agrees to it then i would have no objections to it. That's
the court decision. But it seems to me the thing that really concerns me is the fact
that I don't want to tie myself into an internal legal battlE. with Dan Paul, the attorney
for the Dolphins about a clause regarding the concessions beyond 1980, I don't want those
concessions to be concurrent with anything else, In 1980 they are over, over, finished
and we have complete freedom to re -negotiate, re -bid, re -contract, or anything else a
U 0 91�71,
I don't want anythingin the language that would in anyay imply directly, indirectly
by inference or otherwise anything other than it's a brand new ballgame. And, if
I know the way these attorneys operate and Dan Paul, a great guy, but that's a very
sharp attorney. That thing in there is a hook and there's no question about it.
Mr. Grassie: Well, Mayor, Dan Paul may get a lot of credit, but the fact is that
the basic terms of this agreement are the ones that we arrived at.
Mayor Ferre: Not this Commission.
Mr. Grassie: That we arrived at. I'm speaking of Bill Colson, Ray Goode, and
Lester Freeman and I, with the representatives of the Dolphins.
Mayor Ferre: They don't speak for the City of Miami.
Mr. Grassie: I didn't say they did sir. I'm simply defining who we is as I'm using
the word. Now, that group attempted to solve what was preceived to be a problem.
We achieved what was preceived to be a solution and I say preceived to be a solution
because when we brought the solution to the City Commission everybody was very happy
that something had been accomplished and we were very nice to the Dolphins. We felt
that a step forward had been taken. Now, in trying to make that agreement a legal
document we've got to cover the provisions that we agreed to. I guess, I don't
know how to tell you this any other way than to say to you that we cannot keep dealing,
I cannot keep dealing with these people on the basis of my achieving some kind of an
agreement with them, and it's having no significance. Now, the only thing that I can
suggest Mr. Mayor is that if I can't bring you an agreement that you're satisified
with, you know, either he's going to have to deal directly with you. You know, I'm
not being critical of the process. All I'm telling you is I cannot be e.ffective
for you if I can't achieve an agreement for you.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Grassie, you negotiated a contract with the University of Miami.
University of Miami, this is not limited to Mr. Grassie.
Mr. Grassie: No. I didn't.
Mayor Ferre: Oh, staff did. Is that , Mr. Jennings did?
Mr. Grassie: No sir.
Mayor Ferre: Who negotiated?
Mr. Grassie: You did on the floor of this Commission.
Mayor Ferre: No sir.
Mr. Grassie: Well, when I say you, the City Commission. I'm simply giving you my
understanding of what happened because you brought that up.
Mayor Ferre: Would you let me finish my statement here and I have to clarify that?
Mr. Jennings, I apologize, not you, one of your representatives. When I say you,
I mean you the Administration negotiated a contract. Now, we went several times
back and forth because this Commission could not agree on that contract. Now, when
we tell you to negotiate a contract that doesn't mean that it's Carte Blanche that
you can go sign it and finalize it without bringing it back to this policy making
board. Now, in that particular case I happened to notice that we were giving the
University of Miami $25,000 a year.and for that we could be getting zero, so we were
in effect subsidizing the University of Miami for their football games and I told the
man who came to see me from the University. He said, Mr. Mayor, I'm here to see
you and I'm going to go talk to all the Commissioners and I say I don't know about
all the Commissioners but I'm telling you there ain't no way that I'm voting for a
contract that gives University of Miami $25,000 a year unless you give you a minimum
guaranteed amount which covers us at least for the minimum expenses and upon talking
to Mr. Jennings I understood that $40,000 was the very, very minimum that it would
cost and that's how we inserted that into the contract. Now, I go to lengths of
pointing it just to stress that this is not limited to the Dolphins. Now, with the
Dolphins, this Commission e.grees with the Dolphins to give them one hell of a contract
which is a 10-year contract with a three year provision that they could walk away
and give us 3-years notice. We also agree we wanted 10%. We were getting 3%, and
we ended up getting how much? 5%. Now, I want to tell you something and that's
basically all we talked about. We didn't talk about a heck of a lot more. Now, we
get a contract before us and number one the 5% is now gone. It's now something new
which is a .53016 multiplied by the number of seats in the Orange Bowl, which is
something completely new. This Commission has not voted on it and not expressed an
opinion. I accept a premise that the 5, after 1977, it's .563295 multiplied so, I
understand that that more or less comes out to what 5% or similar to it and that's
78
JUN 0 919771
a new provision. Now,(pecifically # aM concerhed abou a contract ih here tvhich
basically says and I think it was item #3 Mr. Jenhings?
Mt. Jennings: On which?
Mayor Ferre: With regards to the concession. 1980 concession,
Mr. Jennings: No, it's item 12 Mr. Mayor on page 11.
Mayor Ferre: I'm specifically concerned about item 12 which says,"subject to a
successfully negotiation". I can see Dan Paul's lawsuit right now, "Of the provisions
of a new concession agreement with partnership". The city agrees that the term of the
new concession agreement will coincide with the term of disagreement, Now, what is
the successfully negotiation? Are we the sole determined factors of whether it's a
successful negotiation?
Mr. Grassie: Yes sir.
Mayor Ferre: Nobody else can determine that legally?
Mr. Grassie: No.
Mayor Ferre: There's no room for a lawsuit in here, Mr. Knox?
Mr. Grassie: If we don't agree it's not a successful negotiation.
Mr. Knox: There's no agreement then as the Manager said there will no successful
negotiation.
Mayor Ferre: Yes. The next thing is we've been having a fight and a hassle back and
forth for years on that scoreboard. Now, Mr. Joe Robbie, who ends up unbelievably
ends up being the hero of all these things has been on his own stopping this City of
Miami from putting up a two million dollars scoreboard because he's obstructed it
every inch of the way for the past, how many years J.L.? Four years. We could have
had that scoreboard up four years ago, and then they start complaining about whether
the speaking system is no good and the scoreboard system is no good. We end up taking
all the heat. We're the bad guys.We get the blame and the guy that's been obstructing
it is Joe Robbie. Why? Well, because he wants part of the action. He doesn't want
us to be taking the money out of it when he can get some money out of it. It's just
that simple. See, so that he can make another $50,000 bucks or whatever it is. We
get strong -up, cut-up, and quartered, and we don't have a scoreboard. And, the fans
who do they get angry at? They don't get angry at Joe Robbie. They get angry at the
City of Miami because we don't have a proper speaker. We don't have the proper score-
board and why don't we have a proper scoreboard, well, here we go again and all I'm
saying, I guess, on the record,is that I want an absolute clear cut definition that
we've got to get a scoreboard, half of it, part of it, whatever it is. And, lastly,
now that we've come down from a 10% which is what we were requiring the 5% as you know
in most stadiums around the nation Mr. Jennings it is the user who pays for security
guard. Is that correct?
Mr. Jennings: Yes sir in most stadiums.
Mayor Ferre: In most stadiums. In most stadiums they get 10%. We're getting 5%.
Mr. Jennings: Well, it isn't 5 Mr. Mayor really.
Mayor Ferre: Well, what is it?
Mr. Jennings: Well, it's hard to calculate because it depends on the size crowd and
the ticket price of cost.
Mayor Ferre: Well, this Commission went on record on 5%.
Mr. Jennings: This particular contract would work out to probably 8 or 9%.
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me. We went on a definite figure a dollar amount.
Mayor Ferre: Well, that's not what this contract says.
Mr, Grassie: Yes it does sir. This contract, although it is a formula. This contract
says you get $40,000 per game for the first year. You get $42,500 per game the second
year and $45,000 per game after that. That's what the contract says sir, and that's
what you agreed to.
Mayor Ferre: Right, Ok,
Mr, Plummer; Mr, Mayor, let Ine. , . ,
79
JUN 0 91977
Mayor Ferre: J. L. , thest thing, which is the question lif the guards.
It seems to me that that's something that we ought to clarify that it certainly
was not my vision of it that we'd be stuck for paying for the guards at all. Now,
tinsknowlittlethingsa C$ing aj.1u hosett Yngs ano tnaf'sehow we4gettOin'orthese0sitOuations. and you
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, since you took the prerogative of speaking to other than
directly to the contract; Let me tell you what bothers me. Not speaking directly to
the Dolphins contract, and it's to the point Mr. Mayor that Mr. Grassie made. The
thing that I find ourselves increasing everyday becoming more involved in is that we
send this man out to do a job and I think where we fail is not setting the parameters
in which he has the right to negotiate so that when he comes back here we can back this
man up because if we don't do that, all we're doing is spinning our wheels. We're not
not doing anything other than losing the Manager or whoever his designee is, their
creditability, and to me in some way shape or form we've either got to make a decision
that we're going to turn it over to him, give him parameters and if he comes back within
those parameters,agree or let's stop that procedure and start negotiating right here in
front of this Commission. Now, I know that doesn't speak to this contract, but --- well
let me tell you here we are faced up once again with the same damn thing.
Rev. Gibson: J.L., you know how I felt all along.
Mr. Plummer: Sure Father.
Rev. Gibson: You know how I felt all along, and, I didn't you know, if you'd gone on
the way I felt you wouldn't be in this predicament. I don't see why,... You know, I
see some things happen that just really shock me. I remember... I remember when.. the
Dolphins demanded a piece of the concession action. Demanded a piece of the concession
action and you know we Mr. Grassie wasn't here. We went right on. I don't
think we ought to do it. I don't think we ought to do it. That's why, everybody thinks
all they got to do is just come down talk loud to us, raise hell, get in the paper and
then all of us just knuckle under, and I want to make sure J.L. understands this. One
of the things I've always been for is to sustain and the man that goes out. I've always
been on... I said this before. But,let me tell you something I don't plan to give the
Manager Carte Blanche to represent Theodore Gibson. I want him to go and come back and
report to me, tell me what some possibilites are. I still want to have the final word,
because I happen to have the answer.
Mr. Plummer: Father, I have no disagreement with that. What I'm saying is when we send
that man out or whoever we send out. I think where this Commission has failed is giving
the parameters of what he can negotiate and how far and how much. That's where I think
that this thing has fallen apart.
Rev. Gibson: J. L., you know, I think sometimes it would be nice if we would say no
to some of these things and say, well I better ask my Commission. You know, that happens.
Let me tell you,that happens in some other things around here. I'm going to mention
something else too. I want you to know. I got some dead set feelings about some things.
Mr. Plummer: Well, where are we right now? That's ....
Mayor Ferre: I'll tell you where we are. In my opinion, I think what we ought to do
is with the qualifications expressed on the record, Instruct the Manager to submit our
misgivings. Look, as far as I'm concerned you've covered most of them. You've covered
the question of the minimum. You've covered the question of Father Gibson's point.
Because that's, the Judge is going to determine that. You've covered the question of the
concession. I'm satisfied on the record that we have no legal obligation. There's only
two things that, as far as I'm concerned are left that I see and one is the sign, and I
think we ought to try to make some headway on that, and the other thing is the guard service.
How much does the guard service amount to Joe?
Mr. Crumpton: It has been amounting to $4,000 per game.
Mr. Plummer: Is that with all policemen or with the Wackenhut situation?
Mr.Crumpton: No, that's with all policemen.
Mr. Plummer: But you're going to the Wackenhut, right?
Mr.Crumpton: Yes. We are. Well, hopefully we are, yes. That would reduce it to maybe,
2 to 3,000 per game.
Mr. Grassie: But, the difficulty Mayor is that not that it's much money, but that that
happens to me one of the items that was specifically discussed when Bill Colson was acting
as the intermediary, and we brought that question to the Commission. I believe that
Father Gibson specifically asked about that. Because he wanted something done about it.
Bill Colson explained it and you agreed.
80
JUN 0 91971
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Grassie, look, we're talking about $40,000 some odd dollars. You've
discussed it and agreed upon it. It was brought up before the Commission. As far as
I'm concerned we'll go with that too. I'll vote for that. So, that leaves us one thing
left and that's the sign.
Mr. Grassie: And, basically, the language of the agreement Mayor at this stage simply
says that the city can do anything it wants so long as it doesn't construe the agreement
to obligate the Dolphins to do something they haven't agreed to. Now, that's all it says.
All it says is that we will not take our right to put up a sign, put up a new scoreboard
to mean that we can make them carry concessions they don't want to carry. That's all it
says.
Mayor Ferre: How are you going to get a major company to spend two million dollars
which is what a major sign cost,unless they can have the right of advertising in major
football games? They're not going to put it after the high school games.
Mr. Grassie: Well, there are two answers Mayor. One, we can get an improved scoreboard.
Not a video re -play scoreboard but an improved scoreboard with 3-year provision that we
have and without any agreement on the part of the Dolphins. If we want a large two million
dollar scoreboard we have to their agreement. But part of my premise Mayor, in talking
with these people is that we have to have their agreement just like they have to have ours.
My premise is that we cannot make the 15,000,000 work of improvement or any serious
improvements without their agreement and we're not really going to have a big scoreboard
without their agreement. And, why shouldn't we agree with them?
