Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1974-01-15 MinutesMeMiMudagAiddi,i 4 MIAMI CITY COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON irEgfiNGIEUTPOIONMEHt AC9UISITION PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL H. D. SOUTHERN CITY CLERK RALPH G. ONGIE ASSISTANT CITY CLERK { • INS cr raoiurCE OR ION I. NO. DISMISS THE LAWSUIT AGAINST THE ST.JOE PAPER CO. - BALL POINT PROPERTY. 1 R-74--45 •T3 32 • • _MINUTES OF SPECIAL CQMMISSI©N __ MEETING TUESDAY, JANUARY19. 1974 On the 13th day (Id Januany, 1974, the City Commcaa4,on oS the City o4 Miami, Ftoa ida met in Speeiat Se44.ion catted by Mayon Maua i.ce Fenne to cona.idet bu4.ine44 o b pubti,e .import. Mayon. Fume announced the puhpo4e os thL4 4pec.i,at meeting wa4 to di4eu44 the City od Miami v4 St. Joe Papers Company, Trte. Litigation dot the acqu.i aLUon o S pno penny ion .the pnopo4 ed 8 ieentenn44L Pank. the meeting wa4 cat.ted to mien, at 8:37 O'Ctock A.M. and the iottow.ing membena os the Commc.44,ion wene Sound to be pne4ent: Mayon Fenne Commtaaionen Commiaatonen C ommta a.io nen Comm.i aatonen J. L. Ptummen Manoto Rebo4o Rev. Theodone Gib4on Roae Condon An invocation waa detivened by Revenend Gib4on who then Led tho&e pne4ent .in a pledge os atteg.iance to the Stag. Mayor Ferre: Ladies and gentlemen I call this meeting because we are confronted with the difficult discussion on the Saint Jce Paper Pro- perty, which is to be in court this morning. Because of theSuper Bowl and because of the advent.I had to be in New York yesterday can business that I could not posPone-.7 We had to ask the court to jut.off the hearing for a day, that's what they have done�in_difference to us. I'm going to recommend to you this morning that the City of Miami drop the law suit,and not purchase the property from the Saint. Joe Paper Cvmpany,and I want to explain to you my reasoning for this. �In the first place, and I don't think itreally makes,or it doesn't have any impact for us to go back an analyses why the City of Miami should purchase this property in pest. years and why it did not. That's an- other subject. There are a lot of reasons why that happened that way. As you may recall I was rather concerned about that in the beginning, but I'm satisfied that Mr. Reese and Mr. Rothstein did the only thing the City of Miami could have done. Unfortunately, I'm talking about why they did not buy the property back in 1971 or 72, and the reason is that we did not have the money. We did not have the funds avail- able at that time, When the funds were available, which was some time last year as I recall, at that time perhaps we could have moved a little more strongly in taking the property. We did choose that route, again I don't think we had enough money. I don't mean to embarrass anybody but I think we have to point out that at the time the property was assessed at seven and a half million dollars ($7,500,000.00) the Tax Assessor, the.taxesubeing charged were ever eight million dollars .($8, 000, 000.00) so that's over, a '-million dollars' ($8, 000, 000.00) . so that really. put us in a rather difficult position on justi- fying seven a half million dollars ($7,500,000.00) when the property owners are paying on the basis of over eight million dollars ($8,000,000.00). Well, let's come up to date now. Our appraisals have shown that with the court costs, legal fees and the other costs on this case,that the City of Miami, should it be successful in winning the juries opinions .to our view would be settled with a minimum cost of about fourteen million dollars ($14,000,000.00), it might be fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000.00). Now that is if the jury completely 1 agrees with our position. As all of you know in these types of pro,- ceedings, usually the juries come back with awards that are somewhere in between, the government and the property owner. 3 would gehtimate, even though we have no figures,obviously the Saint Joe Paper Company - Would have come up with figures way in excess of fourteen or fifteen million dollars ($14,000,000.00 - $15,000,000.00), so they would have probably as for at least a minimum of eighteen, nineteen maybe twenty million dollars ($18,000,000.00, $19,000,000.00, $20,000,000.00). I don't know what the award would have been, because we're just guessing. We know by law the minimum amount would be what the city would es- timate. So just to put it at its best I think that we would have ti pay fourteen tb fifteen mft1ion dollars ($14,000,000-$15,000,000). Now the city would have one or two recourses. It would either pay the amount awarded by the jury, or it would drop the whole matter. If it were to pay the amount granted by the jury, we would have to get new money. We only have seven and a half million dollars $7,500,000.00) allocated for it, which means that we have to find an- other seven and a half million dollars ($7,500,000.00). Now I think we all know with the needs of the city that at this time we do not have seven and a half million dollars ($7,500,000.00) to dispose of. We would probably have to go on a referendum to ask for these funds. Let me point out to you that a month ago we requested the Dade County, and we requested the State of Florida to participate in this matter, and in a little while the manager is going is going to give you a report on that, but let me say that I have had long discussions with t-Tie manager on this matter, and with our City Attorney and they both concur with these opinions and they will of course will express their opinion in a moment, Tut what I'm sayirzgis that the State was very cold and nonreceptive in participating with the City of Miami in purchasing this property. The county has not been any warmer,and as a matter- of fact we have a bitting -memorandum from one of the Com- missioners before us today, which of course is not a different posture then this Commissioner was supposedly represents the City of Miami and that Commission is always taken against the City of Miami, but he very clearly states that he is a County Commissioner has no in- atention of helping us in securing this property. That same opinion was expressed Comissioner Ed Fogg at an informal meeting that I at- tended and has been expressed by other Commissioners informally off the record, so obviously the County does not seem to be overly en- thused at the prospect of coming up with several millions of dollars to help the City of Miami to acquire this property. Now I asked the City Attorney to consult with Bond Counsel,and to get from Bond Counf!pl to get an opinion as to whether or not the monies that were car - narked in that particular bond issue could be used in any other form, and the answer is yes, it can be used in other Park Projects. At this stage of the game we're not sure, because it is rather a difficult technical legal question. But from what I can read of thest- memorandums,and from what I have heard from Mr. Lloyd and from Bond Counsel we can definitely use the seven and a half million dollars ($7,500,000.00) for Park Improvements, within Bayfront Park, and we probably can use seven,--- of these monies also for other park im- provements without the park, outside the park. Now, lastly I might point out that if the City of Miami did not have any properties in the downtown Bayfront area then my position would be very different, but since the City of Miami has in its property well over a hundred acre.. Jhe adjacent immediate.vicinity, I do not think that the impact of losing the A.8 acres as important as those 8.8 acres are at the mouth of the Miami River where the river meets the bay, and as much as I would like to see that in the pubic domain, I do not think this community can afford 15 million dollars for 81 almost 9 acres of property, no matter how important that property is, when we have over 100 acres adjacent to it, and when we have the needs that we have in this community for other park facilities. I would like to point out, and I want to say -this emphatically, that this has nothing to do with the 35 acres that the FEC owns in the middle of 8ayfront Park, which I do think is essential for the proper development of the park all the way from the causeway down to the bandahell, and that is 1-15-74 2 • in the middle, that is in the heart of our proposed park, and there- fore, 1 think that under no circumstances can this community afford to give up those 35 acres, so that has nothing to do with these other 35 acres that the FEC owns. Now, in conclusion, 1 would like to recommend to this Commission, oh, there is one other thing that I forgot to say. One of the things that concerned me a great deal about this, was the matter of legal fees, and since we were bound to spend legal fees anyway, it seems to me that it might be better for us to continue and finish, take it to court, and finish it in court and see. it to completion to the end point. Now the legal fees in these type of cases as determined by the courts is never been under 5 percent, and is usually 10 percent. Ten percent of 14 or 15 million dollars is a million four,million five, or it's well over a million dollars shall we say, that's their legal fees. 0n top of that it would be our legal fees where we have a contract, where we're bound to 2 percent, which would be another 300,000 dollars. In addition to that we would have to pay court ex- penses, and appraisals, etc., so we would be talking in a figure well over 1 mi31ion ollars for us b proceed. Now, since'we were com- mitted to that then I saw no reason for us to stup,we may as well go see this thing through. Then I thought perhaps we're not committed, perhaps these matters can be negotiated, so I took it upon myself to talk with Mr. Ed Bali, who is the Chairman of the Saint Joe Paper Company, and he called me on Friday,and said that he had discussed this matter with the attorneys, and they were willing to bring their expenses down to actual costs, and they estimated these costs to be in the vincinity of $100,000. In addition we would have to pay for their photographers, engineers, and appraisals, which they estimated would not exceed $25,000., so the cost for us to drop out of the case at this point from the property owners side would be $125,000., from our side we would es- timate that it was be somewhat less then that even though.we don't have the exact figures. What I'm saying is that we would, it would cost the citizens of Miami approximately $250,000. to drop this matter at this point. Now the options that we have are basically two, one is to drop this case at this time, and the other one is to con- tinue. If we continue there is absolutely no doubts, absolutely no doubts, that we will be looking for a figure between 14 to $15,000,000. that soneone has to come up with this money. If we do not come up with this money, and if we drop this case at that point it will cost the citizens of Miami $1,500,000., rather than $250,000. which it will cost us to drop it at this point. In view of the fact that there has been no great enthusiasm on the part of either the County or the State to come up with additional funds. In view of the fact the the City of Miami does not have any additional monies, then my conclusion was that we ought to drop this at this point. Now what really clinches it for me, what really makes the difference, and what really puts me at the point where I'm at right now is that we can spend that $7,500,000. in parks outside Bayfront Park, and I would strongly recommend today,that we go into series of public hearings where we would go over,where we could spend the $7,500,000. and that we spend this money out in the community, and if we spend this money in Coconut Grove, that we spend this money in Allapattah, that we spend this money in the Central area, that we spend this money in the Northeast area where we desperately need funds to improve our parks. To get bicycle pathways in hereto get proper buildings for Day Care Centers, for Senior Citizens, where we get the type of facilities 1-15-74 3 • • in parks that will really be responsive to the needs of all of the people of the City of Miami, therefore, I would urge you at this point to give this your due consideration and to move with dispatch, because the courts are awaiting our final discision. At this point I'd like to, before getting a comment from the members of the City Commieaion,aak Mr. Paul Andrews and Mr. Lloyd to express their opinions on this matter. Mr. Andrews, why don't you do this for us. Mr. Andrews: All right, Mr. Mayor,- -- Mrs. Gordon: I have a question before we have an opinion, may I ask it, please Mr. Mayor. I want to know what attempt there has been tc' obtain funds from the Federal Government through the Open Space