HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1973-05-10 MinutesMIAMI
CITY
COMMISSION
MINUTES
OF MEETING HELD ON
MAY 101973
PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY HALL
H. D. SOUTHERN
CITY CLERK
RALPH G. QNGIE
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK
1
INDEX
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
OF CITY COMMISSION OF MI L FLORIDA
MAY 10. 1973
ITEM SUBJECT
N0.
1, WAIVE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
2, PROCLAMATIONS, PLAQUES, CERT, OF APPRECIATION
3, ORANGE BOWL PROGRAM PRESENTATION BY CITY
MANAGER
4, PERSONAL APPEARANCE-MR,LAuRIA RE:MIAMI TOROS
5, PERSONAL APPEARANCE-MR,ARTHUR ETTINGER
6, GARBAGE COLLECTION PROCEDURES
7, ' LEGALITY OF SALARY ADJUSTMENTS IN PAY PLAN
LEGALITY OF PROPOSED PENSION INCREASES
REPORTS BY THE CITY ATTORNEY
8, CONFIRMING ORDERING RESOLUTION
TRACY SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
CENTERLINE AND SIDELINE SEWERS
9, CONDITIONAL USE AND VARIANCE N.M,C, CENTER
10, VARIANCE - LOT 30, BLOCK 4, GLENHAVEN
11, CONDITIONAL USE - LOTS 20,21,BLOCK 7 BOWLING
GREEN
ORDINANCE AND -OR
R SOLUTION Ng. 4
12, CONDITIONAL USE - LOTS 5 & 6, BLOCK 2
GOLF COURSE PARK
13, NORTHEAST AREA STUDY
RANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS AS FOLLOWS:
(al SPOIL ISLAND LYING OFF N.E.64 ST.
(b) TENTATIVE PLAT 0793-A MIAMI CLUB
APARTMENTS-FALLESON PARK AMV
(c) LOTS 1, 2 6 PORTION OF LOT 3,
MC KAY TOWERS
(d) LOT 3, ee44 nett' 420' BLOCK 1,
MC KAY TOWERS
14, ZONED STREET WIDTH- 35TH STREET
IAMI AVENUE TO N,W. 23 AVENUE
15, PERSONAL APPEARANCE - CAPTAIN YOUNG REGARDING
PROPOSED PENSION INCREASES
16, PERSONAL APPEARANCE - MR, ROBERT RENICK'RE:
YOUTH IN GOVERNMENT
17, ACCEPT PLAT - MIRNA SUBDIVISION
18, ACCEPT PLAT - MAINES SUBDIVISION
19, ACCEPT PLAT - TRESPALACIOS SUBDIVISION
20, NEGOTIATE..WITH METRO FOR TRANSFER OF
SMALL PARCEL OF LANDI TH & URTHBETREEN
DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION
73-351
DISCUSSION
73-356
DEFERRED
73-357
FIRST READING
FIRST READING
FIRST READING
FIRST READING
gg6NANCE NO,
73-358
DISCUSSION
73-359
73-360
73-361
73-362
PAGE NO,
1
1
1=14
15
16
16=19
20=24
24=28
28-29
29-30
30
30-31
31=43
44
44= 46
46
47
47
48
48
INDEX
PAGE 2
MAY 10, 1973
ITEM SUBJECT
NO.
21, APPROPRIATE $1,250 IMPROVEMENTS AT
LEJEUNE GOLF COURSE
•
22. AWARD BID - N,W. 17TH AVENUE T.V. INSPECTION
AND REPAIR PROJECT
23, AWARD BID - GASOLINE
24, AWARD BID - INITIAL PURCHASE OF POLICE AND
GENERAL POOL VEHICLE REPLACEMENTS
25, ADDING SECTION -ORDINANCE NO, 8133
VESSELS IN DINNER KEY MARINA ETC,
26, APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL GRANTS COVERING:
GARDEN SANITARYSEWERIMPROVEMENT
PINEMOUNT SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT
GRAPELAND SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT
GLENROYAL SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT
27, DISCUSSION OF TRAFFIC PROBLEMS IN LITTLE HAVA
AREA OF THE CITY AND BUS FARE FOR SENIOR
CITIZENS
28. WAIVE RENTAL FEE-BAYFRONT PARK AUDITORIUM
ELKS LODGE CHARITY BALL
29, REQUEST FOR ..RULING .BY MAYOR FEBB� REGARDING
VOTING ON E.H.G. MATTER (ITEM
30. ORANGE BOWL PARKING DECALS -SOCCER GAMES
31. FIX DATE FOR SPECIAL COMMISSION MEETING TO
HEAR DR, ERNEST BARTLEY'S PRESENTATION ON
PROPOSED RESTRUCTURING OF PLANNING AND
ZONING BOARD
32. DISCUSSION -SEPARATION OF POLICE AND FIRE
PENSION FROM GENERAL EMPLOYEES
33, CITY ATTORNEY'S STATEMENT RE A.ETTINGER
34, 70' DEDICATED STRIP-BRICKELL AVENUE
CHALLENGE BY E.H. , FINANCIAL CORPORATION
35, SODIUM VAPOR LIGHTS-36TH STREET AREA
36, DADE LEAGUE OF MUNICIPALITIES
APPOINTING REPRESENTATIVE TO MASTER PLANNING
COMMITTEE OF THE DADE LEAGUE
REAPPOINTING J. L. PLUMMER JR, AS COMMISSION
REPRESENTATIVE TO THE DADE LEAGUE
ORDINANCE AND -OR PAGE NO.
73-363
73-364
73-365
73-366
ggfNANCE NO.
Ag14
73-374
DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION
73-375
DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION
73-376
73-377
49
49
50
51
51
53==59
60
60
60==63
63==65
65
66
66=74
74
74-75
75
ADJOURNMENT
411 410
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
CITY COMMISSION OF IIIAML. FLORIDA
On the 10th der of Mar, 19731 the City Commission of the City
of Miami, Florida, met at its regular meeting olace at City Hall in
said city in regular session. The meeting was called to order at
9,10 Oclock A.M. br Mayor Maurice Ferre with the following members of
the Citr Commission Presents Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs,. Gordon,
Reverend Gibson and Mayor Ferre. ABSENT, None
An invocation was de. Lvened by Reverend Gibson who .then .fed .those
pnes ent .in a ptedg e o i atteg.ianee to the stag.
1, WAIVING OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
The following motion was introduced by Reverend Gibson who
moved its adoption:
A MOTION TO WAIVE THE READING OF THE MINUTES
OF THE PREVIOUS CITY COMMISSION MEETING
Upon being seconded by Mr. Plummer, the motion was passed and
adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs.
Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Ferre. NOES: None
2, PROCLAMATIONS, PLAQUES, CERTIFICATES OF APPRECIATION
The following proclamations, certificates of appreciations
were presented by Mayor Ferre and the Members of the Commission which
included the taking of photographs:
(a) Students who pantLc.,pate .in "YOUTH IN GOVERNMENT DAY"
(b) PnocILt.med the month o6 June as "WEIGHT WATCHERS MONTH"
(c) P/octaLmed "FIRE SERVICE RECOGNITION DAY"
(d) Pnes entation o ti ee4t.i6.icate to Pamela Cot/Lie, w.innen
oti KENDALL OPTIMIST CLUB ORATORICAL CONTEST
(e) Pnoc a.,.imed May 10, 1973, "WOMEN IN SCOUTING DAY"
3, ORANGE BOWL PROGRAM - PRESENTATION BY CITY MANAGER
Mr. Reese: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission. From time to time
there have been articles in the paper and different public discussions
and private discussions pertaining to the Orange Bowl and the Orange Bowl
Improvement. After reviewing most of the new stadiums accross the country,
and evaluating the improvements they made after considerable study and
thought, it is the feeling that it would be possible to modernize the
Orange Bowl to bring it within the concept of what is recognized as a new
stadium excluding the dome concept without using any tax dollars.
In no way would it be a burden on the ad-valorum tax or in the position
that we would ask the people to assume a general bond obligation.
This appears to be the burden that most of the modern stadiums have applied
to the taxpayer. We are endeavoring to approach any improvements from an
angle or a position that would fortify the city's previous policy and
pattern of not using advaolrum tax for this purpose.
In order for me to make this presentation, it is necessary for me to
sit here and give you a preamble and then go down and get to the podium
so I would like to proveed to ask for the lights to be turned out so we
can proceed with the slides.
001
MAY 101973
(VLbuaL aide pn.esentiLon by the City Manager lyin4)
In order to give you an introduction, and most of you are well aware of
this. This is the 1973 Orange Bowi Stadium. This is what now exists.
We would like very much for you to retain this mental photograph to the
best of your ability because from this point, we are endeavoring to set
out entire theme.
This is showing the Orange Bowl at night. Now one of the improvements
that has to be included in the overall plan is an improvement in our night
lighting. We were the first stadium in the United States to have 100 ft.
candlepower in that field. No other stadium had this.
We are anticipating with the proper lighting, we can step that up to 200
ft. candlepower which again, will surpass any other stadium and give a
much better color television view at night.
At the present time the City of Miami has approximately 7 million
dollars invested in the construction of the Orange Bowl or representing
approximately S90 pr.seat. This does, not include the cost of the temporary
bleachers in the end zone. This is a very key figure as far as the overall
construction costs of that Orange Bowl. The new improvements in the Orange
Bowi are going to represent the type of improvement that will bring us in
line with the other stadiums in the country as I previously mentioned.
pirst of all here I am trying to show a cross section of what exists
at the present time on the North -South Stands. You can see the sparse
number of chairback seats we have in that particular area. Notice also,
the poor view that you get at the box level which should be one of the best
viewing seats in the stadium but it is always been one of the poorest.
At the present the site level of the average individual sitting in the
box seats is about 5.9" and most football players are well over 6'.
It kills the view of the utilization of the boxes.
We are showing here in an overlay film, what is proposed as a new elev-
ation on the lower deck starting at the field and going to the back of the
area that is proposed to be improved. This will show where we are endeav-
oring to elevate. I am sorry on this overlay, it isn't a brighter shot
but this is an overlay here showing the new proposed seatbacks. This is
the present level or grade our stadium is now in. This is the finished item
as far as the seats showing the new elevation for the box seats, showing
your seatbacks going all the way up to this new level. All these would
be seatbacks. This area up here would be a aluminum bench seats at that
level. Tbis is a type of seating with legroom that would be proposed to
go into that stadium. This shows your legroom as well as the seating.
This has also a convenient method of cleaning the stadium. At the present
time, its very inconvenient. This is showing the west end zone that now
exists including the bleacher seats that are down at the field level.
It is proposed in that improvement that we change those over allowing the
bleacher seats to be maintained at the bottom, and the bleacher seats up
above but setting up these seats in seatback manner and again, having the
necessary leg room.
This shows the existing east end that are temporary bleachers showing
the speaker location and the scoreboard. Its proposed later on as you
will see in the slide of relocating and redoing the scoreboard.
This is what the new end zone would represent for the east end. We have
started up on a level that this level here is more than 30', closer to
36' right at that point. These would be seatbacks and this area up here
at this level which is a continuation iof the Bowl, would be again the
aluminum benches. Its necessary to raise the speaker and do the other
necessary work. In accomplishing this, at no time do we restrict any of
the travel or the operation of the movement of people or vehicles or
floats or anything coming in and out of the stadium. This is done in such
a manner that the same area and the same heights that are normal float
would travel down the street would not exceed anywhere near the 30'.
This is a proposed sketch. We have taken a photograph of the
existing stadium and endeavored to sketch in, a continuation of this Bowi
and showing the opening which would be at both ends of that end zone to
accomodate the movement having the nexessary exits etc. for people.
Our present seating capacity including the temporary bleachers is
80,010. The proposed new seating could go up to 81,875. This includes
the approach of treating skyrooms. Chairbacks permanent would be 48,286.
The bleacher seats are shown as temporary seats.
The scoreboard would be moved to the west end zone using a larger
scoreboard and also anticipating that it would be prominently located and
would have the benefit of the east -west highway as well as other parts of
the moving traffic where its advertising value would be increased
considerable. Not only would it be a scoreboard that would have a captive
audience or an advertising board but as well, have a board that would be
visible at all times.
002
MAY 101973
� . •..v ..r ...-a. v•..•ar-- —+.r .. l..Y K•Y.YY .. r 9 N.. r. — v-.' fl {A. t. .Y, r. r
3
Therefore, a sponsor, I am quite sure would recognize the value of the
scoreboard. Most scoreboards are housed within the stadium and have no
external value whatsoever. This is the existing external and a closeup
of what we have today. We are proposing at this time that we create
90 SkyRooms around the stadium. Now each and every one of those rooms
will have a visibility comparable or equal to the rooms or the view tha
the reporters and the television cameras have now over in the Press Box.
Its the same level and same vantage points throughout the stadium.
At the same time, to carry out this construction, it is anticipated that
in this given area here, that your construction would be done in such a
manner that it would give a screening effect to the stadium.
This again is the Iodation of your new lights. It would eliminate
all •of the other superstructure we have at the stadium which is the
towers and the individual poles and give you a much more intensified
lighting ability. This is showing a continuation of screening, this
particular segment of the stadium, in order to carry the Bowl concept
on around. These would not have SKYROOMS on them. This SKYROOM here
terminates at just about the 20 yard line, so that if you put SKYROOMS
and continue them on around here, these SKYROOMS WOULD be viewing the
end zones and not the field but these would definitely have a very good
viewpoint.
This shows your "Bowl" concept completed enclosing this type of
construction around that bowl so that you get all the necessary need
for space in back of this enclosure that will be needed for the overall
operation of the Stadium. This wrap enclosure here is showing a mesh
that would be used that is a colored mesh, that would be colored an
orange or green or whatever is decided by somebody that that is the type
or the color pattern they want to establish. We were endeavoring to
show it in orange because some people have expressed a great interest
in an orange ORANGE BOWL.
This shows, the ability of this concept to put a "people mover" in
there into the stadium. This would a walking sidewalk that would raise
the people up to the upper level, not to the bleacher level but up to
the 68' level and from there on up, it would be necessary for them to
walk but with a number of these around the stadium, you could move the
people up, at half time, reverse them, and when the game they can also
be used to bring the people back down, but at the same time maintain
your ragtps so that you have the necessary exits and the ability to move
the people should something electrical fail.
This is showing the complex to show how it would be necessary to
carry out the whole thing if we are going to proceed with the people mover
as well as enclosing the stadium.
This gives you an inside view of the SKYROOM. These rooms are
thought of in terms of accomodating 12 people. I find there is a pretty
sound thought out conclusion that has been arrived at by a number of
stadiums of limiting the capacity of these rooms. It eliminates a lot of
different problems of the operation and the communities run into which can
be elaborated on and discussed should this project move ahead.
Again, those are not pigeons up there, those are lights proposed
for the field lighting. This is taken from the inside of the stadium.
This again is looking from one side of the stadium to the other
showing the location of these SKYROOMS.
This is a diagram showing that three of these SKYROOMS would
represent a width of 55' with a proposed depth of approximately 30' and
we would propose that they would go in units so that 6 or 12 units would
have an elevator and still be able to tie back emergency exits back into
the stadium so people could walk down, if they had to.
This is using material from Dallas as a photograph of their SKYROOM
and this is the concept of their SKYROOM is also limited in size etc.
The next thing I want to discuss is the question we always run into
on parking. It has been demonstrated with some of these stadiums that
they built parking. One stadium built parking for 15,000 car spaces and
they find that they don't need 10,000 and they had no way of knowing this
until they went ahead and built them. They are finding the people are
willing and want to move in a collective group or mass group than they
want to move with their individual cars.
Realizing that Metropolitan Dade County is on the threshold of
proceeding with a mass transportation system and also that N. W. 7th Street
is a designated stop or a terminal point for this mass transportation, we
kept thisin mind to tie in, our overall stadium activities as well as off-
season activities
003 MAY 101973
(V.ibuat Slide pnebentat. on by the City Managers - Continued)
This we are using as a possibility, hoping that 7th Street would look
like that with a terminal point and a crossover to get the people back
and forth to the Orange Bowl.
This shows the OrangeBowl with a proposed garage built on the side
of it where N. W. 7th Street is. This proposed garage would be a 2-story
parking garage as well as a controlled entrance area coming into that
stadium which is another facet that should exist for an area when you
endeavor to move a large number of people in mass transit. This is a
view looking from 7th Street into this area to show how the people would
come into that area and move into the stadium.
Will you turn the lights on please?
(End of v.Lsaat et.i.de pnesentation)
Now if I may continue. One of the basis questions undoubtedly that
is going through people's minds is what we are talking about in terms of
cost. The interior program including the east end zone stands, the lower
deck seats and conversions, upper deck aluminum benches, improved field
lighting, and other internal improvements. It is proposed that we use an
internal electronic method of controlling the movement of people and
policing the area within the stadium, which would be something like closed
circuit television and minimize the number of man hours we spend trying to
police the interior of the stadium. This interior improvement would
represent a figure of 7 million dollars.
Now, the exterior program, is the mechanical ramps to the upper level,
and other exterior improvements, would represent 3 million dollars.
The construction of the SKYROOMS would be approximately 5 million,
4 hundred thousand dollars.
Making a total improvement program of approximately 16 million dollars.
Now the other question I presume is in people's minds is how we propose
funding this. We have taken 4 basic elements that must be poet together
in order for this project to fly.
The first ingredient would be the negoti^tion of the Florida Power
and Li.ght Franchise which at the present time terminates in 1981.
A longer period of time should be negotiated so that we have an overlap
time in our franchise, thereby affording the City to go into long term
financing through the use of the franchise money. The franchise money
can only be used for construction purposes. It can't be used for operating
purposes and this is a source that could be used and the franchise revenue
is such that we would not necessarily need all the revenue to be obligated
over the 30 year period. This is based on the experience we have had with.
this franchise revenue to this point.
The second ingredient that is very necessary, is a long term contract
with the Miami Dolphins, the University of Miami, and the Orange Bowl
Committee as far as their New Years Games and activities are concerned.
This is going to be very necessary to demonstrate to the financial interests
that it is anticipated to use for a long period of time and the type of
operation that the users are showing interest in and want to continue.
The third ingredient is the SKYROOMS which would be built by the City
and the thought has been discussed, I don't know if its feasible, nobody
has explored this from the legal point etc., either we could lease them
out on a long term lease at a fee that would show an amortization of these
facilities or it might be possible to set them up as a condominium under
that concept, so that a person would own them for a long period of time
and after a certain period of time, would revert back. Setting the fee
on these structures, would be adequate to finance the structure for the
SKYROOMS.
The last element is one of the most important element, is a positive
aggressive action by the County on its mass transit program, giving top
priority value to an entrance and exit at N. W. 7th Street. This is
planned but the type of terminal and the type of facility needs to be
implemented so it will serve the people. This is a must in order to
satisfy the stadiums needs and service the airport and Miami Beach. It
is estimated we will increase approximately 1200 seats within the parking'
garage or in utilization of the garage. As long as people have the
opportunity to put their car under weather, there is no reason why a
program couldn't be set up and I don't think we would be in competition
with the Off -Street Parking because I think they would cooperate with the
City, whereby it would be feasible for people living in certain areas to
leave their car located at the stadium, come downtown by mass transit and
pick up their car on the way home, thereby endeavoring to assist in
carrying the obligation of this land and this structure over the life
( of the structure and the operation.
MAY 101973
nna
This is briefly the program and I plead with everybody. This is an
idea, and you can see how sketchy it is, -but we have endeavored to show
you and present the idea and now, if it is acceptable, then positive
steps would have to be taken.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Reese, let me ask you first of all. In your proposal,
how many cars would be in utilization for the parking garage, approximately?
Mr. Reese: Approximately 1200.
Mayor Ferre: 1200 additional, you say?
Mr. Reese: We are using part of the ground, but also part of that
reverse back parking.
Rev. Gibson: I see members of the Orange Bowi Committee here. Those
people are here?
Mr. Reese: I would like very much for the record to reflect that I sent
letters inviting Mr. Ernie Seiler, Dr. Fields of the Orange Bowl COmmittee
and asked them to, if they couldn't be here, if they wanted to, bring
anybody other representative or organization along and I invited Mr. Goode,
the County Manager but he is in San Francisco, representatives of the TOROS,
representatives of the University of Miami, Mr. Joe Robbie, but his able
representative is here and Jesse Weiss of the TDA, Roger Roland of TDA,
Lester Freeman of the Chamber of Commerce. These are ones I have written
letters to and invited because they have an operating and functional interest
in the stadium.
Rev. Gibson: Since I don't know these men to see, I wonder if they would
stand, because I want to ask another question, thats very important to me.
Anybody here who is interested in the Orange Bowi, please stand, I am
talking about the names Mr. Reese called.
Thank you gentlemen. Now before I ask that other question, it might be
that you have something to say. Mr. Mayor, I want to raise this question,
something that bothers me. The other day, the former Mayor appointed a
committee and you men know about that? Are you men aware of that?
The other day the Mayor appointed a committee with the eye of I presume,
of turning over this stadium of ours to the County. Now, Mr. Reese comes
up with a feasibility proposition here and you see I am a little dense,
I don't understand and I hope you will speak to the issue.
Mayor Ferre: Father Gibson, let me clarify something here. As you may
recall, Mayor Kennedy, as you pointed out, appointed a committee and the
man that he designated as chairman could not accept that position.
At the last City o f Miami Commission Meeting, I reappointed the committee
and I added 3 names and I appointed Mr. Walter Etling who is here today
as chairman of that committee. He is not as of this time called for the
first meeting because its too soon. I wrote him a letter which was mailed
I think, Monday morning requesting him to call this committee together
and to give us a preliminary report as to what their endeavors will be and
how they are going to approach it by the 24th of May. Now obviously, this
is going to be one of the considerations they will have to take up.
Rev. Gibson: All I am saying is, well maybe when we hear these men, my
mind might be clearer.
Mayor Ferre: Are there any other questions?
I would like to, as soon as we can, its already 10 o'clock, recognize the
representatives of the Orange Bowland the Dolphins and the Toros and the
University of Miami, to see if they have any comments or thoughts they
would offer at this time.
Mr. Reese: I don't want to cast any doubt in anybody's mind but this
study has been going on long before anybody promoted a committee so I
don't want this to be carrying the overtone that this was a block on
anything that's going to be done and this is bringing it in to a diff-
erent pattern because if you will look at what was presented and look at
the financing, and everything else, no time is it a hindrance on anything
this Commission wants to do.
005
MAY 101973
Rev. Gibson: I know Mr. Reese, I am not saying- if the mayor appointed
a committee to study, he can't do that figuring over night, am I getting
anywhere clear?
Mr. Reese: No, for the simple reason that this was not discussed with
anyone. This was absolutely something that has been stemming, parts
of this were shown over 5 years ago, parts of this, so -
Rev. Gibson: Well Mr. Reese, what I am saying is even more pertinent
if it were shown 5 years ago, I wasn't here and some of the members of
the Commission must have been here 5 years ago. I don't want cross-
purposes, thats the point I am making. I would like to hear from the
committee.
Mayor Ferre: Well Father Gibson, I was here 5 years ago and I remember
that we had discussed and this is something Mr. Reese has given a lot
of attention to over the years. I would like to also say that Mr. Reese
did tell me about this several weeks ago. I didn't see the specifics of
it until today but I was aware of the making of this presentation and
that was previous to my reappointment of this other committee so I don't
think one thing has anything to do with the other.
Rev. Gibson: They are separate?
Mayor Ferre: They are separate. I would like to, before recognizing
various members of the community, I would like to make the following
comment to Mr. Reese.
First of all I want to very sincerely congratulate you for what I think
has been a very very fine presentation both in quality and in specific
presentation as to how much its going to cost and tentative ways of
financing this. I think this is really a Bowl, an important and
imaginative solution to a problem which has increasingly been plaguing
this community, I for one have taken the time to visit the astrodome and
at the kind invitation of Mr. Joe Robbie, saw the Kansas City Stadium.
I have talked to promotors, architects, locally and throughout the
country who have discussed the possibilities of building a new stadium
in the Dade County-Broward Area and I'll tell you what my conclusion was.
My conclusion was #1, that there is no way in which the private sector
can build the type of a stadium that this community needs. In other
words, it cannot be built without the support and assistance of some
governmental body whether it be for tax free advantages or the fact that
they wouldn't pay taxes on realestate. There's no way in which a stadium
can be built without government participation.
#2, I think everybody who has studied this in depth, has come .:to the
conclusion that you cannot build the type of stadium that we are looking
for,for 20 or 25 million dollars. It cannot be done. I have heard
proposals as low as 16 million dollars. When you look at them and study
them in depth, I think you come to the conclusion that they would not be
any better than the present Orange Bowl. In other words, the type of
stadium that we would need to satisfy the needs of the people here would
be in excess of 30 million dollars and if you really want to be practical
about it, excluding air conditioning, we want to have the same kind of
a stadium as for example Dallas or New Orleans, or Kansas City would have,
you are talking about 35 to 40 million dollars to do it properly and by
that I include the land and the parking facilities. If you take into
account what we have here at the Orange Bowl and you were to replace what
we have, I would just make an off -hand guess taking into account the
stadium as it exists plus the land, that we have an investment and as a
replacement value would well exceed 20 million dollars. Now if we could
for 16 million dollars, 51/2 of which would be self-liquidating with your
proposal which I think would have to be studied for its legal implications,
so what you are really saying is, that for 10 or 11 million, we could
make the improvements without going to the taxpayers and get the downtown
parking authority and Metropolitan Dade County through mass transit
system to cooperate with us, I think we would then end up with a stadium
that would have an excess of 80,000 seats, comfortable seats, sufficient
parking acce-sible by both rapid transit and existing highways right
next to the east -west expressway and therefore accessible to the majority
of the community and I really think that this is a viable, important
proposal that you have made. I think that we should now go into the phase
of having the different sectors of the community look into it. I think
the users are of course important part of this and I think Mr. Etling
and the committee should go into this in depth also and come back to us
006
MAY 10 197
7
with your feelings after you have had a chan ce to study it recognizing
in full Mr. Reese, that this is your responsibility as administrator to
carry this forward to this Commission should we vote to pursue this matter
and recognizing also that we as the City of Miami Commission have the
final responsibility and obligation with regards to this particular
stadium and we are not in any way passing the buck or the responsibility
or the final vote on it, so after those words, I will recognize
Commissioner Plummer.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, first of all, I want to take this opportunity,
it was impossible 2 weeks ago, there are 3 people here in the audience
who were not recognized before as they were unable to make the meeting.