Mayor Ferre: I agree that the problem is that we always end up with the short end of
the stick and Mr. Robbie uses all these things to whip us all the time and get one more
concession and one more deal and sure he comes out ahead everytime and the city stands
still. And, all I'm saying is, you know, power to them. But on the other hand, you know,
instead of being defensive about it, it's long overdue for this city to become more
agressive about it. Because as badly as Grassie and Robbie want to come to an agreement
and I want to come to an agreement too. It always ends up that we'll always cornered,
we're always put in a position where Robbie ends up making one hell of a deal. Now,
fine. I have no objections to him making a deal, but you know we want a little room for
the people of Miami too and we want something so that we can go ahead and improve and
improve the stadium. He has been holding this up for the last 5 or 6 years and hopefully
... who's the beneficiary of Mr. Robbie's stubbornness? Not Mr. Robbie, so far. Certainly
not the City of Miami, and certainly not the Dolphins, and certainly not the people who
have to go and sit on those hard wood benches when we could have been well along in doing
a lot of things for the ... 4 or 5 years ago. And, here we go on this merry-go-round
chasing each other, calling everybody, everybody back and forth, you know, back and forth .
My God these negotiations are harder than the
Mr. Grassie: Well, Mayor, you know, about three or four months ago, I concluded one of
the big problems that we were having was that we were getting into exactly the kind of
position that we have right now, which is that I brought back a recommendation and you
thought that maybe something better could be done. Now, my response at that time was to
work with a team of three people. At that point I wasn't even talking with the Dolphins
directly. Upon the assumption that there would be some creditability in people like
Colson and Ray Goode, and Les Freeman and if they couldn't get a better deal for the
city, that maybe it would be reasonable to think that that was as good a deal as could
be got. And, what you have on paper today is simply a recording of that deal. It does
not change anything of any significance. It is simply putting down on paper what we
agreed to three months ago.
Mayor Ferre: Poor City of Miami.
Mr. Grassie: Well, sir you have three of your principle citizens who tried to get what
they conceived to be for this community a fair deal.
Mayor Ferre: Poor City of Miami. Amen. Let's go. I'm ready to vote, reluctantly.
Anybody want to make a motion?
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I have to feel the Manager has done the best job he can do.
I have to feel that Bill Colson, who I've talked with on a number of occasions from no
standpoint other than the good of this community has assisted both sides in getting a
fair, and equitable deal. I don't think I could do better. Based upon that, I will
have to accept the recommendation of the Manager in this contract to be accepted with,
I think, it is only fair some clarification as it relates to the word, tax.
I think that's only fair that it should be. Mr. Mayor, I'll make a motion that we
accept this agreement as proffered.
Mayor Ferre: There's a motion and a second. Is there further discussion?
Mr. Knox: Mr. Mayor, this is assuming of course, that the question about taxes is
81 JUN 091977,
tesoli'ed,
Mayor Fette: the Judge has to resolve that,
Mr. Knox: One thing I have to point out to you is that the Judge will probably fiat
resolve it, As I understand and the Judge will be asked to Vacate the order Which
declared this taxing power of the city unconstitutional and it Would therefore be
presumed to be constitutional that the city has this power.
Mr. Mummer: What are you telling us?
Rev. Gibson: Wait a minute. Let's make sure. You know, what he's telling you, that
in order to benefit themselves they Vacate that order. No, no.
Mr. Knox: In other words, the Judge is not, as I understand it going to approve of
a contract♦
Rev. Gibson: He's not going to do what?
Mr. Knox: Approve. Formally approve of this contract. If the Judge vacates the order
then it's as if the order was never issued.
Rev, Gibson: No man. No man! We aren't any fool. You can't eat your cake and have it
too. Man, let me tell you something. You don't have the money and all this time the
guy operated with your money. You didn't pay no interest. That's the same kind of
thing that was talked about here. I say that... no you aren't paid. That's what you
don't know. You put up a performance bond. Sure.
Mr. Grassie: We're trying to get this thing signed so that we can get paid, for goodness
sake. That's why it covers 1976.
Mr. Reboso: Let me ask you Mr. Manager. As soon as you sign the contract, are we
going to get the money?
Mr. Grassie: Assuming that the court clears up the question that Commissioner Plummer
was talking about. The answer is yes.
Mr. Reboso: Is there any possibility that we don't get the money?
Mr. Grassie: Not that I'm aware of. No.
Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute. I want to hear the legal ... He's shaking his head
in circles now.
Mr. Grassie: I'm not aware of any provision that would allow us to not get paid.
Mr. Plummer: Do you know Mr. Knox, of any reason why if this agreement is signed that
the court will not release our money?
Mr. Knox: I don't.
Mr. Plummer: You don't know of any reason?
Mr. Knox: That's right.
Mr. Reboso: Then, what's the problem?
Rev. Gibson: Look man, this man took us to court. You know what, it's very unfortunate
that papers don't write. The twisting changing from position to the other over against
rent and tax was engineered by the very lawyer who took us to court. By the very lawyer
who took us to court and now we want to get on our bellies and crawl some more. ....
Mr. Plummer: Look, hey, come on, we're hung up. Let's try to unhang here. Mr. Grassie,
if we don't sign this agreement where are we?
Rev. Gibson: I'll vote for the motion, only if that tax situation is cleared up. I
be doggone if I'm going to sit on this commission and finagle around with the term tax
or rent and then go... no man, because if he's paying rent, he's got to pay the state
government that tax.
Mr, Reboso; Father, that is part of the motion,
Rev. Gibson; Well, I want to make sure everybody understands that,
Mr, Reboso; That is covered by the motion.
82 JUN 0 91977
Mr, Grassie:
t think we understand what you're saying,
Rev, Gibson:
Mr. Plummer:
Alright, 1 hope you do,
Well, in order words,,. let me explain it. t made the motion. My
motion was that we accept this lease subject to the clarification of the word tak
by the court. Well who else is going to make that determination? And, you're saying
that it can't be done? Because if that does then my motion is out of order.
Mr. Knox; What I'm trying to do is clarify the word "clarify".
Mr, Plummer: Well, you go ahead and clarify it then.
Mr. Knox: To indicate to you what the court is expected to do at this point and to
advise you that you should not expect that the court will approve of this contract.
The question that will be before the court is whether or not it will vacate an order
which declared a tax or the power of the city to impose a tax unconstitutional.
That is not a declaration, that it is constitutional. It creates a presumption that
it is constitutional.
Mr. Plummer: George I remember very vividly and refresh my memory in the lawsuit one
of their contentions was that this tax was illegal. Am I correct?
Mr. Knox: Right, but in the argument...
Mr. Plummer: The Judge based her order on the fact that it could not be called a tax
that it had to be called rent. Now, here you are in a contract once again calling it
a tax.
Mr. Knox: Right.
Mr. Plummer: Now, you mean to tell me that the Judge is not going to clarify that?
Mayor Ferre: Which is exactly what Dan Paul fought us on. That was his argument before
the court, right?
Mr. Knox: That's right.
Mayor Ferre: Now, of course, to his benefit now he wants to take our side on it.
Rev. Gibson: That's what I was trying to tell you. So the thing to do is make him
live with the tax. I told you if you dig one grave dig two. It was convenient and
to his economic advantage. See, now let him suffer the consequence.
Mayor Ferre: Well, ok. I think that's a condition ...
Mr. Plummer: No, Father, you are the other way around. You are just completely
backward if I'm not mistaken. He wants it to be a tax.
Rev. Gibson: I don't want it to be no tax that's the point I'm making. I want to go
back to the rent. Because if we go to the rent he has to pay tax.
Mayor Ferre: Of course, we're not the beneficiaries of it.
Rev. Gibson: I don't care. One thing you'll discover. If we went through all that
sweat, tears and blood we ought to be paid. Let him pay some of it too.
Mayor Ferre: To the state.
Rev. Gibson: Alright, that's what I'm saying.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, I have one last question. Mr. Jennings, then I'm ready. I
have one last question. Mr. Grassie, on the question of the scoreboard. The legal
objection is that since he's the concessionaire we cannot advertise things that are
against the products that he sells, is that right?
Mr. Grassie: No sir. It is a question of what the advertiser would want to establish
as a condition for his advertising. For example, a Cigarette Company taking out an
ad may want to insure that his cigarettes will be sold in the stadium.
Mayor Ferre: No, here's the thrust of my question. In 1980, when is this concession
over?
14r, Jennings; In 1980, sir.
EUII .1111 1 111111111111.1111 ilionommil
83
JUN0919Z
41
Mayor Ferre: When? January?
Mr. Jennings: Not June or July,
Mayor Ferret Alright, June and July of 1980 that question is a blood question is that
right?
Mr. Jennings; Yes it is.
Mayor Ferre: So, then we can negotiate at that point and that will be one of the
things that we're going to put in.
Mr. Grassie: Yes, except that I would hope that we would be able to negotiate With
the Dolphins and get something going much before then.
Mayor Ferre: I would expect so too. But at worst by 1980 we can get it clarified.
Mr. Jennings: Yes.
Mayor Ferre: And, I guarantee you the way Joe Robbie operates, excuse me, it'll be
July 1980, but by then at least we know that we'll get it clarified. Ok. I'm ready
to vote. Further discussion. Mr. Plummer?
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Grassie, I'm concerned.These are minute points. Mr. Knox, you better
come back here. In item 11, page 11, well it starts on 10, about free parking spaces.
I think the wording is very loose.
That's 140 parking spaces.
Mr. Plummer: Well, but do we understand correctly that there will not be more than
125 parking spaces granted free?
Mr. Grassie: That is very clear. As a matter of fact, the city has... Yes it is
very clear that this takes care of not only the team management but it also takes
care of the coach if that's what you're asking.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, I want to make sure that we have this thing with the tax ---
Mr. Grassie, Mr. Plummer, you're the maker of the motion, and Rose, I want to add a
sentence in there that if at any time there is a lawsuit should we vacate or should
the Judge agree or whatever the way this works out if anybody challenges this in the
future. I want Mr. Robbie before hand in this contract to agree that he will not use
that as a pretext not to pay us and hold up payments. That's a new clause that has
to be added to this contract and if that is the decision of the court he obviously
has to live by it. But until the court decide I don't want him saying,"well I had
nothing to do with the lawsuit, some user of the stadium has sued us and now it's
in court and I'm not going to pay you until it's decided and then we go through another
one of these... " Ok. Is that acceptable to you Plummer?
Mr. Plummer: Yes, sure.
Mayor Ferre: Rose? Alright, any other questions?
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Knox, just for clarification, because I'm a little indefinite. On
page 11, item 12, I want you to read that again and I'm going to ask the question that
the Mayor asked once again just to make sure. Because the way I read this baby you're
either going to make a successful negotiation with the partnership or you're not going
to be doing anything else. Now, this to me it says, subject to successful negotiations
of the provision of a new agreement with the partnership. It doesn't give you Mr. Grassie,
in my estimation any latitude to deal with any one other than the partnership.
Mr. Grassie: Not so sir. Not so. What that says, it's very simply is that if we
should at sometime in the future agree with regard to concessions we are stating our
present intention that that agreement run concurrent with this agreement. That is all
we are saying.
Mr. Plummer: Only, if there is a successful negotiation.
Mr. Grassie: That's correct.
Mr. Plummer; And, if there is not, Mr. Knox, you concur with the feeling of Mr. Grassie
from a legal standpoint that would give this city the full right to deal with someone
else if the negotiation was not successful?
Mr, Knox; Yes sir, If my reading of this provision goes to the term of a new concession
agreement rather than any right to negotiate with anybody else,
i
i
84
JUN 0 91971.
Mr. Plummer: Ok,
Mayor Ferre: Alright, are you satisfied now Plummer?
Mr. Plummer: You're beautiful,
Mayor Ferre: Ok. Anything else? Call the roll.
Thereupon the foregoing motion introduced by Commissioner PluMmet
and seconded by Commissioner Gordon was passed and adopted by a uhahimous
vote and was designated Motion No. 77-469.
SEE LATER RESOLUTION NO. 77-501.
Further Discussion:
Mayor Ferre: Thank you very much....
Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute, excuse me. Are we going to validate the election results
on the Orange Bowl?
Mr. Ongie: Yes sir we do.
Mayor Ferre: Well, we can wait on that. There are people waiting for other things.
13. PERSONAL APPEARANCE: ROBERT HOROWITZ REQUESTING ASSISTANCE FOR
"GROVE HOUSE."
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Horowitz, I'd like to recognize you at this time. The subject is
"Grove House". Let's give Mr. Horowitz the attention that this item deserves.
Mr. Horowitz: Sixteen years in your city we've had Grove House operating which is
the only non-profit Art/Craft Organization in the State of Florida. I know a lot of
you have participated with us in our activities and I'm here to really congratulate
you and thank you for the support you've given to Grove House over the past. We're
here today as the first time we've appeared before a Commission or governmental body
sixteen years of operation. The operation of the Grove House is a non-profit organ-
ization has been handled not by patrons but by volunteers, some of who you see today.
Everybody is a volunteer. Everybody works and everybody is happy at that work. But
we provide interest into our gallaries and into our showrooms for everybody, artists
and public alike who can't make it any place else. Our invitation list really tells
the story better than the words. In terms of outreach to the community we've had the
shows for the Black Arts League. We've had the Latin Shows. We've had
Bursting into 77. The Opportunity for New Artist . We've had the show for
the Women Art Organization. The point is that the Grove House, unlike any other organ-
ization a profit nature or non profit nature has been the Statue of Liberty of the
Art World in the State of Florida. And, here we are located in Coconut Grove, your
city providing this tremendous outreach program for literally the citizens of Florida.
