The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC 1973-09-26 MinutesMIAMI CITY COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON. SEP 261973 PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OFY E CLERK C H. D. SOUTHERN CITY CLERK RALPH G. ONGIE ASSISTANT CITY RK • 41\ .r INDEX MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA ITEM NO, SUBJECT ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION NO, PAGE NO. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 15 1 16. 17. 18. 19. PERSONAL APPEARANCE - DR. BEN'SHEPPARD PROCLAMATIONS CONDOLENCES - DEATH OF TOMAS CRUZ PLANNING AND ZONING RESTRUCTURING FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES OBJECTIONS TO CONFIRMING ORDERING RESOLUTION N. W. 29TH STREET HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT H-4361 OBJECTIONS TO CONFIRMING PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR COST OF HILLSIDE SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT SR-5350-C OBJECTIONS TO CONFIRMATION OF PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR COST OF S. E. 15 ROAD. -SIDEWALK IMP. SK-4356 REQUEST FOR CHANGE OF ZONING CLASSIFICATION LOTS 8 thru 13 BLK 114N MIAMI B-41 REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE- MIAMI BEACH AIR TRANSPORT REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE- MECHINICAL PARKING GARAGE REQUEST"FOR CHANGE OF ZONING CLASSIFICATION LOTS 1 & 21 BLOCK 60S - MIAMI B-41 CONDITIONAL USE - LOTS 7 & 8 - BLOCK 2 HAYNES WORTH VILLAGE VARIANCE - VACATE ALLEY BELLA BAHIA SUBDIVISION VARIANCE - +A+ AIRLINE CENTER AMD. WEST FLAGLER DOG TRACK CONDOLENCES- DEATH OF ROBERT MARX CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION LOTS 10111,12,12 - BLOCK 8 WINTER GARDEN FIRST AMD CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION TENTATIVE PLAT :884- RITALITZA LUNCH RECESS CHANGE DATE OF SECOND REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 1973 AMEND ORDINANCE. NO. 6871 ALLOWABLE SIZE OF FLAT SIGNS 73-755 73-756 5-FIRST READINGS & 73-757 1 3--6 DISCUSSION 1 6 73-758 73-759 DISCUSSION DISCUSSION DISCUSSION 73-760 DISCUSSION 73-761 73-762 73-763 73-764 73-765 ORDINANCE NO. 8185 ORDINANCE NO. 8186 73-766 ORDINANCE NO. 8187 7 7 8--9 10 14 15 15 16 16 111 INDEX MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA • ITEM NO, SUBJECT ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION NO, PAGE NOS 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. PROPOSED BUDGET -DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY GRANT APPLICATIONS FOR TRANSFER OF CERTIF- ICATES OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE do NECESSITY WAIVE RENTAL FEE-BAYFRONT PARK BANDSHELL UNITED CEREBRAL PALSY ASSN.OF MIAMI PERSONAL APPEARANCE- S. C. LITTLE QUALITY OF LIFE PANEL-3RD CENTURY U.S.A PERSONAL APPEARANCE- MRS. J.B. PIERCE WOMANS CLUB OF COCONUT GROVE TENNIS FACILITIES- HENDERSON AND MOORE PARKS PERSONAL APPEARANCE- MR. GARRETT SLOAN MIAMI-DADE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY RE: METHOD OF FUNDING EXPANSION OF FACILITIES ON VIRGINIA KEY APPROPRIATIONS ORDINANCE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 309 1974 ORDINANCE - FIXING MILLAGE ETC. APPROPRIATIONS ORDINANCE FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING FUNDS CITY MANAGERS VACATION- 30 DAYS PER ANNUM PENSION ADJUSTMENT FOR RETIREES AUTHORIZE CONTRACTS SIX EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATIONS EXTENDED THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY ORDINANCE -REIMBURSEMENT FOR EXPENSES AT THE TORCH OF FRIENDSHIP AMEND SECTION 39-37 OF THE CODE APPLICATION FOR USE OF CITY FACILITIES ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK - ORANGE BOWL PRESS BOX WATERPROOFING ORDERING RESOLUTION TRAIL VIEW HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT H-4366 ACCEPT PLAT - ALVAREZ SUBDIVISION ACCEPT PLAT - SEAVEY SUBDIVISION CANCELLATION OF COVENANT ROMANINO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ORDINANCE NOS. 8188 and 8189 73-767 73-768 73-769 DISCUSSION 73-770 DISCUSSION ORDINANCE NO. 8190 ORDINANCE NO. 8191 ORDINANCE NO. 8192 73-771 ORDINANCE NO. 8193 73-772 73-773 FIRST READING FIRST READING 73-774 73-775 73-776 73-777 73-778 17--18 18 19 19 20 20 21--30 30 31 31 32--36 36 36--37 37 38 38 38 39 39 40 40 • s INDEX MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA ITEM NO, SUBJECT ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION NO. PAGE NO 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. APPOINT PAUL S. WALKER to DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY APPOINT MEMBERS TO THE CITY OF MIAMI COMMITTEE ON ECOLOGY AND BEAUTIFICATION AGREEMENT WITH METRO -LEASE ORANGE BOWL LOT WAIVE RENTAL FEE-BAYFRONT AUDITORIUM WOMANS CANCER SOCIETY WAIVE RENTAL FEE- MIAMI BASEBALL STADIUM FALL CAMPUS PRG.MIAMI DADE COMMUNITY CLG EXECUTE AGREEMENT - SHERATON 4 AMBASSADORS CHARGE ACCOUNTS FOR GREEN FEES ETC. ALLOCATE S3,000 (PARTIAL PAYMENT) LOT 6, BLOCK 123, PLAT BOOK ETC. AUTHORIZE SALE - REAL PROPERTY LOT 3, BLOCK 5, KENWOOD RENEWAL OF AGREEMENT PUBLICITY AGREEMENT WITH DADE COUNTY ADOPT RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ELECTION OF POLICEMAN OR FIREMAN TO MIAMI CITY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM AMEND SECTION 16-23 OF THE CODE BID BONDS, PERFORMANCE BONDS ETC. AMEND RES. 73-324B - SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT SK-4281 - 53. AWARD BID - GENERAL DRAINAGE PROJECT G-1 54. AWARD BID - 311,000 ENVELOPES 55. AUTHORIZE PURCHASE OF TWO INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER DIESEL ENGINES 56. AUTHORIZE CONTRACT FOR TOWING AND STORAGE OF VESSELS 57. ARCHITECTS MIAMI MODERN POLICE FACILITY RANK CHOICE ' 1 RANK CHOICE :'2 RANK CHOICE 3 58. EXTENSION OF EMPLOYMENT - JOHN C. TOMICK 59. ESTABLISH OCTOBER 22ND AS OBSERVANCE FOR VETERANS DAY 60. TRANSFER OF THE MIAMI SPRINGS COUNTRY CLUB FOOD CONCESSION BACK TO THE CITY OF MIAMI 73-779 73-780 73-781 73-782 73-783 73-784 73-785 73-786 73-787 73-788 ORDINANCE NO. 8194 73-789 73-790 73-791 73-792 73-793 73-794 73-795 73-796 73-797 73-798 73-799 41 41 42 42 43 43 44 44 45 45 46 46 47 47 48 48 49--52 52 53 53--54 1 INDEX MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA ITEM NO, SUBJECT ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION NO, PAGE NO. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. HIRE SAGER AND BURNS FOR FILING OF ANTI-TRUST LITIGATION MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION ITEMS BUS TOUR RE: PARKING LOT LIGHTING ORD. ALI-FRAZIER FIGHT IN.FEB 1974 CREATE YOUTH ADVISORY BOARD NAME CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS APPOINT ADDITIONAL MEMBERS INTERNATIONAL FOLK FESTIVAL COMMITTEE DOWNTOWN DECORATIONS FOR ORANGE BOWL FESTIVAL DINNER KEY BOAT SHOW- USE OF PIER 5 ADJOURNMENT 73-800 DISCUSSED 73-801 73-802 73-803 73-804 54 55 55 56 57 57--59 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA On .the 26th day Septemben, 1913 , The City Commi45Lon o 6 the City o 6 Miami, Fton.ida met at its negutan meeting ptace at City Nat in said City .in negutan session. The meeting waa eatted to ()Aden at 9:25 O'Ctock A.M. by Mayon David T. Kennedy and ,the 6ottow4ng membeas of the City Comm.44ion wene bound to be pneaent: Ma. Reboeo Mn. Ptummen Reverend Gibbon Mna. Gondon 'Mayon Kennedy An invocation waa det.i.vened by MU. Gondon who then ted those pneaent in the Ptedge o6 Ateg.i.ance to ,the Ftag. 1, PERSONAL APPEARANCE - DR. BEN SHEPPARD Dr. Ben Sheppard -appeared and stated he had become confused on the date he was to have presented his programs which he hoped to have included in the considerations for allocation of Federal Revenue Sharing Funds. The Downtown Recreation Program which is the old firehouse at North Miami Avenue and 14th Street. The Miami -Bridge which is a run -to house and a hotel Mr. Ferre contributed at S. E. First Street; the Ozman House and a free medical clinic at U. S. #1 and 23rd Street. He stated all the programs were directly or indirectly drug related and programs aimed at young people . He indicated the budget was close to $500,00n and this was more than he could ask the Archdiocese to carry alone. lie indicated the most important project was the Downtown Rec- reation Center at the site of the former firehouse and that the cost of remodeling the building had greatly exceeded original estimates in order to prepare this building for such use. In response to question by Mrs. Gordon, Mr. Andrews, City Manager reported the lease on the old fire station places the responsibility and burden of making adjustments to the property on the Archdiocese requiring submission of architectural plans to the City for approval and that their occupancy would have to comply with the code and zoning requirements. Dr. Sheppard advised Mrs. Gordon the capital improvements would cost a minimum of $25.000. "he City Manager reminded the Commission that it had been pre- deterNined prior to leasing the building to Dr. Sheppard that the building had outlived its usefulness insofar as the expenditure of major capital improvement by the City and that demolition had been recommended. Mr. Plummer reiterated a motion made on September 25th, 1973 that 2% or approximately $150,000 be delegated to drug rehabilitation programs. administ ered by Dr. Sheppard. In reply to a question by Mrs. Gordon it was stated the contingency fund previously established under federal revenue sharing funds would be utilized in addition to other funds. Reverend Gibson suggested an alternative of the City donating $25,000 to Dr. Sheppard to facilitate building alterations rather than to deplete the contingency fund for federal funds. 1 SEP 2 61973 Mr. Plummer askAd Dr. Sheppard the amount in dollars that would be required to obtain a certificate of occupancy for the Downtown Recreation Center and was told it would be a minimum of $30,000. The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-755 A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE CITY MANAGER TO MAKE PROVISION IN THE 1973-74 APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE FOR FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING FUNDS FOR $50,000 TO BE TAKEN FROM THE REVENUE SHARING CONTINGENCY FUND AND MADE AVAILABLE TO CATHOLIC SERVICE BUREAU INC., TO ASSIST IN FUNDING ITS DOWNTOWN RECREATION CENTER AT NORTH MIAMI AVENUE AND 14TH STREET; AND TO GIVE THIS PROJECT HIGH PRIORITY AT THE END OF SIX (6) MONTHS FOR THE BALANCE OF THIS CONTINGENCY FUND (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the City Clerk's 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 Kennedy. NOES: None 2, PROCLAMATIONS- CERTIFLCATES OF APPRECIATION- PLAQUES ETC. (a) PROCLA;4ATION- Sunday Oetobet 1, 1973 a6 "Pn,ovLnc.La de Camaguey en e£ Exitto" Day (b) PROCLAMATION- Week ot5 Oetoben. 1, 1973 .hn.ough Oetoben 13, 1973 as "Fine Pneven.tLon Week" 3, CONDOLENCES TO FAMILY OF TOMAS CRUZ The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Reboso who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-756 A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE SYMPATHY OF THE MAYOR AND CITY CITY COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI IN THE TRAGIC DEATH OF Cuban EX.Fte Leaden, Toma4 Cnuz AND EXTENDING SINCERE CONDOLENCES TO THE MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY (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 2 and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None 4, PLANNING AND ZONING RESTRUCTURING- FIRST READING _Of ORDINANCES Dr. Ernest Bartley appeared and explained the packet of various ordinances and resolutions placed before the Commission for adoption and acknowledged the cooperation of the Planning Staff and Mr.Simpson's Office. He said a question had been raised in connection with the fee section of the proposed ordinance dealing with appeals of the decisions . of the Zoning Board to the City Commission; that it will be the function of the new Zoning Board to make recommendations to the Commission on the rezoning of property and the Zoni'ig Board would be acting in a quasi- judicial capacity on variances and special exceptions. (Sec. 62-27) He indicated language could be incorporated into the appeals section of the ordinance, that the Commission could take appeals on review without fee where 20% or 10% objectors or whatever percentage would be agreed upon but indicated this could be done as a matter of •procedural rule rather than by ordinance. Mr. Plummer discussed the proposition of one objector appearing and said he felt it was reasonable for 10% of objectors within 375' to make an application and to help eliminate time consumed by the City Commission in hearing such objections. He expressed the opinion that one person seeking headlines could throw an application into a review hearing situation and that he felt a minimum of 10% should be required. Mr. Simpson stated presently we could not deny the right of appeal to anyone who pays the fee which is now limited to $500.00 and called to the attention of the Commission tilt possibility of civic organizations and groups of neighbors not wishing to pay the $500,00 fee to fight a zoning matter and prevailing upon their elected representatives, the City Commissioners to initiate the appeal with no fee involved. Mr. Plummer stated the possibility that this would deny a person his rights because of a monetafy consideration of the $500.00 fee and expressed the opinion that the Lee should not be the governing factor; expressing the opinion that the same impetus should be placed upon the same people who wished to object as it is upon the applicant and that the 10% rule would be a fair situation. Dr. Bartley stated he could not predict what litigation over the payment of fees might produce; and that any amendments could be drawn and presented prior to the second readings. . Mr. Rothstein, City Attorney said this could be accomplished on second reading and reminded the Commission the effective date of the situation is December and if any refinements are necessary, they can be done in the interval but that the 13th deadline must be met for the second reading. Dr. Murray Mantel appeared said the committee was unanimous in the feeling that 2-boards were needed to provide for adequate planning and a comprehensive master plan updating and review of the zoning ordinance and by reorganizing the procedure that the Commission would be relieved of minor non -controversial changes and that the current draft apparently accomplished that. He discussed adequate notice with zoning changes keeping reasonable costs in mind and hoped this would be carefully watched; he expressed the opinion that the appeal fee was high and was not in relation to the costs on the part of the City. Mr. Plummer stated it would be $500.00 for one person to object OR 10% of the neighbor's. After further discussion, An Ordinance entitled - AN ORDINANCE DELETING CHAPTER 62 OF THE MIAMI CITY CODE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 62 ENTITLED PLANNING AND ZONING WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE PURPOSE AND INTENT AND DEVELOPMENT OF A COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING PROGRAM AND THE CREATION OF A PLANNING AD- VISORY BOARD; CREATION OF ZONING BOARD; PROVIDING FOR THE PROCEDURE AND DUTIES OF THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND THE ZONING BOARD; PROVIDING FOR THE METHOD OF APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS FOR THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND ZONING BOARD; PROVIDING FOR THE COMPENSATION Ot THE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND ZONING BOARD; PROVIDING FOR. THE METHOD OF NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR CHANGES IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR HEARINGS UNDER THIS ORDINANCE AND ORDINANCE NO. 6871; ESTABLISHING THE FEES FOR PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A CHANGE OR MODIFICATION OF CLASSIFICATION OR REGULATION AFFECTING PROPERTY; PROVIDING FOR THE ADOPTION OF SECTION 72 OF THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF MIAMI AS AN ORDINANCE DURING THE INTERIM PERIOD; PRO- VIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE; AND PROVIDING FOR A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE was introduced by Mrs. Gordon, seconded by Mr. Reboso and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None An Ordinance entitled - AN ORDINANCE CREATING A NEW DEPARTMENT IN THE CITY OF MIAMI CALLED DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION FOR PLANNING AND ZONING BOARDS; SETTING FORTH THE ESTABLISHMENT AND FUNCTION OF THE DEPARTMENT; QUAL- IFICATIONS FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A DIRECTOR; THE SALARY AND THE DUTIES OF THE DIRECTOR; PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE; AND PROVIDING FOR A SEVER - ABILITY CLAUSE Was introduced by Mrs. Gordon, seconded by Mr. Reboso, and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None An Ordinance entitled - AN ORDINANCE DELETING ARTICLE XXX - AMENDMENTS OF ORDINANCE NO. 6871, AS AMENDED, OF THE CITY OF MIAMI AND PROVIDING FOR THE ENACEMENTOF A NEW ARTICLE XXX AMENDMENTS; SETTING FORTH THE METHODS OF AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, THE AMENDMENTS TO BE HEARD BEFORE THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD; WHICH AMEND- MENTS ARE TO BE HEARD BEFORE THE ZONING BOARD; PROVIDING FOR THE METHOD OF PUBLIC NOTICE; PROVIDING FOR THE METHOD OF HEARING BEFORE THE BOARDS AND TIME LIMITS; PROVIDING FOR THE METHODS AND REQUIREMENTS OF REPORTS FOR HEARINGS BEFORE THE BOARDS AND THE CITY COMMISSION; PROVIDING FOR THE STATUS OF BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS; PROVIDING THAT IF THE CITY COMMISSION FAILS CO ACT. UPON ITS RECOMMENDATIONS WITHIN NINETY (90) DAYS THE MATTER SHALL 4 SEP 261973 BE DENIED; AND TIME LIMITS FOR REHEARING;PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE; AND PROVIDING FOR A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE was introduced by Mrs. Gordon on its first reading by title Reboso, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon, NOES: None An Ordinance entitled- , seconded by Reverend Gibson and passed by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. AN ORDINANCE DELETING ARTICLE XXXI - VARIANCES OF ORDINANCE NO. 6871, AS AMENDED, OF THE CITY OF MIAMI AND PROVIDING FOR THE ENACTMENT OF A NEW ARTICLE XXXI - VARIANCES; SETTING FORTH THE INTENT; PROVIDING FOR THE METHOD OF GRANTING A VARIANCE; PROVIDING FOR THE METHOD OF NOTICE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING; PROVIDING FOR THE CONDITIONS AND SAFEGUARDS TO BE APPLIED IN GRANTING A VARIANCE; PROVIDING FOR SPECIAL AUTHORITY TO GRANT A VARIANCE FOR PRESER- VATION OF NATURAL FEATURE; PROVIDING FOR THE METHOD OF APPEAL ON DECISIONS OF THE ZONONG BOARD; PROVID- ING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE; AND PROVIDING FOR A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE was introduced by Mrs. Gordon on its first reading by title Reboso, Plummet, Mrs. Gordon, NOES: None An Ordinance entitled- , seconded by Mr. Reboso and passed by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. AN ORDINANCE DELETING ARTICLE XXXII - CONDITIONAL USE OF ORDINANCE NO. 6871, AS AMENDED, OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, AND PROVIDING FOR THE ENACTMENT OF A NEW ARTICLE XXXII - CONDITIONAL USE, SETTING FORTH THE DEFINITION OF CONDITIONAL USE; PROVIDING FOR THE METHOD OF GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE; PROVIDING FOR THE METHOD OF NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS; PROVIDING FOR THE CONDITIONS AND SAFEGUARDS TO BE APPLIED IN GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE; PROVIDING FOR TIME LIMITS FOR RECONSIDERATION OF A PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE; PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE; AND PROVIDING FOR A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE ,-as introduced by Mrs. Gordon, seconded by Reverend Gibson and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Reboso, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None The following resolution was introduced by Reverend Gibson who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-757 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PAYMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $600.00 TO DR. ERNEST BARTLEY AND AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF SAID AMOUNT FROM THE PROPER ACCOUNT OR ACCOUNTS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI FOR SUCH PURPOSE 5 (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 Kennedy. NOES: None Mrs. Gordon offered her congratulations to Mr. Rothstein for efforts expended by the Law Department, Dr. Bartley, the Planning Department, Mr. Simpson's Office, Dr. Mantel and all the members of the Task Force and said at a future date appropriate action would be taken by the Commission to properly thank these persons. Mrs. Julius Alexander appeared and said she was happy to have been a member of the committee and thanked the Commission for its passage. BRIEF RECESS 5, OBJECTIONS TO CONFIRMING ORDERING RESOLUTION FOR N. W. 29TH STREET HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT H-4361 Mr. Herbert Teller, Attorney appeared and objected to the improvement on the basis of needless window dressing in the improvements stating the area in question is depressed because of lack of maintenance, and storm sewers were not needed, that potholes exist in the area and were not filled in, that the proposals of islands would be better served by putting the concrete into gutters instead so the overflow could be put in the sewers and then somebody to maintain them. He said paving was needed but not landscaping. He said most of the people living in the area were retirees and could not afford this improvement. Several other persons appeared and objected on the grounds that they were already paying high taxes and were unable to afford any additional tax burdens. Mr. V. Grimm, Director of Public Works reminded the objectors and the Commission of the benefits to the public by the reduction of the assessment to property owners in these highway improvements. He said there are no frills in the proposals and the lighting, drainage and landscaping costs were paid by the City. He stated 133 owners were sent 4 letters and that 108 didn't bother to reply or attend any of the meetings. Mr. Teller said 60 persons originally signed the petition against and did not fully understand the letters sent by Public Works. He stressed basic improvements were needed and regular maintenance which has been lacking for years but to spend such money and then not main- tain the area was stupid. Mr. Andrews, City Manager stated the city was limited in dollars they can spend on maintenance of roads, sewers and storm sewers and that construction of up to date facilities would greatly reduce the amount of maintenance necessary in such areas . Mr. Plummer suggested further meetings with the neighbors in the affected area and the Department of Public Works and get the input of the people prior to any Commission action. It was agreed to have a meeting on this subject at 9:00 A.M. on October 5, 1973 with the Public Works Depart- ment to explore all facets of this proposed improvement. 6 • 6, OBJECTIONS TO CONFIRMATION OF PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-758 A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF HILLSIDE SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT SR-5350-C (centerline sewer) IN HILLSIDE SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT SR-5350-C (centerline sewer), AND REMOVING ALL PENDING LIENS FOR THIS IMPROVEMENT NOT CERTIFIED HEREBY (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 Kennedy. NOES: None 7, OBJECTIONS TO CONFIRMATION OF PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR COST OF S. E. 15 ROAD SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT SK-L356 The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-759 A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF S. E. 15 ROAD SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT SK-4356 IN S. E. 15 ROAD SIDEWALK IMP- ROVEMENT DISTRICT SK-4356 AND REMOVING ALL PENDING LIENS FOR THIS IMPROVEMENT NOT CERTIFIED HEREBY (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 Kennedy. NOES: None 7 SEP 2619 REQUEST FOR CHANGE OF ZONING CLASSIFICATION- LOTS 8 THRU 13, BLOCK 114N MIAMI B-41 (175 WEST FLAGLER STREET) Mr. Stanley Kadin, a principal owner of the property described above appeared and said he felt the expansion of Flagler Street would be to the west and he and his partnership acquired this property. Mr. Kadin: Since that time we have had a situation where the Revitz or Revitco Plaza Building came in for approval of zoning variance for construction of a high rise office building and stores and for change of setbacks from 76 to 45'. We then had an area interim zoning proposal because of the proposed City -County government center and also have the proposed center covers the area including the property in which I have an interest. There has been no taking. Initially this block was set up in one of the very many plans for a City Hall site which would of course permit high rise office type of zoning. Subsequent to the bond issues were defeated. The County offered bond issues which were defeated. After the Revitz property zoning, we decided to move ahead for the purpose of obtaining a rezoning of the property from C-4 to C-3. We have subsequent to appearing at the Planning Board Meeting sent a letter to the City Commission, the Planning Department and the City Attorney's office stating that what we desired was to be able to put up an office building with the same setbacks and the same parking requirements as the Revitz Building which is of course right accross the street and slightly to the east. The C-3 Central Commercial has a more restrictive use than the C-4 but has other limitations on the C-4, height restrictions etc. Because I have felt over the years that the Flagler Street growth was to the West and that this would help revitalize that area and that is why I invested in property in that location even though it has been a run down area of the City for various reasons. The time is now when it is either going to be developed or taken. Now if there was no government center preliminary planning, I believe the City Commission would welcome any request for rezoning west of the tracks as it did the Revitco Plaza site for the purpose of removing the area. We are faced with one question and that is whether or not a reasonable request for rezoning conditional upon providing parking areas should be rejected. Mr. Plummer: I have listened to the presentation and the one point that you brought td me was the revitz property. Can you Mr. Andrews, please publicaily repeat the answer to the question I just asked of you. We have a study underway for some time in the downtown zoning area and it has alarmed this Commission and we have gone on record that this study was not finished before now but I think Mr. Andrews has the answer of when this will be presented to this Commission and I very vividly recall Sir in their answer to the Revitz property in particular, that they suggested that nothing else be done until that study was completed. When is this going to be presented to this Commission? Mr. Andrews: The City Commission has been very anxious to obtain this information and we had this matter scheduled in fact for today. at 4 P.M., Item #29, final presentation of the Downtown Zoning Study as conducted by Wallace, McHarg, Roberts and Todd. Of necessity this had to be postponed and deferred to October 25, because the people conducting the study for the city were to be supplied with certain transportation information on a certain date and it was not available having been delayed for a couple of weeks. They need that as the final element to make their report to the Commission so we now have firm scheduling set for October 25th and you will get the report on that date 8 SEP261973 Mr. Plummer: Mr. Kadin, I don't have any preliminary or sneak preview of :that that report is. I don't know if it would help you or hurt you but I think out of fairness to this Commission, that we must avail ourselves of the opportunity o: reviewing that plan which is a master plan and not just for 1 block or 2 blocks and I really feel that until the Comm- ission has the c,nportunity to review that plan, I think we would really be groping in the dark as to what we should do and not do in that particular area because it was without question and we felt Mr. Revitz had been delayed unmercifully, some 9-10 months, that we asked for that one particular location. If we did with you right now, I feel we would have the full report before .we could get an answer back on that, so I am saying to you Sir in so many words, in fairness to this Commission, that a motion 'o defer, even if you writ it on the 25th would be in order and I only interject that because I don't want you taking another 1 hour and then be told at the end of that time. I would leave it to your discretion but I feel that's how I would vote today. Rev. Gibson: But the Revitz property did not get a change of zoning. You had an interim zoning situation there so I hope you would be even more sympathetic and understanding. Mr. Plummer: Father Gibson, I made my thoughts known very well on the Revitz property and I definitely concur with the statements made by this applicant that I welcome all applications west of the railroad tracks to the bridge because that is an area that has been long neglected. Anything that I see that crosses my desk for improvement, I am going to look very favorably on. Rev. Gibson: Did you want to defer then Sir? Mr. Kadin: I think this is where it would have to go then. The Planning Board at the time asked me did.I want to wait for the report? My answer was no, that I preferred to get the thing resolved because I felt that the report would show that this is in the planned City -County government center in any event and they would come up with a plan for everything surrounding it. This is without being an expert and might I say to you that18 years ago without being an expert, I spoke to my then partner Abe Aronovitz and suggested that the City - County government center be west of the tracks. At that time, I think it was brought to the attention of the Commission and they went out to the golf course area where the justice bldg. is and the city court and meetings rooms were. I asked for the report.,of the Downtown Study and I guess it would be in all fairness, the most fair situation, to wait for that result,if the result comes in and says we are going to keep this piece the way it is because its part of what we consider will eventually be a City - County government center, I don't know if the County Commission will then act to take the property by then or not, so all we can do is to wait and see. I am sure the matter has been discussed on some level between either planners or county departments and city departments and that it is not something that has just come up. This has gone by many many studies. I have seen others going back 20 years so that possibly by the time this study comes in there will be other action and this may or may not be a moot question for this City Commission, I don't know. If your wishes are to defer, certainly I have no objection. Mr. Plummer: I have not seen any preliminary portions other than as it pertains to the Revitz building. I thank you sir for your acquiescence to that point. Mr. Mayor, at this time I will make a motion to defer presentation of the Downtown Zoning Study. Rev. Gibsn^.: second. of the study until after the 9 • 9, REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE-MIAMI BEACH AIR TRANSPORT Mr. Robert Ferencik, Director of the Building Department brought the Commission up to date as to the reasons this matter had been pre- viously deferred and said a meeting had been held between the applicants and the objectors and said in his opinion an equitable solution had been resolved. Mr. Murray Dubbin representing Miami Beach Air Transport appeared and explained that on. Lots 4, 5, 6, 7 of Karkeet Subdivision have a conditional use to permit off-street parking. He stated the objectors' concerns were not on those lots but on the rear portion marked "Jody's Subdivision", that the demarkation runs towards the west and it zOned C-4 fo.r heavy commercial use and other portion is on a variance for parking. He said they had determined a method of carrying on the business of Miami Beach Air Transport Inc., properly confined to the portion which is properly zoned that will relieve the problems of Mr. and Mrs. Little and their neighbor to the immediate east, Mr. Schultz is suffering. He said his client would prefer not to have to come before the Commission on Lots 4, 5, 6, 7 every 6 months because these lots are being properly used under the conditional use provisions and requested that in 6 months, he be permitted to appear with the objectors before the Commission and have the conditional use amended to "Review only in the event of violation". Mr. Little, a neighbor and objector- appeared and stated in his opinion if they complied,this would be fair. On motion of Mr. Plummer, seconded by Mrs. Gordon, consideration on this matter was deferred until October 25, 1973. 10, REVIEW OF CONDITLONAL USE - 300 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD MECHANICAL PARKING DEVICE Mr. Rohert Ferencik, Director of the Building Department appeared and stated examinaticn of the property in question as late as yesterday that none of the violations the Commission had previously requested to be eliminated had been done. Mr. Melvin Bratten representing Carlo Barressi appeared said that #1 on the list, screening of parking device had been accomplished. #2, said landscaping was there and provisions to water it were provided.- said Mr. Barressi expended over $1,000 on landscaping on this small lot and submitted photographs . He said the concrete wheel stops have been installed but some of them had not been anchored. The 6" curbing requirement was not understood by the applicant and represented no city inspector had come by to explain this requirement to him. The vending machine is an area of conflict and Mr. Barressi does not understand the reason for request for its removAl as it is licenses by both the county and the city. Mr. Bratten stated if the sign is not in conformance, it will be changed but again his client has a license for the sign also. As to the parking lot lighting, it was represented that this lot is already brightly lit by its own lighting as well as benefitting from adjacent lighting which shines on the ,lot. 12:10 P.M. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER LEFT THE MEETING Mr. Ferencik advised there were certain definitive standards set forth in the ordinance and the landscaping is not according to Inspector's, up to city standards and has not conformed within the 30 days allowed and refuted the statement that no inspector had been to visit Mr. Barressi and expressed the opinion that more than one inspector had visited the site, that this particular lot was in the front door of Miami and that the original recommendation for the conditional use was based on the screening of the parking device and that it had taken over 1 year to get this accomplished. 10 SEP261973 Reverend Gibson asked the applicant if he had any intention of complying with the laws, and stated it would require more than just intentions to comply . Mr. Bratten said the requirements were not definitive. Mr. Ferencik suggested the applicant through a professional designer, submit a plan to the City as to how he intends to develop this let and that the Building Department could evaluate the plan. After further discussion, the following resolution was introduced by Reverend Gibson who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-760 A RESOLUTION TO DEFER FOR A PERIOD OF 30 DAYS CON- SIDERATION OF A "REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE" FOR A MECHANICALLY OPERATED PARKING STRUCTURE ON THE N.W. CORNER OF BISCAYNE BOULEVARD AND 3RD STREET IN ORDER TO ENABLE THE APPLICANTS TO PRESENT TO THE CITY OF MIAMI A PLAN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SAID PREMISES TO BE PRESENTED TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT FOR EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE COMMISSION (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 Kennedy. NOES: None 11, REQUEST FOR CHANGE OF ZONING CLASSIFICATION- LOTS 1&2- .0 BOz. Mr. David Simpson, Exec.Scty Pl.Bd reported there is no platting problem and the property was under this division since 1896 and the question of the gas station next door is property also owned by the applicant. Mr. George Acton, Dr.P1.Dpt. said he reviewed the property again and restated his recommendation for denial because he felt the resid- ential development would be surrounded on 2 sides by commercial uses. Emphasized in changes of zoning, no conditions could be attached that might help to buffer and safeguard the living conditions of the proposed residential development. Mr. Mario Patterson the applicant appeared and stated it was his intention to build a separate building with 4 units on each lot. • Mr. Acton stated the development of apartment buildings on 50' wide lots was not in the best interest of the community and if the applicant was planning on putting up 1 structure on the total proposed site, he probably would have a better development than if he were permitted to put up individual apartment structures on each lot because this would result in more density. Mrs. Gordon said the extension of the C-4 into the R-4 would be a very bad precedent and stated she would not be in favor of it and moved to uphold the recommendation of the Planning Department to deny the request. (There was no second to the motion) Mr. Reboso inquired of the applicant if he was willing to change the plans to 1 building instead of 2. SEP 261973 11 The applicant replied he would have to consult with his business partner and architect to make this determination. On motion of Mr. Reboso, seconded by Mrs. Gordon, the matter was deferred to October 25, 1973. 