HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1972-05-04 MinutesLCITY OF MIAMI
-
COMMISSION
MINUTES
OF MEETING HELD ON MAY 4, 1972
PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY HALL
INDEX TO
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
May 4, 1972
1. WAIVING READING OF MINUTES:
2. USE OF BAYFRONT PARK AF:ITORIUM JULY 1972
DEMOCRATIC NATIONALITY FAIR:
3. PROCLAMATIONS:
4. ORANGE BOWL CONCESSION:
ORDINANCE &
RESOLUTION NOS.
5. OBJECTIONS TO CONFIRMATION ORDERING RESOLUTION
SR-5352-CP(CENTOERLINEUNT NSEWEA� IMPROVEMENT
6. OBJ. TO CONFIRMATION OR ORDERING RESO. 72-33
CORAL WAY SOUTH HIGHWAY IMPRV. H-4354:
7. USE OF BUILDINGS-MIAMI RIVER COMPLEX -HOUSING
AND URBAN DEV. OFFICES:
6. VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE -BLOCK 100S BRICKELL
ADD AMD.:
9. CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION-N. CITY LIMITS,
W. 57TH AVENUE AND SOUTH WEST 5TH STREET:
10. CHANGE IN DATE -NEXT SCHEDULED COMMISSION
MEETING MAY 1972:
11. LUAU AT MARINE STADIUM -HOST COMMITTEE FOR
DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION:
72-122
72-123
72-124
72-125
72-126
72-127
72-128
72-129
72-130
12. HOURS FOR SALE OF BEER ON SUNDAY-FLA. RESTAURANT
ASSOCIATION:
13. NE 34 ST & NE 2 AVE. FEC RIGHT OF WAY - USE OF
BY EUSTER FURNITURE: 72-131
14. HIGH SCHOOL HALL OF FAME - CLASSIC TRACK AND
FIELD MEET:
15. BRIGADA DE ASALTO 2506 - GIRON MONUMENT:
16. PROPOSED BUILDING MORATORIUM -COCONUT GROVE
CIVIC CLUB:
17. COCONUT GROVE ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION DIST:
18. COMMUNITY RELATIONS BOARD REPORT -PARK DEVELOPMENT: 72-132
19. CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION LOTS 21 & 22 CLAYTON
HEIGHTS: 8055
20. CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION - PLAZA VENETIA: 8056
21. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - PLANNED AREA DEV. DIST: 8057
22. ACCEPTANCE OF HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY DEEDS-
AIERICANA KNITTING MILLS: 72-133
23. SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT - ACCEPTANCE-
HODGKINS-HUDSON: 72-134
24. UTILITY RELOCATION MASTER AGREEMENT-FLA. DEPT
OF TRANSPORTATION:
.1-
72-135
ORDINANCE &
RESOLUTION NOS
25. ACCEPTANCE OF HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY DEED-
N.E. 26 STREET LTD.:
26. WASTE COLLECTION LICENSE -GENERAL HAULING SERVICE,
INC:
27. EXTENSION OF LEASE - CORAL REEF YACHT CLUB:
28. DELETION OF SUB PARAGRAPH B-ELECTIONS---CODE:
29. MODIFICATION OF THE COAST GUARD FACILITY:
30. OFFICE SPACE FOR MID -CITY EMPLOYEES FEDERAL
CREDIT UNION:
31. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN-EDISON CENTER YOUTH
COMMUNITY BUILDING:
32. REINSTITUTION OF PAYMENTS TO AMERICAN BILTRITE
RUBBER COMPANY, INC.:
33, ZXCIBZ TAX TO INCLUDE FUEL OILS:
34. CHANNEL RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT-MIAMI HARBOR
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT:
36.
37. SETTLEMENT OF CLAIM- ARLENE WIESBERG:
38. SETTLEMENT OF CLAIM - HELEN SCHARRER:
39. SETTLEMENT OF CLAIM - RICHARD WITT AND JEANNE
40. SETTLEMENT OF CLAIM - DAVE BARRETT:
41. SETTLEMENT OF CLAIM - FLORENCE DAVIS:
42. SETTLEMENT OF CLAIM - EDWARD KATZ:
43. SETTLEMENT OF CLAIM - EDMUND G. MAYHALL,
FATHER OF JOHN MAYHALL:
44. C.B.D. ZONING STUDY-MIAMI RIVER WALKWAY PROJ:
45. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED HIGHWAY IMPROVE-
MENTS FOR 62 STREET:
46. PLAT ACCEPTANCE - MIAMI CLUB APARTMENTS:
47. BID AWARD - S.E. 14 STREET HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT:
48. BID AWARD - FLORIDA UNDERGROUND UTILITIES INC.
LE JEUNE GARDENS STORM SEWER OUTFALL:
49. ALLAPATTAH COMSTOCK PARK - FENCING 1972 -
KING FENCE:
50. MANOR AND MOORE PARKS -FENCING 1972-FENCE MASTERS:
51. TENNIS COURT RENOVATION -MANOR AND MOORE PARKS:
52. INTERAMA REPORT:
53. APPEARANCE BY DAVID•CERF:
35. SETTLEMENT OF CLAIM - JAMES W. THOMAS &
CLARA BELL THOMAS:
SETTLEMENT OF CLAIM LESTER GREEN JR.:
72-136
72-137
72-138
(lat reading)
72-139
72-140
72-141
72-142
(1st72e144ng)
72-143
72-145
72-146
72-147
72-148
WITT:72-149
72-150
72-151
72-152
72-153
72-154
72-155
72-156
72-157
72-158
72-159
72-160
72-161
ORDINANCE &
RESOLUTION NOS.
54. BID AWARD - RAYBRO ELECTRIC & GENERAL ELEC.
MOORE AND MANOR PARKS ` LUCALOXS LIGHTS: 72-162
55. BID AWARD - PRE STRESSED CONCRETE POLES: 72-163
56. INSTALLATION OF LUCALOX LIGHTS IN LIBERTY CITY
EDISON CENTER AND COCONUT GROVE AREAS: 72-164
57. ADJUST, CLOSE CERTAIN REV. & EXPENDITURE
ACCOUNTS -LIBRARIES FUND: 72-165
58. EXPENDITURES - LUCALOX LIGHTING: 72-166
59. BID AWARD -ORANGE BOWL SOUND SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS: 72-167
60. MANOR-MOORE PARK IMPROVEMENTS - PURCHASE OF
MATERIALS AND USE OF CITY FORCES: 72-168
CITYICOt47ISSI0fVERNAETFLORIDA
ON THE 4TH DAY OF MAY, 1972, THE CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI,
FLORIDA, MET AT ITS REGULAR MEETING PLACE IN SAID CITY IN REGULAR
SESSI QN.
IHE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 9:55
A.M�BY MAY0B DAVID
XTFOLLOWING MEMAERS PRESENT: NNW
E,
LUMMER, bbIBSON,MRS§ ORDONAND MAYORKENNEDY. ��t: NONE
AN INVOCATION WAS DELIVERED BY REVEREND GIBSON WHO THEN LED
THOSE PRESENT IN A PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG.
1. WAIVING READING OF THE MINUTES
THE following motion was introduced by Mr. Plummer who
moved its adoption:
A MOTION TO WAIVE READING OF THE MINUTES OF
THE PREVIOUS CITY COMMISSION MEETING
Upon being seconded by Mr. Christie, the motion was passed and
adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Christie, Plummer,
Gibson, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
2. USE OF BAYFRONT PARK AUDITORIUM JULY 1972 DEMOCRATIC NATIONALITY FAIR
Mrs. Clara Weintraub together with Mr. Robert Moss of the
Democratic Coordinating Committee appeared to request relief of
rental fee and other costs for use of the Bayfront Park Auditorium
to be held during July 1972 as an event for visitors to the Demo-
cratic National Convention to be held in Miami Beach. Mrs. Weintraub
explained that this was to be a Nationality Fair with representation
of the cultures and foods of several countries to be represented and
that it was not a profit making venture but rather to stage the only
entertainment for the convention visitors that would be held in the
City of Miami.
Mrs. Gordon expressed the opinion that this appeared to be a
duplication of effort with plans already formulated by the Folk
Festival Committee created by the Commission and that Mr. Marty Friedman
would address the Commission concerning these plans.
Mr. Friedman outlined the plans for a similar type of event at
the same facility during the same period.
Mrs. Gordon expressed the opinion that these two groups should
get together to concentrate their respective efforts on one big event
instead of two duplicitous events.
After considerable further discussion, the following resolution
was introduced by Mr. Plummer, who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 72-122
A RESOLUTION WAIVING THE RENTAL FEE FOR THE USE
OF BAYFRONT PARK AUDITORIUM FOR A DEMOCRATIC
NATIONALITY FAIR TO BE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH
THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION IN JULY 1972
CONDITIONED UPON THE PAYMENT OF THE NECESSARY
INCIDENTAL CHARGES IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE
OF SAID FACILITY
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
file in the City Clerks Office)
MAY 4, 1972
Upon being seconded by Mr. Christie, the resolution was passed
and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Christie, Plummer,
Gibson, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
3. PROCLAMATIONS
The following proclamations were presented by Mayor David T.
Kennedy and members of the City Commission to the following:
MR. ALBERT PALLOTT
MRS. ENTERLINE
"Paint Up -Fix Up Week in Miami"
ADA MERRITT SCHOOL
MR. FREDDY LEWIS
"Handball Championship Winner"
4, ORANGE BOWL CONCESSION
Mr. Paul: Mr. Mayor and Members of the Commission, I believe your
City Attorney, or at least he so advised me has advised you of the
action which the Court has taken in the Orange Bowl Concessions matter.
Briefly the Court has said that you cannot adopt a resolution repealing
your April 18 resolution directing competitive bidding and requiring a
third party to post a surety bond or an indemnity bond. As I have
explained, we are perfectly willing to post such a bond but the Court
has enjoined the City from receiving such a bond from the Dolphins
so we cannot and are prohibited from posting it. The Court has said
and I will read you from the transcript. The City is either going
to have to go on their own and cancel the thing by resolution and
take their chances or leave it. Again from the Court, either they do
something or they do not do it, we do not really care what they do
and all you have got to do is pass a simple resolution saying that
we have cancelled everything and we are offering straight bids period
and thats what frankly I had thought you had already done but I am
asking you to reaffirm this morning that exercise of your legislative
judgment and determine if the concessions at the Orange Bowl should
be awarded by open competitive bidding. In other words, reaffirm the
repeal of your April 18 resolution and direct that the concessions
be awarded by open competitive bidding to all bidders. After much
discussion and many meetings I thought that thats what the legislative
judgment of the majority of this Commission had been and the fact that
the bond was also brought up at the same time has let the court to
enter an injunction which prohibits the City from receiving under the
original competitive bid resolution, that one only, the City's proposal
of April 11, 1972, which contemplated the posting of an indemnity bond
by the Miami Dolphins.
Mayor Kennedy: Mr. Andrews, would you bring Mrs. Gordon and Canon
Gibson up to date?
Mr. Andrews: Yes Mr. Mayor. At the conclusion of the 1966 football
season, the food and beverage concessions at the Orange Bowl was
brought to a conclusion. The contractor that had that agreement, their
agreement terminated in 1966. The City Commission authorized the City
Manager to solicit public proposals under a process of receiving
proposals from the public to provide for the Food and Beverage concession_
fora five year period at the Orange Bowl, that would have been from
1967 through the 1971 football season. An award was made to Restaurant
Associates for the Food and Beverage concession. That agreement
terminated at the conclusion of the 1971 football season, the season
that just has passed. The City administration based on the excellent
service that Restaurant Associates had rendered the City submitted a
recommendation that a proposal from Restaurant Associates be accepted
to extend the existing lease agreement for an additional five years
with a two year option. That new five year period would begin this
coming football season, approximately August. The Commission adopted
a resolution based on the information that was supplied to them to
authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement. After that action
was taken, Mr. Paul appeared before the Commission on several occasions
and requested that the Commission rescind their action and to place
this food and beverage concession back out under competitive bid.
-5_
MAY 4, 1972
The Commission then discussed with Dan Paul, the City Attorney and
the City Manager the possibility of lawsuits that might develop as
a result of rescinding their resolution awarding it to Restaurant
Associates. At that point, arrangements were made so that Mr. Paul
representing the Dolphins, you correct me if I am wrong Mr. Paul,
is that correct?
Mr. Paul: You are correct except it was a three year option not a
two year option. It was an eight year extension that you proposed.
Mr. Andrews: Arrangements where'-y the Dolphins would post a bond
protecting the City in the event that Restaurant Associates would
take this into litigation. The City Commission then rescinded their
resolution which awarded the exten :ion to Restaurant Associates and
authorized the City Manager to re_.ive public proposals for the Food
and Beverage concession. Several days after the City Manager was
authorized to receive proposals, Restaurant Associates presented the
City Attorney with notice .as to breach of contract. The specifications
were prepared and the project advertised with the intention that the
City would receive bids on April 26. On April 24, a temporary injun-
ction was issued by the Court and the bids the city received on the
26th were unopened and returned to the bidder. I shouldn't use the
term bidder, it is really proposal and they were returned to the
proposers. We are at that point now.
Mr. Rothstein: Commissioner Gibson, you are coming in at the tail
end of hours and hours of Commission meetings, opinions, statements,
and if I can, I will sum up for you, the posture. In april 16, 1971,
the City Commmission passed a resolution, No. 42370. The Commission
acted based upon the recommendation of the City Manager which is
reflected on page 7 of the minutes of that meeting which the manager
stated as follows: I would recommend to the Commission that we extend
this contract with these amendments for five more years with an option
for three more years. The terms and conditions were an increase in
the minimum guarantee from $100,000 to $150,000 together with various
items of additional investment in the operation of the concession by
Restaurant Associates. The details are set forth in page 56 on items
1 through 8 of the minutes of that meeting. Thereafter the matter of
the contract specifically the amendment to the original concession
agreement being prepared was carried out and in the process when
Mr. Paul appeared before the Commission and took a legal position with
the Commission that that procedure of April 1 was illegal because it
was required to be put out for public bid. I then advised the
Commission on that day in many days thereafter, many times thereafter,
that the Commission did act lawfully in passing that resolution and
as a matter of fact, in connection with the Orange Bowl Concession,
several years prior, there was a lawsuit which took exactly that
position by someone who bid that it had to be public bidding and was
to the lowest bidder, and that lost in the Court. So number one my
legal opinion is that the resolution passed on April. 1, 1971
that the Commission in passing this resolution extending that contract
upon the recommendation of the City Manager was legal. Thereafter,
there were many meetings and many discussions and Mr. Paul signed or
filed a suit against the City to declare that particular resolution
illegal. In other words, that I was wrong and he was right and of
course, the Commission acted on recommendations in all cases. The
injunction hearing was scheduled for January 25. The Commission then
passed a resolution in December of 1971 which stated as follows:
Whereas the Commission by RESOLUTION 42370, authorizing the extension
of the present lease agreement with Restaurant Associates Industries,
whereas the Miami Dolphins have filed litigation in the Circuit Court
to enjoin the action of the City and a hearing has been set for a
temporary restraining order on Jan. 25, 1972, whereas Restaurant
Associates has paid and the City has accepted the increased minimum
guarantee, pursuant to the above resolution, now therefore be it
resolved by the City Commission of the City of Miami, Section 1.
The City Manager and the City Clerk are hereby authorized to delay
until January 25, 1972, the formal signing of amendment No. 1 that
refers to the document attached and recognizing an agreement as to
terms that delayed the formal signing of it extending the agreement
with Restaurant Associates until the Court rules on the Dolphins
request for an injunction set for hearing on January 25, 1972 as
contained in the case of Joseph Robbie, number 71-23763. In the event
no injunction is entered, the City Manager may proceed as directed
under Resolution No. 42370. _6_
MAY 4, 1972
That was the original resolution of April 15, 1971 extending the
Contract. Mr. Paul appeared at the Commission Meeting on January
20th and during the course of the discussions in front of the
Commission, when the Restaurant Associates were represented by
their New York counsel, Restaurant Associates took a position that
because of their actions of giving the city an extra $50,000 above
what they were required to do by the usual contract, and other
actions of spending money that they had a valid contract and if
the Commission acted to rescind their previous resolution, that
would be a breach of contract and they would look to the City for
damages. When the Commission acted on January 20th, they then in
fact, as Mr. Andrews has advised you, sent us a letter putting us
on notice that they are looking to us for damages for breach of
contract in the sum of three million dollars. The Restaurant
Associates hired Marion Sibley as an attorney and he became an
intervener in the case and a recent hearing was held which Mr.
Paul described to you which I will get to in a minute but in any
event, on January 20, 1972, Mrs. Gordon said that because of the
fact that Mr. Paul had represented that the Dolphins were willing
to indemnify the City and Hold Harmless for the City against any
loss even up to three million dollars and post a bond in some
appropriate amount so we would have some money up as well as the
promise,for the full amount, Mrs. Gordon moved another resolution
which said as follows. This was 5 days before the injunction hearing
and that injunction hearing was an injunction hearing on the basis
of Mr. Paul's contention that what was done in April 1971 extending
the agreement was illegal. So on January 20, Mrs. Gordon made the
motion which was passed 4-1 as follows: Whereas the City Commission
of the City of Miami adopted Resolution No. 42370 authorizing an
extension of the present lease agreement for concession rights at
the Miami Orange Bowl Stadium from the date of its expiration for
an additional five year period with option to renew for additional
three years. Now, I must point out that technically in April 1971
the contract still had a year to go. As a result of the action of
the Commission extending the contract which came from having a
minimum of this year of a $100,000 to a minimum of $150,000 and
those other capital aspects of money being put into the operation
were put in for the operation of the concession at the Orange Bowl
for this past football season which is why Restaurant Associates
has taken a potition that they acted in a reliance position based
upon they have a contract with us and if we cancel, its a breach
of contract and they are entitled to damages. Thats their position.
