HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1972-01-06 MinutesPREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY HALL
DEX To
T 1INU PSS OF REGULAR MEETING
CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLOtinDA
January 6, 1972
1. WAIVING R S!.ADING of MINUTES:
2. PROPOSED BOND ISSUE FOR ACQUISITION OF
PARK LANDS:
3. REQUEST FOR LIGHTING -LEMON CITY,EDISON
CENTER AR 4:
4 ENCLOSURE OF CARPORT -LOT 2,BLK 3, DURHAM
TERRACE:
.ORDINANCE &
RESOLUTION
43116
43117 •
5. USE OF STOCKADE PROPERTY FOR CORRECTIONAIL
PURPOSES:
6. VARIANCE -LOT 12 AND PORTION OF LOT 13,
BLK 2, ROCKERMAN HEIGHTS:
7. VARIANCE lot 19 BLK 3, SOUTH ELMIRA:
8. VARIANCE- SWIMMING POOL- E f LOT 6, AND ALL
OF LOTS 7, 8, AND 9, BLK L, COCONUT GROVE
PARK 2ND AnD.(1-62) LOCATED AT 3565 AVOCADO
AVE. IN AN R-2 DISTRICT:
9. REZONING MC/VEST-LOTS 4 THRU 8 KARKEET:
10. CONTINUED WAIVER - LOTS 8 THRU 13, BLK 94
SW dal! STREET AND 16TH TERRACE:
11.
CONTINUED VARIANCE-OFF-ST. PARKING -HOUSING
FOR ELDERLY:
12. SPECIAL EXHIBITOR LICENSE-MIAMI INTERNATIONAL
COIN CONVENTION:
13. CHANGE IN ZONING CLASSIFICATION -ALL LOTS
SOUTHEAST SIDE OF BRICKELL AVE. BETWEEN
SE 15TH ROAD AND RICKENBACKER CAUSEWAY:
14 ZONING CLASS. CHANGE -LOTS 1-THRU 18 & LOTS
43 - 49 BLK 1-MIDTOWN BANK OF MIAMI SUB.:
15. CLAIM SETTLEMENT-PEARLINE BROWN AND BERTHA S.
BRIN SON :
16. CONDOLENCES -DEATH OF JOE J. MASON:
17. HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT H-4352 S.E. 14TIi ST,
ORDERING:
18. DISCLAIMER AGMT-SOUTHERN BELL UTIL EASEMENT:
19. AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION 42309 - CLOSING SW 5TH
ST. FROM SW 3 AVE. TO NW'LY LIMITED ACCESS
BOUNDARY ON STATE RD. 9:
20.
ACCEPTING COMP. WORK -CORAL WAY STORM SEWER
PROJ. 1971:
21. ACCEPTING COMP. WORK -MARINE STADIUM
RESTAURANT -UTILITIES BID "B" ;
22. COVENANT- ACCEPTANCE -MR. & MRS. DAMIANO:
43118
43119
43120
43121
43122
43123
43124
43��5
8026
8027
8028
43126
43127
43123
43129
43130
43131
43132
43133
1
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44,
45
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
COVENANT —ACCEPTANCE OF—THOMAS DAVIDSON III:
RIGHT OF WAY DEED -ACCEPTANCE OF —DADE COUNTY
SCHOOL BOARD:
RIGHT OF WAY — ACCEPTANCE OF — DADE COUNTY:
AMENDED PLAT — PALM SAY CLUB:
BID ACCEPTANCE —PITMAN PHOTO INC. —
PHOTOGRAPHIC SUPPLIES:
REPLACEMENT SQUIRREL CAGE FAN W'HEEL—
ROBINSON INDUSTRIES:
BID ACCEPTANCE —TRULY NOLEN INC.—MONTHLY
PEST CONTROL:
BID ACCEPTANCE -BUILDING CLEANING SERVICES:
BID ACCEPTANCE—MIAMI ELEVATOR COMPANY:
PROPOSED ACCEPTANCE OF BID FROM POLICE
UNIFORMS:
BID ACCEPTANCE —FIRE AND POLICE DEPARTMENT
UNIFORMS:
DEMOLITION OF OLD STRUCTURES AT OLD PORT
SITE:
CONFIRMATION OF ELECTED MEMBERS OF THE
CIVIL SERVICE BOARD:
LEGAL SERVICES CONTRACT HAROLD YOUNG:
MIAMI MEMORIAL COMMITTEE —FUND RAISING FOR
CITY CEMETARY IMPROVEMENTS:
OPERATION FIX —UP — DISSOLVING AND USE OF
FUNDS:
POLICE CHAPLAIN:
MIAMI DOLPHINS DAY:
MARTIN LUTHER KING DAY:
COMMENDATION TO CITY EMPLOYEES FOR PRE—
PARATION OF STADIUM FOR 0. BOWL GAMES:
ORANGE BOWL PARKING:
POLICE MODERNIZATION STUDY:
USE OF CITY OWNED FACILITIES-10 DAY NOTICE
PRIOR TO EVENT:
REGULAR AND PRIMARY CITY ELECTIONS —CHANGING
DATES:
COST OF HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS —APPORTIONMENT TO
THE CITY:
COST OF SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS -APPORTIONMENT
TO THE CITY:
ORDINANCE &
�.RES% .1.3„ 9Asw
43134
43135
43136
43137
43138
43139
43140
43141
43142
43143
43144
43145
43146
43147
43148
43149
8029
8030
8031
8032
SIDEWALK AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMBMENTS—ASSESSMENTS
OF CORNER LOTS: 8033
SPECIAL MUNXC IP L ELECTION -CALLING
PROPOSED BOND ELECTION:2
43150
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
On the 6th day of January, 1972, the City Commission
of Miami, Florida, met at its regular meeting place in said
City in regular session pursuant to Ordinance No. 8021. The
meeting was called to order at 9:50 o'clock A.M. by Mayor
David T. Kennedy with the following members of the Commis-
sion present: Messrs. Graham, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor
Kennedy. Absent: Mr. Christie.
An invocation was delivered by Reverend Graham, who
then led those present in a pledge of allegiance to the flag.
1. WAIVING READING OF MINUTES:
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer,
who Moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 43116
A RESOLUTION WAIVING THE READING OF THE
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,
FLORIDA:
That the reading of the minutes of the previous meet-
ing be, and it is, hereby waived.
Upon being seconded by Mrs. Gordon the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Mrs. Gordon,
Reverend Graham, Mr. Plummer and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None.
J 2. PROPOSED BOND ISSUE FOR ACQUISITION OF PARK LANDS:
The following discussion occurred:
Mr. Dan Paul: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission.
I would like to, as chairman, make the report of the Committee
which you appointed to recommend the items to be included and
develop the bond and park recreation program. The Committee
recommends that a vote be taken on the March ballot for a Park
and Recreation Bond Issue of $39,500,000 voted on on one package
which would comprise the following;
$2,000,000 for the Martin Luther King Park Development
$ 600,000 for the purchase of the remaining area in
Wainwright Park
$2,000,000 for additional purchases and development
of the adjoining waterfront area to the north.
$15,000,000 for the purchase of the F.E.C. property
along Biscayne Bay
$10,000,000 for the purchase of the Ball Point Property
on Biscayne Bay in order to link up Bayfront Park
$9,900,000 in the Bond Issue for central city green areas
for the development of a park on 8th Street for the Miami
River Park and for the development of the existing and
additional parks in the City of Miami
bringing the total to $39,500,000. In Addition, I would like
to make an additional recommendation, it is not a committee
recommendation since it was beyond the scope of anything the
Committee was asked to to. That is, I would like to recommend
that on the same March Ballot, a proposal be placed for the
people to vote on to transfer to Metro, Bayfront Park and
certain other park areas in the City of Miami to Metro
1-6-72
with the assumption by Metro o.E all bonded indebtedness in
connection with such areas including the amounts which would
be voted in the March Ballot. Transfer to be effective as
of the beginning of the next budget year. I think it is
essential that the cost of the acquisition of some of these
areas and the development of them which are clearly county
functions, should be spread county wide. I think its not
possible however to get the County to pass a county wide bond
issue. Under the terms of the Metro Charter any area which
is transferred to the County, the County must assume the
bonded indebtedness in connection with it and I think it is
a way of spreading equitably the coat that the City of Miami
has been bearing unfairly over all these years in maintaining
parks which are basically not neighborhood parks but spreading
them countywide. Thank you.
Mr. Paul: This is the backup that Mr. Reese had prepared and
Mr. Acton from which we made our recommendations.
Mayor Kennedy: Have you got a copy of yours handy?
Mr. Paul: I don't have it with me.
But I can write it up if you would like. There just
wasn't time to get it written up.
Mayor Kennedy: Have we got the same figures?
Mr. Reese: No sir we haven't. We don't have final figures.
They are estimated figures, pencil figures. It willbe another
10 days before we have the final.
Mr. Paul: Thats why I think its important that you vote on it
as a package because you may have to shift slightly as the
final appraisals come in, from the figures in the package that
we proposed to you.
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Mayor, may I ask Mr. Paul a question?
Your suggestion that the transfer to the County be done after the
bond is approved. Your reason for not wanting to do it ahead of
time is that you said that you didn't think this would pass on a
county wide bond issue?
Mr. Paul: Well there are two reasons. First of course, I think
it is impossible to make a transfer to the County in the middle
of the County's budget year because they have no funds budgeted
for the maintenance and upkeep to make it orderly you must do it
as of the beginning of the County's budget year. Secondly, I
think that the County, at least from my exploratory talks had
attended one meeting with the County Manager and the County capital
improvement bonding committee and their capital needs, for example
for mass transit and for other projects are so great that they are
not interested in attempting to include the items we have
recommended today in a county wide bond issue. Secondly, I think
that the major concern for these areas exists in the City of Miami
and I think that the bond issue should initially be proposed there
and then certain selected ones. I'm not suggesting transferring
all parks in the City of Miami.
Mrs. Gordon: No, just the bayfront area.
Mr. Paul: Well the bayfront area and there are possible other
like the Riverfront park along the Miami River should be possible
transferred to the County but your neighborhood parks, I think
you should keep, of course.
4
1-6-72
Kra. Gordon: Ji as an aside, as a cornet n I wholeheartedly
that the areas of the City which are regional use in nature
should be items that the County should be responsible for. I
agree with you on that.
Mr. Christie: I want to apoligize for not being here during
your presentation, you can appreciate that I had an emergency
hearing at 9 o'clock and couldn't get here but would you, if
its not too much of an inconvenience to sort of summarize your
notes and would you make a copy of them and send them to us?
Mr. Paul: I will be happy to put the recommendation in writing.
Mr. Christie: Thank you sir.
Mr. Paul: Just briefly Irwin, it might be helpful to summarize:
it again. Its to .be voted on in one package of $39, 500,000
bond issue comprising the following:
$2,000,000 for the Martin Luther King Development
$ 600,000 for additional acquisition of property in
the Wainwright Park
$2,000,000 for the Dinner Key Marina Development and
adjoining waterfront area to the north
$15,000,000 for the FEC property
$10,000,000 for the Ball Property
$9,900,000 for the acquisition of central city green
areas for a park on 8th street, an urban park and
the development of existing and to be acquired City
of Miami Parks.
We have a number of neighborhood parks that are in need of
funding from point of view of development and I would like
to see it voted on it one package but there should be within
that package, we don't want to get caught in another single
purpose operation, we should be able to shift the funds within
the package and if you vote on it as one package legally, you
can do that in the same way you put together your last bond
issue in which you gave outlines of the way you expected to
spend the overall package of money because-
(1) We do not have a master park plan for the City, particularly
in the downtown area at this point and we certainly don't want
to spend this money which may be the last that may be gotten for
this purpose for a long period of time unwisely.
(2) The final appraisals are not in on some of these properties
and Mr. Reese has indicated in the report which he has submitted
to you today. We dont think however that a bond issue in excess
of $39,500,000 would stand any change of being passed. We spent
a long time eliminating things which we think were worthy
projects but not as high a priority as the projects which we have
put in from a point of view of timing.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Paul, where did you derive your figures, not
Mr. Reeses? In particular the two parcels that are in the down
town area, $15,000,000 for the FEC which if I'm not mistaken is
37 acres and $10,000,000 for the Ball Point. Where did you
derive these figures because I will tell you personally , I think f
its extremely low, the figures for the value of the property.
Mr. Paul: They may be. From Mr. Acton' s estimates based on
the work that has been done to date, also I understand now that
you have pencil figures on that property, Mr. Reese?
Mr. Reese: Yes sir, I have pencil figures but its still not
final.
5
1-6-72
• IIP
Mr. Plummert Bow do your figures, Mr. Reese, compare to these?
Mr. Reese: May I evade that question for the time being Sir?
Until such time as we actually get the appraisal in
and come back to the basic discussion, if I may be allowed that.
I think that the statement by Mr. Paul has made has to be explored
and I think the City Commission should evaluate it and be in a
position to make a firm action, one way or another because at
the present time, you are talking about a Bond Issue and you are
talking about projects in a Bond Issue. We had Bayfront Park
Theres no debt applied to Bayfront Park but one of the basic
justifications for buying additional green space downtown like
the F.E.C. property or like improving the City Dock property, is
to make a green space to tie into Bayfront Park. So to consider
telling the electorate at the same time that we are contemplating
turning over to Metro the Bayfront Park which you want them to
buy would be, the city dock property improvement as well as the
F.E.C. property doesn't seem very palatable to me. So I think
this ought to be discussed and explored by the City Commission
to give the news media some evaluation and direction. I would
strongly recommend that we through, this City Commission go
through each one of these projects in this report with endeavor
to break it down into three categories, the downtown, the North
part of the community which is everything north of the River and
the south side, everything south of the River. Examine these
projects. There are some items in here that the City Commission
might be of the opinion can be reduced. There might be others
that you would want to add. For example there is one obvious one
that I can think of that I would point out to the City Commission
and that is a half a million dollars at Watson Park including
landscaping and irrigation systems. I think it would be more
practical for us to develop a master plan of what we want to do
with Watson Park before we do any landscaping or start an irrig-
ation system that we might end up tearing out in a few years.
So I wish that some of these things could be discussed on this
basis. Then also parallelling this, I handed you a chart this
morning which was a method of trying to show you and again,
please, these are assumptions, we have to use assumptions, because
we are only projecting into the future. On the vertical left hand
side is a guage of notice requirements. Under the line that is
present requirements, is our existing debt service. In the next
is authorized buy unissued. This represents 36 million dollars
that we plan to have issued so that we are in a position to bring
our sewer program up to date and all of the other things that we
committed in 1970 election. Or in 1969. On the other line is
a proposed 40 million dollar bond issue so that you can see for
your own guidance the impact and also the tapering off of our
debt service that would be paid for out of millage. We had to
take a figure of 32 million based on pencil figures of the F.E.C.
property , the St. Joe Property and the other properties we have
to make condemnation to say that we had to sell those all at one
time. These pieces of property will have to be sold at one time
because we have to have the cash the. day the condemnation is
concluded. So we contemplate of selling those at the time when
it will be basically needed. Also we're proposing to stretch
this bond issue out to 25 years. We have endeavored to stay
within 20 years bond issue in other programs. So the biggest
impact would fall dollar wise in the City and our millage between
the 1975 budget. Now, we are concerned that everybody understands
why there would be a millage impasse at that time. We may sell
the bonds in 1974. The first year that the bonds are sold, under
the provisions of the charter, we are allowed to finance the
obligation for that year. The following year, it has to be out
of the notes but at the same time, we have to sneak the provision
in our budget estimate, that we're going to have the millage
available to meet the bonded indebtedness.
6
1-6-72
So that is why the impact on the millage is rlected one year late.
1 think its fair to point out that this is telling the story on the
millage. 1 think its needed, we need to know it. This millage is
not frozen under the state constitution, our' debt service millage
is not. This is above the 10 mills. I think the chart is self-
explanatory from there on in but I think this needs to be evaluated
while we're looking at this parks program.
Mayor Kennedy: One of the problems we have also is, you have how
much for the F.E.C. property?
Mr. Paul: We have 15 million for the F.E.C. property and 10 million
for the Ball Property for a total of 25.
Mayor Kennedy: Suppose after evaluation, I have heard that upped
to 20 million. What happens if we pass a bond issue of 15 million
and the Court then comes in and determines that it is 20 million.
And we could never get the other 5 million from
What then do we do with the 15 million, it just
in limbo right? It could never be sold because
one purpose of buying the F.E.C. property.
anywhere else.
has to sit there
its only for that
Mr. Reese: Well Mr. Mayor, what we are doing is spending 40
million dollars for the acquisition of park and recreational land
now, this falls within one category, our charter says that we have
to define the different categories that we go out to buy property
for. For example if its sewers, we have to identify that category
and if its park land, you identify that. If its highways etc.
These are the categories, generally speaking that you conform to.