12, CONDITIONAL USE - CK_2.-SAY E 0 H Mr. Louis Stinson representing Mr. Levine appeared and explained this matter had been previously deferred due to an objection by a neighbor in order that the Commission could physically inspect the lots in question and that the applicant had met all the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Department and had their approval. Two objectors again appeared. After discussion, the following resolution was introduced by Mr. Reboso who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-761 A RESOLUTION GRANTING A "CONDITIONAL USE', AS PROVIDED IN ORDINANCE NO. 6871, ARTICLE V, SECTION 1 (6) (b), TO PERMIT EXCESS OFF-STREET PARKING ON LOTS 7 AND 8, BLOCK 2, HAYNESWORTH VILLAGE (44-542, LOCATED AT APP- ROXIMATELY 7860 DUNHAM BOULEVARD, IN CONNECTION WITH THE BAYSHORE WHALE AND SAIL CLUB, LOCATED AT 1960 N.E. 79TH STREET, SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, ZONED R-3, (LOW -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, Reboeo, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy . NOES: None 13, VARIANCE -VACATE ALLEY- BELLA BAHIA SUBDIVISION Mr. Glen Goldberg representing Bella Bahia Subdivision, the applicants appeared and said meetings were held between the Applicant, the objectors and the Planning Department and that mutual concessions had been made and the building would be moved back 21' in order to alleviate any problems which the objectors had and stated the objectors are satisfied with the revised building plan and withdrew their objections. The following resolution was introduced by Reverend Gibson who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-762 A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM ORDINANCE NO. 6871, ARTICLE X, SECTIONS 6 AND 3 (2) TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF 80-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING ON TENTATIVE PLAT #878-A, "BELLA BAHIA SUBDIVISION" LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1440 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE WITH SIDE SETBACK FOR TOWER OF 35'(50' REQUIRED) 12 SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN APPROVAL BY THE PLANNTNr, DEP- ARTMENT AND A FRONT CETBACK OF 41' FROM THE PROPERTY LINE TO ANY rORTION OF ►i; AUILDING INCLUDING BALCONIES ZONED i•5 (LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE) DISTRICT (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 Kennedy. NOES: None The following resolution was introduced by Reverend Gibson who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-763 A RESOLUTION CLOSING, VACATING, ABANDONDONING AND DISCONTINUING FOR PUBLIC USE THE NORTHEAST -SOUTHWEST ALLEY BETWEEN LOTS 35, 58 AND 59, BLOCK 2, POINT VIEW AMD (2-93) LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1440 SOUTH BAY - SHORE DRIVE, ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH TENTATIVE PLAT #878-A, "BELLA BAHIA SUBDIVISION", SUBJECT TO RECORDING FORMAL 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 b; the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None 14, VARIANCE- "A" AIRLINE CENTER AMD Mr. B. Stack representing David Hecht,Applicant for West Flagler Kennal Club appeared to outline a request for variance to permit addition and landscaping to the Dog Racing facilities located at N. W. 37th Avenue and N. W. 7th Street. Several objectors appeared and complained about parking problems, noise problems generated by dogs adjacent to residential properties and one objector requested no parking signs to be installed in the areas bordering the facility on N. W. 38 Court. The following objectors appeared: Mrs. Coya, 461 N. W. 36 Court Mrs. Ruth Yanks, 400 N. W. 36th Court Mr. Sokoloff, 500 N. W. 38th Court Mr. George Acton, Director of the Planning Department read the following conditions for approval of variance into the record: 1. New landscaping in 10' wide area surrounding entire tract; vision clearance standards are to be met in corners of the south fenced area. 2. Interior landscape areas around all light standards; details of such landscape areas shall meet the requirements set forth in the off-street parking regulations. 13 • 3. Periphery landscaping around those parking lots located east of N. W. 37th Avenue used for Dog Track parking; lighting standards for these lots shall be so placed and designed that it will throw illumination toward 37th A;►enue and not toward the surrounding low density residential area. 4. Site plan approval by the Planning Department of all landscape design and materials within thirty (30) days. 5. All work shall be accomplished within one hundred and eighty (180) days, zoned C-2 (Community Commercial) and R-1 (One -Family) District. After further discussion, the following resolution was introduced by Mrs. Gordon who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-764 A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM ORDINANCE NO. 6871, ARTICLE XXIII, SECTION 3(3), TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF GRANDSTAND ADDITION TO FLAGLER DOG TRACK, LOCATED ON TRACT "A", AIRLINE CENTER AMD (33-77), AND UNPLATTED TRACT AT 401 N.W. 38TH COURT, WAIVING THE INTERIOR LANDSCAPING OF THE PARKING LOT FOR A PERIOD OF ONE (1) YEAR, BUT RE- QUIRING ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING IN 10' WIDE AREA SURROUNDING ENTIRE TRACT AND BRINGING UP TO CODE THOSE PARKING LOTS'LOCATED EAST OF N. W. 37TH AVENUE USED FOR DOG TRACT PARKING, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND SUBJECT TO FURTHER CONDITIONS AS OUTLINED, SITE ZONED C-2 (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT AND R-1(ONE-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. Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. ABSENT: Mr. Plummer 15. CONDOLENCES - DEATH OF ROBERT MARX The following resolution was introduced by Mrs. Gordon who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-76S A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE SYMPATHY OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI IN THE DEATH OF ROBERT MARX AND EXTENDING SINCERE CONDOL- ENCES TO THE MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the City Clerks Office) 14 Upon being seconded byMr. Reboso, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. ABSENT: Mr. Plummer 16, CHANGEZONING CLASSIFICATION - LOTS 10, 11.12.13 iLOCK 8 WINTER CARD FI T AMD An Ordinance entitled - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF LOTS 10, 11, 12, 13, BLOCK 8 WINTER GARDEN 1ST AMD (5-22) LOCATED AT 2035 N. W. 22ND COURT, FROM R-3 (Low Density Multiple) TO I-1 (Light Industrial)DISTRICT passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of September 13, 1973, was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of Mrs. Gordon, seconded by Mr. Reboso, the ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. ABSENT: Mr. Plummer SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 8185. 17, CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION - TENT.PLAT #884-"RITALITZA" An ordinance entitled - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FOR A PORTION OF TENTATIVE PLAT #884- "RITALITZA" LOCATED AT 2695 S. W. 8TH STREET, F;;OM C-4 (General Commercial) DISTRICT AND R-4 (Medium - Density Multiple) DISTRICT TO C-2 (Community Commercial) DISTRICT passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of September 13, 1973, was taken up for its 'second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of Mrs. Gordon, seconded by Mr. Reboso, the ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Reboso, Reverend Gibson, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Plummer. SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 8186. RECESS: THE CITY COMMISSION RECESSED FOR LUNCH AT 2:00 O'CLOCK P,M, THIS DATE AND RECONVENED AT: 3:15 O'CLOCK, P.M. 15 18, CHANGE DATE OF SECOND REGULAR MEETING FOR NOVEMBER 1913 The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-766 A RESOLUTION CHANGING THE DATE OF THE SECOND REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION IN NOVEMBER FROM NOVEMBER 22ND TO NOVEMBER 21ST (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, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. ABSENT: Mr. Reboso 19, AMEND ORDINANCE 6871 - ALLOWABLE SIZE OF FLAT SIGNS Mr. Garth Webster representing Holiday Inn located in the Civic Center area again appeared and stated he apparently created a false impression to the Commission on his last visit and still was not sat- isfied with the terms of the allowable size of flat signs facing street frontage as adopted by the Commission on first reading on September 13, 1973. He again emphasized the troubles his client had in the proper identification of their building to the public. He requested that signs of a "reasonable size" be permitted to properly identify such buildings and their permitted use to the public. Specifically 4% was requested to permit a size sign of 168 sq.ft. After considerable discussion - An Ordinance entitled - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871 BY DELETING SECTION #(2) OF ARTICLE XXIV, AND IN LIEU THEREOF ADDING A NEW SECTION 3 (2); AND BY DELETING SECTION 3-1(2) OF ARTICLE XXIV IT ITS ENTIRETY AND IN LIEU THEREOF ADDING A NEW SECTION 3-1-(2) AS HEREINAFTER SET FORTH; PERTAINING TO THE ALLOWABLE SIZES OF FLAT SIGNS FACING THE STREET FRONTAGE; AND BY REPEALING ALL LAWS IN CONFLICT HEREWITH passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of September 13, 1973, was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of Mrs. Gordon, 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 and Reverend Gibson. NOES: Mayor Kennedy. SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 8187. 16 SEP 26197 41 40 20, PROPOSED BUDGET - DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Mr. Joel Hoffman, Attorney representing the Downtown Development Authority appeared and explained the outline of the proposed budget. An Ordinance entitled - AN ORDINANCE MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DOWN- TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF MIAMI FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1974 PROVIDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE SUPPLE- MENTAL AND IN ADDITION TO THE ORDINANCE MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPT- EMBER 30, 1974 FOR THE OPERATION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, SAID ORDINANCE BEING DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 8190 PASSED AND ADOPTED ON THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1973; PROVIDING THAT IF ANY SECTION, CLAUSE OR SUBSECTION SHALL BE DECLARED UNCON- STITUTIONAL, IT SHALL NOT AFFECT THE REMAINING PROVISIONS, DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE AN EMERGENCY MEASURE AND BY A FOUR -FIFTHS VOTE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION, DISPENSING WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF READING THIS ORDINANCE ON TWO SEPARATE DAYS was introduced by Mr. Plummer and seconded by Reverend Gibson for adoption as an emergency measure and dispensing with the requirement of. reading same on two separate days, which was agreed to by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Reboso, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None Whereupon the Commission on motion of Mr. Plummer, seconded by Reverend Gibson adopted said ordinance by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 8188. An Ordinance entitled - AN ORDINANCE DEFINING AND DESIGNATING THE TERR- ITORIAL LIMITS OF THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, LOCATED WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAXATION, FIXING THE MILLAGE AND LEVYING TAXES IN THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING OCTOBER 1, 1973 AND ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1974, PROVIDING THAT THE FIXING OF THE MILLAGE AND LEVYING OF TAXES IN THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE IN ADDITION TO THE FIXING OF THE MILLAGE AND LEVYING OF TAXES WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, AS PROVIDED IN ORDINANCE NO. 8191 PROVIDING THAT THE FIXING OF THE MILLAGE AND LEVYING OF TAXES IN THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE IN ADDITION -'TO SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENTS IMPOSED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI WITHIN THE TERRI- TORIAL LIMITS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI; PROVIDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO REPEAL OR AMEND ANY OTHER ORDINANCE FIXING MILLAGE OR LEVYING TAXES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING OCTOBER 1, 1973 AND ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1974 BUT SHALL BE DEEMED SUPPLEMENTAL AND IN ADDITION THERETO; PROVIDING THAT IF ANY SECTION, CLAUSE, OR SUBSECTION SHALL BE DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL, IT SHALL NOT AFFECT THE REMAINING PROVISIONS; DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE AN EMERGENCY MEASURE AND BY A FOUR=FIFTH VOTE 17 S EP 2 61973 OF THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION DISPENSING ,WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF READING THIS ORDINANCE ON TWO SEPARATE DAYS was introduced by Mr. Plummer, seconded by reverend Gibson for adoption as an emergency measure and dispensing with the requirement of reading same on two separate days, which was agreed to by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson Land Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None. Whereupon the Commission on motion of Mr. Plummer, seconded by Reverend Gibson adopted said ordinance by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Reboso, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: 'None SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE N0. 8189. 21, GRANT APPLICATIONS FOR REPLACEMENT AND TRANSFER OF CERTIFICATES QF PUBLIC C3NVENIENCE AND NECESSITY The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-767 A RESOLUTION GRANTING THE APPLICATIONS SET FORTH HEREIN FOR THE REPLACEMENT AND TRANSFER OF CERT- IFICATES OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY (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 Kennedy. NOES: None 18 SEP 261973 40 22. WAIVE RENTAL FEE BAYFRONT PARK BANDSNEL L JJKITEJ7 CEREBRAL PALSY ASSOCIATION OF MIAMI INC. The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-768 A RESOLUTION WAIVING THE RENTAL FEE FOR USE OF THE BAYFRONT PARK BANDSHELL BY THE UNITED CEREBRAL PALSY ASSOCIATION OF MIAMI, INC., ON OCTOBER 27, 1973 SUBJECT TO PAYMENT OF EVENT PERSONNEL; LIGHTS, INS- URANCE AND OTHER DIRECT COSTS CHARGED BY THE CITY (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 Kennedy. NOES: None 23. PERSONAL APPEARANCE - S. C. LITTLE- "QUALITY OF LIFE PANEL" THIRD CENTURY U.S.A. Mr. Stephen C. Little representing the "Quality of Life Panel" of Third Century U. S. A. appeared and briefly outlined the purpose of the panel and asked for an endorsement from the Commission. He said weekly festivities would be planned and requested the exploration of possibilities to create an interim headquarters for staff offices, and a general Bi-Centennial Information Center for the total community and for the visitor's who would be here for the intervening 2 years, in the form of a Pavillion type structure hopefully located in our Bi-Cen- tennial Park. The following resolution was introduced by Mrs. Gordon who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-769 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO CONSULT WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF THE THIRD CENTURY CORPORATION WITH RESPECT TO JOINT EFFORTS OF THE CITY AND SAID ORGANIZATION CONCERNING THE UPCOMING BI-CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION (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 Kennedy. NOES: None 19 SEP261973 24. _ Mrs. J. B. Pierce, President of the Woman's Club of Coconut Grove appeared and reminded the Commission of a previous appearance wherein the Woman's Club protested the widening of bayshore Drive and the assessments therefore and of a plan for the swap of a small parcel of property needed by the City in return for the sidewalk improvements to the rest of the property. Mr. V. Grimm, Director of Public Works gave the Commission a history of the complaint filed by the Woman's Club previously asking that the sidewalk construction adjacent to their property be eliminated and described the transaction involving the exchange of a small piece of property in consideration of the sidewalk improvements being made without charge or assessment to the Woman's Club. He said apparently the Woman"s Club now was trying to get the Highway Improvement Assess- ment itself reduced. Mr. Rothstein, City Attorney ruled there is no legal way that the Commission could reduce the assessment unless reduced benefit was involved. 