The resolution went on, whereas Joseph Robbie etc. have filed a suit
in Circuit Court attempting to enjoin us from entering into an
agreement with Restaurant Associates as authorized by the above
resolution and whereas the Commission adopted Resolution No. 43113
authorizing the City Manager and the City Clerk to delay until
January 25, 1972, the date of the hearing, or the injunction by
the plaintiff, in the cause of the signing of the amendment number
one to the lease agreement which would have authorized the five
year extension with option to renew by Restaurant Associates and
whereas the plaintiffs in the above referred to cause by their
attorney have proferred to the City that they will stand the City
of Miami harmless for any loss or damage in the event that the
City of Miami repealed Resolution No. 42370 and 43113, now therefore
be it resolved by the City Commission of the City of Miami, Section
1. That resolution No. 42370 authorizing extension of the present
lease agreement with Restaurant Associates and Resolution No. 43113
authorizing the signing of the agreement as authorized in Resolution
No. 42370 be and the same are hereby repealed subject to the following
conditions. That Joseph Robbie, South Florida Sports Corporation as
general partners of and in behalf of the Miami Dolphins Ltd. enters
into a written agreement holding the City of Miami Harmless from
any liability whatsoever occasioned by the cancellation of the
present lease agreement for concession rights to the Miami Orange
Bowl Stadium provided herein and 2. That accompanying said agreement
shall be an indemnification bond issued by a reliable surety company
issued in the principal amount sufficient to protect the interests
of the City of Miami as provided in the agreement referred to above
that such agreement and bond must be approved by the City Attorney
of the City of Miami. The duration of the agreement shall be for a
period of time sufficient to protect the City of Miami under the
Statute of Limitations regarding any claim or claims that Restaurant
Associates Industries may have against the City of Miami
-7- MAY 4, 1972
as a result of repeal of the aforementioned resolution.
For in the event that the City of Miami submits the Orange Bowl
concessions to bid proposalsfor a term commencing at the expiration
of the '»:rent lease with Restaurant Associates Inc., and award the
bid to the bidder of the Commissions choice, this action shall not
relieve Joseph Robbie and South Florida Sports Corporation as
general partners of the Dolphins of the Hold Harmless provision of
the agreement and the agreement must be unequivocable to indemnify
and hold harmless the City of Miami. The agreement as authorized
shall be presented in writing withinl0 days from the date of this
commission meeting and for the reasons set forth above in section 2,
The City Manager be and he is hereby instructed not to sign this
agreement and to reconsider the question of submitting the Orange
Bowl concession and the proposals at the next subsequent commission
meeting and then at that next subsequent meeting, the Commission
pass a resolution directing the bidding based on the bid proposals
to be sent out based on this conditional resolution.
Now at the hearing in front of Judge DuVal, he issued an injunction
which enjoined the City from letting any contract under the city's
proposal of April 11, 1972 which is the proposal put out by the
Managers office as an end result of the. - The Manager put out the
bid proposals on April 11, were sent out, and we are enjoined and
restrained from receiving and accepting any bid under said proposal.
He further enjoined the City from receiving or accepting any contract
or written agreement from Joseph Robbie and the South Florida Sports
as general partners as specifically described in City's Resolution
No. 43175 January 20, 1972. And Restaurant Associates were required
to post a $50,000 Bond for the injunction. Now, what the Court said
was, this in specifics and I will read to you the Courts various
remarks and the Commission will be up to date. The Court said on
page 12, I think that the injunction should be granted talking about
Mr. Sibleys request for an injunction. I think that the injunction
should be granted and the City should be enjoined from entering into
any indemnity contract with Robbie. The City is either going to have
to go on their own and cancel the same by resolution and take their
chances or leave it, in other words, I am not going to allow the
City of Miami not to make its decision, they are going to do it.
Further, the Court said on page 13, I am not going to have Robbie
or the Dolphins be your indemnifier, you meaning the City are either
going to have to do it on your own or you are not going to do it at
all. He further said, I have no concern that the City cancelling
any agreement with themor issuing new bids but you are going to do it
on your own. In other words, referring to the indemnification.
The City of Miami is supposed to be in business, they are not supposed
to flim flam around with a bunch of nonsense. Either they do something
or they do not do it. I really do not care what they do. All you
have got to do is pass a simple resolution saying, we have cancelled
everything and we are offering bids period. I am going to enjoin
them from having any bond which, Mr. Paul here said, You are not
giving us a chance your honor, this is a resolution they have adopted
subsequent to all the resolutions Mr. Sibley has. The Court: I am
going to enjoin them from having any bond with you or indemnifying.
Mr. Paul said he did not object to that to which the Court said, I
am sure you do tint but the City may. Then the Court said, the bids
have to be enjoined because they have not withdrawn or cancelled their
previous resolution that they have passed and the agreement that they
have tentatively entered into , accepted and have acted on. In other
words, the Court said that this Commission cannot act conditionally.
It cannot aay, we will cancel the previous agreement provided we are
indemnified so that if we do get sued and it does cost the three
million dollars, that we won't have to pay it. This Court said, you
either take the risk yourself or you don't take the risk yourself
and thats all. The Court has said, I really do not care what the
City does, if they think they can go ahead with bidding under the
situation, they are going to do it on their own. Mr. Paul: that is
whay they have dont your honor, the Court said, allright, but I am
not going to permit you to indemnify. Mr. Paul said, do you mean
you relieve us from that obligation? I obviously have no objection
of being relieved of that obligation. And finally the Court said,
If there is a resolution passed cancelling all their other agreements,
with this organization and say we have not contract and we are putting
it out for bids and stand on their own two feet and they have a perfect
right to.
MAY 4, 1972
The court finally set May 19 for a final hearing on this date,
and Mr. Paul said, I understand the City is free to take whatever
action they want to do on this matter. The Court said: Yes that
is right, they are on their own. I am enjoining the enforcement
of the last resolution putting it out for bids with conditions.
The Court then said: Iam not ruling whether you have a contract
with Restaurant Associates or whether you do not have a contract
with Restaurant Associates, that will all be at the final hearing.
We have two issues that I can see. In the first place 1. Do you
have a contract or do you not between the City and Restaurant
Associates? If there is no contract then Restaurant Associates
is out. 2. If there is a contract, whether the City has the
authority to enter into a contract according to law or as cited
by Mr. Paul or by Mr. Sibley. In other words, if the Court determines
on the 19th that Restaurant Associates has an existing contract with
the City, then we finally come to grips with the issue as raised by
Mr. Paul originally which I differ with, where he sayd that the
Commission on April 15, 1971, acted unlawfully and illegally and I
have advised you that in my opinion they acted lawfully and legally
upon the recommendation of the Manager. That covers a brief summation.
If there are any questions, I will be happy to answer them.
Rev. Gibson: Mr. City Attorney, for my enlightnment, was it an
established fact that in order to have that concession, this city
would be protected by an open bid, everybody having an opportunity
to bid? In other words, are the rules the same for everybody?
Mr. Rothstein: The question that you have asked me asks for a
conclusion that the Court will reach on the 19th. In all of the
previous history of concessions for the City, a requirement of
public bidding has not been carried out. I have ruled that legally
under the charter and the code you do not have to have public bidding.
There have been many many extensionsin the history of the operations
of the City where a concessionaire operates successfully and the
Manager, the Administration comes in and says based on the history
we recommend that you continue with this slight modification or that
slight modification and thats been done. So therefore, my answer to
you is in my opinion and in the Manager;s opinion and based upon what
we know to be the law, based on that previous case dealing with the
Orange Bowl Concession, the Commission acted properly and lawfully
on April 15, 1971 when they passed the extension resolution. Mr.
Paul took a different position and filed his lawsuit to say no ,
thats not so, it should have gone to public bids after the City
all this interaction with Restaurant associates.
Rev. Gibson: The only thing that bothers me is how would we who
represent the people know that the people are getting a fair shake?
If other people are not made knowledgable about what is being done
or whether or not the people, meaning the City could get a better
bargain than you presently have.
Mr. Rothstein: That can be cleared up very simply by Mr. Reese
and probably by the re -reading of the minutes of the various presen-
tations had by Restaurant Associates. Now this is out of my area,
this is administration but since Mr. Reese isn't here, I can sum
it up very briefly. I told you at the beginning we had many many
hours of presentation. Part of those presentations were what the
City of Miami concession is paying the City, what other concessions
in other areas are paying the City, are paying other cities by
other concessionaires other than Restaurant Associates. I don't
want to make the actual argument to them but obviously the Commission
when it acted all along had these facts in front of them and were
satisfied that the City was getting a good deal and I don't want
to present what they made as a case. Mr. Reese would have to do
that for you.
Rev. Gibson: I follow that but -
Mr. Rothstein: Yes but you are missing one point and that is this
that at this present time, that is not the question. Thats not the
question at this time with reference to our problems about liability.
MAY 4, 1972
-9-
With reference to the posture that we are now, the Commission in
April 1971 did act on the Manager's recommendation. Then in
December based on all these presentations of income to the City,
based on income per individual purchaser at the Orange Bowl of
the money earned in other concessions around the country being
much less than was given to the City here, the City Commission
again acted and said go ahead and sign the contract.
The Restaurant Associates paid us extra money and put money into
their operations last football season based on what the Commission
did in April 1971 which is called action and reliance and they have
taken the position, they have a contract and if you cancel the
contract with them, its a breach of the contract and they have sent
us a letter putting us on notice for three million dollars in claims
for a five year contract with three year extension. Now assuming
that they do have a contract then it will be Mr. Paul's opportunity
if the Judge finds that, to say wait a minute, what the Commission
did in April 1971 is illegal and if the Court finds that what they
did in April 1971 was illegal, then theres no question of liability
at all because we can't be held liable if they entered with us into
an illegal contract.
Rev. Gibson: All right, I follow you, I just want to raise the
question again. Maybe this is after the fact. Would it be your
judgment to us that in the future these matters should be bid?
Mr. Rothstein: I don't think thats my role. That should be the
recommendation of the Manager Sir. All I can tell you is legally
they do not have to be bid, legally for example when the original
concession on the Orange Bowl and the City years and years ago
before Restaurant Associates came in had a terrible, from what the
Manager reported, and once again, only because Mr. Reese is not
here, I am filling you in from my memory as to what he said. They
had bids and it was Restaurant Associates who took the risk of
proceeding to try to build up the orange bowl to make the biggest
guarantee dollar wise when the actual percentage bid was much higher
by two or three other people but the Manager and the Commission did
not feel were responsible so if you follow the theory of public
bidding, you must give the bid to the best bidder regardless of
qualification, this or that etc. As soon as you get into the area
that Mr. Paul says, when you can restrict your qualification, and
say no we restrict it to this and we restrict it to that, then you
are open to the same claim and lawsuit that he has filed that by
subterfuge you are restricting certain people from giving their bid
and the answer is that much the same way that a lawyers contract
or an architects contract, professional contract cannot be given
strictly on bids because the quality of the work, the nature of
the reputation,the background of the people so concessions consistently
in the history of operations of the City of Miami, there has been no
requirement number one as to public bidding and before proposals are
requested from various people, there is no requirement from the
Commission to accept any particular proposal. They can accept anyone
they want if they think it is best for the City in their wisdom
but you have gotten into the area of administration and you will
have to get to Mr. Andrews on that.
Mr. Andrews: I would like to respond further to that. The City
administration looks upon the charter provision in two areas in
which we receive bids and proposals from the public for services
and for specific contracts where the charter provides that where
we receive work to be done by private individuals for the City,
this constitutes a contract, public inprovement, sewers, buildings,
etc. We actually specify that which we want to have accomplished.
This is done on the basis of competitive bids in which we are
asking specifically for dollar amount. Thats usually the only
item thats of concern, then the charter provides that the Commission
may receive proposals for service types of contracts and the
Orange Bowl specifications were placedout on the basis of
proposals, not bids. Now, on the basis of proposals,the Commission
is in a position to receive recommendations from the administration
as to which proposal will submit the best possible service to the
City. Not always based upon the best dollar the city will receive.
You have a number of items that are taken into consideration as it
was in 1967 when this was put out for public proposals and we
received about 10 different proposals and in going through all of
the fact finding in 1967 it was condluded by the administration
and then by the Commission, that Restaurant Associates presented
-10- MAY 4,
the best public proposal and that involves service, it involves
the minimum guarantee and it involved the minimum percentage and
all these factors were weighed and the award on the proposal was
made to Restaurant Associates. The City Administration last year
evaluated the history of the services of Restaurant Associates.
Based on the fact that they were the best proposer in 1967, they
had gambled in the large guarantee that they offered the City,
maximum guarantee. We analyzed the quality of service, we surveyed
what was happening to other stadiums in the country, all this
information was presented to the Commission and it was concluded
that it would be of an advantage to the City to extend the existing
agreement with Restaurant Associates for an additional five years
with a three year option.
Mr. Paul: Theres only one fact you haven't stated and that is when
you put the matter out to bid proposals to begin with you specifically
stated that the agreement would not be subject to extension, correct?
And the agreement so provided.
Mr. Andrews: In all honesty, Mr. Paul, I would have to go back
and look at that.
Mr. Paul: Mr. Rothstein, I think can verify that.
Mr. Rothstein: I don't know Commissioner Gibson whether or not you
have had an opportunity to review all of the extensive minutes on
this thing. It may be helpful because so much was given to the.
Commission before they acted on so many of these resolutions, just
for me to review it was a difficult task, to get it back in context.
Mr. Christie: I have a question Mr. Rothstein, we have heard Judge
DuVal's decision, the hangup obviously is the indemnification, you
haven't commented on whether you feel that decision is legal as to
his decision not to allow the Dolphins not to put up the indemnif-
ication. Or, Mr. Paul?, have you researched the law on that?
Mr. Paul: No, our position is we are willing to post the indemnity
bond if the Judge would permit us to post it but he has enjoined
the city from receiving it, the indemnity bond, and unfortunately
the time is so short between now, the contract expires July 1st as
I understand and from what Mr. Rothstein just read you that the
Judge said, the next move is up to the City. Either you come down
and decide that you want competitive bidding on this matter or you
don't and the Commission when they adopted the original resolutions,
I presume they followed Mr. Rothstein that they weren't legally
required despite our position to adopt competitive biddingbut I
think it was Reverend Graham who was then a member that said it
was a moral matter as far as he was concerned that the most important
and lucrative concession in the City of Miami ought to be let only
after competitive bidding and notice and open to all bidders and it
was on that basis that on January 20, the City repealed the 18th
resolution and they adopted a resolution directing the Manager to
put out the matter for competitivP bidding. It was Mrs. Gordon,
I believe who suggested an additic:ial item at that time that the
Dolphins should be willing to givan indemnity bond and we are
willing then and we are willing now to give such an indemnity bond
but the Court has said that we cannot and the Cityrhas to act and
make its own decision in its legislative judgment as to whether it
desires to have the matter put to competitive bidding or not and
really that is the issue, I mean all of this arguments and things
back and forth resolve down just as Reverend Graham said, to one
moral issue, leaving all the legalistics aside and that is that the
most important and lucrative concession in the City of Miami going
to be open to everybody for competitive bidding so that the City
gets the best deal that they can possibley get. That is the issue,
I don't know, there's no point, and I don't want to comment on the
pending case in any possible way in getting involved in that matter.
The City established a precedent when this matter was put out to
competitive bidding five years ago and they wrote in those specif-
ications that there would be no extension of that agreement.
-11-
MAY 4, 1972
When the agreement was written, it provided for a five year period
and there was no option to renew, everybody wa& put on notice and
then without any notice to anybody, on April 15, the City Manager
came before this Commission and proposed an eight year extension
in complete defiance of his own bid specifications and in complete
defiance of what the written agreement said and what everybody in
this community had relied upon. And we didn't even discover it,
in fact, until sometime in August that this attempted eight year
extension had been proposed by the City Manager and adopted by the
City Commission, and it was at that point that we contended that
the Charter requires competitive bidding but I don't want to get
into the legal arguments, the Court will determine those legal
m tters. The question is still, it seems to me, what I had thought
the Commission had already determined on the 20th day of January and
that is forgetting what their legal requirements were and as a matter
of the exercise of their legislative judgment, that they were going
to follow the route they had follr..:ed in the'past and that is that
the Orange Bowl Concession should .e put out to competitive bidding
as good city administration policy, thats the purpose of competitive
bidding to be sure that its honest, and to be sure that everybody
gets a chance and to be sure that the City gets the best deal when
the proposals come in, its as simple as that, I don't really see any
point in all of this legalistics at this point, that matter is in
Court.
Mr. Rothstein: Well Mr. Paul, there is one statement that the
minutes reflect a different posture than you just stated. I think
Mrs. Gordon can clearly define it for everybody here because on
December 20th, the Commission passed a resolution that the contract
should be signed except if you obtained an injunction and if you are
legally correct then there is going to be no signature and then
Mrs. Gordon, at a meeting on January 20 made the statement in the
minutes reflect it that because of the fact that there was to be an
indemnification by you and the Dolphins she feels that we should
accept the indemnification and put it out to public bid. Now, it
wasn't an added after thought that was the reason she gave because
I have reviewed the notes so its for her to tell you what her
posture is obviously since she made those statements. Now to
answer Commissioner Christie's question, there is no appeal that
we can make of the matter of the indemnification until after the
hearing on May 19, which is just around the corner. On May 19,
the Court will determine whether or not Restaurant Associates by
the actions up until December 20, do have an existing contract and
if in fact the legal asposition taken by Mr. Paul is correct.
I can't test the matter of the indemnification until after the
final determination on May 19 as to legally what the posture is
under the law for everybody.
Mr. Paul: Mr. Rothstein, Mrs. Gordon I am sure can adequately
speak for herself but I think if you will look at the minutes, Mrs.
Gordon on January 20 made a long statement that as a matter of
principle, she was in favor of competitive bidding in the exercise
of her legislative judgment. The bond she requested was perfectly
proper and she wanted to get all she could to protect the City at
that particular time but I don't think her judgment in favor of
the principle of competitive bidding was in anyway based upon that
item.