If it got to the point that it did come in above the 15 million,
that could be used as long -as it falls within this category for
parks and recreational purposes. But of course, we have endeav-
ored in all times that we make a commitment to the public that
we are interested in a particular general area to try to conform
to that in the bond issue. This has brought some discussion forth
on the 64 bond issue of what was intended in there and we have
gone back on what we've told the public each and every time.
Based on what the appraisers are telling me that this pencil
figure of 15 million dollars is adequate to buy the real estate
in there. And for development money. Now, and also there would
be some money in there to help to improve our city dock property
but its for the purchase and recreation. This is based on
discussions etc with Sol Bennett and in another ten days, he should
have his written report in. The St. Joe Property and the Point
property is going to be very high. Very costly. This is where
the 10 million dollars may not be enough. Because you have
competitive prices in there adjoining this that runs very high
that building that was built on this piece of Ferre property.
That sale price is very high. And some others in the DuPont area.
So those comparative prices have to be considered. Another
comparison or the values that we have used, I feel from my
experience and observation are very realistic.
Mr. Paul: I think as Mr. Reese says, since we are voting on it
as a purpose its possible, I certainly don't want to get caught
in the box the Mayor indicated that we have set aside money and
then it isn't sufficient and the wording of the bond issue by
the City Attorney is extremely important so it is perfectly clear
and there is no deception from the beginning that from the 9.9
million package it may be necessary to take something in order to
accomplish purchases or acquisitions in the other two areas.
Obviously without construction plans, estimates and competitive
bidding, nobody could tell you for certain that these would be
the exact figures.
7
1-6-72
410
One thing that I would like to say in response to Mr. Reese's
concern that, it seems to be inconsistent to ask people in the
City of Miami to vote a 39,500,000 bond issue to acquire some land
which would be transferred to Metro. t don't think its inconsistent
though because you are going to ask the County to pay off the bonds
so the City is obligating and the general public in the entire county
which uses it will be paying it off so I think its an inducement to
Metro to be able to get Bayfront Park. Theres been a real bugaboo
in City County relations for a long time. It reminds me of the
shall game of who's got the title. I don't think that makes any
difference. The important thing is, who's paying to keep it up
and who is using it. The title to Bayfront Park is of no benefit
to the City of Miami. The park doesn't make money, it costs money.
I think that we are being very shortsighted to look in a private
property sense on the assets which are used county wide here.
I think its extremely important that that transfer proposal go
on the same ballot with the bond issue because I think we are
going to have great difficulty selling the bond issue and meeting
the exact arguments. Here you are spending 25 million dollars to
acquire land in Bayfront Park which the whole county uses and you
are asking us to pay for it. I don't think theres any equity in
that proposal.
Rev. Graham: Well Dan I think though that Mel is certainly quite
right, we shouldn't parade this. So many people that must vote
for this bond issue will not understand what you are saying here
today. They can only think of you and me, the in-betweens never
appeal to them at all. So as a public relations gesture, since
you are within the law, even though we know that everything thats
legal is not expedient and I think this is the type of mood that
we have to take here.
Mr. Rothstein: I think that I will sit down with Dan to go over
the legal aspects of a county takeover and pay off but I can forsee
very readily if the County does not want to or feels it cannot put
something on the ballot to buy parks on a county wide vote because
they feel failure of the vote, to do it in a round away step where
you only have City voters doing it and then you put the burden on
the metro taxpayers, I can forsee some long and heavy litigation
coming from metro taxpayers on this. I would have to get thoroughly
into the legal aspects of it to see whether truly a city vote and
county takeover can obligate those -
Mr. Paul: Well I don't think the City can obligate the County to
take it over, I think its an expression on the part of the City
that this is an offer which they make to the County. I think its
not a question of not being able to pass it as much as the County
has one immediate priority that they don't want anything else on
their next bond issue In november, to interfere with, as I under-
stand it, and that is the mass transit situation. Therefore, they
are not interested at any time in the immediate future in putting
on anything on a county -wide basis for a county wide park and
recreation bond issue until they get that first priority in their
opinion out of the way and in the meantime the F.E.C. and the Ball
properties could be lost to the city so the timing is of critical
importance that we make the commitment at least to purchase them.
And that we make the offer to the County to turn over Bayfront Park
and in exchange with and in accordance with the charter, the
indebtedness that would be incurred so the taxpayers of the City
of Miami aren't saddled permanently with that expense.
8
1-6-72
Mr. Reese: Mr. Mayor and Members of the Commission, I don't want
to debate with Dan Paul, t don't want to get into the ramifications
of the legal aspects of this but it is my understanding based on my
experience and understanding of the charter that when the City of
Miami taxpayers vote to assume a general bond obligation, he votes
with the definite knowledge that that is his obligation until its
liquidated, that you can't transfer it to anybody else because he
is the person that the bond people are looking to.
Mr. Paul: Well you have transferred any amount of bonded indebt-
edness voted in cities which have been consolidated, for example
you had one consolidated into the City of miami. I don't want to
debate the law but there isn't any question that bonded indebtedness
for functions which are transferred to the County, can be legally
transferred to the County.
Mayor Kennedy: It will definitely complicate the sale of the bonds
though because we get a better bonding rate than Metro and the
sellers on Wall Street aren't going to be so anxious to sell our
issue if they know that we intend to pass it on to Metro which
doesn't have the same bonding rating that we have and that we enjoy
on the street.
Mr. Paul: The City of Miami will effect that because the City
will continue as the issuer of the bonds to remain primarily liable.
You will have Metro's obligation to pay the bonds off but the City
cannot, as long as the City is in existence, the City's liability
is still there, there is no question about that. The City's full
faith and credit is behind the bond issue.
Mr. Reese; Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, I would like to recommend
to you that you set this issue aside by positive action at this
time if you are going to go ahead with the tax, asking the people
to assume an additional advalorum tax responsibility to acquire
park land. And to set Mr. Paul's recommendation aside at this time.
Rev. Graham: Mr. Mayor, I want to listen to what Mr. Reese has
said, I think its a little bit premature in the sense that we have
other individuals here who are going to make statements and certainly
we ought not to upstage them at this time. We don't know what they
are going to say. It might be words of wisdom that could come from
them that Mr. Paul would want to listen to and Mr. Reese, you too
would want to listen. I would say a word of thanks now for the
great work that Mr. Paul has done but also caution him not to go
away as we are still going to talk a little more. Are there others
now who would, Mr. Fine are you ready to make a statement?
Mr. Fine: For the record, my name is Martin Fine, and I am
appearing here as a private citizen. I found out about this bond
issue when I read it in the paper yesterday and I know its getting
late and I will try to be brief. I have a question to ask about
it and I live here in the City and if this is passed, I know that
I am going to have to pay for it. So I would like to ask some
questions about it.
First of all, I do want to comment on an ancillpry issue that I
think the Commission is not really affording individuals an
opportunity to find out about this bond issue. I think the only
reason that you are going to put it on the March 14, agenda is
because it just happens to be a presidential primary. I don't
think enough time and enough interest is been expressed in this
to do it in this short period of time. Its only 60 days. You
don't have the legal work done, you don't have the sites done,
you have no public information to submit to the people so that
we can make an intelligent decision.
9
1-6-72
•
On whether or not to vote for it. Speaking of that, I would like
to specifically request Mr. Mayor that if you do go ahead and do
it, that you set up several public hearings so that people who
are interested and live in the City and will pay for it, can come
to a meeting at a place like this and have these explained. For
example: I made some notes as my good friend Dan was listing
these items as to where these parks might be and I can't tell where
they might be. You know, Bill Baggs, may he rest in peace, had
his great slogan from the Ghetto to the Bay but I can tell you
that I add pretty good and 62.5% of what you are talking about
is on two parcels of land that have nothing to do with that ghetto.
Then they merge 9 million, 9 hundred thousand into the central
downtown area and some in the other area and I can tell you from
my experience in urban renewal that area needs a ton of park land
and I wouldn't want to vote for this until I knew enough of it
was going to go in the area that needs it the most. Let me give
you one example: I would wager a guess there isn't a man on this
Commission that could really conscientously explain what the
Martin Luther Ring Boulevard project was all about. I know that
99% of the citizens can, I can't. I think that those folks who
are doing what probably is a wonderful job on that project ought
to come down here and explain to the citizens of Miami, not at a
City Commission Meeting when you all are pressed for time, but at
a public hearing, just what it is they are trying to do.
I don't know if its a shopping center, just a plain Boulevard,
or an effort to upgrade that area but if you are goind to spend
two million dollars of it and my tax dollars are going to pay for
it, I.m going to know what its about or I'm going to beat the
streets of this town and vote against it. And I also resent the
fact that you are going to try to put all this in one package.
I think that the voters of this town, if they are smart enough
to pay the taxes ought to be smart enough to pick and choose.
I don't particularly want to buy that downtown Bayfront property.
And I will tell you why as we go along but I want to do the things
in the central area and I want to do some things downtown but I
don't want to buy Mr. Balls property at some $50.00 a foot.
Let me give you a fast figure that some of you may not have put
the pencil to. An acre of land contains 43,560 square feet.
The numbers I get for that downtown property begin at $50.00 a
square foot. Thats two million, one hundred and seventy five
thousand dollars an acre. I tell you based on my experience
that it is the single most expensive piece of realestate in Dade
County. I would like you all to ask yourself whether you need to
buy the single most expensive piece of real estate in Dade County
in order to get some open space. Now the thing that I resent the
most is that we're being stampeded into this, although it may all
be wonderful. We're being stampeded into this without knowing
what you're going to do with it, once you get it. Are you just
going to put grass on it? Are you letting people sit on it?
Are you going to build something on it? How are you going to
use it? If you're going to use my dollars to pay for it, I want
to know how you are going to use it because I'm not going to
pay my dollars until I find out about it. I would like to know
how we decided on these particular sites as opposed to other
sites and let me give you an example about the sites:
The Wainwright Park site is about 10 blocks from my home and I
know it well. I have mentioned this once or twice to Mr. Christie,
I think. The once piece of hammock land is obviously very
beautiful and I was speaking to Thurston and George Reed about
it and George said there is some magnificent trees on it and
they should never be disturbed. Then as you recall there is a
vacant piece that you all are trying to buy for some $600,000
and then the City three years ago, I think 3 years ago, bought
Julia Gaines old property. Now theres a big sign on that property
and I saw it at 7:30 this morning again that says: "This Property
is Under Development"
i0
1-6-72
Now, I am going to tell you if I had more guts, I would rip that
sign down, take a bench, go sit there and picnic and wait for
some policeman to arrest me. I think its a public disgrace.
You have used City taxpayers money to buy that property and not
let City taxpayers sit on it and it is no more under development
than this City Commission Meeting is under development. This room.
And I don't know why I have to have a development in order to use
that park. But more importantly, I want to know What you are
going to do with that centerpiece when you get it. If you are
going to do some recreation area there you are going to destroy
the trees that George Reed is worried about and somebody ought
to tell the voters in this town what you are going to do with the
property when you buy it. Now if you don't tell them, I personally
am going to vote against it and I am going to go out and try to
get my friends to vote against it. And by the way, I would say to
you now, even before this bond issue comes on to take that silly
sign down and let people sit on that park. I don't need any
guardian or recreational director telling me how to sit on a
park. I ride my bike over there all the time and theres that
big sign and that door and frankly I haven't worked up the
courage to rip it down but I would sure like to do it. Who made
the decision that the City ought to bond 39 or 50 million for
parks instead of housing for example. Did any of us have an
opportunity to do that? Why don't you put on the ballot, do
you want to spend 50 million dollars-6r parks or 50 million for
houses? At $20,000 a unit that would give us 2500 houses.
You know its nice to talk about open space but your gut is
hungry and you don't have a roof over your head and you hay: a
squalor to live in, maybe its more important for this City to
really rise up and raise the kind of money needed to build some
houses. I don't know how we set priorities. I don't even know
if this Commission has set them. One of the things that Dan
said really intrigues me and I had it on my list here that I
worked up last night is the whole concept of a city owned park
system. Let me explain it to you this way: I go over to
Crandon Park often with my family and we use it and I pay for
it as a county taxpayer but if a county taxpayer comes into the
City and uses our park, they don't pay for it. Now Dan's idea
is really great, we'll vote for it and we'll pay for it and then
we'll say to the County, you take it over but what happens if they
don't take it over? I would be willing to follow that proposal if
they make it contingent. And you all know, I spent a good bit of
time coming down here on that Library issue. I wasn't the only
one and I am sure the administration worked it out. It has been
transferred, it has cost the City of Miami taxpayers a half a
mill instead of .087, all the things that have and will be built
from now on will be paid by county taxpayers as well as City tax-
payers and I think the same thing should happen in the parks
department. Let me give you a ludicrous example of how important
that can be. In Wainright Park if somebody has to mow the lawn,
they would have to bring a lawnmower from someplace very far away.
I don't even know where it is. The City maintains it, its equipped
but the County Parks Department is 21/2 blocks away from Wainright
Park. Now it takes about three million, one hundred and seventy
nine thousand dollars to operate the City Parks Department.
Why don't we give it all to Metro? Its a transitory kind of service.
It is not delivered to someones home. It is used by everybody.
Like Jackson Memorial Hospital was. How can you all in good
conscience expect the City of Miami taxpayers to bear the burden
of all of this park land that can be used by a million, four
hundred thousand people but only three hundred and fifty thousand
people are going to pay for it.
1-6-72
11
I think thats a very very very unreasonable burden to place on us.
Now if you want to say to Mr. Goode and his County Commissioners,
we'll do all this and give you all this and if you pay for it, we
will help because we're still county taxpayers, I would be in favor
of that. There is one bid thing here that really intrigues me and
that is that noone talks about what the cost would be if we passed
all these bond issues and Mr. Reese has always said he has been
able to stagger these things so that the impact isn't there all
at one time. And I believe he has done that. But let me give you
an example of what I think you should do: 621/4% is going to be spent
at one time because as he properly points out, when that Judge says
that land is worth so many dollars and the jury says and the Judge
concurs, you have got to come up with that money and I have got
to help pay for it. Now there is an awful lot of intemst in this
country in consumerism. And what we call truth in packaging and I
would like to suggest to you that you have a truth in balloting
feature. For example on that ballot, you ought to tell the average
taxpayer and in all your public information about this, you ought
to tell the average taxpayer, if you approve this, and all of this
were funded, it would cost X dollars per thousaid of assessed
property. So Mr. Taxpayer, if you had a house with after homestead
exemption was valued at $15,000 it would cost you $400.00 a year.
Now do you have the guts to put that on the ballot? I think you
have to put it on because if you don't I am going to put it on
thru public information to deseminate. I think people ought to know
how much its going to cost them. I think thats truthful and
forthright and honest and I know all of you fit those categories
and you ought to think about doing it. Alan, I don't know if the
law allows you to put it on the ballot itself but I think it is
the highest thing as far as integrity that government can do.
You ought to put it right smack on that ballot, so when they look
at it and read it, they'll know that if they vote for this and if
its funded, it'll cost them X dollars, a thousand.
I•think that the process of selection is so important for example:
I think one of the very few areas left in this entire community
which has a certain amount of gentility and charm and beauty about
it is Coconut Grove. Why don't we include that area on the Bay -
front from St. Stevens Church to Random School where some of the
oldest, finest families in this community still own that property
and will sell it, I am sure, to the city at a reasonable price?
As time goes on. I don't know how they selected these sites and
I think you ought to have a public hearing so that Dan Paul and
your Planning Department and Mr. Acton and his people can say,
we selected "A" instead of "B" or we selected "B" because it has
so many attributes that we felt were important. Another thing
that happens- Dan, who is very up to date on Metro procedures,
said that they are going to come forth with a bond issue for mass
transit. I assume it will be a hundred million dollars or more.
I think we ought to vote on both of these at the same time because
I'm going to have to pay for that bond issue too. Now how many
bond issues are we going to have and how equally distributed are
they going to be? I think in closing that I want to share with
you the fact that I am in favor of more parks, that I am in favor
of more open space and I am in favor of better planning but I
can't conceive that the City of Miami taxpayers ought to be saddled
with it. By the way, I found out as recently as yesterday that
the County Parks Department is already operating programs in a
good number of parks located within the city limits of Miami.
I don't know why they don't operate them all? Because kids
who come to play at those parks don't have to show a registration
certificate as to whether they live in the City or the County.
They just come and play.
12
1-6-72
IIP
I think its impoant for you to analyze. In closing just let me
say this and I'm not raising hell about it but I think it ought
to be said. I spent about six or nine months working up some
information about that library system. I came down here and made
that same pitch and you all very courteously said, well when we
get it done, we'll have another hearing and talk about it. I
never heard a word, never had a letter, never asked to come back
and the next thing I knew about it, I read in the paper. Now, I
don't intend to do that on this one. My mother didn't raise any
foolish children and I am not going to go through this twice.