Program? Mr. Andrews: May I report on that effort. Following the City Commissions direction in reference to communicate with the Governor, and all the member of the Cabinet, the County Manager and the County Commission,I did that, we not only wrote a letter, and we sent tel- egrams and I followed with as many personal telephone calls as I was able to with the individual members. And in each instance I found that there was a problem as far as even attempting,or even suggesting that funds could,or might become available,and this was mainly due to the fact that the State is somewhat dependent on funds flowing from the Federal Government in a matter such as the problem that's before the City of Miami to assist us,and they indicate that funds are just not available at all,and in some instances funds that might have been made available through various sources. Those sources have been reduced as much as 75 percent in funding fur the coming year, and they very sure that this would be a very difficult thing to accomplish,and indicated to me in their early findings that in all probabilies that we would not be successful in obtaining funds. Mayor Ferre: I would also like to answer that I had the privilege of visiting with Mr. Ken Cc<le, of the White House in the last few days. Mr. Cole as you know is now one of the top Staff Members if the White House, directly: under the President and General Hagg, and unfor- tunately with the situation in the economy, with the situation we have in our country, it is not only highly unlikely it is almost impossible to get funds allocated for any new programs, and I think we're looking fur a..rather.:austere period. In as much as the president would like to decentralize government, and get more of -these -things to the local levels. The other thing that was pointed out to me, rather emphatically was, do you really think that the Federal Government, with all the crying needs of millions and millions of people that have needs for open space would really go out and spend almost 2 million dollars an acre can property when the need for open space is so great throughout the country,and if we can come up with something a little more to the needs of the people, and perhaps we might a�19 to 1 chance, but with property almost $2,000,000. an acre the odds � th difficult and would rather be against the City of Miami. Su I really don't think that there is any hopes in finding any sources. I think we would have a better chance in getting State and especially County money, which is where I was hoping that we would get 'some stronger assist. Mrs. Gordon: May I ask a couple of more questions? Mayor Ferre: Could we get the opinion of the attorney first, and then we'll get to the question portion. Mr. Andrews you haven't expressed your opinion on this. Mr. Andrews: Well, I want to go back to the City Commission meetings during the budget hearings, which Commission Plummer, in essence waived a Red Flag, if I may use that expression, with reference to the acquisition of this property, and he asked me at that time a dixuct question whether I, we were discussing a Fede:al Revenue Sharing Funds at the time, and he asked if I felt, I think the language was, 1-15-74 4 or my response wag. one or two, whether 1 felt comfortable with the funding arrangement as it stood, and my answer at that time was rather positive, that yes I did, because I firmly believe that while the $7,500,000. might have been a low estimate as time was moving along, 1 certainly thought and hoped that we would acquire the pro- perty for approximately 81 to 9 million dollars, and that would have represented about 11 million dollars more than the funds that we had immediately available, and I could foresee if we were found in that position the City Commission giving very serious consideration to allocating future Revenue Sharing Funds in that increment in order to acquire the property. I had no idea at that time that we would be talking in terms of $15,000,000., and,I personally think that $15,000,000. is at this time a conservative figure, it's the low figure. the figure which would favor the City. I personally believe it could run several million dollars in excess of the $15,000,000. Recognizing that $7,500,000. which was originally proposed, I couldn't in good consdence,in any way,recommend to the City Commission that we continue to pursue this. The City needs so many more things, within the City for an additional expenditure of 8 or 9 million dollars, that I cannot recommend to the Commission that we continue to pursue this purchase. Mayor Ferre: Do you recommend that we drop this case? Mr. Andrews: I recommend we drop it at this time. Yes Sir. Mr. Lloyd: I will confine my remarks to the difference in amount that we would have to pay in legal fees and costs, if we continued with the action,or didn't have this proposal before us vs. what we will be forced to pay now. Now if we were to drop this action now, without any agreement on the part of the Saint Joe Paper Company and their counsel. the attorney's fee, due to the fact of the lateness of the hour in making the decision, even as far as last week,Counsel was prepared when we completely prepared when we move for the con- tinuance, so therefore, there would have been a substantial legal fee due Counsel for the defendant at that time, plus all of the ap- praisal fees were incurred up to that time and all of their other costs. Now of course, if we were to proceed with that case, and then got a judgement, and were not able to pay it, we would still be absolutely liable for the legal fees, which could run as high as 10 percent of the judgement, which if the judgement is for $15,000,000. that would be 11 million dollars for legal fees alone, which we must pay. Those have been incurred, there is no way that they can, that an avoidance can be made. The only thing that you can avoid paying is the final judgement, where there is not an order of taking. Now you have 20 days after the final judgement to find the money. Now there is an added time of 60 days.which may be granted at the discretion of the court, but then interest accrues, and if at the end of 60 days you do not find the money to pay it the accrued interest on that judgement must be paid also. So in view of the substantial difference in the legal fees and costs which would have to be paid without this proposal. My decision would have to be in agreement with Mr. Andrews, that this is the best thing to do at this time. I might add that (ur Bond Counsel has informed us that we cannot exceed any substantial degree from Bond Funds, the sum of 7.5 million dollars for the pur- chase of the property. In other words, the money would have to come from some other source. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Floyd, would you also clarify before the Commissions whether or not we legally can use the $7,500,000. for other Park Projects. 1.45-74 5 t. • M. Lloyd: Bona Counsel has indicated that we may do that. That was one of our questions to Bond Counsel, and he indicates that they, it may be used for other Park Projects. The way 3 understood Bond Counsel's opinion, the only prohibition would have been to acquire an alternative piece of property at the South end of the park, Bay - front Park, at or near the Bayfront, instead of the Ball Point prop- erty, but if were to spend it for other areas which are allocated within the Bond issue, or allocated according to the brochure which was distributed and published, those may be increased by allocation from this figure, which would be unremained, unallocated if this action were dropped at this time. Mrs. Gordon: Now,may I ask some questions? Mayor Ferre: All right, Mrs. Gordon. ---- Mrs. Gordon: First I want to ask you,Mr. Andrews to answer my question which you• did not answer before. Have you contacted, or requested at any time funds from the Federal Government from the Open Space Grants. I'm not satisfied with the answer that the Mayor has given because that was an opinion. I want to know whether you have done this. Mr. Andrews: I have not made an application per se to the Federal Government for Open Space Funds for this project. Mrs. Gordon: Why haven't you? Mr. Andrews: From the information that I have found, and the length of time that we've had to aaddress ourselves to this, every bit of information that we can obtain indicates that the allocations for Open Space Funds have been reduced about 75 percent over what was anticipated for this fical year 73-74, and funds and funds -- Mrs. Gordon: How did you determine that? Mr. Andrews: By communication with the State, and verifying that their allocations and informations that they had obtained from Wash- ington, that the budget for Open Space have been drastically reduced, and they would utilize this as a primary source of obtaining funds for the City and they were indcating to us, both in letter and in our telephone conversations that there was very little likelihood that this request could be Mrs. Gordon: That all of that though is not a direct request to the Federal Government, and this is what I'm asking you. Why haven't you done that? Mr. Andrews: On February 17, 1972, the City Commission passed Re- solution No. 43282, now this is not answering your question as positively as you would like to have it if we do it today, but let me tell you what we did at this time, and the results that this pro- duced which is again indicative in a measure what I believe will happen if we make the request once again. Resolution No. 43282, a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to make an application in the Department of Housing and Urban Development of the Federal Government for a legacy of Parks open Space Land Grant to assist in the acquisition and development of the property known as Bicentennial Park, said land to be used for park purposes. Resulotion goes on and describes the entire project. We were turned down on this application and that was, as I stated February of 1972, approximately a year ago. 1-15.::74 6 410 Mrs. Gordon!: February of 72, is two years ago. Mr. PltiMMer: Aren't we talking about the fact that the only Federal moniee that we ever received for Park and Open Space was done here adjacent,for what 1 would call adjacent, to the Coral Reef Yacht ClUbo and as I recall We got $500,000..towardsthe acquisition of prop- erty •am I---� Mayor Ferre: No, there were more than that. The American Legion, I think the Legion Park. Mr. Plummer: Oh, well, that's going back before my time. Not in defending Rose, the City Manager he's a big boy and can do it him- self, but you know I don't think that it's fair to put this on the Federal Government, because I'll tell you, the one thing that know one has ever accused the Federal Government of doing is moving rapidly. Now we're under 20 days at the outmost 80, and I just don't think that we can even get a commitment from the Federal Government in 80 days. Wetre talking about this Federal Suit, or this suit that we have of condemnation being over this week, and we then have at the outmost 80 days from there. So I think that this to be even considered by the Federal Government would be foolhardy, we're looking right now, or I was, and I brought it to the attention of Mr. Andrews. Nixon has seriously cut all of the monies as it re- lates to sewerage, the very thing that we have been fighting for 3 or 4 months. That Federal Funding now might be in jeopardy for South Florida, regardless what program is put forth. So I think these are the things when you talk of the Federal Government that has to be brought out. Mr. Mayor, Rose were you finished. Mrs. Gordon: No. Mr. Plummer: I'm sorry, go ahead, because I have quite a few questions. Mayor Ferre: On the same question, I want to reiterate, because I don't want the impact to be lost on this Commission, that I spent 45 minutes with the top man in the White House. Mrs. Gordon:. Is he in charge of Grants for Open Space? Mayor Ferre: He is the top man in the White House in charge of Grants, Open Space, and anything that has anything to do with any cities in the relationship with cities, and he said that things were going to be rough. There's not enough funds, and that at the White House the President, as you well know has decided that he has to sit on some of these already approved matters. For example, as Commissioner Plummer just pointed out on matters such as the Sewerage Program, which certainly is of a more important impact to this Community then the Open Space, had a beautiful location in Miami where land is worth $2,000,000. an acre. Mrs. Gordon: May I ask another question, our Legal Counsel. We have a problem .on the other piece of property that is near the Port. What is the