Mr. Rothstein: Now, I wasn't talking about her judgment on her
principles, I was talking about her posture of protecting the City
from a suit of three million dollars.
Mr. Paul: You were challenging me that the City excercised its
legislative judgment on January 20 in favor of competitive bidding
irrespective of what the legal requirements were.
Mr. Rothstein: No, I am saying to you that the basis of that
opinion which and the motion she made was really based on the fact
of the indemnification because of the position that she as a new
commissioner was in at this time after the fact of what had
happened in 71 based on the Manager's recommendation. That is
the ony difference. Obviously she has her feeling strongly about
how things should be done for the City and she is entitled to it,
she is a commissioner. Vice Mayor now.
-12- MAY 4, 1972
Rev. Gibson: Mr. Rothstein, apparently I am the only one who is
unaware of a lot of things but let me say I find it rather difficult
to understand that such a lucrative business as this is given to any
body person or company without several people looking at and saying
to us, and this is really what competitive bidding does -
Mr. Rothstein: Well the question really should be directed at
Mr. Reese.
Rev. Gibson: Well, allright, please pardon me, I will direct it
to the proper party. Now, I find it difficult to understand how
such a lucrative business as this would just be given to someone
and not have competitive bidding so as to protect us who sit up
here and the public who stand out there. Follow me?
Mr. Andrews: Yes I do, except that is not a bid, this is not a bid.
Rev. Gibson: Allright, let me put it another way. If we get out of
this bind, are we subject to get in another bind as well as have an
awful lot of criticism levied at us that such a lucrative business
is concessioned out without having to hold public,without giving an
opportunity to bid?
Mr. Andrews: Well, the City of Miami has had a history over the last
2S years of conducting its city business in this area of proposals
in this manner. We, from time to time put these out on public
proposals particularly when we have bad experience with as an example,
food and beverage concessionaire, we will put those out on a public
bid and when a proposer submits a proposal, and begins to render
service, if he shows and demonstrates to the City, Administration and
Commission jointly, that he is doing an outstanding job and the City
is receiving a fair share of revenue as a result of this service he is
providing the public, the administration and the commission at
different times have recommended extensions. There have been times
when the City Commission on its own without a request from the
administration, has extended such concessions so there is a history
of this.
Mr. Rothstein: ¥t ur present posture is that based on the action of
the Judge, that the December 20 resolution which directs the signing
unless enjoined would be in effect. In other words, I would not, if
the Manager asked me, I would say to him that hp should not sign the
contract until after the hearing on the 19th to see whether Mr. Paul
on his legal arguments can get an injunction, a final hearing and if
the Court rules that Mr. Paul is wrong and there should be no injunction
and unless the Commission acts differently, the contract would be signed.
And of course Mr. Paul, and that question cannot be reached until the
Court first determines whethernr not and I presume through the action
and reliance and all the resolutions, there is a contract. If the
Court says that there is no contract, then there is no problem about
liability and there is no question about the legality of doing it,
you can do what you want.
Mr. Paul: The question still remains of as a matter of principle,
of whether there is to be competitive bidding for this lucrative
bidding or whether there isn't and nothing Mr. Rothstein can say
removes that moral issue which squarely faces the Commission as a
matter of legislative judgment.
Mr. Rothstein: I agree to that, but I can't get into that aspect.
I can only tell you what you can do legally, what your legal
posture .is and what your potential liability is.
Rev. Gilson: Let me ask, everybody has to help -me because I am
new. What would be your reaction if we waited until the Court
renders a judgment on that is that date, the 20th?
Mr. Paul: May 19. I think the Commission would be shirking its
responsibility. If the Court has said, don't look for the Court
to pull your chestnuts out of the fire. The matter is up to you
to decide in your legislative judgment, if you want competitive
bidding, that is what the transcript that Mr. Rothstein just read
to you said. I thought you had decided that on the 20th day of
January but the Court said that since you requested a bond from a
third party,
MAY 4, 1972
-13-
that they wouldn't permit the bond to be posted and that the
Commission had to make that decision on its own. What the Court
has done is to put the Commission squarely on the spot.
Mr. Andrews: Mr. Mayor, and members of the Commission. There are
a couple of other factors that I think that I should elaborate on
so that they are crystal clear. Prior to 1967, the then concessionaire
rendered services that were at best, of poor quality. Based on that
history of poor service to the public, a decision was reached to go
out to public bidding for new food and beverage concessions.
I would also like to point out that if in this area of accepting
proposals, the City of Miami entered into an agreement with the
Dolphins without publically advertising for a franchise or advertising
nationally who would like to play here in Miami, professional football
we sat down and negotiated an agreement for a ten year period at rates
far less than other people are paying, in the Orange Bowl Stadium.
Mr. Paul: We have no objection to your advertising. If you want
another football team in Miami, then advertise. Thats what you
are suggesting. You know very well Mr. Andrews that that is apples
and oranges from point of view of what you are talking about. You
are trying to defend for your administration, an absolutely defenseless
action that Mr. Reese took out of sheer spite to try and stop the
Dolphins from having the opportunity to bid on this franchise and
you might as well get it out on the table because every member of
this Commission, knows thats why you did this without any notice
to anybody, violated your own original bid specifications, your
own notice to the public, deliberately defrauding everybody who had
any right to bid on this thing and you have tried to rig your own
bid specifications in the same way. Now you might as well admit it
because those are the facts and you know it.
Mr. Andrews: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, I am not here
to argue with Mr. Paul and I am not going to get emotional about this
matter. I only used that as an illustration and I could use other
examples of where matters are not necessarily in this area put out
under public bid. The Commission has a right according to its charter
to make a decision on what is in the best interest to the City as far
as a service is concerned. This is not a dollar figure that you,
receive for a proposal, it has other factors involved and those are
difficult to evaluate.
Mayor Kennedy: We are going to have to move on to some other items,
what is the -
Rev.'Gibson: Mr. Mayor, may I ask one more question because this will
help me. If you were serving the food and beverage, any man renders
that service to the public and he is under a contract with the City
and if his service is not satisfactory, do we have continue to hold
his service to the end of the contract?
Mr. Andrews: No Sir.
Rev. Gibson: Well, then I still find this difficult to understand
that is we were to find that a man is not able to perform based on
the bidding, we shouldn't have to keep him.
Mr. Andrews: Thats right. Absolutely correct.
Mayor Kennedy: Mrs. Gordon, do you have a motion?
Mrs. Gordon: Well I feel like Father Gibson is under a handicap
because I know how I felt the first time this matter came up in
December and had come up before the previous Commission on mapy
occasions before I sat here, I felt kind of like I wanted or needed
to know more as he is groping for answers and I see he wants to know
more, however, I always felt and I felt on December 20 and I read
from the minutes my position was and is that I favor and I believe
in public bidding. I still feel that way and my action on that date
was predicated on Mr. Rothstein's opinion. I am personally so
firmly convinced in public bidding however, and since the Court has
taken the position and stated you must stand on your own two feet
then I must stand on my own two feet. So I must insist that we
proceed with the public bidding procedure.
-14-
MAY 4, 1972
Rev. Gibson: I want to second the motion.
Mr. Rothstein: Well, the motion would have to be that you rescind
and repeal all previous resolutions and contracts if any with
Restaurant Associates. Your posture is not, shall you have public
bidding on a new matter, its that you shall rescind all of those
resolutions and contracts and then after you do that, have a second
resolution directing public bidding.
Mayor Kennedy: What was the motion that we passed the last time,'
I thought we did that.
Mr. Rothstein: No, you made it conditioned upon the indemnification
because of the potential liability to the City so now what the Court
has said is that if you want to take the chance of the City being held
liable for three million dollars, go ahead and do it but don't condition
it on them indemnifying you. Its as simple as that if you rescind all
the resolutions and go from there.
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Rothstein, I believe that the rescinding of previous
motions was made at the time that this motion was made, the only motion
we need now to amend, or rescind is the one which relates to the bond.
All the others were done.
Mr. Rothstein: Maam,I will read to you Resolution No. 43113 which
says, that the Manager shall sign in event no injunction is entered
and he shouldn't sign until the hearing. On January 20, you made
the motion which says as follows: Whereas as the City Commission
adopted Resolution No. 42370 authorizing the extension of the present
lease agreement for concession rights at the Miami Orange Bowl Stadium
from the date of itsexpiration for an additional five year period
with an option to renew for an additional three years and whereas
Joseph Robbie and South Florida Sports Inc. as General partnersand
of and in behalf of Miami Dolphins Ltd. have filed a suit in Circuit
Court attempting to enjoin the City from entering into the agreement
with Restaurant Associates Inc., as authorized by the above resolution
and whereas the Commission adopted Resolution No.43113 authorizing
the City Manager and City Clerk to delay until January 25, 1972, the
date of the hearing for the injunction by the planitiffs in the cause,
the signing of amendment number one to the lease agreement which would
be authorized a five year extension with option to renew Restaurant
Associates Inc. whereas the plantiff in the above referred to cause
by their attorney have proferred to the City that they will save the
City of Miami Harmless from any loss and damage in the event that the
City of Miami repeals Resolution No. 42370 and 43113, now therefore
be it resolved by the City Commission of the City of Miami that
Resolution No. 42370 authorizing the extension of the present lease
agreement to Restaurant Associates Industries Inc. and Resolution No.
43113 authorizing the signing of an agreement as authorized in
Resolution No. 42370 be and the same are hereby repealed subject to
the following conditions and the conditions dealt with the indemnification
for damages. So, if you wish to proceed now is what you would have to
do is pass that resolution without any indemnification and any bond
and as the Judge said, then the City is on its own.IfThe City Commission
has acted in the light of what has happened in the past inappropriately
and there are damages going over to Restaurant Associates and they sue
us as they have threatened to do, the City would have to pay and nobody
would reimburse us.
Mrs. Gordon: On april the whatever date it was, I don't have it here,
the original resolution, who made that resolution, may I ask you?
Mr. Rothstein: I have no idea. I don't have the minutes, I just
have the. The original, April 15, 1971, it will take just a minute
to get it for you.
Mr. Christie: What is the posture of the lawsuit if this motion goes
through? You made a motion didn't you Commissioner Gordon?
Mr. Rothstein: Well I have prescribed the motion that has to be made
and now-
-15-
MAY 4, 1972
Mrs. Gordon: I stated my personal feelings on the matter and Father
Gibson stated he feels similarly. In referring to April 15, Mr.
Christie, you moved the resolution at that date and it was seconded
by Mr. Plummer, since this was a motion that you made would you like
to consider rescinding it? April 14, the motion extended the contract.
Mr. Christie: Yes, do you have the record there? Now, thats why 1
asked the question, what.is the posture of the lawsuit with such a
motion?
Mr. Rothstein: If this motion is made and passed, then we have
if the Restaurant Associates have a contract, we have a breach of
contract, and if there are any damages, we are liable.
Mr. Christie: Would that be handled in this lawsuit thats pending?
Mr. Rothstein: If the Commission does nothing today, then in this
lawsuit that is pending, the question of Mr. Pauls as to whether
the contract exists or not will be determined and the question of
whether it is legal or not legal as Mr. Paul contends will be
determined. On May 19, if they tell you don't have a contract,
then you can rescind the resolution and not have any liability.
If they tell you that you do have a contract, then if Mr. Paul
is right, then you still have no liability because the Court will
declare the contract invalid and if the Court says that the Commission
on April 15 acted properly and lawfully and if Mr. Paul is wrong,
then if you act thereafter you have no doubt or question in your
mind, that you are liable for damages if any, accruing from a
breach of the contract.
Mr. Paul: Well one thing you are overlooking Alan thats not going
to be determined, obviously there will be appeals and the litigation
will go for a couple of years. You have a July 1 expiration date
and you have got a season coming up so the decision cannot be post-
poned and the question is still as the Court said, does the Commission
want this lucrative concession to be let by competitive bidding or not?
Mr. Rothstein: Well one thing for sure on May 19, and any Commission
meetings thereafter, the commission will certainly be better advised
as to the potentiality of liability of the City because if they are
told they have a contract, then the Commission, if it wishes to cancel
will do so knowing a Court has ruled we have a contract and if we
breach, we are liable for breach. When secondly, if your position
is correct, the City cannot be liable for anything but a Court has
said there is a contract and therefore anything thereafter will not
subject us to any liability.
Mr. Paul: But what you are failing to tell them Alan is that the
Court has said that unless the City Commission acts, the resolution
that they took repealing the authorization for the contract is still
in effect. So you would have a cor'-ract that the Commission has
already said that they don't want.
Mr. Rothstein: I don't believe t:;;.. is accurate because -
Mr. Paul: Their resolution repeat .;; the April 15 resolution is not
valid because it was contingent oi: bond so the Court has said it is
up to the Commission to adopt one . thout any bond.
Mr. Rothstein: Yes but you forget he December resolution which
clearly stated that the Court did not want a contract signed until
and unless there is no injunction. In other words, unless the Court
finds you incorrect and what the Court finds that the Commission in
April 1971 acted legally. You are asking this Commission today to
breach the contract, if there is one, that is the posture of what
you are asking this Commission to do.
Mr. Paul: Thats not correct at all. I realize what you are trying
to quarterback and do but the Courts decision has been read and the
next move is clearly up to the Commission, you can't deny that.
Mr. Rothstein: I am not trying to quarterback anything. I have told
this Commission what the clear posture of the city's problems are in
resonse to questions and I have simply told this Commission in response
to questions the answers that I have to give them with referenc e to
-16- MAY 4,1
liability, legality and the posture of the Court Case, thats all.
Not attempting to do something or not do something, thats correct.
Mr. Paul: Allright that is exactly what the Court has said, its
up to the Commission to do something without a bond condition being
attached to it if thats what they want to do.
Mayor Kennedy: What is the suit for, three million dollars?
Mr. Rothstein: They have sent us a letter putting us on notice
of about three million dollars. I am not going to comment on that
because obviously if we cancel, I have got to defend it and defend
against damage.
Mayor Kennedy: Allright, theres a motion -
Mrs. Gordon: There is no motion
Mr. Rothstein: I think Mrs. Gordon now knows the type of motion she
has to make if she wants to make it which is the motion of January
20 without any conditions as to indemnification.
Mrs. Gordon: I have asked for an expression from the maker of the
motion that started this whole thing going and I have not had an
expression from the three members of this Commission who were sitting
on the Commission at the time that the April 15 resolution was passed.
I know how I feel, I want to hear from them, as to their position on
rescinding the motion of April 15. I am not trying to pass the buck
but T. have a right to know how they feel, they passed this thing, I
wasn't here.
Mr. Christie: Thats true and I made the motion and I certainly
would be glad to expound on it, you're right, you weren't here so
you don't know the facts and Mr. Reese really should be here because
the record is clear on the very strong recommendation that was made
based on the excellent past performance of the existing then concess-
ionaire and it was unanimously passed and subsequent a number of the
members have moved on to higher offices and they are not here.
There is no question that everyone on this Commission since I have
been here have always advocated public bidding. Its a motherhood
thing and everybody here has advocated from the Mayor on down, its
case was one where there was according to Mr. Reese, reason, that
this option be extended. Very valid reasons. The only question
in my mind is a potential three million dollar lawsuit, thats the
whole name of the game and I have an obligation to the public on
that. To get up and say, we are for competitive bidding is to get
up and say, I am for motherhood, everybody is for it, at least if
you are in public office. There is no big deal on that. The question
is, the responsibility as a public servant on a potential lawsuit.
Thats my hesitation and the reconciliation, not having read the
record with the fact that I have a few more days before the Court
hearing, noone on this Commission r.or have they been in the last
eight years that I have been here that has not wanted to get the
best for the public. Those are tr.te words and words that are
constantly used by the person that ::owes forth and does these deeds
is where we stand, so the whole pr,_blem involved here is a potential
three million dollar lawsuit and is this getting the best for the
public and I really hope that I am plot as a legislator, hurting the
potential lawsuit but that is one f the things that is coming into
my thinking. That is the problem .•.id that is the reason of hesitation
How, do we hurt the citizens of Miami Dad if we wait till ,lets
forget the Dolphins and the other concessionaire, how do we hurt the
City of Miami if we want for the final hearings a few days later?
Mr. Paul: Because the Court has said that you haven't adopted any
valid resolution indicating that you desire competitive bidding on
this franchise since you put a condition on it and that is what I
think you need to clarify before the hearing. The question of the
two million dollar lawsuit is an obvious red herring and if you
have any doubt about it, why don't you add in the resolution today
that if any part of the resolution is in conflict with whatever final
judgment may be entered in the litigation, whatever such judgment
becomes final, the matter shall be referred back to this Commission
for action but what you are doing with the present posture of the
situation, the Court has said that you haven't adopted a valid
-17- MAY 4, 197
resolution repealing your April 15 resolution so you have never
reached that other point.
Mr. Christie: What did you say to add?
Mr. Paul: The Court has said-
Mr. Christie: No, no, I understand all that. What did you say
we could add to the resolution?
Mr. Paul: I said, you could add to the resolution or the two
resolutions, the City Attorney said if you want, that if any part
of this resolution is in conflict with whatever final judgment is
entered in the litigation in describing it, whenever such judgment
shall become final, the matter shall be referred back to the
Commission for further action. I can't see any possibility of any
liability for the City, if Restaurant Associates should be successful
in claiming that the original resolution extended their contract,
then its extended. They are presently in there performing the
services, they are not being kicked out. It has nothing to do with -
what kind of damages can they possible sustain if they remain in?
At this point, the posture of the situation the way it is, you have
got the Court saying that the way that Mr. Rothstein drew those
resolutions making them contingent on posting a bond, that you
haven't ever taken any other position, other than Restaurant Associates
have an eight year extension of the contract so if anybody is worried
about a lawsuit, I suggest that you add that to the resolution,
rescinding April 15 resolution and add that paragraph and the same
on the one for competitive bidding.
Mr. Rothstein: Thats not the way Mr. Rothstein drew those resolutions.