I was very hurt on that last one. I think that you are discouraging
people from coming up here and expressing themselves and taking an
interest. I think you all ought to commit yourselves to several
public hearings on this issue if you are going to put it on the
ballot. I beg you not to put it on the ballot so quickly because
I don't think theres enough time. But if you are going to do
it, lets have these public hearings and lets have a good old town
hall old fashioned kind of discussion about this, George Acton
will have all his pretty pictures up there, slides, graphs, and
everybody will tell us how wonderful its going to be and we can
ask some questions. I don't mean to demean your knowledge about
what goes on in the City but I wonder for example agaiiy if any
of you do know what is happening at Martin Luther Kind Boulevard
because I don't. I know that Bernie Dyer and a lot of people
out there are working on it. I know that $200,000 of federal
taxpayers money which probably was a million by the time it was
sent up to Washington but got to be $200,000 by the time it came
back down was used as a grant to do some preliminary planning.
We ought to see what that planning is about. In all candor, an
ascribing only the best of motives to whoever put the package
together, I have a feeling that some of that may have been put
in there to get some support for certain parts of the city that
may ordinarily not have supported the bayfrontissue and I want
to help see they are not taken in on this because 62h% is on
two parcels of land. I have a great deal more to say but I
know its getting late and there are other people here ar.l if
anybody has any questions, I would be glad to try to answer them.
Thank you Mr. Mayor.
Rev. Graham: None Marty, except to say that there were no
political implications. No political implications at all.
Mr. Thurston Hatcher: Mayor Kennedy and members of the Commission:
As you may rememberback in December, when the 14 from the AIA came
here and made their presentation, on the auditorium site, each one
of them was recommending that we make some effort to get park land
into the downtown part of Miami. When I came before you at the
last Commission meeting, it was right after the Off -Street Parking
Authority had made their proposal to landscape one of the parking
islands in the middle of the boulevard. I would like very much
if you would consider this as a possible solution for Biscayne
Boulevard and an approach to get parking on the west side of the
Boulevard even though it is adjacent to one of the major strips
of commercial activity and buildings in the downtown area.
And what we have proposed here would be to maintain the northbound
traffic exactly where it is and to shift the southbound lanes from
the present location adjacent to the buildings on the west side of
the Boulevard over to the first line of Palm Trees so that with
the exception of this divider strip, you have the two major lanes
of traffic adjacent to one another. In so doing, you would gain
a 60 foot piece of park land adjacent to the sidewalk which is
20 feet wide at that point and up against this line of buildings
and I think it could contribute a great deal to this downtown area
and this major part of our downtown. Now the first objection that
came up in the Ponti plan and the one that contributed to its
defeat was the revenue that the Off -Street Parking Authority
requires from these particular parking slots.
13
1-6-72
So what we have done is to go through and find other places that
the parking can be put on City property. Now as a temporary
solution, I have got some of these maps that are uncolored so
that you can see it. The blocks north would have to have parking
in them as a parking temporary solution, but with this precise
setup which you see here. By putting 90 degree parking in there
you can get considerably more parking i n each block than they
have in there at the present time so we're making up a good bit.
of the lost parking right there in those 3 blocks by coming
accross the street on Chopin Boulevard4 rearranging the parking
there, you can pick up an additional 29 spaces. Going over to
the Auditorium and rearranging that, again I am talking about
working with areas which are already paved, not paving new areas
but simply rearranging the parking, by going over to the parking
by the Auditorium, you can pick up an additional 68 spaces.
So between the parking here by the park and these three blocks
to the north on the Boulevard, you can come within 7 spaces of
having exactly the number of parking spaces that the authority
has right now, and they were planning to lose some of what they
had with this landscaping proposal of theirs. Now I am not
suggesting that this can be done inexpensively, I am simply
suggesting that it is something which is practical and it can
be done. The repaving of the road is going to be the major
cost in it. If the Off -Street Parking Authority would take the
money that they have volunteered for landscaping one block and
use it to rearrange this parking, and put in the meters as
required there, this would take care of that expense. The palm
trees, the three lanes of palm trees as you can see from this
sketch have been preserved, though two of the three would have
to be moved. This one would remain exactly where it is. The
ones in the other two lanes would be on the west side and the
others in the park on the east side so you would preserve all
of the palm trees by moving two thirds of them.
Rev. Graham: Personelly, has there been any pulse feeling as
to how the Parking Authority feels about this proposition?
Mr. Hatcher: I haven't had time to do any checking with anybody
on it, really I just finished this yesterday and I haven't had
a chance to show it to anybody. I don't know what the technical
aspects of actually shifting their authority from these locations
to these locations, would be, I feel sure it could be worked out.
I think there major concern is the revenue and not where its
derived from. From the point of the downtown area, there would
be some shift in the location of the parking but I don't feel that
this is anything compared to what they would be gaining in terms
of the picking up of the downtown area. And its still well
distributed , it just isn't exactly in the same location. As I
understand it, this particular part of U.S. 1, has not been
dedicated to the Federal Government, they don't actually own
this, is this correct? I thought it was county maintained at
that location.
Rev. Graham: Dave, do you know the answer to that?
Mr. Hatcher: Again, this is something that will have to be
worked out.
14
1-6-72
The City still retains title to the street in this particular
location, however, we would by course, go through the State Road
Department for any permission to do any changing even though we
do own title to it.
Mayor Kennedy: I think the first thing you ought to do is to go
over this with Mitch Wolfson and Dick La Baw and get their ideas
and hear what their objections are if any. They are not going to
be moving on theirs, they are doing some preliminary drawings
but theirs is not going to be a consumated thing for awhile.
Our next meeting will be on the 20th and maybe we can have some
finalized ideas from La Baw and you at that time. It looks
good here.
Mr. Hatcher: Thank you Sir.
Mayor Kennedy: Is there anyone else who wants to speak on the
bond issue?
Mr. George Reed: Mr. Mayor, I am an architect in Coconut Grove
and I am sure that you are aware that I am for such a bond issue
and I think that the City has been fortunate in possessing the
land that it presently has for some time and I think that the
City also has not properly kept pace with its growth and that of
our community in adding green and open spaces. I would be
delighted if this would be one of the last opportunities that our
City might ever have to acquire these spaces in view of the
increasing costs documented even this morning on some of these
properties. I think that it is essential that even if we
collect all of these properties, for example the bayfront property,
that we have been talking about, we recognize that it is still only
a small amount of green space, perhaps 1/100ths of say, Central
Park in New York City, by comparison. In addition, several weeks
ago, you noted the four plans that the architects presented for
master planning downtown Miami, if you will, all possessed one
apparent common concern throughout the four drawings by some
twenty different professionals and that was the increasing need
and the increasing awareness of need for open space in the middle
of downtown, opening up some of the blocks, a half block, a quarter
block, a small parcel and loosely linking them together in a
lineal or thread like progression to the center of town and
providing amenities that downtown does not have now and has
really never had a proposal for. .0 think that this represents a
fairly small amount of the total amount of money that we are
speaking of here but certainly represents one of the greater needs
for mental well being of mankind in Miami. Thank you.
Mayor Kennedy: Mr. Reed, let me just say this. When we came up
with this idea of a bond issue, for parks, I think that every
member of this City Commission agreed with it and every member
of this City Commission ran as part of their program with this
and all of them were reelected by a pretty sizable vote, Mr. Fine,
and all of us had your help and we appreciate that but I know
that I made this a significant part of my program. You know,
when you talk about a downtown, it must be something great
which we don't have. One of the renowned planners said that
from West Palm Beach to Homestead, there was just one shopping
center after another, one larger than the other but no downtown.
Atlanta, which has the five counties that make up Greater Atlanta
have the same population as Greater Miami but yet if you go into
downtown Atlanta, it looks like the central metropolis of the
continent. Where we don't. We have to build a great City in
the downtown area because its not only going to help the taxpayers
of the City of Miami but its going to help the overall Greater
Miami Area and the overall Southeast Florida Area.
15
1-6-72
Now, if we don't lave park lands and we don't beautify Biscayne
Boulevard, you are not going to have the developers come in here
and want to do the right thing. We'll just have a concrete
jungle and we'll be like the eastern seaboard cities and in 50
years , it'll be nothing but chaos. We want to do the right
thing and you know that a bond issue for housing, we couldn't ask
the voters to vote on because Metro has preempted that field.
There is no way in the world that the City of Miami could come
up with a 50 million dollar bond issue for housing. The Courts
would throw us out and we would all look ridiculuaus.
The County is not going to meet their responsibilities in coming
up for park lands now because they have other priorities, and I
agree with them. They must put a rapid transit system in and we
must go ahead with these essentials that a county -wide government
must go ahead with. But, what we can concern ourselves with is
this little area that we have under our jurisdiction in the City
of Miami. We can't ask the County to go ahead and vote on it,
they said that they don't want any part of it. So we've got to
do it. The question is, do we want Ed. Ball to have his monstr-
osity put on the gateway of our downtown area or do you want to
buy it and keep it for the people? Do we want to have these
mini -parks opened up in downtown areas with greenery so that we
will not have solid concrete or do we want to do the right type
of job on Martin Luther King Boulevard? This was not a
political consideration as Reverend Graham pointed out. It's
the idea behind it was to give all the area of the City of Miami
an opportunity to receive park lands they so desperately need,
because its an area that we have not done a good job in. Its
an area that we are going to try to go back and do a job in.
We appointed a committee of people who really were interested
and they came up with this recommendation. Mr. Reese has got
his appraisers out to see if the appraisal figures are in the
ball park so we won't come in and pass the bond issue and just
sit there and never be able to sell the bonds because we don't
have enough money. But, we must pass this bond issue on March
14th. Its a necessity. All of us I know, are going to be all
for this as much as possible and we certainly hope that we have
a man like you on our side because you are a stiff opponent and
we don't want you as an opponent. I hope you know the meaning of
this Commission.
Mr. Fine: I can tell you one thing you can do to help dissuade
my feelings. What assurance can I have as a taxpayer that of
the nine million, nine hundred thousand dollars that was read
out this morning theta going to be used for close downtown parks
and in the urban renewal area, what assurance can I get and can
the taxpayers get that at least half of it is going to go in the
urban renewal area? Because I know whats going to happen, I
tell you right now that the appraisal that Mr. Bennett is making
is going to show that the Ball property is worth more than 10
million dollars and where is it going to come from? Where its
been coming from for 40 years, the money that should have been
used on the other side of town and thats a mess. Now, all of
these fancy architects talk about all the esthetical qualities
of downtown but you just drive through that urban renewal area
and you will see a little bit of a mess. I think that unless and
until you all are ready to commit yourself to see to it that
between 15 and 2096 of the money thats going to be used here is
ascribed to certain specific projects in that area and that you
personally have as much interest there as I have. I am aware of
that.
1-6-72
16
One of the things we have to learn is that when people come up
and express their opinion, we're not saying that we don't say it
the same way you do. t think all of you are more concerned than
1 am about the urban renewal area. But you are going to get
hoodwinked because that downtown power structure is going to
get all the money downtown. And Dave, I want to give you one
other little horrible thought. I think downtown will never be
redone in the manner that we'd like to see it redone. I think
theta what happened is that the forces are operation in our
society to detract from the viability of the downtown area and
the fact remains that you or anyone else on this Commission or
in this room, especially the Planning Department, who probably
know the least about it, know whets going to happen when you
get that piece of property. Let me give you one last-
example
about 4 or 5 years ago, Oscar Dooley who has since passed on
put a group together with the four parcels of land in the
DuPont Plaza and had in my opinion a very exciting plan to
redevelop that plaza. He came to this City and these were the
strongest owners of Dade County, the First National Bank, Maurice
Gusman, Maurice Ferre and St. Joe Paper Company and he wanted
certain parking requirements and waivers from the City and to
the best of my knowledge they weren't forthcoming. Now if you
had a developer in mind like company that is doing Interama
whom you know better than I, or any others, who was going to show
a development of those four blocks and you wanted to buy that
other piece to encourage him to do it so there would be some
green area, I think that makes sense but I'll give you the last
thought that you might want to check out and maybe Mr. Acton can
verify it. Those four blocks of land in the DuPont Plaza plus
Mr. Balls, represent more land in the heart of any American city
with a million population or more thats vacant than any other
city in the country. I think thats a public disgrace. It hasn't
been developed because the City in my opinion has not given
those developers the kind of aid and assistance or the County
hasn't or the State Road Department or somebody but the fact is
that the only building thats maybe on the boards is that the
First Natiodi needs more space and they bought the property from
Mr. Gusman and they're going to build on it. Not because of
what the City did but in spite of the fact, that the City hasn't
done anything.
Mayor Kennedy: Well I have been in contact. Ed. Bassett and not
even he will build that building. Not because of the City of
Miami but because of the State Department ol'Transportation.
Until they give us a road to move the traffi which the City has
nothing to do with, its easy for the City to .ret the criticism
in every field but the fact is that we have na,thing to do with
the Department of Transportation. And the fat \ is that the
City argued about that mouth being put there, ‘r. Reese and
everyone else would disagree with but Mr. Ball 'lad too much power
with the State Road Department in the past and,':hey didn't go
through his property and we're stuck with that 'and no one is
going to be building in those four blocks or of the point until
we solve that problem.
Mr. Fine: Let me ask one question. Could you ►our Planning
Department what you would do with that piece of p1o”.rty, the
Ball property? when you get it?
Mayor Kennedy: We want to keep it as green area. We ,;ire going
to hold public meetings and we are going to go out into the
neighborhoods. This is something that we have planned, We are
going to tell the people what its going to be used for.and
thats one of the reasons we have these four teams of a(hitects
which would have cost the City thousands and thousands 'of dollars
to come up with plans so that we can decide what we wait to do.
17
1-672
The general thinking of this Commission is that we want to keep
Bayfront Park green so that we can encourage the development to
go west of the Boulevard. We are going to get that development
Marty, I disagree with you. I think downtown Miami is on a
threshold. You don't have these people investing money in the
downtown area like Gutierrez and the First National Bank and
Ferre. They are going to do something with that as soon as we
solve our transportation problems and parking problems , thats
what we're waiting to solve. These developers are going to go
ahead and do it. 40% of the core area of downtown Miami is open
surface parking spaces. Now that does speak fairly of what has
happened up to now but let me tell you I would rather have 40%
as open parking spaces than to have what New Yor1, Baltimore and.
Philadelphia on easternboard cities and have no area and have to
tear down buildings and replace them with new edifices, I would
much rather be in our predicament.
Mr. Fine: The other thing is, just think about putting into the
bond issue, a requirement that a certain amount of it has to go
in the central city. Not downtown central city, in the urban
renewal area.
Mayor Kennedy: I agree with you wholeheartedly. Thats why I'm
not married to a 39 million dollar figure because I want to
commit a certain amount to those areas that need it badly and
what we have to wait to see is what the appraiser tells us that
we have to pay for that downtown property, then I want to make
a definite commitment and we can go to the voters and say that
9 million dollars is the figure to be spent in the Ghetto areas
or Martin Luther King Boulevard. We can't define the area now
because it depends on what the other developments are going to
be and what we can buy but we want to commit definitely that
amount of money to the area. I agree wholeheartedly with you.
I think every member of this Commission does. We're not going
to hoodwink the people and then spend it all on downtown.
We're definitely going to pinpoint how much money we're going to
spend in those areas.
Annette Eisenberg: I didn't come to speak on this issue but I
would be remisce, my name is Annette Eisenberg and I reside at
1180 N. E. 86th Street which puts me in the City of Miami and a
taxpayer. I am primarily interested in the parcels on page 5
and page 6 which comes up to 935,000.00, that is for the Edison
Park and Lemon City area. Now we are concerned, we are in this
9.9 million dollars. If you do use an excess of money in the
downtown area, we ask the City Commission to take in consideration
that we are in an urban area, we are in a gehtto area and I am
involved in housing as you know. We are working on the housing
but regardless of how much housing we induce the Federal Govern-
ment to put into our area, if we don't have the parks and we
don't have the recreation, the housing will do us no good.
Just remember page 5 and 6 when you start cutting.
Mayor Kennedy: Thats what I just said. You are just reiterating
what I just said. OK. is there anything else?
Mr. Christie: Mr. Mayor, I would like to make just one observation.
I think Mr. Fine and Mr. Paul have interjected a very interesting
thought here that really should be discussed and I agree with Mr.
Reese and probably come to a conclusion today and that is the
thinking as to the transfer of the parks to metro since it is an
item that is used by all people in the County and the reason that
also opens the question of the problem we have with the millage,
that is coming up very shortly. We saw the effect of the transfer
of the library and I wonder what effect it would have on the
existing millage Mr. Reese if we transferred the Parks Department?
18
1-6-72
Mr. Reese: This parks department, now are you talking about
transferring the maintenance and operation, are you talking about
transferring the land or what.
Mr. Christie: Well the whole kit and kaboodle.
Mr. Reese: well, unfortunately we can't talk about it in the
total package. You are going to have to identify the parks
and spread them out. There are certain parks we have limit
and identified use on that tie in with other facilities and
I think that ought to be explored separate and distinct from
the bond issue, as all other transfers to Metro is explored
and discussed. It wasn't tied in, it wasn't brought forth
for any vote.