25, HENDERSON AND MOORE PARK TENNIS FACILITIES Mr. Paul Andrews, City Manager explained to the Commission that the tennis facilities at Moere Park have grown to the extent that they now exceed Henderson Park and that expansion of facilities at both parks was needed. The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-770 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO RECEIVE PROPOSALS FOR TENNIS PROS AND THE OPERATION OF TENNIS PRO SHOPS AT HENDERSON AND MOORE PARKS (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 Kennedy. NOES: None 20 SEP 2 61973 26, PERSONAL APPEARANCE - MR. GARRETT $LOAN- MIAMI DADE 1LATER AND _SEWER AUTHORITY RE: METHOD OF FUNDING EXPANSION OF FACILITIES ON VIRGINIA KEY Mr. Andrews: I am not an authority on the operation of this plant or on the method of financing. The Commission should be aware that the plant was originally constructed through a bond issue amounting to 16 million -dollars in 1965. That 16 million has since been( reduced to $10,300,000.00 in unpaid bond requirements. During 1973 74 fiscal year we will be making a payment of $590,000 to the principle and $290,000 in interest for a total of $880,000'in debt servicing requirements amounting to 4/10 of a mill to pay for the plant that has now been transferred to the Sewer Authority. The Commission will remember that in OCtober of last year, you adopted a resolution at the time we were beginning to finalize the agreement of transferring the facilities to Metro through the Authority that you had hoped that they would be .in a position to assume the debt servicing obligations carried on by the City of Miami when we transferred the plant. Some months later, Mr. Sloan appeared before the Commission and presented them with a detailed information and answered the Commission's questions as to why it was not possible for the Authority to absorb this debt service requirement, that it would have to be carried by the people of Miami and they would take over the plant, it would become a part of the authority and this was really the only way that this concept of making the old Department of Water and Sewers into an Authority and making it available on a county -wide basis and you recognized the importance of this and fully recognized at that time that the City would have to continue to absorb the debt servicing requirement. More recently, as the Authority got into further discussion with the City of Miami Beach. They are going to be a major contributor to the construction of additional plant facilities on Virginia Key, they will be taking part in the construction of an interceptor, a large transmission main that will run from Miami Beach to the plant on Virginia Key. When the construction got underway, announcements were made in the news media that the people on Miami Beach would be charged 40% surcharge over their water bill. Now the City of Miami did pay 140% surcharge on its water bill for the maintenance and operation of the plant. That has been since reduced to 130% because of the increased water rates and there appears to he a disparity between the people in Miami Beach will he paying as far as their surcharge and that of the City of Miami . This raised some questions - Why is it so high for the City of Miami and why is it so low for the City of Miami Beach? when we are both going to end up with the same kind of treatment facilities. The second question to be raised from time to time is - Is the City of Miami being treated fairly? Are we paying for something that we should not be paying for? because, we are continuing the debt service on the treatment plant and theFe apparently will not be any debt service requirement over on Miami Beach to the same extent that they are in the City of Miami because of the federal funding entering into the picture of the construction of new plant facilities. These are the.,type of questions Mr. Sloane that have been raised and perhaps the Commission has additional questions they want to raise. irs. Gordon: The Miami surcharge is how much? par. Andrews: 40% of their water bill charge. Mrs. Gordon: And Miami Beach is how much? Mr. Andrews: No, Miami Beach is 40% and Miami is 130%. Mts. Gordon: Why? It should. be just the reverse. 21 SEP26197 • 4 Mr. Slian : Our treasurer George Scott is with me and will distribute information concerning the details and financing of the project on Virginia Key which is what I would first advise would be the principle subject. 1 would like to tell you a little bit about the way the merger has worked out from a financial standpoint. We have received in cash in our accounts, 321 million dollars of monies which was the proceed of a total of 50 million of cigarette tax bonds that the County issued about 2 years ago, and the cigarette tax in the unincorporated areas is supporting so there is 10 or 11 million dollars outstanding of City of Miami G.O.Bonds, we ha:e been subsidized with a no -payback obligation of 321 million. The reason these projects require so much subsidy and in the future now, we have a good chance of getting 75% federal subsidy, on many of these projects. The reason is they cost so much. In order to have any kind of a reasonable rate for sewer service, you can't support from a financial standpoint, the extremely heavy cost without subsidy. When the original City of Miami Sewage Disposal plant was envisioned in 1952 and bonds issued in 53 for 40 years, there was 11 million in revenue bonds and 16 in general obligation. The same 16 that Mr. Andrews has just referred to. That was in a sense, a local subsidy. In those days, there' were no federal grants so that on a city-wide basis the project in order to get the sewer service charges within any reasonable realm, and in those days they were 100% of the water bill at the beginning of the project, it was necessary for that type of subsidy. As we are going into the future, there is an element of uncertainty as to what extent we are going to get the 75% funding on the federal projects. I personally with a delegation of local officials including Mr. Reese :attended a session of the Florida Dept. of Pollution Control August 14 in order to plead to hold the allocation of funds which were favorable to all the projects in this area and certainly very favorable to the City of Miami. At that time Miami Beach had postponed some 13 million of federal grants as a 75% portion of their 17 million dollars connection project to connect the sewers from Miami Beach into the Virginia Key Plant and the Miami Beach situation is different than Miami. Ever since the founding of Miami Beach, they have paid for the operation of their sanitary sewer system out of their general tax revenues. They have never up until now, had any kind of a service charge based on a water bill and the reason they are starting a service charge now is they realize that in about 4 years when they tie into the new facilities on Virginia Key which will have capacity for them, they will then have to charge a similar ratio to what we charge here. Comparatively speaking, during the early days of the building of our big sewage projects and many people have forgotten this, there was a 35% of the water bill, sewer service charge during the construction period to carry engineering costs and various preliminary costs and then it was only when the project went into full operation that the 100% charge of the sewer on the water bill went into effect so Miami Beach is in a transition and actually it isn't spending anything to speak of to pump raw sewage out into the Ocean and it isn't going to have to spend anything as an operating cost until they make the Miami connection in about 4 years to tie into facilities that are going to be built on Virginia Key to receive their sewage. Thats the reason its 400, really as I look at it, its really a token amount that they are charging just to in a sense, establish the principle of the sewage disposal service charge as a ratio of their water bill. We have a contract with the City of Miami Beach entered into when we were a city department about 21 or 3 years ago and that contract requires that Miami Beach has to pay every dollar of the necessary cost to get its sewage to Virginia Key. It has to pay 30/55th of the plant addition to receive its sewage, that's more than half. It has to pay its share of our purchase price which we are in the process of negotiating with the City and we are waiting for an appraisal to be made on an additional 60 acres of land on Virginia Key but Miami Beach is obligated to pay a share of the cost of that land. After the new enlarged plant goes into operation, they will have to pay their share of all operating and maintenance costs in proportion to their use but there are certain minimum charges in thh contract. 22 'CO 2, 61g73 I think that should clear up some of the questions about the disparity and I certainly agree with you that there is a disparity. One other thing, on this side of the bay and considering our own Miami situation because of the investment by the people in Miami in the sewage project and the fact that they are paying on this 10 million dollars in outstanding bonds, our sewer service charge, high as it is, is lower to the people in the City of Miami than it is to those outside the City and the largest number of retail customers that we have outside the City are in the model cities area where extensive sewer systems have been installed as part of the model cities project but everywhere outside the City, we are charging about 130% of our inside the city sewer service charge, so there is a disparity in favor of the people of the City at the present time. Mrs. Gordon: You say those outside are paying 130 but you said before people inside were paying 130. Mr. Sloan : Inside we are paying 130% of the water bill but that comes out to X-dollars and outside the city if you use the same water rate, then its 167% they are paying outside the city. Mr. Andrews: In other words, the water rate is higher to people outside the city than it is- Hr. Sloan : No its the identical water rate inside and outside but what you are doing is you are compounding 130 twice if you multiply 13 X 13, you get 169 or 167 in a way of calculating. You start with the base of the water rate, identical both inside and outside. Mrs. Gordon: Well you lost us somewhere. Mr. Sloane: Say a water bill was $10. Inside the City you would have a $13 sewer bill on top of the $10 water bill, altogether $23. Now if hypothetically you were living outside the city limits, your water bill would still be $10 but your sewer bill would be $16.70. Mrs. Gordon: Based on what formula? Mr. Sloan : Well its 167% of the water bill outside the City and 130% of the water bill inside the City. Mrs. Gordon: Because they are not paying the bonds? Mr. Sloan : That's right. Mrs. Gordon: How much is it costing us in proportion, in toto more because we are paying the bonds? Does it balance? Mr. Andrews: It's costing the City of Miami 374 per 1000 of property valuation so if we use a $20,000 home again, it would be costing about $7 per year. Mrs. Gordon: In other words, you are adding the $7. The water bill for the city of Miami taxpayer is then, even adding the millage cost, for the general obligation bonds, is still costing them less than those persons outside of the city? Mr. 3loan : We don't know for sure, we might guess that it might be about even but our effort has been to make up for the fact that the people in the City have to pay that extra tax by having an increased service sewer charge outside. Mrs. Gordon: Is is possible for us to get, not ,today, but for you to get us a simple chart showing this total cost to the City of Miami taxpayer, to the out of the city taxpayer? And also to the Miami Beach user when he has his system set up and another question and point is when and how will the land be paid for and when will we begin receiving revenue for the additional land which is going to be used for the expansion? #1 Mr. Sloan : We have money budgeted which we hope is adequate but we have to feel our way along with that because we don't have much idea what the appraisal is going to come out, for the additional land 23 40 and its' our intention to pay the City for the land as a cash sum whenever we get an appraisal. A Mr. Sol Bennett is the man who has been selected by both parties to make the appraisal and he is having great difficulty to get work done, he is so busy, but he assured us that sometime early next year he will have his appraisal completed. Mts. Gordon: That will be a total payment for 60 acres of land, is that what we are discussing? Mr. Sloan : Yes 60 acres. Mr. Plummer: How much do you have budgeted? Mr. Sloan : We have a total for all land purposes, my memory is that we had 4.4 million for various properties for sewage plants but we have more than Virginia Key to talk about of course. Mr. Plummer: What have you got budgeted for the acquisition of that 60 acres on Virginia Key? Mr. Sloan : We have not specified an exact sum of money. We have a lump sum for 2 or 3 properties and of course we aren't experts on land values and we don't have much good idea of it so what we did is we budgeted a substantial sum for a number of land purchases. The only one we have pinned down for sure based on exact amount is the Interama property 80 acres at about 2.5 million. Mr. Plummer: You are talking about 60 acres of prime oceanfront property. We have just been told that the 15 million we have allocated in the Bonds Parks program for acquisition of 37 acres is nowhere going to be sufficient. How can you stand there and tell me 4 acres or 4 million dollars is for 4 parcels of 60 acres? $ that's payfront as opposed to oceanfront. Mr. Sloan : This land does not actually front on the Ocean. It's at least 1000 feet back but its on the bayside so to speak of Virginia Key but I certainly agree with you, its very valuable land and we really have to see what the appraiser comes up with. You are asking me, I think an very unfair question. I don't pose as a man of any real knowledge of land values. Mr. Plummer: I don't think I am being unfair because this is one bone of contention I had before when this thing was brought up about the expansion of the plant, that I thought it was really a waste of our natural resources. I couldn't fight the fact that one already exists there but this City is the largest city on the eastern coast of the United States that does not have in its employ, a lifeguard except for the pools and I have always contended that it is the biggest waste we have within the Clty of Miami, is that we have, 1,047 acres on Key Biscayne. Now if we are going to keep expanding and you are well aware of the trenches they have just dug up over there which make it almost totally unusable, we got to reach a point where we can't sit down any more and say, thank you, we owe you. We reached that point Garrett and I am just raising to you that I think you are way off and I am not saying just a little bit but I am saying way off in the acquisition cost of that property in all fair terms. Rev. Gibson: How did you arrive at 4 million dollars approximately for - When I make up a budget, you don't see me put in a figure unless I have gone and asked somebody. You are a good businessman and you are dealing with 60 acres of our land and let me tell you if you had heard the hell raised here yesterday you would be as mad as I am now when we are about to turn over or let go 60 acres of land and we don't know even approximately, what we are going to get for it. .Mr. Sloan : We have the land where the sewage plant is now but we are working with the city administration to have appraised an addit- ional.60 acres and we h;,,e to pay whatever is going to be required to purchase that 60 acr.'. We are not here to try to talk you out of anything. 24 SEP 2 61973 Rev. Gibson: All I am saying is as a Commissioner, I must answer to those taxpayers and you have 4 million dollars in your budget and you don't know what that land is about to cost, then I am worried sick. Mr. Plummer: Well let me tell you because obviously Garrett hasn't been over there long enough with Metro and you didn't pick up the statement I made before. The time has come where we have got to stop accepting "thank you, we owe you". Now, that's the point. Mrs. Gordon pinned it down and I hope you are still able to answer yes when this appraisal comes in. Are you going to pay for this in a lump sum? You said yes. Mr. Sloan : yes, we intend to. Mr. Plummer: Okay because if I know anything about the transaction, how much did you pay for the present 55 acres? Mr. Sloan : Nothing. Mr. Plummer: And how much did you pay for the LeJeune Road property? Mr. Sloan : Nothing. Mr. Plummer: We owe you. Now this is what I think has got to be derived at Garrett. You know we can kid around and the people don't want to remember that the 55 acres and that plant that the people in the City of Miami built and obligated themselves for was "given" to Metropolitan Dade County. The property here on Le Jeune Road has got to be worth - its a valuable piece of property, was "given" to Metropolitan Dade County and something that wasn't brought out before and should be brought out and that is approximately $900,000 overage that you put into the general fund "given" to Dade County. Am 1 right or am I wrong? Mr. Sloan : I don't recall. Mr. Plummer: What was the turnover to the City of Miami for the general fund for the previous year? Mr. Sloan : It has averaged over the entire life of the City, of the. Department of Water and Sewers prior to the merger of roughly 1 million dollars since 1941. per year and we still owe the City for the next 5 years a minimum of $290,000 and we have no obligation, $290,000 per year for 5 years but we have no obligation in the future to turn over any of the earnings after the 5 year period •to anybody. Mr. Plummer: Garrett, a man can't stay in business giving back n of what he gave the year before and call that an equitable basis. I was in favor of the turnover then, I am in favor of it now, it should be a regional function but I say, these are some of the things that people don't want to realize. If I may, we have just heard you say that the City of Miami Beach is going to hook up to this system. They are paying 40% overage now on their water as opposed to their sewers, which means if we are using your $10 example, they pay $14. Are you telling me that they are going to pay for the expansion as it pertains to the gallons they will use, they are going to pay for the full transport to that facility including the acquisition of right of way, and are they also going to pay their fair share? I am going to tell you something. If you saddle all that at one time on the people of the City of Miami Beach, you are going to have a rebellion on your hands. Mr. Sloan : Well 2 years ago, there was a 1011 million dollar G.O. Bond issue for sewer projects which was approved by the electorate there. I don't know if they have issued any of those bonds. Mayor Kennedy: J. L., if they had a choice of turning on the taps and get what they got a few months ago, they will pay. 25 SEP 26197 or Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, maybe that will be Garrett's answer when it comes to that, but the point i am trying to make is this Garrett. You know, we are accused here of not doing this and not cooperating but you know, let me tell you something. Now with you but with Metropolitan Dade County and things of this nature. As I recall the original existing plant is 55 million gallons a day, You are proposing to go to 105. All I am saying is that we gave you as I remember Mr. Reese stating and I didn't hear anybody dispute it, approximately 400 million dollars - we just said here, it's yours. You don't dispute these figures do you? Mr. Sloan : That would be replacement values. I think the figure was in the order of less than 100 million. _ Mr. Plummer: Wej however you hack it gave you 400 million dollars and we also gave you income roughly of h million dollars per year. Now what I am saying Garrett in so many words is that everybody has got to pick up their fair share. That's what I want to hear from you next year and the year after. All I am saying Mr. Garrett, is please don't come back here and tell me, we want to pay for this 10% down and 10% a year at no interest. Mr. Gordon: You are here to help us understand exactly what the story is and we aren't here to argue it, we just want to be knowledgable. When the additional plant is constructed, will it primarily be a plant to service Miami Beach? Could we in the City of Miami get along, without Miami Beach, get along with what we have got without an expansion? Mr. Sloan : Oh no, in order to meet the rapidly growing needs here we wouldhave to have some expansion but the big cost is the extension of the ocean outfall to the edge of the gulfstream and going to 900 removal. That 90o removal is a very burdensome requirement. Mr. Plummer: When we gave it over it was 75? Between, around 60. Mr. Sloan.: Mr. Plummer: At its peak, it was 75 until we added all the extra customers on and then it came to about 60. Mr. Sloan: It wasn't designed ever to do much better than 60 to 65 but 10 years ago, when we were way down in capacity, then we ,were doing around 70 to 75%. Mr. Plummer: And you are going up to 90- Mr. Sloan: That is the state law, yes. Mr. Plummer: Garrett, please don't misinterpret my remarks. I am only concerned aboutothe people of the City of Miami. I think it was your concern for many years and I am sure that it still is but you know when we read about rate increases in some places and not in others, when you raised your rates the last time, did you raise them everywhere or just to the people of the City of Miami? Mr. Sloan: Everywhere. Mr. Plummer: Everywhere your rates were increased. Mr. Sloan: Are you talking about sewer rates? Mr. Plummer: Sewer rates. Mr. Sloan: The most recent increase was a water rate increase that went into effect August 13 and that is what I thought you were referring to. Mr. Plummer: Who else will be hooking up to this sewer system? 