If you read those minutes and the statements made by Mrs. Gordon,
that was the basis for that resolution -
Mr. Christie: Lets not let this get personal. This particular
thing always seems to get down to personalities.
Mr. Rothstein: Well, I will say this, if you add that, you are
conditioning your resolution just the same as the other one.
Mr. Paul has given you his opinion and I am telling you what my
opinion is. This Judge has said to you, if you want to cancel
this contract, if there is a contract, go ahead and cancel it.
If you want to wait, you will find out whether you have a contract
or not and you will still be able to cancel it theoretically.
Mr. Paul: On the last part Mr. Rothstein, you know that I am
correct because he said they had never adopted anything legally
to attempt to cancel the contract.
Mr. Rothstein: Thats exactly what I just said Sir. I just said.
If they can validly cancel a contract today subject to damages
they can validly contract, validly rescind the contract, after the
hearing on the 19th and when they know if they have a contract,
then they will know if you are correct or incorrect.
Mr. Paul: You are putting yourself and the City in a position
where the Court would have to say that they had a contract unless
they adopted a resolution because -
Mr. Rothstein: We have no signed contract and we have taken a
position pursuant to the resolution and actions of the Commission
that because we don't have a signed contract, we do not have any
contract at all.
Mr. Paul: That according to the Court is no valid action attempting
to put the matter out to competitive bids at all.
Mr. Rothstein: No, what the Court has said is that you have no
valid action cancelling and rescinding a contract. Now if we
validly cancel it or if we cancel it without basic cause, we
suffer by making a breach, thats the whole point.
-18-
MAY 4, 1972
Mr. Christie: Let me make a motion, I think that maybe it is incumbent
upon me and I am glad Commissioner Gordon pointed that out because I
didn't realize many months ago, that I had made it. I think that
there are certain values and I really question Mr. Paul what you said
about Mr. Reese having done this out of spite. I have known Mr. Reese
and worked with him and I think his recommendation was in his best
opinion, the best thing for the City and it very well may be and that
is why I voted for it and everybody else here voted for it and I also
thought that after your presentation that certainly, I FOR one didn't
know that the Dolphins might be interested or anybody else, that it
should go out for competitive bidding. It would have been nice and
I think it was our duty to the public to try to protect the City in
the event of any potential lawsuit and thats why the rider of bond
was placed on it but I think that this Commission has to go on record
publically when either called to the fact or on its own that whenever
possible, public bidding should be had. I agree that it is the
essence of good government. It may not be the best for the City but
it certainly is a moral issue in good government and I think as Canon
Gibson said, that is his particular feeling on it and I certainly •
have no hesitation to make the motion
Mr. Rothstein:
Mayor Kennedy:
Commissioner, you have to rescind.
All right, first vote -
Mr. Rothstein: Wait a minute, may I read it please?
Whereas the City Commission of the City of Miami adopted Resolution
No. 42370, authorizing extension of the present lease agreement for
concession rights at the Miami Orange Bowl Statium from the date of
its expiration for an additional five year period with an option to
renew for an additional three year period and whereas Joseph Robbie
of South Florida Sports Corporation, as general partners of and in
behalf of Miami Dolphins Ltd. have filed a suit in Circuit Court
attempting to enjoin the City of Miami from entering into the
agreement with Restaurant Associates as authorized by the above
resolution and whereas the Commission adopted resolution no. 43113
authorizing the City Manager and City Clerk to delay until January
25, 1972, the date of the hearing on the injunction by the planitiffs,
in the cause, the signing of the amendment number one to the lease
agreement which would have authorized a five year extension with
option to renew by Restaurant Associates Industries Inc. and then
I am going to leave out the indemnification problem completely.
Now therefore be it resolved by the City Commission of the City of
Miami Florida, Section 1, that resolution No. 42370 authorizing the
extension of the present lease agreement with Restaurant Associate
Industries Inc.,,and Resolution No. 43113 authorizing the signing
of the agreement as authorized in resolution No.42370 be and the same
are hereby repealed.
Mr. Paul: Mr. Rothstein, your :First whereas clause is clearly in
error. I would suggest that you just recite that whereas the City
adopted Resolution such and such without your trying to summarize
what the resolutions said, they speak for themselves and I strongly
suggest that you insert to make it clear, I thought it had been made
clear once before that this Commission is acting in the exercise of
its legislative judgment.
Mr. Rothstein: It always acts in the exercise of its legislative
judgment.
Mr. Paul: Well, lets put it in and then we don't have a problem.
Mr. Rothstein: Well, is there any other way that it can act Mr. Paul?
Other than through its legislative judgment? You can put it in, I
don't care, it makes no difference to me, but thats the only way this
Commission acts in the exercise of its legislative judgment, so we'll
change that, the first whereas Mr. Clerk will be whereas the City
Commission of the city of Miami adopted Resolution No. 42370, and
whereas the City Commission of the City of Miami now desires to act
in the exercise of its legislative judgment, and then pick up from
whereas Joseph Robbie.
Whereupon the following resolution was introduced by Mr. Christie
who moved its adoption.:
-19- MAY 4, 1972
RESOLUTION NO. 72-123
A RESOLUTION REPEALING RRSOLUTIONS NO.
42370 AND 43113
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Rev. Gibson, the resolution was passed
and adopted by the following vote: Messrs. Christie, Gibson,
Plummer, Mrs. Gordon. NOES: Mayor Kennedy
In casting his NO vote, Mayor Kennedy said: I believe we acted
properly on the strong recommendation of the City Manager that
this lease be extended and the legal opinion of the City Attorney
backed up that ascertation completely. iIagree with everyone here
that it would have been far better as a public policy to advertise
these for bidding but it wasn't done and the City Manager believed
very strongly that the best situation for the City was to renew this.
We are now in the middle of a lawsuit. Mr. Paul suggested that the
Miami Dolphins would indemnify us in that lawsuit. The Court has now
enjoined them from doing so, so now the City of Miami is facing the
possibility of a three million dollar lawsuit against them.
I believe that we acted properly although we may have acted in better
public policy had it been done another way and that has put the
citizens of Miami in a position where they could be sued for three
million dollars and that is something that could have far reaching
reprecussions and I therefore vote no. It is rescinded by a 4-1
vot^, the next motion needed?
Mr. Rothstein: The next motion would be the motion passed on Apr4'.
the next motion directing the Manager to -
Mr. Paul: I don't happen to have it with me, but you can read the
motion.
Mr. Rothstein: We have an existing resolution that was passed after
the conditional one which says to :4ie Manager to put out the public
proposals, so just make that resolution.
Mrs. Gordon: Why can't we state it just as it is, to authorize the
Manager to put out for public bids.
Mr. Paul: I think what ought to be made clear in that resolution
is that it should be open competitive bidding so that everybody
has the opportunity to bid.
Mr. Rothstein: Just a second, you have a problem here and maybe
you had better wait to put out proposals until the Manager is back
because Mr. Paul is in a hassle with Mr. Reese over the fact that
Mr. Reese in his specifications has required that the person sub-
mitting proposals have certain qualifications. No. 1, I don't know
the details but Mr. Andrews could give them to you, but in effect,
since the Dolphins are and have not been in a restaurant or concess-
ionaire business, they themselves would not be qualified to put in
a bid. Mr. Paul talked about some joint venture proposal and he
sent a letter to Mr. Reese and I don't know what the posture is and
I would suggest that before you put any particular terminology
other than Mr. Reese be authorized to put out for public proposal,
but if you want to get into detailed language, you had better wait
for Mr. Reese.
-20- . MAY 4, 1972
This is an administrative problem of who is qualified and who is
not qualified.
Mr. Paul: Thats a matter for him to decide when the bids come in,
but not to restrict people from actually submitting proposals.
Either you have open competitive bidding or you don't and there
is certainly no harm in receiving proposals from anyone that wants
to make them. You can decide the best qualified person that offers
the City the best deal.
Mr. Rothstein: Mr. Paul you have said something else before the
public and the Commission and myself and Mr. Reese and that is
that you feel there should be some qualification.
Mr. Paul: I don't object to qualification but the ones Mr. Reese
put out would even prohibit Restaurant Associates from bidding the
time before. All I am saying is let the proposals be opened and
let them be submitted and you can evalue, the time to evalue the
qualifications is when you get the proposals in and you can decide
who is qualified. Mr. Reese had drawn these in such a way and
provided in the bids that if there was any question of clarification
to ask for a clarification and we wrote and asked for one and Mr.
Reese refused to make one.
Mr. Rothstein: Dan, you want before the 19th,a resolution by the
Commission directing the manager to put these matters out for
public proposal because you want the Judge to know specifically
the position of the Commission. What I am saying to the Commission
is, pass that resolution generally and then, so you have it before
the 19th, and then if you want to have the C ommission go into how
Mr. Reese puts out the proposals, lets do it when Mr. Reese is here.
Mr. Paul: I don't want to go into that. I just want to be sure
that its open competitive bidding.
Mr. Rothstein: Well, now this Commission has got to be very careful.
You can't put yourself in a posture where you pass a resolution that
a type of bidding will win because it might turn out to be that
somebody who runs a little snack bar and has no equipment and no
capital will give you an offer of fifty percent of income, for example.
Which is completely unfeasible.
Mr. Christie: Can't we take those things into consideration?
Certainly Mr. Reese recommends based on experience and financial status
Mr. Rothstein: What Mr. Paul is asking you to do is pass something
that is the equivalent on his issue in his lawsuit of the highest
bidder. You can't take two positions. I have told you legally.
Mr. Paul: I am just asking to let everybody submit bids, you
can evaluate them as you see fit.
Mr. Rothstein: Now wait a minute, I have a very serious problem with
that because this Commission has acted in such a manner that what
your legal is position is correct and fortunately we will get a dec•ision
on that on May 19. If your position is correct then the Commission
doesn't have any flexibility. Its the position that is determined
by the Court, its the position that I have taken that doesn't prevent
public proposals but it gives the Commission the flexibility and the
only thing I want the Commission not to do today is to do anything
other than a general policy that the Commission directs the Manager
to prepare public proposals on this matter.
Mayor Kennedy: I think thats clear.
Mrs. Gordon: We can be more specific about that later on, can't we?
Mr. Rothstein: Thats exactly my point, when Mr. Reese is here,
then you can get into specifics as necessary but at least we have
a clear posture for the Judge. That the Commission has rescinded
the others and is going for public proposals.
Mayor Kennedy: Is there a motion?
Whereupon the following resolution was moved by Mr. Christie
who moved its adoption:
-21-
MAY 4, 1972
z
RESOLUTION NO. 72-124
A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO
FOLLOW THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY OF TIIE COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF MIAMI TO SUBMIT THE ORANGE BOWL
CONCESSION LEASE TO PUBLIC BID
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Reverend Gibson, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Plummer,
Christie, Gibson, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
Mr. Paul: Thank you, I am sorry we took up so much time. I hope
that the Commission will make it clear to the Manager that as a
matter of policy to the Commission that the Dolphins should at
least be entitled to submit a bid.
-22-
MAY 4, 1972
5, OBJECTIONS TO CQNFIRMATION ORDERING RESOLUTIONV 2
FAST PINEMOUNT SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT SR- .? - (CENTERLINE SEWER)
The Mayor announced the Commission was now ready to consider
any objections to confirmation of ordering resolution for East
Pinemount Sanitary Sewer Improvement Sr-5353-C Centerline Sewer.
Several objectors to this improvement appeared:
Mrs. Silverman a property owner of several units appeared and
objected on the grounds of the greatly increased costs to her that
this improvement would entail and of the connection charges to her
units. She stated she was a widow and paid over eighteen hundred
dollars yearly in taxes and that this assessment was more than she
could bear.
Mrs. Williams, a resident of the Little River Area appeared and
objected on the grounds that the sewers were not needed or wanted by
the persons living on fixed incomes who could not afford assessments.
Mrs. Virginia Keoppner appeared and objected on similar grounds.
Mr. Vince Grimm, Director of Public Works appeared and outlined
the plan and need for this improvement and said this particular area
was one of the last unsewered areas of that portion of the city.
After very considerable further discussion, Mrs. Gordon told
those persons present that the City is faced with orders by the
federal government that we must proceed with these sewer improvements
with timetables imposed but stated she was sympathetic to the financial
problems, particularly on those persons living in retirement on fixed
incomes and said she would try to work out some financial solution.
The following resolution was introduced by Reverend Gibson
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 72-1Z5
A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING ORDERING RESOLUTION NO.
72-32; ALLOCATING THE AMOUNT OF $25,000 FROM
THE ACCOUNT ENTITLED "SANITARY SEWER BOND FUNDS"
FOR PRELIMINARY EXPENSES, AND AUTHORIZING THE
CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE FOR SEALED BIDS FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF EAST PINEMOUNT SANITARY SEWER
IMPROVEMENT SR-5352-C (centerline sewer) IN EAST
PINEMOUNT SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
SR-5352-C (centerline sewer)
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mrs. Gordon, the resolution was passed
and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Christie, Plummer,
Gibson, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
6, OBJECTIONS TO CONFIRMATION OR ORDERING SOLUTION 72-3a_
CORAL WAY SOUTH HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT H-
The Mayor announced the Commission was now ready to consider
any objections to confirmation of ordering resolution for Coral
Way South Highway Imprivement H-4354.
No objectors appeared.
Whereupon, the following resolution was introduced by Mr.
Plummer, who moved its adoption:
-23-
MAY 4, 1972
•
RESOLUTION NO. 72-126
A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING ORDERING RESOLUTION NO.
72-33 AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE
FOR SEALED BIDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF CORAL WAY
SOUTH HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT H-4354 IN CORAL WAY SOUTH
HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT H-4354
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Reverend Gibson, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Christie,
Gibson, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
7. USE OF BUILDINGS - MIAMI RIVER COMPLEX - HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMNT OFFICES
The following resolution was introduced by Mrs. Gordon who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 72-127
A RESOLUTION GRANTING PERMISSION AS PROVIDED IN
ORDINANCE NO. 6871, ARTICLE IV, SECTION 36 (1)
FOR BUILDINGS LOCATED IN MIAMI RIVER COMPLEX
(92-39) BEING 1341 N. W. 7 STREET: 720, 740,750,
760, 780 and 790 N. W. 14 COURT, AND ORIGINALLY
CONSTRUCTED FOR APARTMENTS, TO BE USED FOR
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT OFFICES; ZONED
R-5 (HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE)
(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
Plummer, Gibson, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
8, VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE- BLOCK 100S BRICKELL ADD AMD.
Mr. Lon Worth Crow Jr., representing Southeast Mortgage Company
appeared in connection with application for Variance request to
permit construction of 2 story addition to existing office building
on Lots 12, 13 and 14, Block 100S Birckell Add Amended B-113 located
S. E. 14th Street Zoned R-CB and Conditional Use for parking for the
principal structure at 75 S. E. 14th Street. He represented to the
Commission that at least two objectors, Polly Davis and John Pennekamp
had both withdrawn their objections. He outlined with the aid of
charts and drawings the planned addition showing in detail existing
parking areas as well as those planned.
After considerable duscussion, the following resolution was
introduced by Mr. Plummer who movedits adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 72-128
A RESOLUTION TO REFER BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD
FOR STUDY AND RECOMMENDATION A REQUEST OF SOUTHEAST
MORTGAGE COMPANY FOR VARIANCE REQUESTS ON LOTS 12,
13, 14, BLOCK 100S BRICKELL ADD AMD B-113 LOCATED
AT 75 S. E. 14TH STREET BASED ON NEW FACTS TO BE
SUBMITTED AT TIME AND DATE OF NEW APPLICATION ON
MAY 22, 1972
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
file in the City Clerks Office) MAY 4, 1972
-24-
•
UPON BEING SECONDEjED BY REVERENEND GIBSON THE RgSOLUTION WAS.
ASSED�A D ADOPTERBY
t�ORDQNHE LANDII''IAYORG T�ENNEDYS: NOE�SRS�ON�RISTIE,
rIBSON,, AND , MRS.t
9, CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS - NORTH CITY LIMITS,
WEST WTH AVENUE AND erm WEST DTH STREET
i
The Mayor inquired if any objectors were present on this item.
Albert Eulie: I don't know if you people had a chance to go out
and look at the area since the last meeting. According to my
understainding, they have decided that the zoning And the streets
should be separate. I can't see how that can be. If you zone
the area on the west side of 49th avenue C2 and run apartments from
7th street all the way south to 5th street and open 5th street, that
will run all of the cars from these apartments, which will probably
be in excess of 200 into the residential area where I live.
If you open up both streets, 6th and 7th streets, this would take
off some of the traffic. I don't know if you could zone between
6th and 7th street as C2 because all of this area is R-2, residential
or single. Either the streets have to be all closed or all open or
it would be a very bad bottleneck.
Mr. Charles: My name is W. W. Charles, I am here on behalf of Mr.
Eulie. This was a two pronged proposition before the Planning
Board and one of the prongs is to eliminate about a block and a
half of streets in this area and I believe the closing of these
streets have been held up pending outcome of this zoning study.
If the zoning question goes through, then they will come back with
the closing of streets, about 1 1/2 acres of land, so they can build
apartments on them. I think the Planning Staff shouldtell us about
their proposals on these streets as well as on the zoning, because
they were on the same agenda on the zoning board hearing.
Mr. George Acton: This is the second time this matter has appeared
on the agenda. It was deferred to allow the Commissioners time to
review the data and to examine first hand, the area in question.
He stated the difference in recommendations between the Planning
Department and the Planning Board occur in only one area and I
believe since there are no objections to the rezoning of the entire
area except between 47th Avenue and 51st Avenue on the South side
of 7th Street. The Planning F, Zoning Board recommended that the
south side of 7th Street should be a combination of C-4 R-c
with the R-C extending down to 5th Street. The Planning Department
recommended that the zoning should be C-2 and R-C and the R-C would
extend to about 110 feet of 5th street. We did this because we felt
that C-2 allows the type of use that would be more compatible with
the type of area that is being developed. There are numerous
apartment that have been developed or are under construction right
now as opposed to the C-4 which does allow some uses that are not
compatible with the residential character of the area. We also
recommended that the R-C be limited to within 110 feet of 5th Street
so that the development that does take place under R-C would be
more in scale and compatibility with the surrounding area. The
development,_of the area on the south side of 7th street on the
below the existing high intensity residential use is uniformly well
maintained either single family or two family houses and we felt that
any future developments in this area should be cognizant of the
existing low density in the area and should not be allowed to
contribute excessive traffic through local residential streets and
for that reason our recommendation is differrent from the one from
the Planning Board and looking ahead to the time when the entire
study area is developed as residential and is in need of the local
commercial uses that is allowed under C-2 zoning.