Mr. Christie: Well I think really that its extremely worthy
of consideration based on the fact of the whole picture, not only
the village cap but this new bond issue thats coming up and also
the obvious factor is that everybody gets benefit of it and
everybody should participate. .I think we have to think of ways
and other ways to reduce our millage such as possible garbage
tax and permits etc. but if we could achieve what we want to
achieve that of getting all these additional park lands, limiting
the burden and the impact on the City of Miami by transferring
the bond obligation, not the primary but the responsibility to
pay it and having more parks and the maintenance of them spread
over the whole county, I think we would reduce our millage at
the same time, we have picked up 5 runs in the ball game already.
Mr. Reese: Well I think it makes good conversation.
Mr. Christie: I hope we can get past the point of conversation
and see if we can get some real solid statistics on what -
Mr. Reese: I think in all fairness, there ought to be a report
developed on it so that you would know what you are exploring
because to talk about park lands, you are talking about swimming
pools, you are talking about a lot of different functions.
Mr. Christie: I agree. I don't think we can make a decision
now but the idea is developing where as I say you can actually
accomplish so many things by doing it. It may make the whole
package more palatable, I am sure it would, less tax impact and
you would be reducing the millage which you have to do under the
law. You would be accomplishing easier the purchase of these
new parks and I think nowadays with the structure we have and
the difficulty of just maintaining our services, we have to look
a little past who is the title holder. So I would move that the
you immediately and the administration analyze how the transfer
could be accomplished, the impact of such a transfer, what by way
of a reduction in millage and your recommendations as to what
items should be transferred.
Mr. Reese: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, I don't
want to be adamant about this but if this is the wish of the
Commission at this time, I will galdly do it but again, I don't
know how to emphasize it any more emphatically than what I have,
I have spent a lot of time analyzing the neighborhood votes on
our 64 bond issue and tried to conclude why certain elements of
people voted and when you analyze the votes, you can arrive at
certain theoretical conclusions. In the 64 Bond Issue, the
people did vote for parks and recreation. They voted for a
number of other things. Now there are a lot of reasons why
they didn't vote in the later bond issue for certain things.
People started to vote against things rather than for things.
Historically in the City of Miami, anytime that you bring up the
discussion of transferring items to Metro, it brings forth
considerable discussion and rightly so, 19 1-6-72
and neighborhood reaction. A lot of your people are more coneeious
of different neighborhoods than I am but I am very concious and I
feel very close to certain neighborhoods that do reflect an attitude
on bond issues. And at no time, do I feel that this Commission or
this community can get a bond issue on parks passed with this
thoughts in the citizens mind that there you are asking them to
assume a debt service with an idea that you are going to try nsfer
it, the assets and liability, over to Metro, and their parks.
I know what will happen in the Shenandoah Park area. I know what
will happen in the Grapeland Heights Park area and you try to get
these community reactions, these are the people that you are going
to look to to vote. You are not going to look to anyone else in
the outer perimeters of the City, you are going to look at the
people in the Liberty City area to vote and they have their set
ideas of who these parka should represent. I am not saying any-
thing against Metro but I think in all fairness its either going
to be City Parks or lets not go to the voters and ask them to
vote to assume a debt that they know they are going to have to
meet from here on in irrespective of where you pass it, because
when you vote as a voter on a public debt, you have automatically
assumed that as a general obligation bond debt. It isn't
anything you can give to somebody. Its on your property, its on
my property, its on everybody's property in the City and it isn't
on one piece of property in the unincorporated area.
Mr. Christie: Well I don't want to argue with you, the same
theory applied with the Libraries when we did it but anyway I
think that I will move and it may be that we won't want to do
it after we see what we have but I would more that the Administration
work up in detail the transfer of the park system of the City of
Miami to Metropolitan Dade County and the effect of such a transfer
by way of millage and his recommendations as to why such a transfer
should be made or why it should not be made and any other items he
thinks might be necessary in analyzing whether or not a transfer
is in the best interests of the City of Miami.
Mr. Reese: I think this is getting into a different type of study
we are talking about this at a point of deciding whether or not
you are going out on a bond issue.
Mr. Christie: You may tie it up or you may not tie it up with a
Bond Issue, I would like to if the results of your report is such
that it might very well help the passage, you see, I disagree with
you. I say if you go to the people and if you tell them that they
are going to have all these parks right next to you and you are
going to pay less if its transferred and you,are going to pay more
if we keep title, the people will say, well if we have the parks,
we don't care who owns the title, and if I have to pay less, I
want the parks. I say if you show us the impact now, that I could
do a better selling job as one Commissioner to the public of the
City of Miami because they will have the parks and they will pay
less for it. And you know and I know that they are going to pay
less for it. They may be primarily obligated but I don't feel bad
if I am primarily obligated and I got Mr. Gusman as my secondary
obligator, he's pretty good.
Reverend Graham: May I make a statement? I think I am almost
personally responsible for this impasse which has come about
because at the outset the administrator was going to make a
recommendation and I asked him to hold it until we heard the
remainder of the pro and con on the report made by Mr. Dan Paul.
I asked Mr. Paul to wait until we could hear this recommendation
coming from the administration and he is here patiently waiting
and I think we ought to let him make his recommendation and I
think then, Mr. Christie. He has not had the opportunity and
I want to give it to him now. Mel will you take the ball?
20
1-6-72
Mr. Reese: I still plead with this City Commission to set aside
the question of transferring to Metro. Now Iam not talking about
transferring titles of land or any other type of arrangement.
I think as to the title of the land, very few taxpayers in the
City of Miami even know who has title and what kind of clouds are
on the titles. That is not the vital issue. The vital issue
can't be set aside is that you are going out and asking the
taxpayers that the City of Miami needs additional green space and
we are asking the taxpayers, based on this need, to be willing to
obligate themselves and the taxpayers in the City of Miami assumed
this burden for years because they wanted the green space. THEY
WANTED THE open space. You can't very well ask a taxpayer to assume
this debt and turn it over to somebody else when they are in a
lesser position to express themselves and come to their elected
officials and request certain things that the City has done that
Metro has never done. We in the City of Miami don't have a charge
for people who use the swimming pools. Metro does. Our swimming
pools are overcrowded in certain areas because the people from the
unincorporated areas are coming in and using them. I am the first
to say that but at the same time the people who can't afford to
use swimming pools are using them. There are other facilities in
the City that are being used and we use park lands for a multiple
purpose. I don't think its fair to bring this up at this particular
time and to put it on the ballot and to tell the people to vote on
this that you are going to transfer is you want to get your people
to vote on this objectively. Because you are setting up a question
to be voted no on so easy, that you accomplish nothing. And we
used to have, in the City, bond issues that we're approved and
passed. But when we have other things added to it, and other
approaches, we started to lose them.
Reverend Graham: Now, Mr. Christie, in the light of Mr. Reese's
statement, do you want to make a motion now?
Mr. Christie: Yes, I really do. I can take issue on all of those
if it was important to have free swimming in certain pools, I am
sure that it could be accomplished. If we have it, Metro could
make such a resolution. I think its important.
Mr. Rothstein: If you do it for one pool, you will have to do it
for every pool in the county.
Mr. Christie: Its a policy decision. I am saying that we are
entitled and I feel it is rather important that we pursue what
is best for the citizens of the City of Miami but at this juncture
all I am asking is a determination and an indepth study and
recommendation by the administration so that we have facts as to
what is involved, the impact on our millage and then we can
determine policy wise whether we want it tied up with the bond
items once we get these figures. If I see that its going to be
a 2 mill or 3 mill reduction, its going to be the easiest thing
in the world to sell this bond issue in my opinion. The people
are going to grab it. They are going to vote for it. Of course
they are going to get all this park land and a millage reduction.
Mr. Reese: Mr. Mayor and Members of the Commission. Commissioner
Christie is saying that we will tell the public that if you vote
on this debt service, you are going to pay the debt service and
as soon as you create this debt service, we are going to pass it
over to Metro, we are going to pass our present operating costs
to Metro. Now my question is, Mr. Commissioner, Why as a voter
would I want to add on to debt service when I could say, transfer
it to Metro? And let them buy the park lands.
Mr. Christie: Mr. Reese, I really don't want to argue this issue
with you now. I am ready to present this to the people after
you just take the direction of the Commission, if we can get a
vote. If the Commission doesn't want the administration to
analyze it, then they don't have to vote for it but I certainly don't
want to argue over which philosophy will be best interest of the
so I will just make the motion-
21
1-6-72
Mayor Kennedy: I'll right, let me just say this, before you make
the motion. I really don't care who the title of the Bayfront
Park is in. If its in the County of if its in the City. If its
bitter for us at a later date then to give it to the County, then
I am not opposed to that because if they keep it up and keep the
same restrictions that we want on it, then thats fine. I can't
see the argument. I think that Mr. Reese makes an excellent
point in that it is going to confuse the issue a great deal. I
know when we were running, 1 was confronted with - "We've got a
library tax, now from Metro", this is what they hit me with.
I said no, you are paying less. But it was in the overall
millage the last time and they couldn't understand that. I had
to talk for a half an hour to try to explain to them and still
didn't do it. They think that we cost them more money. They
did not understand what the library debt service was. And it is
going to confuse the issue and I think the less confusion that
we have, for any bond issue, is the best. I think we should do
what Mr. Fine suggested and that is we should have a certain
amount of money earmarked so that those areas that need the
parks the most will know that they are going to have a certain
amount of money committed to themand that we come in with the
amount of money that is needed after hearing the appraisers on
buying the F.E.C. and the Ball Poin tand that if we have to come
in with a larger than 39 million dollar bond issue to insure that
we pick up those pieces of land on the Bayfront and also to
guarantee the amount of money we want to the ghetto areas, that
we may have to come in with a larger amount than the 39 million
dollarsfor the bond issue. I think it should be very clear and
precise so that the people know what they are voting on. After
we do it, then we can make a decision and we are going to have
to make some hard decisions in that budget year. It may well
be that we will want to turn the entire Parks and Recreation
Division over to Metro and we may want to give the Bayfront Park
over to the County and these decisions could be made later.
I think that we will lose this bond issue if we put any language
on there that is going to be confusing to the electorate.
Reverend Graham: Mr. Christie , do you still want the analytical
package as a motion?
Mr. Christie: Yes but obviously I am not making myself clear.
I am not tying up to the bond issue. What I am saying is that
the Administration come back with facts to show to us as the
Commission, the impact of such a transfer. It may be when we
get this that our thinking will change. But, I agree with
Mayor Kennedy. Noone wants to cause any confusion with the
public with the Bond Issue. My motion and I will repeat it
is that the City Manager come back with a recommendation of how
to transfer it, the Parks Department to Metro and the impact on
the millage if such a transfer would occur and all other
ramifications that would result from it and then when we get
these facts then and that may be four or five weeks at most
and then we can make the decision whether or not we want to
tie it up with the bond issue. So there is no confusion to the
public, its just more infusion or factors to us to that we can
make a decision.
Reverend Graham: Mr. Christies motion - is there a second?
Maybe while we're making up our minds to second this motion
if at all, Mr. Paul, do you have a statement now in light of
this position we find ourselves in?
Mr. Paul: Yes, but I strongly feel that the most difficult
question you are going to have to answer in putting this bond
issue to the public in the City of Miami is equitably, why should
they foot the bill for something that should be spread countywide?
I think you are making a serious mistake not to direct the City
Manager because he won't do it otherwise, to make this study,'
the facts and the figures will not lie from point of view of the
millage reduction you will obtain. I think that as Chairman of
the Bond Development Committee, the City here and in a way like
a crotchety mother hen husbanding over some great parks division
without being willing to explore the possibility of reducing
the millage rate in the City of Miami when you are on the verge
of bankruptcy is the most ridiculous folly I have ever heard in
my life. 22
J -6-7Z
What can be the harm of ?
getting a report to get the facts.
Who wants to sweep the thing under the rug before you even get
the facts on the matter. I feel very strongly from the conver-
sations that I have had and particularly from the people in the
media that it , you are going to have to come up and face that
question. You are going to have to have an answer for it and
that is how you equitably can ask the people in the City of
Miami to foot the County's bill. I strongly support Mr. Christie.
Mr. Plummer: I would like to ask Mr. Paul. Sir, are you in
favor of this being put on the march ballot?
Mr. Paul: I am in favor of it being put on the march ballot.
I think you should clearly put it there to express their opinion
on whether or not they wish such a transfer to be effective.
Mr. Plummer: We're talking then about a period of approximately
90 Days. The time that this would be placed on the ballot.
Mr. Paul: Well you haven't even got that much time now.
Mr. Plummer: We'll call it 60 days. Now, if Mr. Christies
motion were to pass do you concede that the City Administration or
any other group of people could come back with a factual report
in less than sixty days? And Sir, I base it on the fact that
when Mr. Reese made his in=detail study of transferring the
library over to Metro which this Commission, without referendum,
because it was in the best interest of the people of the C ity
of Miami, did transfer and did save the people tax money.
Likewise we have a study underway at the present time which we
instructed the City Manager in the transfer of the Jail and he
will come back with his recommendations and I can't sit here and
say which way I will vote on that. But, I do say that when he
comes back with his information we will sit down and analyze
without a referendum, whether we feel that this is good for the
City of Miami. And I feel likewise in reference to the Park
issue. I think there should be a study made. The City Manager
should come back with his recommendations and I don't think that
this Commission as in the past, needs a referendum to tell us if
we feel that this is good for the City of Miami. I think our
track record will show that in those instances where transfers
were made over to Metro for the good of all the City and the
County that we have done such even before I was on this Commission
and I think this should be the case here and I am all in favor
of the administration making a study but I don't conceivably see
how we could expect the administration to come back, because from
the legal standpoint, Mr. Rothstein tells me that we have 30 days
and from Mr. Reese's telling me, we have approximately 10 days
to have the ballots made, how this thing could be taken into
consideration? Now, I disagree with you on certain viewpoints
basically. I don't feel that the Bayfront Park is a regional
park. I think basically that this is a downtown park used by the
downtown people. As far as our individual regional parks, there
is no question that these are basically used by the people of the
City of Miami. I do believe in Bayfront Park is one of the few
regional parks that we have for all of the City to enjoy and you
and I have worked very hard to try to improve the situation in
Bayfront Park. I just don't see how we could ask Mr. REESE
or anyone if we were to go to the outside to come back and give
us a study within 30 days, so that we could tie the two of them
together. The only question that I really have in the back of my
mind now and I have to say this again. I don't feel that we are
looking at this in the total perspective of cost. I just can see
so easily that the one parcel of land alone is going to exceed
the figure that you or the appraiser comes in with. This is
Bayfront Park property and it is expensive. These are the points
I wanted to make.
23
1-6-72
Mr. Christie: Mr. Mayor, let me say this. Since I made the motion
I want to amend the motion to include that the City Manager come
back within 10 days with his report and the more I think about it
I want to tell you why, the, I think it is of prime importance that
this take top priority. I don't think it is that difficult to do
because the administration has just gone through the budget and I
would assume in analyzing the Parks Department Budget that most of
these figures had been accumulated to come up with the amount that
was necessary to budget and I would recommend that that be done
because if the figures are what I think they are, then I11 make
the motion that this motion of the transfer to metro would be tied
up with the bond issue because I really sincerely feel that if a
proper message was given to the city people 'hat they will vote
overwhelmingly for this. They are going to have their cake and
not even have to pay for the full price of it. I would argue to
the effect that I would say that 99% of all parks especially
Bayfront Park is transient and is really used by everyone and
really should be transferred under our present governmental
structure. I think it could be done in 10 days and I think that
Mel probably knows that it could be done in 10 days.
Reverend Graham: The motion is now amended to carry with it
the 10 day clause, is there a second to it?
Mr. Plummer: Reverend Graham, I would like to ask Mr. Reese
is it humanly possible to do this in 10 days?
Well lets say ]4. I think Mr. Christie would
Mr. Christie: We need 10 to get it on the ballot. If we need
more , as long as we have the opportunity to vote, to tie it up,
then I would give you as much time as you want but I don't want
to miss any deadlines. I said 10 days because I heard that it
is 10 days from now that we have to make up the ballot and whats
to be said on it. If its 15 days, then I can give the administrator
15 days. I only don't want to be left at the gate while all the
other horses are running.
Mr. Reese: Mr. Mayor, may I answer. Whatever this Commission
wants done, within a reasonable length of time, we will do it
but so far I have yet to hear the resolution defined as to what
you want done. If you want it to identify what is regional parks
thats one thing. If you want us to explore the feasibility of
transferring park maintenance and operational costs to Metro,
thats another thing. Now, I think in all fairness because this
has been discussed and unfortunately like most things, it gets
turned completely around. I would like to reiterate that at no
time have I expressed myself pertaining to the transfer of the
park maintenance functions to Metro. And I for one, resent very
much what Mr. Dan Paul stood up here and insinuated a few minutes
ago. There is no confusion in my mind about sex and I don't like
anyone to refer to me as a Mother hen because I'm still a male.
There's no confusion in my mind as to sex. Now as far as getting
things done for the Commission, if you give me the instructions
as to what you want accomplished, it will be accomplished to the
best of my ability.