26 SEP 26 1973 • Mr. Sloan: Well the sewer system now already has hooked up to it, on a volume contract basis, Coral Gables, South Miami is one tie-in. The Miami International Airport and the area immediately east of the airport called LeJeune terminals is another area. The City of Miami Springs and big model cities of the northwest which is outside of the city limits all the way to 32nd Avenue. Mr. Plummer: What are the needs of the City of Miami Beach? Mr. Sloan: The needs of the City of Miami Beach are in the order of 25 million gallons a day. Mr. Plummer: You are running now about 59, about 4 over which you can handle. Mr. Sloan: Yes we are between 55 and 60. Mr. Plummer: Do you feel that the expansion as proposed now with the additions you will be adding on is sufficient to handle your load? Mr. Sloan: What we have planned of course as far as anticipated loads are concerned, will match, we try to design them that way. Mrs. Gordon: Is the City of Miami taxpayer going to he paying anything more for the expansion of the plant? Than he is already paying? Mr. Sloan: That is the purpose of our preparing this table. Mrs. Gordon: This kind of a table needs more than just being handed to us so if you would like to go down it and explain it to us, I think it would be a good idea. I ask you this very important question because this is the crux of the whole thing. We want to know how much, if anything, we arc going to be paying for - the expansion? Mr., SLOAN: On the table, you will see we have 3 projects grouped together at the top of the page that have a federal fund total of 911,000, an MR total of a million 8 and over to the right, its 2.8 million. All these projects are under contract right now to enlarge our existing facilities on Virginia Key. Actually, one project is on the mainland having to do with the 4th Street Pump Station. That's 1/3 federally funded because that was the level of federal funding available to us in the past few years and the MR fund, the renewal and replacement fund was internally generated funds from the operation of our system. Now, in the future projects, you will notice that the Bond B and GO bonds, the other columns to the right are very large sums and the bond "B". is from the cigarette tax in the unincorporated areas and the GO bonds are the 50 million authorization by the County -Wide referendum on the Decade of Progress issues held on December 7, 1972. Those bonds have all been validated and the county can and is: issuing them as we need the money, to match this. Mrs. Gordon: The City is paying for that too. Mrs. Sloan: Oh yes, there is no implication that it isn't. Mrs. Gordon: I am just trying to find out how we can explain to the taxpayers, the inequities that we have. I don't know. how to explain it to them. Mr. Sloan: Well one of the things I would like to impress on you is that you are not eligible for the federal funding of the 75% share and you can see the very large sums of money for the second stage and the third stage are federal grants unless you operate your facilities on a regional basis. They will not fund individual community facilities. They will fund regional facilities. 27 We find that in trying to comply with the requirements of the federal government especially under the more recent law passed approximately a year ago which is Law #92-500, which passed over President Nixon's veto is a very strong requirement that you regionalize. Mrs. Gordon: I know that, that's why we went along with all this because we knew that was a condition that existed but when will the time come that the 130% surcharge for Miami residents will come down? Mr. Sloan: I don't know. I can tell you this. When the City of Miami Beach has to contribute to the operation of facilities on Virginia Key, it will be a much greater burden. Miami Beach doesn't have to pay anything of consequence to merely pump raw sewage out in the ocean and they are going to continue to do that for approximately 4 more years so they don't have the cost of operating a big plant as we do. The people who have tried to do the right thing over the years and in terms of the various cities and invested their money in big treatment facilities are the ones that are of course paying the most. There is no question about it. Mrs. Gordon: How much is Coral Gables paying on the surcharge? Mr. Sloan: I know its about 100% of their water bill. I don't really know exactly. Their water bills are much higher than our water bills because its General Waterworks is the utility that sells the water in Coral Gables, so I would guess that the revenue of 1300 of our water bill is probably very close to what their revenue is at something like 100%. Mrs. Gordon: Its about equal with ours. Mr. Sloan: I would think its about equal. I haven't made a comparison but I would be very glad to do that and compare t on the same amount of water used customer to customer, if.you would like to have that. Mrs. Gordon: Anything you could give us that would be helpful, we would appreciate. We didn't make any arrangements for rent so to speak of our present plant did we, as part of the enlarged package? Mr. Sloan: I would like to make a statement which I think I should make here. We consider ourselves all you have, your servants, to supply the best possible water service and sewer service in the City of Miami forever and ever. There isn't any thought on our part that we are a detached organization. We are not part of Metropolitan Dade County's organization. We occupy the same semi -autonomous status that we had when we were a City of Miami Department of Water and Sewers. We were not under the direct supervision of the City Manager and where we were responsible for being self-sustaining financially and we are still in exactly that same spot and I want to assure you that we aren't strangers. We aren't people packed up and left town. We are right here. Mrs. Gordon:We are just trying to just equalize things if we can. Mr. Plummer: One thing you overlooked. We are not exactly the same as we were before simply because we didn't change just the name. This City Commission no longer sits over your budget and approves it. That's a big difference. When we hold the strings on your purses, we hold control. At the time of transfer, what was the existing debt on the Virginia Key plant? Mr. Sloan: The Revenue Bonds outstanding were in the order of - George Scott here is Treasurer and has a. little better figure, a little over 2 million dollars. Mr. Andrews: There are 2 different debts we are talking about. One is the Plant, which is general obligation bonds and the other is the revenue bond issue on the transmission. The Revenue Bond Issue was about 2 million dollars there but at the time of transfer of the Plant, it was about 11 million dollars and its down to 10.3 now, 28 SEP 2 61973 Mr. Plummer: We are talking about 10 and 2 and it was based on that, that we were paying 129% Mr. Sloan: The need to expand the plant, we had contemplated a bond issue of about 16 million of revenue bonds. This was priorto the transfer. Mr. Plummer: When we increased our sewage rate from 94% to 129%, it was for that, is that correct? Mr. Sloan: There was one other factor in the order of about $400,000 a year.to operate and maintain the sanitary sewers of the City which we had not been doing prior to that time and which we are now into. Mr. Plummer: When this was turned over, was the debt turned over? and my answer to that, I believe is NO. Mr. Sloan: The 2 million dollar debt was carried by us as revenue bond issue. The other debt was not turned over. Mr. Plummer: In other words, the people of the City of Miami are still paying that 10 million dollars. Mr. Sloan: That is exactly right. Mr. Plummer: And if it wasn;t for that 10 million dollars, our portion of sewage would be greatly reduced? Mr. Sloan: Yes, if we had to carry that and pvt it on as sewer service charges, it would increase the sewer service charges more than they are now. Mr. Plummer: To other people, and reduce ours. Mr. Sloan: Well it would be put on everybody uniformly. Rev. Gibson: If we have a plant, that means we have an equity and the other people have a right to buy into that equity. They didn't buy in. Isn't that the way it was? Mr. Sloan. They are buying in now. Rev. Gibson: But they didn't buy in then. Mr. Sloan: At the time of transfer, we received 321 million dollars from Dade County in cash. Mr. Sloan: But what did you do to reimburse the people who put it there? Mr. Sloan: Who put the 32h million? Mr. Plummer: No, what did you do to reimburse the people who put the plant there? You didn't reduce their water rate. You didn't reduce their sewage rate. Mr. Sloan: No, because we ere facing a tremendously increased burden during the next several years. Mr. Plummer: Why isn't that same consideration being administered to Miami Beach right now? I say there is an inequity. I say that Miami Beach is going to tie into this thing, they ought to be paying their fair share. This is the point I am trying to make. Mr. Sloan: They are going to pay their share when they tie. Mr. Plummer: Well Garrett, you are still charging us on future thought as to the expansions.. You are not charging them that. They are emptying that 40% that you are using right now, they are emptying that as raw sewage into the ocean but we both know, don't we?, that they have got to comply whether they want to or not and the reason they are hooking up to our facility is because they sat down and figured out its cheaper. 2i SEP 2 61973 r 4111 Mr. Sloan: It's not only cheaper but it's probably the only practical and feasible thing for them to do. Mr. Plummer: But they have got to comply? Mr. Sloan: Oh yes. Rev. Gibson: If you all said those things in the paper, maybe the paper and some of the people wouldn't be saying the things about us they are saying when we take some of the positions we take. Mr. Plummer: Garret, I would like and we have to answer to the people. We have to say what happened and here's why. I think it would behoove you to furnish to the members of this Commission and the administration a breakdown and a history and show us exactly where this thing stands and make your point and any point that you want to make but I do believe there are questions that are answerable to the public that we can't give to them right now that you can furnish us the information and make available to the people. I think its fair and the people should know and everybody lets just lay it on top of the table and say here, this is what was done, here is why it was done and here is a history of what has taken place in the past. Mrs. Gordon: In addition to that J.L., maybe there are ways that could still be explored and recommended to us that could straighten out some of these inequities and maybe Mr. Andrews and you can explore some ways and make some recommendations to us. Mr. Sloan: Glad to. Thank you very much. 27, APPROPRIATIONS ORDINANCE- FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30. 1974 An ordinance entitled - AN ORDINANCE MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1974, PROVIDING THAT IF ANY SECTION, CLAUSE OR SUBSECTION SHALL BE DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL, IT SHALL NOT AFFECT THE REMAINING PROVISIONS, REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH, DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE AN EMERGENCY MEASURE AND BY A FOUR - FIFTHS VOTE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION, DISPENSING WITII THE REQUIREMENT OF READING THHIS ORDINANCE ON TWO SEPARATE DAYS 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. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None. Whereupon the Commission on motion of Mr. Plummer, seconded by Mrs. Gordon adopted said ordinance by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Reboso, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 8190. 30 SEP 26197 28, 4 i�G T�RRLTORIAL LIr1ITS-FIXING An Ordinance entitled - AN ORDINANCE DEFINING AND DESIGNATING THE TERR- ITORIAL LIMITS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI FOR TIIE PURPOSE OF TAXATION; FIXING TIIE MILLAGE AND LEVYING TAXES IN THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING OCTOBER 1, 1973, AND ENDING SEPTEMBER 3O, 1974, PROVIDING THAT IF ANY SECTION, CLAUSE OR SUBSECTION SHALL BE DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL, IT SHALL NOT AFFECT THE REMAIN- ING PROVISIONS; DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE AN EMERGENCY MEASURE; AND BY A FOUR -FIFTHS VOTE OF TUfl MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION DISPENSING WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF READING THIS ORDINANCE ON TWO SEPARATE DAYS was introduced by Mr, Plummer and seconded by Mrs. Gordon 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. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None. Whereupon, the Commission om motion of Mr. Plummer, seconded by Mrs. Gordon, adopted said ordinance by the following vote - AYES: Messrs, Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 8191. 29, ORDIf A. CE MAKI(\ G APPROPRIAT.S FOR FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING FUNDS An Ordinance entitled - AN ORDINANCE MAKING APPROPRIATIONS OF FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING FUNDS RECEIVED IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,966,000 FOR TIIE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEP- TEMBER 30, 1974, PROVIDING THAT IF ANY SECTION, CLAUSE, OR SUBSECTION SHALL BE DECLARED UNCON- STITUTIONAL, IT SHALL NOT AFFECT THE REMAINING PROVISIONS, REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES•OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH, DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE AN EMERGENCY MEASURE AND BY A FOUR -FIFTHS VOTE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION, DISPENSING WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF READING THIS ORDINANCE ON TWO SEPARATE DAYS was introduced by Mrs. Gordon, seconded by Mr:Plummer, 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. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None. Whereupon the Commission on motion of Mrs. Gordon, seconded by Mr. Plummer adopted said ordinance by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 8192 31 SEP 261973 30. CITY MANAGER'S VACATION - 30 DAYS PER ANNUM The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-771 A RESOLUTION PROVIDING THAT THE CITY MANAGER SHALL BE ENTITLED TO A VACATION IN THE AMOUNT OF 30 WORKING DAYS PER ANNUM, ANY UNUSED PORTION OF WHICH SHALL BE CUMULATIVE, AND PROVIDED THAT THE CITY MANAGER SHALL CONTINUE TO RECEIVE HIS PRESENT ENTITLEMENT TO SICK LEAVE TIME, BUT THAT SUCH SICK LEAVE TIME MAY NOT BE ADDED TO HIS VACATION TIME (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 Kennedy. NOES: Non In connection with the resolution, the following conversation occurred. Rev. Gibson: Let me understand. One of the problems I have with the other problem we had is that we let this time accumulate and accumulate in 1973, and 74 and 75 and then in 1896, the City Manager retires and then we pay you in 1896 what we, over a period of years have accumulated at the rate of pay in 1896. That irritated me world without end because that was either purposefully done or ignorantly done. Now, I don't know which and I am going to speak my mind before this is passed so the record will reflect when you read the minutes later on that I don't ..like this jockeying of time because I work for a church and they 'give me 30 working days and I take them and if I fool around and don't take them, I am in trouble. You understand? They don't pay me in 1896 based from 1800 at 96 pay. Now let me ask this other thing before we pass this. See all those men out there that work for the City? What happens to them? Can they do the same thing? Can they accumulate that time? Mr. Andrews: Yes Sir. Mr. Plummer: Father, this Commission just before you got on it, saw fit because of the problems that arose in hiring of new help, to increase their bank from 120 days to 240 days. Mr. Andrews: Mr. Plummer, I am a little knowledgable of this - Several years ago, the City had a policy which employees who earned 12 days ill time each year were permitted to accumulate up to 60 days that they could be paid for upon retirement from the City, they would be paid full 60 working days additional just for ill time. Now if they earned 80 days at the time of retirement, they would be paid for 60 and would lose 20. The Commission changed that policy and said, let's let the employees accumulate as much ill time as they want, but upon retirement, service retirement, they would be paid for 120 days which is equivalent to 6 months pay and when an employee now, any one of those gentlemen sitting in the audience, a city employee, if he would retire under service retirement and he had 140 days ill time, he would be paid for 120 and he would not be paid for the other 20. Mr. Plummer: I disagree. Let us talk to the practicality if you want to bring up the subject. 