But without coming to you once for even cooperation here's what we've done for the
City of Miami. Time Magazine, full page ad for Grove House. We didn't pay for it
but the people thought we were worthwhile enough. So the Time Magazine has given
Grove House one full page of advertising, advertising Coconut Grove. The same ad
appears in Harper's Magazine. The same ad appears in Atlantics. The same ad appears
in Newsweek. The point of my story on this thing is that here again in an effort to
be self sufficient we have gone to people at the press to get this work and this is
all advertising for Coconut Grove where we have never said help us, share with us .
We have always said this is what we are. This is how we operate and we want to give
not take. Now, in an effort to come away from a situation where, because of volunteers
and struggles we have to worry every single year about a light. It was a decision of
our Board of Directors to self initiate the self-help and hire a professional fund
raising grantsman. A person who would write professionally the grants that I've put
before you in a professional form. This is how we operate. It's self initiative
and all we're asking for are funds from Federal Revenue Sharing and from C.E.T.A.
for your approval of this thing, and we're still not going on the city's ...
Mrs. Gordon: I have a question Bob. Why didn't you address this to the Revenue
Sharing when you really want Manpower Funds, C.E.T.A. Funds ?
Mr. Horowitz: It is C.E.T.A. There is two grants there. One is C.E.T.A. and one
is for operational, Federal Revenue Sharing and one for C.E.T.A. grants. There's
actually two applications. I think you'll find that one deals with request for
employees and one deals with request for keeping our doors open. Let me tell you
another reason that I'm here, Besides the need for operational expenses on this thing
•11111 III Iuiniui
85
JUN 0 91977
4111
here we sat with our ma,r fund raising opportunities of our year, our annual auction
and everything else. The only reason, we as an art enterprise exist with enough
square feet next to the Coconut Grove Playhouse is that we have really a barn that
we operate in, It's a nice decorated well-done barn. The only reason we can pay the
tents, remember the Grove has scared off every other artist, has made it impossible
for them to show. And, we represent the true character of Coconut Grove, and our
roof caved in. Two days before the auction and in the rain and with the nails and
with the tar paper we went up and corrected the situation. Otherwise,...
Mayor Ferre: Bob, let me see. J. L. , just in a minute, let me see if I can cut
through. Look, South Florida lives on tourism and many other things, but the Art World
is an important part of what we are or what we should be. There are a lot of gallaries
here in Miami, but those gallaries, they try to cater to the International Market . They
want name artist, etc, They're very expensive. Gallaries does a nice
job and there are other people who help out. But there is no place at all anywhere in
Florida like Grove House. What Grove House does is it permits artist who are starting
or who cannot afford to go to these big gallaries to have a home where they can exhibit
their work and where the local people can appreciate it. It's a unique...It's a absolute-
ly unique culture heritage and strength that we have in Miami. Secondly, J. L. Grove
House is one of the major attractions in Coconut Grove. It's really one of the most
important things. It acts as a magnet that gives a lot of the character that Coconut
Grove has that we all love and enjoy. And, I really think it's not only a moral respon-
sibility but a real, honest to goodness responsibility if we have any. And, the welfare
and the structural thing, the higher key of values that we've got to do something for
these people, because these are our artists at our local level. I strongly urge that
somehow the City of Miami Commission go on record sponsoring and assisting Grove House
with C.E.T.A. positions, if possible and Revenue Sharing. You're asking for what?
$16,000?
Mr. Horowitz: We're asking for only $16,000.
Mayor Ferre: And, for how many C.E.T.A. positions?
Mr. Horowitz: And, we're asking for six C.E.T.A. positions which include incidently,
the C.E.T.A. positions are teaching positions which enable us to extend our outreach
and working relationship with the County.
Mayor Ferre: Now, Bob I don't think that we can unilaterally, arbitrarily make that
decision other tnan here other than as a broad policy matter and therefore I would
move that this Commission go on record supporting Grove House and asking the Manager
to work out whatever he can which he feels is appropriate and come back to the Commission
with specific recommendations.
Mr. Horowitz: Is that just on the C.E.T.A. you're talking about?
Mayor Ferre: On everything. On both of your requests, but let the Manager have the
opportunity to staff to sit down negotiate this with you. Ok?
Mr. Horowitz: Well, I guess if I have to go that way I will. I just think that we
have made professionally an honest request to you today. We filed these papers well
in advance on the deadline.
Mayor Ferre: Yes, I know Bob, but I don't see unlessthe Manager tells me that we can
do it any other way. I think knowing the way the city proceeds in these things we've
got to let the staff have the flexibility of sitting down and working out the details
with you.
Mr. Horowitz: You see, we're here today because we got a shot at building a whole new
structural paradise for an Art Community to start a new season with and we're not a
delay. You know you're dealing with volunteers here.
Mayor Ferre: Bob, you came to talk to me about this yesterday and the fact is today
we're resolving ...
Mr. Horowitz: But I filed this way before yesterday.
Mayor Ferre: Well, ok. But I didn't know anything about it until yesterday. The
Manager knows about it today. Give him a little time and hopefully, by the next meeting
which is a week from today or if not by Tuesday the 21st you'll have some kind of an
answer. Could we give it that kind of priority Mr. Manager?
Mrs. Gordon; Where did you file Bob? I didn't have it before today.
Mr. Horowitz: We filed..,,
Mr, Grassie: As you say Mr. Mayor I have not seen this until now. Put I'm sure he's
86 JON 091977
been working with somebody on staff. We can get, we could certainly have a response
to you in terms of what has happened so far. Maybe thete ate ro problems and Maybe
there, 1 just don't.,
Mayor Ferret If thete are no problems just. go ahead and proceed. If there ate, would
you come back to the Commission?
Mr, Horowitz; Ok. The only thing is we applied to Mr. Morn,
Mayor Ferret Mr. Who?
Mr, Horowitz: Mr. Horn, who is...
Mr, Grassier He's an employee in the program.
Mayor Ferre: Well, look, the only reason we are making the exception is because of
the importance of this and because of their special circumstances that confront them.
So, I just moved that.
Mrs. Gordon: Seconded.
Rev. Gibson: It's been moved and seconded. Call the roll.
The following motion was introduced by Mayor Ferre, who moved its
adoption:
MOTION NO. 77-470
A MOTION DECLARING THE INTENT OF THE CITY
COMMISSION TO SUPPORT "GROVE HOUSE" AND REFERRING
THE REQUEST FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE AND SIX (6)
C.E.T.A. POSITIONS TO THE CITY MANAGER FOR HIS
REVIEW AND STUDY AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY
COMMISSION AT A FUTURE MEETING.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gordon, the motion was passed and
adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
Commissioner Rose Gordon
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner Manolo Reboso
Vice -Mayor (Rev.)Theodore R. Gibson
NOES: None.
14. PERSONAL APPEARANCE: NbRTY FRIEDMAN - REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL FOLK
FESTIVAL.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, now I'm going to call Morty Friedman up to make the report on
the very successful... Thank you very much ladies and gentlemen for your patience.
W. Friedman: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission. I'd like to give you
a very brief report about your International Folk Festival which was held two weeks
ago and which really is the most successful we've had yet. The six annual festival.
We had more than more than seventy nationalities and ethnic groups representatives.
We had food booths of thirty-five different nationalities, arts and crafts, internat-
ional bicycle race and a international bazaar. We had tremendous cooperation from
the news media this year and also from the various departments of the City of Miami,
which we're very grateful. Some estimates have gone as high as 200,000 as the number
of people who saw one part of the festival or another this year. We would like to
particularly notify the Commission of the cooperation of various businesses in the
area who in view of the fact that our budget was cut by 1/3 were very helpful in making
grants to the festival, actual cash or items that we could use such as flowers for the
international ball and so forth. Burdines sponsored the Dominos Tournament. Eastern
Airlines , the Soccer Tournament. Downtown sponsored a show at the ball.
We've had also Jefferson Stores sponsoring a International Doll Show. In addition to
this Mike Gordon of Mike Gordon Seafood Restaurant who gave us $5,000 last year as the
sponsor with the city of the International Bicycle Race decided that he wasn't satisfied
with that this year and he gave us $7,000 and this is really outstanding participation
by the business community in the International Folk Festival. I want to tell you that
Foreign Governments are now participating to a greater degree than ever in the festival
and the Government of Costa Rica, the Dominican Republican, Nicaragua, Mexico, Peru,
and Uruguay, Sent official groups here this year, Uruguay is about 5,000 miles from
f7 JUN 091977
e OP
here: You must also recognize that these governments and other groups from other
countries who came here paid their own transportation with no expense to the city.
I want to show you a government of the Dominican Republic actually printed these
posters to promote the City of Miami Folk Festival , distributed them I understand
all around the Caribbean area. So that's the type of impact we're having in addition
to the publicity that the city has gotten through the Publicity Department and Lew Price
which has cooperated tremendously. We've had stories all over the Americas. And, we
appreciate all the cooperation from the City Administration. Thank you.
Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor, let me make an observation. I don't think I've every seen
as many people. We had just a slew of people down at that festival. We have to
thank our Mother about that, Rose. But, Mr. Mayor, another thing should be observed.
The Fire Department did one of the most commendable jobs at that festival. That place
was so packed. I thought about what happened in ,. . somewhere in Kentucky
How easy it is for people to stampede and carry on. When they announced at that
that auditorium was filled to capacity and that the Fire Department had urged the people
to not come in. You should have seen those people. I mean, it's difficult to deal with
that kind of a number of people, but those men were most gracious and understanding and
so much so that I hope that as a part of the thanks you would say to them that they did
a magnificent job. Because we could have had a stampede there.
Mr. Friedman: Yes. Well every year, almost every year since we've had the festival
we've had to close the doors at one time or another because of the crowd.
Mayor Ferre: Well, there's no question Morty, that this is becoming a greater and
greater success and I think that we can safely say that the City of Miami has been a
great beneficiary of you and your committee's work. I think that it was a great ideal
that Rose, and that you had and I think as years go by it's proven to be one of the best
things that's happened, I would envision the next two or three years we're going to be
able to say that this is just as important to this community as the Orange Bowl Parade
is. It's going to be just as big a thing for us nationally as the Orange Bowl. So
congratulation. Keep up the good work and keep plugging. Thank you.
Mr. Fine: Thank you. -
15,
PERSONAL APPEARANCE: JOSEPH BONG I OVANN I -
REDIRECTION OF RESOURCES.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, Mr. Bongiovanni? Does this have anything to do with our budget?
Does this have anything to do with the City of Miami's budget?
Mr. Bongiovanni: Well, I'll tell you something. I heard a lot of problems here today
and one of the things you can do is if you do what we're asking for about passing a
resolution...
Mayor Ferre: Joe, let me ask you a question before we begin. You know that we have a
five minute rule here. How long do you think it'll take for...
Mr. Bongiovanni: Well, I think it will take me maybe ten minutes.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, well, you have ten minutes. Alright?
Mr. Bongiovanni: Ok. Now I have a statement and I think it's been distributed besides
the material that was left here a few weeks ago. But before I get into the statement
I want you to take note of that shot. Now, it's too bad it's only a homemade affair
and I expected to have two units and put them in between here. But the facts on that
chart such as it is is more important than any kind of a statistic dealing with economics
that anybody could gather whether it's from the Federal Reserve Board or from Milton
Friedman. Because if you look at that you're going to find out that the root cause of
our serious unemployment and inflation problems is well pointed out in the chart and
hopefully we'll go into that a little later within the ten minutes. Now to the statement,
if you want to follow me. In late 1971 our organization, I'm representing,of course
the Ministers- Laymen Voter Registration Committee of Dade County. Rev. Thedford
Johnson couldn't be here,so.. He was going to introduce me but I was going to go on
in this same fashion. Our organization in 1971 voted to approve and promote a proposed
Federal Anti -Recession and Full Employment Law. In early 1972, the Miami City Commission
passed a resolution that directed the City Clerk to forward copies of the proposed law
to various governmental officials-- and to others, including the Secretary of the U.S.
Conference of Mayors -- requesting such persons to give due consideration to our proposal.
Such action did open some doors for dialogue, but the desired result for meaningful
evaluation was never achieved. The Unemployment situation and the general economy is
now even worse than in 1971, therefore on May 7, we passed a resolution which urges you
to pass a NEW resolution DIRECTING Mayor Maurice Ferre (note this Maurice) to use his
410
JUN 0919774
good office to propose the next meeting of the U.S. d Terence of Mayors... that
our comprehensive Econo c proposal, now titled a Socio. Economic National Growth
Act, receive proper consideration for endorsement; and further to seek the Conference's
active participation in promoting such a proposal to members of Congress, and to the
Carter administration. Your resolution should call for Mayor Ferre to request that a
knowledgeable member of our group (that's me) accompany him to assist in a thorough
presentation of the proposal that the Conference's officers, staff, and committees.
You each have reference material replete with reasons why this commission should pass
such resolution; but the last paragraph in 'reference item 10' (which is material
had previously) it's a letter from the Chairman of Economics, University of Miami,
which explains then very well. And, that deals with the fact that this material
should receive the proper consideration and should be passed. That's the only way
you can test the idea. The benefits which would ensue to Senior Citizens, Youths,
and hard Employables, give further reasons as explained in 'reference item 9 A & B.'