I think they should stand and be recognized. These are 3 of the people
who went to Phoenix, Arizona with myself and Mr. Reese who in fact are
football concious but first anf foremost, City of Miami and South Florida
concious to bring back the Super Bowl in 1976. Those 3 people, I would
like to stand and let this Commission recognize the fine work that they
did. 1st from the Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Lester Freeman.
2nd Mr. Phil Butler from the Dolphins
3rd Jesse Weiss of the TDA
I personally and I am sure Mr.Reese agrees with me that these men should
be thanked by the City.
Father Gibson, Ithink that this plan that was put forth here today
and I am trying maybe to answer your question. I don't think that this
City can take a backward step waiting for any kind of a study and any
type of a feasibility look into. I don;t see anything in this proposal
that if in fact this Commission were to make the move, as proposed or
to be looked into, of transferring this to Metro, I see no reason, why
Metro wouldn't welcome with open arms, such an improvement.
We think back as were told in Phoenix, New orleans is building a new
stadium and I think this is something that all the members of the
Commission should keep in mind. Mr. Reese, you correct me if my figures
are a little off. The new stadium in New Orleans was supposed to cost
40 million dollars and was supposed to have been finished at summers end.
We were told in New Orleans that Miami might have to assume the Super
Bowl in 1975 for 2 reasons. #1, this stadium is now up to a cost of
121 million dollars some 80 million dollars beyond what was the
original proposal.
#2, they were approximately 14 to 18 weeks behind in construction and
to me one of the most important factors was that this new stadium as
some of the other so called domed stadiums was only to seat approximately
64,000 people for a football game. Keeping in mind one criteria set
forth by the Super Bowl Committee, is that you must be able to provide
80,000 spaces. I think these things have to be kept in mind because
Mr. Reese has shown me other articles on other so-called "super stadiums"
accross the country that have started out at what seemed to be a
realistic price and once they got into construction, they were blown
so far out of proportion that they just became unrealistic, unfeasible,
right down the line, a bad venture. We have the Orange Bowl. This Orange
Bowl is in a good location contrary to what some people say and I think
Mr. Reese, you are to be congratulated. We are yet to hear from some
of the most important people, those people who will be using the stadium
but I think this is a great plan and I only ask one question.
If this thing were.to be implemented Mr. Reese, approximately how long
would it take to see it to completion?
Mr. Reese: In order to keep the stadium in operation, it is estimated
it would take approximately 3 years from the date of start and still
keep the stadium in operation.
Mr. Plummer: Thank you.
Mayor Ferre: One of the advantages that I see of this Mr. Reese is
that you tan do it by sections and a lot of the exterior work can be
done without disrupting the stadium at all. You can do one side and
then do the other side and then do the end zoneso, I see a lot of good
positive reasons to move ahead on this. I think if we were to duplicate
what you are talking about, a stadium for 80,000 people with over 50,000
chairback seats, with a parking facilities and other amenities that you
are proposing here, I don't think we could do it for less than 40 million
dollars and I don't think this community right now, with all the needs
that we have in sewers, ecological problems, mass transit, that we can
really, to me this is a very practical positive well thought out
solution and at this time I would like to recognize Mr. Seiler or anybody
else to wants to make a presentation or discuss this or Dr. Fields,
MAY 101973
007
• •
Mr. Lester Freeman: I am the least appropriate to speak. These other
fellows are very shy but I would like to say I am delighted to day to
offer my congratulations to the Commission and Mr. Reese. I really
think that Miami has led this country for 50 to 75 years in sporting
events and in outdoor sporting events and in sporting facilities.
In the last 10 or 15 years, we have been under some pressure because
we led the way and started the way with the Orange Bowl Stadium and
other facilities and as a result, we now find ourselves in the position
of having other cities following our lead and therefore they are coming
in with newer facilities. It seems to me though that in quick reaction
to the plans that were presented today, you would have the opportunity
here to bring the Orange Bowl Stadium back to the #1 Outdoor facility
of its kind seating 81,000 people in the United States. That frankly,
is'all any of us want and I am sure there are suggestions -and changes
and minor opportunities for participation in the planning that could
come from these people here today. I think I can behalf of all of them,
we are very anxious to move forward. We want to modernize the stadium.
We want it to be financed without a property tax burden to the citizens
of Miami and that has been clearly outlined and we would be happy to
help and offer advice in any way but I think more than anything else,
we would like to get going and move ahead and lets return Miami to the
#1 outdoor facility in the United States.
Mayor Ferre: Thank you very much Mr. Freeman, Now I think it would
be appropriate -
Mr. Reese: Jesse Weiss is back there.
Mayor Ferre: Jesse, we would like to recognize you, you are always'
welcome in these chambers. We are always glad to have such an
illustrious member of our community.
Mr. Weiss: Mrs. Gordon and Gentlemen, I had the good fortune of being
in New Orleans and I hate to correct a Commissioner. The figure that
they gave us in New Orleans was 151 million dollars.
Mayor Ferre: That's incredible.
Mr. Weiss: And if you remember also, I remarked to one of the committee
members, just how many seats have you got?, and he remarked I'll never
know until I can get in there and county the damm things. Remember
that remark, so 64,000 is probably high. With a domed stadium, you also
have a very expensive proposition. It runs close to million dollars
a year, its a continual air-conditioning. If you don't have that
air-conditioning all the time, you have condensation which ruins the
seats which are very expensive and in an indoor stadium, the seats are
very expensive. I want to commend Mr. Reese and the Commission for
going so far forward in this thing, its about time we got of our backside
and really went to work and on behalf of the Tourist Development Authority,
if we can be of assistance in any way, legally, please call on us, that's
all I am here for.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Reese, I think it would be in order for the chair to
appoint you as the chairman of a committee which hopefully will include
all of the users or the potential users and the TDA, the County and
whatever other governmental bodies you might want to invite. I think
for example, we should request the Parking Authority to have a represen-
tative there and then proceed forward on this recommendation.
I think the consensus obviously of everyone here. I haven't heard
anyone here say no, and perhaps we might get some more specific feeling
from the Commission.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I see all of these people here who were invited
by Mr. Reese. If they would like to speak, I am sure we would like to
hear from them, if not I have a motion ready to make.
Mayor Ferre: Well I didn't see anybody raise their hand. Does anybody
else want to speak?
Mr. Paul Marks -
Mr. Marks: My thought is in behalf of the Orange Bowl Steering Committee.
I would say that a study should be made by the Osage Bowl Committee
and the University of Miami before we move on this thing.
•
008 MAY 10197
•
(a problem with the P.A. system made most of Mr. Marks remarks
inaudible)
Mayor'Ferre: I would like to mention that I have been given some
copies of newspaper clippings going back to 1935 and frankly I didn't
know you were that old because I was surprised to see your name very
prominent in 1935 as proposing a new stadium for the football activities
and that time you were talking about 7000 seats and then it went up to
12,000 in 1936 so I was surprised you are that old but glad you are
still here fighting for more and better facilities to play football
and other sports.
Mr. Cohen?
Mr. Cohen: Mr. Mayor f, Commissioners, I am Eugene E. Cohen, Vice -
President of the University of Miami. We are intrigued with what we
have seen this morning and without getting into any details, we urgently
request this Commission to give any informal authority it can to begin
a comprehensive study of the merits and suggestions as presented.
Mayor Ferre: Well Mr. Cohen and Mr. Marks, let me. I might be out of
place and I might be wrong but I think this is an action already in
the Commission and I would hope that if someone makes a motion here
this morning that we move forward. We are talking about a 3 year
program. There is little time before we are either heavily committed
or stop or reverse or turn around or a little to the side by I think
my opinion is that we ought to move forward. Lets get going.
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Mayor -
Mayor Ferre: I would like for the purposes of making a motion -
Mrs. Gordon: I don't want to make a motion, I want to make a comment.
This is the first time this proposal has been shown to me. Obviously
you have seen it before, I don't know whether MR. Plummer has or not.
Mayor Ferre: No, I haven't seen it before.
Mrs. Gordon: Father Gibson has not and I think that certainly we are
all in favor of moving forward and we want to move forward but we want
to know where we are moving and I would like to have an opportunity to
study this thing at least for the next Commission Meeting.
Mayor Ferre: Well Mrs. Gordon, I don't want to contradict you but I
want to clear for the record, that I have not seen this proposal
previous to this time. I think its very explicit in what it says.
I think the figures are very clear. I for one don't need any more
explanations. All I need now is some verification that these figures
are so and -
Mrs. Gordon: How are you going to verify that right this moment?
Mayor Ferre: Well I think this is on Mr. Reese the administrator to
make sure that he can justify these figures and that will be his
responsibility. I think the motion that we are going to pass here
hopefully will be one that will take that into consideration.
Mr. Reese: I would again like to clear any misunderstanding. Since
1960, on different occasions, the City Commission or the Orange Bowl
Committee raised questions about improvements. There was presentations
made tothe different city commissioners. This entire presentation has
never been made to this Commission or any other group of people.
The enclosure of these end zones was part of a previous one but not in
this theme that is carried out in this. At different occasions, the
questions was raised of how it would be possible to get seatbacks in
the stadium or chair seats. Segments and sketches were shown on that
but at no time has this total package been shown to any group other
than the people who have been in my conference room working with me to
get this accomplished. They may have been doing this, even the photo-
graphic work on their own time outside. When I went to Phoenix, I left
here on a Saturday and I spent Saturday in Dallas and I spent 532 hours
at the stadium. What I gathered there and what I gathered at every
other stadiuiq i brought back and endeavored to be educated and get
theexperience of how and what we can do. I am not asking the Commission
to adopt this.
009
/0
all I am saying is, if the Commission is interested in the theme, give
us the opportunity to make a report, to get it in writing and get it
down on the record, and then from that point discuss it with committees
etc ., but to have a group to meet with no more than we have here.
I would like very much now to get it in a report form.
Mayor Ferre: Are there any further comments from the Commission, its
now almost 10:30?
Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor, I don't think you all understood me. I admit
I am dense but I don't think I got that answer. You -have a committee
appointed to turn over that stadium, to study the feasability of turning
over the stadium to the County. Now, that ought to be on the table.
I am not opposed to Mr. Reese propositions, that is I am not opposed to
it, I welcome the increase, I just don't think ----if we are going to make
this kind of investment or improvement, how do we know the county will
accept it with this, with :these provisos, stipulations etc.?
It might well be that you don't need that committee or let this committee
do both, I'll buy that. That makes sense to me otherwise these committees
can well be working to cross purposes and Mr. Reese is here and what he
did this morning, blew my mind, was magnificent. Suppose the County
says we don't want to receive it because.you havejust come up with this
item of 16 million dollars? All I am saying, is whatever we do, lets
do it with the full knowledge that it may or may not be and otherwise
I will be voting and not know what I am voting on.
Mayor Ferre: Father Gibson, let -me see if I can convince you. We have
2 items here. I don't think they in any way contradict one another.
One is the possible turnover of the parks and recreational activities
of the City of Miami or parts of them to the County. The other question
that has come before us now is the presentation by Mr. Reese on the
possible improvements which I am sure will be greatly refined and changed
before its all done and over with. This community has been for years,
concerned abou the inadequacy of the orange bowl and I think with the
advent of our success as a professional team, with the great success
that the Dolphins have had and the future success of the Toros and the
University of Miami and all of the other teams that use the Orange Bowl,
Continued on next page-
010 MAY 101973
Mayor Ferrer I think this community is totally in favor and
has expressed itself many times over to try to find.a solution
to this problem of improving or building a new stadium.
I think that we do not have the ability financially and otherwise
to spend the 40 or 50 or whatever it is, hundred million dollars
to build a new stadium.
I think time is of the essence now. There are several considerations
that would be very important to me.
1. Can this be done for 16 million dollars?
2. Can it be financed in such a way that it will not cost the
taxpayers of the City of Mlami one single cent?
If we can improve the stadium and become the rrlmber one stadium
or one of the great stadiums in the United States with a capacity
of 80,000 seats. If we can do it for 16 million dollars and we
can do it without causing any tax burden to the people of Miami,
I don t see how anybody in the Dade County structure could possible
obJect.
If they do obJect, I would certainly have no qualms about keeping
the City of Miami Orange Bowl Stadium within the confines of the
City if the county didn*t want to accept it, if at that time, we
came to the conclusion that we were in fact going to turn over the
parks to the county which we haven4t arrived at.
We are far away from that point.
My opinion is this: I think that Mr. Etling as Chairman and his
committee which I think is a good committee. I think its a cross
section of people who are very interested in parks and open space
should proceed with their deliberations and consideration, obviously
this will be one of them. I do not think that should affect our
forward movement in something that this community has waited on for
years. I haven't heard one single person object to this. The only
one that brought out some doubts was Paul Marks and he really wasn't
opposed to it. He just brought out some considerations. Now I
submit to you and to my fellow Commissioners, that between now and
the time that we commit ourselves to spend some money on this,
this whole concept is going to change, once, twice, three times.
It may get larger or smaller. Parts of it may not be done, those
skyrooms may not be built. The board may be larger, I don't know
what the Dolphins are going to come back with. They may come back
with a recommendation that the scoreboard should be twice as big
and that they have a way of financing it, or that the public system
can be greatly improved. These things we cannot determine in our
deliberations here today but i do think we should go on record that
its time now to stop the studying and stop the talking and proceed
forcefully forward. I think you have obviously lived in this
community, you were born4ere and have lived here longer than I have
and you know it much better than I do but I feel that one of our
problems in Miami has been that we have a tendency to study things
too much and then we study and we study and we study and by the
time,it gets done, it doesn't get done because we go into the
Magic City Plan and the Doxiadis Plan and the other plan and the
other plan and none of them have ever been implemented and we are
still studying and now we have the Wallace Study, we have another
traffic study being made, I am just using that example on the
downtown. Here is a specific proposal. It may not be an appropriate
proposal, I am sure its going to be improved but its a good, forward
thinking proposal. We have seen that it could be financed properly,
that its not going to cost the taxpayers and I really strongly feel
that this Commission should go on record to proceed on this with
the full idea that as we progress, we may have to change it.
We could even abandon it, but I think its a forward step forward.
Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor, I am going to say this and I am going to
be ready to vote. I think everybody knows I believe in action.
What I am hearing you saying is not answering my question.
Anytime you have a committee that is studying to turn over and you
come up with a plan of how you are going to improve, let me tell
you in church business, you don't decide to tear down the building
and rebuild a new building or you don't decide to add on to the
building and then say to another congregation, well ok, you inherit
my debt or bills. I will vote to proceed and I want it written in
the record that Theodore Gibson votes to proceed with some real
questions in his mind .
01t MAY 101973
Basic questions. Why do we have to have that other committee
at this time or why don't you just go ahead and do one of the
other and I am ready to vote and thats my question. I will
even offer the motion.
Mayor Ferre: Father let me mention this and I don't want to
belabor the point but, this Parks Turnover COmmittee is going to
study a lot more than just the turning over of the Orange Bowl
to Dade County. They are going to study the Marine Stadium, the
Bayfront Park, the Peacock Park, lots, Simpson Park and all of the
Elizabeth Virrick Park and we have so many properties within the
confines of the City of Miami that are very very important.
The Orange Bowl is one of them but you come back to this. Should
we hold back and wait until this committee finishes their delib-
erations to proceed with the improvements at the Orange Bowl?
I don't know what Mr. Etling is going to tell us on May 24th.
He may come back and say that its going to take him 6 months or
2 months or a year to make these studies. I don't know what his,
this is a very serious matter and it has very serious implications
for the City of Miami. It comes down simply to this -
Should we want until Walter Etlings committee comes back with a
report before we as a Commission express our philosophy or should
we proceed now, fully aware of the fact, that we may have to change
in the future?
Rev. Gibson: If you are ready for a motion, I am ready -
Mr. Plummer: First of all for Mrs. Gordon's edification -
I will answer that I have not seen this plan as presented today.
I have said in these chambers long before I was a Commissioner
in this City and saw many proposals of which some of this is
encompassed and others are not.
Second, everybody is trying to second guess what my motion is
going to be so let me make it because I tell you very frankly
if I had my druthers, I would make a motion to implement and
implement now but there are questions that all of us have and I
think that the Mayor has put it very very fine. This is a thing
that we have to get started and have to get off the ground.
My motion actually will be in 2 parts.
#1. That we immediately for a committee to study and I use that
word, very loosely, study the feasibility of trying all of the
recommendations made, here this morning so that this committee
can come back to this Commission and can make recommendations yes
or no or modifications.
I think this committee can go on hand in hand with the other
committee and I believe that the betterment for all of the City
of Miami can come from this even if this is to be eventually to
be turned over to Metro. Encompassed in my motion, will be a time
period, Mr. Reese, would be 60 days enough to tie this together?
Mr. Reese: Mr. Commissioner, as I have pointed out before, most
of this entire program as shown on the screen as well as the few
pieces of paper that I have in front of me and I don't see how a
committee •cwould have materials to sit down and discuss.
First of all I had to develop a report.
Mr. Plummer: First of all I think this committee should sit down
and should meet with the Dolphins and the Orange Bowl Committee
and those people who you outlined here to see if in fact, there is
a true interest for this proposal and I think secondly this
committee would be charged with the responsibility of going in
deeper into the figures that you presented to make sure that the
committee is in thinking with you, that this is feasible and
especially at no cost to the taxpayers.
Now do you think this committee could do that in 30 days?
Is that feasible?
Mr. Reese: I have no way of answering because I dont contemplate
or even express any knowledge of the anticipated questions until
these people have something to look at to base their questions on.
They ought to be very curious of how these cost items were arrived
at. They ought to be very curious about other aspects of it.
012 MAY 101973
•
Mr. Plummer: I just made mention of the fact of going into
the cost factors as you proposed -
Mr. Reese: Yes, but if you don't -
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Reese, I don't want to start an argument with
you here but obviously you did not pull all these figures out of
the air. THere is a lot of work that has gone into separation,
both architecturally and financially that has gone into this
conclusion. I know you well enough to know that you do these
things very thoroughly and this was not a casual thing you did
in 3 days. You put a lot of time and effort into this and I think
what Commissioner Plummer is saying is, that you share these figures
with the gentlemen of this committee and that they come back and
make a preliminary report to us that they concur with the conclusions
basically that this can be financed without going to the taxpayers,
I think that's our main interest here. Beyond that there might be
some questions on type of seats and the practicality of the score-
board and all these different things that I am sure each group
will come up with and all' we are trying to do is get a consensus
of the community so that we can now move forward.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I WILL put a stipulation on that, that
the first report of the committee be given to this Commission on
Flag Day, June 14th.
The 2 portions were the study and the other was to get together
with the groups involved. I think that this committee likewise
should be named by you since the other committee was named by
the Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Plummer, I would recommend that you , I think
we ought to go on record here stating that as a matter of
principle, this Commission goes on record that we want to proceed
with an improvement of the Orange Bowl and start with that as the
basis, I think that should be part, I know that its implied but I
think we ought to make it specific.
Mr. Plummer: If that's what you want, then the first motion
that I will make is that this Commission in principle, go in
favor of a proposal for Orange Bowl Improvements. I so move.
Thereupon the following resolution was introduced by
Mr. Plummer, who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-349
A RESOLUTION APPROVING IN PRINCIPLE, THE CITY
MANAGER'S PLANS FOR PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS AT
THE ORANGE BOWL STADIUM
(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. Reboso,
Plummer, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Ferre. NOES: None
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer
who moved its adoption:
013 MAY 101973
/S/
s� s
RESOLUTION NO. 73-350
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR
TO CONSULT WITH PERSONS INVOLVED IN PROPOSED
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE ORANGE BOWL STADIUM AND
WITH THE CITY MANAGER AND REPORT BACK TO THE
COMMISSION ON JUNE 14, 1973, WITH SPECIFIC FIGURES
AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SAID IMPROVEMENTS
(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.
Plummer, Reboso, Reverend Gibson, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Ferre.
NOES: None
Mayor Ferre: Now I would like to make the appointment of that
committee, andthat committee will be the same committee that
Mr. Walt Etline now heads for this reason. It has on it already
Dr. Fields who is the President of the Orange Bowl Committee this
year, Dr. Henry King Stanford, President of the University of Miami
and Mr. Harper Sibley, one of the partners of the Dolphins and
these I think represent the 3 main users. I would like to add to
that committee at this time, Commissioner J. L. Plummer, since he
has taken a serious interest in the past and he has gone to
Phoenix and has shown knowledge of this matter, I would like to
add his name to the committee and Mr.Etling, it looks like you
are going to be a busy fellow for the next 60 days, so I commend
you and ask you to start your deliberations soon.
Thank you again Mr. Reese, for a very fine presentation and you
gentlemen will come here on this matter.
•
4, PERSONAL APPEARANCE - MR. LAURIA. MIANII TOROS
Mr. Lauria: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, I am here representing
the Miami Toros Professional Soccer Team. There seems to be a discrepancy
in interpretation between us and the use of the Orange Bowi and the City of
Miami. The season started last saturday and people attended the game in
excess of 12,500 people and were charged $2 by the City of Miami to park in
the Orange Bowi. Therefore, the holders of season parking decals for the
automobiles were not honored in our games.
Mr. Dan Paul, our attorney contacted the City Manager's Office Monday
and he was told that they would be honored for this coming Saturday nights
game but after July 1st, when the new decals are mailed out to subscribers,
they would not be honored fo!r the Toros Games.
A letter mailed out by A. Rubio., Stadiums Manager to all the parking
season ticket holders says it is good for all college, high school and
professional games held in the Orange Bowl. I believe that we are a
professional team and I would like to ask the Commission to verify to us
why this situation exists because I think our attempt to institute a new
deal with the Toros will be July 1st would discriminate against us and
secondly its not showing proper attitude to encourage professional soccer
sport in Miami.
Mayor Ferre: I will ask Mr. Andrews to answer if he can.
Mr. Andrews, Asst. City Manager: I am sorry, I can't give the Commission
the kind of information on which you can make a judgment on.
May I suggest that I meet with this gentleman and we will review what has
taken place and perhaps we can work it out administratively and if not,
during the course of the day, we can come back to the Commission with the
kind of information you will need to make a policy decision.
Mayor Ferre: I think this is a matter that should be taken care of today
so I request before the end of the day, you bring this back to us.
As I understand the question is very simple. When a person buys a parking
tag, he is entitled to park at the Orange Bowl at professional games and
for high school games, is that right?
Mr. Andrews: That's right.
Mayor Ferre: So the question is whether or not, this team which is a
professional team, comes within the purview of that.
Mr. Andrews: I don't know in the use of the language if it refers to
professional teams or professional football and I don't know what their
agreement states as far as parking but I will review that.
Mr. Plummer: Maybe I was under a misconception. I thought when a person
purchased that, it was for all events in the Orange Bowl.
Mr. Andrews: No.
Mr. Plummer:, That's not the case?
Mr. Andrews: That's not the case.
Mayor Ferre: There are certain event's specifically excluded, for
example: 4th of July celebration -
You will come back then or send a representative to come down sometime
this afternoon.
Mr. Andrews: Mr. Reese will be back and I will in the meantime try
to resolve this as quickly as possible.
015 MAY 101973
5, PERSONAL APPEARANCE - ARTHUR ETTINGER
Mr. Ettinger: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, under the ruling
of the chair, I have 5 minutes.
I am Arthur Ettinger, Captain, United States Army, Retired. Under the 5
minute ruling of the chair, it is impossible to bring up the matter I
intend to bring up. The chair and the entire committee is well versed
in what the subject is and what the charges were. As I am unable then
to present them at this time, I here now make a request for a position on
the agenda, something I have been trying to do for months, to no avail.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Andrews, is there any reason why we cannot hear Mr.
Ettinger at the end of the day so that we won't hold up people here?
Mr. Andrews: None that I know of. If the Commission so wishes.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Ettinger has been trying to be heard for a long time.
Mr. Rothstein: I think the problem is that Mr. Ettinger should advise
Mr. Andrews, and if we are involved, the City Attorney's Office, what
his problem is so that we can tell you if we can be ready for whatever
the problem is.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, may,I suggest that what you have put forth,
that Mr. Ettinger be heard at the end of the day. Let Mr. Ettinger
get together with the City Manager and City Attorney and if there is
any reason this cannot be heard, then let them come back, if not then
we will just assume -
Mayor Ferre: I am going to leave it this way Mr. Ettinger. Get with
the City Attorney and Assistant City Manager for a moment to see if
there is any reason why we cannot hear you this afternoon, otherwise
we will hear you at the end of our agenda which I would hope would be
in the vicinity of 4 O'Clock, no later than that.
Mr. Ettinger: There's only one item to that, you say for a moment.
This is not going to take a moment.
The City Attorney is well versed in what this is.
Mayor Ferre: So then he can give you a ruling very quickly, can't he?
Mr. Ettinger: You said a moment. I just want to make sure that nobody
takes that literally... I will meet with them at lunch break.