32 SEP 2 61 4 You know as well as I do that there isn't any employee out there that is going to lose 20 days. Mr. Andrews: Yes Sir. Mr. Plummer: No he is not. What he is going to do is he is going to make his effective retirement date and he is going to take off for 20 days so he gets paid for it. Mr. Andrews: Now Commissioner Plummer, Mr. Printz when he came before the Commission and this was changed from 60 to 120 days, he used the illustration that he at that time had 140 days, and so therefore won't you make it unlimited? The rule that was adopted was that they would double the advantage that was there, which was 60 days and make it 120 and that anybody who earns 120 days gets paid for it. If you have 160 days ill time and you retire from the City, you get paid for 120. You do not get paid for the other 40. Mr. Plummer: Yeah, but what I am saying to you Paul is, the practical point because I don't want Father Gibson or anyone else to think that these men go away from: here and the City has cheated them out of 40 days. If a man puts in his retirement and he puts it in as of June 1. He holds it off for 40 days and collects 40 days worth of salary without working. Mr. Andrews: No Sir. He does not. Sick leave is a privelege. Mr. Plummer: What about accumulation of vacation pay? Am I getting the two confused? Mr. Andrews: Yes Sir. Mr. Plummer: On vacation pay, they can accumulate that. Is that now unlimited or 240 days? Mr. Andrews: Sir, that is unlimited. He gets credit for all of thL vacation days that are approved by his director and the City Manager and under Civil Service Rules, to carry over. Rev. Gibson: I have been fighting for equality ever since I have been here. Are you telling me that you are going to get any more than those employees by way of vacation time and accumulated time? If the head of a department, if a man works in a department and his head does not approve, he has to take his time. Isn't that right? Mr. Andrews: That is right. Rev. Gibson: Now to the nitty gritty. What happens to the City Manager? Mr. Andrews: Same condition. If you force me to take vacation time, I would have to take it. Rev. Gibson: all right, I just want you to keep us apprised as long as I am here. When I am gone, you can do what you want to do with those other fellows. As long as I am up here, I want to be apprised of the time so that if I want to say to you, Brother Andrews, you better take that time. Let me tell you what is bothering me. We thought you were a pretty good Assistant City Manager and if you had been here 12 years getting top pay, there is a dispute now about how much time we ought to pay the former City Manager. We would have been in a much better position or at least I would have, if I had known how much time he had accumulated so he wouldn't have been saying to me, pay me for that time and then let it run for 12 years and I don't think that is fair. If you were getting $10,000 in 1965 and now $40,000, thats 4 times, so I am paying you over all these years for accumulated time 4 times more than you really worked for in 1965. That is exactly what happened to us. Mr. Andrews: And this policy has existed in the City for at least 20 years that I am aware of and all the people who have left the City have taken advantage of this as a benefit. S E P 2 61973 Rev. Gibson: You are taU ing to me based on what Civil Service Miles are, isn't that right? Mr. Andrews: That's right. Rev. Gibson: I am willing to go along with what you are saying providing everybody is under Civil Service Rules. Mr. Andrews: Everybody.is under Civil Service Rules except those who are in the Executive Pay Plan and their staff. There is a parallel here. Those people who are now in "unclassified" vs. the "classified". Those people who left the classified service .and became part of the executive system, they were given a choice. You either follow the rules of the classified or you follow the rules that the former Manager set down for accumulation of vacation, for the amount of vacation time or accumulation of vacation time as a result of the sick benefit because there is a conversion factor. Now whichever is to your advantage, whichever is greater, then you exercise that. If the advantage is greater in the unclassified, you use that. If its greater under the Civil service side, then you use that one. Rev. Gibson: In other words, you are saying if there was a contract, 1 had a right to make a choice. If I didn't have a contract, then the same rule doesn't exist? Mr. Andrews: Well you are using a term "contract" and I am trying to go along with it. Rev. Gibson: Civil service, like those men are, is literally a contract. You have a set of rules to go by. Mr. Andrews: Okay. Rev. Gibson: Then you don't have the same set of rules, is that what you are telling me? Mr. Andrews: No, I am saying that the same set of rules, you have a choice, they can apply to you. Now, we are talking about the Executive side of the city government You have a choice of having those rules apply to you if they are to greater advantage than the rules that were set down by the City Manager. Rev. Gibson: That is providing you were in civil service prior. Mr. Andrews: Right. Rev. Gibson: I have you confused. Forget now that you were in civil service. Mr. Andrews: All right. Rev. Gibson: You are telling me that since you were not in civil service; that the rules that apply to them does not apply to you? Mr. Andrews: That's right. Rev. Gibson: I just want you to remember that when I begin to make that other decision that we invariably are going to have to make. Mr. Andrews: I have civil service status. Rev. Gibson: Mr. Andrews you are missing my point and I have got my answer. I am not arguing J.L.'s position, I am arguing mine. I got my answer out of context. See what I mean? Right, right. I got my answer out of context so that when I start dealing with that other question that has caused us some sleepless nights, I will have a good basis for making my decision. Mr. Andrews: Well because of the questions that were raised, I don't want any misunderstanding as far as I am concerned and I have to tell you some things that I as City Manager, at the time I left that position and I can't remember to the day what it is, but I have roughly 160 days ill time unused and I have approximately 60 days vacation time that is unused. • 34 S EP 2 61974.k iso If I were to leave the City at the moment that you accepted me as your City Manager, I would have received a parting salary, a separation salary sum based on 120 days of i11 time that I would have been paid for and I would have lost 40 days of ill time. I would have received 60 days vacation time. Rev. Gibson: I follow that. Mrs. Gordon: The ill time is not going to be a factor, if and when you are separated? • K Mr. Andrews: No it shouldn't be. Mrs. Gordon: I mean, you don't get the cumulative ill time, you forfeit it. Mr. Andrews: You forfeit a portion of it if you are over the 120 days. Rev. Gibson: I just wanted to make sure I understood because I had some agonizing hours. Mrs. Gordon: How many years are the employees permitted to accumulate vacation time. Is there a limitation to the number of days of vacation time they can accumulate? Mr. Andrews: Not to my knowledge. Mrs. Gordon: If they never took a vacation and worked for us for 30 years, that would be all right? Mr. Andrews: What you would have to do is the employee under civil service must get permission from his department director, get approval from the City Manager to carry over his vacation and I don't know that that has always been followed. I think most of the time or some of the time, he has gotten approval from his department head director to carry his vacation over to the following year. Mrs. Gordon: You have to get approval? Mr. Andrews: Yes, its not automatic. Rev. Gibson: I thought I quit, but I want to persue this a little. This no,:aers me. Mrs. Gordon: Yes why does he have to get approval? I don't understand that. Ii he doesn't take his vacation, why does he have to get approval? Mr. Ardrews: Because you are supposed to arrange to take your vacation dur_ag the time .that it is offered and unless there is unusual circumstances or mitigating circumstances, then arrangements should be made to carry it over. Rev. Gibson: All right Mr. Andrews, you and I are friends I am sure and I hope that we aren't going to let you, or any other city manager, . whether I am here or gone, accumulate time like we had to deal with 'before and let me tell you what we say in my business. Man every man needs a vacation. Every man needs to refuel his energy. Every man needs to refresh himself, if only change the scenery and I hope as Long as I am here, we aren't going to have this City so uptight that the City Manager can't go get a vacation and refuel himself and refresh himself and change that scenery. Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Andrews, would you look into the matter that just was brought to light that I didn't know about and that was that the employee has to get permission to be able to accumulate his vacation days because I think that is a bit of an inequity because if his department head just happened not to like the way he parted his hair, you know, I am not saying he would, but it could be, he might not get that permission. 35 Mr. Andrews: Well that occurs in any organization no matter what kind of rules you pass or what kind of laws you - Mrs. Gordon: Yes but I think the, rules should be the same for everybody and not separated and apart. Lets ask you to look into it, okay? Mr. Andrews: I will. 31, PENSION ADJUSTMENT FOR RETIREES An Ordinance entitled - AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR AN ADJUSTMENT EFFECTIVE AS OF OCTOBER 1, 1973 IN THE PENSIONS OF ALL BENE- FICIARIES OF THE MIAMI CITY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND OF THE MIAMI CITY GENERAL EMPLOYEE'S RETIREMENT PLAN SO THAT AS RESPECTS EACH BENEFICIARY AS OF SUCH DATE, THE PENSION BENEFIT SHALL BE INCREASED BY AN AGGREGATE AMOUNT DETERMINED BY INCREASING THE PENSION BENEFIT BY ONE PERCENT (1%) OF THE ORIGINAL BENEFIT FOR EACH YEAR SINCE THE RESPECTIVE DATE OF RETIREMENT FOR EACH BENEFICIARY; AND BY PROVIDING THAT THE AMOUNT OF EACH SUCH INCREASE SHALL BE ADDED TO THE PRESENT PENSION BENE- FIT, AND THE RESULTING AMOUNT SHALL HENCEFORTH BE ' PAYABLE ON A MONTHLY BASIS; AND BY FURTHER PROVIDING THAT FOR PURPOSES OF APPLYING THE ORDINANCE PROVISION OF ORDINANCE NO. 7798, ADOPTED SEPTEMBER 25, 1969, PERTAINING TO VARIABLE UNITS OF RETIREMENT INCOME, THE ADJUSTED PENSION BENEFIT AS HEREINABOVE DETER- MINED SHAI.L BE USED AS BASE MONTHLY RETIREMENT ALLOWANCE FOR THE COMPUTATION OF. BENEFIT CHANGES, IF ANY, WHICIH ARISE BY REASON OF CHANGE IN VALUE OF VARIABLE UNITS; AND CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY PROVISION DISPENSING WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF READING THIS ORDINANCE ON TWO SEPARATE DAYS BY A VOTE OF NOT LESS THhN FOUR -FIFTHS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION was introduced by Mr. Plummer, seconded by Mrs. Gordon 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, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy . NOES: None. Whereupon the Commission, on motion of Mr. Plummer, seconded by Mrs. Gordon, adopted said ordinance by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Rebbso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 8193. 32, AUTHORIZE CONTRACTS - SIX (6) EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATIONS The following resolution was introduced by Reverend Gibson who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-772 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER AND THE CITY CLERK TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI AND SIX (6) EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION GROUPS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING OCTOBER 1, 1973 SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EACH SEPARATE AGREEMENT AS ATTACHED HERETO UPON THE RATIFICATION OF EACH SUCH AGREEMENT BY THE MEMBERSHIP OF EACH SUCH EMPLOYEE 3t3 SEP261973 4t ORGANIZATION GROUP AS FOLLOWS: (a) MIAMI, FLORIDA CITY EMPLOYEES, LOCAL NO. 654, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, A.F.L. - C.I.O. (Contract No. 1) (b) SANITATION EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (Contract No. 2) (c) INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS A.F.L. - C.I.O. LOCAL No. 587 (Contract No. 3) (d) FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE (Contract No. 4) (e) GENERAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (Contract No. 5) (f) PUBLIC EMPLOYEES BARGAINING UNIT (Contract No. 6) (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, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None The City Manager announced it was his intention to appoint Mr. Joel Lanken as the City of Miami Employee Negotiator. 33, EXTENDED THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-773 A RESOLUTION GRANTING A HOLIDAY FOR CITY EMPLOYEES ON FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1973 (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 Kennedy. NOES: None 37 At 1 34, ORDINANCE- REIMB RSEMENJ FOR EXPENSES- USE 9F LORCH OF FRIENDSHIP AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE REIMBURSEMENT TO THE CITY OF MIAMI FOR EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE USE OF THE TORCH OF FRIENDSHIP was introduced by Mr. Plummer, 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 Kennedy. NOES: None 35, AMEND SECTION 39-37 OF T}IE CODE-APPLICATLON FOR USE OF CLTY FACILITIES AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 39-37 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI; PROVIDING FOR SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION FORMS FOR USE OF CITY FACILITIES WITHIN PRESCRIBED TIME LIMITS was introduced by Mr. Plummer, 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 Kennedy. NOES: None 36, ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK- ORANGE BOWL PRESS BOX WATERPROOFING 1973 The following resolution was introduced by Reverend Gibson who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-774 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT AS A COMPLETED CONTRACT THE WORK PERFORMED BY DELTA PAINTING CORP., AT A TOTAL COST OF $17,611 AND AUTHORIZING A FINAL PAYMENT OF $4,237.90 FOR THE ORANGE BOWL - PRESS BOX WATERPROOFING - 1973 (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, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None 38 37, ORDERING RESOLUTION'- TRAIL VIEW HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT H-4366 The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-775 A RESOLUTION ORDERING TRAIL VIEW HIGHWAY IMP- ROVEMENT H-4366 AND DESIGNATING THE PROPERTY AGAINST WHICH SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS SHALL BE MADE FOR A PORTION OF THE COST THEREOF AS TRAIL VIEW HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT H-4366; AND ALLOCATING THE AMOUNT OF $3,000.00 FROM THE HIGHWAY BOND FUND FOR PRELIMINARY EXPENSE (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. Gibson, Reboso, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None 38, ACCEPT PLAT - ALVAREZ SUBDIVISION The following resolution was introduced by Reverend Gibson who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-776 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED ALVAREZ SUBDIVISION, A SUBDIVISION 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. Plummer, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, RPhncn Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None 39 SEP26197:3 i 39, ACCEPT PLAT - SEAVEY. SUBDIVLSIOK The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-777 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE SEAVEY PLAT, A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA; AND ACCEPTING THE DED- ICATIONS 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, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None 40, ACCEPT CANCELLATLON OF COVENANT- ROMANINO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-778 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING FROM ROMANINO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. A CANCELLATION OF COVENANT TO RUN WITH THE LAND WHICH CANCELS THAT CERTAIN COVENANT TO RUN WITH THE LAND DATED SEPTEMBER 19, 1962; AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID CANCELLATION OF COVENANT TO RUN WITH THE LAND; AND DIRECTING THAT SAID CANCELL- ATION OF COVENANT BE FILED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, A COPY OF SAID CANCELLAT- ION OF COVENANT BEING ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF (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 aid Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None 40 SEP 2 61973 it 11 41, APPOINTING PAUL S. WALKER TO DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-779 A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING AND APPOINTING PAUL S. WALKER TO A FOUR-YEAR TERM AS BOARD MEMBER OF THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPNENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1973 (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 Kennedy. NOES: None 42, APPOINT MEMBERS TO CITY OF MIAMI COMMITTEE ON ECOLOGY AND BEAUTIFICATION AND REAPPOINTING CONSULTANTS TO SAID COMMITTEE The following resolution was introduced by Mrs. Gordon who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-780 A RESOLUTION REAPPOINTING BOB SCHUYT, THOMAS MCLEAN GEORGE W. PETERS IV, AND JOHN LUNDBLAD AS CONSULTANTS TO THE CITY OF MIAMI COMMITTEE ON ECOLOGY AND BEAU- TIFICATION AND APPOINTING AS MEMBERS, THE FOLLOWING PERSONS: RUSSELL K. NUZUM III MRS. JJLIUS ALEXANDER LAWRENCE KENNY DR. DAN F. JACKSON REV. GEORGE MC CORMICK HENRY RICCIO LUCIUS WILLIAMS ROBERT REVITZ PAUL WALKER ADELE KANTER (Herr, fv icws uudy 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, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None 41 SEP261973 43, AGREEMENT WITH METRO - LEASE OF ORANGE BOWL LOT The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-781 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTIN(; THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY FOR THE LEAS' OF THE CITY OWNED ORANGE BOWL PARKING LOT BOUNDED ON THE NORTH BY N. W. 7TH STREET, ON THE SOUTH BY N. W. 6TH STREET ON THE EAST BY N. W. 14TH AVENUE AND ON THE WEST BY N. W. 16 AVENUE FOR A ONE YEAR PERIOD WITH AN ADDITIONAL ONE YEAR RENEWAL OPTION (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 Kennedy. NOES: None 44, WAWE RENTAL FEE-BAYFRONT AUDITORIUM- WOMAN'S CANCER SOCIETY The following resolution was introduced by Reverend Gibson who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-782 A RESOLUTION WAIVING THE RENTAL FEE FOR USE OF THE BAYFRONT PARK AUDITORIUM BY THE WOMAN'S CANCER SOCIETY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI FOR TWO DAYS IN DECEMBER 1973, FOR HOLDING ITS ANNUAL "HOLIDAY FEST- IVAL AND WORLDWIDE BAZAAR", SUBJECT TO PAYMENT OF EVENT PERSONNEL, LIGHTS, INSURANCE AND OTHER DIRECT COSTS CHARGED BY THE CITY (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, Reboso, MRs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None 42 SEP 2 61973 aft 45, WAIVE RENTAL FEE - MIAMI BASEBALL STADIUM -FALL CAMPUS PROGRAM MIAMI DARE COMMUNITY COL r The following resolution was introduced by Reverend Gibson who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-783 A RESOLUTION WAIVING RENTAL FEE FOR THE USE OF MIAMI BASEBALL STADIUM FOR THE FALL BASEBALL PRO- GRAM OF THE DOWNTOWN CAMPUS OF THE MIAMI-DADE COMMUNITY COLLEGE FROM SEPTEMBBR 26, 1973, THROUGH NOVEMBER 21, 1973 EXCLUSIVE OF SATURDAYS AND SUNDAYS BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 2:00 P.M. AND 5:30 P.M. UPON CERTAIN TERMS AND CONDITIONS (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, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None 46, EXECUTE AGREEMENT- SHERATON FOUR AMBASSADORS CHARGE ACCOUNTS FOR GREENS FEES ETC, The following resolution was introduced by Reverend Gibson who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-784 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER AND THE CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH SHERATON-FOUR AMBASSADORS PERMITTING CHARGE SERVICE BY HOTEL GUESTS FOR GREENS FEES AND ELECTRIC GOLF CARTS AT CITY OF MIAMI OWNED GOLF COURSES, A COPY OF SAID AGREEMENT BEING ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF (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, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None 43 SEP 261973 14 1/ 47, ALLOCAIE $3.000 PARTIAL -LOT 6. ILOCK 123 PLAT BOOK B ETC. The following resolution was introduced by Reverend Gibson who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-785 A RESOLUTION ALLOCATING THE SUM OF $3,000.00 PLUS COSTS OF SALE, INCLUDING RECORDING FEES, FROM THE 1973 PARKS AND RECREATIONAL GENERAL BOND ISSUE AS DESIGNATED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF PARKS IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE PURCHASE PRICE FOR THE WEST 8 INCHES OF THE EAST 15 FEET OF LOT 6, BLOCK 123 NORTH OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, PLAT BOOK B, PAGE 41, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF DADE COUNTY FROM THE MIAMI CITY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND PLAN — (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, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None 48, AUTHORIZE SALE - REAL PROPERTY E.15' LOT 3, BLOCK 5 KENWOOD The following Resolution was introduced by Reverend Gibson who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-786 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF MIAMI.TO OFFER FOR SALE TO THE HIGHEST AND BEST BIDDER AFTER NOTICE THEREOF IS PUBLISHED ONCE A WEEK FOR AT LEAST TWO WEEKS IN A NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION IN THE CITY OF MIAMI THE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: EAST 15; EET OF LOT 3, BLOCK 5, KENWOOD, RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, IN PLAT BOOK 6 AT PAGE 134 (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, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None Mk 49, RENEWAL OF AGREEMENT - PUBLICITY- METRO DADE COUNTY The following resolution was ins:^duced by Mr. Plummer who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-787 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE RENEWAL OF THE ADVERTISING AND PUBLICITY AGREEMENT BETWEEN METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY AND THE CITY OF MIAMI FOR A JOINT CITY AND COUNTY PUBLICITY AND ADVERTISING PROGRAM FOR THE 1973- 1974 FISCAL YEAR, AU'IHORIZING THE CITY MANAGED. AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT, EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 1973, AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO FOR- WARD A COPY OF THIS RESOLUTION AND THE RENEWAL AGREEMENT TO THE CLERK OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY (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 Kennedy. NOES: None 50, ADOPT RULES OF PROCEDURE - ELECTION BY POLICEMEN AND FIREMEN MIAMI CITY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM The following resolution was introduced by Mrs. Gordon who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-788 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THE ELECTION BY POLICEMEN AND FIREMEN. WHO A: RETIREMENT SYSTEM MEMBERS, Or ONE MEMBER OF THE RETIREMENT BOARD OF THE MIAMI CITY EMPLOYEES RETTREMENISYSTEM FOR A TERM OF TWO YEARS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE NO. 2230 AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FOR THE NOMINATION OF CANDIDATES, PROVIDING FOR SAID ELECTION, PROVIDING FOR RUN- OFF ELECTION IF NECESSARY, PRESCRIBING FORM OF BALLOT, PROVIDING FOR CANVASSING AND DECLARATION OF RESULT OF SAID ELECTION (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 Kennedy. NOES: None 45 SEP 2 61973 51. AMEND ECTION 16-23 OF THE C An Ordinance entitled- 1 PERF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 16-23 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRO- VIDING THAT BID BONDS, PERFORMANCE BONDS, SURETY BONDS, OR OTHER GUARANTEES IN CONNECTION WITH CON- TRACTS FOR PUBLIC WORKS OR IMPROVEMENTS OR PURCHASES INVOLVING LARGE SUMS OF MONEY, SHALL BE WRITTEN BY A PROPERLY LICENSED INSURANCE AGENT LOCATED IN DADE COUNTY; 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 AND 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 Mrs. Gordon, for adoption as al emergency measure and dispensing with the requirement of reading same on two separate days, which was agreed to by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None Whereupon the Commission, on motion of Mr.Plummer, seconded by Mrs. Gordon adopted said ordinance by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 8194. 52, AMEND RES.73-324B-SO.BAYSHORE DRIVE SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT SK-4281 The following resolution was introduced by Reverend Gibson who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-789 A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 73-324B ADOPTED APRIL 26, 1973, ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION AWARDING THE BID RECEIVED APRIL 19, 1973 OF STATE PAVING CORPORATION IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $84,100 FOR SOUTH BAYSIIORE DRIVE SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT SK-4281 IN SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT SK-4281; ALLOCATING THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF $66,456 FROM THE SIDEWALK BOND FUND AND $22,736 FROM THE HIGHWAY BOND FUND AND AUTH- ORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT THEREFOR" TO CORRECT VARIOUS AMOUNTS OF MONEY SHOWN THEREIN AND TO CHANGE THE ADDITIVE ITEMS TO BE IN THE CONTRACT FROM ADDITIVE ITEMS 4, 5, AND 6 TO ADDITIVE ITEMS 1, 2, 3 AND 11 OF THE PROPOSAL, THUS MAKING THE TOTAL ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF THE CONTRACT $83,200 (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, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson an' Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None 46 SEP 261973 'b 10 53 . AWARD BID - GENERAL DRAINAGE PROJECT G:1_ The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-790 A RESOLUTION AWARDING THE BID RECEIVED SEPTEMBER 11, 1973, FOR GENERAL DRAINAGE PROJECT G-1 OF D.M.P. CORPORATION IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $93,125; ALLOCATING THE AMOUNT OF $104,300 FROM THE "STORM 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, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None 54, AWARD $ID - 311,000 ENVELOPES The following resolution was introduced by Mrs. Gordon who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73191 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE BID RECEIVED SEPTEMBER 5, 1973 OF CROWN POINT PAPER PRODUCTS COMPANY, FOR FURNISHING APPROXIMATELY 311,000 ENVELOPES FOR CITY WIDE USE AT A TOTAL COST OF $2,043.10 SUBJECT TO AN OVERRUN NOT TO EXCEED FIVE PERCENT (5%), AND AUTHOR- IZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO INSTRUCT THE PURCHASING AGENT OF THE CITY OF MIAMI TO ISSUE PURCHASE ORDERS AS REQUIRED, AFTER FIRST HAVING DETERMINED THAT FUNDS 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 Kennedy. NOES: None 4'I 55, AUTHORIZE PUR.,►1ASE OF TWO INTL.HARV.DIESEL ENGINES The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-792 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO ISSUE A PURCHASE ORDER FOR TWO INTER- NATIONAL HARVESTER DIESEL ENGINES AT A TOTAL PRICE OF $3600.00 FROM.FUNDS AVAILABLE IN THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC PROPERTIES IN CITY GARAGE DIVISION REPAIR PARTS ACCOUNT (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 Kennedy. NOES: None 56, AUTHORIZE CONTRACT FOR TOWING AND STORAGE OF VESSELS The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-793 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER TNT() A CONTRACT WITH GROVE KEY MARINA, INC., FOR THE TOWING AND STORAGE OF VESSELS TAKEN INTO THE POSSESSION OF THE CITY PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE NO. 8133 (JANUARY 2S, 1973) (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 Kennedy. NOES: None 48 SEP 261973 10 57, ARCHITECTS - MIAMI MODERN POLICE FACILITY Mr. Andrews: Because of the City Attorneys ruling on the selection of an Architect for the City Police facility, the City Commission must further consider the selection process. I will ask the City Attorney to explain to you the process or the alternative process to be used. Mr. Rothstein: The only process that is requires at this time is for you to take the original list of 21 architects as presented to you and pick out 3 in order of preference and proceed under the statute for negotiations. They have to be ranked 1, 2, and 3, because of the negotiation process. If the Manager cannot successfully negotiate with Ranking #1, he then will report that to the Commission and the Commission will then direct him to negotiate with Ranking #2 and then to Ranking #3. Mrs. Gordon: I would like to say that this came about by anlact of the Legislature that we had no knowledge of at the time and this is something that came to our attention just a couple of weeks ago. I believe that up until that point, the Manager was in negotiation with a firm ready to go to contract if I am not mistaken. Mr. Andrews: I wanted to be sure anything I said didn't jeopardize .any freedom that you had in choices. Yes, we were right at the point where we were ready to present an agreement to the City Commission. We had reached all our negotiations and had completed our understanding. We had an agreement drafted and ready to submit to the City Commission and at the meeting that this matter was brought up by the City Attorney, it held all of our negotiations in abeyance. If this matter had not been brought to the Commission's attention by the City Attorney, I would have been r ready to make a recommendation. Mrs. Gordon: On the contract? Mr. Andrews: Yes. Mrs. Gordon: Therefore, I believe that in all fairness, the particular firm of which I was not the chooser, but I went along on it, out of fairness, I didn't make any choice and I am not making any today either. I think out of fairness to them, they ought to at least rank in the first position since they held that position up until the Legislature said that we must select 3 firms so therefore there should be•a #2 and #3 firm if the first firms contract cannot be completed successfully, and this would be what I would consider, fair play. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, that is my opinion. Mayor Kennedy: I think what we ought to do is choose 3 and let them come in here and make presentations. No one has heard presentations from anybody. I wasn't here when the architect was chosen. TL .. 11lG lam° wl:1V no YII.JCll LCtttV!!; Dave. Mayor Kennedy: I know there were no presentations. There were many firms that have much better credentials for building a police facility than the one that was chosen and I think that 3 firms ought to be chosen by the City Manager and bring in those 3 firms and let him have the latitude to choose the 3 firms that he thinks falls into the best for the City and have those 3 firms make a presentation before this Commission and then we will rank them 1, 2, 3. Let them do the staff work like they do and come in here with the 3 firms that they think would be the best qualified, then after we hear the presentations, let the Commission make a choice. Mr. Andrews: Mr. Mayor, as I understand it. The City Commission is required to make the choice of the 3 for me to negotiate with and after you have placed them in a ranking of 1, 2, 3, then I begin negotiations with the firm selected as #1 and if I successfully negotiate, it ends there. If I do not, then I tell the first group of people I am negotiating with, that our negotiations stopped and I am going to the second one to negotiate. 49 SEP 261973 1 Mrs. Gordon: Well again I say, I am only going by what is fair and from the standpoint of fairness, since we didn't act by ordinance or resolution to make these rules, but the Legislature has acted and we must obey their rules, I believe that we should at least stick with the man or the firm that was selected, who did get as far as almost signing a contract and make his firm #1 choice and I believe if it needs to be a resolution, I would move it because I think its a fair way to go. Mr. Plummer: Mr. City Attorney, what do we have to do to comply with the law? Mr. Rothstein: Mrs. Gordon has made a resolution that one of the firms should be the Pancoast Firm and they should have a Ranking of #1. If there is a second, the Commission will vote on it. If that resolution succeeds, then the Commission shall proceed'to choose firm #2 and firm #3 and in that ranking. If it fails, then the Commission shall proceed to choose some other architect for ranking #1. Mr. Plummer: Here again with a lawyer's relief bill and the architects have now got . We are now talking about the architects relief bill. Mr. Rothstein: No, this brings the fee for architects down. Mr. Plummer: I hope you are right because I don't read it that way. Mr. Rothstein: Well that's what the legislature thinks anyway. Rev. Gibson: Second the motion. The following resolution was introduced by Mrs. Gordon who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-794 A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE ARCHITECTURAL FIRM OF PANCOAST ARCHITECTS AS THE COMMISSION'S NUMBER ONE CHOICE FOR NEGOTIATION WITH THE CITY MANAGER FOR THE DESIGN OF POLICE FACILITIES TO BE DEVELOPED ON PROPERTY BEING ACQUIRED IN THE DOWNTOWN GOVERN- MENT CENTER (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 and Reverend Gibson. NOES: Mayor Kennedy In casting his NO vote, Mayor Kennedy made the following statement: Mayor Kennedy: I vote NO because after reading the submissions there is no way that you can tell me that the Grafton firm is the best qualified to build a police, I mean the Pancoast firm is the best qualified to do this and all anybody has to do is to look at the presentations made and I think that there is 2 or 3 firms in this community that get all public work and I think you ought to base it on qualifications rather than on status quo and I vote no. Mrs. Gordon: I want the records to reflect, I didn't offer the name in the first place, but I went with the name and I considered the name being on the list was a qualified name or they shouldn't have been on the list. 50 Mayor Kennedy: I think that was rushed -through, that it was brought up and rushed through this Commission. That nobody had the right to make presentations. This is one of the biggest projects in the City and we have not got the best firm to do it, I am telling you that and we have shut the door of letting architects and engineers make a presentation based on ability and this Commission has shut the door on that and its a 4-1 vote. Mr. Reboso: I think of the 21 names that appear in this book, I researched the background in the book and 3 of the firms have had previous experience in doing police headquarters so I offer #2- The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Reboso who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-795 A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE ARCHITECTURAL FIRM OF DALTON, DALTON, LITTLE, NEWPORT AS THE COMMISSION'S NUMBER TWO CHOICE FOR NEGOTIATION WITH THE CITY MANAGER FOR THE DESIGN OF POLICE FACILITIES TO BE DEVELOPED ON PROPERTY BEING ACQUIRED IN THE DOWNTOWN GOVERNMENT CENTER (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 Kennedy. NOES: None Mrs. Gordon: I want to ask a question. Who compiled this list to start with? ? Mr. Reese. �' , r to tall lie that Mr. a compiled a Mrs. Gordon. Okay, uV Oil want `^" RP.AS list of unqualified people? Mr. Rothstein: That's not accurate. These are proposals that were received after sending out to all the chapters of the American Institute of Architecture etc etc. etc. , to 320 architects in Dade County. These were the 21 firms that said in effect, we would like to be con- sidered for this project and we feel we have the capability. Mrs. Gordon: Were they screened by Mr. Reese before he submitted these proposals to us? This just doesn't make sense to me that anybody could think that an unqualified firm could be on this list. Mayor Kennedy: I didn't say unqualified. I said not the most qualified. There is a distinction. Mr. Rothstein: Mrs. Gordon, on that day, on May 18th,attached to the memorandum was a detailed analysis discussing the proposals submitted by the firms and it was a summary of the proposals but at no time did Mr. Reese say that this is good or bad. (At this time Mayor Kennedy turned over the gavel to Vice Mayor Gibson for the purpose of making a motion) The following resolution was introduced by Mayor Kennedy who moved its adoption: 51 SEP2Gi9 RESOLUTION NO. 73-796 A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE ARCHITECTURAL FIRM OF CONNELL, PIERCE, GARLAND AND FRIEDMAN AS THE COMMISSION'S NUMBER THREE CHOICE FOR NEGOTIATION WITH THE CITY MANAGER FOR THE DESIGN OF POLICE FACILITIES TO BE DEVELOPED ON PROPERTY BEING ACQUIRED IN THE DOWNTOWN GOVERNMENT CENTER (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, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor, I hope whoever gets this contract Mr. Andrews, that they would be very dilligent and we were talking about if they need somebody to associate with them or need some help, that they wouldn't hesitate. I know a professional would do that but I just want to sound that note. Mr. Plummer: Well if you will recall Mr. Pancoast was here at .the direction of this Commission, he was to go back and to explore and come back to this Commission, if he was awarded the contract who he would consider to take in with him as an associate if he needed one in the specialty of the field, so that's on record and I don't think there is any problem. 