status of that case? Mr. Lloyd: The status of that case is as follows. It is currently, the petition for rehearing in the District Court of Appeal file by, on behalf of the FEC Railroad has been denied just the other day by District Court of Appeal. The next step for the FEC Railroad, which they have indicated they will persue, and we are currently in the jurisdictional time for them to file it, is a petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Florida. Now, I must caution the Commission that may not be the final step at this time, but at any event that is the present staus of the case. 7 1-15--74 Abe to the fact that the FEC is a railroad dealing in Interstate Coiflerce, the proposed taking of their property by condemnation, poses what is known in legal parlance as a federal question. Now that means that there could be on behalf of the railroad a possible next Step to the Supreme Court of the United States, in the event the Supreme Court of Florida rules adversely upon their petition of writ certiorari. Now I must explain that writs of certiorari are discretionary on the parts of the courts. They are not appeals. Appeals are taken as a matter of right. Now the Supreme Court of Florida, or the Supreme Court of the United States, in either in- stance determines first in their discretion whether they will en- tertain the petition for writ of certiorari, and then deciding, after deciding that they will entertain it, they then act upon the merits. As the Honorable Members of the Commission probably know the current legal discussion within the structure of the Appellate Courts is involved,with, I believe 2 parcels out of 4 parcels which the City is attempting to condemn. The railroad has resisted con- demnation of these 2 particular parcels. Now this, however, is holding up the final descision on the case which must be held up until the lower court can have an instruction from the higher courts as to whether the condemnation will proceed on the entire 4 parcels or merely upon the 2 parcels, which are left to the determination of the Appellate Court. Mrs. Gordon: Wd.th regard to that suit, how long a period of time could we look forward to before it's finally resolved. Mayor Ferre: Are you talking about the FEC suit? Mrs. Gordon: Yes. Mr. Floyd: I have no idea. I cannot inform you as to the time, because of the Appellate Courts may take the time that they wish in deciding these actions. I can only tell you what the jurisdictional time periods are, and that resolves nothing because the courts can sit and deliberate for months or even years at a time. Mrs. Gordon: It is true though it could take a period up to 10 years in the courts. Mr. Lloyd: This is a possibility. Mrs. Gordon: In which case we do have $15,000,000. allocated in budgeted for this acquisition Mr. Andrews: Mr. Mayor, and Members of the Commission may I assist, and Mrs. Gordon,in that the $15,000,000. is also involved in Ac- quisition and Development. Some of those funds, of course,have been allocated for the development of the north end of the Commercial Docks Properties as well. Mrs. Gordon: By the same token was some of the $7,500,000. also?: Mr. Andrew: No, not at this stage. Mrs. Gordon: Getting back again to the $15,000,000. The portion that was not for the development of the existing Old Port Site, what- ever that amount that might happen to be. That money will then have to be held in trust,until such a time as this case is resolved, and logically following the same train of thought of inflation and prop- erties value rising. Isn't it conceivable that when it's all said and done, by the same reasoning that this Commission is about ready to drop the suit un the Bali Point, that this Commission then • • 8 1-15-74 411 would again after all the litigation poasibily consider, and maybe a future Commission would then consider dropping the suit for a lack of funds at that time. Might he not consider the acquiaition of the Ball Paint. At this time with the supplement of the funds from the FEC Property. Mr. Floyd: I've already answered that. We can not. Our Bond Colleague says no, legally. Mayor Ferret Well, I might also point out, and this is one man's personal opinion on matters of judgement. It's my opinion that the FEC Property is lot more important tc the City than the Saint Joe Property. Number one,it's 35 acres vs 8.8 acres, number two, it's right smack in the middle of our Park Project, number three, - and certainly from what I gather of our appraisals that have already been presented or have not been presented because have not gotten to that point, but I think we have the funds to buy that property at the present time. Mrs. Gordan: Which funds, Mr. Mayer? Which property? Mayer Ferre: The FEC Property. Mrs. Gordon: But we can't get it, because the court's actions are going to be there's no doubt in my mind that it will be a matter of years. Mayor Ferre: Well, you said 10 years, of course nobody knows how many years it will take to go to the Fl.rida Supreme Court and to the U.S. Supreme Court. It all depends if they want to take jurisdiction on it. They might, they might not want to get involved in it, and this matter may be over in another year, or two years, we don't know. But the point is, that we are dealing with two separate properties,. and two separate set of circumstances,and two separate corporations. because one is owned by the FEC and the other one owned by the Saint Joe Paper Company. I might want to point out, and I haven't made this statement up until now, but I want to make this statement to you. I think it's a question of priorities. In my opinion, I do not think that this City can afford to pay the 15, 16, or 18 million dollars that will cost by those 8.8 acres. It seems to me that we have other much more important needs then the purchase of that property for that type of a price. Seven and half million, 8, 9 million dollars,S think, would -have been reasonable, but beyond 9 or 10 million dollars, I certainly think that we have better places to use our much needed funds in other projects,which are crying for funding at this time. Mrs. Gordon: May I finish then you can have the floor, Mr. Plummer? It seems like we have gone through a comedy of errors. First we ask Bond issue on less then assessed value, then we don't allow for other - costs involved, and a whole bunch of other things which are kind of riduclous because we took this to the public, and the public spoke for a park, and the public spoke for acquisition of the property, and they wanted Bali Point to be a part of City of Miami Park System. I haven't any magic wand to wave to get the extra money, but I heard Mr. Bennett say $11,000,000., now we're talking 14,15, I don't where these figures are coming from. Mayor Ferre: Nobody here is fabricating anything. I want to clarify very quickly for you, if you would Mr. Lloyd. I don't like that kind of Mrs. Gordon; Didn't Mr. Bennett say $11,000,000 when he stood here. Mayor Ferre; Mr. Bennett said $7,500,000. . 1-15-74 9 Mrs. Gordon: bid he also say $11, 000, 000? Mayor Ferre: He also said $11,000,000. and l want Mr. Lloyd to Clarify that right now. Mrs. Gordon: OK, then clarify it. These things have to be aired, and nodbody has to lose their temper. Mayor Ferre: Go ahead, Mr. Lloyd. Mr. Lloyd: Mr. Bennett's appraisal, apparently, and I do not have his final figure,is going to be somewhere between 11 and 12 million dollars. As I understand it Mr. Flemming's appraisal is going to be in that same area. Mr. Plummer: Who is Mr. Flemming? Mr. Floyd: Mr. Flemming is the other appraiser employed by the City. Mayor Ferre: Would you specify how we came to the figure of 14 or 15 million dollars. Mr. Floyd; Yes sir. Now then. Mayor Ferre: You came tv that figure. Mr. Floyd: I came to that figure. No one else but myself and Howard Hadley, the Bond Counsel came to that figure. Assuming that the jury comes in with a jury award at the lowest appraisal figure which is close to $12,000,000., and we can play with both figures if you wish, but let's start at $12,000,000. The attorney's fees to be paid to the defendant may amount to 10 percent of that figure, now we're up to 13 million 2, now this is all conservatively. Ntw then, our own attorney's fees, if we proceed in this fashion, will amount te) 2 percent of the $12.000,000. I don't recollect off hand what that was, I'm not very good at figures, but plus we'll come up with a substantial figure, I had them before me at that time, plus we have to pay all of the oppositions appraisal fees, we have to pay all of own appraisal fees and if we figure that cost for each side conservatively speaking are $25,000 a piece, that's conservative, these are all bottom figures, we're coming up with $14,000,000. conservatively. Now, in addition to that, it is my understanding that,Mr.Slack is here by the way, one of the appraisers for the defendant, and it is my understanding that conservatively their appraisals are going to come somewhere aver $20,000,000. somewhere in the area of 24, 25 million dollars. Now then, from my own limited experience with condemnation, and from what Mr. Hadley has told me that even if we are successful in in- dicating to the jury that are figures are closer to what should be used for the purpose of a jury award than the defendant's figures, and we have no way of knowing that at this time, you understand, that the award would be somewhat higher than the 11 or 12 million dollars which were, I think it's apparently obvious that if we have two appraisals, let's assume that we have Mr. Bennett for $11.000,00 which is over that, and Mr. Flemmings for $12,000,000. which let's assume, where we have an appraisal from the opposition, which is substantially in excess of that, even if they were to come to the the bottom appraisal, they're going to come to our highest figure, they're"a`jc oing to go to our lowest appraisal figure, that's obvious, plus obviouly, it's been my experience'Mr. Hadley confirms this in his great experience in condemnation the figure would be higher thn that. and I don't have a crystal ball, I cannot tell you what the jury is going to come in with. All I can give you a somewhat edu- cated guess, and not very educated at that, because depicting what juries will do, that'a why we have cuurt trials, and that's why we 1-15-74 10 take our chances, but 1 think a conservative estimate of the jury award in this case, very conservative would be $15,000,000., then you're talking about 1.5 attorney's fees un top of that and already you're talking about $17,000,000, so I think that when we say 14 or 15 million dollars we are maybe 2 or 3 million dollars on the • ultra, ultra conservative side to say the least. I am not trying to paint a picture of disaster here, I'm just trying to paint a con- servative picture of what we may expect. These figures are mine and Mr. Hadieys, they're not the figures cf anyone else. Mayor Ferret All right. Any other questions Mrs. Gordon? Mrs. Gordon: I want another reaffirmation from the attorney, that it is an 'absolute fact,beyond any question of doubt,that the monies from the FEC Parcel cannot be used in part,fcr the ac- quisition of this property is supplemented. Is that an absolute fact beyond any question of doubt? Mr. Floyd: I will read you,yes. The answer is yes, may I read you my question to Mr. Dickens, our Bond Counsel and his answer. May proceeds from the City of Miami Public Parks and Recreational Bond Fund be used to acquire Bali Point Properties at an acquisition price or construction cost substantially in excess of the 7.5 million allocated to the Ball Project? His answer is in the negative. He further points out that in the extremely likely event of a court action for an injunction to enjoin us from using their funds,he pre- dicted the answer would be in favor of any person being the plantiff who brought the injunction. He further pointed out to me a fact .:f which I was well aware, because I personally handled ' both the lower court validation of this $39,000,000 bond with Mr. Shapiro, who was in our office, and I personally wrote the brief in cooperation with our,then Bond Counsel at that time, and if you will remember, and I apologize for being lengthly on this, but I think it's necessary to explain this so that -the Commission has.a complete understanding of this. If you will remember at the time of the bond validation, in the addition to the opposition of the State Attorney on behalf of all of the people which is a routine proceedure. The Grapeland Heights Civic Association intervened and opposed the validation of these bonds. Now one of the points of their opposition was,that the City in its bond proposal to the people on the bond issue did not sufficiently