6, GARBAGE COLLECTION PROCEDURES
Mayor Ferre: At this time, before we go on, I have a resolution which
Iam going to read and will ask Father Gibson to take the chair for a
moment. The resolution reads as follows: I am going to read the full
extent of it from the title on.
A RESOLUTI ON DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO CONTINUE
THE PRESENT PROCEDURE OF RESIDENTIAL GARBAGE COLLECTION
AND REQUIRING THE CITY MANAGER TO REPORT TO THE CITY
COMMISSION CONCERNING THE FEASIBILITY OF CARRYING OUT
THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CONSULTING FIRMS ON SOLID
WASTE DISPOSAL
WHEREAS, the City of Miami has received from its consulting firms
on solid waste disposal various recommendations in March of 1972 with
regard to the same; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has conducted numerous public hearings
throughout the City with regard to the method and procedure to be used
for garbage collection; and
WHEREAS, the public hearings have been concerned with the procedure
of replacing the current method of garbage collection with that of
curbside collection; and
WHEREAS, the citizens and residents of the City of Miami have
energetically and conscientiously voiced their views with regard to
same; and
WHEREAS, both the collection and disposal of solid waste is of
utmost concern to the citizens and residents of the City of Miami;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI, FLORIDA:
016 MAY 101973
•
•
Section 1. That the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed
to continue the present procedure of residential garbage collection
currently in force.
Section 2. That the City Manager is hereby required to report to
the City Commission the feasibility of carrying out the remaining
recommendations as submitted by the consulting firms on solid waste
disposal.
Thereupon the following resolution was introduced by Mayor Ferre
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-351
A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO CONTINUE THE
PRESENT PROCEDURE OF RESIDENTIAL GARBAGE COLLECTION AND
REQUIRING THE CITY MANAGER TO REPORT TO THE CITY COMM-
ISSION CONCERNING THE FEASIBILITY OF CARRYING OUT THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CONSULTING FIRMS ON SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL
Upon being seconded by Mr. Reboso, the resolution was passed and
adopted by the following vote: AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Reverend
Gibson, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Ferre. NOES: None
Mayor Ferre: I would like to say that I very strongly feel that the
City of Miami has 4 basic important functions to perform for the citizens
of this community.
1. To protect them: The Police Force and the Fire Department, I
think to an excellent job in that area.
Thirdly, after the Fire and Police, we have the duty to maintain
and to build the best possible environment for the citizens.
That means to have proper parks, to have and maintain integrity
in neighborhoods through strict zoning enforcement. I think
lastly, one of the functions of the City of Miami is to
collect the garbage that the people pay taxes for. It is within
the tax structure that every citizen of the City of Miami pays
taxes so that their garbage can be properly collected.
Its not a question of the old and invalid being burdened with carrying
their garbage to the curbside, this affects every citizen and I think
people are paying taxes to have garbage collected. It is the responsil-
ility of the City to collect that garbage. T think its one of the prime
responsibilities.
Now, I recognize that we have budgetary problems and that the City of Miami
has restrictions on it like all governmental bodies using funds to render
these services properly but I tell you that just like this Commission took
a position on raising the salaries and wages of this City so we would be
second to none, and have the best possible service, I think its just as
important to maintain the quality of garbage collection and I feel very
strongly aboutthis motion.
Mrs. Gordon: I want to say for the record, that when this consultan's
report was first supplied to us and raised objections to the curbside
pickup based on the fact that the City of Miami land is platted in small
lotsof 50' for the most part which is entirely different than the sit-
uation a§ it exists in the county and it certainly would not be an
attractive sight, to see row after row of either garbage cans or plastic
bags along the curbside and I raised that objection many months ago and
also raised the objection of the economy would come about by the lay-off
of our personnel and I think I state this now so the record would reflect
my affirmative vote on the motion.
I would also like to clarify the position too that there was to have been
a public hearing which reason for this public hearing in my opinion was
for one time and for all to set aside the possibility of this curbside
pickup coming up again 6 or 8 months hence, so that's the reason why I
felt if we could set it aside once and for all by a public hearing, we
would not have to face it again.
017
MAY 101973
Mayor Ferre: I would like to say that we had in the City of Miami over
12 neighborhood meetings, in which literally hundreds and hundreds of
citizens and I think we had over 1000 letters and telephone calls from
people who have expressed their .opinion and I have not yet seen one
letter of phone call of anybody for curbside pickup.
I am sure they exist, and I think its important that we on this Commission
as we set policy and govern the City, that after all, our responsibility
is not to anybody but to the citizens of Miami. That's our prime respon-
sibility, WE HAVE OF COURSE THE responsibility of the community as a
whole and we have a responsibility in other areas but our primary respon-
sibility is to the citizens of Miami. I think in my opinion, they have
overwhelmingly expressed that they do not want curbside pickups.
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Mayor, you missed the point. The point I wanted to
express was that the Commissioners be present when objections are raised,
that they hear them firsthand and not secondhand, that was my point.
Rev. Gibson: Any other objections?
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Vice Mayor, I see someone here who wishes to speak.
I think Mrs. Bettner is -
Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor-, we have 2 people, are you for or against?
Mrs. Bettner : I am against it.
Mayor Ferre: Against the motion?
Mrs. Bettner: No, I am for your motion. Only a few things I would like
to have clarified. I am speaking for the homeowners association and for
the senior citizens, There was a few things I wanted to make sureof.
In November 19, 1969, at a commission hearing Mr. Reese said about
plastic bags (inaudible) Mr. Telesca presented a solid waste study and
in that they made 3 suggestions. One was plastic bags, eliminate 2 men
from your truck and City establish a waste fee.
On January 25, 1973, Mr. Reese, the Commission rather said we should have
public hearings. Mr. Reese said this would be very delicate and difficult
to convince the public about this. Mr. Reboso, passed a resolution 73-64
tha', we should educate the public about the report of the Task Force.
Now that Task Force suggested your waste fee, that's what I want clarified.
On February 8, before any public hearings were held, Mr. Reboso also
i-ntruduced a resolution to award the bid for the plastic bags and that
was passed and Mr. Reese said then, he was asking authority now but would
award the bid after the public hearing.
I have all my papers here and I don't quote anything from your city
commission hearings unless I have them here.
The Miami Herald also head 89% of the people were against it. I think
everybody I have met is against it because for one thing, if you put a
plastic bag at the curb, your children might fall against it. We have
cans and half of the people will not wrap up and put in there.
If we do that, you have dogs, children and property damages resulting
make property owners liable thru accident.
Another thing, a heavy rain, the stuff goes into the storm drains which
will cause flooding.
The City and Mr. Jones have said, the men will go along with broom and
shovel and clean it up. How much more time is that going to take?
Senior citizens have been assured if they cannot take the plastic bag
out, someone will come to the door and pick up. Thats impossible. You
are eliminating men from the truck and these men want their jobs and they
need it. I do think they should be amply paid.
You say all over the City of Miami, do not litter, keep Miami Beautiful.
This is going to be litter if you let it go through.
Mayor Ferre: I want to say that for 311 years that I served on this
Commission, I think on every important issue that I can remember that
affected the citizens, Mrs. Bettner and her daughter were always here
and it's citizens like you that make Miami a wonderful place to live
Mrs. Bettner and I recognize that, thank you for being here.
018
MAY 101973
Mrs. Rockafellar: I am Grace Rockafellar, Northeast Taxpayers Association.
Director of the N. E. Improvement Association. Mr. Mayor, we concur 100%
with your resolution, its what we have been wanting. Mrs. Gordon, we
concur with your ideas on this too. Now as you say, you received thousands
of letters. Every civic association in the City of Miami sent Mr. Reese
along with the Mayor and the City Commissioners, letters objecting to
this proposal. Now, in our particular letter, we pointed our that the
city was in a better financial situation now than it ever had been even
though the 10 mill cap had been put in because the tax assessment increases
more each year and I know most of us are paying more than before the 10
mill cap went in. In addition to that, the apartments, commercial buildings
and homes going on the tax rolls each and every month. Now when Governor
Askew proposed his corporate profit tax, it was with the sole ide of making
the corporation should pay their fair share and give relief to the property
owners. Well what happened, we _backed that and the City is now enjoying
part of that money and our taxes went up. Again, Mr. Nixon suggested that
the federal revenue sharing was for the same purpose to share the federal
revenue with the city and the county. Again our taxes went up.
So we are very grateful for one thing now. We know Mr. Reese, that the
city administration is a very astute administration. We feel when Mr.
Reese wrote the letter telling us what a dire financial situation we were
in, it must have because I have been in the business world and
I know increases in in salary depend on how good the business is doing so
I think the property owners can take a great deal of comfort to feel that
the city is in such excellent financial condition now that they could
recommend and accept an almost 17% pay increase so I don't think we
have anything more to worry about, about our services being cut, because
as the Mayor pointed out, we pay very dearly for these services. We are
glad that all the administrators got a raise. We are glad we are in such
a good financial condition that we can afford it and I think we can also
afford our services, thank you.
Mayor Ferre: I am glad you agree.
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Vice Mayor, Mr. Vice Mayor, may I think Mrs. Rockafellar
for appearing here and speaking on this item because of her and Mrs. Bettner
and others that are here, in effect we are having a public hearing and
their comments are being recorded and can be referred to in the future,
I thank you all for that.
Vice Mayor Gibson: Any other comments?
Mr. Plummer: Under discussion, Mr. Vice Mayor, I can't let this go by
because we thank everybody for what they did and sometimes we overlook
some and I think it needs to be remembered, this task force was charged
with a very very unpopular thing to do and I think the Task Force should
be thanked by this Commission, commended by this Commission, for doing
a job that they were called upon to do in preparing these Town Meetings
and because I don't want them to think all their work went in vain.
I am in favor of your motion, but I think a lot of work was put into
this thing and I think these people should be thanked.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Vice Mayor, I would also like to make clear and point
out that this resolution specifically talks only to that portion of the
Task Force and the Study which relates to curbside pickup because there
are an awful lot of other things to improve our garbage collection system
that should be studied, we should have hearings on and I think should be
implemented, so Mr. Reese that's very clear isn't it, in this motion?
Thank you very much Father Gibson, ladies and gentlemen.
NOTE: Prior to the introduction of Resolution 73-352, Mayor Ferre
surrendered the chair to Vice Mayor Gibson and following the
adoption of the resolution, the Mayor resumed the chair.
019 MAY 101973
LEGALITY ..OE SAI
RIPDRT By CITY i DRNEY
Mr. Rothstein: Mr. Mayor, if I may, its not on the agenda and 1 will be
very brief, but 1 would like to report to the Commission as the Commission
directed me, on the aspect of the legality of the salary adjustment -pay plan
and on the matter of the pension increases.
Mayor Perre: Is this in reference to the letter that Dan Paul.
Mr. Rothstein: There is 2 memos on your desk. First, the Salary
Adjustment Pay Plan which arises out of the letter from Mr. Paul and
then the pension increase which the Commission requested at the last
Commission Meeting.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Rothstein, lets see if we can move quickly now.
Thereupon Mr. Rothstein read the following memorandum into the record:
TIN The Honorable )tembers of the'
City Cpmmiss
FROMI
an H. Roths e n
City Attorney
DAM May 9, 1973 rim MIA 73-21
•U•d[CTI
Salary Adjustment Pay Plan
RcrER[NCtSI
INCLO•URI•I
This opinion to the City Commission is being issued as a result of a
letter to me from Mr. Dan Paul dated April 17, 1973 (see attached)
wherein Mr. Paul, as Chairman of the City's Revenue Sharing Committee,
raised certain questions concerning the use of revenue sharing funds
in relation to employee salaries. The question presented by Mr. Paul's
letter is as follows:
Is the adoption of the Yarger and Executive
Pay Plans for City of Miami employees by the
City Commission of the City of Miami lawful in
the light of Article 16, Section 11 and Article
9, Section 10 of the 1885 Florida Constitution,
now designated as Florida Statutes.
In my opinion, the salary adjustment plan for the City of Miami employees
is lawful and does not violate the provisions of Article 16, Section 11
and Article 9, Section 10 of the 1885 Florida Constitution, as will be
more fully explained below.
A review of Article 9, Section 10 of the 1885 Florida Constitution which
is now a Florida Statute, does not apply to the factual circumstances
of the salary adjustment plan. Section 10 is set forth as follows:
SECTION 10. Credit of state not to be •
pledged or loaned. Tho credit of the State
shall not be pledged or loaned to any individual,
company, corporation or association; nor shall
the State become a joint owner or stock -holder
in any company, association or corporation.
The Legislature shall not authorise any county,
city, borough, township or incorporated dis-
trict to liecc,mo a stockholder in any company.
ii sui:iution or corporation, or to obtain or
appropriate money for, or to loan its credit to,
any corporation, association, institution or
indi�•icluni.
This section does not prohibit a City Commission from appropriating
money to pay employees but rather prohibits public bodies in Florida
from appropriating money for the private benefit of particular individuals
or corporations.
020 NAY 101973%
The Honorable Members of
the City Commission
1".
-2- May 9, 1973
In my opinion, Article 16, Section 11, Florida Constitution of 1885,
now a Florida Statute, is not applicable to municipalities. Section
11 is set forth as follows:
SECTION 11. Extra compensation claims. —
No extra compensation shall be made to any
officer, agent, employe, or contractor after thm
service shall have been rendered, or the con-
tract made; nor shall any money be appropri-
ated or paid on any claim, the subject matter
of which shall not have been provided for by
pre-existing laws, unless such compensation
or claim be allowed by bill passed by two
thirds of the members elected to each house
of the Legislature.
This Section contains no reference to Municipalities or Cities, whereas
other provisions in both the 1885 and 1968 Constitutions, when they are
intended to apply to municipalities or cities. refer to them as such.
This can be readily seen above in Section 10 where the prohibition is
specifically made to include cities. Further, much of the body of
Section 11 deals with claims. The significance is that while the
State of Florida is immune from tort claims, municipalities and cities
are not. Thus, the Florida Legislature would have to allow a claim
against the State by passage of a bill by 2/3 of the Legislature
because of the sovereign immunity of the State. No such procedure is
required for municipalities which may be sued and forced to pay a
judgment entered against them on a tort claim.
It is clear that Section 11 does not contain a prohibition against
extra compensation or claims against the State but provides a procedure
whereby claims and extra compensation against the State not provided
for by pre-existing laws may be allowed by a bill passed by 2/3 of
the Legislature. If we are to accept a reading into Section 11 that
it applies to municipalities, then logically it must be read further
into Section 11 that the Legislature referred to on a Municipal level
would be the City Commission. Since the City Commission of the City of
Miami unanimously passed the salary adjustment plan this would comply
with the requirements of the statute.
Further, factually, the City Commission commen6ed acting on the
salary adjustment plan on July 20, 1972 when the City Commission by
Resolution authorized acceptance of a Federal Grant for the purpose
021
The Honorable Members of the
City Commission
-3- May 9, 1973
of conducting a pay plan and job classification study. Thereafter,
on September 26, 1972 the Commission authorized the engagement of
Yarger and Associates to conduct a study. The City Commission on
October 12, 1972, adopted the recommendations of the City Manager
regarding a proposed program for the Federal Revenue Sharing 1972-1973
as contained in his memorandum to the City Commission dated October 12,
1972 that an "amount must be set aside for the position classification
and pay plan study now being conducted for the City and stating further
that the amount "would be used to implement the new pay plan upon its
adoption by the City Commission sometime in early 1973".
Since the City Commission acts by Ordinances or Resolutions (Section 4
(f) City Charter of the City of Miami), factually, therefore, this
salary adjustment plan is a "subject matter" which has "been provided
for by pre-existing laws" (of the City of Miami).
A review of the authorities submitted by Mr. Paul have been very helpful
to me in formulating my opinion although I differ in my interpretation
as to the legal applicability of those citations to the instant
situation.
AHR/sdp
Mr. Rothstein: With reference to the pension raise.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Rothstein, let me ask you now, do I understand this
correctly to be that this, is there any action to be taken by this Commission
on this proposal or is this in fact, your answer to Mr. Paul that you
disagree with him and you feel that the City Commission acted in good
faith and legally.
Mr. Rothstein: That is correct. My opinion is you don't have to act in
any way. Mr. Paul raised a serious legal question which we have been
studying about 4 weeks and we come to the legal opinion that without any
question in my mind, that the City Commission acted legally, correctly,
lawfully and appropriately.
Mr. Plummer: Do I further understand that a copy of this has been sent
to Mr. Paul or will be?
Mr. Rothstein: Now that it has been given to the Commission, it will
be delivered to him.
Mr. Plummer: And if there is any further action, it will be instigated
by Mr. Paul either before this Commission or in the Court, is that right?
Mr. Rothstein: No under the Charter, at this point, anybody who takes
issue, would go to the court.
Mayor Ferre: Any further comments on this matter? Then we will take up
your second matter.
022
MAY 1019
a
Thereupon the following memorandum concerning proposed pension raise was
read into the record by the City Attorney.
TO(
mows
Me of e
Ci mmiss
•
•
CITY OF MIAMI. FLORIDA
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
minim May 9, 1973 'Mgt MIA-73-20
suiJ[ci
R[F[RINCUi
[NCLOSUREI8
Pension, Raise
This opinion is in response to your request for an
opinion concerning increases in pensions for retired City of
Miami employees. Your inquiry is concerned with the follow-
ing three questions:
1. MAY FUNDS BE APPROPRIATED FROM TAX MONIES
TO INCREASE PENSION BENEFITS TO RETIRED
EMPLOYEES? -
2. MAY A SPECIFIC $25.00 MINIMUM INCREASE IN
A PENSION BE GIVEN TO CERTAIN CLASSES OF
RETIRED EMPLOYEES?
3. MAY FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING FUNDS BE USED
TO RAISE THE AMOUNT OF PENSION PAID TO
RETIREES?
The appropriation of tax money to increase pensions
for retired city employees is a legitimate expenditure of
municipal tax funds. Reference is made to a previous opinion
by this office to the effect that once an entitlement to a
pension has been established changes in the amount of the pen-
sion are authorized.
An outright payment, however, of $25.00 or some other
designated amount to certain classes of retired employees may not
be lawfully made. Such an arrangement would be discriminatory.
While pension benefits may be increased periodically
the benefits must be connected with and bear a relationship to
the value of the services previously performed by the employees.
023
1
•
Members of The
Citv*Commission
-2- May 9, 1973
Federal revenue sharing funds ar`e nbt appropriate for
use to increase pension benefits now being paid to retired
personnel. While the Revenue Sharing Act gives municipalities
broad discretion with respect to permissible expenditures, the
designations with respect to the term "priority expenditures"
do not include increased pension benefits for retired employees
and there does not appear to be an indication in the Revenue
Sharing Act that pension benefits would be a reasonably antici-
pated item of expenditure to implement the purposes of the
term "priority expenditures" as•it is used in the Revenue Sharing
Act.
AHR/JSL/rr
PREPARED AND APPROVED BY:
HN S. LLOYD �r
(Assistant Director
Mayor Ferre: All right now Captain, if I can ask you to have some faith
in us because we are a little bit behind and I know I asked you to be
here late morning. We will try trhear this matter before we break for
lunch if we can move quickly now and I will try as quickly as I can.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I was wondering if they could be afforded
copies of this memorandum and also that they be afforded the letter
from Kruse, O'Connor and Ling so they can be better prepared to speak
when they do. I think its appropriate that they be given a copy of each.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Rothstein, would you see that someone does that for us?
8, G -DV, QR� RINGRRESOLUTLONNE N- TRACY SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT
The Mayor announced the Commission was now ready to consider the
hearing of objections for the sewer improvement described above.
Mr.Eric Dietch: I am Eric Dietch, Retired, I live in this area since 1937
until 65. Specifically 1658 N. W. 19th Street. I now own the duplex
accross at 1651 N. W. 19th Street. .In all those years, to my knowledge,
we had no problem with our sewers. During the last 10 years, the zoning
changes have taken place without the property owners being notified and
instead of 2-family residences, we have now 10 unit apartments put up
and naturally the sewers are overloaded. I do not object to larger sewers
there, if they axe needed but I usre object that I, who have been paying
double water bills all those years, should now be assessed an additional
practically $1,000 for 2-families that live on that duplex while next to
me on that same area is a 10-unit apartment. They are individual apart-
ments, they haven't even got fire escapes. Families are living in there
and these 10 families in one area is also just paying 890, close to
$1000. I object to that. I object to building a new sewer. If these
people need a new sewer because the zoning was then raised to 10 units
for that same property area, then let them pay for the sewers and'not
me who has lived and paid taxes there since 1937.
024
• a
Mr. Plummer: I think we ought to hear from Mr. Grimm.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Reese?
Mr. Vince Grimm, Dir.of Pub.Works: Generally we don't have objectors
to sanitary sewer construction because the people recognize the need
for sewers and this particular area is a little complicated in the sense
that there are some existing sanitary sewers, some of which go back to
1927. The particular sewers that serve this gentleman's property, there
is no record at all that they were ever built and assessed for. Our
records indicate that City forces did some repair work way back in 1937.
The line that serves this property is only 6" in diameter and a continual
maintenance problem. Now the least zoning in this area is R-3, there
is some C-4. I can assure the Commission that where the sewers are
adequate, we do not intend to assess the people. This specific gentleman's
objection is we will build sewers in front of his house and yes, he will
be assessed. Now the Charter sets forth how the sewers are assessed.
The people only pay up to an 8" pipe and only up to a 6' depth so
regardless of whether its a single family residence or multi -family,
that is the limit that is charged against the property owner and in
essence the City as a whole, pays about 50% of the cost.
Mayor Ferre: What size pipe and how deep is this sewer going to be?
Mr. Grimm: The minimum size is 8" and I don't know the depth off hand
Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: Could it be deeper and larger Mr. Grimm?
Mr. Grimm: Yes it could be.
Mayor Ferre: How do you determine now the difference in cost for
assessment purposes if its a larger or deeper ditch? Do you get an
estimate of that?
Mr. Grimm: We did it it that way. We do every piece of pipe as to its
size and its depth so that we have actual unit cost.
Mayor Ferre: But you haven't answered my question. Then what you
are saying is that the assessment on the property owner is limited to
an 8" pipe, no deeper than 6' which is what would normally be for a
single family residential area and therefore, the excess over that
which would for example accomodate apartments, is paid for by the city,
is that what you are saying?
Mr. Grimm: Yes Sir.
Mayor Ferre: Any bkher further-, yes sir.
Mr. Hisey: I am Van Hisey and I have a piece of property at 24th Court
and 20th Street. We do have an 8" sewer and a 6" lateral sewer which
runs through the property line which we had to pay for. Originally it
was a $900 assessment to our property. A year ago, they bought a right
of way from us of 10'. At that time, they assured us that it would be
noassessments or anything on sewer etc. when they purchasedi.the property
for additional, for the construction of the State Road Dept., therefore
we feel we are being discriminated against in this area. The adjacent
properties, if they are going to receive these benefits of our sewers,
so they should be able to afford to pay proportionately to what we are.
Mayor Ferre: This is specifically in reference to this project today,
is that right? •
Was such a statement made?
Mr. Grimm: Well I don't know what the State Road Department said.
Mayor Ferre: Who made that statement to you?
Mr. Hisey: The representative that came out to buy the property, I
forgot his name.
025 MAY 10197
l
Mayor Ferre: Was that a City Representative?
Mr. Hisey: This was city of Miami.
Mr. Grimm: No Sir, it was not.
Mr. Hisey: Well whoever purchased it.
Mr. Grimm: The State purchased it.
Mayor Ferre: The state purchased the right of way?
Mr. Grimm: Yes Sir.
Let me see if I can answer this gentleman's question. I hope I can clear
him up. As I said, this is a complicated district. Its brought into
being by the fact that the state is going to rebuild N. W. 20th Street
from 27th Avenue to the expressway and is going to rebuild N. W. 14th
Avenue from 20th Street south to 24th Street. Within this area are 3
different existing sewer systems. One of which is adequate and okay.
We do not intend to tear that out and rebuild it and we do not intend to
assess the property that is served by that sewer. When we create the
district however, its impractical to come along and isolate certain
little lots. We include it all because legally, we have to but we do
not have to assess where the sewers are adequate and if that's the case
with this gentleman's property, I can assure him, he won't be assessed.
Mr. Hisey: Thank you.
Mayor Ferre: Yes Sir, the chair recognizes you.
Your name for the record please.
Mr. Martinez: Joe Martinez. I came here representing about 4 or 5
people on 20th Street and we object to the charge of 860. Frankly,
the sewer system is there now and the State Road Department is going to
tear the road out and we can't see if they are going to tear it up, why
we should go ahead and pay for that. 20th street is turning into
industrial. Its R-1 on the north side and C-4 on the south side and
actually when you consider that, as far as density is concerned, its
actually going down. There are some properties there holding 4-families
that are turning into warehouses which is much less density and I also
feel there ought to be another way to finance this than on the taxpayers.
Everytime you turn around, you are paying high taxes, I hear the lady
got up and said the federal government is giving money to the City
and yet everytime we turn around, we are paying a large amount of money
and it doesn't stop there because once we get assessed $860.00 we are
also going to have to connect to these new sewers and when we connect
to the new sewers, I would like to ask the question: Will we have to
pay for that connection? Or does the city do this?
Mr. Grimm: Yes Sir.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, let me try to stop this right now and maybe try
to work this out. This is no more than just for a bid to try and determine
the price. May I suggest that we go ahead and vote this morning to secure
the bid but before this Commission passes it in its final form, that Mr.
Grimm as he did in Coconut Grove people, sit down and have a neighborhood
meeting and answer all of their questions before this Commission takes
final action.