Reverend Graham: We have the answer then as to the time element.
The Administrator said he can do it if you say he must.
Mr. Plummer: This 10 days, Mr. Reese, is 10 days the deadline Sir?
Mr. Reese: I want to know about the 10 days, I haven't heard.
Mr. Christie told me -
Mr. Rothstein: We are talking about, as a matter of practicality
we have to get the information to the Metro people for the ballots
on the machine and I don't know the exact timing but I understand
at their next meeting next week they are going to establish what
is going on their ballot. From a legal point of view, we still
have some 25 to 30 days. But, if you don't get it to them, they
can't get it on the ballot.
Reverend Graham: Mr. Christie, Mr. Reese says it can be done
and he was not living in total blindnes's in the possibility of
the expansion of this City so that much of the work has already
been done really and he has noWut it in perspective.
1-6-72
The time element now it seems to me is clear.
Mr. Rothstein: Mayor, I think through the courtesy of one of our
estemed members of the Media, Steve Daley, he has pointed out that
Metro has set their meeting for the llt.h because the Metro County
Attorney said the 13th was their deadline so presumably the title
on the ballot and for printing so we have to be within that deadline
this is what I was advised .
Mr. Paul: Thats for their 60 days under the charter provision has
no application to you.
Mr. Rothstein: Yes but the fact of the matter is their preparing
the ballot and to print it.
Mr. Paul: Thats within 60 days they have to finalize what they
are going tp put on it, the charter amendments, not the printing
of the ballot.
Mr. Christie: I think that you or the administration within the
next hour if we can have to come back with a deadline and give us
the exact time so we know what we're doing. Right not we seem to
be wandering. Mr. Paul said its 60 days and you don't know it thats
sure so lets see if we can do it. If its the 12th, we're going to
have some problems. You would only have three working days as of
today, if its the llth, he only has two but I don't -
Mr. Rothstein: Once again, Mr. Christie, I proceeded informally
and our advice, informally, from the Clerk over there is that if
he doesn't have it by the 12th or the 13th, so that he can get it
printed up, it won't be printed on the ballot. Now it might be
that they can do something else, I don't know as I said I told you
informally.
Mr. Christie: Then I would make the motion that Mr. Reese have
his report by January 12th at this Commission Meeting , Special
Session on the 12th or the 13th.
Reverend Graham: Now the motion is amended to mean that if we want
the analytical report from Mr. Reese on the 12th of January.
Mr. Reese: Mr. Mayor, can I still ask what this report is supposed
to consist of? I still want to know.
Mr. Christie: I have already told you.
Mr. Reese: No you didn't.If we transfer the functions of operation
and maintenance, thats one thing but if you want to go through all
the real estate holdings and find out what restrictions are on these
pieces of park lands -
Mr. Christie: Just for transfer of operations and maintenance and
any other cost involved in the transfer of the parks system.
Mr. Reese: Will that have anything to do with the Bond Issue?
Mr. Christie: Not at this time. That's why we will discuss this
at a special session. Once we get those figures, it may be that
these figures are such that I wouldn't want to tie it up. I for
one would not want to vote to tie it up but maybe that I for one
would like to. Thats what we want, the information so that the
Commission can act.
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Christie, I don't expect to be in town from the
12th through the rest of that week. If you are calling a special
meeting now -
Mr. Christie: The only problem is that I have informtion to the
effect that if we don't do it in that time, we will blow the
possibility of putting it on the bond issue.
25 1-6.r72
•
Mr. Paul: Are you planning to pass a resolution on the bond issue
today?
Mr. Rothstein:Yes it will be presented toward the end of ' the
afternoon. The overall question, the figure has to be given to us
by Mr. Reese to be put in. We've got the ordinance and resolutions.
Mr. Paul: All I can say is I don't know which way you arc going
to do it but you better before you vote in March have an answer
to that financing question. Frankly when I listened to Mr,. Reese
here today, I feel a little bit like I am on a ship getting a
lecture on navigation while the ship is going down. Tt seems to
me that you better be prepared to answer it. The Commission
can make'the transfer by resolution, it may want to do it and
it doesn't have to go on the ballot. It may be that you haven't
got time to get it on the ballot and still get the kind of facts
but at least when I came back to the microphone what you were
trying te,'talk about was trying to get the facts and Mr. Reese
has strerxuously resisted giving you the facts and I would urge
that you get those facts because if we are going to pass the bond
issue we had better have them so we can explain it intelligently
to the people in the City of Miami from point of view of retirement
of the bond issue and why we're spending money for facilities that
are used county wide.
Mr. Rothstein: Mr. Christie, I think you have to include in your
factual request information on the obligation, the bond obligation
on existing parks, valuation of land because otherwise you can't
tell about the millage reduction as such.
Mr. Christie: Well yes. My motion went over four different times
and the last answer was to what he specifically wanted,before that
I took steps and all other factors that are necessary to come up
with an opinion as to what would be the millage reduction,whatever
they are when all the factors come in. I am giving all the leway
possible to the administration. Thats why you are the administrator
Mr. Reese: Well first of all I have been a navigator of a ship,
I have been a mother hen but I am not the captain of a ship that is
being run by a group of people that do not even live in the City of
Miami.
Reverend Graham: It seems to me now that we ought to be able to -
Can I get a second to the motion that has been propounded? Is the
motion understood? Its an analysis and it has a time element.
In has a definition of what is required in the study.
Mayor Kennedy: I think what it boils down to is that this Commission
ought to vote on the request that Mr. Paul made. (1) Is- are we
willing to put on the ballot that, and have the people vote on it,
thats correct, that Bayfront Park and all regional county wide parks
be turned over to Metro and that's all you asked for at the time -
Mr. Paul: No, what I asked for was for what Mr. Christie had
originally moved and that is that you get the facts. You may not
be able to get it on the ballot, it would be very preferable to get
it on the ballot but I think from the campaign point of view, you
could have the same effect after you get the facts if you adopt a
resolution as the charter permits you to do for the transfer.
What I said I strongly supported, was getting the facts. And thats
what seems to be all the resistance about.
Mr. Reese: There is no resistance for facts. Mr. Danny Paul stood
up here and I think the record that is being taken will show what he
said. He wanted this Commission to put on the ballot to transfer
Bayfront Park.
Mr. Paul: I am still in favor of that.
Mr. Reese: Now this is what he wants on the ballot. This started
this discussion. Now lets not walk away from it.
Mr. Paul: I am still in favor of it but you put so many roadblocks
against progress in this City that it is impossible to do an orderly
piece of business before this Commission. When you oppose it, you
decide to throw it off the track.
26 1-6-72
I an still in favor of that. If there's time to do it, I think
it would be advisable to the City to give the public the
opportunity to make that vote. If the time is not available
then I think his report should be gotten and the City can then
take a position prior to the balloting but I still would prefer
the first alternative, make no mistake because I don't think
you would implement it unless the public voted it.
Mr. Rothstein: Mr. Mayor -
Mr. Christie: I want to say one thing Mr. Reese. I really,
I'm not an advocate for Mr. Paul or for anybody else, but, I
think its a policy when private citizens come down here and
either from the Commission, or from anybody involved in the
City Administration that personalities get involved and any
discussion is handled directly from the administration to any-
body speaking unless they are involved personally but I just
think it is in bad taste. I don't think it gives the Commission
any good atmosphere and it causes people not to come and be
before us and I and thats not what we want and thats not how
good government is run.
Mr. Reese: I agree with you 100%, but I think also the United
States Supreme Court when it passed down its ruling said you
could call somebody in public life anything or do anything. It
doesn't say that a person in public life was obligated to keep
their mouth shut with constant insinuations and slander that
has been splashed around. I also resent the last statement that
he just made. I have exerted more effort than I think anybody
else to transfer certain things over to Metro over the years.
It isn't a roadblock and I haven't been a roadblock, it is the
thing that is used for convenience , a catchall phrase and I
don't like this treatment in a defensive sense because my own
record stands for what I have done.
Reverend Graham: Mr. Mayor, we've been worried a little bit
about the public relations image of the voting public of this
City and I am now worried a little bit about the public image
of this Commission. It seems to me that we are trying now to
outdo some relatives that are not too far away from us.
I really think that it has no business here. I hope its settled
now and that we can go on with the business. I am very much
concerned about this Mr. Reese.
Mayor Kennedy: Well I doubt if we can get this on the ballot.
Instead of rushing it and having a special meeting, why don't
we have the report come back to us ; Mr. Reese's report come back
to us on the 20th and then at that time, we can decide or ata
later time before the bond issue, whether or not we want to make
a policy statement to say if we are in favor of turning this over
to Metro because its a regional park and all county taxpayers
should be paying for it. Then it won't confuse the ballot but
yet we will be able to tell the voters what they want to hear.
So if you have the report by.the 20th that will give him more
time -and it won't cause us to have a special meeting.
Mr. Christie: In view of the fact that that we are going to have
some town meetings on this and hope that they will be well attended
and therefore it would get accross, two members of the Commission
are going to be out of town, on the 12th and 13th which is the
deadline, under the circumstances I don't think we have any
alternative but to follow that Mayor Kennedy and I will amend the
motion to the fact that the report should be given to us by the
20th. Also I would request to Mr. Rothstein or the administration
that we have a formal statement, as formal as you can get, because
you were using the word informal as to when the last time we can
set the ballot wording for Metro to go in so that we know- It may
be after the 20th and may not be the 12th. If you can get us that
then we'll know. I'll make that motion. •
Mayor Kennedy: Its been moved by Mr. Christie, is there a second?
�7 1-6-72
•
i
Mr. Christie: I am not going to repeat the motion.
Mayor Kennedy: Is there a second?
Mr. Plummer: I will second the motion.
Mayor Kennedy: Seconded by Mr. Plummer. Ca11 the roll.
Whereupon the motion was passed and adopted by the following
vote: AYES: Messrs. Christie, Graham, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and
Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None. Was designated Resolution No. 43117
28
1-6-72
3. REQUEST FOR SODIUM VAPOR LI GHT I_NG- LEMON CITYIEDISON CENTER AREA
M STATED
THE EDISONACENTER-LITTLEEKIVERPSLLF-HELPDPROGRAM. SHSE SHE REQUESTED
THE COMMISSION TO MAKE PROVISION FOR INSTALLATION OF SODIUM
LIGHTING IN THIS AREA, SHE EMPHASIZED THAT PEOPLE AT THE PRESENT
TIME WOULD NOT USE THESE FACILITIES BECAUSE THERE WAS NOT SUFFIC-
IENT LIGHT.
HE ILITY MANAGER STATED THAT ADDITIONAL LIGHTING WAS BEING
INSTALLED AND WAS PROGRESSING GRADUALLY TOWARDS THIS AREA AND IT
SHOULD NOT BE LONG BEFORE IT REACHES THAT AREA,
4. ENCLOSURE OF EXISTING CARPORT - LOT 2, BLOCK 3, DURHAM TERRACE
-THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS INTRODUCED BY MR. PLUMMER WHO
MOVED ITS ADOPTION:
RESOLUTION NO. 43118
A NO. bW�L, ON ARTICLETV�,GSECTIONASC(2) (A)M ORDINANCE
SuPERMII
Q�$SU QF X I CARPOR , QN LOT liT1133147
A � RKHC (44-55)ITH 4SIDE ( . REQUIRED , LOCAT D AT 4 AL N. W. TH STREET
IN AN R-L (ONE -FAMILY) DISTRICT
(HERE FOLLOWS BODY OF RESOLUTION, OMITTED HERE AND
ON FILE IN THE CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
UPON BEING SECONDED BY REVEREND GRAHAM, THE RESOLUTION WAS
EASSEDSRAHAM,AI'LND UMMER,.EjjBY zzHE IMRS. I�ORDONLANDIEjG MAYORTKENNEDY. NOLS: NONESRSA RISTIE,
5. USE OF STOCKADE PROPERTY FOR CORRECTIONAL PURPOSES
THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS INTRODUCED BY MAYOR KENNEDY
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION:
RESOLUTION NO. 43119
%ir gggc
T I
M glriTA°IN
O
iAL
DPltE
?IF$ ?flE £�0 KA NPhSW
CONRFILEE LINWTHES OLITYFCLERKSUUFFICE�MITTED HERE AND
UPON BEING SECONDED BY MR. PLUMMER, THRESOLUTION WAS
AND ADOBY PTER
HE FOLLOWING
TE SRISIE,
— PLUMMERbRAHAMMRS. ORDONANDMAYORKENNEDY. NO NONE
NOTE: PRIOR TO THE INTRODUCTION OF THE RES LUTION, THE MAYOR
SURRENDERED THE CHAIR TO VICE MAYOR RAHAM AND FOLLOWING
THE ADOPTION OF THE RESOLUTION, THEMAYOR RESUMED THE CHAIR.
NOTE: PRIOR TO THE INTRODUCTION OF THIS RESOLUTION, THE CITY
NAGER SUBMITTED A REP.ORT ON THE STATUS OF THIS MATTER
AND HIS RECOMMENDATIONS OF SAME
•
29 1-6-72
•
6. VARIANCE - LOT 12 AND PORTION OF LOT 13, BLOCK 2. ROCKERMAN HEIGHTS
THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WhS INTRODUCED BY MR, PLUMMER WHO
MOVED ITS ADOPTION:
RESOLUTION NO. 43120
A NO. bQf1TION ARTICLETV,VGSECTIONG5, TOROM PERMITICONCE
STRUCttTION OF SINGLE EAMILY RESIDENCE ON LOT 12
AND QRTION OF LOT 13, BLOCK s0 RMAN HEIGHTS
173-V) WITH REAR SETBACK QQ P /.7 (LV REQUIRED)
AND FRONT SETBACK LO (L� REQUIRED), LOCAT D
9T APPROXIMATELY 3560 ROCKERMAN ROAD, IN AN R-1
(ONE -FAMILY) DISTRICT
WASUPON PASSEDTHE ANDRADOLTEDON BYBTHEGFQSECONDED BY LLOWING VOTEE- RM GRAHAM, AYLS: 1ESSR IT
I.HRISTIE, GRAHAM, ILUMMER, I1RS,bORDON AND MAYOR KENNEDY. NUtb : NONE
NOTE: PRIOR TO THE INIRODUCTION OF THE RESOLUTIQN, MR. DAVID
IMPSON JR, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF THE PLANNING BOARD POINTED OUT
THAT THE OBJECTORS HAD AGREED TQ CERTAIN MODIFICATIONS WHICH HAD
BEEN REQUESTED BY THE PLANNING BOARD AND AT THIS TIME, THERE WERE
NO OBJECTORS TO APPLICATION.
7. VARIANCE - LOT 19. BLOCK 3, SOUTH ELMIRA
THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS INTRODUCED BY REVEREND GRAHAM
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION:
RESOLUTION NO. 43121
A NO, boa, ON ARTICLETVI,GSECTIONA5CF2) (A), TONANCE
PERMIT
CONSTR77UCCIION OF ADDITION TO S331NGL FA(1l Y RESIDENCE
ON LOT 19, BLOCK 5, SOUTH 1RA l6-LDL , WITH
S IDF TREET S IBACK OF / �15 REWIRED , LOCAT D
AT /4b N. E. b/TH STREET, IN AN R-1 (ONE -FAMILY)
DISTRICT
(HERE FOLLOWS BODY OF RESOLUTION, OMPMITTED HERE
AND ON FILE IN THE CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
UPON BEING SECONDED BY MR. PLUMMYLTH RESOLUIION WAS PASSED
AND ADOPT D BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE : AS: SSRS. CHRISTIE, GRAHAM,
t'LUMMER, MRS. CORDON AND MAYOR KENNEDY. NO S: NONE
8. )(4iii.