de- liniate what projects the money was for. When we were faced with that question in the trial,we were able to produce a brochure which was the the proposed City of Miami Parks and Recreational Bond Program, which contained the various allocations for the various parks. You see the whole crux of the Grapeland Heights Civic Associations strenuous opposition to the validation,to the bond program was,that in addition to what they contended was an insufficient information, with regard to the entire bond proposal allocation was that far too much money was being spent in any event on the downtown proposals, and not enough in parks, in the hinterlands, the neighborhood parks of the City of Miami. Now, the lower court found on the bases on this proposed Parks and Recreational Bond Program,which was presented,that there was an ad- equate proposed allocation to satisfy the validation of the bonds, and when it went to the Supreme Court,the Grapeland Heiglts Civic Associa- tion appealed, as a matter cf fact they took an appeal to the Supreme Court of Florida, and the Supreme Court,in its opinion with a special concurring opinion,by Mr. Justice Roberts,noted the fact of this pro- pose City of Miami Parks and Recreational Bond Program, and stated further that he assumed that the city would closely adhere to the allocations which were proposed in this bond as proposed City of Miami Parke and Recreational Bond Program clearly indicating that 1-15-74 411 if it wasn't the court would be open for further Measures by the citizens. Mrs. Gordon: They're contradi.cating what the Mayor before. Mayor Ferret Not the Mayor, Mrs. Gordon. Mrs. Gordon: Yes, you said ---- Mayor Ferre: Not the Mayor, the City Attorney, because I cannot give you legal opinions. I'm just repeating what the attorney told me. Now would you clarify that last statement. In view of the previous statement which you as our attorney made, which specifically stated that we can use the $7,500,000. in other park projects. Would you explain how that works. Mr. Lloyd: This was the reason why I proposed a question to our Bond Counsel, and that was,that in the light of the Supreme Court decision, which seriously concerned the both of us. In the event that we are unable to acquire this property by the use of the funds, and in the event that we are forced t:.. dismiss the action or not satisfy the judgement, nay we in that event use the funds for other park projects, because that was a serious question in our minds, and Bcnd Counsel informed me that in that event, in view of the fact that this money would then become available we could use this for assistance too.for other fur the construction and acquisition of other park projects within"the limits of this bond proposal. Mrs. Gordon: You mean if the prices were higher then we had allocated, we could take some of this money to supplement it,or do additional improvements, that's what you're saying. Mr. Lloyd: That's right, prcviding Mrs. Gordon: But we could not select a new sight that was not justified. Mr. Lloyd: Yes, that's correct. Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor, I would feel much better and more comfortable and certainly I would be more intelliaent,if Mr. Lloyd would do the following things: 1. Specify dates of your memorandum or inquiry. 2. State the question, read the question from your memorandum. 3. Read the answer from the memorandum. I'm not in opposition to what you're saying, but I just want to make sure that Mrs. Gordon isn't saying to you what she really thinks, and so I want to make sure, I don't want to be thinking like Mrs. Gordon is, --what I'm also, let me put it this way, if you asked the questions, and I have no doubt that you asked them, there's nothing wrong with reasoning, Please, for my benefit read into the record. On such a such a date I wrote a memorandum, on such a such a day I got an answer, In the memorandum I got an answer, and then specifically read the answer. Mayor Ferre: I'd like to go further then that. Mr. Lloyd,there was a misunderstanding in one of the questions that the Bond Counsel misunderstood and you were going to get that one clarified. It has no impact on these deliberations, once you get that minor question clarified so that he understands what you were asking. Would you make a copy of that legal memorandum from our counsel, in addition to a memorandum from you stating your personal .pinion. 1-15-74 12 • • Mr. Lloyd: Yes sir, Please be advised that my questiona,do to the urgenny of time.were posed to Mr. Dickens ovea the telephone personally. Rev. Gibson: Let me ask you a question. Did you follow up with a memorandum in writing? Mayor Ferre: Mr. Dickens wrote back very quickly, and that's what he has, and there's a mistake in there because he asked one question where Mr. Dickens misunderstood the South of the North property and he got all mixed up in it, but once you that clarified would you make that available. As a matter of fact, do this; make both of them available so that everbody has moogiaraft Mr. Lloyd: I can do that. Now I can read it into the record the questions which were posed, and the answers because we agreed upon --- Mayor Ferre: Mr. Lloyd: That will take Is hour. What you will do if you would please, if it's all right with my fellow Commissioners, just make the letter available to the members of the Commission. Mrs. Gordon: But we have to make a decision this morning, and perhaps the things he's going to say,Mr. Mayor,may have an influence on our decision. Mayor Ferre: That's fine Mrs. Gordon. if you want to have it read. I want to repeat to you that what Mr. Lloyd will read into the record is identically the same as what he's been saying for an hour. He will just be repeating over again that very basic legal premise, that the City of Miami may dispose of the $7,500,000. into other park projects as defined by the brochure that's been previously been issued. That's the crux of the matter. Mrs. Gordon: What if in the event his opinion, the attorneys, the Bond Counsel's opinion is not the same opinion'that'the courts would have. What then, who is going to protect the City in the event cf a challenge on that. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, may I interject a point. I think Rose, that has no bearing on the reason that this meeting was called. If I remember correctly you have to state a reason for a special meeting to be called,and the reason was to decide whether or not, in fact,we were going to dre.p the law suit or not. Now that is the bearing. What we do with the money, if we drop the law suit is something yet to come. But I don't think at this time,that has a bearing as to what we might do with the money if we drop the law suit. Mayor Ferre: The other aspect of it is this, of course you know we continually in this Commission ask our legal counsel for opinions, and then we guide ourselves accordingly. He cannot guarantee that if someone takes the City of Miami to court, that the court might not overrule his opinion. There's not a thing we can do about that, but throughout our deliberations at least for the 31 years that I sat on this Commission we guided ourselves according to our attorney's opinions on legal matters. Now that's all we can do; there's no guarantee,Bond Counsel cannot tell us that what he says is going to be upheld in the Supreme Court of the United States. That's why we choose our City Attorney,and that's why we choose a capable Bond Counsel, so that they will give us their best opinion and guide us in a way that's legal. Mrs. Gordon: That's the reason, Mr. Mayor I'm following this trend of thought, because it's my opinion that the FEC Property is going to be tied up in court for a long long time,and that possibly we will never acquire it, and I'm saying we would be voluntarily passing up 1-15-74 13 an opportunity to enlarge our downtown park holdings with this piece of property which we don't see any obstacle, to accept the price,and the other piece of property which we see some very serious obstacles based on other matters than price, so that's the reason why I'in questioning the Bond Counsel's opinion, as being law. Mayor Ferre: I'll tell you the other way to put it, and if you want I'll put it this way,I'll repeat what I said. I do not think that this City of Miami should spend $15,000,000. or more in acquiring that specific piece of property even if we had the money available, so I'm going to that extreme, so I'm saying this city has some other needs which are a lot more pressing, and I certainly want to say this, that as a past member since it was begun 10 years ago of the Down- town Development Authority, and serving on this City Commission for 31 years, and being deeply involved in the downtown area and the improvements of downtown, I certainly would want to see all of that property acquired for public purpose. It's in the best interest of the City of Miami, but like everything else everything has its price and everything has its limitations in these properties, and it's my opinion that with the needs that this city has for improvements, that we have better places to spend $15,000,000. or more then in those 8.8 acres, and I just want to say, even if we had the money available,I for one would not vote for spending $15,000,000. or more on that particular piece of property. Mrs. Gordon: You can't take the money away from the park program so that we can't talk about housing, we can't talk about other critical needs that the community has with that money. Mayor Ferre: We can talk about Allapattah, and we can talk about dozens of Lther park projects that we have in view, and that we trying to imprc.ve and we don't have sufficient monies to improve. Mrs. Gordon: But we do, Mr. Mayor. We have it in the bond issue to improve those specific other sites, and we cannot acquire dif- ferent'suits. Mayor Ferre: Mrs. Gordon, you know that in every newspaper in this community, and throughout this community there was some grave questicns asked at the time this bond issue was proposed as to the proper balance to the allocations, and specifically there were some specific questions that how could we go out and spend $39,000,000 and out of that $39,000,000 spend almost $30,000,000 in a downtown area, and only spend 9 or 10 million dollars .outside of downtown when the majority of the people of this community lived outside of the down- town area, and as I specific recall Marty Fine for one,Athalie Range for two, and many other people questioning whether or not this was wise to do it that way. Now it was done that way the people voted for it, but I come back to the basic premise that I do not think personally $7,500,000. is fine, but I do not think that this city should spend $15,000,000. on that 8.8 acres of property. Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Mayor, I think we're prolonging this too long, but I will have to sa,,,,,y� that Mr. Calhoun's letter refers once again to several matterIiotight to be brought up and discussed, and one of those things that I want to know from you Mr. Manager is, is the interest that is accruing to this $7,500,000. being used for salary increases for department heads as charged in the letter from Mr. Calhoun. Mr. Plummer: Rose, you're well aware where that came from,it's in the Federal Revenue Sharing. Mr. Andrews: I can assure you that no money -- Mrs. Gordon: I put this into the public records specifically because 1-15-74 14 we Were handed this letter this morning and it is a very seriou charge that he is making, and if it is not true he ought to be told and so should the public be told that it is not true. Mayor Perre: That's a facetious statement. He knows that it's facetious, he knows that it's not true, and you're not going to stop Mr. Calhoun from continually attacking the City of Miami, because he has expressed on more than one occasion that his only interest in serving in public office is to abolish the City of Miami. Mr. Plummer: OK, are you all finished now? Mrs. Gordon: One more. Would the County accept this property if Bayfront Park was turned over to them and buy it at the appraised price? Mr. Plummer: They haven't the money to help us; where are they going to get the money to buy it? Mrs. Gordon: Because in this letter again it specifies that the County would be interest, if in fact, the County operated the parks. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I will try,if I may,not to use names but rather use titles. Mr. City Attorney, Mr. Manager I want to know where is our appraiser, who should be standing at that microphone telling us where this damn thing goofed up? New you know, let me tell you something, we,• the Ci.mmission,are going to be blamed for this thing not going through, but Mr. Andrews re- lated back a while in this conversation of this morning, that I raised the question some 3 or 4 months ago, but let me tell you something, that wasn't the first time I raised the question, that was the second time. The first time I raised this question was the inception of this bond issue with Mr. Reese. Was this suf- ficient funds to purchase this property? And the answer at that time, and I'm sure based on Mr. Appraisers thing at that time, yes, this is sufficient funds. Once again, at the time when the transfer of Parks and Recreation was being discussed it was said that this was in jeopardy and once again I said, and felt very strongly, that these were not sufficient funds. Nobody wanted to obviously listen. Mr. Andrews was very emphatic in his answer. I feel comfortable. I asked the question twice, and based upon his answer I let it be, that maybe I in fact was wrong, but I'm going to tell you, that if anything has goofed up, it is the man who we had to rely on as a profession, telling us what the value of this property was, because letme tell you, I realize that prices are ,soaring, and prices are going out of reach; but we're not talking about a 10 or 20 or 30 percent or even a 60 percent in- crease in a short period of two years. We're talking about three times the amount of money quite possibly, that we were given as a figure that this Commission relied upon, and I think if anybody owes a justification to the people of this City is the professional that we hired to give us the advice that we needed so that we can go forth to the people and say, here's what the facts are, and here's what needs to be done, because let me tell you something, the people of this City gave this Commission and the administration a mandate because they were willing to put their money where their mouth was and said yes, we want this property at this price, and I'll tell you quite candidly I seriously question, had the advice of counsel been, and I'm speaking of Appraisal Counsel, that this property was going to be $20,000,000, or anywhere in that neighbor that the people of this town would have voted for it, I don't think they 1-15-74 1 would have, at any way,shape or form. so I think if anyone should be standing here defending the position should be the man who trade these figures Mr. Appraiser, I don't want to use names because I don't know the gentleman, now that's one point. At the very time this thing came about, being a member of the Elks across the street, we own or did own property which was sold just recently approximately 6 acres for $4,500,000. This is at the mouth of the river the same way that the Ball Point property is. Now I can't relate how two parcels of property,not more then 300 feet apart could be so far apart on monies. I'm sure there is a difference but not 6 times the amount of money. I would like to ask at this time Mr. Bailey, what in fact have the bonds the amount have been validated today? What of the $39,000,000 what- ever it is, what of those bonds have been sold? Twenty eight million, and the difference at this time; do you know the exact. All right. Mr. City Attorney, at the last Commission this Com- mission gave you the reasons to search out, and I think the term at that time was a stobk market term, was ther:in fact any churn- ing, by churning I mean that the $21,000,000 figure which we read in the paper, is in fact there any fact to the $21,000,000. Did we make a search to investigate? Mr. Lloyd: Yes sir. Mr. Plummer: And what did it reveal? Mr. Lloyd: Depositions of the officials of the Saint Joe Paper Company were taken by our counsel upon my direction very shortly thereafter thls was made, and they revealed as follows, that this offer along with several other offers were received in writing by the Saint Joe Paper Company from this firm and other firms. I think there were 5 or 6 in all, offers were in this general area. All they were was offers there was no acceptance, there was nothing further other than offers made. Mr. Plummer: In other words, no money changed hands. Mr. Lloyd: No monies changed hands, either earnest money or otherwise there was not even any acceptance tf the offers. Mr. Plummer: As I understand it the one firm from Canada who supposedly is involved had some sixty days in which to put up a $1,000,000. Good faith money or in trust, is that correct? Mr. Lloyd: This was not revealed. To my knowledge, in any event, no money was put up in trust. All that we know of, all there was, was offers. Mrs. Gordon: Along the lines of Mr. Plummer's questioning, which I consider very valid, but I do want to defend the appraiser,I know h to be. a _man of great ability, and if his appraisal currently is It around ll,it's my opinion that's the value of the property, or close to it. We had two excellent appraisers, both gentlemen are very highly respected in the field of appraising, and if both of them are within $1,000,000. of each other that is in the vicinity of the value of the property. Mr. Plummer: Well, I appreciate your comments, but I violently disagree. What happens between the $7,500,000 and the 12? Now I have not used any names, and I don't want to use any names, and all I'm saying to you is, that I think that if any explanation is due the people of this city it is from that gentleman, and maybe he has a good explanation. I don't know; I seriously question it. 1-15-74 16 • • Mayor Ferret May I ask one question? Further on your trend of thought, Mr. Plummer, I would like to get the facts, because these are not facts, these are just statements that have been made, as to what the tax assessed base was on that property when we got the appraisal at $7,500,000? Now it's my under- standing that at that time the assessed base was intexcess of $8,000,000. Mr. Lloyd: It is my understanding the assesed base was-$8,100,000. Mayor Ferre: I'm not questioning this man's ability, but I don't think that he could ever justify in a court in this country an assessment, which is, I mean appraisal which is under the tax assessment accepted by the property owner in which he was paying taxes on. Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Mayor, may I cL.mment on it since I do have some working knowledge of appraising and real estate? Mr. Plummer: I would like to get finished Mr. Mayor. Now, my greatest concern at this time Mr. Mayor, and it will divest itself from this. Mr. City Attorney, are you telling me, without question sir, that the $7,500,000. which is allocated for the Bayfront Park expansion (Ball Point) cannot be used in acquisi- tion of the FEC Property or Bicentennial Park? Mr. Lloyd: No, I'm not telling you that. Mr. Plummer: All right. You're saying that it can be. Mr. Lloyd: I believe it can be sir. Mr. Plummer: A11 right sir. Now, Mr. Lloyd: Mr. Mayor, providing that we decide not to proceed with this particular piece of the Ball Point Property. Mr. Plummer: Well, of course, if it's not available then that's the case, because you know, Mr. Mayor we have at this time, in the brochure, as outlined,Bicentennial Park the amount of $15,000,000. Based on, and let's not kid ourselves for a minute, that when the court suit comes to the final price setting for the Bicentennial Park, part of the predicate that will be used, I'm sure will be the acquisition or the appraised value of a parcel not but 8 blocks away, and I'm referring to the Bali Point Pro- perty. I'm talking about when they go to acquire tr the taking when the price is set for the Bicentennial or the FEC Property, that they are going to take into consideration the facts and figures that were used for this law suit in a parcel not 8 blocks away, which is the Ball Point Property. I'm sure that's going to be the cave. Now,we're talking about 37 acres at the FEC Property, is that correct sir? But for purposes of buying, we're talking about 37 acres. All right, 35. Now, what I'm getting at is, that at the best that we can hope for, that if they're talking $2,000,000 per acre for the Bali Point Property we're going to be talking about,at the best a $1,000,000. an acre. Well, you say no; you know I was told no,when I asked these questions 2 years ago. Now, you know this is what we've got to face; we're talking about Bayfront Property. Now, Mr. Mayor, the point that I'm going to make, and I'm going to make it very strong. When this brochure was put out by this City, and I remember very, very clearly, George 1-15-74 17 • Peters is sitting here and I'm sure he will remember, of the Meetings that took place at Mr. Dan Paul's office. When we were trying to Bell this program to the people of this City, it was stated at that time that one of the problems in the ghetto to the Bay Bond that was set forth, that we didn't in fact tell the public that we're going to spend so much here, and so much here, and that everyone was in concurrence,that when this bond issue went forth that we had to specify in no uncertain terms where this money was going to be spent. Now, Mr. Mayor, I know and you know and every member of this Commission knows we halve crying needs in every area of this City, but let me tell you,and I will be most emphatic and fight very hard that if one dime of this $7,500,000. is allocated" for anything other then we made which we made to the public without going back and asking again, I would fight very hard of any of this money being diverted except for ex- pansion of acquisition at that and that alone. Mayor Ferre: But wait a minute, J. L. let me understand. Are you saying that you would be opposed to the $7,500,000. being used in the improvements in Bayfront Park? Mr. Plummer: No sir. Improvements or acquisition. Mayor Ferre: There is no other acquisition other than the FEC. Mr. Plummer: That's right sir. Now I would have no opposition, if in fact we can legally take this $7,500,000. and put it towards the acquisition of the FEC Property. I would be all in favor of it. Mayor Ferre: Suppose for example we wanted to implement the stone plan of putting in athletic fields, green areas, filling and completing and improving that whole Bayfront Mr.. Plummer: Without the center parcel of the property, the FEC. Mayor Ferre: We cannot do it without the center parcel, because obviously that's an important part of it, and we have sufficient monies to improve until we get central parcel, but suppose, I'm asking you theoretical, would you be opposed to using these $7,500,000. for improvements in Bicentennial Park and Bayfront Park including the purchase of the FEC and the others sums for other improvements? Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I think you're kidding yourself. Let me tell you why. If you're talking about $15,000,000. which has been allocated for the FEC acquisition. Mayor Ferre: I'm talking about $7,500,000--- Mr. Plummer: No sir. I'm following it from the other standpoint. If you think for one minute, and I'm not going to kid myself, that $15,000,000. is adequate to purchase this property I think you are kidding yourself. I don't think and I've raised this question twice before, I don't think that double that amount of money is going to buy that property. I've said it before and I'm going to say it again, so if what you're saying is that we're going to rob Peter to pay Paul, no sir, I'm not going along with that; we made a definite commitment to the people of this City. Now we cannot because of certain circumstances, wherever the blame is to be placed, we cannot live up to that commitment, and I think that once we have acknowledged, and we will do so here this morning, that this commitment cannot be lived up to then I think that money should go back, not backed because it hasn't been cashed, but I don't think that we should place the burden of more debts service against the 1-15-74 advalorem tax payer, except as he explicitly stated in the bond issue, and I would be totally opposed to that money going elsewhere. All I'm saying Mr. Mayor is we were very clear in this brochure. 