Mayor Ferre: One of the things Commissioner Plummer, that I think you
ought to look into, and I would like to have a specific answer to Mr.
Grimm, is if the Department of Transportation came in here and is tearing
up the street, is why they shouldn't pay at least a very important portion
of this for these sewer lines?
Mr. Grimm: Well that's a good question Mr. Mayor, but State Law specifical
precludes them from spending any of their road monies for development of -
Mayor Ferre: Even when they tear up existing sewers?
Mr. Grimm: Yes Sir.
Mayor Ferre: Well I'll tell you, I think maybe we ought to write a letter
to the Governor on that
026 MAY 101973
and perhaps get some clarification from the State. I think that is
wrong. One thing is for them to pay for sewers when they don't exist.
It's another thing for them to come and tear them up and not pay for
the replacement.
Mr. Grimm: Well, that's a valid point Mr. Mayor and we have argued that
long and hard with the State, but to no avail. however, the sewer that
this gentleman is talking about were built in 1927 out of concrete pipe.
Even if the State wasn't rebuilding the road, these sewers have outlived
their life.
Mayor Ferre: Well I think we should, if you would please Mr. Reese,
I think we should direct ourselves to the Department of Transportation
and submit this to him even though we do have to replace them, they
are now existing sewers even though they are 1927 6" pipe. I think we
should have or request some consideration.
Now Mr. Martinez, Mr. Hisey and Mr. Dietch. Let me explain this to you.
Here is what we are going to do today.
We are going to ask for bids. You have my word, that we will not
implement this matter until we call for a neighborhood meeting with all
of you that are interested. If you will leave your names as representatives
of the street, we will be sure to contact them and call them in and have
a discussion so its fully understood and you will know when this matter
will come up for final consideration, should we decide to proceed.
In the meantime, lets see if we can get some relief from the State.
Thereupon the following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-352
A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING ORDERING RESOLUTION NO. 73-238
AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE FOR SEALED
BIDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF TRACY SANITARY SEWER IMP-
ROVEMENT SR-5275 C (CENTERLINE SEWER) IN TRACY SANITARY
SEWER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT SR-5275 C (CENTERLINE SEWER)
FURTHER CONDITIONED UPON A PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD IN
THE AFFECTED NEIGHBORHOOD PRIOR TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
THIS PROJECT
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in
the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mrs. Gordon, the resolution was passed and
adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs.
Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Ferre. NOES: None
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-353
A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING ORDERING RESOLUTION NO. 73-239
AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE FOR SEALED
BIDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF TRACY SANITARY SEWER IMP-
ROVEMENT SR-5275 S (SIDELINE SEWER) IN TRACY SANITARY
SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT SR-5275 S (SIDELINE
SEWER); FURTHER CONDITIONED UPON A PUBLIC HEARING TO BE
HELD IN THE AFFECTED NEIGHBORHOOD PRIOR TO THE IMPLEM-
ENTATION OF THIS PROJECT
027
i
(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. Plummer, Reboso,
Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson'and Mayor Ferre. NOES: None
91 CONDITIONAL USE- VARIANCE: TRACTS A & B 1660 N. W. 7TH COURT
N,m.C. CENTER
Before this matter was considered by the Commission, Mrs. Gordon
announced she was abstaining on the item because she was a property
owner within 375'.
Mayor Ferre: The record will show that Mrs. Gordon is abstaining because
she is a property owner in the immediate vicinity.
Are there any objectors present to Item 9A?
Mr. Acton, Director of the Planning Department: Mr. Mayor, before the
Commission hears this item, I would like read part of our recommendation
which makes the following statement:
Although the subjects application for conditional use and
variances is considered reasonable, it would not be a
detriment to the area, the zoning ordinance does not provide
the legal framework by which the department can make an
affirmative recommendation based on hardship. If a proper
framework existed, the department would have no objection
to the requested petition.
One problem that the Planning Department continually face's and we intend
to take care of this particular weakness in our zoning ordinance during
that period of time when the city is revising its Planning and Zoning
systems.
Mayor Ferre: In other words, you would like to do it but can't legally.
We get the picture. Any further discussion on this matter?
Mr. Plummer: No, I want to pin it down, George, lets just came down to
the nitty gritty. Your department has no objection if it was within the
framework of the ?
Mr. Acton: What I am saying is, our recommendation must always be based
on the zoning ordinance. There is no legal hardship: on this matter and
therefore we can't make a recommendation -
Mr. Plummer: Let me ask my question once again.
Mayor Ferre: He is being specific.
Mr. Plummer: No he is not. No he is not.
Mayor Ferre: What he is saying is that he has to by law live within the
ordinance of the City of Miami and the City of Miami Ordinance says that
unless there is hardship, that he has to recommend the way he is recomm-
ending. What he is telling you, is that if he could recommend differently,
he would but he can't, now you take it from there.
Mr. Plummer: Do I have that opportunity?
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Mayor, you can act in the negative, but I don't like
to,,I want positive. George, I'll ask my question once again.
My question very simply is, if this was within the legal framework of
the ?, your department would be in favor of it?
Mr. Acton: Yes.
Mr. Plummer: That's all I asked.
Thereupon the following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer
who moved its adoption:
r
028 MAY 101973
RESOLUTION NO. 73-354
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A "CONDITIONAL USE", AS PROVIDED
IN ORDINANCE NO. 6871, ARTICLE VIII, SECTION 1 (11)(c),
TO PERMIT 1st FLOOR AND 5TH FLOOR ADDITIONS TO EXISTING
HIGHLAND PARK MEMORIAL HOPSITAL, UNDER CONCURRENT PET-
ITION FOR VARIANCES, N. M. C. CENTER, (86-96), TRACTS
A 4 B, LOCATED AT 1660 N. W. 7TH COURT, SITE ZONED R-4
(Medium Density Multiple) DISTRICT
(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. Plummer,
Mr. Reboso, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Ferre. ABSTAINING: Mrs. Gordon
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Reboso who moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-355
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM ORDINANCE NO.
6871, ARTICLE XXIII, SECTIONS 4 (8) AND 7 (4) (b)
TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF 1st AND 5th FLOOR ADDITIONS
TO EXISTING HIGHLAND PARK MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, N. M. C.
CENTER (86-96), TRACTS A F, B, LOCATED AT 1660 N. W.
7TH COURT, WITH FLOOR AREA RATIO OF 1.17 (1.06 GRANTED
BY RESOLUTION NO. 40393), WAIVING 110 OF 212 REQUIRED
OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES, AND WAIVING 1 REQUIRED OFF-
STREET LOADING BAY, RESOLUTION NO. 40393 HAVING GRANTED
SOUTH SIDE SETBACK OF 22.3' (36' REQUIRED), LOT COVERAGE
OF 23.8% (23% PERMITTED), HOSPITAL UNDER CONCURRENT
PETITION FOR "CONDITIONAL USE" FOR EXPANSION; SITE
ZONED R-4 (MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIPLE) DISTRICT
(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. Plummer, Reboso,
Reverend Gibson and Mayor Ferre. ABSTAINING: Mrs. Gordon.
10, VARIANCE - LOT 30, BLOCK 4, GLENHAV H
The Mayor announced the Commission was now ready to consider this
application and called for objectors to come forth.
No objectors appeared.
Thereupon the following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-356
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM ORDINANCE NO. 6871
ARTICLE VI, SECTION 3 (2), TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF AN
ADDITIONAL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON LOT 30, BLOCK 4,
GLENHAVEN (6-78), LOCATED WEST OF 2934 N. W. 22ND COURT,
029 MAY 101973
a
WITH A 13' SIDE STREET SETBACK (15' REQUIRED), SITE
ZONED R-2 (TWO-FAMILY) DISTRICT
(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. Plummer,
Reboso, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Ferre. ABSENT: Mrs. Gordon.
11, CONDITIONAL USE - LOTS 20 & 21, BLOCK 7, BOWLING GREEN
The Mayor announced the Commission was now ready to consider this
application previously deferred by the City Commission.
The Mayor noted that the applicant was not present this date.
An unidentified man who said he was an objector appeared and
represented to the Commission that the applicants had informed him
that they had withdrawn this application which would have permitted a
Day Nursery at the location described above.
Mr. Plummer: I think if we are going to consider a withdrawl, it ought
to be in writing. Mr. City Attorney, this man is an objector and -
Mayor Ferre: We will leave it this way then. If there is a withdrawal
it automatically takes care of itself and if there is no withdrawl, we
will hear this at the next meeting.
Mr. Plummer moved the matter be deferred until May 24, 1973, to
which the Commission agreed.
12, CONDITIONAL USE - LOTS 5 & 6, BLOCK 2. GOLF COURSE PARK
Mr. James Eckerd, Attorney representing a Mr. Damiano, the owner
of both lots contained in the application appeared and stated the lots
had been purchased from Mr. Gonzalez, the applicant of record since the
matter had come before the Planning Board.
No objectors appeared.
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Reboso who moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-357
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A "CONDITIONAL USE", AS PROVIDED IN
ORDINANCE NO. 6871, ARTICLE V, SECTION 1 (6) (b), TO PERMIT
OFF-STREET PARKING ON LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK 2, GOLF COURSE
PARK (43-3), LOCATED AT 4216 AND 4226 N. W 6TH STREET, NOT
TO BE USED FOR REQUIRED PARKING, IN CONJUNCTION WITH OFFICE
BUILDING LOCATED AT S50 N. W. 42ND AVENUE, SITE ZONED R-2
(TWO-FAMILY), DISTRICT; AND COMPLYING WITH THE LIGHTING
REQUIREMENTS FOR PARKING LOTS AS SET OUT IN ORDINANCE NO.
8115
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file
in the City Clerks Office)
030
MAY 101973
Upon being seconded by Mr. Plummer, the resolution was passed
and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso,
Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Ferre. NOES: None -
13, NORTHEAST AREA STUDY
(A) CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION,- SPOIL ISLAND LYING QFF N.E. 64 ST.
(B) CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION - TENTATIVE PLAT #793-A
MIAMI CLUB APARTMENTS
LE ON PARK AMD
(c) CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION - LOTS 1, 2, PORTION OF 3
f1 KAY TOWVS
('HG,ZON,CLASS-IOT 3, ESS,NE�.Y 420' BLOCK � MCKAY TOWEERS the
matters as described above and the chair recognized the Director of the
Planning Department.
Mr. Acton: Mr. Mayor and Members of the Commission. Information on
the N. E.'area study is contained in two reports and all I am going to
do this morning is review the highlights of the report.
This particular study was done at the request of certain NorthEast
Civic Organizations. I am going to start Mr. Mayor with the existing
land -use map for the area. The existing land=use for the most part is
single family low density housing of very substantial well maintained
character. South of Legion Park, the character changes although the
area still has a substantial amount of single family housing, there are
quite a few newer low density multiple family units that are built in
that area. That's the area lying south of the Legion Park.
Now of vital importance to the Commission's review of this particular
area is the circulation system. The circulation system has developed and
forms the basis for the changes that are recommended to the Commission
by the Planning Department. You will note that all of those streets
within the study area lie south of Legion Park and deadend at the Bay.
Now, this goes back to the original planning for the area and what I am
really saying is that there is no way for a homeowner or a multi -family
resident to leave his dwelling, get into a car, drive to a connector
street which would take him directly to one of the major arteries.
Instead of that, he must leave the dwelling unit in that area south of
Legion Park, he must go to Biscayne Boulevard. In the area that lies
north of the Legion Park does contain some streets. 71st Street.
What does happen in this area, 71st Street has one of the few traffic
lights on Biscayne Boulevard.
I want to switch to the existing zoning map of this area and I want you
to notice that in that area that lies to the north of Legion Park, the
people that either reside in multi -family districts R-5 or R-4, they
want to make a left hand turn onto Biscayne Boulevard, they must traverse
71st Street which does go through a single family area. If they want to
make a right-hand turn, there is no problem but because of the traffic on
Biscayne Boulevard, what is happening in this area is that we are getting
a terrific amount of cars from the multi -family high density districts
that must by necessity, go through single family low density areas.
Our recommendation is based on a considerable amount of study, recognizing
that the situation where cars must traverse small local streets that
go through single family areas that were originally designed to be quiet,
to be free of annoying air pollution, we are recommending two changes in
the area plus the change in the city owned spoil island that lies off
the American Legion Park. The spoil island is presently zoned R-1 which
is certainly inappropriate for city land. We are recommending it be
changed to public recreational. More than that, we are recommending that
the existing R-5 zoning which is an example of spot zoning and the only
R-5 in this entire area, adjacentito single family homes, we are
recommending that this area be rolled back from R-5 to R-4. R-5 adjacent
to R-1 is like having an elephant adjacent to a toad. There is no
transition. We have the potential of very large buildings being built
adjacent to single family homes.
I want to again reiterate, that the single family homes in this area are
very fine homes, they are very well maintained. They have very active
and determined civic groups within their area, so we are recommending
that the R-5 be rolled back to R-4 to make it a more uniform application
and also to reduce the density, thereby reducing the eventual traffic
that will be travelling these local streets and then further south,
south of Legion Park, we are recommending a change in the existing R-4
031
zoning line because in our -re-examination of the area, we did discover
that the large apartment that is in there now does have parking lots
which actually empty into an R-3 area but the R-3 area does have an
awful lot of existing single family homes. What we are recommending
is a reduction in the density in this area to be more compatible with
the surrounding R-1 area.
I also wanted to point out to the Commission one last thing. We did
make an error in our zoning application line. Ore of the items that you
will be considering, if you will look to the north there, our revised
recommendation is to follow the property line. What's happening now is
that you have a portion of an existing zoned R-1 lot with a small piece
of R-S on it. We are recommending a change to follow ::the ownership
pattern as opposed to an arbitrary straight line accross it.
If there are any questions, I will be glad to answer them.
Mayor Ferre: In this area that you are rolling back from R-5 to R.4,
is that strictly the area where the Palm Bay Club is?
Mr. Acton: No, the Palm Bay presently has R-4. In other words, the
Palm Bay lies south of the existing R-5 zoning.
Mayor Ferre: Is the property developed at this time?
Mr. Acton: In the R-5?
Mayor Ferre: In any way.
Mr. Acton: Well most of the property is presently built with the
exception of one parcel of land in the R-5 that presently is vacant and
undeveloped. The old Mc Kay Towers is existing on the R-5 property.
Mayor Ferre: Is that where Mc Kay Towers is?
Mr. Acton: That's right.
Mayor Ferre: That's basically the property -
Mr. Acton: That plus the vacant property that lies to the west of it.
Mayor Ferre: Is it the same ownership?
Mr. Acton: No, its different ownership.
Mayor Ferre: Why was that zoned R-5?
Mr. Acton: It was zoned R-5 back on 1961. Why, I don't know. I am at
at loss to understand that high zoning.
Mayor Ferre: Since you and I weren't around at that time, I want to ask
you. Was the Mc Kay Towers built under R-S?
Mr. Acton: I think I am going to let Mr. Simpson answer that because -
Mr Simpson, Exec.Secty.Planning Board: Mc Kay Towers was built in an
R-1 District under the variance application. In think this took place
in about 1959 or 60 prior to the zoning ordinance. Then when the
comprehensive zoning ordinance was being considered at public hearing,
the building was already there and the Commission at that time applied
the R-5 zoning which made it legal under the new zoning ordinance frame-
work.
Mayor Ferre: Would the Mc Kay Towers be out of character with R-4?
Mr. Acton: No.
Mayor Ferre: So in other words, it would fit within -
Mr. Acton: Thatsright .
Mayor Ferre: The classification of R-4 and the Palm Bay Club is already
R-4. Okay, lets hear from the objectors, are there any here?
032
MAY 101973
0
Mr. George: My name is Charles George and Iam attorney for Belco Ltd.$ ? _
the owners of the property on the chart, south end of the property.
Mayor Ferre: Do you represent both?
Mr. George: Yes. I do. At the present time, the property is question.
The end of 63rd Street, if you will point up above, we own all of the
property that is to the north of that and are presently developing that
property, that's the Biscayne Bay Club Apartments in that area and we own
out to the bulkhead line to the east of the shoreline there and we plan
of course to develop it. ,As a matter of fact, when we initially decided
to develop this property, our plan called for 5 apartment buildings.
We have 10 acres, 211 acres submerged. 3 of these buildings are nearing
the completion of construction at this time. We had planned the 2 add-
itinnal buildings. We have spent money for the engineering. We have
sent money for the architectural work. We have spent the necessary money
for the legal fees and teh necessary money for the procurement of this
property.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. George, how long are you going to take so we can -
Mr. George: I will take just a very few minutes but I have several,
distinct objections to this rollback in zoning. First of all, the only
thing that it accomplishes, :is that is straightens out a line and lowers
the density to a very minimal degree. This is not spot zoning, this is
not adjacent to R-1, as indicated, its zoned R-4 now. Its completely
encircled by R-4 and R-3 zoning. There is no valid reason whatsover
so change the zoning on this property. Its consistent with the other
zoning immediately around it. We plan to develop this consistent with
the present development on the property that either exists or is nearing
completion. This property was bought by Belco Ltd., with R-4 zoning
and the price was paid on that basis. They have paid taxes for 8 years
with the assessable base on R-4 zoning and needless to say, that has
definitely affected assessment and increased the taxes. Under these
circumstances, it would be exceptionally unfair to roll back the zoning.
These people have bought this property and paid taxes and developed the
property and gone to great expense in this connection, in reliance upon
the zoning that was in effect at the time.
There is no indication here that the present zoning of this property
adversely affects the health, education, welfare or the morals of the
state and community which is a requirement of the law. This is tandemount
to inverse condemnation because it depreciates the value of this property
without any compensation to the landowners or developers of the property.
We are not asking in this connection for a zoning change and never have
asked for a zoning change in connection with this property so these
apartments can be constructed, we are simply asking it be left the way it
is, left the way it was when this property was bought, planned and
developed in reliance on the existing property. We think it would be
exceptionally unfair under the circumstances to roll this back, pure and
simply for the purpose of dileanating the area by straightdning a line
along 64th street and this is the only purpose it serves and it definitely
adversely affects our development plans.
I might say that we were supposed to have applied for a building permit
and a dredge and fill permit on this land sometime ago. We have done
95 to 99% of the work, the architect and engineer have been held up to
some degree. It was supposed to have been filed months ago and we are
working on it now, it will probably be ready for filing within the next
few days and when that is filed, our application for the dredge and fill
permit which has been completed, except for a no -protest letter from the
City, has not as yet been received. We ask you to consider the costly
and adverse affect it will have on this property and the owners of this
property before you roll it back, thank you.
Mayor Ferre: How many acres are involved in this property?
Mr. George: I would just have to estimate from the scale drawing on the
board, we are talking about a couple of acres.
Mayor Ferre: Thats all under one ownership?
Mr. George: Thats correct.
033
MAY 101973
Mayor Ferre: Your application will cover the entire piece of property?
MR. George: The application will cover the entire piece of property
and this will adversely affect just that one area with a couple of
acres on the land side and a couple of acres submerged.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. George, let me ask, I was just trying to get some fast
legal advice there. What grounds is the City on in a roll -back?
They advise me that they thought they heard you say that you had already
pulled your permits.
Mr. George: No we have not pulled the permits. They were supposed to
be pulled this past week and even prior to this. We had planned this
development months and months ago. We had planned the use of this
property and the submerged land when the property was re -platted and
site was submitted and approved by the.City at that time. There is no
question. We have spent many many hundreds of thousands of dollars in
consideration of the future development of the property that you are
considering right now. We can establish that without any difficulty.
The only holdup in pulling the building permit is that the architect
and the engineer are running behind because they are exceptional buildings
and the only holdup un the dredge and fill permit application is the fact
the city has not given us a no -protest letter.
Mayor Ferre: Mrs. Rockafelar?
Mrs. Rockafellar: I am here today representing the Northeast Taxpayers
Association but the Northeast Improvement Association and the property
owners that live in the Northeast area. Last year on behalf of all these
people, we appeared before this City Commission and requested a thorough,
comprehensive study be made of our community. We explained to the
Commission at that time, we felt this study was long overdue, that this
was vitally important not only to the property owners but to this Commission,
the Zoning Board and most especially, to the Planning Department.
The Planning Department is your group of paid professionals. Its their
job to know the condition of any given area, to know how densely we are
populated, our streets and sewers adequate, and the character of the
neighborhood and everything about it because they must rely on this
information to pass down their recommendations which both the City
Commission and the zoning Board go to a great deal in basing your decisions
on whether to grant zoning changes or not. The only that Planning Department
is going to find out just what these conditions, is to go into the area,
studying it out thoroughly as they just completed doing in our community.
This City Commission granted our request and we are very thankful to both
Mayor Kennedy and Mr. Rothstein helped us very much in guiding us to
procedure. The Commission then requested the City Planning Department to
Proceed with this study. Now both this Commission and the Zoning Board
are constantly faced with two classes of people. You have to decide which
class of people know the character of the neighborhood, are working for
the good of the community, know the facts as to the population, the
drainage system, the streets and what not.. You have to decide which one
of those two groups are telling the truth. You don't see the speculators
coming before this City Commission or the Zoning Board and say now look,
we are thinking of investing so much money in this community, we want
to talk it over with you first, we want to find out. Do you recommend we
go ahead with this or that its feasible or good for the area, no they
have not done that. By any means possible, they grab a choice piece
of property, and then they'll come beforeyou and say look, we have in-
vested so much money in this area, now you guarantee us an income on it.
Now, I don't think the City is in the business of guaranteeing anybody
an income. If you are, we would like to know it because we will be in
the same kind of business but the only way you have to judge these people
is by what they tell you and on one side, you have the speculators, none
of whom live in our area. They come into this area with one purpose in
mind,making a quick dollar, and getting out. They get hold of this
property anyway possible and then as I said, they come to you and tell
you what they demand of you. They are not interested in the hardships
they cause to the rest of the community. They are not interested
whether the area is adequate to take care of the influx of people that
their cement walls and their highrises are going to cause. They aren't
interested in any of those things because they won't be living there
anyway.
034
MAY 101973
0
•
They tell you that these cement walls, highrises, closing of streets,
are going to be an asset to the community.
Now we know and they know the only asset that is going to be involved
is the one they put in their pocket. They tell you what they are going
to do for the community but we say its what they are doing to the community.
On the other hand, you have property owners, the people who have lived
there for many years. People who have pride in ownership, who have
supported this community with their tax dollars and their hard work and
their pride living in this one area. We are just such a group of people.
We have supported our community to such an extent that we are the highest
taxed area in the City of Miami. They move from one area to another.
They throw up these monstrosities, then they move out. They get a quick
dollar and they go to another neighborhood and destroy it in the same
fashion. We know the facts in our area. We know that our storm sewers
right now are not adequate to take care of the people that live there.
Ever since Mc Kay Towers was granted a permit to rezone and fill in and
build on that property, we have had a severe drainage problem because
our area has a natural slant to the bay and the water always runs down,
we never had a drainage problem but since this went in, many homes on
the east end of 71 and 72nd street are continually under water during
a normal rainstorm. The more they build and the more thats filled in on
that bayfront, its going to force the property owners to be in a virtual
lake. Every man that sat on the Commission .at the time that Mc Kay
Towers was rezoned and Mr. Hearn, I think you all know, is one of them,
has publically stated that it was the biggest mistake of that adminis-
tration and you can never correct that mistake by compounding it and
allowing more highrises,'or hotels to go in there.
At the present time in our area, we are being over run with speculators.
We are already populated to capacity. We have all the people we can
handle now. As Mr. Acton was telling about 71st Street, its a regular
sewer up there, I live in 71st Street and I know because the children
living in the area cannot cross the street -
Mayor Ferre: Grace, excuse me for interrupting you but as I asked
Mr. George, how long do you think you will be?
Mrs. Rockafellar: Not too long, I just want to put my point accross.
It seems like the longer the speculators come, the worse they get.
Now right now, we have a group in there that has been trying since 1971
to grab up all the choice homes on the east half of 71st and 72nd street
and all of loth avenue. They gave options on these homes at astronomical
prices. Now they are not putting up any money on these houses. All they
have asked the property owner to do is give them an option for 6 months or
a year, its all contingent upon the zoning. If this goes through, they
plan on asking the City to close the east half of 72nd, east half of 71st
and all of loth Avenue so they can build an 800 unit apartment building
on the bay. Mr. & Mrs. Wilmont are a couple that live on 71st Street.
They are in their 80s, own their home, all they are asking is to stay
there the rest of their lives and live in peace. These developers told
them if they didn't sign up now, incidentally they can't proceed without
Wilmont's property, if you don't sign up and take the price we are offering
you, the City is going to condemn your property, take it over and put you
out. They were frightened, they signed up for 6 months. During that 6
month period, they found out from the City that the City is not in the
business of condemning property, throwing people out for the sake of
profit to a speculator, so they refused to sign the second time.
Now they have been continually harassed because they refused to sign.
The Attorney for this group, who Wilmont's never heard of, never saw
before, represented himself as trustee of their property, proceeded to the
zoning board to have this property rezoned. It was a good thing that we
have a very fine person on that Zoning Board, Mr. Simpson. Mr. Simpson
saw this, he felt that something was wrong, he wrote to the Wilmont's
and told this Commission. The Wilmont's called this attorney and you can
imagine what they told him, even in their 80s about him representing
himself as their trustee. They said, what kind of a country are we
living in that people can come and represent themselves as trustee of
our property, have it rezoned and throw us out.
I don't think Mr. Simpson has ever heard anymore on that zoning request.
035
•
This is just an example of the kind of people we are having to put up
with. We met before the Zoning Board on March 26th. The Planning Dep-
artment which is your group of professionals made a very thomtigh and
comprehensive study of, this community. We think they did a good job and
we commend them for it and we commend them for their recommendation.