58, EXTENSION OF EMPLOYMENT - JOHN TOMICK- YACHT DDOCKS DEPT, The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer whe moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-797 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A ONE (1) YEAR EXTENSION OF EMPLOYMENT PAST THE AGE OF 70 FOR JOHN C. TOMICK, CARPENTER, DEPARTMENT OF YACHT DOCKS, EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 1, 1973 TO FEBRUARY 1 1974, WITH THE PROVISION THAT IN THE EVENT OF A ROLLBACK OR LAYOFF, MR. TOMICK, RATHER THAN A JUNIOR EMPLOYEE, WOULD BE AFFECTED (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, Gibson, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None 52 SEP261973 1 • 59, ESTABLISH OCTOBER 22 AS OBSERVANCE FOR VETERANS DAY Mr. Andrews: M. Mayor and members of the Commission, you had asked the City Attorney to select the date or advise - Mr. Rothstein: No, this is in the way of recommendation to the Manager as to what policy he thinks he should recommend. If we stick with the same day which is a Monday. That means we will be closed when everybody is open and open when everybody is closed on the official holiday. Mr. Andrews: Metropolitan Dade County has already issued a notice to all their employees that they are recognizing October 22 as Veteran's Day. The conflict exists in that the State is recognizing November 11 as Veteran's Day but I am recommending to the Commission that we follow the precedent which has already been set by the County and that we be off on the same day and that will eliminate many problems. Mrs. Gordon: Why do they have 2 separate days? Mr. Andrews: The federal government has now changed the requirement and established November 11 as Veteran's Day once again. The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-798 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING OCTOBER 22, 1973 AS THE DATE FOR OBSERVING VETERANS DAY IN THE CITY OF MIAMI (Here follows body of resclution, 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. P'zmmer, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None Mr. Rothstein: I didn't want to correct the City Manager but its the State of Florida that has gone to November llth. The federal government is still holding to October 22nd. 60, TRANSFER OF THE MIAMI SPRINGS COUNTRY CLUB FOOD CONCESSION TO THE CITY OF MIAMI Mr. Andrews: Mayor Fordyce of Miami Springs has been in communication with me by telephone and letter indicating that the council of Miami Springs now wishes to turn back the facility they are operating under agreement with the City of Miami as far as the operation of the food and beverage concession at the golf course at Miami Springs. I am recommending to the Commission that you authorize me to negotiate with them for the transfer of that facility back to the City of Miami. We will make arrangements and have recommendations later how we will proceed on the basis of establishing a concession facility operated under the City of Miami.. Mr. Plummer: I don't want the City to get into the business. Mr. Rothstein: These people bid on it against other concessionaires. Mr. Andrews: I will announce to the Commission, as far as my admin- istrative policy is concerned, the recommendation I will be advancing 5 SEP 261973 • to the Commission, is that we operate it on the basis that this is •i golf type food and be•,rerage concession and that it is not operated un the basis that Miami Springs had hoped to make it, a sort of a country club operation with full fledged restaurant. The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Pluieho moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-799 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE CITY OF MIAMI SPRINGS FOR TRANSFER OF THE OPERATION OF THE MIAMI SPRINGS COUNTRY CLUB GOLF COURSE CONCESSION BACK TO THE CITY OF MIAMI, AND TO REPORT TO THE CITY COMM- ISSION THE RESULTS OF HIS NEGOTIATIONS (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 Kennedy. NOES: None 61, HIRE SAGER AND BURNS FOR FILING OF ANTI-TRUST LITIGATION The following resolution was introduced by Mrs. Gordon who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-800 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO HIRE THE LAW FIRM OF SAGER AND BURNS, AT NO ATTORNEYS FEES TO THE CITY OF MIAMI, TO PROCEED WITH THE FILING OF ANTI-TRUST LITIGATION AGAINST THE PRODUCERS OF ELECTRIC LAMPS, ETC. (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, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None 54 SEP261973 MISCELLENEOUS DISCU; ON ITEMS. 1, The Commission decidei to accept an invitation from Mr. Herbert L. Simon, Miami Board of Realtors accepted an invitation to take a Bus Tour of the City in regard to the Parking Lot Ordinance and set the date as September 17, 1973. 2, The Mayor read a letter from Chris Dundee concerning the possibility of staging a fight between Ali and Frazier sometime' during February of 1974 in the Orange Bowl and referred the inquiry to the City Manager to investigate such a possibility. 62, CREATE YOUTH ADVISORY BOARD - APPOINT CHAIRMAN AND NAME MEMBERS The following resolution was introduced by Mayor Kennedy who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-801 A RESOLUTION CREATING A YOUTH ADVISORY BOARD; DESIGNATING THE CHAIRMAN THEREOF, AND NAMING MEMBERS THERETO; REPEALING RESOLUTION NO.73- 639, PASSED AND ADOPTED JULY 26, 1973 (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, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. Mayor Kennedy made the following appointments including the Chairman of the Committee: MR. KEN FRIEDMAN, Chairman MS. BETTY T. DIAZ MR. FRANK DANNENBERG Reverend Gibson made the following appointments: MR. HUGH J. MAllEI ZOILI M. ALONSO MS. DELORIS H. MOORMAN Commissioner Reboso made the following appointments: MR. THOMAS CRUZ, JR. MR. LUIS SABINES, JR. MR. LEO GARCIA Commissioner Gordon announced she would re -appoint 2 persons and leave 1 for future appointment; Reappointed were: HAZEL BUNGY CHARLES NICHOLS' Commissioner Plummer announced 1 reappointment leaving 2 to be appointed later. Reappointed was: MR. BOB LEATHERS 55 SEP 2 61973 1 • o), :T :E: BERS TO T C DiTENATIEAL FOL:; FESTIVAL L C ThI i [E_ The following resolution was introduced by Mrs. Gordon who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-802 A RESOLUTION APPOINTING ADDITIONAL MEMBERS TO THE INTERNATIONAL FOLK FESTIVAL COMMITTEE (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 Kennedy. NOES: None The following persons were added to the committee: Vincent De Silva (Trinidad) 17740 S. W. 113th Avenue Miami, Florida 33157 Barbara Gladsden (U. S. ) 3200 Calusa Street Miami, Florida 33133 Luz Mapuana Doucette (Phillipines) 1431 N. E. 118th Street Miami; Florida 33161 Matilde Perez-Porrata (U.S.-Puerto Rico) 720 Majorca Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Roberto Benitez (Cuba) 10I31 S. W. 37th Terrace Miami, Florida 33165 56 64, DOWNTOWN DECORATIONS FOR ORANGE BOWL FESTIVAL Mayor Kennedy: Mr. Andrews, the Downtown Development AUthority and the downtown businessmen have gotten together and have attempted to do some type of pre -season decoration hoping that this Orange Bowl Parade will be the largest in history and the best in history. They want to make downtown ready for it. Have you any suggestions how the City of Miami might be able to assist them in this? Mr. Andrews: Mr. Price has been meeting with the downtown people and some of them have talked to me from time to time as to their ambition to decorate downtown Miami in a different way that would enhance the Orange Bowl parade concept. Mr. Price has thought enough of these proposals that we are considering that -some of the publicity funds be utilized as a contribution with the Commission's permission to the downtown development authority and the downtown business people because Mr. Price and I too have evaluated that what their proposals for decorating are different than anything we have seen before and that this approach can be utilized and has publicity value, In other words the concept here is that there is more to downtown Miami than just Biscayne Boulevard and this will be an opportunity to expose more of downtown Miami to the tourists and particularly the shopping area,of downtown Miami. I will come back on October 4th with a recommendation as to the amount of the contribution. The folloming resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 83-803 RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE INTENT OF THE COMMISSION THAT THE CITY MANAGER INVESTIGATE METHODS OF PRE- SEASON CHRISTMAS DECORATION IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, AND TENTATIVELY APPROVING THE USE OF PUBLICITY FUNDS FOR SUCH PURPOSE (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and onfile 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 Kennedy. NOES: None 65, DINNER KEY BOAT SHOW- USE OF PIER_5 DISCUSSIO1( Mayor Kennedy: There is one other problem that has been brought to my attention by the people who run. the Boat Show. They have been staging the Boat Show here for a number of years and in the past, the City has negotiated with the lesees at Pier 5. In this years contract, it was written in that the Boat SHow people had to negotiate with the Pier 5 people directly. They have said that this has caused them great hardship. When the City told the people at Pier 5 that they had to give up the Pier for the Boat Show and that the Boat Show people would pay a certain amount and for the days lost, that was one thing, but not when they have to deal with the individual owner s on Pier 5, the lessee's on Pier 5 themselves, they find they are being held up pretty good. 5'7 SEP 2 61973 i I think this is grossly, unfair to have in a contract, especially this is the first time that it has been put into the contract. Mr. Rothstein: It was not written into the resolution. The resolution that was passed was the exact same resoluticn passed for the last 3 or 4 years. Apparently this was done by Mr. Ree:e by letter without any direction from the Commission to that effect. I want to clear that up. That was not done by this Commission as such, Mr. Andrews: I will preface by saying, yes, we will try to assist in anyway we can but we have this kind of problem that you should be aware of. The people who occupy those berths have a 1-year agreement which is renewed each year. Within the agreement there is no provision for vacating them for any other purpose so we fly in the face of an agree- ment arrangement and the arrangement for the Boat Show comes after the fact and so we have to depend on the cooperation -of the people to get t.iem to move. Sometimes it gets very difficult and it was felt that the promoter was in a better position to indicate the need for the space than it was for the City as the mediator. Mr. Rothstein: Its true that it is after the fact and is not in their yearly lease agreement but it's clearly been the policy for this Commission for years and its very obvious if the people who are there, there is long waiting lists for those berths and if those people are not going to cooperate with the City, that is a basis for not renewing in the following year and that is why the City can do it while the individuals can't do it. Mayor Kennedy: The Boat Show is an important thing for the City, I think. Otherwise, we are going to lose all these exhibitions and right now, the Boat Show people are being held up, I understand. Mr. Rothstein: This Commission has not changed its policy for.years so if the Commission indicates to the Manager that it waits to continue its policy of the past years, that's up to you and he has a direction to say to the people, now look, the Commission has set this policy and asks your cooperation and he is in a position to say, you can cooperate or not and when renewal time comes, this is clearly going to be the policy for the future and those who don't cooperate, we have a right to choose who we are going to have go in there. I think if you want to give the Manager directions, that the past polic.; be followed, that takes the Manager_off the hook. Mr. Andrews: Well its not a question of taking the Manager off the hook and I understand the City Commission's intent and I am acquainted with past policy. I think what we will do in the future after we overcome this problem is to have each agreement that we enter into, adjusted so it is understood within that agreement that there will be periods of timetwhen the City for the benefit of the entire city, asks the people to move or make arrangements for a certain number of days to accomodate these kind of events, then we can solve the problem but that doesn't mean we won't have the boat people coming in before the Commission pleading the fact that they had an agreement and we are not showing good faith with them. Mayor Kennedy: Well they are compensated, aren't they, by the Boat Show? Mr. Andrews: That's right but some of them just don't want to move because they don't want to go through the trouble of leaving the slip. I think the Commission should adopt a resolution of intent so that's its more than just the Manager trying to get them to move. The following resolution was introduced by Mayor Kennedy who moved its adoption: 58 SEP 2619 a RESOLUTION NO. 73-804 A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE INTENTION OF THE COMMISSION THAT THE CITY MANAGER FOLLOW THE SAME PROCEDURE AS IN PAST YEARS IN ARRANGING FOR SPACE TO BE USED BY THE DINNER KEY BOAT SHOW ON PIER 5 OF THE DINNER KEY DOCKS, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE TENANTS WILL BE COMPEN- SATED BY THE BOAT SHOW FOR THEIR EXPENSES IN TEMPORARILY VACATING THEIR BERTHS, THE QUESTION OF REASONABLE EXPENSES TO BE DETERMINED BY THE CITY MANAGER (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, Reboso, Mrs. Gordon, Reverend Gibson and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None The City Attorney requested the transfer of the trust agree- ment be on the special meeting set for OCtober 4, 1973. ADJOURNMENT: THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION• ON MOTION DULY MADE AND SECONDED. THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT: ATTEST: H. P. Sou.thenn CITY CLERK Ralph G. Ongie ASSISTANT CITY CLERK 6:25 0 CLOCK P.M. 59 David T. Kennedy MAYOR CITW OF MJAII DOCUMENT MEETING DATE INDESEPTEMBER 26-1973 ITEM NO DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION 1 COM_MISSION AGENDA & CITY CLERK REPORT (18 pages) 2 PUBLIC HEARING -MEETING CHANGE DATE- SEPT.26-1973 I COMMISSION 1 RETRIEVAL ACTION CODE_N0 3 ORDINANCE DELETING CHAPTER 62 OF MIAMI CITY CODE -ADOPTING NEW CHAPTER 62 ENTITLED PLANNING AND ZONING 4 ORDINANCE CREATING NEW DEPARTMENT CITY OF MIAMI CALLED DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION FOR PLANNING AND ZONING BOARDS 5 6 ORDINANCE DELETING ARTICLE XXX-AMENDMENTS OF ORDINANCE NO. 6871 ORDINANCE DELETING ARTICLE XXXI-VARIANCES OF ORDINANCE NO. 6871 7 ORDINANCE DELETING ARTICLE XXXII-CONDITIONAL USE OF ORDINANCE NO. 6871 8 CONDOLENCES - TOMAS CRUZ 9 PAYMENT DR. ERNEST BARTLEY FOR CONSULTING SERVICES -PLANNING AND ZONING 10 ADVERTISE FOR SEALED BIDS -CONSTRUCTION OF N.W. 29 STREET HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT 11 CONSTRUCTION OF IHILLSIDE SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT SR-5350-C (CENTERLINE SEWER) 12 CONSTRCICT TON OF S.E. 15 ROAD SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT SK-4356 13 RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 43092- MECIiANICALLY OPERATED PARKING STRUCTURE 14 CONDITIONAL USE -ORDINANCE NO. 6871-OFF-STREET PARKING-7860 DUNHAM BOULEVARD 15 GPANT VARIANCE ORDINANCE NO. 6871-CONSTRUCTION "BELLA BAHIA SUBDIVISION"- 1440 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE 16 CLOSING FOR PUBLIC USE NORTHEAST -SOUTHWEST ALLEY-1440 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE R-73-756 R-73-757 R-73-758 .-, -/ -7 l r n 1\` / J- / J J R-73-761 R-73-762 R-73-763 0066 0067 0068 0069 - 0070 0071 0072 73-756 73-757 0073 73-758 -In ^O r n /_)-»y 0074 73-761 73-762 73-763 DOCUMENTINDEX PAGE # 2 COMV1I85ION1'FtIEgA�- DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION ACTION CODE NQ._ Irt NO. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 GRANT VARIANCE -ORDINANCE NO. 6871- CONSTRUCTION GRANDSTAND ADDITION TO FLAGLER DOG TRACK 'GRANT APPLICATIONS REPLACEMENT CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY RENTAL FEE BAYFRONT PARK BANDSHELL BY THE UNITED CEREBRAL PALSY ASSOCIATION CITY MANAGER VACATION-30 WORKING DAYS PER ANNUM AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER CONTRACT BETWEEN CITY OF MIAMI AND SIX EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION GROUPS GRANTING HOLIDAY FOR CITY EMPLOYEES FRIDAY NOVEMBER 23-1973 CONTRACT WORK PERFORMED BY DELTA PAINTING CORP. FOR ORANGE BOWL PRESS BOX ORDERING TRAIL VIEW HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT H-4366 ACCEPT PLAT ENTITLED ALVAREZ SUBDIVISION - A SUBDIVISION CITY OF MIAMI ACCEPT SEAVEY PLAT -A SUBDIVISION CITY OF MIAMI ACCEPTING FROM ROMANINO CONSTRUCTION CO.INC. A CANCELLATION OF COVENANT TO RUN WITH THE LAND APPOINTING PAUL S. WALKER -BOARD MEMBER OF DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RE -APPOINTING BOB SCHUYT, THOMASJMC LEAN, GEORGE W. PETERS AND JOHN LUNDBLAD AS CONSULTANTS CITY OF MIAMI AGREEMENT METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY FOR THE LEASE OF CITY OWNED ORANGE BOWL PARKING LOT RENTAL FEE BAYFRONT PARK AUDITORIUM BY THE WOMAN'S CANCER SOCIETY RENTAL FEE-MIAMI BASEBALL STADIUM FOR THE FALL BASEBALL PROGRAM AGREEMENT WITH SHERATON-FOUR AMBASSADORS - CHARGE SERVICE FOR GREENS FEES AND ELECTRIC GOLF CARTS ALLOCATING $3,000.00 FROM THE 1973 PARKS AND RECREATIONAL GENERAL BOND ISSUE R-73-764 R-73-767 R-73-768 R-73-771 R-73-772 R-73-773 R-73-774 R-73-775 R-73-776 R-73-777 R-73-778 R-73-779 R-73-780 R-73-781 R-73-782 R-73-783 R-73-784 73-785 73-764 73-767 73-768 73-771 73-772 73-773 73-774 73-775 73-776 73-777 73-778 73-779 73-780 73-782 73-783 73-784; 73-78 DOCUMENT'I NDE CONTINUE ITEM ND. 35 36 .37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION AUTHORIZE CITY CLERK TO OFFER FOR SALE REAL PROPERTY —EAST 15 FEET OF LOT 3, BLOCK 5,KENWOOD AGREEMENT BETWEEN METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY AND CITY OF MIAMI—FOR JOINT CITY AND COUNTY PUBLICITY RULES PROCEDURE FOR ELECTION BY POLICEMEN AND FIREMEN,WHO ARE RETIREMENT SYSTEM MEMBERS ACCEPT BID —GENERAL DRAINAGE PROJECT G-1 OF D.M.P. CORPORATION ACCEPT BID —CROWN POINT PAPER PRODUCTS COMPANY —FURNISHING ENVELOPES PURCIASE OF TWO INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER DIESEL ENGINES —DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC PROPERTIES CONTRACT WITH GROVE KEY MARINA INC FOR THE TOWING AND STORAGE OF VSSELS • DESIGNATING FIRM PANCOAST ARCHITECTS FOR DESIGN OF POLICE FACILITIES IN THE DOWNTOWN GOVERNMENT CENTER DESIGNATING FIRM DALTON,DALTON, LITTLE NEWPORT—DESIGN POLICE FACILITIES IN THE DOWNTOWN GOVERNMENT CENTER DESIGNATING FIRM CONNELL,PIERCE, GARLAND & FRIEDMAN—DESIGN POLTCP FACILITIES IN DOWNTOWN GOVERNMENT CENTER ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF EMPLOYMEIjTT FOR JOHN C. TOMICK—DEPT. OF YACHT DOCKS ESTABLISHING OCTOBER 22, 1973 FOR VETERANS DAY IN MIAMI CITY HIRE LAW FIRM OF SAGER & BURNS TO PROCEED FILING LITIGATION AGAINST THE PRODUCERS OF ELECTRIC LAMPS YOUTH ADVISORY BOARD —REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 73-639 ADDITIONAL MEMBERS TO THE INTERNATIONAL FOLK FESTIVAL COMMITTEE — PAGE #3— COMMISSION 'REi— ICT1ON LDDE NO, _ R-73-786 R-73-787 R-73-788 R-73-790 R-73-791 a R-73-792 R-73-793 R-73-794 R-73-795 R-73-796 R-73-797 R-73-798 R-73-800 R-73-801 R-73-802 73-786 73-787 73-78` 73-791 73-79 73-79 73-79 73-79 73-79 73-79 73-79 73-7 73-8 73-8 73-8