I'd be happy to go into it but depends on time. You have the material. WE MUST
start somewhere to mitigate the problems of Unemployment and Inflation. There ARE
solutions! The chart attached is that chart right there graphically exposes the
core of the problem. If you take a look at that, this is dated 1960. At this point
.... That increase over the 16 years is 304%. The increase in NEW JOBS is only
34%. Imagine 304 and 34. And, there's one more thing ... (NOT SPEAKING INTO
MICROPHONE).... I want to say this too. Now you also received a letter from
Rev. Johnson sent to the five members of the Congress. Stating that we now have
the proposed bill prepared by the Legislative Council of the U.S. House of Represent-
atives which covers our proposed Social Economic Growth Act. Here it is. It came
in... Therefore we now urge an amendment or an additional resolution which would call
for urgent of five members to introduce this proposed bill. Now, before I ask about
any questions. I got to say this. I got this book from the Chairman of Economics
of Howard University up in Washington,D.C. He wrote the Economic of Black Community
Development. Now I do work as you know the Ministers -Laymen, primarily a Black
group. At least we all meet in a Black ghetto area. When this was written, this
material I worked on for 16 years and I got all my experience in business, not in the
--as an Economist I'm a Business Economist if you want to call me that. But the
point is that for 18 years I've been promoting this plan, the Federal Anti -Recession
and Full Employment Law. He spent four hours with me. Now that's quite different
than•ten minutes isn't it? He spent four hours with me and he said that when he wrote
this book he knew it could never be funded in this country. This is something that
could be done possibly in Japan. He said, but you have the way it can be done here
and he says, and I'll back you any time. I could tell you about economic, professors
of economics or the chairman of economics and George Washington University said that
because we take care ... proposal it's so very deep and it's all incompetence that
we take care of looking into the control in the Manpower and we add Management Training
in this bill. He says, that alone makes it's worthwhile. The chairman of Economics
Georgetown University, Catholic University said the same thing. I can you know, bring
all this out but what good is it if we don't get somebody like yourselves to get to
the National Organization, say look, here's something that could be done. We're all
suffering from this economy. People, I don't care who they are
what can be done? Does anybody know the answer to the question? Here it is. It's
built right into here because priority use of our money supply to produce goods and
services and that's all done through private enterprise. None of this takes tax money.
What do you think of that? This is going to bring in taxes instead of causing tax
money. That's why it's so hard maybe for people to understand it. But we don't want
to talk about priorities and tax needs. We're talking about priorities of our money
supply if we are going to overcome these problems. Now, I'd like to answer a lot of
questions. I don't know how many minutes I got left. What I want the Mayor to do is
this. He belongs to a very prestigious organization, the U.S. Conference of Mayor.S
I want him to go up there and say go darnit, look this thing has been floating around
for five or six years and nothing is being done about it. Now you tell me why it's
no good or less present this for adoption that we will support it and we will fight
to get it through Congress, that's the first thing. The second thing I want the
Commissioners to do is to send a letter to each of our five congressman, members of
Congress. That's our three U.S. Representatives and our two Senators and tell him
the same thing, because they have given me nothing but a runaround. They will not
sit down and evaluate it because they say it's over their heads. I can't understand
it. I think if I had the time I could explain it to anybody in this room why this
works and why the things that they have tried to put through does not work. You
wouldn't have a letter or you wouldn't have this ... you wouldn't a letter
from the Chairman of Economics here in a prestigious university. He says that's the
only way it could be done. Now what I need is support to do that.
Mayor Ferre: Well, Joe, from a practical point of view the Mayor's Conference
begins this weekend and I'm not going. I cannot go.
Mr. Bongiovanni: There's another one after that.
Mayor Ferre: Yes, it's next year.
89 JUN 09197A
41,
Mr. Bongiovanni: Next year?
Mayor Ferre: Yes, they have meetings once a year.
Mr. Bongiovanni: Oh, come on, I know that you have three or four meetings that
maybe by committees or whatever they are.
Mayor Ferre: No. The National Conference of Mayors meets once a year.
Mr. Bongiovanni: Maybe the city's? How about the city's? There is another
organization of the city.
Mayor Ferre: I'll tell you, Father as far as I'm concerned I have, if you want to
make the motion I have no objections to any of this, I really don't understand it.
It's beyond me and you're an Economist.
Mr. Bongiovanni: I'm not an Economist. I'm just a businessman like yourself,
Mayor Ferre: Well, I don't understand any of this. So, it's beyond me and you're
an Economist and I'm not.
Mr. Bongiovanni: I'm not an Economist. I'm just a businessman like yourself.
Mayor Ferre: But I don't understand any of this. So you know, acquire money in
Economic, increase the accumulation and all that, but I just...
Mr. Bongiovanni: You know why it will increase inflation?
Mayor Ferre: I'll tell you what. I think before we go and pass anything like this.
This Commission has to read it. So the thing to do is we'll recognize you again at
a future meeting. Right now I don't think that it is fair to ask this Commission to
pass something which it hasn't even had an opportunity to read in detail. It's a
very serious ...
Mr. Bongiovanni: Well, I would even think Mayor that you'd probably committee to
gether somewhere and say you meet with Joe Bongiovanni he'll thrask it out. You
can't do it in ten minutes. You need a couple of hours.
Mayor Ferre: Alright. I understand Joe, but this is a complicated subject and
this Commission cannot vote on it today.
MR. Bongiovanni: Oh I understand that. I agree 100%.
Mayor Ferre: Ok. So, we'll talk again about it at a future meeting. Alright, is
there anything else on this item? Thank you very much for your time. And, Joe, and
we'll read this and you come back in the future. I know you're the most persistent
man I know.
Mr. Bongiovanni: No lie. You know, everybody talks about the economy and it's just
getting worse. Now, why doesn't somebody in this audience ... and I was here this
morning before the County and I'm going there again. Why don't they say hey listen,
let's look at this. Oh, incidently the County did say that they are going to have a
meeting with the (what is it) Economic Development Committee...
Mayor Ferre: Alright. Thank you very much.
16. CANVAS RESULTS OF STRAW —VOTE QLESTICIV cm ORANGE BOW:. IPPROVEICITS
• FOR $15,000,000.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, now we're going to get to the
You want to canvass Mr. Plummer?
Several precincts were checked prior to the adoption
the vote.
validation of the election.
of the resolution canvassing
90 JUN 09197i
•
the followinc resolution Was introduced by Commissioner Piuf neti Who Matted
it§ adOpticn:
RESOLUTION NO. 77,-471
A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING AND DECLARING THAT THE
SPECIAL STRAW BALLOT REFERENDUM ELECTION HELD
JUNE 7, 1977, RESULTED IN THE APPROVAL OF AN
EXPENDITURE OF AN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT
NOT TO EXCEED $15,000,000, PLUS INTEREST, FROM
AD VALOREM TAXES OVER A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED
25 YEARS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPROVING AND REe.
BUILDING THE MIAMI ORANGE BOWL MEMORIAL STADIUM
AT ITS PRESENT SITE IN ORDER TO PROVIDE A MAJOR
LEAGUE FOOTBALL AND/OR BASEBALL STADIUM AND ALL
FACILITIES ATTENDANT THERETO.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file
in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Vice-Mayor(Rev.) Gibson, the resolution Was passed
and adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Manolo Reboso
Commissioner Rose Gordon
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice -Mayor (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
17, AUTHORIZE CITY ATTORNEY TO NEGOTIATE FINAL AGREEMENT WITH JOHN L. FIVRELL
AS SPECIAL COUNSEL ON THE F.E.C. CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS.
Mayor Ferre: I think we can get out quicker thananhour if we move quickly. The
F.E.C. Property Condemnation, which is item N
o. Mr. Knox: Mr. Mayor, I think you have a memorandum which is pretty much self
explanatory unless you have some questions about it.
Mayor Ferre: You recommend that we use John Farrell and that we compensate him?
The only change from what we set before was instead of $250.000 be $275,000 is
that right?
Mr. Knox: Yes sir and that resolution is item number 44.
Mayor Ferre: Alright take up on item number 44. Is there a motion?
Is there further discussion. Call the roll.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gordon, who moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION N0. 77-472
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY 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, AND AUTHORIZING AND
DIRECTING THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO PAY THE AMOUNTS
REQUIRED FROM THE PARKS FOR PEOPLE BOND FUNDS.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded
adopted by the following
AWS: Commissioner
NOES; Commissioner
ABSENT: Commissioner
on file
by Commissioner Reboso, the resolution was passed and
vote-
Gordon, Commissioner Reboso, and Mayor Rerre,
Plummer
(Rev.) Gibson
JUN L S 77.
ESfiA91.1SW TIME AND Dl+tE FOR DEDICATION 6F SPdR'fS L� tNG AT
M PARK.
Mayor Ferre: Take up item 'lb" biscuSSioh of Shenandoah Park, Sports Lightiiss
Mt, Grassie: What we're suggesting Mr. Mayor is either the 2ist of the 21rd at
your discretion or some other tune if you prefer.
Mayor Ferre: Take your pick.
Mr. Plummer:
Which is best?
Mr. Grimm: But keep in mind that's the day that you're doing to meet as a
Commission.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, then June 21st is the day. Everybody except that?
8:00 o'clock on the 21st.
191 SECOND READING ORDINANCE: AMEN SECTION 36-5 OF THE CODE - DISCHARGE OF
18 MONTH -AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY & LEWIS Ai
PITZELL (CONCERTS,INC,) FOR USE OF ORANGE BCML,.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 36-5 OF THE CODE OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, RELATING TO THE HOURS OF
OPERATION OF MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS, RADIOS, AND MUSICAL
DEVICES BY PROVIDING THAT THE THEREIN LIMITATIONS AND
REGULATIONS DO NOT APPLY TO ACTIVITIES AND EVENTS HELD
IN OR UPON ANY CITY -OWNED FACILITY OR OTHER MUNICIPAL
PROPERTY; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES► CODE SECTIONS OR
PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT, INSOFAR AS THEY ARE IN
CONFLICT; AND CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY PROVISION.
Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of May 19th, was
taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption.
On motion of Commissioner Reboso, seconded by Vice -Mayor (Rev.) Gibson, the
Ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed
and adopted by the following vote:
Commissioner Manolo Reboso
Commissioner Rose Gordon
Cornmisioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice -Mayor (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
AYES:
NOES: None.
THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 8660.
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced,
that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and to the public.
20i FIRST It ING 'MACE: Abiew SussEctIoN G orW cTtoN 440 OF NE
COM COVAITM t LOPItit AlfillORIV
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SUBSECTION (g) OF SECTION
13-10 OF THE CObE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA,
RELATING TO THE POWERS OF THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY BOARD BY ELIMINATING THE REQUIREMENT OF
10 YEARS EXPERIENCE IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW ON THE
PART OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL; CONTAINING A REPEALER
CLAUSE AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
Was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, and seconded by Vice -Mayor
(Rev.) Gibson and passed on its first reading by title by the following Vote:
AYES: Vice -Mayor (Rev.) Gibson, Commissioner Gordon, Commissioner Plummer,
and Mayor Ferre.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Reboso.
ON ROLL CALL:
Mrs. Gordon: Don't you want some limitation? How many years of experience are
we talking about?
Mr. Knox: A member of the Florida Bar.
Mrs. Gordon: I don't know. I find some problems with that.
Mayor Ferre: If we get into trouble what usually happens is ...
Mrs. Gordon: I don't want to second that Maurice.
Mr. Knox: As a practical matter by a new agreement the attorney who represents
the D.D.A. is an attorney on the staff of the City Attorney's Office.and the
requirement absent this 10 year requirement is that the individual be a member
of the Florida Bar. Now as long as this agreement is in existence that member
would also be a member of our staff.
Mayor Ferre: See that would preclude...
Mr. Plummer: Rose, if you do anything else you're just going to jack the price up.
Mrs. Gordon; Well, I just don't want to second it.
Mayor Ferre: Ok. That's alright.
21, FIRST READING ORDINANCE: AMEND APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE 8589; RE -APPROPRIATE,
$486,632 FOR 31/2% SALARY ADJUSTMENTS FOR POLICE; AND RE -APPROPRIATE
$437,179 FOR SALARY ADJUSTMENTS FOR FIRE DEPART131-.
Mr. Plummer: Let's have a little clarification.
Mayor Ferre: Ok. Quick.
Mr. Grassie: For Budget purposes and remember that we were in the negotiating
process at the time that you adopted the budget. For Budget purposes we put all
of the money that would normally be made available for increases in this very large
account that you have got to know as the special programs and accounts.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING APPROPRIATIONS ORDINANCE NO. 8589,
AS AMENDED, ADOPTED NOVEMBER 11, 1976, BY TRANSFERRING
$486,632 TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND TRANSFERRING $437,179
TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT FROM SPECIAL PROGRAMS AND ACCOUNTS -
312 SALARY ADJUSTMENT ACCOUNT, REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES OR
PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH AND CONTAINING A
SEVERABILITY PROVISION.
Was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, and seconded by Vice -Mayor (Rev.)