►INall1.III£1 i$JUiluiN:1�JN.K111II1R 1{Si i�:iNi1YCIIl lit iMiIdy 11�I11:1
' f 1 �111 ' Y a' ' '1' - ^ 1- , I '
THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS INTRODUCED BY MR, PLUMMER
WHO MOVES ITS ADOPTION:
RESOLUTION NO. 43122
A NO. 06/1, ON ARTICLEGRANTING
VI, SECTIONN5 (1) (A)RTIANCE
ONPERMIT
pNSTRU7 FROMCTION OQUA FAV NUEEEN BASENBUILDINGWLINEN( 0QOL
REQUIRED) ON 1/Z LOT 6, AND ALL 0 LO (/ 8
AND V, BLOC COCONUT GROVE PARK Of
AMID (1-b2)
1,OCATED AT S 5 AVOCADO AVENUE IN AN R-2
(TWO-FAMILY DISTRICT
(HERE FOLLOWS BODY OF RESOLUTION, MITTED HERE AND
ON FILE IN THE CITY CLERKS OFFICE
30 1-6-72
UPON BEING CONDED BY MR. CHRISTIE, T RESOI.,UTION WAS
PASSED AND ADOPTER BYTHE FOLLOWING VOT - TTRESOLUTION M SRSA CHRISTIE
iRAHAM, FLUMMER, MRS, ORDON AND MAYOR KENNEDY, NOES: NONE
9. REZONING REQUEST LOTS 4 THRU 8, KARKFET SUBDIVISION
ATTORNEY PHILIP SCHIFF REPRESENTING MIAMI BEACH AIR TRANSPORT
APPEARED TO APPEAL FROM AN ADVERSE RECOMMENDATION OF THE FLANNING
WARP ON HIS CLIENTS APPLI ATION FOR CHANGE IN ZON N CLASSIFICATION
FOR LOTS 4 THIN tS KAR EET SUBDIVISION FROM R-5 TO L-4 LOCATED AT
IV APPROXIMATELY 425U . W. 11TH STREET. HE SUBMITTED ARGUMENTS IN
FAVOR OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE AND URGED THE LOMMISSION TO ADOPT
AN ORMNCE CNKENNA, P
R. JOHNMC RESIDENT OF MIAMI BEACH AIR TRANSPORT
CORPORATION, ALSO APPEARED IN BEHALF OF THE APPLICATION
A GENTLEMAN IDENTIFIED ONLY AS MR. SHUTES, APPEARED AND
OBJECTED TO THE APPLICATION EMPHASIZING THAT THESE EEOPLE HAD NOT
PROPERLY MAINTAINED THIS PROPERTY IN THE MANNER IN WHICH IT HAD
BEEN AGREED THAT THEY WOULD,
MR, AND MRS, L. J. LITTLE ALSO APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO THE
APPLICATION ON THE SAME GROUNDS AS MR. SCHUTES. MR. LITTLE
EXPRESSED THE OPINION THAT IF THIS PROPERTY WERE TO BE REZONED,
THEN THE ENTIRE AREA SHOULD BE REZONED.
MR. SCHIFF STATED HIS CLIENT WOULD ACCEPT A CONDITIONAL USE
FOR EMPLOYEE
ACTON,NDIRECTORINSTEAD
THEOE THE FLANNINGADEPARTMENTZONING,GE IN APPEARED
IN OPPOSITION TO THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION BUT STATED HE WOULD
NOT OBJECT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PROVIDED NECESSARY RESTRICTIONS
AND CQNTRQLS WERE IMPOSED,
R. LLHRISTIE SUGGESTED THAT APROPER WALL BE INSTALLED WITH
NECESSARY VENTILATION AND THAT THE APPLICANT MAINTAIN A BETTER
RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS NEIGHBORS.
AFTER CONSIDERABLE FURTHER DISCUSSION, MRS. GORDON REQUESTED
DEFERRAL OF THE MATTER IN ORDER TO ENABLE HER TO INSPECT THE
PROPERTY PERSONALLY ANDTHAT MATTER WAS DEFERRED UNTIL THE NEXT
REGULAR MEETING AT 1.M.
10, CONTINUED WAIVER - LOTS 8 THRU 13, BLOCK 94 S.W. 8TH STREET
AND IOTH AVENUE
THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS INTRODUCED BY MR, PLUMMER WHO
MOVED ITS ADOPTION:
RESOLUTION NO, 43123
hTR �N �YSW G Ng mpIggp
�NliLR�E� RLOiMEf�TNR A F 0 hEX S OyNR t-
AN� �W � 6�IT� ?ACE
4�87��t IN SEC�I N
2 N�-4 E��UM �E S
ITY IP 3
U LE
(HERE FOLLOWS BOY OF RESOLUTION, OMITTED HERE AND
ON FILE IN THE LITY CLERKS OFFICE)
UPON BEING SECONDED BY REVEREND GRAHAM IHE RESOLUTION WAS
GPASSED AND ADOPTERBY HE FOLLOWING VOTE- AYtS: SRS. LHRISTIE,
RAHAM, PLUMMER, MRS. (3ORDON AND MAYOR KENNEDY, NOLS: NONE
11. CONTINUED VARIANCE -OFF STREET PARKING -HOUSING FOR ELDERLY
THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS INTRODUCED BY MR. PLUMMER,
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION:
RESOLUTION NO. 43124
q
NITOIAANKANOgiSE
ESN�N Y GIV�ORI�CE
II RESOLCUTINWTT1H7114R ApOpP�tFE1D�p
PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTION OiTHOUSINGHFORETHEMELDERLY 1-6-72
•
S
(ONRFE ILELINWTHEO�ITYFCLERKSU�FFIICE)MITTED HERE AND
UPON BEING SECONDED BY REVEREND GRAHAM, TH SOLUj�TION
AS PASSED AND ADO TED BY TLiE FOLLOWING VOTE- AY S: MESSRS.
H STI , GRAHAM, PLUMMER, MRS. (iORDON AND AYOR ENNEDY.
Ots: NONE
PRIOR TO THE INTRODUCTION OF THE RESOLUTION, MRS. ANNE RHODES,
APPEA ED AND REQUESTED ITS ADOPTION .
IT WAS AGREED THAT THE EXTENSION WOULD BE UNTIL DECEMBER
31,
12, SPECIAL EXHIBITOR LICENSE - MIAMI INTERNATIONAL COIN CONVENTION
THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS INTRODUCED BY MR. PLUMMER WHO
MOVED ITS ADOPTION:
RESOLUTION NO. 43125
S
im UTUO
1SL�VT 1)(4VTI[A
E.0FDRY
i2 Edil g
1 Nyl n II rF N S E€I AL
1 iEi te 1
UPON BEING SECONDED BY REVEREND GRAHAM HE
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE FQLLOWING VOTE - YES:
HAM SIRS. (]ORDON AND I1AYOR
�HRISTIE, GRA , PLUMMER,
ONE.
PRIG TO THE INTRODUCTION OF THE
AND R• SAM HEIDELSBACH APPEARED
MR. ALKER EXPLAINED BRIEFLY THE
13,
RESOLUTION WAS
MESSRS. KENNEDY. NOES
RESOLUTION, MR. BILL WALKER,
AND URGED ITS ADOPTION.
ACTIVITIES OF THIS GROUP.
Ilk 1 1 :131.Y i- YY rr1
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED-
. 6871
(COMPREHENSIVEMENDING LONING URDINANCE)NBY CHANGING
THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FOR ALL LOTS ON THE
$QUTHEASTjjSIDE OF BRICKELL AVENUE BETWEEN S.E.
7--1H(ONE-FAMILY)ETOI --Pi(HIGHCJJENSITY UFT PLE)
AS RECOMMENDED IN IHE RAAICKKKELL STUDY BY H LITY
OF MIAMI PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATED JUNE '9�U,
AND A SHOWN ON THE MAP OF E ISTING ZONIN ON
PAG B3 OF THE VUNING AND LONING BOARD MINUTES
OF NOVEMBER 8, 1, AND THE MAP OF RECOMMENDED
ZONING ON PAGE OF THE MINUTES OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI PLANNING OARD; REPEALING ALL LAWS IN
CONFLICT HEREWITH, AND PROVIDING FOR A SEVER -
ABILITY CLAUSE HEREIN
COND
20, 1971t,� WAS TAKEN UPAFORGITS SIAANDHFINALTREADIN DBYETTIITLE
AND ADOPTION. ON MOTION OF MR. LHRISTIE, SECONDED BY KEVEREND
bRAHAM, THE ORDINANCE WAS THEREUPON GIVEN ITS SECOND AN INAL
FADING AND PASSED AND ADOETED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE - AY s.
�RS. CHRIST E, G AHAM, FLUMMER, MRS. (OROQN AND MAYQR NI EDY.
S: NONE. SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. SU�b.
32 1-6-72
s
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED-•
orb,7C-FI�E3 -� (OWE-
;8SS ER
971N WAS TAKEN UPITS FIRST AFOR GITS SECOND BY TITLE AAND T HFINAL E TREADING IN F OBYETBITLE
AND ADOPTION, ON MOTION OF MR, CHRISTIE, SECONDED BY MR. FLUMMER,
TITE LERANDAASE SEDSANDEADOPTEDGBYEj6N HETFOLLOWID (NGAVOTEINAAYLSADIMESSRS.
RTIELUMMER,bRAjzS�j,HAM, MRS. CORDON AND MAYOR KENNDY.''IIJ: NONE $AID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE N0. H027.
;RIOR TO THE INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE No. 8027, ATTORNEY GEORGE
UCHMAN APPEARED AND OBJECTED. HE EMPHASIZED THAT PROPERTY OWNERS
AN
K-1TUE AREA DID NOT LLASSIFICATION. RMELEXHIBITED TMAPS HIS WOF THE AS NAREA G ZAND DBACK O POINTED OUT
THE INEQUITY OF PERMITTING THIS TO BE DONE.
14. ZONING CLASSIFICATION CHANGE LOTS 1 thru 18 & LOTS 43 thru 49
BLOCK 1 ETC. MIDTOWN BANK OF MIAMI SUBDIVISION
An Ordinance entitled -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871 (COMPRE-
HENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE) BY CHANGING THE ZONING
CLASSIFICATION FOR LOTS 1 THROUGH 18, AND LOTS 43
THROUGH 49, BLOCK 1, FROM C-4 (GENERAL -COMMERCIAL)
AND R-3 (LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE) TO C-1 (LOCAL -COMM-
ERCIAL); AND, LOTS 1 THROUGH 13, AND LOTS 48 AND 49,
BLOCK 2, FROM R-3 (LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE) TO R-C
(RESIDENCE -OFFICE) PROPERTY LOCATED IN BRADDOCK
SUBDIVISION NO. 4 (3-61) OTHERWISE KNOWN AS TENTA-
TIVE PLAT #798-A-"MIDTOWN BANK OF MIAMI SUBDIVISION"
AT SOUTHWEST CORNER N. W. 14 AVENUE AND N.W. 20
STREET; AND BY MAKING THE NECESSARY CHANGES IN THE
ZONING DISTRICT MAP MADE A PART OF SAID ORDINANCE
NO. 6871 BY REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE III,
SECTION 2, THEREOF; REPEALING ALL LAWS IN CONFLICT
HEREWITH; AND PROVIDING FOR A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE
HEREIN
passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of December
20, 1971, was taken up for its second and final reading by title
and adoption. On motion of Mrs. Gordon and seconded by Mr. Christie,
the ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by
title and passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs.
Christie, Graham, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
Said Ordinance was designated Ordinance No. 8028.
15. CLAIM SETTLEMENT - PEARLINE BROWN AND BERTHA SMITH BRINSON
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 43126
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
TO ACCEPT THE SUM OF $165.00 IN FULL AND COMPLETE
SETTLEMENT OF THE CLAIM OF THE CITY OF MIAMI AGAINST
PEARLINE BROWN AND BERTHA SMITH BRINSON, AND AUTHOR-
IZING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO REQUEST AN ORDER OF DIS=
MISSAL IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT OF DADE COUNTY,
FLORIDA
Upon being seconded by Mr. Christie, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Christie,
Graham, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None.
16. CONDOLENCES - DEATH OF JOE J. MASON
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Christie,
who moved its adoption:
34
1-6-72
RESOLUTION NO. 43127
A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE SINCERE SYMPATHY AND
CONDOLENCES OF THE CITY COMMISSION, THE MAYOR OP
THE CITY OF MIAMI, AND ALL OF THE CITIZENS OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI, TO THE MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY OF THE
LATE JOE J. MASON, WHOSE DEATH HAS DEPRIVED THE
CITY OF MIAMI OF ONE OF ITS OUTSTANDING CITIZENS
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Reverend Graham, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Christie,
Graham, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
17. HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT H-4352- S.E. 14th STREET, ORDERING
The following resolution was introduced by Reverend Graham
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 43128
A RESOLUTION ORDERING S. E. 14TH STREET HIGHWAY
IMPROVEMENT H-4352 AND DESIGNATING THE PROPERTY
AGAINST WHICH SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS SHALL BE MADE
FOR PORTION OF THE COST THEREOF AS S. E. 14TH
STREET HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT H-4352 AND ALLOCATING
THE AMOUNT OF $500 FROM THE HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT
BOND FUND FOR THE PRELIMINARY EXPENSE
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mr. Christie, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Christie,
Graham, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
3.5
1-6-72
•
18. DISULAIMER,AGREEMENT SOUTHERN BELL UTILITY EASEMENT
The following resolution was introduced by Reverend Graham
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 43129
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY
MANAGER AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AND DELIVER TO
SOUTHERN BELL A DISCLAIMER AGREEMENT FOR THE
UTILITY EASEMENT DESCRIBED HEREIN
(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. Christie,
Graham, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
19. AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION 42309 -CLOSING S.W. 5 ST. FROM S.W. 3 AVE.'
TO NW'LY LIMITED ACCESS BOUNDARY ON STATE RD. 9
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer,
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 43130
A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 42309 ENTITLED
"A RESOLUTION CLOSING S. W. 5 STREET FROM S. W. 3RD
AVENUE TO THE NORTHWESTERLY LIM .CED AeL SS BOUNDARY
ON STATE ROAD NO. 9 AND CONVERTING SAME TO A 50-FOOT
PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT TO CORRECT THE LEGAL METES
AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION THEREIN TO SPECIFY AN EASEMENT
40.83 FEET IN WIDTH; CORRECTING THE DESIGNATION FOR
THE STATE ROAD FROM NO. 9 TO NO. 9A; AND CHANGING THE
WORD "T-TURNAROUND" TO READ "CUL-DE-SAC"
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Reverend Graham, the
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES:
Graham, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy.
resolution was
Messrs. Christie,
NOES: None
20. ACCEPTING COMPLETED WORK - MARKS BROTHERS COMPANY
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer, who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 43131
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE COMPLETED WORK PERFORMED
BY MARKS BROTHERS COMPANY AT A TOTAL COST OF $14,438.23
AND AUTHORIZING A FINAL PAYMENT OF $13,438.23 FOR THE
CORAL WAY STORM SEWER PROJECT - 1971
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Reverend Graham, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Christie,
Graham, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy: NOES: None
36
1-6-72
21. ACCEPTANCE __O ' COMPLETED WORK._+ JOE REtNERTSON EQUIPMENT CO.
The following resolution was introduced by Reverend Graham
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 43132
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE COMPLETED WORK PERFORMED
BY JOE REINERTSON EQUIPMENT COMPANY AT A TOTAL COST
OF $26,890.20 AND AUTHORIZING A FINAL PAYMENT OF
$2,806.20 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE MARINE STADIUM
RESTAURANT - UTILITIES (Bid "B" Utilities)
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mr. Christie, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Christie,
Graham, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
22. COVENANT - ACCEPTANCE OF - MR AND MRS. DAMIANO
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 43133
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A COVENANT TO RUN WITH THE
LAND DATED DECEMBER 21, 1971, FROM MR. AND MRS.
DAMIANO AND AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT TO
CONSTRUCT A SANITARY SEWER FORCE MAIN
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Reverend Graham, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Christie
Graham, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
23.
COVENANT - ACCEPTANCE OF - THOMAS DAVIDSON III
The following resolution was introduced by Reverend Graham,
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 43134
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A COVENANT TO RUN WITH
THE LAND DATED DECEMBER 6, 1971, FROM THOMAS
DAVIDSON III, AS TRUSTEE AND AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE
OF A PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A SANITARY SEWER FORCE
MAIN
(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. Christie,
Graham, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
37
1-6-72
•
24. RIGHT OF W. DEED`- ACCEPTANCE OF - DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 43135
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING FROM THE DADE COUNTY SCHOOL
BOARD A RIGHT-OF-WAY DEED DATED DECEMBER 14, 1971,
FOR CERTAIN RIGHT-OF-WAY ON THE WEST SIDE OF N. W.
7 AVENUE BETWEEN 19 AND 20 STREETS
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mr. Christie, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Christie,
Graham, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
25. RIGHT OF WAY DEED - ACCEPTANCE OF - DADE COUNTY
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 43136
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING FROM DADE COUNTY A RIGHT
OF WAY DEED DATED DECEMBER 16, 1971, FOR RIGHT-
OF-WAY ON N. W. 76 STREET BETWEEN N. W. 1 COURT
AND NORTH MIAMI AVENUE
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Reverend Graham, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Christie,
Graham, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: Nore
26. AMENDED PLAT - PALM BAY CLUB
A resolution accepting the plat entitled Amended Plat of Palm
Bay Club was presented for the consideration of the Commission. The
City Manager requested that this resolution be deferred until the
meeting of January 20, 1972 in order to notify neighbors involved
in this area, to which the Commission agreed.
27. BID ACCEPTANCE - PITMAN PHOTO INC. - PHOTOGRAPHIC SUPPLIES
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Christie
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 43137
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE BID OF PITMAN PHOTO INC.