'this brochure is outlined, it shows exactly where the money was going to be spent. This is what the people voted on. This thing it looks like cannot be done for the monies that were al- located. Based on.that Mr. Mayor, once we have made a motion whatever the results are, and I'm assuming from what I have heard this morning that no one could vote against the dropping of this suite. I then will make a motion that no further bonds from that issue be sold until such time as further acquisition is to be required, and I want to make that motion, and I want to make it very clear. Mayor Ferre: All right. Now, wait a minute J. L. Let me and Mr. Bailey can correct me if I'm wrong. The $10,000,000 that are left in that bond issue. Mr. Plummer: It's $11,500,000. Mayor Ferre: Or $11,500,000. is mainly for the Police Station. Mr. Plummer: No sir. It has nothing to do with this bond issue. It's a different issue. Mayor Ferre: The $11,000,000 is left has been allocated for what purpose? Mr. Lloyd: The $11,500,000. is remaining -- Mayor Ferre: Oh, that's right; that has nothing to do with -- Mr. Lloyd: These are for the neighborhood parks and other ac- quisitions. Mr. Plummer: Let me ask Mr. Bailey. Mr. Bailey as you sell these bonds sir, they are not sold for a specified purpose, are they? Mr. Bailey: They're sold for the specific purposes set for.the Ordinance authorizing the $39,000,000. Mr. Plummer: So, that tells me nothing, Mr. Bailey. Mr. Bailey: It does not specify a location. Mr. Plummer: OK, so the answer t, my question is no. Mrs. Gordon: May I ask a question relative to Mr. Plummer's statements. Didn't we by Resolution agree to the sale of the specific amount of bonds specifing at that time, because I dis- tinctly remember 'Mr. Reese setting up a priority of certain lo- cations, and we did vote on it,and in fact it's very clear in my because he had eliminated from that first allocation certain lo- cations that were in my opinion extremely important, and one of them was Wyndwood Park. Can we utilize that bond money for other park acquisitions without any problem whatsoever? And in fact if we don't sell anymore bonds,what the total effect would be, would be a saving, as you outlined Mr. Plummer, to the taxpayer. Can we do that? Mr. Lloyd: Well, as I understand the question, assuming that if we do not buy the Ball Point Property, we have 7,5 million dollars of bond funds, which do not need to be sold. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Bailey, I know this is going to sound like a 1-15-74 • foolhardy question, and maybe it's being asked by a fool. but I've got to know the answer. Can you unvalidate bonds? All right, sir. The point I'm trying to make is this, that at the present time, based upon what the action, 1 think will be of this Commission today, of not using the $7,500,000. for the Ball Point, and a great time going to be incurred before the acquisition of the FEC which is 15, we're then talking about 2211 million dollars. Mr. Bailey: We're makL'ng money on that. Mr. Plummer: Are we making money on that. Mr. Bailey? Mr. Bailey: Sure. Mr. Plummer: We're making money on the bond issue? Mrs. Gordon: We're making it because it was sold at a low rate. Today's bond would be sold at a higher rate. Mayor Ferre: Let's get some order around here. The chair is going to take the prerogative of making a statement on this, and it's very simple. We sold those bonds at low rates. The interest market is high; there's no question that the City of Miami is making a substantial profit on the monies that are deposited. Now it stands to reason that if you can get C B's at 9 percent or 91 percent, which is what I'm sure you're getting, and if got those bonds sold at what 6 percent, 502, you're making 4 percent. I wish to God, we had not 20, I wish we had $120,000,000 sold like that. Mr. Plummer: I agree. We're is the money that's being accrued and interest being used? Mr. Bailey: Goes into the, what we call a Debt Service Fund, which helps to pay the principle and interest and reduces the necessary debt service. Mayor Ferre: We're making money twice, because not only are we making close to 4 percent on the difference, we're using that money to reduce Debt Service. We're using borrowed money to pay borrowed money and making money to boot. Mr. Plummer: Fine, I'm glad to hear that, Mr. Mayor, but let me tell you, Mr. Mayor I would be opposed to any type of monies from this bond issue being used for anything other then what is desig- nated in this brochure. I want to make that very clear . Mayor Ferre: Are you finished now. Mr. Plummer: Yes sir. Mayor Ferre: All right. Now let me express my opinion. First of all Mr. Plummer,you expressed an opinion about values and --- Let me tell you about personal knowledge of downtown property, not only in Miami, but in other cities, that it is all together reasonable, and it happens all the time whereyouu will have a piece of property worth a $100 square foot, where 300 feet away it's worth 50, and where 400 feet away it's worth 30, and where 1,000 feet away it's 20, and if you will go to downtown Miami, and Mr. Ted Slagg is here to verify it, you'll find that within block to block it decreases 100 percent or 50 percent or inversely, that if you go 5 blocks from Flagler and Biscayne, you'll find property 1-15-74 • values at $20 a square foot, and as you get closer to Plagler and Biscayne it gets closer to 100. The statement that I'm making Mr. Plummer.is, that because 1 piece of property happens to be worth so much money that a piece of property 10 block away does not have necessarily any relationship. I also want to point out that the fact that the Miami River separates the Elks' property and Bayfront Park is an essential element of difference, and that also changes the value of that property. So I would also like to point out that the zoning has an awful lot to do with the dis- tinction. See that piece of property,as I recall,is now zoned as a commercial piece in the downtown court area which has very few restrictions on it. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor just for the record. Let me put you on the record, Mr. Mayor. Do you for one minute conceive that, that property could be anywhere within the stretch imagination pur- chased for the monies that are allocated? Mayor Ferre: I think it's going to be higher. Mr. Plummer: How much higher Mr. Mayor? Based on today. Mayor Ferre: I'm not going to make a guess, that's all it would be. Mr. Plummer: Do you think that $1,000,000. is out of kilter? Mayor Ferre: I don't know, We're getting the perimeters of guessing, and anyway I don't want to get that, that might in- fluence a jury later on so we've got to be careful on that. Mr. Plummer: You know Mr. Mayor, we were careful 2 weeks ago when the appraiser was here, and we went under certain premises because of what he's circumventing from answering to us. Mayor Ferre: Well listen, I've already made one mistake on this piece of property, and I admit it which is talking about it, and I'm sorry that it happened that way. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor all you did was bring out the facts that eventually had to come out,so,i don't think you can be accused of bringing anything out,_ it was just something that was there and not known, and I'll tell :you personally, I'm glad that you brought it out when you did and it didn't come out during the law suit or we would have been further down the line then we are today. Mayor Ferre: All right. Now let's get back, you made a statement about this and S have•to disagree with you and I just want to give my reasons for it. I sat at a meeting with Mayor Orr and the County Commission in a formal meeting on their Bonds For Progress whatever it is called, and time and again both Ray Goode and the Mayor and members of the Commission reiterated over and over that within a special category that it was completely within their rights and 'completely within the purview of the Commission to re- allocate expenditures of monies dependent upon the criteria of need and priorities provided they had public hearings, in other words what they were saying is, that it is legally and morally within the purview of an elected body, such as the County Com- commission, to hold public hearings to establish priorities and reallocate bond monies depending on priorities which as we all know we're human, we live in a human community change from year to year, and I think that is a basic and that is an im- portant premise of government and it is an important premise that guides the county, and in my opinion it guides us. We had the City Attorney give us some guide lines. I very carefully went 1-15-74 2i • to the extent of asking him to make sure he got his legal opinions reaffirmed and backed by Bond Counsel. Bond Counsel has Categorically and specifically told this Commission that it is within our purview and within our right to allocate some of these funds from one project to another. It is my opinion,and I went to almost every single public hearing that has been held in the last six months or the last four months on the usage of these monies for parks throughout this Community, and without any exception at every_ park meeting that I went to it was clear to me that what these parks neighborhood parks were getting were just bones. They were getting minimum sums to improve a little building, to put some swings in, to buy a little more property, but in comparison to the need in these neighborhood parks that we were not anywhere near, not only satisfying,but coming near to the practical needs, and let me say publicly that those that con- tinually referred to our parks as nothing parks, and those that continually referred to the fact.that our parks are not used or they're not important in neighborhoods are not speaking to the reality of the situation. The average use of the City of Miami Parks is over 3 to 4,000 people per day. We have 27 functioning parka; we have over 100 people that's specifically work in these parks. Our needs are great and the amounts of monies that we have allocated is slim indeed. Now, I recognize your philosophical governmental premise that we should not ---- Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, could you hold for Lne minute because you're traveling under a different prmise, or I believe of mis- conception. Let me tell you what that is. 1. When the County put forth their bond issue, in no way Mr. Mayor did they designate where those monies were going, as opposed to the City clearly delineating what the monies were to be used for. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Plummer, I understand that and we have a clear definition by both our Attorney and Bond Counsel that we are al- lowed to do this. Now I would recommend that we have properly ad- vertise public hearings and that we go through this in a proper manner, and let the public help us and guide us to deciding what to do with those $7,500,000. I am for using that money to im- proving our neighborhood parks. Now, if the public has different ideas and as we have public hearings maybe some other things might come out of it, but I for one have no hesitation in stating that we should use those monies for the best benefit of the people and we can legally do that, and in my opinion we can morally do that, and that's all I'm saying. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, the only point that I'm trying to make is this, we had a mandate,1.feel from the people of this city, and before I can use those monies,whether in fact what you say may- be is true that what we're giving to the neighborhood parks is bones, I don't agree, but if we go along at an assumption Mr. Mayor this what the people voted on. I don't see how you can disrupt or dispute that fact. Let me tell you the people of this city whether some people want to realize it or not are pretty smart. When we took and put forth $120,000,000. bond isuue they cut the fat out of it and put done to $87,000,000. Mr. Mayor, all I'm saying to you is sir, we made a commitment to the people, if we can't live up to that commitment then I think our thinking has to be back to the people of which gave the commitment. Mr. Mayor: Mr.Piummer,that is why we are elected officials. The reason why we are elected is to make decisions like this. I would like to say, and I'm not saying that we're going to do this in secret, I'want to get Grace Rockfeller, and every member of every Civic Club before us, and we're going to discuss this openly, and in my opinion I think that you will find that they overwhelming 1-15-74 will be happy to see that, that $7,500,000. will be used in neighborhood parks. Rev. Gibson: Mr, Mayor, I wonder if we can settle this issue for which we called this meeting, then I could deal with the academic issue later on. Mayor Ferre: All right, I think you're absolutely right, sir. If you will withhold your motion until we get this other one. Mr. Plummer: My second motion can't be made until the first one is passed, sir. Mrs. Gordon: What was your first one? Mr.Plummer: Well, I haven't made a motion, but my motion, the 2nd motion will be, that no more of the bond issue of the $11,500,000. be sold until such time as a determination is made as it relates to acquisition, and only acquisition. Mayor Ferre: That's a 2nd motion; what's your 1st motion? I think Father Gibson, if you want to make it. Does anybody want to make a motion now;with specifically regarding the purpose of this meeting that was called at 8:30? Mr.Plummer: Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die. Mr. Mayor, it's a simple motion to make, presented with the facts as we have here this morning, based on the criteria of the advice of our Bond Counsel, our City Attorney, our City Manager I feel that we have no question before us other then the fact that the City of Miami cannot purchase the Ball Point Property, and based upon those facts that the City of Miami as of right now will drop this law suit as it pertains to the Bali Point Property. I don't see anything else. Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor, I wouldn't mind seconding it, if you'd change one word, and that is choice rather than question. Mrs. Gordon: What was that? Rev. Gibson: We have no choice,other than question. Mayor Ferre: There's a motion, and Father Gibson seconds the motion. Is there a further discussion on this particular item? Rev. Gibosn: Mr. Mayor, before I vote I want to make a observation. I resent that the Bond Counsel and the appraisers are not here. I hope when we deal with issues like these again those men will be right there getting the heat, and this will make them be much more care- ful to their advice to us. I don't mind taking heat; I live with heat, but I want those of us who get us to the point where we have to take the heat to be here to help take it. I want to make that clear. But there are some questions we ask and that Mr. Lloyd answering that I would like to come back to haunt those individuals. Mr. Plumme: Father, in all fairness if I may say, I don't think that really the Bond Counsel comes to play. I don't think that has any bearing on the discussion of today. Rev. Gibson: J. L. it may not have, but I'll feel more comfortable if he's there. You know, let me tell you something that I've discovered. When you make some decisions and people understand the temper of these people up here, the next time decisions are to be made they may be mighty careful. I don't believe in letting 1-15-74 213 M off the hook who want to be on the hook, and let me add a further thing. Since t'm not a professional in bonds, and since I'm not a professional in appraiealing 1 have to depend upon the people that I pay to advise me. That's what I'm saying and I'm not to about to let them off the hook. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, may I ask this question, and maybe it will sound vindicative, but maybe it's the way I feel. Mr. Lloyd, we-'ve got to pay the appraiser a fee. Is that fee been determined sir? Mr. Lloyd: Not to my knowledge; 1 can give you a general estimate as to what it will be. Mr. Plummer: Is that fee based on a percentage? Mr. Lloyd: Not really. It's based on certain factors. I think possibly Mr. Slagg can tell us exactly what the appraisal fees are based on. I really don't exactly know. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Slagg, is it based on percentage usually sir? Well'did we have any kind of a contract with Mr. Bennett? Mr. Lloyd: Yes, those are all under contract. Mr. Plummer: Well,/ haven't heard anything definitive as to what his fee is going to be. Mr. Lloyd: Well, I can tell you approximately what his fee is going to be. His fee will be in the neighborhood of 11 or $12,000. Mr. Plummer: him? When do we pay him? Or when are we suppose t6 pay Mr. Lloyd: He will probably bill us very shortly. Mrs. Gordon: We have another appraiser too; don't we? Mr. Lloyd: Yes we do. Mrs. Gordon: What are you paying him? Mr. Lloyd: Approximate of the same, I would assume. $7,500 I assume. Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor, let me say this also. I want to raise some question in my mind as a layman, and I admit I'm like you Mr. Plummer, I'm a fool,but I'm a fool where angels fear to tread. You know, I sit up here with some anger in me, and I want to tell everybody on that other side, I think that they will have to come on up from now on that I want that fee to be stipulated and stated in advance. We talked about one figure as so and so and what no- body is telling us, and let me say what I think I hear, if we were going to sell that property for $7,000,000. plus dollars, we would be talking about 7 something, now we're talking about 12 something so we're going to pay 12 something. Do you understand what I'm saying Mr. Lloyd? Now as a layman I don't understand some of these things, and I'm real uptight. I just preached a sermon at Palm Beach, and do you know what I..made this reference about the 3 wise men that came and brought gifts, that's what I was talking about. What was very sigzifiaant was that they did not 1-15-74 24 • atio bring other people's belonging, they brought their own, and then I pointed out that as long as people serve on Committees for public institutions they're very anxious to vote out other people's money because it aint their money, but as soon as it gets to theirs everybody gets mad as hell and they want flesh and blood, and this is what I'm trying to say to this staff, and I want this staff to be careful in the future about what you tell us to do as being the suggested thing, because I'm real uptight now, really $12,000. A11 right I'm ready to vote. Mayor Ferre: All right, ladies and gentlemen there's no further discussion would you please call the roll. Mrs. Gordon: I have a question to ask Mr. Lloyd,before we call the roll, if you don't mind. What is the cost for the settlement of all the attorney fees. Mr. Lloyd: Yes, it will be approximately within a either way $125,000. Mayor Ferre: That's is not what she asked. Mr. Lloyd: I'm sorry. few dollars Mayor Ferre: She asked, all legal fees. Now you're including in that appraising fees of the otherside and you're not including our legal fees. Mr. Lloyd: Mr. Hadley has stated that his fee will be something less than called for under the contract. Under the contract he feels that he would be entitled to 2 percent of the 7,5 million dollars. He's is ready to take less than that; he's willing to accept what the Commission decides, so he feels that the Com- mission will be reasonable on that and he is willing to, do that and that can be discussed. Mayor Ferre: 2 percent of $7,500,000. is $150,000. My opinion is that if the attorneys of the property owners who could have asked in excess of $1,000,000. have asked one hundred thousand. I mean they could have been, the property owners could have been very mean about this and really stuck us with it. Mrs. Gordon: They don't want us to take the property, so they're not going to be mean. Mayor Ferre: The point is that they could have just sat back and let nature take its course, and if we backed out of this thing it could have cost us more,than $100,000. The point is that if they're charging less than 100 I certainly don't think that our attorneys should charge anywhere near that. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, so that I can have a clarification, do I understand that by virtue of dropping this suit that we are in a cost factor of roughly h of a million dollars? Mr. Lloyd: Yes, that's outside. I feel it's Mayor Ferre: All right. Any other questions Mrs. Gordon: And then you're saying that the run in the neighborhood of a million and 2 if other words the differential of approximately proceed with the suit? Mr. Lloyd: At least, yes. outside. before we vote? cost factor will we proceed it. In $1,000,000. if we 2i 1-15-74 Mrs Gordon: At least, you're saying Mr. Lloyd; At least. That is conservative 1 feel. Mayor Ferre: Well you told me $1,500,000. at one time. Mr. Lloyd: Yes, I think the differential. I said conservatively. Mayor ?erre: All right, any further questions. Call the roll. Mr. Ongie, City Clerk: Mr. Plummer? Mr. Plummer: I vote yes. Mr. Reboso: Yes. Rev. Gibson: Yes. Mrs. ordon: One of the hardest descisions I think I've been called upon,to make, because with all my heart and soul I want to say no, but I have to be very practical. I want the City of Miami to own that property because of its future value to the city and I feel we have not explored all of the avenues nor have we been thorough in our pursuit for additional funds. We've been quite lax in our pursuit of the funds, but here we are on the thres- hold of a suit, we're in the suit, it's in the middle of the de- livery, the _baby is being born; the suit is there, and now we're here deciding a crucial thing like this without any concrete facts on funding,and I mean concrete facts because the County Commission never took this up as an official item as far as I know. Am I right Mr. Andrews? Mr. Andrews: I don't think they took it up as an official act. Mrs. Gordon: All this has been supposing this and supposing that, and maybe this and maybe that. I would even be in favor of the County having all of our regional park facilities and let them take it and buy it, but here we are again in the middle of a suit, and no time to investigate or do anything. Is their any possiblity of postponingthe suit at this point of time, Mr. Lloyd? Mr. Lloyd: No, as a matter of fact, I got a call 35 minutes ago from the court, from Mr. Hadley at court,wanted to know how things were going,and I told him that you were still deliberating, they're waiting for us right now. Mayor Ferre: I might say, Mrs. Gordon,' recognize and completely agree with everything that you have just stated, and I asked before I went on my Christmas trip to Colorado for our City Attorney and Mr. Hadley to pursue this matter with a caution as for posponement just for that purpose and they've denied it. Mr. Plummr: Mr. Mayor, let me tell you what bothers me now. We're in the middle of a roll call vote and certain things are being said here that I don't like, because Mrs. Gordon, let me tell you what I want you to define; you've made a statement that someone has been lax now I want you to pinpoint who that someone is. Now, if some- one has been lax then I want to know about it. .Ty.v, I think it's only fair, you've made what I would consider an accusation, and if someone has been lax let's pinpoint it; who? Mrs. Gordon: Whose jurisdiction is it to do this sort of thing? Mr. Plummer: I don't know, you tell me. 1-15-74 27 Mre. Gordon:You don't know. You ought to know; you're an elebtea official, you ought to know. Mro Muffler: Who? Mrs. Gordon: I vote no, with a motion. Mayor Ferre: Let me say that I realize complexities of this matter and I sure with this community the strong desire to have that as public property, however, I think that we've got to be realistic. The property is valued beyond the ability of being able to fund it. Secondly if we had the monies available, the extra 7 or $8,000,000., if we had 15 or $16,000,000. I think we could put it to better use. Thirdly, this is not a matter that has all of a sudden rush upon us at the last moment, we've been in the middle of this for 2 years. Now the reason why it hasn't come up before this time is because it ha: only been in the last month that we have found out the values of these properties. It is only in the last month that we've been made aware that we're not talking aioout $7,500,000., that we're talking about 13,14, 15 million dollars and maybe even more, and therefore,I think that we've got to be realistic and we've got to approach this thing head on and we've got to recognize the priorities in our com- munity. I recognize that political expediency, for me, would have been just to keep quiet. I brought this whole matter up; I could have just kept very quiet and let this whole thing go through its procedure, and let this whole thing go down the drain, and let this Commission be faced with the decision of coming up with $15,000,000 or losing $1,500,000. that would have been the simple thing for Maurice Ferre, as Mayor to do, but I don't think that I can approach things like that, I think I've got to act responsibly. I think even if I'm going to be critized, and I'm sure I'm going to be the subject of all kinds of attacks, that I have got to be responsible; that I cannot be demagogic in my approach, that I can't get in here and make a whole bunch of demagogic speeches and let this thing go and then act like I'm the wounded person, and that I'm the hero fcr this park, and that we've just been shafted and we haven't been able to get the monies and let somebody else take the blame, that's not re- sponsible; I've got to act responsibley, therefore, I've brought it to this Commission's attention; I've brought all the facts out, I don't think that you can responsibly vote any other way and I have to vote with the motion, yes. Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor, before Mr. Plummer makes his statement, this may not be politically wise either. I regret, and this is unfortunate because I don't have it in writing, I wish it were, I regret the attitude that seems to be that has been expressed by other governmental bodies, I'll put it that way, that will cover a multitude of sins, in their attitude to the acquisition of this piece of land. Those same people come to us,that did come to us and ask us to give some of them valuable land and possessions, I want to use the word land and possessions, that will cover all the other things to keep you from knowing who I'm talking about. It's all right to get hardnosed when I am involved,then everybody comes in and pressures and says, you know man don't you get hardnosed because the shoe is on my foot. Now, I've got some serious memory, I'm going to remember when some of these other folkscome because we dealing with all of these people, whether you live in the City, or whether you live in the County, or whether you live in the State or whether it's the Federal Government, I want all the fellows to remember that I am a City Commission and I shall not forget for the next 1-15-74 2 / • 4 years. i want you to know how I put that-=-- Mayor Ferret Father, t agree with the statement and implication of what you're saying. In defense of the situation rather than of the individuals of the governmental bodies, let me say that it's my personal, and I hope practical observation that had the County Commission gone on record or the State or the Federal Government that they would not have come up with the 7 or $8,000,000. that we need; there's no way that with our needs in this community that we would have gotten any funds and that's just a practical assessment of a situation after having discussed this with many members of government both of the County at a State at a Federal level even to the White House. Rev. Gibson: Let me add this Mr. Mayor, this is not a debate between you and me, but let me say what I want to emphasize. I would feel much better and I could sleep tonight with more confort and ease if we had formally asked them and they had politely said no. You see you could tell me to go to hell, and then you could tell me to go to hell. I want to say that again, you could tell me to go to hell, then you could tell me.man go to hell. Mayor Ferre: Well, time precluded that unfortunately and we should have done this before November, it should have been done September and October when, but in defense of the administration and of the Commission it was not known in September that we were talking about twice the figures. This whole things starts only when we find out that we're talking a figure was potentially double to $7,500,000. we had allocated. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I would like to make a motion at this in keeping with good faith of the people who voted for this bond issue that no further bonds be sold from the allocation .of the parks for bonds people, but till such time as a further determin- ation has been made as it relates to the FEC acquisition I make that in a form of a motion. Mayor Ferre: Is there a 2nd to the motion? Mrs. Gordon: Yes, J. L. I want to clarify that motion with regard to the amount,because the amount left to be sold exceeds 11 million and the amount that you have reallocated in effect today is 71/2, so therefore, if you'd make the entire bond balance con- fiscated or held in abeyance you will prevent some programs that the people voted for. Mr. Plummer: Well Rose, I don't see it that way because,let me tell you, the 2 parcels under question come to a total of $22,5000,000. We've already sold 28,so you've got more than enough which was $17,000,000. to implement the programs other than the 2 parcels. You sold 28,you only need 17 to implement the remainder of the bond issue, so I think,inore than enough has been sold t& implement those programs. Rose, I'm just getting back to the point,that we keep the faith with the people who we sold, if you want to say a bill of goods, that we keep that faith. Mrs. Gordon: Your idea is correct, except the amount that you're asking to be held up. Mr. Bailey would you speak to this, because I believe that the $11,500,000. represents approximately 4 million dollars which are designated for neighborhood parks. If we hold it up by virtue of this resolution you will be prevented from selling it if you need to sell it. 1-15-74 28 Mayor Ferre: IF11 tell you Mr. Plummer, we have to resolve this in the next 10 or 15 minutes, because we have to leave and it's almost 11:00 o'clock, so as an important item and I don't want cut off discussio.► on it but please make it quickly so we can come to a conclusion on it. Mr. Plummer: Let me ask a simple question Wendell, and I think a yes or no answer, of the 22 and a half million or $28,000,000. which has been sold can't those monies be used for any purpose that is so stipulated in this brochure? Mr. Bailey: They can. Mr. Plummer: Ok Mr. Andrews: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, yes they can and Mr. Bailey has answered it properly, but there is a practical matter here, we're going to continue to hole the $15,000,000. in reservation until a determination is made of the FEC Property unless the Commission arrives at some other direction. Mr. Plummer: That's what I'm trying to prevent. Mayor Ferre: Is there a 2nd to this motion, because then I want to speak against it and explain my reason. Mrs. Gordon: Not the way Mr. Plummer is making it that if you'll change it to the $7,500,000. that you're just taking from the acquisition of Ball Point and say that amount be deduction from the ll1/2 yet unsold and tie that up, OK, I'll second that kind of a motion. Mr.Plummer: Well, I'll get one through first then. I will then a motion that the $7,500,000. as it relates to the acquisition of the Ball Point Property not be sold. Mayor Ferre: Is there a second to that motion? Mrs. Gordon: That isn't correct either, the reason being that the 711 portion has already been sold. There's $11,500,000. unsold. Mayor Ferre: This is all splitting hairs. Make a motion in your words. Mr. Plummer: I'll reiterate my motion, if it does, it does. My motion is very simple, that no further funds of the bond issue be sold. Mayor Ferre: Is there a second to the motion? No further bonds be sold is what he's saying. Is there a second to this motion? I'll repeat it one more time. Is there a second to Commission Plummer's motion? There be no second, it dies of lack of second. I might add this; Mr. Bailey before you out to sell bonds do you come to this Commission and tell us of it? Mr. Bailey: Yes sir, the sale of any of the bonds has to be authorized -- Mayor Ferre: Now,does this Commission have to vote on it? Mr. Bailey: Yes sir. Mayor Ferre; It seems to me that's the appropriate time for us to decide whether or not we want to sell any more bonds. N.>w let me point out once again from a practical point of view, that 1-15-74 25 we have now bold bonds at 5n2 and that we're now getting C B's On that in excess of 9 percent, so even though we have not used the monies 1 think that this Commission is being fairly well served, in the City of Miami, especially, and I want to speak for the edification of our critics, which are continually saying that we're paying salaries, that the interest from these monies and the profits• that we're making are being used to reduce debt, and I think this City is way ahead of the game by doing that, and I'm verily happy that even though the outcome of all of this is that we're not going to have the Saint Joe Paper Property that we're certainly using these funds to reduce debt for the time being. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, you don't have to reduce a debt that you don't incur, that's my point. Mayor Ferre: But Mr. Plummer, if you have a debt of 5 percent and you're making 9 percent on it, you are making a profit of 4 percent and with that 4 percent profit you are helping to reduce other debt was incurred previous to this. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, are you telling the people of this City that we're in the business of making money or we sold it on a bond issue specified very clearly what the money was for. Mayor Ferre: Of course we sold it on a bond issue specifing that it was going to be used for park improvements. Mr. Plummer I don't agree with that premise, the point is that we are making over 4 percent on the money and I'm sure the citizens of Miami are not upset about that because it helps to reduce taxes, and it helps to reduce taxes specifically because there is a difference between 9 percent and 5 percent, that's 4 percent and that money is being used to reduce debt, indebtedness, and that indebtedness is paid for by the people of Miami every year as a tax, and what I'm saying is that we are reducing the people's taxes because of this. It happened to have worked out that way, it wasn't anybody's forethought, but I'm happy that it did work out that way. Now, I want to reiterate; that it is my personal opinion that we should call for public hearings on the use of that $1,500,000. and that we should use it on other park projects. All right. Is there anything else to come up before this Commission. Mr. Plummer: Let me just: ask the City Attorney one other question. Mr. City Attorney in delineating the expression of Justice Roberts, that if in fact on the Grapeland Heights suit, all right sir, that if we didn't stick to this that,that would reopen the issue, did I hear you say that sir? Mr. Lloyd: With one minor correction, that it could reopen the issue. Mr. Plummer: All right, sir. That's the point that I'm trying to make, Mr. Mayor that the suit that was filed --- Mayor Ferre: We'll cross that bridge at the time it comes to crossing it, and I hope that the people in Grapeland Heights, and I hope that the people in the different organizations, and the citizens of Miami will recognize the value of using this money at 5.02 interest to improve and benefit all of the neighborhood parks of Miami which is long overdue. Thank you very much ladies and gentlemen. Mr. Lloyd: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, we do have to pass an official Resolution authorizing the dismissal of the i3 U 1-15-74 a auit on the terms. I have it here sir, and I lnly have 1 copy. I haven't had time to Xerox it. Mayor Ferrel Type it out, so that we can all read it. Mr. Lloyd: A11 right. Mayor Ferre: I'll read by title, a Resolution authorizing the City Attorney to dismiss the law suit against the Saint Joe Paper Company for the acquisition of the Ball Point Property on the basis that the attorney for the Saint Joe Paper Company in the law suit acceptedt the sum of one hundred thousand as attorney's fees, and a sum in addition not to exceed twenty five thousand for expenses in return for a complete release, re- leasing the City of Miami from all claims for any damages that the Saint Joe Company might possibly have against the City of Miami. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, as that is worded I will vote no. Mayor Ferre: Well, make the changes. Mr. Plummer:, It is not on the basin of because we can get a cheap attorney --- Mayor Ferre: That's true. Mr. Plummer: It's on the basis that we can't afford to. Mr. Lloyd: I'm sorry, that's my fault, I didn't mean to,,I meant the basis was that, can we make it on the condition that, and then I think that will correct it. I understand Mr. Plummer's correction, and can I just change it on condition that. Mayor Ferre: Rather than on the basis., strike those words. This is 1, 2, 3.on the 4th line of the title and substitute thereon on the condition, rather than on the basis. 1-15-74 Thereupon the following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved its adoption : RESOLIJ TION NO. 74-45 A RESOWTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DISMISS THE LAM IT AGAINST THE ST. JOE PAPER CO. , FOR THE ACUISITION CF THE BALL POINT PROPERTY, ON THE CONDITION THAT THE ATTORNEYS P 0 R THE ST. JOE PAPE R COMPANY IN THIS LAWSUIT ACCEPT THE SUM CF $100,000 AS ATTO R EYS FEES, AND A SJM IN ADDITION NOT TO EXCEED $25,000 FOR EXPENSES, IN RETURN F 0 R A COMPLETE RELEASE RELEASING THE CITY CF MIAMI F ADM ALL CLAIMS F 0 R ANY DAMAGES THAT THE ST. JOE PAPER COMPANY MIGHT POSSIBLY HATE AGAINST THE CITY CF MIAMI (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the City Clerks Office) Upon being seconded by Reverend Gibson, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. lbboso, Plummer, Reverend Gibson, Mayor F erre. NOES: Mrs. Gordon ADJOURNMENT: There being no Sunthen bus,i.neaa to come belione the City Commizsion the apeciat meeting waa ad jounned at 11:00 O'Ctoc, A.M. MAURICE A. FERRE Mayon ATTEST: Ralph G. Ongie ACTING CITY CLERK 3G