Mr. Plummer: If you only open Sth street the traffic that would
be generated as opposed to opening both 5th and 6th street would
somewhat divide the traffic up.
Mr. Acton: Except that through our recommendation, we hoped to
limit the traffic that would be generated by our high intensity
commercial or residential use to 7th street or 61 avenue.
We didn't believe the R-C should be extended back to 5th street
and this way we can control the amount of off-street parking
associated with development of high -intensity apartment use.
-�5- MAY 4, 1972
• A
We had recommended that the C-2 use be held back 20 feet from
existing 6th street. We could control the ingress and egress of
traffic . It would be a buffer and they couldn't put any roadways
Or egresses to their commercial uses. We are trying to keep the
intensity of traffic low on these local streets that are behind
N.W. 7th Street.
Mr. Plummer: These people bought this property as C-4 and you
are now proposing a lesser classification. Where does this put
the City? Mr. Rothstein, what is the position of the City with
these persons who are having their property reduced in value?
Mr. Rothstein: Number one, the City has a right to do it and
Number two, it is legally proper and Number three, it does not
necessarily follow that a change in a zoning classification is a
change for worse in value . An example: The District Court of
Appeals yesterday affirmed the ruling of the lower court which
overturned this Commission's denial of a zoning change from C-5
to R-4 at Le Jeune near the airport. They said the Commission
acted improperly and should have approved the rezoning and based
its opinion on the opinion that the best and highest use of the
property was R-4 and not C-5. The rezoning doesn't necessarily
hurt the property, in any case, we have a legal authority.
Mr. Plummer:
Mr. Rothstein:
Mr. Plummer:
Mr. Plummer:
The places there with C-4 now, what will happen to them?
They would become non conforming uses.
Would they be under a moratorium.
They would be there infinitum as long as they didn't
change the existing use.
Mr. Acton: That is correct.
Mr. Charles: Would you point out which streets would be closed if
this zoning goes through?
Mr. Plummer: None would be closed.
Mr. Acton: 6th street would be closed from 51st avenue to 49th.
These are "map" streets. unopened streets. If the city officially
closed these roads, they would no longer appear as map streets.
Mr. Gars: In response to question by Mr. Plummer about easements.
No Sir, they are not dedicated. All it is is a proposal in the
original city plans from several years ago but it was never put in.
Mr. Plummer: Is there a dedication? Is there an easement?
Mr. Simpson: No Sir. But Mr. Gars on his entire tract of land has
the right to build a single family home and when he intends to build
anything other than a single family home, he must plat, and through
the platting procedures is when the city requires the dedications for
necessary traffic circulation.
Mr. Gars. The entire tract in th. front is zoned C-4. The entire
front of this tract, if taken in separate parcels, could have been
developed without resorting to streets of any kind whatsoever. Mr.
Simpson is relating to the back parcel of the property. The front
portion is already zoned C-4 and has access to 7th street and is
not affected by 6th street, 5th street or anything else.
Mr. Simpson: The existing C-4 runs between 6th and 7th. In order
to develop that, he would have to go through the platting process
and they would require the 6th street.
Mr. Plummer: Because you can't build apartments in a C-4?
Mr. Gars: Thats correct and we wouldn't develop it as apartments.
We did not come to the City and ask the City to change anything.
Mr. Schacter, Mr. Karpeles and myself. The City had a hearing on
affected property on the north side of the street and decided that
before they considered the question of the rezoning petition on the
north side of the street, that they wanted a zoning study of the
entire area. _26_
MAY 4, 1972
•
Since September 1971, we have had one hearing after another at
which the City Planning Board submitted its recommendation for
changes in the area. In 22 years of practicing law, this is the
first time I have ever had to come before a City Commission to
defend an 8-0 vote of the Planning Board because the Planning Board
isn't here to defend why they overruled the Planning Department.
The Planning Board, after giving consideration to every single
objection, of the Planning Department, at five separate hearings
decided it was in the best interests of the property owners in
the area, and the City. It doesn't matter to me whether my
property is zoned C-2, C-1, R-4 or R-C. Myself and Mr. Karpeles
had no objection to any of those zonings. Or C-4. We didn't
object because it gave me a use that I intended to use somewhere
anyhow. I intended to use this for apartments anyhow or else
what I would have done I would have used the front for commercial
and the back for townhouses. We voluntarily agreed that we would
have had no objections to the R-C. Now what has occurred, is that
when the overall Planning Board recommendation comes through, we
have spot zoning. The entire area was left exactly as it was
south of 7th street except for this one little piece of land.
The Planning Board, rather than have spot zoning, allowed the
property owners who wanted their C-4, to leave it at C-4.
In the entire original study, it went from 47th street all the
way up to 57th street and everything else was left the way it was.
Now we get an entire area study that now gets down to a two block
area and of the entire two block area, at five hearings, there was
not one objection to what the Planning Board decided to do except
for Mr. Eulie who certainly has the right to consider the extra
traffic that might come upon the property and one of the reasons
why they proposed to close 6th street because if I were to build
a building accross 6th street, running from 7th street to 5th
street, there would be no way for any traffic to drive down 6th
street and upset the single family units that are down there.
It would be more logical to assume that the traffic would exit on
7th street at 51st avenue than to drive through a winding dead end
because there is no way to get out except at 47th avenue.
Mr. Plummer: If I am not mistaken Mr. Acton, it now exists between
5th and 6th Streets as R-2.
Mr. Acton: That is correct.
Mr. Plummer" Why did your department recommend that that be changed
to an R-C which we all know would give greater density.
Mr. Acton: We did consider that particular alternative but we
felt that, we considered leaving the existing R-2, we felt that
a better zoning pattern would be carried along, in conformance
to the zoning line that presently exists to the west of 51st Avenue.
We were trying to achieve a uniform line along there but we also
felt we would get a better apartment development if in fact he was
allowed to close 6th street and deepen the R-C zoning to about 110
feet of 5th street.
We try at all times to get like kinds of development and zoning
in areas accross the street from each other.
If you increase the R-C down to Sth street, you are allowing a greater
intensity of development.
Mrs. Gordon: For clarification, is it not true that sidewalk lines
abutting commercial have a transitional use, so in effect the R-2
in effect would be R-3.
Mr. Gars: No, No.
Mrs. Gordon: The current zoning is C-4 and you asked him why he did
not permit it to remain R-2 and I say if it remained R-2, it would in
effect have a transitional use abutting C-3, which means it could be
used as R-3.
Mr. Plummer: That was not my question. Why was his department suggesting
R-C instead of leaving it R-2.
Mrs. Gordon: With regard as to why our professional staff makes
recommendations to upgrade an area, for the specific reason that
they are our professional staff. Specifically in an area which is
underdeveloped and has not yet shown its characteristics for
-27- MAY 4, 1972
• e
development, this is the type of area that you move into when you
know its improperly zoned and properly rezone it.
In this case, the C-4 classification and the amount of C-4 that you
have there is in my opinion, a very poor classification for the area.
It would permit uses that you have in many of the other C-4 areas
of the City which are incompatible to high class residential types
of developments which are occuring on the north side and which also
are occuring on the south side of 7th street where it has been
rezoned to R-C. I believe R-C is a very fine classification but
only to the depth that has been recommended by the department and
it has been recommended by the department for a very specific and
professional reason and that is because it prohibits the heavy flow
of traffic into the neighboring streets, which would affect Mr.
Eulie among other people. I believe the only way this should be
changed is as has been recommended by our department and I am ready
to move forward, with the thinking in mind as we used in Brickell,
used in Biscayne Boulevard, I think we again are charged with
accepting the professional advice that we are paying for and use it
and accept their recommendation.
Mr. Joe Kwan: I am a director of the Chinese-American Benevolent
Association. I represent the Association. We bought this property
as C-4 and we have a definite plan to build a two-story building.
Downstairs, we are going to divide it into commercial property and
rent it and upstairs, we will have a language school. We operate
a chinese language school now. Also meetings for the association.
When this is built, we will have a mortgage and we bought it as a
C-4 originally and we know the difference between a C-4 and a C-2.
In C-4 we can rent out to different types of business, full occupancy
is assured and we know that the mortgage can be kept up. If you
restrict us to C-2, we may have vacancies and we don't have the
means to support the mortgage so therefore we want the C-4 and don't
want to make any change.
Mr. Christie: You want to keep the C-4
Mr. Kwan: Yes, we bought it as C-4. We paid more for it as C-4.
Mrs. Gordon: In the City of Miami today, C-4 doesn't have more
value, it might even have less value than C-2 because C-2 has
flexibilities. I don't want to state it definitely, but you would
probably get more in a sale for C-2, valuewise.
Mr. Kwan: I have had personal experience . I had property that I
bought as C-4 and they later changed it to C-2 and later on when I
tried to rent it, the City License Bureau would not issue them a
permit because the business did not belong there and its not a
question of value, its a question that we are able to rent our
property to more people. Right next door to us is a filling station,
and we knew that, but we want C-4
Mr. Christie: You have owned that property a long time, haven't you?
Mr. Kwan: A long time, and we have been paying taxes on it for a
long time.
Mr. Christie: I think this community will be very happy when that
project is finally built, we have heard about and we certainly hope
shortly you will get it off the ground. I think it would be in
keeping with the ethnic quality of Miami and we hope you will be
successful very shortly.
Mr. Eulie: I would like to say that I have no objection to the
Chinese Club moving in but as far as I understand, they want to
build their building all the way back to 6th street and I live
there, they don't, and if you put a wall against all of those
single family homes, that is bad. You have this zoned from 7th
to Gth as C-4. I have been fighting this for 10 years, since 1964.
I would like to know what the thinking of the Commission is on that.
Mr. Wallace Maer: I represent Mr. Pawley. He has that sliver of
property on the extreme right of the drawing. We are naturally
favoring the unanimous recommendation of the planning board and
to keep from being repetitous of these other parties may I say
that we have paid taxes on the property based on C-4 for some years
-28-
MAY 4, 1972
11,
and we have sold t:he 47th Avenue corner to an oil company, wo
have expended $21,000 ler a temporary sewer system and we are
to shallow to develop it any other way than C-4, we are dickering
now with a Beauty Supply Company which is not an offensive use but
it is wholesale and therefore would require C-4 and so far as I
think I can see, the property is suited to C-4 type development.
We try to restrict ourselves to non -offensive uses, we have had
hearings where we had some slight variances and have had the
cooperation of everyone in that neighborhood. Our expenditures
have been based on a C-4 uses.
Michael Schacter: I elm the adjoining property next to Mr.
Pawleys and the gas station to the left of me. I have been there
15 years and am the first merchant on 7th street. As Mr. Gars
pointed out to you. First let me say this to Mrs. Gordon, she
keeps talking about the professional planners opinion and that
we should respect them but we have had five different times and
these people voted to leave us alone and leave the C-4 as it is
and we ought to respect those people for their opinions too.
I would like to see the map that shows 56th and 7th and 57th ave
and 7th street. See that big tract on 7th street where it shows
C-4, now there are apartment houses back of that and they don't
want to rezone that. Now, is that compatible to the neighborhood?
Accross the street where the gas station is, on 7th street, there
is a proposed 10 story hotel going to there but they are not talking
about changing the zoning of that gas station and bar there. Now,
why are they picking on just our little strip there to change from
C-4 to C-2? We didn't ask for anything and if they are going to
change anything, it should be the whole neighborhood.
Mr. Acton: In response to your question about a traffic study
Mrs. Gordon, I assumed you meant by the Dade County Department of
Transportation. Traffic analysis that is done in the platting
process by the City of Miami Plat and Street Committee and we
do analyze logical and good traffic patterns within any type of
recommended zoning pattern. We do consider this always.
Unidentified Lady: I own 238 by 217 feet and we have a plan for
garden apartments which would be good for the neighborhood.
When my family developed Michael Subdivision in this area we were
forced to put in 6th street and now you change my property to C-2
and a buffer zone, do you mean to tell me that we have put a street
in and can't use it.
Mr. Acton: That is correct, you would have access to 7th street
What we are saying is that we would not wish to see traffic gen-
erated from a C-2 Use back into a low intensity or R-2 or R-1 use.
Unidentified Lady: What is this ,ffer strip, is it going to be
a garden ?
Mr. Acton: We hope it would be a andscaped area.
Unidentified Lady:If you had left :th avenue in there, we would have
had a highway right straight throu,:n to the highway and I would have
been on a corner lot but coming right out onto a busy street like
7: , I think is a hazard.
Mr. Karples: I am the son of Leo Karples who owns the property.
We had originally intended to use the front portion of this as C-4
property and we have never come for any changes. We are here because
of the proposed changes by the City Planning Department. We would
be agreeable to the C-2 Zoning and having the R-C Zoning in the back
of Sth street as recommended on the past several meetings that we
have been to. The Buffer zone creates a problem because it breaks
up the property and we would wind up with three different zonings
in there and therefore we wouldn't be able to economically use the
property because we would wind up with three small pieces so we
would want to have a uniformity of at least two different zonings
rather than three different zonings involved in our piece. There
is a comment I want to make about Mr. Eulies objection. He is
objecting to the traffic and I understand his residential property
now backs up to the C-4 property and he was concerned about the
buffer and what the comments of the Commission are. It isn't really
clear what he hopes to accomplish by opening up 6th street,
_�9_ MAY 4, 1972
•
6th street first of all would become a dead end street regardless,
so it really wouldn't serve any purpose other than opening up the
rear or the south side of the commercial property which would
eventually be used for additional traffic in the nature of trucks
for deliveries into the commercially zoned parcel so, I think that
his evaluation of wanting 6th street opened up is contrary or
opposed to his genuine entrinsic desire. The way to eliminate the
traffic in that area, is to develop the entire parcel in a large,
well developed type of development with the access out to 7th
street which is your main road. Keeping the streets closed is the
way to eliminate the traffic, the way to open them would only
invite the traffic and the point I want to emphasize again, is if
6th street is opened, it will invite truck traffic, not only regular
traffic.
After considerable further discussion, a motion by Mrs. Gordon,
seconded by Reverend Gibson, to grant those changes in zoning which
were recommended by the Planning Department for the entire north side
of this tract of land, and that portion of the south side of N. W.
7th Street west of the property owned by the Chinese American Club,
was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Mr. Christie
Reverend Gibson, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: Mr. Plummer
A motion by Mrs. Gordon, seconded by Reverend Gibson, to
grant the changes recommended by the Planning Department on the
remainder of this tract of land failed to pass by the following vote -
AYES: Mrs. Gordon and Reverend Gibson. NOES: Messrs. Christie,
Plummer and Mayor Kennedy.
A motion by Mr. Christie, seconded by Mr. Plummer, to
allow existing property along the south side of N. W. 7th Street
east of the property owned by the Chinese American Club and lying
within this tract of land to remain C-4, was passed and adopted by
the following vote - AYES: Mr. Christie, Mr. Plummer and Mayor
Kennedy. NOES: Mrs. Gordon and Reverend Gibson.
-30-
MAY 4, 1972
10 . CHANGE IN DATE - NEXT SCHEDULED COMMISSION MEETING MAY 1972
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 72-129
A RESOLUTION TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE NEXT
REGULAR MEETING OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION
FROM THURSDAY, MAY 18, 1972 TO FRIDAY MAY 19, 1972
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mrs. Gordon, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Christie,
Gibson, Gordon, Plummer and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
11, LUAU AT MARINE SJADIUM- HOST COMMITTEE FOR JEMOCEATIC CONVENTION
Mr. James Teague representing the Florida Host Convention
Committee for the Democratic Convention appeared to request the
use without payment of fee of the Miami Marine Statium for a Luau
to be held at the facility on May 26, 1972.
A written report was submitted by the City Manager to the
members of the Commission which listed the direct expenses to the
City that cannot be waived.
After further discussion, the following resolution was intro-
duced by Mrs. Gordon who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 72-130
A RESOLUTION WAIVING THE RENTAL FEE FOR THE USE OF
THE MARINE STADIUM ON THE EVENING OF MAY 26, 1972,
TO HOLD A LUAU, PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT THE DIRECT
EXPENSES TO THE CITY IN CONNECTION WITH THE HOLDING
OF SUCH EVENT, IN AN AMOUNT OF $602.24 BE PAID BY
THE APPLICANT
Upon being seconded by Mr. Christie, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Christie,
Gibson, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
12. HOURS FOR SALE OF BEER ON SUNDAY - FLA. RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION
Mr. Jerome Robinson, representing the Florida Restaurant
Association appeared to discuss the hours Restaurants within
the city limits are permitted to sell beer on Sunday.
Mr. Andrews advised the Commission that an excerpt of the
City Code had been prepared for their information and convenience
listing permissable hours of sale and a copy was given to each
Commissioner.
Mr. Rothstein stated as background of this matter that the
issue arose about a year ago when the owner of a bar -lounge on
Coral Way requested an extension of his hours. The City Attorney
was instructed by the Commission to study this matter and to come
back with a plan and recommendation but reported that during this
period, he had learned that the hours of sale had been attempted
to be straightened out on a State wide level and stated that he
would have to prepare a proposed ordinance for submission to the
Commission.
Mr. Robinson stated that the suggestion to have the matter
settled on a state wide basis had been made at an earlier hearing
before this Commission and that he had knowledge of such a bill
being introduced, sent to Committee but that the League of Munic-
ipalities had sent a representative to Tallahassee to fight this
very bill which would have allowed the State to decide the hours.