RECEIVED ON DECEMBER 3, 1971 FOR FURNISHING PHOTO-
GRAPHIC SUPPLIES TO ALL DEPARTMENTS AS REQUIRED FOR
THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 1972 THROUGH DECEMBER 31,
.1972, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ATTACHED SCHEDULE OF
PRICES, SUBJECT TO A PROPORTIONAL ESCALATOR CLAUSE
UPON THIRTY (30) DAYS NOTICE IN THE EVENT OF A
1-6-72
38
MANUFACTURERS INCREASE, AND AUTHORIZING AND
DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO INSTRUCT THE
PURCHASING AGENT TO ISSUE PURCHASE ORDERS AS
NECESSARY, AFTER FIRST HAVING DETERMINED THAT
FUNDS BUDGETED FOR THIS PURPOSE ARE AVAILABLE
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Reverend Graham, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Graham,
Plummer, Christie, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
28. REPLACEMENT SQUIRREL CAGE FAN WHEEL ASSEMBLY- ROBINSON INDUSTRIES
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 43138
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO PURCHASE
FROM ROBINSON INDUSTRIES, ZELIENOPLE, PENNSYLVANIA,
WITHOUT COMPETITIVE BIDDING, SINCE SAID COMPANY IS THE
ONLY SOURCE OF SUPPLY, ONE (1) REPLACEMENT SQUIRREL
CAGE FAN WHEEL ASSEMBLY, AT A COST OF $2,777.00 PLUS
FREIGHT CHARGES ESTIMATED AT $230.00, AT A TOTAL COST
ESTIMATED AT $3,007.00, AND FURTHER AUTHORIZING AND
DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO INSTRUCT THE PURCHASING
AGENT OF THE CITY OF MIAMI TO ISSUE A PURCHASE ORDER
THEREFOR
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mr. Christie, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Christie,
Graham, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
29. BID ACCEPTANCE - TRULY NOLEN INC. - MONTHLY PEST CONTROL
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Christie who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 43139
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE BID RECEIVED DECEMBER
15, 1971, OF TRULY NOLEN, INC. FOR FURNISHING
MONTHLY PEST CONTROL SERVICE IN VARIOUS CITY OF
MIAMI OCCUPIED BUILDINGS AS LISTED HEREIN, FOR
THE PERIOD JANUARY 9, 1972, THROUGH JANUARY 8,
1973, AT AN ANNUAL COST OF $2,143.20, AND AUTH-
ORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO INST-
RUCT THE PURCHASING AGENT OF THE CITY OF MIAMI TO
ISSUE PURCHASE ORDERS, AS REQUIRED
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
39
1-6-72
•
Upon being seconded by Reverend Graham, the
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES:
Grahmi, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy.
30. BID ACCEPTANCE - BUILDING CLEANING SERVICES
resolution was
Messrs. Christie,
NOES: None
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 43140
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE BID RECEIVED DECEMBER 15,
1971, OF BUILDING CLEANING SERVICES, FOR FURNISHING
WINDOW WASHING SERVICES IN VARIOUS CITY OF MIAMI
OCCUPIED BUILDINGS, AS LISTED HEREIN, AT AN ANNUAL
COST OF $2,250.00 FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 9, 1972
THROUGH JANUARY 8, 1973, AND AUTHORIZING AND
DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO INSTRUCT THE PURCHASING
AGENT OF THE CITY OF MIAMI TO ISSUE PURCHASE ORDERS,
AS REQUIRED
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Reverend Graham, the
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES:
Graham, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy.
31. BID ACCEPTANCE - MIAMI ELEVATOR COMPANY
resolution was
Messrs. Christie,
NOES: None
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 43141
who
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE BID RECEIVED DECEMBER 15,
1971, OF MIAMI ELEVATOR COMPANY FOR FURNISHING ELEV-
ATOR MAINTENANCE SERVICE IN VARIOUS CITY OF MIAMI
OCCUPIED BUILDINGS AS LISTED HEREIN, FOR THE PERIOD
JANUARY 9, 1972 THROUGH JANUARY 8, 1973, AT A TOTAL
COST OF $5,036.52, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE
CITY MANAGER TO INSTRUCT THE PURCHASING AGENT OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI TO ISSUE PURCHASE ORDERS, AS REQUIRED
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Reverend Graham, the
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES:
Plummer, Graham, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy.
40
resolution was
Messrs. Christie,
NOES: None
1- 6-7 2
•
32. PROPOSED ACCEPTANCE OF:BID FOR POLICE UNIFORMS
A PROPOSED RESOLUTION_
mqT ofcgwir NTIR0i4OWEF
0WHR3
�JGHci 1,Ri89 -RA Imf
1 AS SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY
ANAL R.
MR. CEORGFF J. NORMAN, PRESIDENT OF LAMAR UNIFORMS APPEARED
AND URGED THE COMMISSION NOT TO ADOPT THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION
EMPHASIZING THAT THE SUCCESSFUL, BIDDER DID NOT HAVE A LICENSE
TO DO BUSINESS IN THE LIIY OF IIAMI.
CLARENCE CHAMBERS, I-''URCHASING AGENT APPEARED AND EXPLAINED
THIS jHOLF MATTER IN SOME DETAIL.
HE ``ITY ATTORNEY STATED THAT HE WOULD NEED AN OPPORTUNITY
TO REVIEW THIS MATTER BEFORE HE COULD RENDER A LEGAL OPINION ON
IT.
MR. HENRY ROSENBERG, REPRESENTING EAGLE UNIFORM COMPANY
APPEARED AND pISTRIBUTED PRINTED MATTER DEALING WITH HIS FIRM.
HE URGED THE LOMMISSION TO ADOPT THIS RESOLUTION ACCEPTING HIS
BID.
AFTER FURTHER DISCUSSION, THE MATTER WAS REFERRED TO THE
CITY ATTORNEY FOR A LEGAL OPINION AND A REPORT BACK TO THE
OMMISSION AT THE NEXT MEETING,
RECESS: NOTE - HE FETING WAS RECESSED AT 2:20 O'CLQCJ� P.M.
M
H (JOMMISSION MEETING RECONVENED AT LOU O'CLOCK
.. WITH ALL MEMBERS PRESENT
33. BID ACCEPTANCE - FIRE AND POLICE DEPARTMENT UNIFORMS
ICONNECTION
ITEM, MR, JIMLEINWIH VICEIMATTER I RESIDENTOFE LAMAR UNIFORMS, PRECEDING UNIFORMS,APPEARED
AND URG D TH IOMMISSION TO TAKE THE SAME ATTITUDE WITH RESPECT
TO THE IRE DE ARTMENT UN FORMS AS IT HAD JUST DONE WITH RESPECT
TO THE OLICE DEPARTMENT UNI; ..
34. DEMOLITION OF OLD STRUCTURES AT OLD PORT SITE
UPON THE RECOMMENDATION OF TIDE CITY MANAGER, THE FOLLOWING
RESOLUTION WAS INTRODUCED BY MR. iHRISTIE, WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION:
RESOLUTION NO. 43142
iYRAk 1-8
aE4AG8 H E�4 � NDAT� N�OF
(HERE FOLLOWS BOY OF RESOLUTION, OMITTED HERE AND
ON FILE IN THE LITY CLERKS OFFICE)
UPON BEING SECONDED BY REVEREND GRAHAM HE R SOLUTION WAS
iASSED AND ADOPTER BY HE FOLLOWING VOT - AYLS : SSRS . CHR I ST I E,
RAHAM, YLUMMER, MRS. (3ORDON AND MAYOR KENNEDY. NOES: NONE
35. CONFIRMATION OF ELECTED MEMBERS OF Tit CIVIL SERVICE BOARD
THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS INTRODUCED BY MR. PLUMMER, WHO
MOVED ITS ADOPTION:
41
1-6-72
41"
411
RESOLUTION NO. 43143
ORPLorIgAPON St WRIMERVICE
(HERE FOLLOWS BODY OF RESOLUTION, QMITTED HERE AND
ON FILE IN THE LITY CLERKS UFFICE)
UPON RgSOLUTIOf� WAS
bRAHAM, FLUMMER, MRS, THE
AND MAYOR KENNEDYJJ. NOhS: NONER I ST I E,
PRIOR TO THE INT ODUCT ON OF THE RESOLUTION, THE MAYOR READ A
LETTER FROM MR, LLARK MERRILL WHO WAS OBJECTING TO THE METHOD
TN WHICH THIS ELECTION HAD BEEN HELD EMPHASIZING THAT THE
COMMISSION HAD GONE ON RECORD SAYING THAT THE WINNING OF THIS
ELECTION SHOULD BE BY A MAJORITY VOTE,
36. LEGAL SERVICES CONTRACT - HAROLD YOUNG
THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS INTRODUCED BY MR, PLUMMER WHO
MOVED ITS ADOPTION:
RESOLUTION NO. 43144
iAlKIlNir!THEIEirw"00g3TP�,qNIx �� �eTk��k&&i6�s�k¢
(ONRFILELINWTHES OI.ITYRY FCLERKSU�FFICE)ION, MITTED HERE AND
UPON BEING SECONDED BY REVEREND GRAHAM HE RESOLUTION WAS
iASSED AND ADOPTERBY THE FOLLOWING VOT - AYLS: SSRS. HRISTIE,
RAHAM ,t'LUMMER, MRS. bORDON AND MAYOR KENNEDY. NOL.J: NONE
37. M IM I MEMO SAL COMMITTEE - FUND RAISING FOR CITY CEiMETARY
THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS INTRODUCED BY MR, CHRISTIE
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION:
RESOLUTION NO. 43145
S
P4
N ET2
F
IRPTIF
C
(HERE FOLLOWS BOY OF RESOLUTION, QMITTED HERE AND
ON FILE IN THE LITY CLERKS OFFICE)
UPON BEING SECONDED BY REVEREND GRAHAM HE
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE - AYLS:
GRAHAM, PLUMMER, MRS. GORDON AND{ MAYOR KENNEDY.
RESOLUTION WAS
MESSRS. CHRISTIE,
NOES: NONE.1-6-72
MR. CHRISTIE IN OFFERING THE RESOLUTION, CALLED ATTENTION TO
THE DEPLORABLE CONDITIONS EXISTING AT THE LEMETARY AND EXPRESSED
STRONG DESIRES TO CORRECT SAME.
38. OPERATION FIX -UP - DISSOLVING AND USE OF FUNDS
THE MAYOR CALLED ATTENTION TO A LETT R WHICH HE STATER HAD
BEEN RECEIVED
STATEDTHE
THEREPAST
WEREPRESIDENT Q$2/4. OEINTSIRPLUS FUNDS
ON-tIX UP IOGRAM
STILL
WHICH
REMAINING IN THAT ACCOUNT AND THE OPERATION IIX-UP HAD BEEN DIS-
CONTINUED,
RISSOLMAYOR KENNEDY SUGGESTED THAT THE COMMITTEE BE LEGALLY
VED AND THAT FUNSWHEREUPON THE FOLLOWINGERESOLUTBIONPUT WASTOINTRODUCEDSOMEEBYCMAYORALSKENNEDY
WHO URGES ITS ADOPTION:
RESOLUTION NO. 43146
A � TT-1441M
� NTF�� EE� YNG
EOFTH�8 4-PpAMIp�IE t�{I
����RRES��UT OfJNN�.t 314 ,CP SED
At � THIS DAE
(HERE FOLLOWS BOY OF RESOLUTION, OMITTED HERE AND
ON FILE IN THE LITY CLERKS UFFICE)
UPON BEING SECONDED BY MR. PLUMMER,,, THE_RESOLI1TION WA§
EASSEDF'LUMMER,1NLRRTHE
RAHAM, MRS. bORDONLANDILjMAYOR TKENNEDY. NOLS: NONERISTIE,
NOTE: PRIOR TO THE INT ODUCTION OF THE RESOLUTION, THE MAYOR
SURRENDERED THE HAIR TO VICE MAYOR (RAHAM AND FOLLOWING
THE ADOPTION OF THE RESOLUTION, THE MAYOR RESUMED THE CHAIR
39. POLICE CHAPLAIN
REVEREND GRAHAM CALLED ATTENTION TO AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HE
STATED DESIRED TO BECOME tOLICE CHAPLAIN AND REQUESTED THAT THE
THE CHIEF QF POLICE INVESTIGATE ALL ASPECTS OF THIS MATTER TO
WHICH THE COMMISSION AGREED.
40. MIAMI DOLPHINS DAY
REVEREND GRAHAM CALLED ATTENTION TO THE EXCELLENT RECORD
OF THE MIAMI DOLPHINS AND SUGGESTED SOME RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION
GO FORWARD TO THIS ORGANIZATION.AFTER DISCUSSION,
j� U
ROCLAMjATIONPROCLAIMINGHSUNDAY,I qTATED H JANUARYl6, 1912IASMIAMI E A DOLPHINS
DAY IN MIAMI. MAYOR KENNEDY EXPRESSED THE FURTHER OPINION THAT A
LUNCHEON SHOULD BE HELD FOR THIS ORGANIZATION.
41. MARTIN LUTHER KING DAY
THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS INTRODUCED BY REVEREND GRAHAM
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION:
RESOLUTION NO. 43147
AdiiRNIRRP Inkh 15, 1972 AS
(HERE FOLLOWS BODY OF RESOLUTION, QMITTED HERE AND
ON FILE IN THE LITY CLERKS UFFICE)
UPON BEING SECONDED BY MR. PLUMMER, THERESOLUTION WA
PASSED AND ADOPTER BY HE FOLLOWING VOTE - YLS: MESSRS. LHRISTIE,
GRAHAM♦ PLUMMER, MRS, CORDON AND MAYOR KENNEDY. NOES; NONE
43 1-6-72
•
�yy DDpp,,TT ��NN BwEIIKPLOYEES FOR PREPARATION OF STADIUM
42, C�I-O�NORA�GE
THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS INTRODUCED BY MAYOR KENNEDY
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION:
RESOLUTION NO. 43148
104EBTAVONITYPTIMPOIWAR
UT�FOOTALLHE�LLOQI1Av�
(HERE FOLLOWS BOY OF RESOLUTION, QMITTED HERE AND
ON FILE IN THE LITY CLERKS UFFICE)
OLM
-
UPON BEING SECONDED BY REVEREND GRAHAM THE RESOLUTION WAS
GPASSED AND ADOPTER BY THE FOLLOWING VOT - AYtS: SRS. LHRISTIE,
RAHAM, MUMMER, MRS. IiORDON AND MAYOR KENNEDY. NOLS: NONE
NOTE: PRIOR TO THE INTRODUCTION OF THE RES LUTION, THE MAYOR
SURRENDERED THE CHAIR TO VICE MAYOR RAHAM AND FOLLOWING
THE ADOPTION OF THE RESOLUTION, THEMAYOR RESUMED THE CHAIR.
43. ORANGE BOWL PARKING
THE MAYOR CALLED ATTENTION TO NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS WHICH HE
HAD RECEIVED FROM SEASON TICKET HOLDERS STATING THAT THEY HAD
TBEEN
HEM DURBNG THELE TO P�OLPHINRK I�OOTBAL�A�AMESLES IN THE PLACES ALLOTTED FOR
IAFTER BRIEF DISCUSSION, THE MATTER WAS RECEIVED TO THE CITY
MANAGER.
44. POLICE MODERNIZATION STUDY
THE CITY MANAGER'S STAFF TOGETHER WITH MEMBERS OF THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT UNDERTOOK A DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THE METHOD OF
THE E�TTYGQF IAMIM�OLICEF�EPARTMEN RM TO DO THIS MODERNIZATION STUDY FOR
MR. W. ANDREW , ASSISTANT LITY MANAGER, STATED IT WAS
RECOMMENDED THAT THE STANFORD KESEARCH INSTITUTE BE THE ONE
SELECTED TO DO THIS WORK.
MAYOR KENNEDY EXPRESSED THE OPINION THAT THIS ENTIRE MA TER
HAD BEEN HANDLED IMPROPERLY. AFTER FURTH R DISCUSSION, MR, LHRISTIE
TATED HE WOULD MOVE THE ADOPTION OF THE CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION.
HERE WAS NO SECOND TO THE MOTION.
MR. PLUMMER REQUESTED THAT THIS MATTER BE DEFERRED FOR TWO
WEEKS AND THAT IF PO SIBLE THE CITY MANAGER SECURE FOR THE COMMISSION,
FROM THE WASHINGTON INSTITUTE THE REASON FOR ITS RECOMMENDATION,
AFTER FURTHER DISCUSSION, THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS
INTRODUCED BY MR. PLUMMER WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION:
RESOLUTION NO. 43149
ME �U pAlfTEIT.9
�QH YD TNET
M
AKE
FI t Vo DSS N
T S
E
S
Y
IION,
CONRFILELINWTHEO�ITYFCLERKSUUFFICE)QMITTED HERE AND
UPN BEING SECONDED BY MRS. GORDON, THFYS SOLUTION WAS
EASSED ,,E�RPIRSY IHE bORDONAND MAYORKENNEDY. NO
FOLLOWING
I TEW
bRAHAM, AND MUMMERS: MR. CHR I ST I E.