O,,ibspn and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote:
93
JUN 0 9197Z
Commissioner Rose Gordon
Commissioner 11. L. Pluto er, dr,
Vice -Mayor (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson
Mayor Maurice A. Fevre
NOBS: Bone,
AR8RNt: C:'oithissioner Manolo Reboso
22. FIRST SING ORDINANCE: AMEND ORDINANCE 8589 - ADJUSTING CERTAIN GENERAL
FUND APPROPRIATIONS
AN OEDINANCE ENTITLED
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 8589, AS AMENDED;
ADJUSTING CERTAIN GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATIONS BY
TRANSFERRING FUNDS FROM SPECIAL PROGRAMS AND ACCOUNTS-=
RESERVES FOR OVERTIME, HOLIDAY, SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL, AND
SEVERANCE PAY TO CERTAIN DEPARTMENTAL ACCOUNTS; REPEALING
ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH,
AND CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY PROVISION.
Was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, and seconded by Vice-Mayor(ReV.)
Gibson and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice -Mayor (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson
Commissioner Rose Gordon
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Manolo Reboso
23, EMERGENCY ORDINANCE - AMEND ORDINANCE 8589 - INCREASE SPECIAL PROGRAMS
AND ACCOUNTS.
Mrs. Gordon: May I ask a question? Where is that coming from?
Mayor Ferre: This ties into 7.
Mr. Grassie: No. This allows the city to accept a grant in the amount of $103,000
to run a summer recreation. Summer Youth Recreation Program.
Mrs. Gordon: That's fine. I just wanted to know where it was coming from. Now,
you say it's a grant. Thank you.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 8589,
AS AMENDED, ADOPTED NOVEMBER 11, 1976, BY AMENDING
SECTION 1 AND SECTION 4 THEREOF, INCREASING SPECIAL
PROGRAMS AND ACCOUNT BY $103,724 TO $8,262,768; IN-
CREASING REVENUES OTHER THAN AD VALOREM TAXES BY
$103,724 TO$51,786,928, REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES OR
PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH AND CONTAINING
A SEVERABILITY PROVISION.
Was introduced by Commissioner Plummer and seconded by Vice -Mayor (Rev.)
Gibson, for adoption as an emergency measure and dispensing with the requirement
of reading same on two separate days, which was agreed to by the following vote:
AYES: Vice -Mayor (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson
Commissioner Rose Gordon
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Reboso
Whereupon the Commission on motion of Commissioner Plummer and seconded
Vice -Mayor (Rev.) Gibson, adopted said ordinance by the following vote;
AYES; Commissioner Rose Gordon
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr,
Vice -Mayor (Rev,) Theodore R, Gibson
Mayor Maurice A, Ferre
WES; None.
RESENT; Commissioner Reboso
(CMNT'A
JUN 0 9 1977
l
SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 8661.
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record atd
announced that copies were available to the fleMbers of the city Coindtissioh
and to the public.
24, AUTHORIZE TRANSFER OF $50,778 FROM CONTINGENCY FUND FOR SUMMER
RECREATION PROGRAM'
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner PlUMMer, who moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 77-473
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF
$50,778 FROM THE CONTINGENCY FUND TO SPECIAL
PROGRAMS AND ACCOUNTS, RESERVE FOR SPECIAL
PROGRAMS - SUMMER RECREATION PROGRAM
(Here follows body of resolution omitted here and on file
in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gordon, the resolution was passed
adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice -Mayor (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson
Commissioner Rose Gordon
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Manolo Reboso.
25, ALLOCATE $2101000 FROM HIGHWAY BOND FUNDS FOR PAVEMENT AT STREET
INTERSECTIONS.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Grassie on item #11, please explain?
Mr. Grassie: I'll ask Mr. Grimm to explain that Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Grimm: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission. The Department of Public Works
materials code is made up of three different sources of funds. One is Ad Valorem
Taxes. Second is the Return of the Gas Tax Monies from the state and third is General
Obligation Bond Funds. For those portions of permanent work that we do in the streets
which would normally be the city share in any event. And, we have been budgeting funds
like this for at least 8 years that I can remember.
Mrs. Gordon: Ok. There's no charge to the neighboring property owners in this type of
situation?
Mr. Grimm: No ma'am. That's the reason why we can do this.
Mrs. Gordon: Yes. Ok. I just wanted to understand that. Thank you.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 77-474
A RESOLUTION ALLOCATING THE AMOUNT OF $210,000.00
FROM THE HIGHWAY BOND FUND TO COVER THE COST OF
MATERIALS USED IN MAINTAINING THE PAVEMENT AT
STREET INTERSECTIONS.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file
in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gordon, the resolution was passed and
adopted by the following vote:
A'XRS, Commissioner J. L, Plummer, Jr,
95
CONT#D tea=
T
Vice�Mayor (Rev.) Theodora k.
Coi1Missionet Rose Gordon
Mayor Maiitice A. tette
iOs : MOM*
At8I fT: C6MMigeiohet Manolo Reboso
26i ACCEPT COVLETED W K OBE 1304 SANI110 SOD PROJECTI
The f611owinq tesolUtion was introduced by Commissioner Reboso, W 6 MoVed
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 77.475
A RESOLUTION ACCENTING THE COMPLETED WORK
PERFORMED BY SQUIRES CONSTRUCTION, INC. AT
A TOTAL COST OF $21,082 AND AUTHORIZING A
FINAL PAYMENT OF $2,108.20 FOR THE ORANGE
BOWL - SANITARY SEWER PROJECT.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and oh file
in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Vice -Mayor (Rev.) Gibson,
adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner Manolo Reboso
Vice -Mayor (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson
Commissioner Rose Gordon
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
27. ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK - OLD COAST -GUARD BOAT RAMP
(tDIFICATIONS 1976.
the resolution Was passed and
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 77-476
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE COMPLETED WORK
PERFORMED BY WEBB GENERAL CONTRACTING, INC.
AT A TOTAL COST OF $28,178 AND AUTHORIZING
A FINAL PAYMENT OF $2,817.80 FOR THE OLD COAST
GUARD - BOAT RAMP MODIFICATIONS - 1976.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file
in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Vice -Mayor (Rev.) Gibson, the resolution was passed and
adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Manolo Reboso
Vice -Mayor (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson
Commissioner Rose Gordon
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr,
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES. None.
JUN 091977
lir
28i PROVIW DATE OF PUtLIo HEARING FOR THE or OFF-STREET PAU%
PRoPostb teDGEt.
The following resolution was introduced by Goltissioher Gordon, who MoVed
its adoption
RESOLUTION NO. 71'477
A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING
ON PROPOSED BUDGET OF THE DEPARTMENT OF OFF-
STREET PARKING OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING OCTOBER 1, 1977
ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1978.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Vice -Mayor
adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner Manolo Reboso
Vice -Mayor (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson
Commissioner Rose Gordon
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
(Rev.) Gibson, the resolution was passed and
29, PROVIDE DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR GUSSMAN HALL AND OLYMPIA BLDG.
PROPOSED BUDGET.
Mr. Grassie: One question on this Mayor. Just for your information are you interested
in getting these budgets in any form other than what you have in front of you because
this does not give you any information?
Mayor Ferre: Well, I think we ought to have them in our packages for the week you know...
Mr. Grassie: For example, do you want some comparisons of other years of this sort of
thing?
Mayor Ferre: Well, I think some moderate stuff. I don't think we need great detail,
because I think we ought know what's going on.
Mr. Grassie: For example, this has no revenue in it. It is simply an expenditure budget.
Mayor Ferre: I think absolutely they've got to give us that. Especially Gusman Hall.
Mr. Grassie: The reason I'm asking you understand is that these come directly to you.
They do not come to our Budget Office.
Mayor Ferre: Well, I think you ought to write a letter that the Commission brought up
a subject that we don't want a token report. We're supposed to accept a budget it's
got to be at budget.
Mr. Grassie: Fine. We'll do that.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 77-478
A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING
ON THE PROPOSED BUDGET OF GUSMAN HALL AND
THE OLYMPIA BUILDING FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
COMMENCING OCTOBER 1, 1977 AND ENDING SEPT-
EMBER 30, 1978.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here
on file in the Office of the City Clerk,)
1
CbiT' D =�-= 'ir
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gordon, the tesoltutioh Was paed A
adopted by the following Vote-
AYES: Commissioner Rose Gordon
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jt.
Commissioner Manolo Reboso
Vice, -Mayor (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
Mott: he.
X, SAE AND ESTABLISH ''CITIZENS' COMMITTEE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF WATT
ISuND,"
Mrs. Gordon: Why are we doing this over again'? We'Ve already done it before.
Mayor Ferret We already have a committee. What's '19all about? We have a committee.
Mr. Grassie: Item 19, Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Ferre: Yes.
Mr, Grassie: You have had this committee some time. As you know we have been going
through your committee structure. We've recommended that you abolish a number of
committees. You have other committees that have never been formalized, that you have
really set them up with any kind of guidelines as to what they were supposed to do,
what their terms were or anything else. So we are simply going through the whole list
of City Committees and Commissions and a few at a time we're trying to formalize them.
I think you have about three on your agenda this time and over a period of months we
will continue to do this so that you will get this in some kind of order.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, I further would like to ask the Chairman, Herbert Lee Simon to
inform the Commission as to the attendance record of all the members that are presently
on, because I frankly think that if they have not attended we should reappoint new
committee members in their place. Ok?
Mr. Grassie: Yes sir.
Mayor Ferre: I mean, it's a good list, if they attend.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 77-479
A RESOLUTION CREATING AND ESTABLISHING A CITIZEN'S
COMMITTEE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF WATSON ISLAND FOR
THE PURPOSE OF BUILDING RECREATIONAL AND AMUSEMENT
FACILITIES FOR THE ENJOYMENT OF RESIDENTS AND TOURISTS;
FURTHER DESCRIBING THE COMMITTEE'S STRUCTURE, TERMS OF
OFFICE AND PROVIDING FOR INITIAL APPOINTMENTS OF
INDIVIDUALS TO SERVE ON THIS COMMITTEE.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file
in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Reboso, the resolution was passed and
adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Manolo Reboso
Vice -Mayor (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson
Commissioner Rose Gordon
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
98 JUN 081977
lir
31, CREATE BUDGET VIEW COMMITTEE To SAY ANNUAL tamPREPARATION
PROCESS,
Mayor Petre: The same thine is true of the Budget Committee. If they're hot attehdihc
let's find out. As I recall Marty Fine is the Chairman of that one.
Mr. Grassie: Yes, but he has resigned Mr. Mayor. Re has indicated that he wantg to
be replaced. So...
Mayor Ferre: Ok.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, Who roved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 77,480
A RESOLUTION CREATING A BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE
FOR THE PURPOSE OF STUDYING THE CITY OF MIAMI'S
ANNUAL BUDGET PREPARATION PROCESS AND RECOMMENDING
TO THE CITY COMMISSION WHAT STEPS CAN BE TAKEN TO
BETTER COMMUNICATE TO THE CITIZENS OF MIAMI THE
CONTENTS OF THE BUDGET AS WELL AS THE PROCESS OF
THE COMMISSION'S REVIEW OF THE ALTERNATIVES
PRESENTED AND DISCUSSED DURING THE BUDGET PREPARA-
TION CYCLE.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file
in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Vice -Mayor (Rev.) Gibson, the resolution was passed
adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Vice -Mayor (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson
Commissioner Rose Gordon
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner Manolo Reboso
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
ON ROLL CALL:
and
Mayor Ferre: Again, Mr. Grassie I think it's important that you give us a list of
who the members are . Who's participating and all that so we can start ... This
committee in particularly should really start to function sometime in the summer so
that they can have a report for us.
Mrs. Gordon: If you'll notice this also calls for five alternate members. As well as
five members. It's on the back page. Which is a good idea because in that case there
will always be a full forum. A full body of the board.
Mayor Ferre: As I remember my appointed were... I appointed Morty as Chairman
I think I appointed Wolfson as a member. Mitchell Wolfson.
Mr. Grassie: I believe you did sir.
Mrs. Gordon: I appointed Steven Chepnick.
Mr. Grassie: They have not met and ...
Mrs. Gordon: Well, the Chairman hasn't called that meeting together. I have talked to
my appointee and he's willing to serve again.