The State then said the municipalities would have to make their
own decisions. He explained that restaurant owners in the City
were not permitted to serve a beer with food after 7 P.M. on
Sundays, although their counterparts in the County, could.
-31- MAY 4, 1972
He objected to the criteria that permitted an establishment of
200 seats or more to serve alcoholic beverages beyond 7 P.M.
He stated he was not appearing particularly in behalf of owners
of bars serving sandwiches incidental to the sale of beer but
rather jingled the restaurant owners in the city of Miami who
are confronted with the restrictive Sunday 7 P.M. deadline problem.
He said he wanted all rules to apply equally to all bonafide
restaurants in the City.
Mr. Rothstein stated he could have a report ready for
submission by June 1.
Mr. Nesbitt, owner of Bowl Bar accross from the Orange Bowl
appeared to complain about the restrictive hours and stated he
felt discriminated against in the payment of fees and licenses
in that the competition in the county had much more liberal hours
and that his customers and patrons of the orange bowl during the
football season had complained about these hours.
It was decided this study would include separate studies
for recommended hours for restaurants and bars.
Reverend Gibson expressed the opinion the Ministerial
Association should be notified that the Commission has these matters
under consideration and was advised by the City Attorney that this
could be handled in the form of a public hearing and all interested
persons could be present.
13; N,E. 34 ST & N,E. 2 AVE FEC RIGHT OF WAY -USE OF BY EUSTER FURNITURE
Mr. Max Hagen, Attorney representing Euster Furniture Company
appeared to request use of a right of way deeded to the public and
abutting against the F.E.C. Right of Way, for use as a paved parking
lot.
Mr. Andrews stated that this request had been investigated and
revied by the Director of Public Works and it was decided that since
the property was not being used for anything and was not maintained,
they had no objection to its use by Euster Furniture Company as a
parking lot subject to certain restrictions.
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Christie, who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.---72-131
A RESOLUTION TO ALLOW EUSTER FURNITURE COMPANY TO
PAVE AND FENCE A CERTAIN PORTION OF PROPERTY
ABUTTING THE F.E.C. RIGHT OF WAY ALONG N.E. 34 ST.
FROM N.E. 2 AVENUE PROVIDED SUCH WORK IS DONE AT
EXPENSE OF EUSTER FURNITURE COMPANY SUBJECT TO A
FENCING PERMIT BEING ISSUED WITH ACCESS FIRE GATE
ON N.E. 2 AVENUE SIDE AND PROVIDING THAT NO BUILDING
OR STRUCTURE BE ERECTED ON THIS PROPERTY
(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,
Plummer, Gibson, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
14, HIGH SCHOOL HALL OF FAME - CLASSIC TRACK AND FIELD MEET
Mrs. Gordon stated she received a letter from Mr. Bob Mc Peak
requesting participation by the City of Miami in a Track Meet to
be held at Miami -Dade Junior College on June 3, 1972 outlining the
desirability of such events for youth in this healthy atmosphere
and to help combat their turning to drugs as alternatives to such
events.
Mayor Kennedy stated that this was a well known and very
worth while program and that the entire Commission was aware of
its activities but that such projects over the years could not
be funded because the city is prohibited in participating in
such type projects.
After considerable discussion, Mrs.Gordon asked that a letter
he written to the organization stating the feelings of the
_32_ MAY 4, 1972
Commission in that they endorsed the meet but explaining that they
were legally prohibited from participation, to which the Commission
agreed.
15. BRIGADA DE ASALTO 2506 - GIRON MONUMENT
Mrs. Gordon called attention to a letter received from
Mr. Pedro B. Encinosa, President of Brigada De Asalto 2506 in
regard to Giron Monument and requesting installation of four
light posts, green areas and garden to the park and payment of
electricity and gas for the external light.
Mr. Andrews, Acting City Manager, stated that these people made
a commitment to build at their own expense and maintain this monument
and that it should not be the responsibility of the community to have
to maintain this project.
Mrs. Gordon stated that these people had raised $7,500 and that
they represented other than wealthy persons and that this amount had
been raised at great hardship to them and asked if funds for the
recently passed parks bond issue could be applied for the city owned
portions of this area in a beautification effort.
After further discussion, the matter was referred to the City
Manager for study and report.
16. PROPOSED BUILDING MORATORIUM- COCONUT GROVE CIVIC CLUB
Mr. James C. Black representing the Coconut Grove Civic Club
appeared to request the Commission to impose a Building Moratorium
similar to the ordinance adopted by Dade County as a result of the
March 14 referendum. He advised the Commission that the Club had
passed a resolution requesting such moratorium on April 28, 1972.
He represented that there was confusion at the referendum of March
14, in that many of the voters were under the impression that this
moratorium would also apply to the City of Miami but since the City
administers its own building and zoning affairs and issues its own
permits, such action would rest directly with the City Commission.
Mr. Dan Cavanaugh, Attorney representing the Coconut Grove
Civic Club appeared and outlined the need for this moratorium and
presented a tentative ordinance for the consideration of the
Commission. He stated the intent of this ordinance was not only
for Coconut Grove but for the entire city. He indicated that we
would be witness to extensive redevelopment within the City limits
in the coming years and that such an ordinance would give the City
Commission the authority to impose such a moratorium before a
developer could move and develop a given area contrary to the wishes
of the public and the Commission.
Mrs. Gordon expressed the opinion that the downtown zoning
study had taken much too long and stated that in a recent case,
the Commission was forced to seek alternatives in the absence of
this completed study and that a way had to be found to speed up
these studies and that unreasonable delays were not logical to the
builders and developers.
Mr. Acton, Director of the Planning Department said the studies
were entirely dependent on the overall scope of the studies desired
and that sophisticated uses of such things as computers would have
to be utilized to possibly speed up these matters. He explained
that with limitations of personnel and the great length of time
required to assemble base data in very large studies, such as the
downtown studies, that these simply could not be completed in any
short period of time, such as 60 to 90 days.
In response to questions by Reverend Gibson, the City Attorney
stated that he would have to examine the proposed ordinance as
submitted by Mr. Cavanaugh . He stated that the problems faced by
the Commission were not to stop builders from building but rather
to encourage builders to engage in proper redevelopment of existing
areas and cited this as the basis for the ordinance for planned
development, already passed on first reading.
The matter was referred to the City Attorney for study and
report back to the City Commission at their meeting on June 1, 1972.
MAY 4, 1972
-33-
• toi
17. COCONUT GROVE ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION DISTRICT
Attorney Dan Cavanaugh appeared to duscuss a previously
submitted proposal for an environmental preservation district
in Coconut Grove and that the matter had been referred to the
City Attorney for study. He stated he was in receipt of a
communication from the City Attorney who ruled that this would
not be appropriate under the City Charter.
Mr. Rothstein explained to the Commission that this group
had in mind a type of neighborhood check system to check on the
actions of the Commission, specifically in zoning matters, and
explained the Commission could not delegate its legislative authority
to such a group.
Mrs. Gordon expressed the opinion that what this group was
asking for was similar to a review board.
Mr. Black stated that he wrote the document and that there
was some apparent confusion as to its interpretation and the
environmental review committee had no authority in itself with
out the approval of the Planning Board and the City Commission.
Mr. Rothstein stated that the measure of responsibility and
authority can never be given away by the elected representatives
to other groups and committees. He suggested the matter be given
to the Planning groups for study and comment and that he would be
glad to work with all concerned.
Mr. Cavanaugh liknedthis request to the Georgetown Committee
in Washington, D. C. and said in response to a question by Mr.
Christie, that this proposed group did want authority to act in
behalf of the Commission.
18, COMMUNITY RELATIONS BOARD REPORT - PARK DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Gordon reported that she had attended a recent meeting of
the Community Relations Board and reported that she had corrected
statements made by some persons at that meeting to correct mistaken
ideas that the City would not proceed with development of parks in
black areas at a rate commensurate with availability of funds. She
stated she assured those present that the City had gone on record
to proceed with these park developments as soon as funds would become
available. She indicated the report of the Community Relations Board
contained many fine ideas which could be applicable to the City and
suggested that it be given to the City Manager to study.
The following resolution was introduced by Mrs. Gordon who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 72-132
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY
RELATIONS BOARD AND USING IT IN CONNECTION WITH
PARK DEVELOPMENT WHERE APPLICABLE AND FEASIBLE
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Reverend Gibson, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Christie,
Gibson, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
19, CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION LOTS 21 & 2Z CLAYTON HEIGHTS
An Ordinance entitled -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871
(COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE) BY CHANGING
THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FOR LOTS 21 $ 22,
CLAYTON HEIGHTS (21-10) FROM C-4 (GENERAL
COMMERCIAL) TO R-3 (LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE),
LOCATED AT 2619 N. W. 24 STREET; AND BY MAKING
THE NECESSARY CHANGES IN 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; PROVIDING FOR A SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE HEREIN MAY 4, 1972
-34-
passed on its first reading '3y title at the meeting of April 20, 1972,
was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption.
On motion of Mrs. Gordon, 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, Gibson, Plummer,
Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
Said Ordinance was designated Ordinance No. 8055.
20, CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION - PLAZA VENETIA
An Ordinance entitled -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871
(COMPREHANSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE) BY CHANGING
THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FOR TENTATIVE PLAT
#817 - "PLAZA VENETIA", TRACE "A" AND TRACT
"B", FROM C-1 (LOCAL COMMERCIAL) TO C-3
(CENTRAL COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT, LOCATED AT THE
AREA BOUNDED BY N. E. 17 TERRACE ON THE NORTH
N. E. 15 STREET ON THE SOUTH, BISCAYNE BOUL-
EVARD WEST, AND N. E. BAYSHORE DRIVE ON THE
EAST, LESS PROPERTY KNOWN AS 1720 N. E. BAY -
SHORE DRIVE, ALL KNOWN AS TRACT "A" OF
"PLAZA VENETIA", AN AREA BOUNDED ON THE NORTH
BY THE WOMENS CLUB, ON THE WEST BY N. E.
BAYSHORE DRIVE AND ON THE SOUTH BY N.E. 16TH
STREET AND ON THE EAST BY BISCAYNE BAY, ALL
KNOWN AS TRACT "B"-OF "PLAZA VENETIA"; 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 April 20, 1972,
was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption.
On motion of Mr. Christie, seconded by Mr. Plummer, the ordinance
was thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed
and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Christie, Gibson,
Plummer and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: Mrs. Gordon
Said Ordinance was designated Ordinance No. 8056.
Reverend Gibson expressed concern and hope that this development would
not preclude persons from access to the waterfront areas since the
buildings were going to be build right up to the water.
Mr. Rothstein explained the concept of Plaza Venetia and said
that the covenant would require the developers to do what they said
they would do and included in this is public access to the waterfront.
21. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
An Ordinance entitled -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871
(COMPREHSNSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE) BY ADDING
A NEW ARTICLE XXI-1 PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT
(PAD), AS HEREINAFTER SET FORTH, PERTAINING
TO THE CREATION OF A NEW ZONING DISTRICT TO
BE CALLED A PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT (PAD),
TO BE PERMITTED AS A "CONDITIONAL USE" UPON
APPLICATION; REPEALING ALL LAWS IN CONFLICT
HEREWITH; AND PROVIDING FOR A SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE HEREIN
passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of April 20, 1972,
was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption.
On motion of Mrs. Gordon, seconded by Mr. Plummer, the ordinance was
thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and
adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Christie, Gibson,
Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
Said Ordinance was designated Ordinance No. 8057.
-35- MAY 4, 1972
Mrs. Gordon stated that since this ordinance was just passed she
would like to be enlightened on the makeup of the Review Board
that is a part of the Ordinance.
Mr. George Action, Director of the Planning Department advised
that the Board presently consists of five members, three architects
appointed by the AIA and two Landscape Architects appointed by the
local chapter of the ASLA.
Mrs. Gordon expressed the opinion that an enlarged board should
consist of some citizens, businessmen and other professional persons
and to included in this Planned Area Development Board.
22.
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 72-133
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING TWO HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY
DEEDS FROM AMERICANA KNITTING MILLS OF MIAMI, INC
FOR TWO STRIPS OF LAND NEEDED FOR WIDENING N. W.
22 LANE AND N. W. 23 STREET, RESPECTIVELY, EAST-
WARD FROM N. W. 5 AVENUE; AND DIRECTING THAT THEY
BE RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF DADE COUNTY
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Reverend Gibson, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Christie,
Gibson, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
23. SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT - ACCEPTANCE - HODVINS-HUDSON
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 72-134
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING SANITARY SEWER EASEMENTS
DATED FEBRUARY 25, 1972, AND APRIL 9, 1972 FROM
MR. & MRS. HODGKINS AND MR. AND MRS. HUDSON,
RESPECTIVELY; AND DIRECTING THAT THEY BE RECORDED
IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF DADE COUNTY
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mrs. Gordon, the resolution was passed
and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Christie, Gibson,
Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
24. UTILITY RELOCATION_ MASTER AGREEMENT- _FLA. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 72-135
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY
MANAGER AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AND DELIVER TO
THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
A "UTILITY RELOCATION MASTER AGREEMENT" FOR RE-
LOCATION OF CITY OWNED FACILITIES ON PROPOSED STATE
HIGHWAY SYSTEM; AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO
SEND TWO CERTIFIED COPIES OF TILE RESOLUTION TO
THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
-36-
MAY 4, 1972
A
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
file in the City clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Reverend Gibson, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Christie,
Gibson, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
25. ACCEPTANCE OF HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY DEED- N.E. 26 STREET LTD.
The following resolution was introduced by Reverend Gibson
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 72-136
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY
DEED FROM N. E. 26 STREET, LTD., A LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mrs. Gordon, the resolution was passed
and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Christie, Gibson,
Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
26. WASTE COLLECTION LICENSE - GENERAL HAULING SERVICE INC.
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 72-137
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF A
COMMERCIAL WASTE COLLECTION LICENSE TO GENERAL
HAULING SERVICE INC.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mrs. Gordon, the resolution was passed
and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Christie, Gibson,
Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
27, EXTENSION OF LEASE - CORAL REEF YACHT CLUB
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 72-138
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY
MANAGER AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AN EXTENSION
OF LEASE FOR AN ADDITIONAL PERIOD OF FIVE (5)
YEARS FROM APRIL 10, 1972 TO APRIL 9, 1977,
BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI AND THE CORAL REEF
YACHT CLUB, TO USE THE LEASED PREMISES SUBJECT
TO THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS THE ORIGINAL
LEASE, DATED APRIL 10, 1962, A COPY OF SAID EXT-
ENSION OF LEASE BEING ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE
A PART HEREOF
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mrs. Gordon, the resolution was passed
and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Christie, Gibson,
Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
-37_
MAY 4, 1972
28. DELETION OF SUB PARAGRAPH B- ELECTIONS (CITY CODE)
An Ordinance_entitled-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 15-18 OF CHAPTER
15 ENTITLED " ELECTIONS" OF THE CODE OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI BY DELETING SUB -PARAGRAPH B OF PARAGRAPH
14 of SECTION 15-18 IN ITS ENTIRETY; BY DELETING
THE WORDS "UPON THE CITY MANAGER'S REPORT BEING
SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION AND AFTER CONSIDERING
THE REPORT, IF" of SUB -PARAGRAPH C OF PARAGRAPH
14 OF SECTION 15-18 AND SUBSTITUTING THEREFOR
THE WORDS "IN THE EVENT"; REDESIGNATING SUB-
PARAGRAPH C AS B; REDESIGNATING SUB -PARAGRAPH
D AS C; AND CONTAINING A SERVERABILITY PROVISION
was introduced by Reverend Gibson, seconded by Mrs. Gordon, and
passed on its first reading by title by the following vote -
AYES: Messrs. Christie, Gibson, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor
Kennedy. NOES: None
29, MODIFICATION OF THE COAST GUARD FACILITY
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 72-139
A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE "RECREATIONAL BOND
FUND" AS THE SOURCE OF FUNDS TO ACCOMPLISH THE
FURTHER MODIFICATION OF THE COAST GUARD FACILITY
FOR THE HOLDING OF BOXING EVENTS, AS PROVIDED IN
RESOLUTION NO. 72-47
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mrs. Gordon, the resolution was passed
and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Christie, Gibson,
Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
30. OFFICE SPACE FOR_ M I D-CITY EMPLOYEES FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
The following resolution was introduced by Mrs. Gordon who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 72-140
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE USE OF CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT FUNDS - UNALLOCATED FUNDS, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $3,000.00—FOR THE PURPOSE OF
PROVIDING SUITABLE OFFICE SPACE FOR THE MID -
CITY EMPLOYEES FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Reverend Gibson, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Christie,
Gibson, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
-38-
MAY 4, 1972
31. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - EDISON CENTER YOUCH COMMUNITY BUILDING
The following resolution was introduced by Reverend Gibson,
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 72-141
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO RECEIVE
PROPOSALS FROM ARCHITECTS FOR THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
OF THE EDISON CENTER YOUTH COMMUNITY BUILDING TO BE LO-
CATED IN THE EDISON CENTER PARK; FURTHER, TO SUBMIT TO
THE CITY COMMISSION FOR ITS CONSIDERATION THE PROPOSALS
RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS ARCHITECTS
(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, Gibson,
Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
32. REINSTITUTION OF PAYMENTS TO AMERICAN BILTRITE RUBBER COMPANY INC.
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 72-142
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
REINSTITUTE FORMER AND FUTURE PAYMENTS AS DUE TO
AMERICAN BILTRITE RUBBER COMPANY, INC. FOR THE
INSTALLATION OF ARTICIFIAL TURF AT THE ORANGE BOWL
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Reverend Gibson, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Christie,
Gibson, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy.
Mr. Christie: Mr. Mayor, I think we should go on record as complementing
the administration, Mr. Reese and Mr. Andrews and everyone involved in
the really great job that they have done in this area and also to
complement American Biltrite for recognizing the problem and for coming
forward and doing what has to be done, even though it may have been
costly to them but certainly in the best interest of the City of Miami
and all those Orange Bowl fans, and I think all people handled themselves
excellently under the circumstances.