This Planning Department, the Zoning Department had their meeting on the
26th of January. These recommendations were overwhelmingly approved.
Now we are here today to ask this Commission, remember this Commission
requested its Planning Department and you look to them for your
recommendations and so does the Zoning Department. We are here today to
ask you to approve these recommendations too because we came to you and
said, we want this study. Don't take our words, don't take the speculators
words. Come out and see for yourselves and then vote accordingly and
that's what has happened.
Mayor Ferre: All right Mrs. Rockafellar, is there anything else you want
to add to this?
Mrs. Rockafellar: We just hope that this is passed and that these
guidelines are used as future guidelines of any requests.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Rothstein, I would like to request that you and your
office in vestigate the charges that have been made here this morning
which in my opinion are serious and I think I would like for you to come
back to this Commission.
Mr. Rothstein: I think I can advise you today. I can't advise you as to
what personal action these people might have against the person who
represented himself as trustee.
Mayor Ferre: That's a personal matter. The
like to make sure of is that nobody is using
in threatening people and I think that -
This Commission will not stand for that type
only thing that I would
the City's name in vain
of abuse to citizens.
Mrs. Rockafellar: Mr. Mayor, I think I took this up with Mr. Rothstein
at the time and Mr. Simpson is here, is the one that got the letter
from this attorney, his name is Hayes?
Mayor Ferre: I don't want to know that. I don't even want to know
the people are involved.
Mr. Rothstein: People saying to these people that the Clty of Miami is
going to condemn -
Mayor Ferre: Its a matter of principle. We live in a day and age where
Washington and Tallahassee - what I am saying is that in the City of Miami
we have a lot of people tacking about consumer protection and the rights
of citizens that are being abused left and right and I feel strongly that
this City administration and that the City Law Department is just as much
or should be, just as much a public advocate of protecting people's rights
as any other governmental body in this country and I would request that
you immediately get into this, investigate it, and come back to the
City COmmission-
Mrs. Rockafellar: We appreciate that Mr. Mayor because we and our civic
associations have a very high regard for our city officials.
Mayor Ferre: All right Mrs. Rockafellar, in the interest of time, now
if you have any rebuttal, I would like to say Mr. George that this has
nothing to do with your position or your request personally.
Mr. George: I want you to understand, the Commission as a whole and these
people to understand that our property is not located and my people have
had nothing to do with the matter this lady complains of. We are not
speculators and we did not come here and grab off choice pieces of
property. The Houkes and Coopers have owned this land since and for 85
continuous years. They do live there. They have lived there longer than
anyone else and probably in existence before this City was even incorporated
they have lived there for some 85 years and paid taxes since that time.
They are not speculators and they are not people who just come in to
despoil an area and they are not asking for a zoning change to move on,
thank you.
036
014
Mr. Spencer: Mr. Mayor, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Tom Spencer,
A partner in the law firm of Meyers, Kaplan, Levinson etc., and I
represent the landowners of 2 lots which are proposed to be rollbacked
from R-5 to R-4. The 2 lots are indicated on the chart by this gentleman
and the property is on N. E.69th Street. I would like to characterize
the property and give you some of the landmarks that are involved. The
land is characterized by a double lane leading off Biscayne Boulevard to
the property site. The property site is surrounded by a road which is
as wide as Biscayne Boulevard. Leading to the property is a 12" main
which is the largest in the study area including the catch basin which
leads to a 10" main which leads to a 36" main. In 1952, this property
was zoned R-1. In 1961, after a compreheisive zoning area study, this
Commission increased the zoning to R-5 which has existed for the past 12
years. My client purchased the property in 1968 and has owned it ever
since. In the immediate vicinity and adjacent, I think you all recognize
that there are numerous highrises. I want to distinguish with regard to
Item 13C that we are in the situation of being 2 lot owners of the 3 items
involved. I don't know whether there is anybody representing the other
portions but for some reason they included us all in one but with regard
to our situation. We have had this property. Its been zoned R-5 for
the past 12 years, taxes have been paid upon it and prior to the
recommendation by the Planning Board, we did procure a building permit,
we have a building permit and plans and specifications on file and we
are proceeding with development based on R-5 and I believe that you
gentlemen recognize substantially the problem but I am not concerned today
with the legal problems involved, I am concerned with the questions of
the equities involved. The lady talked about the fact that this
recommendation was overwhelmingly approved. That is not the case.
With regard to this specific item, it was a 5=4 vote by the Planning
Board for the very reason that it seemed to be such an inequitable
situation at least in the minds of 4 members of the Board, they could see
our position and I am hoping that you will agree with us and that it
seems to us to be inequitable that in a situation where it was obviously
designed for ahigh density area. After a comprehensive zoning resolution
in 1961, for these people to pay taxes on R-5 zoning for 12 years, where
they have planned to develop it, where they have pulled the building permit,
when they are in fact proceeding to develop it under R-5, that it should
now be rolled back to R-4, we think this is an inequitable situation
and we don't think the situation has changed in any degree and in fact
the staff report, one of the main emphasis the staff places in its report
is that the basic character of the neighborhood has not changed in the
past 11 years and I am quoting directly from the report. We see that
there is no change involved and the only thing that can be perpetrated
on these people is an injustice and we hope you will agree with our
position and that is it as briefly as possible. Are there any questions
that you might have? Thank you.
Mayor Ferre: Let me ask you; do you also represent Mc Kay Towers?
Mr. Spencer: No, I wanted to make that very clear. I only represent
the owners of the 2 lots which were mentioned as being undeveloped,
in fact development is proceeding.
Mayor Ferre: How many square feet, are you the owner of the property?
Mr. Matthews: My name is Mark Matthews and I have been the owner since
1968. I have paid taxes since 1968 and they increased my taxes.
Mrs. Gordon: May I ask a question?
Mr. Matthews: Yes.
Mayor Ferre: Excuse me for a moment Mrs. Gordon. Now Mr. Spencer let
me ask you a question about the taxes. To the best of my understanding
because I remember this came up one time on Brickell Avenue. The Tax
Assessor does not set taxes on property based on zoning, is that correct?
0 3 7 MAY 141973
0
Mr. Spencer: That is true, its based upon the market value of the
property but its obvious in my opinion and I am sure you can get the
opinion of your own counsel, that R-5 zoning property is much more
valuable than R-1.
Mayor Ferre: Specifically as I read the law, taxation is not, that the
assessment is not based on the specific zoning of the property, is that
right?
Mr. Rothstein, City Attorney: That is correct, the value of the highest
and best use, however, you must remember on Brickell there were a large
number of pieces of property that are not rezoned and that is why the
Commission didn't rezone the entire parcels to SA or 5 because there
were many people who did not want to build anything other than their
private homes on it.
Mayor Ferre: Wasn't that rezoned George Acton?
Of course, that had nothing to do with this, but it was rezoned R-SA.
Mr. Acton: R-SA is correctt__Mr. Rothstein is referring to the property -
Mayor Ferre: That has nothing to do with this anyway.
Mr. George: But it does. There is a statute with several criteria for
zoning, that each county tax assessor shall follow and they are enumerated
and one criteria is the use of the property which includes zoning and
the tax assessors very definitely takes into consideration zoning in
assessing the fair and just market value of the property.
Isn't that right Mr. Rothstein?
Mr. Rothstein: Well all these things would be taken into account by
anybody doing an assessment but if its mot zoned to a multiple family use
obviously it cannot be counted. If it is zoned to a multi -family use,
they can concider the highest and best use as being multiple family.
Mayor Ferre: .All right now another gentleman wants to speak on this
matter.
Mr. Caskil? My name is Caskil and I live on 71st Street. Now the man
here claims that he owns the property, let him answer me one question.
Why has he had a sign for over year and a half for sale-highrise?
Mayor Ferre: Well I don't think that that's -
Mr. Caskil: The sign is there.
Mr. Plummer: He is asking, Mayor please, if we are going to run this
meeting, lets run the meeting.
Mr. Caskil: And now he has it up for sale. Is it for him or is it for
speculation?
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Caskil, let me say this to you. I understand your
question. The fact that this gentleman wants to or does not want to
sell the property really has nothing to do with this matter. He can
sell his property, he has that right.
Mr. Caskil: He is asking for a zoning change all the time he has got a
sign, for sale.
in-
(Untillegible conversation) several persons speaking at once.
Mrs. Gordon: When the permit was obtained for the construction that was
mentioned previously. When was that obtained?
Mr. Matthews: It was obtained prior to the hearing before the Miami
Planning Board.
Mrs. Gordon: Just prior to the hearing?
Mr. Matthews: Prior to the hearing, but after the Northeast area study
was commenced, prior to the hearing and prior to any recommendations-
038
• J
MAY 101973
A
Mayor Ferre: Any further questions?
Mr. Schwartz: My name is Jay Schwartz and I represent the owners of the
Mc Kay Towers. Where that pointer is is the location of the Mc Kay Towers.
This property was purchased by my client after the Parkinson Foundation
could no longer handle the property. They purchased it at top dollar as
thee was quite active bidding on the property. They were successful in
the bidding of this R-5 property, they reconditioned and refurbished the
building and converted it to condominiums and made it a much more sightly
much more better place to have there than the old decaying building.
What you propose to do now would be to rollback our exisgint R-5 to R-4.
There was a question asked before regarding this building and I, my
question to you is that whatever you do, this building will remain as it
is of course, I understand that, but if this building were destroyed by
fire, hurricane whatever, we would then be stuck with the R-4 that we
were rolled back to. We are there and we are not asking for anything
more at this time. Just to leave us with the piece of property we have
with the existing building. You can't destroy the building with zoning
but in the event this property was destroyed in some way, fire or
hurricane, we would then be stuck with R-4. I think this is taking away
a substantial existing property right from my client, the otter of the
building and I don't think any purpose at all would be served in rolling
back this parcel where Mc Kay Towers rests inasmuch as there can be no
future development on it as it exists now whether under R-4 or R-5 and
basically we had traffic studies on N. E. 69th Street by Newton and
Associates which shows the street is only now used 25% of the capacity
it was designed for. Its been mentioned about large sewer lines that
go right up to the property, which are adequate. They were designed for
the zoning that you saw on the board R-5 and this particular property,
there can be no reason to roll it back. It is taking away property rights.
Mayor Ferre: All right Mr. Schwartz. Now the Chair hopes this matter
will come up for a vote before 1 o'Clocl: so that we don't get into extended
arguing and discussing. I think we have heard enough. Now Grace, unless
its absolutely essential ---well make it quick, please.
Mrs. Rockafellar: He said there would be no purpose in rolling it back
to R-4 but he failed to tell you that they had an application before the
Zoning Board on the 26th to build another one on the parking lot. Now if
R-5stays there as it is, then the next developer will say we have R-5
here and R-5 there, lets put this one up R-5 and on the traffic study as
Mr. Acton has pointed out, their traffic study is really voided because
the traffic use; 71 street not 69th,
Mayor Ferre: All right -
Mr. Schwartz: If I may reply, we did have an application considering
that R-5. We would need in order to build anything, other than 1 unit
on that parking lot area, very extensive variances which the Board refused
to give us and which this Commission refused to give us.
Mr. Plummer: Let me ask this question. Dave, Item 14, whereis Item 14?
Mr. Simpson: Item 14 involves a parcel of land right there. The ownership
by the Mc Kay Towers runs this portion of Lot 3-
This little area which involves about 4600 sq.ft. is zoned R-1. They came
in and asked for a change of zoning on that parcel from R-1 to R-5. The
Board recommended R-4 in conjunction with the planning department report.
They also asked for variances which would be parking structure just easterly
of the existing Mc Kay Towers with an apartment tower proposed on top.
This was denied by the Board and has not been appealed -
Mr. Plummer: The boundary line as drawn right now. is that under present
conditions? If I am not mistaken on George Actons other proposal for this
area, the line runs so as to include that, am I right or wrong?
Mr. Simpson: Yes, his revised plan and his line would be here.
Mr. Plummer: Would that eliminate item 14?
Mr. Simpson: Yes sir.
Mr. Plummer: It would make it then -
Unidentified voice: Automatically R-4.
039
MAY .101973
orb
Mr. Simpson: And this portion of the existing Lot 2? is under another
ownership and the largest portion of it is zoned R=1 but this little
area is zoned R-5.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Acton, I understand your argument on rolling back the
R-5 to R-4. Now the piece down there on the bottom which is kind of
sticking into an R-3 area, your study recommends that that go from
R-4 to R3. Now, the reason is that it fits into an R-3 neighborhood,
is that right?
Mr. Acton: Thats part of it Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: Why was that zoned R-4 in the beginning? Why was that done?
Mr. Acton: Mr. Simpson can answer that. It was done in 1961.
The existing apartment development does have a substantial parking lot
which empties onto 62 street. During the public hearings at the Planning
and Zoning Board, objectors were present from 62nd Street stating that
they were bothered by the amount of traffic that emptied from the R-4
development in their area. As I said earlier, there are a substantial
number of single family homes on 62nd although it is zoned R-3.
Mayor Ferre: All right.
Mr. Acton: I want to point out one more thing before you take action.
The R-3 area that lies north of the existing R-5 was rezoned by court
order and as the Commission is very well aware, the city of miami is
continually faced with trying to justify court actions, why particular
zoning exists in a particular area. The most flagrant example of this
did come about in the court ordered R-5 in the Dinner Key area but it
is I believe incumbent on the legislative body to provide adequate
legislative action that would indicate the policy of the City regardless
of existing development or proposed development.
Mayor Ferre: We have heard both sides of this.
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Mayor, I would like to make some comments please.
Mayor Ferre: Mrs. Gordon -
Mrs. Gordon: Dave did you want to say something?
Mr. Simpson: I think the Commission should be advised of the existing
building permit and we are now talking about the Mc Kay tract. There
exists presently a 13 story building on one lot of the Mc Kay Tract
that is up for rezoning. The building department has a permit out for
the other two lots, lots 1 and 2, for a 28 story, 344 unit building.
I draw this to the Commission's attention because this is identically
the same thing that happened down on Fair Isle project which as caused -
Mayor Ferre: Let me understand this. You say there is already a
building permit issued?
Mr. Simpson: Yes Sir.
Mayor Ferre: A building permit?
Mrs. Gordon: Is it the foundation permit?
Mayor Ferre: I think there is a mistake here. Its not the Mc Kay property.
unintelligible conversation (several persons speaking at once)
Mr. Simpson: At the same time, Lots 1 and 2, under the same ownership
but a building permit for a 28 story building has been issued for lots
1 2.
Mr. Acton: Mr. Mayor, I would like to point out that its been the
experience of the Planning Department, that whenever we do inauguarate
a particular planning study in an area, invariably we find there is a mad
rush by developers to go down and get a building permit. Prior to the
adoption and completion of the particular study area. This did happen
for instance in the Coconut Grv.Interim Dist.Study area. We are powerless
to stop the pulling of permits under our existing ordinances.
040
MAY 101973
Mrs. Gordon: Is this a foundation permit Mr. Ferencik?
Mr. Ferencik: No. This permit is for 90 days with a possibility of
90 days extension.
Mr. Plummer: In the same vein as Mrs. Gordons question, I am always
leary of someone having something and then taking it away and my immediate
question now is to Mr. Rothstein and to Mr. Ferencik. We have heard Mr.
George say that this client has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars
in preparing their plans for their parcel. Where is that Dave?
Mr. Simpson: It involves a area plus portion of R-3 to the west
and a portion of the R-4, I do not have the survey with me.
This is the same property that was before this Commission for a private
club conditional use.
(again unintelligible conversation -several persons speaking at once)
Mayor Ferre: In effect we faced with here, these areas in the past were
improperly zoned in the past and now we have to wrestle with a situation
where a property wants to do something that is within their right and on
the other hand trying to correct a situation which is obviously wrong.
Obviously that R-5 had no place to be there.
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Mayor, may I please comment I started to make?
Mayor Ferre: All right Mrs. Gordon.
Mrs. Gordon: First of all, I do want to point out and its my understanding
that roll back zoning is legal, is that correct Mr. Rothstein?
Mr. Rothstein: Yes Mam.
Mrs. Gordon: Is it also not true that this power permits the city to
either roll up or roll back zoning according to the needs of the
community and that specified land use classifications are not a vested
right of property owners, is this correct Mr. Rothstein?
Mr. Rothstein: That is correct.
Mrs. Gordon: - Okay, therefore I believe that this Commission has to have
the courage to begin considering right now, today, the needs of the
community at large and the needs of the community at large are to avoid
any more past mistakes that have taken place and I would like to make the
motion -
Mayor Ferre: Before you do that. We will recognize you in a moment.
Did you want to make a statement?
Mr. Rothstein: YEs, COmmissioner Plummer asked me a question about
someone who has a building permit or somebody who has spent time and
money on plans. Mrs. Gordon correctly stated that this Commission has
the power to roll back. You can roll back the zoning and if there is an
existing permit, you can't take the permit away however as Mr. Ferencik
pointed out, the permit is for a period of 90 days and under certain
conditions, can be renewed so that there is no reason for you, if you
decide that its a proper zoning plan, not to act because of many factors
which may take affect and the building may never be built under R-5.
What Mr. Acton was trying to point out is that you ordered at the request
of the citizens, a study in that area and they have come back with
recommendations for the area. One of the things that we benefit by when
we are faced with court action, is when you act on a plan and accept the
plan and you proceed, it gives us greater strength in court to protect
the outside limits of the zoning area. Now sooner or later, we are going
to have a problem with the courts, maybe R-3 and stepdowning of zoning
in the area would show a recognition by the Commission that its policy
and its legislative approach is to protect the area from increased
density as opposed to not caring whether you have increased density or
not. This would give us further ammunition in court to defend.
In Mr. George's case, the issue of whether or not he has so far progressed
that he is actually reliant in good faith on pre-existing zoning, is not
a matter that this Commission can decide unless it decides to reject
the zoning. If it decides it wants the plan and wants to pass it to
041 MAY 101973
orio
protect the other areas, then Mr. George has a right to go to Court
and after he presents his plans and say to the court, that there is in
this particular case, regardless of the overall policy of the Commission,
individual to his people, a which prevents us from enforcing
him. That can only be done by a judge.
Mayor Ferre: The chair will recognize Mrs. Gordon.
An Ordinance entitled -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, THE COMPREHENSIVE
ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY CHANGING THE
ZONING CLASSIFICATION FOR THE SPOIL ISLAND LYING OFF N.E.
64TH STREET FROM R-1 (One -Family) TO P-R (Parks -Recreation)
DISTRICT; AND BY MAKING THE NECESSARY CHANGES IN THE ZONING
DISTRICT MAP MADE A PART OF SAID ORDINANCE NO. 6871, BY
REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE III, SECTION 2, THEREOF;
AND BY REPEALING ALL LAWS IN CONFLICT HEREWITH
was introduced by Mrs. Gordon, seconded by Reverend Gibson and passed
on its first reading by title by the following vote - AYES: Messrs.
Plummer, Reboso, Reverend Gibson, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Ferre. NOES: None
An Ordinance entitled -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, THE COMPREHENSIVE
ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI BY CHANGING THE
ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THAT PORTION OF TENTATIVE PLAT
#793-A- "MIAMI CLUB APARTMENTS" LYING EAST OF LOTS 31 $ 32
FALLESON PARK AMD (4-19), LOCATED AT N. E. 63RD STREET AND
BISCAYNE BAY, FROM R-4 (Medium Density Multiple) TO R-3
(Low Density Multiple) DISTRICT; AND BY MAKING THE NECESSARY
CHANGES IN THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP MADE A PART OF SAID
ORDINANCE NO. 6871 BY REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE
III, SECTION 2, THEREOF; AND BY REPEALING ALL LAWS IN
CONFLICT HEREWITH
was introduced by Mrs. Gordon, seconded by Reverend Gibson and passed
on its first reading by title by the following vote - AYES: Messrs.
Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Ferre. NOES: None
In connection with the two above ordinances, Mayor Ferre made the
following roll call comment:
Mayor Ferre: I recognize the situation the property holders are in
when there is a zoning rollback. I think however, that in these part-
icular cases, its clear after a lot of study that this general area
which is a residential area must be maintained and that the previous
Commission had made a mistake in this higher zoning. In the case of R-5
in the northern portion is truly spot zoning. I think that this matter
has been very carefully studied and I think that we have to in voting
take into consideration, the needs of all of the people and I vote yes.
042 MAY 101973
1144
An Ordinance entitled -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, THE COMP-
REHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY
CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF LOTS 1 AND 2
AND THAT PORTION dF LOT 3 LYING SOUTH OF THE EXTENSION
OF N. E. 69TH STREET, MC KAY TOWERS (75-18) FROM R-5
(High Density Multiple) TO R-4 (Medium Density Multiple)
DISTRICT; AND BY MAKING THE NECESSARY CHANGES IN THE
ZONING DISTRICT MAP MADE A PART• OF SAID ORDINANCE NO.
6871 BY REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE III,
SECTION 2, THEREOF; AND BY REPEALING ALL LAWS IN CON-
FLICT HEREWITH
was introduced by Mrs. Gordon, seconded by Reverend Gibson and passed
on its first reading by title by the following vote - AYES: Messrs.
Plummer, Reboso, Reverend Gibson, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Ferre. NOES: None
Mr. Simpson: Mr. Mayor , in conjunction with 13 A,B, and C, may I ask
the Commission to include in the records and part of the Clerks records
and attach to each one of these, a copy of this boundary map so that
the adjusted lot lines, there can be no question and by attaching this
map and by adjusting the lot lines on the North part of the Mc Kay tract,
24 which was an individual application is no longer necessary.
Mrs. Gordon: Don't we have to dispose of it though to get it off the
agenda in some manner Mr. Rothstein?
Mr. Rothstein: No you don't because its already been covered.
Just so as not to raise an;° potential of any technical attack, I would
suggest that you made a motion.
An crdinance entitled -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, THE COMPRE-
HENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY
CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF LOT 3, LESS
NORTHEASTERLY 420' LYING NORTH OF EXTENSION OF N. E.
69 STREET, BLOCK 1, MC KAY TOWERS (75-18) LOCATED AT
880 N. E. 69TH STREET, FROM R-1 (One -Family) to R-4
(Medium Density Multiple) DISTRICT; AND BY MAKING THE
NECESSARY CHANGES IN THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP MADE A
PART OF SAID ORDINANCE NO. 6871 BY REFERENCE AND
DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE III, SECTION 2, THEREOF; AND
BY REPEALING ALL LAWS IN CONFLICT HEREWITH
was introduced by Mrs. Gordon, seconded by Reverend Gibson and passed
on its first reading by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer,
Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Ferre. NOES: None
043 MAY 101973
Oft
.14, ZONED STREET WIDTH - 35 ST. ftIWL NJI AMI AVE.TO i w.23 AVENUE
An Ordinance entitled -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, ARTICLE XXV,
SECTION 1, BY DELETING PARAGRAPH (48) IN ITS ENTIRETY;
PERTAINING TO THE ZONED STREET WIDTH OF 35TH STREET,
N. W. FROM NORTH MIAMI AVENUE TO N. W. 23RD AVENUE; AND
BY REPEALING ALL LAWS IN CONFLICT HEREWITH
passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of April 26, 1973,
was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption.
On motion of Mr. Plummer, seconded by Reverend Gibson, the ordinance
was thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed
and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso,
Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Ferre. NOES: None
SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 8160.
15, PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF CAPTAIN YOUNG- PROPOSED PENSION INCREASE
Mr. Young: I am Captain Howard Young, Vice President and Chairman of
the Pension Committee of City of Miami Retired Employees. Mr. Wilcox,
our President is on vacation and he has designated me to speak on the
matter of retired employees being granted an increase in our pension.
This matter was brought before you at the last meeting and after brief
discussion, action on our request was postponed until this meeting today
in order for you to obtain a report from the Pension Board Actuaries as
to what the cost of granting our request would be. You now have received
the report and have it before you.
In view of a letter read to you by Mr. Wilcox which stated all the facts
in regard to the need for immediate action in granting relief to retirees,
I do not deem it necessary to recite anew those things which you already
have knowledge of. To try and convince you of our needs due to the cost
of living would be an insult to your intelligence, You read the papers
everyday. You are businessmen and you deal with rising costs. Your
wives as well as our wives know the daily upward trend of food at the
supermarket. Neither is it necessary to tell you that when living costs
spiral and income stands still, the results are disastrous. When the
pension system was set up, no one could forsee the conditions as they
exist today and therefore no provisions were made for cost of living by
an escalrtion clause in our pension system, a condition which sorely
needs correction. We who retired years ago after years of faithful and
honorable service to the City, now find ourselves in an intolerable
situation.
It is for this reason that we are asking this honorable Commission in
whom we had faith in your sense of fairness and justice and compassion
to act on this matter in granting us relief.
I wasn't handed all these opinions on the law until just a little while
ago. I think I would be home in bed had I had these to begin with, so
be that as it may. Gentlemen, it has been suggested that due to urgency
and need that a 1% increase of each year of retirement with a $25.00
minimum be granted. Now that's knocked out. There is only one thing left
in the actuaries report and that's #1 so I respectfully ask we change that
instead of 1% to 2% and its still not going to give some of the retirees
$25.00 increase but I don't know what else we can do. Time is of the
essence. We ask that you find it in your hearts to treat this as an
emergency measure and pass it on two separate readings today.
Thank you for your patience. That's all I can say, its all been said.
044
MAY 101973
OWN
Mayor Ferre: Thank you Captain Young, are there any questions?
From the administration? Mr. Reese?
Mr. Plummer: You are the one that is going to have to find the funds for it.