44 1-6-72
45, USE OF CITY OWNEDFACILITIES - 10 DAY NOTICE PRIOR TO EVENT
An Ordinance entitled -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 8000
TO PROVIDE THAT THE APPLICATION FORM REQ-
UIRED BY ORDINANCE NO. 8000 FOR SUBMISSION
TO THE CITY MANAGER PRIOR TO ANY PERSON,
FIRM, PARTNERSHIP OR ORGANIZATION USING ANY
FACILITY OR PROPERTY OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
FOR EVENTS, MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY
MANAGER A MINIMUM OF TEN (10) DAYS PRIOR
TO THE PROPOSED COMMENCEMENT DATE OF SAID
EVENT; DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE AN
EMERGENCY MEASURE; DISPENSING WITH THE
REQUIREMENT OF READING THE SAME ON TWO
SEPARATE DAYS BY A VOTE OF NOT LESS THAN
FOUR -FIFTHS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION
was introduced by Mr. Christie and seconded by Reverend Graham
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. Christie, Graham,
Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
Whereupon the Commission, on motion of Mr. Christie,seconded by
Reverend Graham, adopted said ordinance by the following vote -
AYES: Messrs. Christie, Graham, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor
Kennedy. NOES: None. and said ordinance was designated Ordinance
No. 8029.
46, REGULAR AND PRIMARY CITY ELECTIONS - CHANGING DATES OF
An Ordinance entitled -
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE AMENDMENT OF A PART
OF SECTION 8 OF THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,
CHAPTER 10847, SPECIAL ACTS, LAWS.OF FLORIDA,1925
AS AMENDED, CHANGING THE DATES OF THE REGULAR AND
PRIMARY ELECTIONS BY PROVIDING THAT THE REGULAR
MUNICIPAL ELECTION FOR THE ELECTION OF COMMISSIONERS
SHALL BE HELD ON THE SECOND TUESDAY AFTER THE FIRST
MONDAY IN NOVEMBER IN ODD -NUMBERED YEARS, AND THE
NON -PARTISAN PRIMARY ELECTION FOR THE NOMINATION
OF CANDIDATES FOR THE COMMISSION SHALL BE HELD ON
THE FIRST TUESDAY AFTER THE FIRST MONDAY IN NOV-
EMBER IN ODD -NUMBERED YEARS: PROVIDING FOR THE
CALLING OF A SPECIAL ELECTION ON MARCH 14, 1972,
AND PROVIDING FOR THE AMENDMENT TO APPEAR ON THE
BALLOT; PROVIDING THAT THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT
SHALL BE REFERRED TO AS CITY CHARTER AMENDMENT NO.
1; PROVIDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE BE DECLARED AN
EMERGENCY MEASURE, AND DISPENSING WITH THE REQUIRE-
MENT OF READING THIS ORDINANCE ON TWO SEPARATE DAYS
BY A FOUR -FIFTHS VOTE OF THE COMMISSION
was introduced by Mr. Plummer, seconded by Reverend Graham for
adoption as an emergency measure and dispensing wih the requirement
of reading same on two separate days, which was agreed to by the
following vote: AYES: Messrs. Christie, Graham, Plummmer, Mrs.
Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
45
1- 6-7 2
son motion of Mr. Plummer, and seconded
Whereupon the Commission, ,
by Reverend Graham, adopted said Ordinance by the following vote -
AYES: Messrs. Christie, Plummer, Graham, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor
Kennedy. NOES: None
Said Ordinance was designated No. 8030.
47
COST OF HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS - APPORTIONMENT TO THE CITY
An Ordinance entitled -
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE AMENDMENT OF PART OF
SECTION 56 (J) (4) (b) OF THE CHARTER OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI, CHAPTER 10847, SPECIAL ACTS, LAWS
OF FLORIDA, 1925, AS AMENDED WHICH PROVIDES FOR
THE APPORTIONMENT OF COST TO THE CITY OF THE COST
OF HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS ABUTTING PROPERTY, PROV-
IDING FOR THE CALLING OF A SPECIAL ELECTION ON
MARCH 14, 1972 AND PROVIDING FOR THE AMENDMENT TO
APPEAR ON THE BALLOT; PROVIDING THAT THIS PROPOSED
AMENDMENT SHALL BE REFERRED TO AS CITY CHARTER
AMENDMENT NO.2; PROVIDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE•BE
DECLARED AN EMERGENCY MEASURE, AND DISPENSING WITH
THE REQUIREMENT OF READING THIS ORDINANCE ON TWO
SEPARATE DAYS BY A FOUR -FIFTHS VOTE OF THE
COMMISSION
was introduced by Mr. Christie and 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. Christie,
Graham, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
Whereupon the Commission on motion of Mr. Christie,seconded
by Mr. Plummer adopted said Ordinance by the following vote
AYES: Messrs. Christie, Graham, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and
Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
Said ordinance was designated Ordinance No. 8031.
48. COST OF SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS - APPORTIONMENT TO THE CITY
An Ordinance entitled -
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION
56 (J) (4) (d) OF THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI, CHAPTER 10847, SPECIAL ACTS, LAWS OF FLO-
RIDA, 1925, AS AMENDED, APPORTIONING THE COST
OF SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS TO PROVIDE THAT ONE-
FOURTH OF THE COST OF SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS BE
APPORTIONED TO THE ABUTTING PROPERTY AND THE
OTHER THREE FOURTHS OF THE COSE OF SIDEWALK IMP-
ROVEMENTS BE APPORTIONED TO THE CITY AT LARGE;
PROVIDING FOR THE CALLING OF A SPECIAL ELECTION
ON MARCH 14, 1972, AND PROVIDING FOR THE AMEND-
MENT TO APPEAR ON THE BALLOT; PROVIDING THAT THIS
PROPOSED AMENDMENT SHALL BE REFERRED TO AS CITY
CHARTER AMENDMENT NO. 3; PROVIDING THAT THIS
ORDINANCE BE DECLARED AN EMERGENCY MEASURE; AND
DISPENSING WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF READING THIS
ORDINANCE ON TWO SEPARATE DAYS BY A FOUR -FIFTHS
VOTE OF THE COMMISSION
46
1-6-72
was introduced by Mr. Plummer, seconded by Reverend Graham for
adoption as an emergency measure and-g4avensing with the requirement
of reading same on two separate days, which was agreed to by the
following vote - AYES: Messrs. Christie, Graham, Plummer, Mrs.
Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
Whereupon the Commission on motion of Mr. Plummer, seconded by
Reverend Graham adopted said Ordinance by the following vote -
AYES: Messrs. Christie, Graham, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor
Kennedy. NOES: None
Said Ordinance was designated Ordinance No. 8032.
co, SIDEWALK AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS- ASSESSMENTS OF CORNER LOTS
An Ordinance entitled -
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE AMENDMENT OF PART
OF SECTION 56 (J) (4) OF THE CHARTER OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI, CHAPTER 10847, SPECIAL ACTS,
LAWS OF FLORIDA, 1925, AS AMENDED, WHICH PRO-
VIDES FOR ASSESSMENT OF INDIVIDUAL LOTS FOR
IMPROVEMENTS, BY ADDING A NEW PARAGRAPH TO
PROVIDE THAT EXCEPT THAT IN THE CASE OF HIGH-
WAY AND SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS CORNER LOTS SHALL
BE APPORTIONED THE COST OF THE IMPROVEMENT ABUT-
TING THAT PORTION OF THE LONG SIDE OF THE LOT
IN EXCESS OF 50 FEET IN ADDITION TO THE COST
OF THE IMPROVEMENT ABUTTING THE SHORT SIDE OF
THE LOT; PROVIDING FOR THE CALLING OF A SPECIAL
ELECTION ON MARCH 14, 1972, AND PROVIDING FOR
THE AMENDMENT TO APPEAR ON THE BALLOT; PROVIDING
THAT THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT SHALL BE REFERRED
TO AS CITY CHARTER AMENDMENT NO. 4; PROVIDING
THAT THIS ORDINANCE BE DECLARED AN EMERGENCY
MEASURE, AND DISPENSING WITH THE REQUIREMENT
OF READING THIS ORDINANCE ON TWO SEPARATE DAYS
BY A FOUR -FIFTHS VOTE OF THE COMMISSION
was introduced by Reverend Graham, seconded by Mr. Christie, for
adoption as an emergency measure and dispensing with the require-
ment of reading same on two separate days, which was agreed to by
the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Christie, Graham, Plummer,
Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None. Whereupon the
Commission on motion of Reverend Graham, seconded by Mr. Christie,
adopted said ordinance by the following vote - AYES: Messrs.
Christie, Graham, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES:
None.
Said Ordinance was designated Ordinance No. 8033.
50. SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION - MARCH 14, 1972 - RESOLUTION
CALLING
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer
who moved its adoption:
47
1-6-72
RESOLUTION NO. 43150
A RESOLUTION CALLING AND MAKING PROVISION FOR SPECIAL
MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON MARCH 14, 1972, IN
THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING
TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI FOR THEIR
APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CHARTER
OF THE CITY OF MIAMI: CITY CHARTER AMENDMENT NO. 1:
"SHALL SECTION 8 OF THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,
CHAPTER 10847, SPECIAL ACTS, LAWS OF FLORIDA, 1925, AS
AMENDED, ESTABLISHING THE DATES FOR THE REGULAR AND
PRIMARY ELECTIONS, BE AMENDED BY PROVIDING THAT THE
REGULAR MUNICIPAL ELECTION FOR THE ELECTION OF COM-
MISSIONERS SHALL BE HELD ON THE SECOND TUESDAY AFTER THE
FIRST MONDAY IN NOVEMBER IN ODD -NUMBERED YEARS, AND THE
NON -PARTISAN PRIMARY ELECTION FOR THE NOMINATION OF CANDI-
DATES FOR THE COMMISSION SHALL BE HELD ON THE FIRST TUESDAY
AFTER THE FIRST MONDRY IN NOVEMBER IN ODD -NUMBERED YEARS?";
CITY CHARTER AMENDMENT NO. 2: "SHALL SECTION 56(J)(4)(b)
OF THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, CHAPTER 10827, SPECIAL
ACTS, LAWS OF FLORIDA, 1925, AS AMENDED, WHICH PROVIDES
FOR THE APPORTIONMENT OF COST TO THE CITY OF THE COST OF
HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS, BE AMENDED TO PROVIDE THAT THREE -
FOURTHS OF THE COST OF HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS ABUTTING
PROPERTY BE APPORTIONED TO THE CITY AT LARGE IN ADDITION
TO THE COST OF THE HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT AT INTERSECTIONS
AND THAT THE NAME OF THIS PARAGRAPH BE CHANGED TO
'APPORTIONMENT OF COST TO CITY'?"; CITY CHARTER AMENDMENT
NO. 3: "SHALL SECTION 56(J)(4)(d) OF THE CHARTER OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI, CHAPTER 10847, SPECIAL ACTS, LAWS OF FLORIDA,
1925, AS AMENDED, WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE APPORTIONMENT OF
THE COST OF SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS, BE AMENDED TO PROVIDE
THAT OBE -FOURTH OF THE COST OF SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS BE
APPORTIONED TO THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS AND TO APPOR-
TION THE OTHER THREE -FOURTHS OF THE COST OF SIDEWALK
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE CITY AT LARGE?"; CITY CHARTER AMEND-
MENT NO. 4: "SHALL SECTION 56 (J) (4) (n) OF THE CHARTER
OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, CHAPTER 10847, SPECIAL ACTS, LAWS
OF FLORIDA, 1925, AS AMENDED, WHICH PROVIDES FOR ASSESS-
MENT OF INDIVIDUAL LOTS FOR IMPROVEMENTS, BE AMENDED TO
ADD THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH: 'EXCEPT THAT IN THE CASE
OF BIGHWAY AND SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS THE CORNER LOTS SHALL
BE' APPORTIONED•THE COST OF THE IMPROVEMENT ABUTTING THAT
PORTION OF THE LONG SIDE OF THE LOT IN EXCESS OF 50 FEET
IN ADDITION TO THE COST OF THE IMPROVEMENT ABUTTING THE
SHORT SIDE OF THS LOT.'?": PROVIDING FOR THE DESIGNATION
OF POLLING PLACES;' PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION AND NOTICE OF
SPECIAL ELECTION AND THE SUBJECT MATTER THEREOF AND RATIFY-
ING AND CONFIRMING THE ACTS OF THE PROPER OFFICIALS PERTAINING
48
THERETO, PROVIDING THAT THE CLERK OP TIIE CITY OF MIAMI
IS DESIGNATED AND APPOINTED THE OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVE
OF THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI IN TRANSACTIONS
WITH THE SUPERVISOR OF REGISTRATION OF DADE COUNTY;
AUTHORIZING THE PROPER OFFICIALS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
AND DADS COUNTY TO PERFORM THE NECESSARY ACTS TO SUBMIT
SAID AMENDMENTS TO THE ELECTORATE AT THE MARCH 14, 1972,
SPECIAL ELECTION.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here
and on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Reverend Graham, the resolution
was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs.
Christie, Graham, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy
NOES: None
51, PROPOSED BOND ELECTION_
THE CITY MANAGER STATED THQ THE LAW REQUIRED A BOND
ELECTION TO BE CALLED AT LEAST 5U DAYS IN ADVANCE BUT.THAT THIS
REQUIREMENT WAS FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT NOT SUFFICIENT,
HE EXPRESSED THE OPINION THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO LESS THAN 45
DAYS INTERVENING BETWEEN THE CALLING OF THE ELECTION AND THE
HOLDING OF THE ELECTION,
ADJOURNMENT: HERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BMMFQQ THiiE
COISSION, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 4:LUE P..
ATTEST:
"I VERN •
49
DAVID��OCENNEDY
ICIT:114 of MIAMI
DOCUMENT
MEETING DATE:
INDEX JANUARY 6,.1972
ITEM N0.
1.
2.
•
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION
COMMISSION AGENDA & CITY CLERK REPORT (18 pgs.)
DETAILED REPORT - TRANSFERRING PARK SYSTEM -
METROPLOITAN DADE COUNTY
VARIANCE - LOT 2, BLK. 3, 4051 N.W. 6 ST.
VARIANCE - LOT 12 & LOT 13 BLK. 2, 3580 ROCKER -
MAN RD.
VARIANCE - LOT 19, BLK. 3, 746 N.E. 67 ST.
VARIANCE - El LOT 6, ALL LOTS 7, 8, & 9, BLK.
L, 3565 AVOCADO AVE.
CLAIM SETTLEMENT - PEARLINE BROWN & BERTHA
SMITH BRINSON
SINCERE SYMPATHY & CONDOLENCES - FAMILY OF THE
LATE JOE J. MASON
SPECIAL ASSISSMENTS - S.E. 14 ST. HIGHWAY IM-
PROVEMENT H-4352
DISCLAIM AGREEMENT - SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE
AMEND R-42309 - PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT
ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK - CORAL WAY STORM SEWER
PROJECT - 1971
ACCEPT COMPLETED WORK - MARINE STADIUM RESTA-
URANT - UTILITIES & ACCESS RD. (BID "B" )
ACCEPT COVENANT - SANITARY SEWER FORCE MAIN -
MR. & MRS. DAMIANO
ACCEPT COVENANT - SANITARY SEWER FORCE MAIN -
THOMAS DAVIDSON III
RIGHT OF WAY DEED - DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD
WEST SIDE N.W. 7 AVE. BETWEEN 19 & 20 STS.
RIGHT OF WAY DEED - DADE COUNTY - N.W. 76 ST.
BETWEEN N.W. 1 CT. & N. MIAMI AVE.
ACCEPT PLAT - PALM BAY CLUB
ACCEPT BID - PHOTOGRAPHIC SUPPLIES
WITHOUT COMPETITIVE BIDDING - SQUIRREL CAGE
FAN WHEEL ASSEMBLY
ACCEPT BID - PEST CONTROL
COMMISSION
ACTION
R-43117
R-43118
R-43120
R-43121
R-43122
R-43126
R-43127
R-43128
R-43129
R-43130
R-43131
R-43132
R-43133
R-43134
R-43135
R-43136
DEFERRED
R-43137
R-43138
R-43139
RETRIEVAL
CODE NO.
0052
43117
43118
43120
43121
43122
43126
43127
43128
43129
43130
43131
43132
43133
43134
43135
43136
0053
43137
43138
43139
(CAN'T NEXT PAGE)
(I1I1Ulll 111110 III
Ai
INISSI Iii11141lillili Im 11 16
ITEM NO. DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
ACCEPT BID - WINDOW WASHING SERIVCES
ACCEPT BID - ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SERVICE
ACCEPT BID - UNIFORM CLOTHING
APPOINT MEMBERS - CIVIL SERVICE BOARD
LEGAL SERVICES - HAROLD YOUNG
SELECT FIRM TO MAKE STUDY - MODERNIZATION MIAMI
POLICE DEPARTMENT
SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION - MARCH 14, 1972
PROPOSED CITY OF MIAMI PARKS & RECREATIONAL
BOND PROGRAM
I0CUMLEN11Ni i)
CONTINUED
ACTION -_ _ _CDDE NO.
R-43140 43140
R-43141 43141
DEFERRED 0054
R-43143 43143
R-43144 43144
R-43149 43149
R-43150 43150
DISCUSSION 0055