Mr. Andrews: I would like to add comments from the City. Administrations
point of view. It was certainly a pleasure to deal with people who owed
up to whatever mistakes they had made.
Mr. Rothstein: At this point, could I take the opportunity of saying
to the Commission, and for the edification of the new Commissioner,
it may appear to you at some times that as City Attorney, I get pretty
picky and technical and perhaps over enthusiastic about certain restrictio
and limitations but this particular case is a perfect example of why my
that is my responsibility. This was a provision in the contract that we
fought for long and hard, which gave us the peroggative at any time to
tell American Biltrite, not only are we not going to pay you, but we
required them under the contract to replace the unsatisfactory, if it
was so, merchandise so to speak, with anything we wanted, even to go back
to grass. So, when the Manager and his staff were moving on this, they
were able to move with strength.
Mayor Kennedy: Mr. Christie has agreed to that with his remarks.
Mr. Christie: Yes, and I want to apologize to the Legal Department.
Mayor Kennedy: To Mr. Andrews and Mr. Rothstein and all of their
employees and staff. MAY 4, 1972
•
33, EXCISE TAX TO INCLUDE FUEL OILS
An Ordinance entitled -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 55-1 THROUGH 55-7
INCLUSIVE, OF DIVISION 1 ENTITLED "ELECTRICITY,
METERED GAS, BOTTLED GAS, TELEPHONE SERVICE, TEL-
EGRAPH SERVICE AND WATER SERVICE" OF ARTICLE 1
ENTITLED "EXCISE TAXES" OF CHAPTER 55 OF THE
CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
INCLUDING FUEL OIL AS ONE OF THE PUBLIC UTILITY
SERVICES TAXED THEREIN; DEFINING FUEL OIL;
PROVIDING FOR THE RATE AND AMOUNT OF EXCISE TAX
ON PURCHASE OF PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICE'; COLLECTION
of TAXES; PROVIDING FOR REMITTANCE OF TAX TO CITY
BY SELLER; PROVIDING FOR RECORDS TO BE KEPT,
PROVIDING FOR REPORTS OF DELIVERIES FOR RESALE;
PROVIDING FOR RECOGNITION OF EXPENSE IN REGULATION
OF RATES; PROVIDING FOR VIOLATIONS OF DIVISION;
PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY CLAUSE; REPEALING ALL
ORDINANCES, CODE SECTIONS OR PARTS THEREOF IN
CONFLICT HEREWITH INSOFAR AS THEY ARE IN CONFLICT;
PROVIDING FOR A SEVERABILITY PROVISION; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE
was introduced by Mr. Plummer, seconded by Mrs. Gordon, and
passed on its first reading by title by the following vote -
AYES: Messrs. Christie, Gibson, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy.
NOES: None
Upon recommendation of the City Attorney, the following
resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 72-144
A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING IN
CONNECTION WITH ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE AMENDING
SECTION 55-1 THROUGH 55-7 ENTITLED "ELECTRICITY,
METERED GAS, BOTTLED GAS, TELEPHONE SERVICE,
TELEGRAPH SERVICE, AND WATER SERVICE" TO PROVIDE
THAT FUEL OILS BE INCLUDED IN EXCISE TAXES
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mrs. Gordon, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Christie,
Gibson, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
34. CHANNEL RIGHT 9F WAY EASEMENT - 1'1IAMI HARBOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
The following resolution was introduced by Reverend Gibson
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 72-143
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONVEYANCE OF A
PERPETUAL CHANNEL RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT AND
A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT TO THE
UNITED STATES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE MIAMI
HARBOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
(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, Gibson,
Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
-40-
MAY 4, 1972
35. SETTLEMENT OF CLAIM - JAMES IILLIE THOMAS & CLARA THOMAS
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Christie who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 72-145
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
TO PAY JAMES WILLIE THOMAS AND CLARA BELL THOMAS
HIS WIFE, WITHOUT THE ADMISSION OF LIABILITY, THE
SUM OF $930.00 IN FULL AND COMPLETE SETTLEMENT OF
ALL CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY OF MIAMI,
UPON THE EXECUTION OF A RELEASE RELEASING THE CITY
FROM ALL CLAIMS AND DEMANDS
(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,
Gibson, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
36, SETTLEMENT OF CLAIM - LESTER GREEN JR.
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Christie,
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 72-146
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
TO PAY TO LESTER GREEN JR., WITHOUT THE ADMISSION
OF LIABILITY, THE SUM OF $280.00 IN FULL AND
COMPLETE SETTLEMENT OF ALL CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST
THE CITY OF MIAMI UPON EXECUTION OF A RELEASE
RELEASING THE CITY FROM ALL CLAIMS AND DEMANDS
(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, Gibson,
Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
37, SETTLEMENT OF CLAIM - ARLENE WIESBERG
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Christie,
WHo moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 72-147
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
TO PAY TO ARLENE WEISBERG, WITHOUT THE ADMISSION
OF LIABILITY, THE SUME OF $60.00 IN FULL AND
COMPLETE SETTLEMENT OF ALL CLAIMS AND DEMANDS
AGAINST THE CITY OF MIAMI, UPON THE EXECUTION
OF A RELEASE RELEASING THE CITY FROM ALL
CLAIMS AND DEMANDS
(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, Gibson,
Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
-41-
MAY 4, 1972
•
38. SETTLEMENT OF CLAIM - HELEN SCHARRER
The following resolution was introduced by Mrs. Gordon who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 72-148
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
TO PAY TO HELEN SCHARRER, WITHOUT THE ADMISSION
OF LIABILITY, THE SUM OF $570.69 IN FULL AND
COMPLETE SETTLEMENT OF ALL CLAIMS AND DEMANDS
AG AINST THE CITY OF MIAMI, UPON THE EXECUTION
OF A RELEASE RELEASING THE CITY FROM ALL CLAIMS
AND DEMANDS
(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,
Gibson, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
39, SETTLEMENT OF CLAIM - RICHARD WITT AND JEANIE WITT
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 72-149
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
TO PAY TO RICHARD WITT AND JEANIE WITT, HIS WIFE,
WITHOUT THE ADMISSION OF LIABILITY, THE SUM OF
$243.00 IN FULL AND COMPLETE SETTLEMENT OF ALL
CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY OF MIAMI,
UPON THE EXECUTION OF A RELEASE RELEASING THE
CITY FROM ALL CLAIMS AND DEMANDS
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mrs. Gordon, the resolution was passed
and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Christie, Gibson,
Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
40. SETTLEMENT OF CLAIM - DAVE BARRETT
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 72-150
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
TO PAY TO DAVE BARRETT WITHOUT THE ADMISSION OF
LIABILITY, THE SUM OF $100.00 IN FULL AND COMPLETE
SETTLEMENT OF ALL CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE
CITY OF MIAMI, UPON THE EXECUTION OF A RELEASE
RELEASING THE CITY FROM ALL CLAIMS AND DEMANDS
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mrs. Gordon, the resolution was passed
and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Christie, Gibson,
Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
-42-
MAY 4, 1972
41. SETTLEMENT. OF CLAIM - FLORENCE DAVIS
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 72-151
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
TO PAY TO FLORENCE DAVIS, WITHOUT THE ADMISSION
OF LIABILITY, THE SUM OF $465.00 IN FULL AND
COMPLETE SETTLEMENT OF ALL COAIMS AND DEMANDS
AGAINST THE CITY OF MIAMI, UPON THE EXECUTION
OF A RELEASE RELEASING THE CITY OF MIAMI FROM
ALL CLAIMS AND DEMANDS
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Reverend Gibson, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Christie,
Gibson, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
42. SETTLEMENT OF CLAIM - EDWARD KATZ
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 72-152
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
TO PAY EDWARD KATZ, WITHOUT THE ADMISSION OF
LIABILITY, THE SUM OF $100.00 IN FULL AND COMPLETE
SETTLEMENT OF ALL CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE
CITY OF MIAMI, UPON THE EXECUTION OF A RELEASE
RELEASING THE CITY OF MIAMI FROM ALL CLAIMS AND
DEMANDS
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Reverend Gibson, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Christie,
Gibson, Plummer, MRs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
43. SETTLEMENT OF CLAIM - EDMUND G. MAYHALL, FATHER OF JOHN MAYHALL
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Christie, who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 72-153
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
TO PAY TO EDMUND G. MAYHALL, SURVIVING FATHER OF
JOHN MAYHALL, A DECEASED MINOR, AND HIS ATTORNEYS,
THE SUM OF $100,000 AS THE PORTION TO BE PAID BY
THE CITY OF MIAMI IN FULL AND COMPLETE SATISFACTION
OF A JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, IN FAVOR
OF EDMUND G. MAYHALL AND AGAINST THE CITY OF MIAMI
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Reverend Gibson, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Christie,
Gibson, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
-43-
MAY 4, 1972
• ft
•
44, C.B.D. ZONING STUDY- MIAMI RIVER WALKWAY PROJECT
Mrs. Gordon: Some of this item was covered before in the meeting
Mr. Mayor, but there is a point that I think I should bring up so
that you know and the Commissioners know how this was resolved and
I don't have to go into any great detail on it. The request for
the zoning study was in 1970, yesterday, two years later, almost
to the day, the City Manager accepted the proposal of the Downtown
Development Authority which was to completely fund this study to
the amount of $90,000 and in return for this that the monies set
aside from the bond issue for the development of the downtown walkway,
will be given and used in this year of 1972 and Mr. Reese agreed to
that, am I right?
Mr. Andrews: Yes and just to amplify a point if I may please.
The $100,000 that is being asked for is already programmed in the
bond funds as far as total funds are concerned, specifically what
they are asking for is that the Commission, in the first sale of
the bonds, include this $100,000 so that that project may be started
at the earliest possible date.
Mrs. Gordon: Do you think we need a resolution?
Mr. Andrews: Yes, so there will be no misunderstanding.
Thereupon the following resolution was introduced by Mrs. Gordon
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 72-154
A RESOLUTION AGREEING TO INCLUDE THE SUM OF
ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS FROM THE FUNDS
TO BE RECEIVED FROM THE FIRST SALE OF CITY
OF MIAMI PARK AND RECREATION BONDS FOR THE
MIAMI RIVER WALKWAY PROJECT
(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, Gibson,
Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
45, JOINT PUBLIC HEARING- PROPOSED HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS FOR 62 ST.
The following resolution was introduced by Reverend Gibson
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 72-155
A RESOLUTION REQUESTING DADE COUNTY AND THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO CONDUCT A JOINT
PUBLIC HEARING OF THE HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED
ON 62ND STREET; FURTHER REQUESTING THAT THE COUNTY
AND THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION USE EVERY
POSSIBLE MEANS TO ADVERTISE THE PUBLIC MEETING DATE,
THEREBY ENCOURAGING SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
(here follows body of resolution, omitted here andon
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, Gibson,
Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
-44-
MAY 4, 1972
0 10
46►, PLAT. ACCEPTANCE._. mum CLUB APARTMENTS
Mr. Andrews: Mr. Mayor and Members of the Commission, I would like
to bring this matter to your attention. This provides
for fill and the Commission has had a policy about not filling the
bay and you might want to know a little more about this prior to
acting on it. We have a map that we can show.
Mr. Plummer: Does this come with the recommendation of the City
Manager?
Mr. Andrews: From the standpoint of accepting the plat, yes but
there is the element of the fill which is part of the Commission's
policy.
Mr. Plummer: But this is just the acceptance of a plat, this
has nothing to do with the fill.
Mr. Andrews: But, you must realize that as time moves along in
fulfilling everything that is associated with this plat, there
will be a time that they will come before you asking permission
for the fill.
Mr. Plummer: Well, if we deny the platwould that deny the other later?
Mr. Andrews: No, but I think you ought to put them on notice that
you may not necessarily approve the fill permit by approving the
plat with that condition in it. I just don't want to see the
Commission be put in the position of approving the plat and then
they come back with an approved plat with a fill a part of it at
a future date.
Rev. Gibson: I will make the motion with that understanding then.
Mr. Christie: I want to complement Mr. Andrews for calling that
to our attention and then I will second this.
Mrs. Gordon: Wait, we are accepting the plat but not agreeing to
the fill, right?
Mayor Kennedy: well, its not part of the agreement. We are just
putting them on notice that they might not get their-
Mrst.Gordon: Okay, I have not objection to the plat, but I would
to the fill.
Thereupon the following resolution was introduced by Reverend
Gibson who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 72-156
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED MIAMI CLUB
APARTMENTS, A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
AND ACCEPTING THE DEDICATIONS SHOWN ON SAID PLAT, AND
AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY
CLERK TO EXECUTE THE PLAT AND FURTHER PROVIDING THAT
SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION FOR FILL PERMITS IN CONNECTION
WITH SAID PLAT ACCEPTANCE WOULD NOT NECESSARILY BE
GRANTED
(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, Gibson,
Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
-45-
MAY 4, 1972
• ft
47, BID AWARD - S.E. 14 STREET HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer,
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 72-157
A RESOLUTION AWARDING THE BID RECEIVED APRIL
20, 1972 OF P. J. CONSTRUCTORS, INC., IN THE
ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $13,945.00 FOR THE S. E.
14 STREET HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT H-4352 IN S.E.
14 STREET HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT H-4352;
ALLOCATING THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF $15,118.00
FROM THE ACCOUNT ENTITLED " HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT
BOND FUND" AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE A CONTRACT THEREFOR
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mr. Christie, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Christie,
Gibson, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: Nine
48. BID AWARD - FLORIDA UNDERGROUND UTILITIES INC.
I. JEUNE GARDENS STORM SEWER OUTFALL
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Christie,
who moved its adoption :
RESOLUTION NO.72-158
A RESOLUTION AWARDING THE BID RECEIVED APRIL
25, 1972 OF FLORIDA UNDERGROUND UTILITIES INC.
IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $18,283 FOR CONSTR
UCTION OF LEJEUNE GARDENS STORM SEWER OUTFALL-
1972; ALLOCATING THE AMOUNT OF $20,477 FROM
THE ACCOUNT ENTITLED "STORM SEWER BOND FUND"
AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
A CONTRACT THEREFOR
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mr. Plummer, the resolution was passed
and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Christie, Gibson,
Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
49, ALLAPATTAH COMSTOCK PARK - FENCING 1972 - KIND FENCE
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Christie
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 72-159
A RESOLUTION ALLOCATING FROM THE RECREATIONAL
FACILITIES BOND FUND ACCOUNT $1232.00 AND
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ISSUE A PUR-
CHASE ORDER TO KING FENCE OF MIAMI IN THE
AMOUNT OF $1100.00 FOR INSTALLATION OF
ALLAPATTAH COMSTOCK PARK - FENCING - 1972
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mrs. Gordon, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Christie,
Gibson, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
-46- MAY 4, 1972
•
50. MANOR AND MOORE PARKS FENCING1972 - FENCE MASTERS INC.
The following resolution was introduced by Mrs. Gordon,
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.72-160
A RESOLUTION AWARDING THE BID RECEIVED MAY 3, 1972
OF FENCE MASTERS INC., IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF
$33,444 FOR THE MANOR AND MOORE PARKS -FENCING 1972
AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A
CONTRACT THEREFOR
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Reverend Gibson, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messr. Christie,
Gibson, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
51. TENNIS COURT RENOVATION - MANOR AND MOORE PARKS
The following resolution was introduced by Reverend Gibson
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 72-161
A RESOLUTION REJECTING ALL BIDS RECEIVED MAY 3,1972 FOR
TENNIS COURT RENOVATION 1972 FOR MANOR AND
MOORE PARKS AND DIRECTING THAT THE CITY MANAGER
ADVERTISE FOR NEW BIDS.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mrs. Gordon, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Christie,
Gibson, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
Mr. Andrews announced that there had been a serious complication
with the above bid and that shortly after bids were opened, the
contractor representing the low bidder communicated with the office
of the City Manager and said he had a serious error in his bid and
requested that his bid be rejected. Under normal circumstances, the
City Commission could award the bid and then if the contractor failed
to follow through, his bid bond could be forfeited, but he did call
us prior to our presenting this to the Commission today and it is up
to the Commission to accept or reject the bid and readvertise it.
Mr. Davis: I am Charles A. Davis the President.
Mayor Kennedy: Your bid was $70,100?
Mr. Davis: Yes
Mayor Kennedy: And how much was the second bid?
Mr. Andrews: $148,000
Mayor Kennedy: I don't see holding this man to the fire, he called
us. Lets readvertise this, who wants to move that.
Mr. Davis: I certainly appreciate this, its rather embarassing
since I have done about 42 concrete tennis courts in the past
10 years and when I make this kind of mistake, its embarassing.
MAY 4, 1972
-47-
4110
52, INTERAMA REPORT
Mr. Rothstein: May I report to you on behalf of Mr. Reese
and myself. We have been working with the Company and Mr.
Gissendanner and myself concerning Interama and we are still in the
course of wresting with certain technicalities and to resolve it
and to bring it before you and we hope to bring it to you by the
19th or at the latest on the first.
Mayor Kennedy: I hope the negotiations could be back by the 19th,
because now the burden is on us and we are the last link in the
chain so 76 is coming up on us pretty fast. I know its a hard
problem to resolve, but if we could do it by the 19th. We hate
to do it without Mr. Christie but its that important that we have to.
53, APPEARANCE BY DAVID CERF
Mr. Cerf: Could I be heard on these items. All of the Moore Park
and the Manor Park improvements that were authorized by Resolution
No. 72-7 which was borrowing against the bond issue, as I recall.
Mr. Andrews: What was the question, I didn't hear it.
Mr. Christie: Mr. Cerf is under the impression and he may be right,
I don't know, that 45 and 46 would deal with Manor Park and Moore
Park. Are these fencing awards and tennis court work part of that
resolution?
Mr. Andrews: Yes they are and there are more to come as soon as
we can get them out, we are trying to get things done at Moore,
Manor Park and also at Edison.