Mr. Reese: I recognize the plight of these people but I don't think
its in the charter that I have to find the funds.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Reese, the City of Miami , I wasn't on the Commission
at that time, even though I concur with the action, voted for increases
in employees in the City of Miami. I was on the Commission and voted
for the increases for the administration. Now here are over 1000 human
beings who many of them served many long difficult years and served this
community well and unfortunately when these matters were originally
written there was no recognition of these increases and I think we have
some kind of a moral obligation somewhere, somehow, someplace, to find
the funds to do the same thing for these people that we have done for
the current employees of the City of Miami and I think that we shbuld
certainly give them the time to discuss this, its not going to be easy
but we have an opinion now from our city attorney and I would like to
see if we can discuss it and find ways of solution.
Mr. Reese: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, you are well aware
of where the funds came from for this salary adjustment. The sources
of revenue and everybit of it has been in compliance with the federal
priority list and as the city attorney appropriately pointed out that
this revenue'cannot be used for this purpose.
I am quite sure if I express my opinion, it would lead to a long and
lengthy discussion .and won't resolve the question, if there is a
solution to it as far as the city's finances are concerned at this
particular time. It .,would be my suggestion that this City Commission
express their policy and what they would like done, and then I will
go to Accounting and Expenditure Control and have them go over the
accounts and see if these funds can be produced. In this way, I am not
sitting here and being the Chief Accountant.
Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor, I think that is a reasonable position to take.
I just left a meeting where we were dealing with a similar situation.
My heart goes out, I know the paltry sums of money these people receive
as a result of retirement just can't meet today's need and I would
respectfully urge the city manager to do as he has expressed and how
long would it take, I will offer the motion with that in mind.
Mr. Reese: I feel quite sure I could get a report to the City Commission
by the 17th of May.
Mayor Ferre: Since we are not going to meet until the 24th-
Mr. Reese: Well I mean also, supply the information to the retiree
organization so they aware of the facts' and then put it on the agenda
for the 24th.
Thereupon the following resolution was introduced by Reverend Gibson
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-358
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER
TO EXPLORE THE SOURCES OF ANY POSSIBLE FUNDS WHICH MIGHT
BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF GRANTING AN INCREASE
IN THE EXISTING PENSIONS OF RETIRED EMPLOYEES AND TO
REPORT BACK TO THE CITY COMMISSON ON MAY 24, 1973, ON THE
AVAILABILITY OF ANY SUCH FUNDS
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file
in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mr. Reboso, the resolution was passed
and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs.
Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Ferre. NOES: None
045 MAY 101973
14*
Mr. Reese: Mr. Mayor, one of the items that a lot of time and energy
is being spent on is the pension, the entire package at this time, even
the re -writing of the ordinances as well as looking into the possibilities
of investment counselors. I would like to recommend to this Commission
that they incorporate an escalator factor in this pension system so that
we won't be running into this problem each and every year.
Mayor Ferre: I think that's a very good recommendation and it has to be
very carefully studied.
Mr. Reese: Very careful, but I don't think it has to be carried out over
a long period of time, because there has been so many actuary studies made
and in this area of the problem, that I think we need just a realistic
recommendation.
16, PERSONAL APPEARANCE- ROBERT RENICK- YOUTH UN_ GOVERNMENT
Mayor Ferre announced the Commission would at this time recognize
the presence of Mr. Robert Renick, a member of the School Board.
Mr. Renick: Mr. Mayor, ladies and gentlemen, I felt compelled to come
by today as a citizen and a parent to show my appreciation and the
appreciation of the Dade County School Board in the recent involvement
you have had with young people in teaching them the inner -workings of
government and giving them a small idea of how the whole process works.
I don't want to take any more of your time, but I do congratulate you.
Mayor Ferre: Thank you very much Bob. We are very happy to have you
here with us.
Mrs. Gordon: Thank you Mr. Renick and also to tell the Mayor and the
Commissioners that young people are presently at the boxing gym and
they are having a rap session and they are hoping we will come over and
rap with them for awhile so if you have time, go over there.
Mr. Renick: Now that 18 year olds have the same rights everybody else
has, I really appreciate your treating them that way.
LUNCH RECESS: H�5 C COMMJLSAION ADJOURNED FOR LUNCH AT APPROXIMATELY
�:LO LOCK , . FOR A PERIOD OF ONE HOUR.
RESUME SESSION:
THE
.COMMISSION WENT BACK INTO SESSION AT 2:27 O'CLOCK
P.M. WITH THE FO LOWING MEMB RS OF THE COMMISSION PRESENT:
Dun, K BOSO PLUMMER AND MAYOR FERRE.
btN : MRS. (JiORDON AND KEVEREND:GIBSON,
046 MAY 101973
17, ACCEPT PLAT- MIRNA SUBDIVISION
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-359
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED MIRNA, A SUB-
DIVISION IN THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AND ACCEPTING
THE DEDICATION SHOWN ON SAID PLAT; AND AUTHORIZING AND
DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE
THE PLAT
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file
in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mr. Reboso, the resolution was passed and
adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso and
Mayor Ferre. ABSENT: Mrs. Gordon and Reverend Gibson. NOES: None
18, ACCEPT PLAT - MAINES SUBDIVISION
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-360
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED MAINES, A SUB-
DIVISION IN THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA; AND ACCEPTING
THE DEDICATIONS SHOWN ON SAID PLAT; AND AUTHORIZING AND
DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE
PLAT
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file
in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mr. Reboso, the resolution was passed and
adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso and
Mayor Ferre. ABSENT: Mrs. Gordon and Reverend Gibson. NOES: None
04 MAY 101973
19, ACCEPT PLAT - TRESPALACIOS SUBDIVISIQN
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Reboso who moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73.361
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED TRESPALACIOS,
A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA; AND ACCEPT-
ING THE DEDICATIONS SHOWN ON SAID PLAT; AND AUTHORIZING
AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE
THE PLAT
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mr. Plummer, the resolution was passed and
adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Reboso, Plummer and Mayor
Ferre. ABSENT: Reverend Gibson and Mrs.Gordon. NOES: None
Reverend Gibson entered the meeting.
20, NEGOTIATE WITH MEIN FOR TRANSFER OF SMALL PARCEL OF LAN
TH COURT BETWEEN AND STREETS
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-362
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER
TO NEGOTIATE WITH METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY FOR THE
TRANSFER OF A SMALL PARCEL OF LAND OWNED BY THE CITY OF
MIAMI LOCATED ON N. W. 8 COURT BETWEEN 17 AND 18 STREETS
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in
the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mr. Reboso, the resolution was passed and
adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Reverend
Gibson and Mayor Ferre. ABSENT: Mrs. Gordon. NOES: None.
048
MAY 101973
21, APPROPRIATING $1,250 FOR IMPROVEMENTS AT LEJEUNE GOLF COURSE
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-363
A RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING $1,250 FROM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
FUND - UNALLOCATED FUNDS FOR IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED AT THE
LEJEUNE GOLF COURSE RESULTING FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA'S
N. W. 37TH AVENUE HIGHWAY WIDENING PROJECT
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in
city clerks office)
Upon being seconded by Mr. Reboso, the resolution was passed and
adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Reverend
Gibson and Mayor Ferre. ABSENT: Mrs. Gordon. NOES: None
Mrs. Gordon entered the meeting.
22, AWARD BID - N. W. 17TH AVENUE T.V. INSPECTION & REPAIR PROJECT
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-364
A RESOLUTION AWARDING THE BID RECEIVED APRIL 9, 1973,
OF FITZGERALD ENGINEERING CO., INC., IN THE ESTIMATED
AMOUNT OF $6175.00 FOR THE N. W. 17 AVENUE T.V. INSP-
ECTION AND REPAIR PROJECT - 1973; ALLOCATING THE AMOUNT
OF $6916.00 FROM THE ACCOUNT ENTITLED "SANITARY SEWER
BOND FUND"; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
A CONTRACT THEREFOR
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in
the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mr. Reboso, the resolution was passed and
adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Reverend
Gibson, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Ferre. NOES: None
049 MAY 101973
23, AWARD BID - GASOLINE
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved =
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-365
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE BID OF AMOCO OIL COMPANY
RECEIVED APRIL 17, 1973, FOR FURNISHING APPROXIMATELY
53,000 GALLONS OP LEADFREE GASOLINE, MINIMUM OF 100
OCTANE, AS REQUIRED, FOR USE IN FIRE FIGHTING VEHICLES
AND APPARATUS DURING THE PERIOD FROM MAY 1, 1973 THROUGH
APRIL 30, 1974, IN THE AMOUNT OF .2450 PER GALLON PLUS
8(t STATE TAX FOR A TOTAL DELIVERED PRICE PER GALLON OF
.3250 AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO INSTRUCT THE
PURCHASING DIVISION TO ISSUE PURCHASE ORDERS FOR THE
SAME, FROM TIME TO TIME, AFTER FIRST DETERMING THAT
FUNDS BUDGETED FOR THAT PURPOSE ARE AVAILABLE
(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. Plummer, Reboso,
Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Ferre. HOES: None
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Reese, in conjunction with the last item that was
just read, I am concerned of all of the things that we hear about the
energy crisis or the lack of gasoline for the coming summer months.
Has the administration taken any steps to protect our city interest
on this thing?
Mr. Reese: We have endeavored to take all the positive steps possible
and one of the items on this contract, this is for fire -fighting equip-
ment, is that we allowed an escalator clause to enter into this to
escalate the price based on the market increase. Previously we wouldn't
afford any escalators in. It seems to be one of the biggest problems.
As far as the regular gasoline we are using, it might be necessary for
us to install additional tanks for storage capacity. Down here at the
boxing gym we have some tanks there that were previously used for fuel.
We are looking at those as a potentiality of putting fuel oil in them
for reserve.
Mr. Plummer: In other words, you feel adequately protected or you
feel you have taken necessary steps?
Mr. Reese: We are taking all of the steps that we possibly can.
We hope thatif there is any rationing at all or any controls of any •
kind, that a public body for health, welfare and safety, will be given
a priority which always has been the case in the past.
050 MAY 101973
OtIc
24, AWARD BID - 1973 INITIAL PURCHASE OF POLICE AND GENERAL POOL VEHICLE
REPLACEMENTS
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-366
A RESOLUTION AWARDING BIDS RECEIVED ON APRIL 30, 1973
FOR THE 1973 INITIAL PURCHASE OF POLICE AND GENERAL
POOL VEHICLE REPLACEMENTS FROM FUNDS AVAILABLE IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC PROPERTIES; AND AUTHORIZING AND
DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO INSTRUCT THE PURCHASING
AGENT OF THE CITY OF MIAMI TO ISSUE PURCHASE ORDERS
THEREFOR IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $222,136.22
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in
the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mr. Reboso, the resolution was passed and
adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Reverend
Gibson, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Ferre. NOES: None
25, ADDING SECTION 6 TO ORDINANCE 8133 VESSELS 1N DINNER KEY MARINA ETC,
An Ordinance entitled-
•
AN ORDINANCE ADDING A SECTION 6 TO ORDINANCE NO. 8133
(January 25, 1973) FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING THAT
THE METHOD PROVIDED IN ORDINANCE NO. 8133 FOR (1) THE
REMOVAL, POSSESSION, STORAGE OF, (2) SALE BY, AND A
LIEN IN FAVOR OF THE CITY OF MIAMI AGAINST; VESSELS
UNLAWFULLY LOCATED WITHIN DINNER KEY MARINA YACHT BASIN
AND THE BAYFRONT PROHIBITIVE ANCHORAGE AREAS IS NOT THE
EXCLUSIVE REMEDY OR METHOD OF OBTAINING THE REMOVAL OF
SAID VESSELS AND ANY OTHER METHOD AVAILABLE TO THE CITY
TO ACCOMPLISH THE REMOVAL OF SAID VESSELS IS AUTHORIZED,
INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, INJUNCTIVE OR OTHER FORMS
OF LEGAL ACTION DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE LAW DEPARTMENT;
REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, CODE SECTIONS OR PARTS THEREOF
IN CONFLICT; INSOFAR AS THEY ARE IN CONFLICT; CONTAINING
A SEVERABILITY PROVISION; DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE
AN EMERGENCY MEASURE; DISPENSING WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF
READING THE SAME ON TWO SEPARATE DAYS BY A VOTE OF NOT
LESS THAN FOUR -FIFTHS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION
was introduced by Mr. Plummer, seconded by Mr. Reboso for adoption as an
emergency measure and dispensing with the requirement of reading same on
two separate days, which was agreed to by the following vote - AYES:
Messrs. Reboso, Plummer, Reverend Gibson, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Ferre.
NOES: None. Whereupon the Commission on motion of Mr. Plummer, seconded
by Mr. Reboso adopted said ordinance by the following vote - AYES: Messrs.
Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Ferre. NOES: None
SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 8161.
051 MAY 101973
26, APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL GRANTS -
GARDEN SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT
PINEMOUNT SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT
GRAPELAND aANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT
GLENROYAL SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT
The following resolution was introduced by Mrs. Gordon who moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-367
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER
OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO MAKE APPLICATION FOR
FEDERAL ASSISTANCE UNDER PUBLIC LAW 92-500 CONSTRUCTION
GRANTS PROGRAM
Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in
the city clerks office
Upon being seconded by Mr. Reboso, the resolution was passed and
adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Reboso, Plummer, Mrs.
Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Ferre. NOES: None
The following resolution was introduced by Mrs. Gordon who moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-368
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER
OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO MAKE APPLICATION FOR
FEDERAL ASSISTANCE UNDER PUBLIC LAW 92-50000NSTRUCTION
GRANTS PROGRAM
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in
the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mr. Reboso, the resolution was passed and
adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs.
Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Ferre. NOES: None
The following resolution was introduced by Mrs. Gordon who moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-369
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER
OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO MAKE APPLICATION FOR
FEDERAL ASSISTANCE UNDER PUBLIC LAW 92-500 CONSTRUCTION
GRANTS PROGRAM
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file
in the City Clerks Office)
052 MAY 101973
Upon being seconded by Mr. Reboso, the resolution was passed and
adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, MRs.
Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Ferre. NOES: None
The following resolution was introduced by Mrs. Gordon who moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-370
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER
OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO MAKE APPLICATION FOR
FEDERAL ASSISTANCE UNDER PUBLIC LAW 92-500 CONSTRUCTION
GRANTS PROGRAM
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file
in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mr. Reboso, the resolution was passed and
adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messr. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs.
Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Ferre. NOES: None
27, DISCUSSION OF TRAFFIC PROBLEMS IN LITTLE HAVANA AREA OF THE CITY
AND BUS FA EELS FOR SENIOR CITIZENS_
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Mayor, may I bring up a pocket matter?
Mayor Ferre: Yes Mam.
Mrs. Gordon: Some time ago, I brought to the attention of the Commission
a situation that exists in what we call, commonly call the "Little Havana"
section of Miami. That is the matter that the streets being as narrow as
they are, which were built many many years ago when we didn't have the
kind of vehicular traffic we have today, there needs to be some kind of
study and relief for that congested area. At that time, I asked that we
ask the M.T.A. to try to bring about some kind of a small vehicle trans-
portation so at least the residents of that area would not be compelled
to have 2 cars instead of just having one for the person that has to go to
work. They have not yet responded in an ••affirmative manner, in fact they
have more or less kind of set it aside. We have not had an answer con-
clusively in that regard. I would once again like to ask this Commission
to go on record asking them, again, come back and give us some suggested
relief for that area by way of transportation and I would like to include
in the motion, the suggestion which I know needs investigation, and they
can do it, that perhaps they can contact the taxicab companies to use the
taxicabs in a fashion that they do in some of the South American countries
where people get on and off on a small haul basis.
Mayor Ferre: A jitney.
Mrs. Gordon: Something like a jitney but a much smaller amount of people
in the car at one time. They run very frequently and in Lima where I was
visiting last summer, I was made aware of this kind of transportation and
it seems to me that we could save a lot of money of buying new vehicles'if
we could contract with the taxicab companies to use their vehicles in this
manner, so I would in order to condense the motion, say that we ask M.T.A.
to further investigate the use of taxicabs as a small vehicle type of
transportation for the "Little Havana" section.
Mr. Plummer: Mrs. Gordon, you are aware of the fact and I am sure you
remember that when Mr. Reynolds was down here before and I am thinking
back over to mini -buses, they send to me as I am sure they are sending
to you, how much money they are losing on this proposal and I am sure you
053
MAY 101973
will very vividly recall Mr. Reynolds down here in opposition to any
type of a jitney service, so I just question your proposal.
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Plummer, I know Mr. Reynolds and M.T.A. will object
to anything that takes a little ingenuity to devise some new method
of transporting people. Its easier to do it the way we have always
done it but they are asking the County right now to subsidize them to
a great extent and the County apparently is going to be acting on their
request very shortly and I would like our request to go to them before
the County hears their request for funds.
Mayor Ferre: Let me tell you Mrs. Gordon that last week, perhaps this
has not been public information, if you don't know about this but the
M.T.A. Authority has gone ahead and purchased 19 new units to service
the general area of the downtown area along Biscayne Boulevard to
Brickell Avenue and inclusive of parts of "Little Havana".
Mrs. Gordon: You mean the mini -buses that the federal government supplied
them with the money?
That was part of the original proposal. They implemented the Brickell
portion originally because that was all the monies they had at the time.
Mayor Ferre: That will be functional as of December, now I think -
Mrs. Gordon: They don't include this part though Mayor Ferre. This is
not included. The section I am talking about is the section from the
River to 27th Avenue.
Mayor Ferre: Let me see if I understand your resolution. Is it in
one resolution or two?
Mrs. Gordon: I think that one resolution should cover it because -
Mayor Ferre: and the resolution says that the Metropolitan Transit
Authority should study the possibility -
Mrs. Gordon: We would like to recommend to the Metro Transit Authority
that they, that we, would like to have a small vehicle type of trans-
portation since we recognize the shortage of funds for purchasing mini-
buses, we would like for them to try to contract with the taxicab
company to use a taxicab on a short haul basis.
Mayor Ferre: Well let me give you my personal opinion and I am just
expressing an opinion. That area as we all know is very very congested.
If you have taxicabs on a jitney basis that are stopping without any
set pattern, I think instead of alleviating traffic, you are going to
be increasing traffic, that's just a personal opinion.
I think the way to do this is to have the M.T.A. Authority come back to
u3 with a specific proposal and have them study this but I would not be
in favor of recommending that they implement it without that study.
Mrs. Gordon: We11 certainly they are going to have to Mayor. It's not
my suggestion that they are going to move ahead without any study of
the situation, they won't anyway but that was one of my thoughts for this
afternoon and I have another motion to make relating to that area which
I will propose as soon as we have acted upon this one. This is the first
motion.
Mr. Plummer: Mrs. Gordon if I understand correctly, is you once again
are reiterating to the M.T.A. that you would like a study done but I
will not vote for a motion that says go to taxicab company. Let them
come back and recommend to us -
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Plummer, they won't do what we tell them to do anyway.
Mr. Plummer: Then do it by -
Mrs. Gordon: We are suggesting this as a kind of a thought that they
may investigate the feasability because we don't know that they can do
it. I don't even know if its legal.
Mayor Ferre: We are arguing semantics now. If you are recommending
that they study it, I go along with Mr. Plummer, I am for it. Ifyou
are recommending this Commission go on record suggesting, that's a
different matter, now I don't understand, are you recommending a
054 MAY101973
study or are you recommending an implementation?
Mrs. Gordon: You are saying that if I recommend it any other way than
a study, you will vote against it. I want this matter to go to their
attention so I'll move it whichever way you will vote for it.
Mr. Plummer: No, Mrs. Gordon, Mrs. Gordon, please. I will not sit
here as a Commissioner and suggest to M.T.A. how to remedy their
situation. If that be the case, then I'll get on the M.T.A. Authority
if Im that crazy but what I am saying is, I will vote today, that they
study this area that you propose and that they come back and answer to
this Commission if they find it feasible in any way to come up with a
transportation for that area.
Mrs. Gordon: We asked them that. Mr. Plummer, they did nothing and
they will do nothing again unless we give them some more thought.
If you don't want to tell them then I will go tell them by personal
letter that I personally feel that this is an avenue they may want to
explore.
Mr. Plummer: There is nothing wrong with your personal letter saying
that.
Mrs. Gordon: But I think its alot more effective if this Commission
at least suggests this kind of an approach.
Mayor Ferre: Mrs. Gordon, the problem is that this Commisison doesn't
agree. At least two members of this Commission as far as they have
expressed themselves don't agree with the idea of placing jitney type
service in this area. At least I don't, I don't think that way. Now
if they come back with specific proposals and the M.T.A. will, then
that's a different matter but I think the solution to it is that they
should take these mini buses and expand that service into the area you
are talking about.
Mr. Plummer: Let me say an alternative, maybe this is the way to
handle it. Why don't you through the administrator invite Mr. Dave
Reynolds and Mr. Raymond Butler to our next meeting? Then you can
express it to them directly.
Mrs. Gordon: I made a motion and I am going to let the motion stand
to see if there is a second.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. ClerV, reread the motion.
Mrs. Gordon: I made the motion.
Mayor Ferre: We have a motion, would you repeat your motion?
Mis. Gordon: My motion is to request that M.T.A. research the feasability
of running a jitney type of service by contracting with a taxicab company
in the "Little Havana" section.
Mr. Reboso: I second the motion.
Mayor Ferre: There is a second on the motion. Any further discussion?
This is a request to study. All right, call the question.
Rev. Gibson: That isn't what she said.
Mrs. Gordon: I said research the feasibility.
Rev. Gibson: The feasibility of a jitney type' service.
Mayor Ferre; Research the feasibility. Well that means study.
Rev. Gibson: But, Mr. Mayor, if what I understand, she is doing what
both you and Mr. Plummer said, shouldn't be done.
Mr. Plummer: She said research, that's why I am going to vote against
the motion.
Mayor Ferre: Wait a minute, wait a minute. Research the feasibility
means study the question.
055 MAY 101973
there is. nothing wrong with that.
Mr. Plummer: I am concerned there is Mr. Mayor, because I stood here
and you weren't here but I was sitting in this chair when Mr. Reynolds
came to this Commission and emphatically stated, Father Gibson, I will
recall to your memory when the Black Jitney people came here and you
told those people in no uncertain terms, the handwriting is on the wall.
Now what I am saying to you is, I think this town has outgrown a jitney
type of operation and I think that there is no reason that you should
ask Metro Transit Authority to study something that they have emphatically
stood up here and told you that they are opposed to.
Mrs. Gordon: But J. L., this is entirely different. This will be a
function operated by M.T.A. and the other was a private enterprise.
Mr. Plummer: Now wait a minute. That isn't what you said. You said
MTA to negotiate with or contract with a taxicab service -
Mrs. Gordon: With, in other words hiring vehicles, and using the small
taxicabs vehicles on a contractual basis, that's what I said.
Mr. Plummer: I understood your motion.
Mrs. Gordon: No, no, I am going to make it more specific Maurice because
Mayor Ferre: The possibility of solving the transportation problem of
the "Little Havana" area including -
Mr. Plummer:
Mrs. Gordon:
more positive
Mayor Ferre:
Mrs. Gordon:
would like to
Rev. Gibson:
Mayor Ferre:
Mr.
Mr.
Southern,
Southern:
They won.'t-
We did that last year, it didn't work. We are going to
now.
Well you are just going to get some votes against you.
Well probably so, then we'll try another approach but I
move that motion and there was a second.
Question Mr. Mayor, question.
All right, any further discussion on the item?
City Clerk: Seconded by Mr. Reboso.
Roll call, Mr. Reboso?
Mr. Reboso: Yes.
Mr. Southern: Reverend Gibson?
Rev. Gibson: No.
Mr. Southern: Mrs. Gordon?
Mrs. Gordon: Yes.
Mr. E'outhern: Mr. Plummer?
Mr. Plummer: The Mayor is going to have
tie breaker. I vote No.
Mayor Ferre: I vote no.
go
one of those things known as a
056 MAY 101973
ess
Mr. Plummer: Now, let me offer a motion.
Mayor Ferre: The Chair will recognize Mr. Plummer for a motion on the
same matter.
Mrs. Gordon: If its on the same matter Mr. Mayor, I brought the subject
up. The least we can do, is let me continue.
Mayor Ferre: Now Mrs. Gordon, Mrs. Gordon, now wait a moment.
Do you withdraw your motion?
Mr. Plummer: I haven't made a motion Sir but I am talking on the same
subject.
Mrs. Gordon: I said, I have an additional motion.
Mayor Ferre: All right the chair recognizes you.
Mrs. Gordon: Okay. The motion is to reiterate the motion that was
made of nearly a year ago to M.T.A. to study the transportation problems
in the "Little Havana" section and come up with some recommendation for
the people who live in that area.
Mr. Plummer: And that motion I will second.
Mayor Ferre: Any further discussion? Call the question please.
Thereupon the following resolution was introduced by Mrs. Gordon
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-371
A RESOLUTION REITERATING AND REAFFIRMING A RESOLUTION
PREVIOUSLY PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COMMISSION
THAT THE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY STUDY TRANS-
PORTATION PROBLEMS IN THE "LITTLE HAVANA AREA" OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI AND ATTEMPT TO ARRIVE AT A SOLUTION TO
THE EXISTING SITUATION
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file
in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mr. Plummer, the resolution was passed and
adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Mr. Reboso,
Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Ferre. NOES: None
Mrs. Gordon: Now I have another one in the same neighborhood.
Mayor Ferre: Recognize Mrs. Gordon.