Mayor Ferre: Well, why don't you bring us up-to-date by the next meeting as to who is
on the committee and whether or not they've met ... Yes, he's the chairman. And, so
we can appoint a chairman and re -appoint the committee so that they can function. There
was one man, I sent you a memorandaum about three or four months ago who wrote me a letter
who seemed to be very knowledgeable . He wrote me a letter and I sent it to you,
Mr. Grassie: We have that, but I don't remember the name.
c
1 AMEND RUOLUTION No. 764Oi CONTRACT wtmH WACKUVUT COPPORATIONI
the following resolutiot, Was ihttoduCed by Coi ibti 'her Prier, Wha rowed
its adoption
RESOLUTION NO. 77=481
A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION N0. 76-=1018 TO
PROVIDE THAT THE TERM FOR THE CONTRACT WITH
WACKCENHUT CORPORATION FOR THE FURNISHING OF
SECURITY PERSONNEL AND DOGS FOR ORANGE BOWL
EVENTS SHALL BE 15 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE
AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE FIRST TERM, THE TWO
SUCCESSIVE TERMS AT THE OPTION OF THE CITY TO BE
12 MONTHS EACH; FURTHER AMENDING THE RESOLUTION
TO PROVIDE THAT WACKENHUT SHALL BE EXPECTED TO
PROVIDE SAID SECURITY PERSONNEL FOR APPROXIMATELY
20 EVENTS, MORE OR LESS, AS REQUIRED, ON A PER HOUR
PER PERSON AND PER EVENT PER DOG BASIS, AND OTHER-
WISE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE ATTACHED
AGREEMENT; FUNDS THEREFOR TO BE A PART OF THE
PUBLIC FACILITIES DEPARTMENT BUDGET.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Vice -Mayor (Rev.) Gibson, the resolution was passed and
adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner Manolo Reboso
Vice -Mayor (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson
Commissioner Rose Gordon
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
331 RE-ESTABLISH CITY OF MIAMI COMMITTEE ON ECOLOGY AND BEAUTIFICATION.
Mayor Ferre: Again, Mr. Manager the same thing is true for item #22.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gordon, who moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 77-482
A RESOLUTION RE-ESTABLISHING THE CITY OF MIAMI
COMMITTEE ON ECOLOGY AND BEAUTIFICATION, DESCRI-
BING ITS PURPOSE, STRUCTURE, MEMBERSHIP REQUIRE-
MENTS, AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS THAT THE MIAMI CITY
COMMISSION DEEMS NECESSARY FOR THE ACHIEVEMENT OF
THE OBJECTIVES FOR WHICH THIS COMMITTEE WAS CREATED.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the resolution was passed and
adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Manolo Reboso
Vice -Mayor (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson
Commissioner Rose Gordon
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None,
100 JUN 0919774
341 AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO ,., WPM OF $LIND SERVICES (FOR Foot ANb
ENTER INTO CONTRACT W/. MVERAGE CONCESSION AT FLAGLER MINI''PARK).
The following resolution Was introduced by Commissioner Gordon, who ioVed
its edoptiOn:
RESOLUTION NO. 77,6483
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING
THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN
AGREEMENT WITH THE BUREAU OF BLIND
SERVICES FOR THE FOOD AND BEVERAGE
CONCESSION AT FLAGLER MINI PARK.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here
and on file in the Office of the City Clerk,)
Upon being seconded by Vice -Mayor (Rev.) Gibson, the resolution Was passed and
adopted by the following vote-
AYES: Vice -Mayor (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson
Commissioner Rose Gordon
Commissioner J, L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner Manolo Reboso
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None,
35. APPROVE PROPOSAL OF STAR ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEX,, INC,) TO STIMULATE USE
OF CITY OF MIAMI PUBLIC FACILITIES.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved.
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 77-484
A RESOLUTION APPROVING IN PRINCIPLE THE PROPOSAL
OF STAR ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEX, INC., TO PROVIDE
ADVERTISING AND PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES TO STIMULATE
THE USE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI'S PUBLIC FACILITIES
BY DEVELOPMENT OF APPROPRIATE NEW EVENTS FOR PRE-
SENTATION AT THOSE FACILITIES, AND AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER TO PREPARE A CONTRACT FOR SAID
SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY AND STAR ENTERTAINMENT
COMPLEX, INC. FOR REVIEW AND ACTION THEREON BY
THE CITY COMMISSION.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Vice -Mayor (Rev.) Gibson, the resolution was passed
adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner Manolo Reboso
Vice -Mayor (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson
Commissioner Rose Gordon
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
JUN 091977i
Vr I t VLRULII1M J\LI L JJ wr,L 1 I1NLLa 1 1,
Mayor Perre: We need mote information.
Mt. Grassie: Yes. I'd like to have Frank Medera Wh0 is the bir'ector of the bepatt
!Went speak to this and I'll add to it.
Mayor Ferre: Yes. Mr, Medera?
Mr. Medera: Mr. Mayor and members of the City Commission. I know it's very late and
we've all been working very hard. However, I will be... however I would first like to
commend the City Commission on it's action relatively to the low bid of Refugse Packers
having been in garbage up to my neck the best part of my life. I can assure you've
bought for the department and the citizens of the City of Miami the best piece of
equipment available. On the matter of the resolution which is before you. Several
�nonhs back the City of Miami was served with, what was tantamount to the cease
orsder'by the Department of Environmental Regulations,State of Florida, which is
Florida's Environmental Protection Agency. I say it was tantamount because it was a
threat. The operation was in poor condition. We implemented some operational improve-
ments. I have had several meetings with DER representatives in West Palm Beach. We
have reached a compromise. Wherein, instead of complying fully with Chapter 17.7 of the
Florida Regulations as they apply to land -fill operations. We have been able to get
them to agree to a consent wherein they will allow us to continue to operate this
facility if we submit certain closure plans which would be... In essence Commissioner
Plummer that's what I'm telling you.
Mr. Plummer: Alright. Now let me ask you about the selection of the engineer? Did
you go through the normal processes of competitive bidding or whatever the hell that
is?
Mr. Medera: No we did not Commissioner. Mr. Grimm communicated with four engineering
firms whom he felt had the qualifications in the field of solid waste management.
Solid Waste Pollution, etc. Two responded with informal proposals directly to Mr. Grimm
and myself. I interviewed both those firms and we...
Mayor Ferre: Look, cut through. There isn't any other firm in this town other than
Greenleaf & Telesca that I know about. Is that right?
Mr. Grimm: No sir. There are four that we felt were qualified. We contacted four
as Mr. Medera said. Two refused to do it because of time limitations. The other two
submitted proposals. And, what we'd like to do is get authority to negotiate with
Greenleaf for the services and we'll come back to you with a contract before we sign
it.
Mayor Ferre: Ok. As far as I'm concerned they're the number one firm. In fact, I
think they've probably the only firm that really has...
Mr. Plummer: The only point I'm making Maurice we're being forced to do it ....
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 77-485
A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE EXISTENCE OF
A VALID PUBLIC EMERGENCY NECESSITATING
CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE VIRGINIA KEY
DISPOSAL FACILITY, ALSO KNOWN AS THE
VIRGINIA KEY DUMP, THEREBY JUSTIFYING
NON-COMPETITIVE SELECTION OF AN ENGINEER-
ING CONSULTANT; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT FOR
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH GREENLEAF AND
TELESCA, ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, FOR PRE-
PARATION OF AN "ENGINEERING PLAN FOR CLOSURE"
OF THE VIRGINIA KEY DUMP WITH FUNDS THEREFOR
IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $50,000 ALLOCATED
FROM POLLUTION CONTROL BONDS.
Were follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
102
JUN 0 91977
Upon being secondE by Vice -Mayor (Rey j dibaoh, teboi'ti fi daa panted
and adopted by the following vote -
Mt: t: Cothtissioner 7. t. Plummer, dr:
Cofimissiohet Manolo heboso
Vice=Mayor (Rev,) Theodore he Gib iii
Cotitissioher Rose Gordon
Mayor Maurice A, Perte
R t8: Mane,
ie,
i AUTHORIZE PUS IN LIEU CIF i if NATtON ' 6 VACANT` LOTS
NiWi 2NO AVENUE BETWEEN 52 AND 53 STREETS'
Mrs, Gordon: I have a question on that. I want to know if there's been ah
Made?
appraisal
Mr. Grassie: There has been two appraisals made Commissioner. One by Atlantic
Appraisal Associates. The other by Leonard Bisz. The appraisal prices in the first
case were $1,500.
Mrs. Gordon: How much?
Mr. Grassie: You're talking about the fees,are you?
Mrs. Gordon: No, no. I'm talking about the amount of the value of the land or property
that was shown in the appraisal.
Mr. Grassie: The first Appraisal appraised it $52,350.00 and the second Appraisal
appraised $52,250.00. In other words, a hundred dollars difference. The price being
offered by the city is approximately $750.00 less than the low appraisal.
Mrs. Gordon: That's interesting.
Mr. Grassie: The two appraisals were Atlantics Appraisal Associates.
Mrs. Gordon: Who is Atlantics Appraisal Associates Mr. Grassie? May I ask a question
please?
Mayor Ferre: Yes, I'm going to answer it for you and I don't mean to be rude to you
and I'm not trying to me, and I'm not trying to be coy. But these things are all in
your agenda packet. If you will look at item 27. All the questions you've asked ...
Mrs. Gordon: Yes, but it does say Atlantic Associates Appraisals but it doesn't say
who they are.
Mayor Ferre: Yes it says it right there on the top of it Rose. It says Atlantic
Appraisal Associates - $52,350.00.
Mrs. Gordon: Who are they? Maurice that's not what I asked. I asked who is the
appraisal in Atlantic Appraisal Associates?
Mayor Ferre: I'm sorry.
Mr. Grassie: Commissioner, my understanding is that there is a list of either 16 or 17
approved firms. Firms approved by the City Commission. They are all MAI's. We sent a
notification out to all of them. We get their responses and take the two best.
Mayor Ferre: There a hundred dollars difference between the two appraisals.
Mrs. Gordon: That's what so strange about it.
Mayor Ferre: Ok.
103
JUIN 091077
the fat:wino tesoludich was introduced by Vice4 ayoi Glatt,) Gibson i Who
it§ adoptioii:
RESOLUTION No, 77.486
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
BURCHASE IN LIEU OF CONDEMNATION; SIX (6)
VACANT LOTS, ONE LOT ZONED FOR DUPLEX, FIVE LOTS
BEING ZONED COMMERCIAL, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE
OF NORTHWEST SECOND AVENUE BETWEEN 52nd and 53rd
STREETS, N,W,, MIAMI, FLORIDA, AND ONE LOT LOCATED
ON 53rd STREET LYING 110.6' WEST OF NORTHWEST SECOND
AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, SAID VACANT LAND COMPRISED
OF 31,720.08 SQ. FT., MORE OR LESS, FOR THE SUM OF
FIFTY-ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED ($51,500,00) DOLLARS
AND ALLOCATING FIFTY-THREE THOUSAND ($53,000.00)
DOLLARS FROM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUNDS TO COVER
THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF FEE SIMPLE TITLE TO THIS
PROPERTY AND OTHER COSTS INCIDENTAL TO THE ACQUISITION.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file
in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Reboso, the resolution was passed and
adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Vice -Mayor (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson
Commissioner Rose Gordon
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner Manolo Reboso
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
None.
38, AUTHORIZE PURCHASE IN LIEU CF COUENNTICN - 2 VACANT LOTS
N,W, 53RD STREET, WEST OF N.W. 2ND AVENUE,
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 77-487
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
PURCHASE IN LIEU OF CONDEMNATION, TWO (2)
VACANT DUPLEX ZONED LOTS COMPRISED OF 14,340
SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS, LOCATED ON NORTH-
WEST OF NORTHWEST SECOND AVENUE, FOR THE SUM
OF FOURTEEN THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED FIFTY
($14,350.00) DOLLARS, AND ALLOCATING FIFTEEN
THOUSAND ($15,000.00) DOLLARS FROM COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT FUNDS TO COVER THE COST OF ACQUISI-
TION OF FEE SIMPLE TITLE TO THIS PROPERTY AND
OTHER COSTS INCIDENTAL TO THE ACQUISITION.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here
and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Vice -Mayor (Rev.) Gibson, the resolution was passed
and adopted by the following vote -
AYES; Commissioner J. L. Plummer,Jr.
Commissioner Manolo Reboso
Vice -Mayor (Rev.) Theodore R, Gibson
Commissioner Rose Gordon
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOt$i None.
MI 491971.
31 AUTHORIZE PURL IN LIEU T ONMATION1 ma FAMILY RtalbENCE
2568 NA 1 Strali
the resolution
was passed
and
The following resolution Was introduced by Cot ti.SsiOnet Piumitef, WhO Witted
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO, 77=488
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
PWICHASE IN LIEU OF CONDEMNATION A SINGLE
FiAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 2568 NORTHWEST
31st STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FOR THE SUM OF
TIRTY-FIVE THOUSAND ($35,000.00) DOLLARS PROM
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUNDS, AND ALLOCATING
THIRTY SIX THOUSAND ($36,000.00) DOLLARS FROM
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUNDS TO COVER THE COST
OF ACQUISITION OF FEE SIMPLE TITLE TO THIS
PROPERTY AND OTHER COSTS INCIDENTAL TO THE
ACQUISITION.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on.
file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Vice -Mayor (Rev.) Gibson, the resolution was passed
and adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice -Mayor (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson
Commissioner Rose Gordon
Commissioner Manolo Reboso
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None,
401 APPROVE INCREASE OF CONCRETE SEA WALL SEATING FOR PAYFRONT PARK OF THE
AMERICAS'
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 77-489
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE INCREASE OF
30 LINEAL FEET OF CONCRETE SEA WALL SEAT-
ING FOR BAYFRONT PARK OF THE AMERICAS AT A
COST $60 PER FOOT AMOUNTING TO $1,800;
ALLOCATING FUNDS THEREFOR FROM TITLE X -
BAYFRONT PARK FUNDS; AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO INSTRUCT THE PURCHASING AGENT TO
ISSUE A CHANGE ORDER FOR THIS INCREASE.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Vice -Mayor (Rev.) Gibson,
adopted by the following vote -
AYES Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner Manolo Reboso
Vice -Mayor (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson
Commissioner Rose Gordon
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NM; None.