Mrs. Gordon: I pointed out before the problems that exist in this
"Little Havana" section stem from the fact that we have extremely
narrow streets. They were built for the horse and buggy, not for the
number of vehicles we have today. I would like Metro Traffic Department
to study the feasibility of routing these streets in a one-way fashion
or whatever other recommendations they would want to make as to off-
street parking or restricted parking along the streets because some of
those streets are so bad that when cars park on both sides, only one
lane of traffic can travel and those streets are routed two -ways.
It's impossible to get through and I move that.
Mr. Reboso: I second that.
057 MAY 101973
Mrs. Gordon: That's to the County Traffic Department.
Mayor Ferre: There is a second on that motion, is there any further
discussion? Call the question please.
Thereupon the following resolution was introduced by Mrs. Gordon
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-372
A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE DADE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION TO INVESTIGATE THE EXISTING
TRAFFIC CONGESTION IN THE "LITTLE HAVANA" AREA OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI WITH AN IDEA OF RE-ROUTING ONE WAY STREET
PATTERNS IN ORDER TO ALLEVIATE EXISTING PROBLEMS
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file
in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mr. Reboso, the resolution was passed and
adopted by the following vote - AYB: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs.
Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Ferre. NOES: None
Mrs. Gordon: And along the transportation lines, I have a last item I
would like to bring to your attention.
Mayor Ferre: Go ahead Mrs. Gordon.
Mrs. Gordon: I read in the paper this morning that one of the Commissioners
in Metro is going to move for an extension of the hours for senior citizens
and I wholeheartedly approve. Mr. Reynolds even suggested longer hours.
This was a project that I worked on last year and I was happy to say,
brought to a successful conclusion. At this time however there a couple of
problems that I see in the way its implemented now and I wou:,d like as a
Commission to go on record as favoring an extension of the hours and to
restrict the passengers to those who are residents of the County of Dade.
This is.because some of the losses that are felt by M.T.A. for which they
are asking an extended amount of money, is because a lot of times, the
tourists who come here, who can well afford to pay the full rates, are
getting the advantage of the half fare rate. The motion is that we go
on record as approving the extension of the hours and that we ask them to
restrict it to residents only.
Mr. Reboso: I second that motion.
Mayor Ferre: Any further discussion, call the question.
Mr. Plummer: Under discussion. Mr. Mayor, I think it should be brought
to your attention because you were not here at the time and I voted for
it then and I was in the minority but I think that you better be prepared,
as we were not prepared then, that when you request such a thing, you
are going to have the M.T.A. back down here asking this Commission to
subsidize such a program. They did before. They asked this Commission
to kick in $25,000. The D.D.A. $25,000 and the County $25,000. Now if
the County can subsidize the whole program, that's great and I think it
should be but I think we should be willing to put our money where our
mouth is. I am all infavor of this. I am all in favor of subsidizing it.
Mayor Ferre: Wait a minute Mrs. Gordon, are you finished?
Mr. Plummer: Yes.
Mrs. Gordon: I have to correct what you said because the subsidizing
that they requested was for the mini -bus system and not for the senior
citizen program, that's entirely different.
058 MAY 101973
Mr. Plummer: Mrs. Gordon, may I answer her Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Ferre: Yes Sir. go ahead.
Mr. Plummer: Mrs. Gordon its the same concept because you are talking
about dollars. Now when anytime you cut a fare, you better be looking
that Mr. Reynolds and the M.t.A. are going to be down here and say,
we did it because you requested it and now we have got to turn to you
because we have lost X-number of dollars. Its the same concept because
its dollars whether its the mini -bus or whether its senior citizens or
whether its for Blacks or whatever it is.
Mrs. Gordon: No it isn't because -
Mayor Ferre: All right now. I am going to limit this discussion now
to another 5 minutes and then we are going to vote.
Mrs. Gordon: It isn't Mr. Plummer, let me explain to you why.
Mr. Reynolds himself recommended that the hours be changed from 10 o'clock
in the morning to 9. This was not the Commission's request. The
Commissioner who proposed this said that she wanted it to go from 3 to 4.
Mr. Reynolds said yes and in addition to that, 1 would like to see it go
from 10 to 9, so that was his own position and his request for funding is
not from us, it is from Metro, and they are looking favorably upon the
funding of the program.
What I am suggesting will cut out the tourist participation in that
program and will save the county money, this is what I am saying, if they
are limited to residents only, they will have less of a loss than they can
anticipate if everybody has it, and its a fact, we might as well face it.
There has to be subsidizing of transportation. We have gotten to that
point in our lives where traffic generated by private vehicles can no
longer be tolerated and has to be supplemented by some public transportation
systems and this is one of them.
Mayor Ferre: All right, any further discussion?
Call the question please.
Thereupon the following resolution was introduced by Mrs. Gordon
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-373
A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY
TO EXTEND THE HOURS FOR SENIOR CITIZENS TO RIDE METROPOLITAN
TRANSIT BUSES AT REDUCED FARES AND TO RESTRICT THE PASSENGERS
WIHO AVAIL THEMSELVES OF THIS SERVICE TO RESIDENTS OF DADE
COUNTY
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in
the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mr. Reboso, the resolution was passed and
adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs.
Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Ferre. NOES: None
059 MAY 101973
28,
The following resolution was introduced by Reverend Gibson who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-374
A RESOLUTION WAIVING THE RENTAL FEE FOR THE BAYFRONT
PARK AUDITORIUM FOR THE EVENING OF DECEMBER 15, 1973
FOR THE ANNUAL CHARITY BALL FUND RAISING EVENT TO BE
CONDUCTED BY LODGE 948, BENEVOLENT AND PROTECTIVE
ORDER OF ELKS OF THE U. S. A.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file
in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mr. Reboso, the resolution was passed and
adopted by the following vote - AYES: Mr. Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend
Gibson and Mayor Ferre. ABSTAINING: Mr. Plummer. NOES: None
29, REQUEST FOR RULING BY MAYOR FERRE ON VOTING ON E.H.G. MATTER
Mayor Ferre: Let me ask the City attorney for a ruling on the fact that
I as a member, as an officer of a corporation and as a stockholder of
corporation, that owns property 100' away, and I personally own property
200' away from this location, whether or not I should abstain from voting
on Item 20.
Mr. Rothstein: Because of the fact that the ordinances and the statutes
and the charters that apply are so broad in general application and are
not specific, I must advise you that you cannot vote.
Mayor Ferre: I cannot vote.
Mr. Rothstein: No because in this day and age of quick endi.ctments
I don't think anyone can risk any other kind of interpretation.
Mayor Ferre: All right then, when that matter comes up, I will so
abstain.
30, ORANGE BOWL PARKING DECALS AS_ TREY APPLY TO SOCCER GAMES -DISCUSSION
Mayor Ferro: We have a question now for Mr. Reese on Mr. LaLria's
request on the professional soccer team as to whether or not they are
included in the passes for parking.
/
Mr. Reese: No Sir, they are not. The ordinance specifies its for
football and in the preliminary negotiations, which I carried on with
Mr. Harper Sibley pertaining to the utilization of the stadium, it was
emphasized to the inth degree that parking and concessions were something
that the City of Miami was going to have in order for us to be able to
pay for the servicing of these soccer games, and that was agreed to.
I strongly recommend that you in no way dillute the city's possible
income from this source in order for us to keep the Orange Bowl on a
revenue basis.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Reese, does the contract or the provision or whatever
it is specifically say, city high school events and professional football
or professional games?
Mr. Reese: It says €ootball. In the ordinance it says football.
oe o MAY 101973
Mayor Ferre: Here is a letter received May 8th, 1973 notice on Orange
Bowl Parking, signed by Mr. Al Rubio, Stadiums Manager where he says
decal will be valid for the period of July 1, 1972 through June 30,
1973 and it is good for all college, high school and professional games.
Now I think this is where the confusion comes. Is this letter wrong?
Mr. Reese: Well that's erroneous. In the City of Miami Code, Section
39-24 Parking Charges: "Seasons passes for reserved parking area may
be secured by the payment of the following fees: $40.00 plus sales tax
for a passenger car for the use of a reserved parking area for pre-
schedule4 high school, college and professional football events".
The even*, -heduled of parking charges shall be as follows:
Football ar. 'lege football events: $2.00 including sales taxes,
these are the charges and for passenger vehicle per event when
parking on city o.._?d parking lots. High school events: SOft includes
state sales tax per passenger ear per event for parking on all city owned
parking lots. All other events, other than football for which admission
is charged, the charge is to be established per passenger car per event
in accordance with the ordinance etc.
Mayor Ferre: The question that has been brought up is whether its
football or what.
Mr. Reese: Well I think the pronunciation of it and the application of
it is obviously clear because we are talking about the american sport.
Mayor Ferre: That was a redundant, superfluous statement on my part
and I hope you recognize that.
Mrs. Gordon: Is that a recognize you were reading from Mr. Reese?
Mr. Reese: Yes Mam.
Mrs. Gordon: Well ordinances can be amended then if this Commission so
desires. So is it the desire of the Commission to liberalize it so that
it can be used for soccer? I will so move it.
Mayor Ferre: The chair is open for a motion. How much is involved in
that Mr. Reese?
Mr. Reese: Its an item that you can't predict very well. At the last
event, I think they had 12,000 people but the City Commission has seen
fit to cut the revenue down on that Orange Bowl from 1S% to 10% on
football events. Now, if you are going to give away part of the parking,
we might as well stop endeavoring trying to keep this stadium on a revenue
basis. In the negotiations of this, these people that this was negotiated
with, it was well understood and I think its ridiculous to come in at
this point and say, parking charges are really causing us.not to get an
attendance.
Mayor Terre: Mr. Reese, let me make this statement. This is an item
that I really think deserves some discussion and in fairness to Mr.
Lauria and the partners of the Soccer Team, I think they ought to be
present, before we vote on it because you are talking about what might
be $100,000 in revenue to the City of Miami.
Mr. Plummer: No.
Mayor Terre: Over a season, it wouldn't be that much?
Mr. Plummer: They only have 9 games left. I went to the game Saturday
night.
Mrs. Gordon: How many vehicles can park in that area Mr. Reese?
Mr. Reese: In our parking lots, we have spaces for 3100 people.vehicles.
Mayor Ferre: Well you wouldn't have that many.
Mr. Plummer: Well I think the important thing Mr. Mayor, is if in fact
Mr. Reese negotiated with Mr. Sibley on certain terms, I think Mr. Sibley
should also be here at the next meeting.
Mayor Ferre: Who is Mr. Sibley, is Mr. Sibley with the professional
soccer?
Q6x
MAY 101973
Mr. Reese: Harper Sibley is the man who contacted me and he was interested
in it. He was the one I carried on the discussions with.
Mayor Ferre: In fairness to everybody here, its not a very large item
but I think they ought to be present for the discussion. Would you
Mr. Reese: I'll gladly put it on the agenda, if that's the wishes of
the Commission but you are putting the administration in a position
of there is no use for us to go and negotiate something. We might as
well bring everybody in here to negotiate.
Mayor Ferre: We understand.
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Reese, can I ask a question then? The more people
they bring in to view these games, the more revenue we will derive won't
we?
Mr. Reese: This was negotiated with them and this was understood.
Mrs. Gordon: If we help them to bring in more people by making the
parking a part of the season package, we are not saying give everybody
free parking but if they have a season pass.
Mr. Reese: Don't you understand -
Mayor Ferre: Excuse me Mr. Reese. The problem is that what Mr. Reese
is saying is that if you do this to him, what do you need him for to
negotiate these things, you might as well bring everybody here and we
will have public meetings and negotiate all these contracts publically.
Mr. Reese: And this was agreed to. This was very acceptable and agreed to.
$3500 minimum. I came back here to the Commission, you approved it,
you amended the ordinance and everything.
Mrs. Gordon: Well if you want to forget it, lets forget it.
Mayor Ferre: -No lets not forget it, lets bring Harper Sibley here and
lets let him say what the negotiation was and then we will decide at
that point.
I am not for or against it. I am just saying, we have to be very careful
and fair about it.
Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor, I would like to suggest that we postpone it
until the next meeting.
Mr. Plummer: No wait a minute, Mr. Lauria brought out to me that next
saturday has been included under the old decal, is that correct Mr. Reese?
Mr. Reese: No Sir, it has not.
Mr. Plummer: Well this is what he has been told sir.
Mr. Reese: Listen, I did not tell him and I don't know where this authority
came from in the letter.
Mr. Plummer: Than I am sorry I brought it up.
Mr. Plummer: You are bringing in material because he came to you.
Rev. Gibson: Will we help ourselves by letting those who have the decals
park in the hopes that while we may lose on the parking, we may profit
in the concessions? I understand this and I feel rather bad because if
they negotiated, they negotiated with their eyes wide open and those
fellows don't miss a trick of the trade and as of the moment, I would be
willing to vote to sustain the administration because I know them but
yet I want to be flexible.
Mr. Reese: Well, I think its got to be recognized that its nice to say
the more population you get into that stadium, the more the city makes.
First of all you have to recognize the ordinance as it was amended.
Secondly, when you get more people in there, not only do we get more
income, but it increases our expense considerable. We have to supply
the police, we have to do the cleanup, we have to supply the other services.
That has to be paid out of the revenue that we receive and we figure
062 MAY 101913
basically that $3,500 would cover this expense based on last years
cost. Now on top of that, the employees all want an increase for these
special events based on their new salary range and all of these facts
have to be taken into consideration. If you are going to cut the
parking fee, why not give them 30% of the concessions we get and then
they can get their hamburgers cheaper when they come in. You can set
up all kinds of inducements and end up by putting tax dollars in the
stadium.
Rev. Gibson: I am going to offer that we sustain the administration.
Those men that negotiated this knew what they were doing when they
negotiated.
Mayor Ferre: Father I think I agree with you and the administration
on their position. Its a very difficult problem and we can't waive
it for next Saturday because this is an ordinance so all we can do is
amend the ordinance and that is a major matter because it has implications
beyond this. Obviously the amount of money is not that much because
remember we are talking about people who go and park there who have
decals. I don't know how many of the people who park there have decals.
Maybe they don't have decals for all the other games so we don't know
what it involves but that is not the point. I am beginning to see that
it goes a lot deeper than that. I really think in fairness to
Mr. Lauria and his associates and he was here for 3 or 4 hours today
waiting and couldn't wait any longer, he had to leave. I think in
fairness to him, we ought to give him his day in court.
Rev. Gibson: I will withdraw my motion then.
Mayor Ferre: This thing has implications beyond this particular problem
and we have to be very careful and have to think of the whole spectrum
of parking at the and the other people that are involved, so lets not
rush into this one.
Would you schedule these people then Mr. Reese, at the next Commission
Meeting?
Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor, it may not be bad if we consider the possibility
of a decal for the year and we wouldn't have to gothrough this.
31. FIX DATE FOR SPECIAL COMMISSION MEETING TO HEAR DR. BARTLEY'S
PRESENTATION ON PROPOSED RESTRUCTURING OF PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
Mrs. Gordon: I just want to remind you all that Dr. Bartley will be
here• un June the 1st at 1 o'Clock to fully indoctrinate the Commission
as to his recommendations as to the splitting of the Planning and Zoning
into 2 boards and it would be very important for the Mayor and all the
Commissioners including myself to be present for that session and so
that we may go over, with a fine tooth comb and be prepared for the
public hearing.
Mayor Ferre: Mrs. Gordon, I hope you didn't mean indoctrinate but
rather inform.
Mrs. Gordon: No I meant that truly because its quite involved Mr.
Mr. Rothstein: That is going to have to be a bit more formal because
we have a sunshine law and it has to be an open meeting with public
notification and either you might want to call a special hearing for it
or whatever,you just can't say 1 o'clock to indoctrinate.
Mrs. Gordon: The members of the press and the public certainly should
be told about it and just in an informal type of discussion which it
will be, there will be no action taken.
Mayor Ferre: You see the trouble is the City Attorney is saying that
it can't be infomal, we have to notify.
063
Mr. Rothstein: You can have a meeting at which you do not have public
speaking and at which you do not take any votes on anything and which
you informally ask questions but you would have to have an official
meeting in order to do it.
Mrs. Gordon: The members of the citizens task force committee will be
notified in the usual manner that they have been.. They have been
working on this proposal for many many months and any other members of
the public, whatever you suggest in letting them know that this
informal discussion will take place.
Mr. Rothstein: I think its very important in this particular instance
that there be a public hearing because there has been some criticism
voiced around the community that this committee and the meetings they
have held has been more or less not publically advertised and that the
community as a whole has not been made a participant so I think in order
to protect the situation, and protect the Commission, its better to call
a special meeting which gets notified and advertised the same way.
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Rothstein, the Commissioners were not present at those
task force meetings so there has been no violation of any kind.
Mr. Rothstein: I am talking about the point you made earlier that the
community has a right to be heard on some of these things and so far
the input into this has been from a limited group and that limited group
has been meeting with somebody the city has been paying and there has
not been public notification of those meetings.
They are paying for Dr. Bartley.
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Rothstein, with regard to what you said -
Mr. Rothstein: What I am saying is that its perfectly fine, what you
want to do, but call a special hearing, thats all.
Mrs. Gordon: This is true, but that will only be the first of several
public hearings where the public will be coming in and will express
their views.
Mayor Ferre: Well we are back to the same point though Mrs. Gordon,
that the City Attorney is saying -
Mrs. Gordon: To advertise it.
Mayor Ferre: That these arc city funds that are being spent and if you
expect this Commission to be present, we really to be within the purview
of the sunshine law, have to advertise it properly.
Mrs. Gordon: Okay, I will have to make this by way of a motion then
that we have a special meeting on June 1 at 1 O'Clock for the purpose of
hearing the recommendations of Dr. Bartley.
Mayor Ferre: Mrs. Gordon by the way, and I am not going to make a big
dealout of this, but I was trying to reach Dr. Bartley and I wasn't
able to reach him, tried today and he sent word to me that he is not
able to see me until May 31st which of course is the day before and since
I haven't been a part of these meetings and I would like to be informed
of some of the things that are going on, perhaps if you talk to him,
you might urge on him and I don't know -
Mrs. Gordon: I haven't talked to him either Mr. Mayor, the communication
with him has been through the Planning Department.
Mayor Ferre: I am just saying Whipple or George, if you do talk to him,
tell him that I would like to be able to chat with him before the last
day, before he comes down here with the recommendation.
That has nothing to do with what you are -
Mr. Plummer: Something that • does have to do Mr. Mayor and I brought
this to Mrs. Gordon's attention before. You and I already are committed
to a meeting on June 1st for the Pension Committee and then I find out
from Mr. Reese, that it's just not, as I told you Mrs. Gordon, I would
talk to Mr. Reese, it is not just a normalmeeting of the pension committee
but it is set up and indicated by memos that this will be one of the days
064 MAY 101973
for screening of the potential bidders. I have asked Mr. Reese if it
is possible to reschedule that meeting because there are 5 days involved.
Mayor Ferre: 5 days of hearings?
Mr. Plummer: For you and I Sir. Now we have a conflict on June 1st and
perhaps Mr. Reese would answer to that.
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Reese, there is a scheduling situation that we need
your assistance. Dr. Bartley is not available just at any time. He is
available on June 1st.
Mr. Reese: The Pension Board is June 4th, 5th and 6th, not June 1.
Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. The last meeting in May is the 24th of
May.
Thereupon the following resolution was introduced by Mrs. Gordon
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-375
A RESOLUTION FIXING JUNE 1, 1973 AT 1:00 0"CLOCK P.M.
AS THE DATE AND TIME FOR A SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION
MEETING FOR THE PURPOSE OF HEARING DR. BARTLEY'S
PRESENTATION ON THE PROPOSED RESTRUCTURING OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in
the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mr. Reboso, the resolution was passed and
adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Reverend
Gibson, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Ferre. NOES: None
A discussion took place in regard to the materials being supplied
to the Commission prior to June 1 and Mrs. Gordon said she hoped they
would be here a couple of days prior.
32, DISCUSSION - SEPARATION OF POLICE & F LRE PENSION FROM GENERAL
EMPLOYEES - CITY MANAGER STATEMENT
Mr. Reese: Mr. Mayor, at the last Commission Meeting, the City Commission
entertained the thought of creating a committee to explore the division of
the pension funds. In other words, separate the Police and Fire from the
General Employees. You named a committee but do you want the administration
to develop procedure and evaluation and get this started?
Mayor Ferre: Absolutely, that was the intention.
Mr. Reese: Well, it was left dangling because -
Mayor Ferre: Well I am sorry it wasn't understood. Is it clarified now?
Mr. Reese:
intended.
Yes, I just wanted to know that this was what the Commission
Mayor Ferre: Any further questions on that?
All right then, I will excuse myself since I will not be able to sit on
Item 20, I turn the meeting over to Father Gibson.
NOTE: Mayor Ferre left the meeting at 3:30 O'Clock P.M.
065 MAY 101973
33, REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING MR, A_ ETTINGER
Mr. Rothstein: May I report to the Commission while the Mayor is still
here that with reference to Mr. Ettinger. The problem that he is
concerned with is a matter of his having been some time back, pleaded
guilty to a charge in City Court, having been found guilty and he has
been requesting among other things, that his record be expunged and
other actions be taken in his favor and this Commission has no authority
to proceed on any of his requests and it is not an appropriate matter
for the agenda because there is no way you can change a court record.
Mayor Ferre: Does that satisfy you?
Mr. Rothstein: It certainly does.
Rev. Gibson: What do we do now?
Mr. Rothstein: He is not going to go on the agenda. Mr. Reese is not
going to put him on and I am telling you, there is absolutely nothing
you can do for him, nothing. He pleaded guilty and he was found guilty
and his only remedy would be in the Court.
34, 70' DEDICATED STRIP BRICKELL AYENUE- CHALLENGE BY E LG, FINANCIAL
CORPORATION - DISCUSSION
Mr. Rothstein: As far as item 20 is concerned, Mr. Acton will present
all the information to the Commission from the Planning Department's
point of view. Mr. Grimm from the Public Works point of view and based
on their recommendations, I will make my recommendation.
Mr. Acton: You have in your agenda folder a memorandum that was written
from the City Manager to the Commission dealing with Item #20 from the
Planning Department. For the record, I want to state its contents:
Attached is a copy of a memorandum from the Urban Development Review Board
to the City Commission dated December 14, 1972. This memorandum was the
result of City Commission Resolution 72-77, that referred the application
of the E.H.G. Financial Corporation for a variance to permit construction
of an apartment complex on Lots 53 thru 62, Block B, Flagler Mary Brickell
by proper authority of a Planned Area Development recommendation, and in
effect by this resolution you were requesting the Urban Development Review
Board to look at the project under PAD and report back their findings.
The Review Board did so, and it is to be noted in the report back to the
Commission by the Review Board that they could not recommend bonus floor
area ratio for the project because the project does not contain certain
physical development amenities which the Board felt was essential in a
Brickell project. Among these amenities were: Landscaping in the 70'
right of way, additional landscaping in the plaza areas, creating open
space at the Bayfront by reducing the length of the pool apartments
structures .djacent to the bayfront, and landscaping on the interior and
perimeter of the site.
The Board went on to say that any bonus considerations would be based on
introduction of large scale trees and other landscaping amenities by
whi.ch the original Brickell Hammock was famous for in the past.
Consequently in discussions between the developer and the Planning Department
pertaining to possible court settlement of this project, it was stressed
that these physical amenities would have to be incorporated in the project
as a basis for any type of valid court settlement.
The revised project plans which form the basis for the court settlement
which Mr. Rothstein has, have included necessary development amenities
as stated by the Board in their evaluation of the project. Consequently
the Planning Department recommends settlement of the court case for an
F.A.R. of 2.36 subject to the following conditions as shown on the revised
project plan.
066
MAY 101973
#1 Staggering the four building tower heights.
#2 Dedication of the 70' service road right of way with full
landscaping treatment. It will be the responsibility of the
project to maintain the landscape portion of the right of way.
#3 Substantial landscaping and trees be placed in the pool -plaza area.
#4 Substantial size shade trees to be placed in the perimeter and
in the interior planting wells on the site.
During the long course of public hearings on this matter, it went
originally through a P.A.D. and went back through the variance route
and when it reached the Commission, it was heard under the variance route,
the Commission then asked that it,be heard under a P.A.D. and the Board
gave the Commission their report stating that because of the lack of
certain amenities, they felt that the project was not entitled to a
requested increase in floor area ratio.
The Members of the Review Board and the Chairman especially was here
earlier, have reviewed the revised site plans and indicate that they
endorse the court settlement based on the conditions which they felt were
mandatory earlier and for the Commission's edification, the architect is
here with some plans which will give the Commission an idea of the type
of physical amenities that the Review Board were looking for earlier,
that were not forthcoming but which are now, and consequently would form
the basis; for a settlement. If you recall in the R-5A Ordinance, a part
of that ordinance requires developers upon re -platting, to dedicate to
the City 70' of right of way. Now using the Forte project as a basis for
landscaping development of the 70' right of way, this is the type of
landscaping which we are looking for along that portion of land that
lies between Brickell Avenue and the project itself. We are looking for
a very heavy, hammock like environment, and this is a plan for the 1901
project. Its half actually of their plan that you are looking at now.
•
I alo want the COmmission to look at the type of amenities around the
pool -plaza area that were requested: earlier by the Board. They had
requested a "Hammock like" setting in the pool -plaza area so this is the
resultant plan which includes large scale planting trees for that area
for the entire project.
Mrs. Gordon: Are you saying now that the applicant's revisions, revised
plans, are now the same as those that were recommended by the Urban Review
Board,
Mr. Acton: Yes, in other words they are actually incorporating those
elements in the plan which were requested by the Review Board earlier
but were not forthcoming at that time.
That's the reason the Board denied any increase in floor area ratio.
Mrs. Gordon: And what about the height of the buildings?
Mr. Acton: They are to be staggered.
Mrs. Gordon: The way it was recommended.
Mr. Acton: Right, what I am saying is that all of the elements that
the Board felt were mandatory in a Brickell project are to be incorporated
in the revised project plans.
Mr. Plummer: Are you in fact saying Goerge, that after this Commission
denied, they then in application to court, made other concessions beyond
the point of the denial of this Commission?
Mr. Acton: Yes that is correct.
Mr. Plummer: I have to ask this of the applicant, how do I put it?
Very simply, why didn't you make these concessions and come back here
rather than to go to Court? Is that a fair question to ask?
067 MAY 101973
If you don't want to answer it, don't but it seems like these were the
things we were striving to get before,
Mr. Friedlander: Well I have some very strong positions about whether
or not we ought to be making these concessions.
I am William Friedlander, attorney for the applicant and the plaintiff.
My comments perhaps would prejudice my client.
Mr. Plummer: Well then don't make them then.
Mrs.Gordon: Mr. Acton, what is before us now? What is this Commission's
position now, Mr. Rothstein, I should address you?
Mr. Rothstein: Let me read to you, my recommendation. First of all, I
will say this, that the lawsuit that was filed attacks the whole process
of the 70' insofar as the requirement of dedication. In other words, if
the City was to have lost, this lawsuit, then the applicant would have
the full use of the 70' and his floor area ratio would be up to about
2.65 or, between 2.6 and 2.7, if we lost the lawsuit.
Upon the getting of the lawsuit, we immediately started to prepare for
the trial and one of the elements that we were advised is a memo which
is in your book and sent out by me, wherein Mr. Grimm advised us that on
the Brickell area apartment house development, 3 so far, not this Commission,
but several Commission's back, instead of requiring the dedication, allowed
easements and the net affect of the easement aspect is that the full floor
area ratio was allowed to be counted and can be counted and one of the
allegations in their lawsuit was to the effect that if everybody else got
an easement, we should not be required to dedicate but we should only have
to give at the most, an easement, and therefore, if we have to give an
easement, we can count the full 2.6 or 2.7.
These facts were never brought up to the Commission and there would have
been at that time, no reason to.
Mr. Grimm advises in his memorandum of the 22nd, February 22nd, that the
service road is so vital, that in his opinion, if a choice had to be made
this is Mr. Grimm speaking, had to be made between losing the 70' strip
service road and allowing the area to have more apartments, from his
departmerts point of view, the service road should take the precedent
because c,f the necessity from the point of view of public works and
traffic.
Another count in their lawsuit is to the effect that only on this particular
area in the city is there a requirement of forced dedication if you want to
make use of the zoning. They say if it should be legal, and they are
required, what we are doing is, we are really condemning their property,
and therefore a value on this parcel should be granted to them, if you
take the footage and the last appraisals by the City appraisers in the
Wainright Park, it ends up being that the 70' strip is worth one million
dollars and they would want the court to require to pay.
I had a conference with Mr. Acton after this memo from Mr,.Vince Grimm and
I told him that there was some potential that at the end of 2 to 3 years
litigation, we might find ourselves ending up with a floor area ratio
or 2.6 •o 2.7 or in -the alternative, of no dedication at all, or in the
alternative of the court saying the city is going to have to pay a million
dollars for the property and at that time I said to him, because he had
begin having some particular discussion with the architect over the details
of the project that is going up, I am not capable of doing any settlement
of negotiation so far as I am concerned, if you in the framework of
everything you have recommended, and the Urban Review Board has recommended,
want to discuss this with them about a settlement, we make a dilligent
effort to settle anything if its fair and appropriate and proper and so
as a result, he came up with this recommendation. Thereupon, I wrote my
memorandum which was delivered to you several days ago, as follows:
068
MAY 101973
Honorable Members of the City Commission:
The City is the defendant in two court actions filed by E. H. G.
financial corporation in the Circuit Court. These cases challenge
the city's right to require dedication of a 70' right of way for a
service road along Brickell Avenue. The Public Works Department has
advised the Law Department in a memorandum, a copy of which is attached
hereto, of the necessity of the development of this road and of the
consequences to the area if the plaintiff prevails in this action.
Mr. Acton of the Planning Department on behalf of the City of Miami and
based upon the Urban Development Review Boards recommendation and of the
Planning Board's requirements, has entered into negotiation with the
plaintiff and they have reached an agreement on the factors involved so
that this case may be settled and I attached a memo from Mr. Acton
advising me of this and also have Mr. Reese's and Mr. Acton's memorandum
in your book which Mr. Acton just read to you.
Based on the recommendation of the Planning Department, and the Public
Works Department, and the inability to forecast the outcome of the '
dedication litigation because of the facts as set forth in Mr. Grimm's
memorandum, I.E. previous easements as opposed to dedication, and in
the light of the 2.35 floor area ratio allowed to Forte under the P.A.D.
Ordinance, the Law Department also recommends the settlement of this suit.
Now in addition to all these facts that you have, some weeks ago, Forte
understanding that this litigation was going on, filed a suit saying in
effect, if they win, and they get 2.7 and they don't have to dedicate,
we want to be treated equally and we don't want to dedicate and we want
the full floor area ratio also, and this kind of settlement in this suit
will go a long way to show a court in that suit, that the Commission's
policy is consistent and that others have upon the Urban Review Board,
as Forte did, come and said, okay we will accept in the general interest
of the public and hence based on their recommendations and all these
factors, I also recommend it.
Mrs. Gordon: What's the procedure now that you said all that?
Since this affects an area as it does, are you expecting us at this time
to take action based on your recommendation? Or are you calling for a
public hearing again or what?
Mr. Rothstein: The normal procedure in settlement would be for you to
proceed on this agenda item. There have been many public hearings held
on this subject matter and on the area, and you can either act favorably
or not act favorably, the responsibility is with the Commission.
The alternative to not settling is the potential loss of the lawsuit,
which I don't know that we will, but in light of - you know I am usually
very strong when I say, let's fight and win, but in light of the fact
of Mr. Grimm's factual memorandum wherein he describes which is alleged
in their complaint, that there were easements taken on . the Brickell
7'puii house, Brickell Bay Village and the C.T.A., as well as on the,those,
chat, I can't say to you that this is a case that we can fight and win,
because you can't treat one parcel in a discriminatory manner as opposed
to other parcels and under the law presently the zoning codd, if somebody
g vcs an easement, that can be counted for floor area ratio.
We arc working on some changes in the code where easements and dedications
so far as floor area ratio are concerned, will be treated equally but
this code was passed in 1961 and we have to go in court by what was in
existence at the time they had proceeded, not what we may pass later on.
Mrs. Gordon: What is the floor area ratio Mr. Acton, on this proposal?
Mr. Acton: 2.36 The Forte project which was approved by the Commission
based on the findings of the Urban Development Review Board and the
Planning Department, was 2.35. The reason that this particular project
is 2.36 is because the proportion of land, the 30' road actually occupies
more of the total percentage of his project because the project land is
considerably narrow, narrower than the Forte project. In other words,
the Forte project which is further south along Brickell Avenue is fairly
deep as opposed to this projects land which is fairly narrow, so if you
compute that out, you will find that the amount of land actually in the
E.H.G. project is willing to dedicate is actually a larger percentage
of their total lot as opposed to the Forte Project, that's the reason
we are saying 2.36, instead of 2.35 but what we are actually saying is
that based on the Commission's action in granting the Forte P.A.D.
which incorporated all those elements which were deemed desirable by the
Planning Department and the Urban Development Review Board and since he
now is willing to put in all those physical elements which were deemed
069 MAY 10 197
desirable i.by the department and the Board, we recommend settlement of
this case.
Now as Mr. Rothstein has so very well put it, there are some legal
questions. As you know in zoning you can't be arbitrary, in other words
you must treat all properties within a particular classification in a
like manner. Now, the Zoning Ordinance is silent on easements and I did
have a discussion with Mr. Ferencik yesterday since presently the
Building Department does make the administrative interpretation as to
whether or not dedicated right of ways are supposed to receive floor
area ratio, or they are not. Our Zoning Ordinance is silent on this
matter but the fact remains that the City of Miami has acted differently
on different cases in the Brickell area. Realizing this and realizing
that there are some blanks in our zoning ordinance, we felt it was in
the best interests of the city to settle this court case base don the
precedent that was set by the Forte project itself. In other words, the
city would be treating both projects in a similar manner based upon the
willingness of the developers to provide those physical amenities which
are deemed desirable and mandatory in this area.
Mr. Rothstein: You understand the settlement includes the dedication.
Mrs. Gordon: The method than; you are asking us to handle this now,
is this a P.A.D.?
Mr. Rothstein: In effect the court order which will include everything
you are saying and all the plans, in effect will be a P.A.D., yes.
Mrs. Gordon: Not as if it is, but is it?
I think the reason I am being a little explicit about this is because
of the precedent setting factor involved in it if it is not a P.A.D.
and if it is in fact variances, to me it would make a difference for
the future actions -
Mr. Rothstein: Well. Mr. Acton has advised me because of the nature of
i:iat happened, that you never acted upon the P.A.D. application.
o far as I am concerned, you can approve this settlement based on the
P. A.D. application and put that in that resolution that this commission
now will act on the existing P.A.D. application as such, if you find
that the P.A.D. application is proper and appropriate and that this
settlement can be entered into.
Mrs. Gordon: Then this is a P.A.D., fine.
Mr. Friedlander: Mr. Rothstein, I take exception. It's been my
understanding throughout these negotiations that this was a court -
settlement of a lawsuit and that the -
Mr. Rothstein: That is what I just said.
Mr. Iriedlander: Yes but this isn't a P.A.D. We are not asking for
approval of a P.A.D.
Mr. Rothstein: I don't think you heard what I said Sir.
Mr. Friedlander: I apologize.
Mr. Rothstein: What I said was, so far as the Commission is concerned,
in p,Lssing its resolution, authorizing the settlement. It can do so by
incorporating in this, an approval of the P.A.D. application for it's
records and authorizing based on their approval of the P.A.D. application,
the court settlement because I too very much want to make sure that this
is a court settlement including the dedication in the court settlement,
that's important to me.
Mr. Friedlander: From my point of view, the only thing that's important
is the Judges order to incorporate the floor area ratio thats been
offered.
070 MAY 101973
Mr. Plummer: You heard what Mr. Rothstein said about the building
somewhat adjacent, Forte. He has also filed a lawsuit. Now was his
70' in front a dedication or an easement?
Mr. Acton: Dedication.
Mr. Plummer: If this Commission were to approve this in the form of a
dedication, then it would have no bearing?
Mr. Acton: No, its the same process.
Mr. Rothstein: Our chances of being successful in the Forte suit will
be in opinion, a thousand times better than if we don't have it, let
me put it that way. In other words, they are still attacking the basic
dedication principle and'one of the theories that they are including is
that not only have the old Commissions, 4 years back, allowed easements
instead of dedications but this action here, if it is allowed by the
court, means that there doesn't have to be any dedication and they have
to be treated equally with this. Now when they come in if this is
passed, and say we want to be treated equally, and we said well the •
Commission has just recently reaffirmed what you had so you are being
treated equally. I can't guarantee what a Court will do ultimately but
the risk is lowered by about a thousand percent, let me put it that way.
Mr. Plummer: Do you have the minutes of the last meeting?
Vice Mayor Gibson: Any questions Mr. Reboso?
Mr. Rothstein and Mr. Acton and Mr. Grimm and Mr. Simpson, a question.
Those people on Brickell Avenue aware of what is about to happen there?
Mr. Grimm: Father, I don't think I got the first part of your question.
Vice Mayor Gibson: Are the people on Brickell Avenue, those who hold
our feet to the fire, arc they aware of what is about to happen or
what is being proposed here now?
Mr. Rotl,tein: An inquiry came to me about it from Mrs. Alexander and
I explained to her about 4 weeks ago and advised that it would be up
on the Commission agenda as a settlement and just what you heard, I told
her and she asked me about it and I said that based on the recommendation
of the departments, I would recommend it and George can speak for himself
as to whether he has discussed it with her or anyone else.
Mr. Acton: She is the spokeswoman of the Brickell area interests and
she did speak with me about the proposed settlement and I explained to
her that the basis for the settlement is what I reported to the Commission.
She is not here but she did not object to that, realizing that the
project revisions as a basis for court settlement, will be far superior
iii physical appearance in the Brickell Area than if we did not settle
the matter.
Mr. Gfintm: Father, I think you asked me that question specifically, so
I an going to answer that to my knowledge, no the Department of Public
Wor:s was not charged with notifying anybody and I don't know that
anybot'y else was but I don't know either that its material.
Rev. Gibson: Well it may not be material to you and I understand
but the heat we catch up here from that outfit can be material to me,
I don't know about the others.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Acton, one of the points I made very strong, I notice
in the minutes before and I am getting back to realm I may not belong
in, and thats a legal realm. Mr. Rothstein, it shows here in the minutes
of the last meeting where we turned this down,that had certain amenities
been given, your department recommended 2.47. Now if I am wrong, you
tell me, but I am reading from the minutes.
Mr. Acton: Well if the Commission can recollect, this particular
application came to the City Commission twice. Now their original floor
area ratio requestwas 2.92 now based on the fact that at that time,
they were planning on building substantially larger size apartment
units and other factors, then we came back and said 2.47 but they
MAY101973
071
revised their application, they changed the actual physical design
of the project itself, did not reduce the density and other factors and
came back in and requested a floor area ratio of 2.47. Well it wasn't
the same project that the City Commission or the Department was reviewing,
it was a different project. We told the Commission the second time it
came through, that there were certain types of amenities we were looking
for, that were not at that time forthcoming from the project design.
If they had incorporated those elements, which they are now willing to
do, then the Department would have recommended the same floor area ratio
to the developer that we had recommended on the Forte project.
What I am saying is that the project came through twice, two different
times, two different designs.
Mr. Rothstein: Mr. Plummer has asked me this question and his question
is, has the City Attorney told him in so many words, he has no choice?
I have not said that. I have pointed out to you the factual problems,
the fact that there is no way I can tell you with certainty in my own
mind, what the outcome would be. The Departments have worked out
exactly what they and the Urban Review Board originally recommended.
Based on that, I can recommend that. Now if this Commission decides
that it wishes .►-not to proceed, but wants us to try the case, we will
be happy to do so. I am sure if we have to take an appeal, we will.
I am sure if they have to take an appeal, they will. The outcome has
the potential of being the determination that we have no right to
dedication and if that is so, then the floor area ratio for that project
at that locale, will be between 2.6 and 2.7. We will not have the70'
for the road unless we go ahead and buy it.
Projects thereafter coming along behind will have that 70' easement
counted toward their floor area ratio so rather than it being a bonus
in return for making sure of the amenities, they can do what they want.
That is a policy for the Commission to decide. If you want to take that
risk, we'll go ahead. If you want to take their recommendations and
my recommendation, we'll do it that way based on the P.A.D., so I am not
saying you have to pass this because we will do our best to uphold it
and we are pretty proud of our department. We have done pretty well
but I can't say it with the certainty that I say on some other things
because the facts are different being that in the same area, there have
been 3 easements and not dedications. Those easements were granted
relief from the code. The code was in existence and relief from the
code was granted by previous Commission's. That is what I am saying.
That factual situation makes it more difficult for us to , for me to
say, yes we'll win, let's fight. You do have a choice.
Rev. Gibson: Any other discussion?
Counsel, I would feel much better if some of those Brickell Avenue people
were here to hear what you are saying because what you are saying makes
good sense to me and its a good bargaining thing.
Mr. Rothstein: So there can be no question. The Floor Area Ratio
is counted on the land that is left after the dedication.
Rev. Gibson: It makes good sense to me. What do we do?
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Simpson tells me that there is no existing P.A.D.
application by these people. They withdrew their P.A.D. application.
Mr. Friedlander: That is correct. That is the point I was trying to
make. I have filed a lawsuit.
Mr. Rothstein: I apoligize. I had been informed by Mr. Acton that
thee was still the application open.
Mr. Friedlander: We are here today agreeing to settle this suit and
to provide these amenities in return for a floor area ratio of 2.36.
and I really couldn't understand the reference to the P.A.D.
Mr. Plummer: Well putting it right down on the line Mr. Friedlander,
if I understand the P.A.D. ordinance, the city retains control over
development in a P.A.D. ordinance.
072 MAY 101973
Mr. Friedlander: Yes, we are willing to have the judge incorporate
in the final order, the specifics of this settlement including references
and incorporation by reference to working drawings and layout plans so
that there can be no question that if we do not comply with said drawings
and plans, we will have violated the settlement and would not be entitled
to enforce it.
We will be as detailed in the Judges order which will as I understand it,
Mr. Turner and I will sit down and draft it for the Judge's scrutiny in
detail as the P.A.D. application would have been or more detailed if that
pleases you.
Mr. Rothstein: I think that part of the resolution could be that the
same controls that the City would have under a P.A.D. , it would have
in this case because the controls are the working drawings and everything
else.
Mr. Friedlander: We will stipulate to that.
Vice Mayer Gibson: What do we do? Iam the presiding officer.
I can't make a motion.
Mr. Plummer: Under Roberts Rules of Order, Canon Gibson and your
edification as presiding officer, there is nothing to prohibit you from
stepping aside to make a motion.
Vice Mayor Gibson: Weil, I do not elect to step aside this afternoon.
Mrs. Gordon: I am going to tell you what is troubling me. I am troubled
that there is noone here from the Brickell Area, very frankly, and I
don't feel comfortable in taking this step with no representation from
the area. Courts are one thing and we are another.
Mr. Acton: Okay, why doesn't the Commission then consider deferring
this matter until the next meeting of the.Commission?
Vice Mayor Gibson: Make it the first item on the agenda if it can be
arranged. I would like to see them here as I expressed, only because
I -
Mr. Rothstein: I think what you should do is require that the same
notification as if it was a hearing on a zoning matter or a P.A.D."
be sent out to the neighbors.
Mrs. Gordon: I am even willing to come in on a special meeting if
necessary because I am not interested in holding anyone up but I am
interested in having the public here who are directly affected.
Mr. Friedlander: We have been held for 6 to 8 months already Mrs.
Gordon, I don't suppose another week will hurt.
Vice Mayor Gibson: Can we agree, gentlemen I appreciate your patience
honestly T do. If you would only tolerate us until the next meeting,
we will be very grateful. What I have heard I think is just good sense
and 1 would rather go this route rather than the court hearing or suit.
What shall we do? Make a motion to postpone -
Mr. Roihstein: I suggest that you make a motion that this matter be
pint .1n the agenda of the 24th and that Mr. Simpson be directed to
carry out the same notification provisions for notification in this case
as is the case with any hearing on planning and zoning matters.
Mrs. Gordon: I'll offer it that way to defer.
Mr. Plummer: I will second the motion but let me tell you that on the
24th, I want this matter settled.
Rev. Gibson: I do too.
Mr. Friedlander: You don't want it settled as bad as the people who
are paying 6 to 8,000 dollars a day in interest Mr. Plummer.
073
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Friedlander, I made my comments knownto you as well
to them. You have been cooperative, even bent over backwards to be
cooperative with this city. The thing that troubles me is my question
to you before, which you didn't want to answer and I think I know why.
I want this thing settled on the 24th, the first item.
Rev. Gibson: All right, call the roll please.
Thereupon the roll was called and the matter was unanimously
deferred to May 24th by Mr. Plummer, Reboso, Rev. Gibson and Mrs. Gordon.
ABSENT: Mayor Ferre.
Mr. Rothstein: Gentlemen, could you please leave these documents with
the Clerk, so that if someone wants to come in, we have them available
for examination?
35, SODIUM VAPOR LIGHTS IN THE 36111 STREET AREA - DISCUSSION
Vice Mayor Gibson: The group of young students that were here this
morning informed us when we were over at the Gym, that when they were
here last year, they spoke with us about the need of Sodium Vapor Lights
out on the 36th Street area. I think that's correct. Whoever that
person was and I think I see, would you come up to the mike and tell
us what the situation was and explain to the City Manager.
Peggy Allen: I am Peggy Allen, the newly elected president of the
student council. About a year and a half ago, a past student council
president came up and made an appeal to the Commission that we get
vapor lights around the immediate area of the school. We have lighting
in the parking lot and we have lighting in front of the school but we
have none in the immediate area around the school and now with the
daylight saving time, we have night school and that lasts until 11 o'clock,
and people going home in the dark and students coming home in the dark,
and Allapattah has been recognized as having a high percentage of
robberies and we feel that with these lights, it would be lessened.
Mrs. Gordon: Mrs. Reese, will you speak to it?
Mr. Reese: Well I don't carry the program in my head of phasing in the
lights but I will check on it and see it. I know that Allapattah is on
the list and I recognize the school faces on a main street and the side
streets have not been lit as yet but, I am quite sure we can step it up.
1 am sorry I can't give you an exact date
As soon as we get the program and make some shifts to put it into effect.
Now it won't turn the lights on for about 45 days because of the
engineering and the installation etc.
Vice Mayor Gibson: Sir, you unc'.erstand, you heard what the City Manager
said. All right good.
36, MASTER PLANNING COMMITTEE OF DADE LEAGUE- A'PoLNT REPRESENTATIVE
byPLUMMER: I have items from the Dade League. There has been formed
�the legislature a task force for the study of land, services,
environment, population, economy and implementation in regard to master
planning. It was requested that each municipality who belongs to this
Dade League of Cities, which this happens to be Unit 6 which encompasses
West Palm, sorry, Broward, Dade and Monroe County, appoint one member
of their zoning board to this task force. I would like to offer at
this time the name of Mr. Gerald Silverman to serve as our representative
on this task force.
074
MAY 101973
•
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-376
A RESOLUTION APPOINTING GERALD SILVERMAN AS THE CITY OF
MIAMI'S REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING
BOARD ON THE MASTER PLANNING COMMITTEE OF THE DADE LEAGUE
OF MUNICIPALITIES
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file
in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mrs. Gordon, the resolution was passed and
adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs.
Gordon and Reverend Gibson. ABSENT: Mayor Ferre. NOES: None
Mr. Plummer: The second item is the renaming of a person on the
Commission as representative to the Dade League.
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Reboso who moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 73-377
A RESOLUTION REAPPOINTING COMMISSIONER J. L. PLUMMER JR.
AS A MEMBER OF THE DADE LEAGUE OF MUNICIPALITIES FOR
THE COMING YEAR
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mrs. Gordon, the resolution was passed and
•adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs.
Gordon and Reverend Gibson. ABSENT: Mayor Ferre. NOES: None
ADJOURNMENT: THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME WOE T E CITX
COMMISSION, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT :SS 0 LLOCK tt''.M.
ATTEST: H. D. SOUTHERN
CITY CLERK
MAURICE FERRE
MAYOR
RALPH G. ONGIE
ASSIST CITY CLERK
lie,a
075
CITA' OF MIM1
DOCUMENT
MEETING
DATE:
N D E X MAY 10
39
ITEM NO1 DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
COMMISSION AGENDA & CITY CLERK REPORT (18 Pages
PROCEDURE OF RESIDENTIAL GARBAGE COLLECTION -
PENSION RAISE BENEFITS TO RETIRED EMPLOYEES
CONFIRMING RESOLUTION NO.73-238-CONSTRUCTION
TRACY SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT SR-5275-C
CONFIRMING RESOLUTION NO. 73-239-CONSTRUCTION
TRACY SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT SR-5275-C
CONDITIONAL USE -ADDITIONS HIGHLAND PARK
MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
VARIANCE -CONSTRUCTION -1ST AND 5TH FLOOR
HIGHLAND PARK MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
VARIANCE-CONSTRUCTION-2934 N.W. 22ND COURT
CONDITIONAL USE -OFF-STREET PARKING GOLF COURSE
PARK-4216 N.W. 6TH STREET
GRANT INCREASE IN THE EXISTING PENSIONS OF
RETIRED EMPLOYEES
ACCEPT PLAT ENTITLED MIRNA-A SUBDIVISION IN
THE CITY OF MIAMI
ACCEPT PLAT ENTITLED MAINES-A SUBDIVISION IN
THE CITY OF MIAMI
ACCEPT PLAT ENTITLED TRESPALACIOS-A SUBDIVISION
IN THE CITY OF MIAMI
NEGOTIATE WITH METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY -LAND
OWNED BY CITY OF MIAMI-N.W. 8 COURT
ACCEPT BID-FITZGERALD ENGINEERING CO.INC.-
N.W. 17 AVENUE
ACCEPT BID-AMOCO OIL COMPANY -FIRE FIGHTING
VEHICLES AND APPARATUS
ACCEPT BID -PURCHASE POLICE AND GENERAL POOL
VEHICLE REPLACEMENTS
APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE -PUBLIC LAW
92-500 CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM
APPLICATION FEDERAL ASSISTANCE UNDER PUBLIC LAW
92-500 CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM
APPLICATION FEDERAL ASSISTANCE UNDER PUBLIC LAW
92-500 CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM
COMMISSION RETRIEVAL
ACTION CODE NO.
R-73-351
R-73-352
R-73-353
R-73-354
R-73-355
R-73-356
R-73-357
R-73-358
R-73-359
R-73-360
•R-73-361
R-73-362
R-73-364
R-73-365
R-73-366
R-73-367
R-73-369
R-73-370
0037
73-351
0038
73-352
73-353
73-354
73-355
73-356
73-357
73-358
73-359
73-360
73-361
73=362
73-364
73-365
73-366
73-367
73-369
73-370
DOCUMENT4N DEX
CONTINU E
ITEM N0.
21
DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION
EXTEND HOURS FOR SENIOR CITIZENS TO RIDE
METROPOLITAN TRANSIT BUSES
C
PAGE # 2
_ACTION_ __ _LODE _N0.__
R-73-373
73-373