Lai AUTHoRizE CtD G Te a
ENTER MID AGt WM:
MIAMI-DADE COMPUNITY COLLEGE FOR
RECREATION LLADERSi
the following resolution was ihttoduced by Vice=Mayor ( ter) Oihaonf
itS adoption:
RESOLt t'ION NO, 77=490
A RESOLUTION AUTHORISING THE CITY MANAGER TO
ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT roll PART=TIME EMPLOY=
MENT or MIAMI=BADE COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENTS
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS.AND CONDITIONS SET
FORTH IN THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here ah 6h
file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Uptn being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the resolution was
adopted by the following vote-
AYES: Commissioner Manolo Reboso
Vice -Mayor (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson
Commissioner Rose Gordon
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
ON ROLL CALL:
Mr. Grassie: In the case of 31, this is a work agreement that we
college. We hire the students for a minimum wage.
Mayor Ferre: I know that. But what is the recreation? What...
Mr. Grassie: They serve as Recreation Leaders in our parks.
have with the
Mr. Howard . Yes. We utilize the students in the Downtown Campuses and we have
about fifteen of them that come into the program.
Mayor Ferre: I know that. What do they do? They play ping-pong?
Mr. Howard : They are in the recreation curriculum and this is they're doing their
field work, and they work as leaders with the children out in the playground, instruct-
ing and league and activities.
Mayor Ferre: And, it's being paid for by...
Mr. Howard: Yes. They are assigned to individual parks...
Mayor Ferre: So. This comes out of our budget.
Mr. Howard: We only pay 20% and the school pays the rest.
Mayor Ferre: Oh, the school pays for this.
Mr. Howard: Yes.
Mr, Grassie; The Federal Government actually pays the ,rest,
Mayor Ferre: Ok. I just want to know,
JUN 091977
URE
421 ; ' AUTHORIZE Ctty MANAGER TO ACCEPT GRANT FOR Ui i A AGR1
FOR OVER FOOD SERVICt PROGRAMi
The following resoiution Was introduced by COMMiSSiohek DIUMMet, Who moved
ito adoPtibn:
RESOLUTION NO. 77.491
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
ACCEPT A GRANT AWARD PROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT
OP AGRICULTURE FOR A SUMMER FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM
AND FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE THE NECESSARY CONTRACT (S) AND/OR
AGREEMENT (S) TO IMPLEMENT THE PROGRAM.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and oh
file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gordon, the resolution was passed
adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Rose Gordon
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr,
Commissioner Manolo Reboso
Vice -Mayor (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
None.
3 AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT GRANT AWARD FROM COMMUNITY SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION FOR RECREATION SUPPORT PROGRAM,
The following resolution was introduced by Vice -Mayor (Rev.) Gibson, who_'moved
its adoption:
RESOLTUION NO. 77-492
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER
TO ACCEPT A GRANT AWARD FROM THE COMMUNITY
SERVICES ADMINISTRATION FOR A RECREATION
SUPPORT PROGRAM AND FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY
CONTRACT(S) AND/OR AGREEMENT(S) TO IMPLEMENT
THE PROGRAM.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file
in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the
adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Vice -Mayor (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson
Commissioner Rose Gordon
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner Manolo Reboso
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES; _ None.
107
JUti 09 Sr
VI CLAIM 'L AND MARIA kat*
The foiihwing feStiititioh WAS ihttodtided by Co itieeiohef PIUMMer, 'W
itt adoption:
RESOLUTION NO, 77=49r5
A RESOLUTION AUTHORISING THE DIRECTOR OP
FINANCE TO PAY TO RAMON REYES AND MARIA REYES,
HIS WIFE, AND WHITMAN WOLFE AND GROSS, P,A,,
THEIR ATTORNEYS, WITHOUT THE ADMISSION OF
LIABILITY, THE SUM OF $2,663.33 IN FULL AND
COMPLETE SETTLEMENT OF ALL BODILY INJURY CLAIMS
AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY OF MIAMI, UPON THE
EXECUTION OF A RELEASE, RELEASING THE CITY OF
MIAMI FROM ALL CLAIMS AND DEMANDS, AND TO PAY
TO TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, WITHOUT THE
ADMISSION OF LIABILITY, THE SUM OF $336.67 IN
FULL AND COMPLETE SETTLEMENT OF THEIR PERSONAL
INJURY PROTECTION LIEN, CLAIMS AND DEMANDS
AGAINST THE CITY OF MIAMI, UPON THE EXECUTION
OF A RELEASE, RELEASING THE CITY OF MIAMI FROM
ALL PERSONAL INJURY PROTECTION LIEN, CLAIMS
AND DEMANDS.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Vice -Mayor (Rev.) Gibson, the resolution
Was passed and adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Vice -Mayor (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson
Commissioner Rose Gordon
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner Manolo Reboso
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
47, CLAIM SETTEME T:
MARIA A, MORALESI
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 77-496
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF
FINANCE TO PAY TO MARIA A. MORALES, AN
INDIVIDUAL, THE SUM OF $5,800.00 IN FULL
AND COMPLETE SETTLEMENT OF ANY AND ALL
CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY OF
MIAMI, UPON THE EXECUTION OF A RELEASE,
RELEASING THE CITY OF MIAMI FROM ANY AND
ALL CLAIMS AND DEMANDS.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Vice -Mayor (Rev.) Gibson, the resoiuton was
passed and adopted by the following vote -
AYES; Commissioner J, L. Plummer, Jr,
Commissioner Manolo Reboso
Vice -Mayor (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson
Commissioner Rose Gordon
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
108 JUN 09187
481 A MD! NEB Tfti- MOM f L ffPAVINGPOEM,
PHASE 11 t tb "A" (H tGHwAYs)
A foi.idWih§ ke6oitUtiah Was intboduced Commissioner Plummer, who Moved.
ic c it bh
RESOLUTION No. 77-497
RESOLUTION AWARDING THE BID OF WILLIAMS PAVING
COMPANY,INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $56,802 FOR N.E,
80 TERRACE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PAVING PROJECT
PHASE II .. BID "A"; ALLOCATING THE AMOUNT OF
$56,802 FROM THE ACCOUNT ENTITLED "HIGHWAY BOND
FUNDS" TO COVER THE CONTRACT COST; ALLOCATING
FROM SAID ACCOUNT THE AMOUNT OF $6,248 TO COVER
THE COST OF PROJECT EXPENSE; ALLOCATING FROM
SAID ACCOUNT THE AMOUNT OF $1,136 TO COVER THE
COST OF SUCH ITEMS AS ADVERTISING,TESTING LABORAT-
ORIES, POSTAGE; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER
TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH SAID FIRM.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Vice-Mayor(Rev.) Gibson, the resolution
Was passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner J.L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner Manolo Reboso
Vice -Mayor (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson
Commissioner Rose Gordon
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
ACCEPT BID: N.E. 80 TERR, - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PAVING PROJECT,
PHASE II BID "B" (DRAINAGE),
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Reboso, who moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION N0. 77-498
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE BID OF MARKS BROTHERS
COMPANY (NOT INC.) IN THE PROPOSED AMOUNT OF
$26,355 FOR N.E. 80 TERRACE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PAVING PROJECT PHASE II - BID "B"; WITH FUNDS
THEREFOR PROGRAMMED AND BUDGETED UNDER THE "COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM"; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER
TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH SAID FIRM.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file
in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Vice -Mayor (Rev.) Gibson, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Manolo Reboso
Vice -Mayor (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson
Commissioner Rose Gordon
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
None,
NOES:
JUN 09197
1 ACCEPT AID: ALLAPATTAH COMMUNITY DEVELOPPUT PAVING PROJECT
PRUE IAND ALIAPATTAH SANITARY SEER 111DtFICATIr -
The following resolution Was introduced by CoMMissioher Gordon, Who MoVed
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO, 77-499
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE BID OF HOLLAND PAVING CO,,
INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $317,210.35 FOR THE ALLAPATTAH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PAVING PROJECT - PHASE I AND
ALLAPATTAH SANITARY SEWER MODIFICATIONS - 1977;
ALLOCATING THE AMOUNT OF $202,433.68 FROM THE ACCOUNT
ENTITLED "HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT BOND FUNDS" AND USING
$114,776.67 PROGRAMMED THROUGH THE "COMMUNITY DEVELOP-
MENT PROGRAM" TO COVER THE CONTRACT COST; ALLOCATING
$22,267.70 FROM THE ACCOUNT ENTITLED "HIGHWAY IMPROVE-
MENT BOND FUNDS" AND USING $12,625.43 PROGRAMMED THROUGH
THE "COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM" TO COVER THE COST OF
PROJECT EXPENSE; ALLOCATING $4,048.62 FROM THE ACCOUNT
ENTITLED "HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT BOND FUNDS" AND USING
$2,294.90 PROGRAMMED THROUGH THE "COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAM" TO COVER THE COST OF SUCH ITEMS AS ADVERTISING,
TESTING LABORATORIES AND POSTAGE; AND AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH SAID FIRM.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file
in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Vice -Mayor (Rev.) Gibson, the resolution was passed and
adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Vice -Mayor (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson
Commissioner Rose Gordon
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner Manolo Reboso
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
51, ACCEPT BID: CULMER COfVI1Y DEVELOPMENT PAVING PROJECT- B-4413-1977
AND CULMER SANITARY SEWER NOD, B-5429-1977,
The following resolution was introduced by Vice -Mayor (Rev.) Gibson, who moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 77-500
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE BID OF MARKS BROTHERS COMPANY
(NOT INC.) IN THE PROPOSED AMOUNT OF $392,621.65 FOR THE
CULMER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PAVING PROJECT - 1977 AND
CULMER SANITARY SEWER MODIFICATION - 1977; ALLOCATING
THE AMOUNT OF $302,219.38 FROM THE ACCOUNT ENTITLED
"HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT BOND FUNDS" AND USING $90,402.27
PROGRAMMED THROUGH THE "COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM"
TO COVER THE CONTRACT COST; ALLOCATING $35,067.62 FROM
THE ACCOUNT ENTITLED "HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT BOND FUNDS"
AND USING $8,121 PROGRAMMED THROUGH THE "COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM" TO COVER THE COST OF PROJECT EXPENSE;
ALLOCATING $6,375 FROM THE ACCOUNT ENTITLED "HIGHWAY
IMPROVEMENT BOND FUNDS" AND USING $1,476.73 PROGRAMMED
THROUGH THE "COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM" TO COVER THE
COST OF SUCH ITEMS AS ADVERTISING, TESTING LABORATORIES
AND POSTAGE; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
A CONTRACT WITH SAID FIRM.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file
in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gordon, the resolution was passed end
edopted by the following vote-
JUN 09 1g77
AVM: Vice Meyor (Revs) Theodore R. GibSoh
ed tissioner Rorie Gordon
Commissioner a, L. Plummer, df's
Cottimissinner Manolo Reboso
Mayor Maurice A. Fevre
NOtgi None.
S2 BRIEF DISCUSSION ITEM: PEAS PCR CITY -OWNED SWIMMING PO= AND
POSITION AT DINNER KEY.
Mayor Ferret Alright. I've got one pocket item and that is Swimming pools
The summer is upon us and we haven't moved on it.
Mr. Howard: We haven't recommended a waiver of fee this year. We sought the 15
fee. The County is not waiving their 25 fee this year. They're giving free swimming
instructions as we're doing, but they're still paying the entrance fee into the pool.
Mr. Plummer: What's your recommendation?
Mr. Howard: That we continue with the fee.
Mr. Plummer: And, how much is it?
Fees.
Mr. Howard: Fifteen cents (15f) or 25 aluminum cans will get a child into the pool
free of charge. And, quite a few of them do come into the pool that way. But it's
only a 15 fee for the pool. Very nominal.
Mr. Plummer: Well, as I recall the previous Administration saying that you don't
make a damn thing off of 15 when it's a control of discipline that they have with
that 15. Is that correct?
Mr. Howard: We ran into quite a few problems.
Mr. Plummer: What do you want? You want us to ratify that?
Mr. Howard: No. Because when you did it before it was just for the season.
We didn't need it this year.
Mr. Plummer: Ok.
Mayor Ferre: So, we don't want to waive it?
Mr. Plummer: No.
Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor, I want to raise a question. Some meetings ago, we took up
that Sanitation Worker's problem and I'm concerned about when the lawyer is going
to get that brief ready and file. Now, I hope everybody understands my position.
I don't believe I will be comfortable having that lawyer file that brief until such
time as he submits that brief to this Commission. I think Bailey can do that about
Florida East Coast or I'm going to demand that it be done by the Sanitation Employees.
Because we have a very peculiar situation and I want members of the Commission to hear
this. We took a position. The Administration took another one. And, just remember
the attorney doesn't work for us in the same manner. The attorney works for Mr. Mielke.
So I have no control over that. I want to make sure I see the brief before it's
filed in our name. I think that's only reasonable and it's fair an just and I want it
10 days before time to file it. Because I want to read it. I want to scrutinize it
and I want to make sure it's before us...I must have it in time for a Commission...
so that if it isn't right that the Commission would then have the authority and ability
to order that attorney what to do. I just everybody understands what I'm saying.
I want to raise a question. You see, they go before that Commission sometime in July
and you know, we have one more meeting in June. I want to make sure I have that brief.
Not only me the entire Commission because all of us are responsible. Is that under-
stood, Mr. Manager?
Mr. Grassie: I hear what you're saying Commissioner. I'm not aware that we're filling
any brief, but I'll find out,
Rev. Gibson; Well, I was present, Let me say to this Commission. I was present at
the hearing and I'll tell you what, let's call Mr, Mielke now, Isn't he somewhere
around?Let's find out,
Mr. Grassier Apparently, he's not around now,
111
JUN 091977
1
kev, Gibson: Well, 1 want to setVe notice that i don't want that brief filed
tihti . such time as we fist read it, If it is filed I'M going to be pretty triad,
Mt, Mayor, because I have some serious tesefvations.
Mayor Ferret Alright,
Mr, Plummer: Mr. Mayor* it's not really a pocket iteta Mt, Grassie, I would like
you to furnish members of this Commission who I am sure have received complaints
as I have. What is the status of the N. E. corner of l2th and Plagler, other than
continuously catching on fire?
Mr, Grassie: The status in the sense...
Mr. Plummer: Why isn't it either being torn down or being redone?
Mayor Ferre: What are you talking about?
Mr. Plummer: Where the fire was. There's no activity other than it just keeps
rekindling someway.
Mr. Grassie: Let's ask Vince to comment on that.Commissioner.
Mr. Grimm: Commissioner Plummer, totally unofficially, but yesterday I had a meeting
with Mr. Alvarez, who is an Architect. We were discussing some other problems and in
conversation he mentioned that he had been approached by the owners of that property
for a complete re -design, tear everything down and start over from scratch.
Mr. Plummer: Yes, but isn't there someway that the city because of public welfare
can make these people move?
Mr. Grimm: Well, I think you should ask the Chief of the Fire Department that. I'm .
sure that when buildings are insured there is some time lag in before to make sure
all evidence and whatever else is necessary is gathered before the people themselves
can go in and tear the building down.
Mr. Plummer: Well, I would like a better report than that Vince. I'm glad to hear
something is doing. But I would like a report that say that the city is doing
something to make these people move one way or the other, because it's a damn disgrace
to that neighborhood, and all it does is just keep catching on fire. If the responsib-
ility of it not moving is with the Fire Chief let's get a report from him. Let's find
out what the hell is going on. That's what I would like. No, the World is on Biscayne
Blvd. It's hell there if you've ever been in one of those fires.
Mayor Ferre: Anything else?
Mr. Plummer: Yes. I would like Mr. Manager, I brought to your attention I have with
the Mayor. Would you please let me know and I'm sure the rest of the Commission?
Someone has brought to my attention that there is an event booked into the Dinner Key
Auditorium in the very near future called "A World Exhibition or something with
Columbian"...
Mr. Grassie: I have that being looked into right now Commissioner, and we'll have
that for you tomorrow morning. The information will be to you tomorrow morning.
Mr. Plummer: God forbid that we should have something in competition with our
biggy and I want to make sure so please let me know what you find out.
Mr. Grassie: I certainly will.
Mr. Plummer: That's all Mr. Mayor. The other one Father Gibson touched on was
the PERK decision.
Mayor Ferre: Alright. Anything else?
CONFIRMING RESuLUTIONI AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER tO EXECUTE AGREEMENT
wim MIAMI DOLPHINS, LTD. FOR USE OF THE
ORANGE BOWL STADIUM.
tiev. Gibson: Mani look, you all.. hell man, i get tired of the last minute of
eiterything and then when We come back it is as if a gun is to out head. I don't
plan to sign an agreement until such time as it is determined whether or not it is
tax or rent. No, it isn't. Read it. Doggone it, I can read English.
Mr, Knox: But this wouldn't have any validity Father unless the court vacates
their order. Otherwise we'd have an unconstitutional agreement and the City
Attorney's Office couldn't approve that.
Mr. Grassier It has to go through court before ...
Mr. Knox: Yes sir.
Rev. Gibson: I want to make sure everybody understands. I don't Want us to go
there being party to that scheme, that's what I'm talking about. Is that clear?
Mr. Knox: Yes sir.
Rev. Gibson: Alright. I have that assurance for the record.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 77-501
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE MIAMI DOLPHINS,
LTD. FOR THE USE OF THE MIAMI ORANGE BOWL MEMORIAL
STADIUM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
CONTAINED IN THE ATTACHED COPY OF A 21 PAGE AGREEMENT,
PROVIDED THAT CERTAIN AMENDMENTS BE MADE PRIOR TO SAID
EXECUTION.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file
in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gordon, the resolution was passed and
adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner Manolo Reboso
Vice -Mayor (Rev.) Theodore R. Gibson
Commissioner Rose Gordon
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to come before the City Commission the
meeting was adjourned at 7:28 P.M.
ATTEST: Ralph G. Ongie
City Clerk
Natty Hirai
Assistant City Clerk
litrZ
MAURICE A. FERRE
Mayor
113 JUN 091911
DOCUMENT
MEETING DATE:
INDEX DUNE 9, 1977
ITEM NO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION
COMMISSION
ACTION
RETRIEVAL
CODE NO.
COMMISSION AGENDA AND CITY CLERK REPORT.
GRANTING MODIFICATION TO PAD APPLICATION ORI-
GINALLY GRANTED BY RESOLUTION NO. 76-559 AS
PROVIDED BY ORDINANCE NO 6871, ARTICLE XXI.
APPROVING THE PROPOSAL OF SACHS AND FREEMAN
ASSOCIATES INC, IN THE AMOUNT OF $28,488 FOR
CONDUCTING A TECHNICAL STUDIES OF THE CITY'S
COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS,
ACCEPTING THE FOLLOWING BID, FOR THE DEPART-
MENT OF PUBLIC PROPERTIES, FURNISHING HEAVY
EQUIPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL HARVEST ON SIXTEEN
CAB AND CHASSIS AT A COST OF $405,445.
ACCEPTING THE BID OF ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL
IN THE AMOUNT OF $403,187.00 FOR FURNISHING
AN AUTOMATIC FINGERPRINT IDENTIFICATION
SYSTEM
CERTIFYING AND DECLARING THAT THE SPECIAL
STRAW BALLOT REFERENDUM ELECTION HELD JUNE 7,
1977, RESULTED IN APPROVAL AN EXPENDITURE OF
AN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$15,000,000
AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY 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.
AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF $50,778 FROM THE
CONTINGENCY FUND TO SPECIAL PROGRAMS AND
ACCOUNTS, RESERVE FOR SPECIAL PROGRAMS -
SUMMER RECREATION PROGRAM
ALLOCATING THE AMOUNT OF $210,000,00 FROM THE
HIGHWAY BOND FUND TO COVER THE COST OF MATER-
IALS USED IN MAINTAINING THE PAVEMENT AT
STREET INTERSECTIONS.
ACCEPTING THE COMPLED WORK PERFORMED BY
SQUIRES CONSTRUCTION, INC AT A TOTAL COST OF
$21,082
ACCEPTING THE COMPLETED WORK PERFORMED BY
WEBB GENERAL CONTRACTING, INC. AT A TOTAL
COST OF $28,178
PROVIDING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PRO-
POSED BUDGET OF THE DEPARTMENT OF OFF-STREET
PARKING OF THE CITY OF MIAMI.
R-77-465
R-77-467
R-77-468
R-77-471
R-77-472
R-77-473
R-77-474
R-77-475
R-77-476
R-77-477
00054
0055
77-465
77-467
77-468
77-471
77-472
77-473
77-474
77-475
77-476
77-477
MCUMENTINDEX
CONTINU
NO. COT+i S TON RETRIE�/�L.
1 CODE NO.
DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
PROVIDING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED
BUDGET OF GUSMAN HALL AND THE OLYMPIA BUILDING
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING OCTOBER 1,
1977
CREATING AND ESTABLISHING A CITIZEN'S COMMIT-
TEE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF WATSON ISLAND FOR
THE PURPOSE OF BUILDING RECREATIONAL AND
AMUSEMENT FACILITIES FOR THE ENJOYMENT OF RESI-
DENTS AND TOURISTS.
CREATING A BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE FOR THE
PURPOSE OF STUDYING THE CITY OF MIAMI'S ANNUAL
BUDGET PREPARATION PROCESS.
AMENDING REOSLUTION NO. 76-1018 TO PROVIDE
THAT THE TERM FOR THE CONTRACT WITH WACKENHUT
CORPORATION FOR THE FURNISHING OF SECURITY
PERSONNEL AND DOGS FOR ORANGE BOWL EVENT
RE-ESTABLISHING THE CITY OF MIAMI COMMITTEE
ON ECOLOGY AND BEAUTIFICATION DESCRIBING ITS
PURPOSES, STRUCTURE, MEMBERSHIP EQUIPMENTS,
AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS THAT THE MAIMI CITY
COMMISSION DEEMS NECESSARY FOR THE ACHIEVE-
MENT OF THE OBJECTIVES.
AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO
ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE BUREAU OF
BLIND SERVICES FOR THE FOOD AND BEVERAGE
CONCESSION AT FLAGLER MINI PARK
APPROVING IN PRINCIPLE THE PROPOSAL OF STAR
ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEX INC., TO PROVIDE ADVER-
TISING AND PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES TO STIMU-
LATE THE USE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI'S PUBLIC
FACILITIES BY DEVELOPMENT OF APPROPRIATE NEW
EVENTS.
CERTIFYING THE EXISTENCE OF A VALID PUBLIC
EMERGENCY NECESSITATING CONTINUED OPERATION
OF THE VIRGINIA KEY DISPOSAL FACILITY.
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO PURCHASE IN
LIEU OF CONDEMNATION, SIX (6) VACANT LOTS,
ONE LOT ON THE WEST SIDE OF NORTHWEST SECOND
AVENUE BETWEEN 52ND AND 53 STREET.
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO PURCHASE IN
LIEU OF CONDEMNATION TWO (2) VACANT DUPLEX
ZONED LOTS COMPRISED OF 14,340 SQUARE FEET
MORE OR LESS, LOCATED ON NORTHWEST 53RD
STREET.
R-77-478
R-77-479
R-77-480
R-77-481
R-77-482
R-77-483
R-77-484
R-77-485
R-77-486
R-77-487
77-478
77-479
77-480
77-481
77-482
77-483
77-484
77-485
77-486
77-487
701DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO PURCHASE IN
LIEU OF CONDEMNATION A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
LOCATED AT 2568 NORTHWEST 31ST STREET
APPROVING THE INCREASE OF 30 LINEAL FEET OF
CONCRETE SEA WALL SEATING FOR BAYFRONT PARK
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO
AN AGREEMENT FOR PART-TIME EMPLOYMENT OF
MIAMI-DADE COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENTS.
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT A
GRANT AWARD FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE FOR A SUMMER FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT A
GRANT AWARD FROM THE COMMUNITY SERVICES AD-
MINISTRATION FOR A RECREATION SUPPORT PROGRAM
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT A
GRANT AWARD FROM THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICE FOR RECREA-
TIONS PROGRAMS
RATIFYING AND APPROVING THE CITY OF MIAMI'S
CO-SPONSORSHIP AND THE USE OF THE MARINE
STADIUM BY THE MARINE COUNCIL OF GREATER
MIAMI ON SATURDAY, JUNE 4, 1977
AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE TO
PAY TO RAMON REYES AND MARIA REYES, WITHOUT
THE ADMISSION OF LIABILITY, THE SUM OF
$2,663.33 IN FULL AND COMPLETE SETTLEMENT
OF ALL BODILY INJURY.
AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE TO PAY
TO MARIA A. MORALES, AN INDIVIDUAL, THE SUM
OF $5,800.00 IN FULL AND COMPLETE SETTLEMENT
OF ANY AND ALL CLAIMS
AWARDING THE BID OF WILLIAMS PAVING COMPANY,
INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $56,802 FOR N.E. 80
TERRACE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PAVING PROJECT
PHASE II -BID "A".
ACCEPTING THE BID OF MARKS BROTHERS COMPANY
(NOT INC.) IN THE PROPOSED AMOUNT OF
$26,355
ACCEPTING THE BID OF HOLLAND PAVING CO., INC.
ACCPETING THE BID OF MARKS BROTHERS COMPANY
IN THE PROPOSED AMOUNT OF $392,621.65
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN
AGREEMENT WITH THE MIAMI DOLPHINS, LTD. FOR
THE USE OF THE MIAMI ORANGE BOWL MEMORIAL
STADIUM
)OCUMENTI NDEX
CONTINUED
OD D
CO t1SSION
R-77-488
R-77-489
R-77-490
R-77-491
R-77-492
R-77-493
R-77-494
R-77-494
R-77-496
R-77-497
R-77-498
R-77-499
R-77-500
R-77-501
77-488
77-489
77-490
77-491
77-492
77-493
77-494
77-495
77-496
77-497
77-498
77-499
77-500
77-501