Mr. Cerf: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners and Madam Commissioner. I am
here and didn't intend to appear here but was passing hear here
I caught this item. I represent the Grapeland Heights Civic Assoc-
iation and they have retained me to contest the bond issue which
I have done today and I have filed papers. We object to spending
any of this money or taking bids for one cent of the 39 odd million
dollars. We feel and I don't want to get into any legal arguments,
we shall prevail in the Court and there won't be any bond issue.
Mayor Kennedy: No, Mr. Cerf, too many of us have fought long and
hard to get this bond issue through and you have your remedies in
Court and until that is decided in Court, we are going to do these
improvements.
Mr. Andrews: Mr. Mayor, the source of funding for Manor and Moore
Park comes from the Florida Power and Light Companies capital
improvement unallocated funds. It is a source of funds that can
be used for capital improvements at the discretion of the Commission
Now the object was to use these funds against the bond program funds
when they are available. So there is no jeopardy in these particular
contracts that you are awarding today.
54, ID AWARD - RAYBRO ELECTRIC & GENERAL ELECTRIC MOORE & MANOR
rims - LUCALOX LIGHTING
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer,
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION 72-162
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE BIDS RECEIVED MAY 3,
1972 OF RAYBRO ELECTRIC SUPPLIES INC., AND GENERAL
ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO FOR FURNISHING FLOODLIGHT
LUMINAIRES, CONCRETE POLES, COPPER WIRE, MERCURY
VAPOR LAMPS, FLOODLIGHT MOUNTING BRACKETS, ONE (1)
TRANSFORMER, AND MISCELLANEOUS OTHER MATERIALS
NECESSARY FOR THE INSTALLATION OF LUCALOX LIGHTING
CONVERSION, AT AN ESTIMATED TOTAL COST OF $95,499.72
AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO
INSTRUCT THE PURCHASING AGENT OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI TO ISSUE PURCHASE ORDERS THEREFOR, AFTER FIRST
HAVING DETERMINED THAT FUNDS FOR THIS PURPOSE ARE
AVAILABLE MAY 4, 1972
-48-
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mrs. Gordon, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Christie,
Gibson, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
55, BID AWARD - PRE STRESSED CONCRETE POLES
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 72-163
A RESOLUTION AWARDING THE BIDS RECEIVED MAY 3, 1972
OF HUGHES SUPPLY, INC., AND PRE -CAST SPECIALTIES INC.
FOR FURNISHING PRE -STRESSED CONCRETE POLES AS REQUIRED
FOR THE PERIOD MAY 1, 1972 THRU NOVEMBER 30, 1972
AT THE UNIT PRICES LISTED HEREIN, SUBJECT TO THE
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER
TO ISSUE PURCHASE ORDERS AS REQUIRED AFTER FIRST HAVING
DETERMINED THAT FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Mrs. Gordon, the resolution was passed
and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Christie, Gibson,
Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
56, 1STALLPTION 0= UC444 LIGHTS IN LIBERTY CITY, EDISON CENTER
Mr. Andrews: May I explain item 49 to your briefly. The City
Manager is recommending to the Commission the spending of what
little money is left in this years budget on three projects,
the street lighting budget on three projects that we think are
extremely important. The City Manager had his staff together
with the Police Department conduct a study to ascertain where
the high crime areas were in the City so, in particular, the
night time crimes of all kinds, with the idea::that we would spend
the balance of the funds that could be made available in these
areas and it was uncovered that the two areas that need this
lighting are in the Coconut Grove Area and in the Edison Center
and adjoining Liberty Center areas.
Mr. Plummer: In the Coconut Grove area. where does that come
down to, is that Mc Farland?
Mr. Andrews: Yes, but in the vicinity of Bayshore Drive, we will
hold off installing this until the improvements are completed.
Mr. Plummer: But it will come up McFarland and down Grand?
Mr. Andrews: Yes. Now the Manager has worked very hard with
Mr. Goode of Metropolitan Dade County and with the Power company
and Mr. Goode has committed that the County would provide the
lighting along with the city's lighting which is in orange in
this area (using map) 62nd Street, 61st and 62nd from R.R.Track
to N.W. 7th Avenue and 7th Avenue from - the lighting for some
of these areas will be provided by Metropolitan Dade County.
The City would provide all the lighting in orange and the Manager
is prevailing upon the County to have Model Cities and HUD light
the housing areas, of Edison Center and Liberty Center areas.
The yellow is Lucalox lighting in place. The City will provide
all of the lighting shown in orange and once again the Manager
is prevailing on Metropolitan Dade County to light the blue areas.
At 17th Avenue and 62nd, the major arterials which they are
responsible for and then the housing project. The Manager has
set a schedule that this lighting will be completed in the Grove
and in Liberty City and Edison Center will be completed before
July 9 before the Democratic Convention.
-49- MAY 4, 1972
• •
Wellington Rolle: Mr. Mayor, may I speak just a minute Sir.
Sometime ago and I think it ought to be well remembered that in
the City of Miami there was some reservation raised about the
Lucalox lighting. The residents of the immediate areas that
you are concerned about that you are talking about have complained
about the quality of lighting in their areas and I think their
main concern was the application of the conventional lighting.
In our observation around the City of Miami and other areas tends
to say to us that you are not making the same application and it
is our feeling that if you used the same application in the
conventional white lighting that you are using now with your
yellow lighting, that the effect would be one and the same.
You would be able to light all the areas on the ground and that
you would discourage those persons who commit crimes in the area.
I think one fact to be brought out and perhaps you may not agree
with it is that you are identifying an area in Dade County where
a majority of black people live and this is totally unacceptable.
We don't know if this was intended but I feel I must make this
remark because I think this is what actually happened.
At some other time, the statement came out that this would be a
thing that would he done before the convention and now we are
hearing you saying it today. It was denied on other occasions,
that this was not the case, and you could light, these areas and
those individuals who come to town to attend the convention could
possibly be warned to stay away from these areas where this lighting
is in effect. Now I am confident that that is not the intention
of the City of Miami but I am saying that it would be awfully
difficult to make an acceptable explanation as to just why you
would like to light just these areas that we have talked about on
this map. On one other occasion, down at the coalation, we
brought up this same idea about the lighting in the City of Miami
and Dade County and the question was raised about where would you
put this type of lighting and the answer was only in the crime areas.
Well where is the crime, is the crime only in the black areas and
I think thats asking the same question. But at the same time, the
question was raised, would you consider improving the facilities you
are using now or have Florida Power & Light improve them, using
conventional lighting, then there was no answer at all.
My question to you Sir, is would you consider or would the City
Manager consider having Florida Power and Light use the same
application on conventional lighting and improve the incandescence
of the lamps or whatever, with conventional lighting rather than
use the lucalox lighting, I don't think the cost would be nearly as
great.
Mrs. Gordon: May I san something in regard to this. I think its
about ago, we were paid a visit by Mr. Nat Harris and he pleaded
with us for consideration for installation of these lights in that
particular area. A month earlier, Annette Eisenberg, and the group
she represents up there, pleaded for the same consideration so this
Commission took the action of saying, yes we will give it to you
because this is what you want and that doesn't mean black lights
or anything else. Its a mixed area. Those people want it who are
doing business in that area.
Mr. Rolle: I think the concern that I am expressing here would go
just a bit further than that they have expressed. Their concern and
Mr. Harris is certainly concerned about his manufacturing outlet and
his retail store on 62nd street and Mrs. Eisenberg is concerned about
is Edison Center but what I am concerned about is for a plan by the
City of Miami to do an effective job in lighting and thats simply not
the case. We are not doing an effective job in lighting the entire
City of Miami and I think thats where I differ with the remarks made
by Mr. Harris and Mrs. Eisenberg.
Mrs. Gordon: Thats the reason we had these areas designated, was
because of their visit.
-50-
MAY 4, 1972
• • • •
Mr. Plummer: What year, is the whole street lighting program to
be completed in the entire City of Miami?
Mr. Andrews: This is something that the Commission will be discussing
in detail at budget hearings. Its going to depend on the city's
ability to fund the entire project. If we had our druthers today,
the City Manager would be before the Commission and we would be
recommending many many areas throughout thewhole city where this
lighting could be applied, and certainly on all arterial streets .
in the City, this lighting should be placed on those and in other
areas such as Edison Center and Liberty City. It certainly is not
because these people are black, thats not the reason, we only have
a limited amount of money now and we want to spend it the areas
where the greatest crimes have occurred and they have occurred in
in these areas. We have put them in Bayfront Park and this whole
area in the central part of the City and I assure you that the
lighting of Lucalox is better than 2-1 as cost is concerned as far
as the mercury lights, in order to achieve the same affect as
Lucalox, we would have to spend twice as much money as we are
spending in any given area. We can't accomplish what you are
suggesting by beefing up the lights type of lighting with mercury
lights, it would take twice as much money.
Mr. Rolle: If I could ask one more question. I think that if you
would make another survey in the City of Miami particularly in the
areas that you are concerned about and look at the actual physical
locations, of the physical lighting, and the exact patterns that
they have used to light the various arterial roads that you have
referred to, with conventional lighting and look at the patterns
that they are using with the Lucalox Lighting, I think that you
will begin to agree with me, that there is a different pattern,
a different application with the Lucalox Lighting than with the
conventional light and my particular position that I am taking
simply says that if we use the same type of application, with
the conventional lighting that you are using with the new lighting
you would achieve the same results. One other item, you mentioned
that the City Manager and Investigators had worked with the Police
Department in making this type of determination, I think that if
you will check further in the City of Miami, with the Police Department
in the areas that have been lighted with Lucalox Lighting, east
of 17th Avenue between the Manor Park complex 'there, most of the
crime that is shown on their books, BUs were committed during
daylight hours. I don't think Chief Garmire would refute what I
am saying to you. There was a study made of this particular area
and there are people in the department to look at all of the cases
they have between, I think 46th street to 50th street, I think you
will find that most of those crimes that happened in that particular
area were mostly BUs that happened during daylight hours, so I
think there is no justification for putting those lights on this
one residential street and its not a very congested area and there
is no high density area or anything and I think it would be awfully
hard to explain as a result of some of the ideas we have been able
to develop in the community, as to why the lighting is going in.
Mr. Andrews: Then, I think perhaps what we should do is meet with
you to go over some of this so you will be more acquainted with
what we are trying to accomplish because it is based on statistical
information. Its not something that we are trying to force on the
community, or recommend to the Commission, that is not real. This
is a very realistic approach to the spending of what little money
we have left in our Lucalox Lighting program.
Mr. Rolle: Well I wouldn't want to belabor the point, but I would
say this. I can go with you around the various areas of the City
that do not have the Lucalox Lighting and the areas are well lighted.
I can say that to you. You can stand on the corner and look all the
way down the street.
Mr. Christie: If you don't want them, I can use them in my neighborhood
because we need them badly.
Rev. Gibson: Gentlemen don't. Brother Rolle, I understand your
position. I share your concern but why don't we go ahead and take
these lights and see if this is a pattern? Why don't we take the
lights and have them installed in the various areas as indicated
-51- MAY 4, 19
e • • *
the statement is now that we don't have any more money. We will.
have some more in the new budget, we will sec what happens.
I don't think we want to deny those people those lights out there.
I hope my suggestion might prevail. Can't we take those lights now
and then wait to see what the pattern is.
Mr. Rolle: By all means, I just want to be on record.
Thereupon the following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 72-164
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
INSTALL LUCALOX LIGHTING IN THE LIBERTY CITY,
EDISON CENTER AND COCONUT GROVE AREAS OF THE
CITY
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Reverend Gibson, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Christie,
Gibson, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
57. ADJUST.CLOSE CERTAIt REVENUE & EXPENDITURE ACCOUNTS -LIBRARIES FUND
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Christie,
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 72-165
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE DIRECTOR
OF FINANCE TO ADJUST AND CLOSE CERTAIN REVENUE AND
EXPENDITURE ACCOUNTS IN THE LIBRARIES FUND AS OF
DECEMBER 31, 1971, AND TRANSFER THE BALANCES IN SUCH
ACCOUNTS TO THE GENERAL FUND WITH ALL OTHER ACCOUNTS
TO BE CLOSED AT THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR AND WITH
THESE BALANCES TO BE TRANSFERRED AT SEPTEMBER 30,1972;
AND FURTHER AUTHORIZING A CONTRIBUTION FROM THE GENERAL
FUND TO THE LIGHTING CITY FUND OF $15,000 TO PROVIDE
FUNDS FOR ADDITIONAL STREET LIGHTING FOR THE BALANCE
OF THE FISCAL YEAR
(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,
Gibson, Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
58. EXPENDITURES - LUCALOX LIGHTING
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Plummer who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 72-166
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURES IN THE
AMOUNT OF $9,000 FROM THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
FUND - UNALLOCATED FUNDS, TO PROVIDE FOR THE
PRORATED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT COSTS FOR THE
SPECIAL LUCALOX LIGHTING TO BE PROVIDED IN THE
LIBERTY CITY, EDISON CENTER AND COCONUT GROVE
AREAS OF THE CITY
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
- 52- MAY 4, 1972
•
= s
• * 4110
Upon being seconded by Mrs. Gordon, the resolution was passed
and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Christie, Gibson,
Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
59, BID AWARD - ORANGE BOc SOUND SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
The following resolution was introduced by Reverend '3ibson
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 72-167
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
RECEIVE BIDS AND AWARD CONTRACTS FOR THE ORANGE
BOWL SOUND SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS AS PROVIDEDD IN
THE CITY MANAGER'S MEMORANDUM OF JANUARY 20,1972,
AND AS FURTHER PROVIDED IN RESOLUTION NO. 43177
ADOPTED ON JANUARY 20, 1972, WHICH RESOLUTION
APPROPRIATED FUNDS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF THE
SOUND SYSTEM AND OTHER ORANGE BOWL IMPROVEMENTS
(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, Gibson,
Plummer, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES: None
60, JOM?JTY FREiMPROVEMENTS- PURCHASE OF MATERIALS AND
The following resolution was introduced by Mrs. Gordon, who
snored its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 72-168
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE USE OF CITY FORCES
AND THE PURCHASE OF MATERIALS OR SERVICES ON AN
EMERGENCY BASIS WITHOUT COMPETITIVE BIDDING, AS
NEEDED, TO ACCOMPLISH THE PARK IMPROVEMENTS TO
MOORE AND MANOR PARKS FOR WHICH FUNDS WERE PRO-
VIDED BY ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 72-7 ON
APRIL 6, 1972
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the City Clerks Office)
Upon being seconded by Reverend Gibson, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Messrs. Christie,
Gibson, Plulluner, Mrs. Gordon and Mayor Kennedy. NOES; None
jJOI KNQ1ENLL
THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION
AT THIS TIME, O4 MOTION DULY MADE AND SECONDED, THE MEETING WAS
5
ADJOURNED AT 4:45P.M.
ATTEST: H. D, SCLEHKRN
CIO(
DAVI�YbRKENNEDY
-53-
MAY 4, 1972
CITV' OF MrAMI
DOCUMENT
INDEX
MEETING DATE:
MAY 4, 1972
4
ITEM NO
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
r
DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION
COMMISSION
ACTION
RETRIEVAL
CODE NO.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
COMMISSION AGENDA & CITY CLERK REPORT (22 pgs.)
REPEALING RESOLUTIONS Nos. 42370 & 43113
PUBLIC BID - ORANGE BOWL CONCESSION LEASE
ADVERTISE FOR SEALED BIDS - PINEMOUNT SANITARY
SEWER IMPROVEMENT SR-5352-C
ADVERTISE FOR SEALED BIDS - CORAL WAY SOUTH
HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT H-4354
PUBLIC BUILDING USE - 1341 N.W. 7 ST. 720, 740
750, 760, 780 & 790 N.W. 13 CT.
CHANGE OF ZONING - N.W. 57 AVE., SOUTH N.W. 5
ST. & EAST N.W. 47 AVE.
WAIVER USE - RENTAL FEE -MARINE STADIUM - LUAU
ACCEPT REPORT COMMUNITY RELATIONS BOARD -
PRAK FACILITIES
ACCEPT HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY DEED - AMERICANA
KNITTING MILLS OF MIAMI INC.
ACCEPT EASEMENTS - SANITARY SEWER - MR. & MRS.
HODGKINS & MR. & MRS. HUDSON
UTILITY RELOCATION MASTER AGREEMENT - STATE
HIGHWAY SYSTEM
ACCEPT HIGHWAT RIGHT OF WAY DEED - N.E. 26 ST.,
LTD.
WASTE COLLECTOR LICENSE - GENERAL HAULING SER-
VICE INC.
EXTEND LEASE AGREEMENT - CORAL REEF YACHT CLUB
DESIGNATE FUNDS - MODIFICATION OF THE COAST
GUARD FACILITY
OFFICE SPACE - MID -CITY EMPLOYEES FEDERAL CRE-
DIT UNION
PROPOSAL FROM ARCHITECTS - EDISON CENTER YOUTH
COMMUNITY BUILDING
REINSTITUTE FORMER & FUTURE PAYMENTS -AMERICAN
BILTRITE RUBBER CO. INC. - ARTIFICIAL TURF -
ORANGE BOWL
CHANNEL RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT - MIAMI HARBOR
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
R-72-123
R-72-124
R-72-125
R-72-126
R-72-127
DISCUSSION
R-72-130
R-72-132
R-72-133
R-72-134
R-72-135
R-72-136
R-72-137
R-72-138
R-72-139
R-72-140
R-72-141
R-72-142
R-72-142
0061
72-123
72-124
72-125
72-126
72-127
0062
72-130
72-132
72-133
72-134
72-135
72-136
72-137
72-138
72-139
72-140
72-141.
72-142
72-14=;
(CAN'T NEXT PAGE)
urv.:ENT•INDEX
CONTINUED
IITEM NO.
21.
22.
23.
-# 24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION
.AMEND ORDIN. SECTIONS 55-1 THRU 55-7 - ELECTRIC-
ITY, METERED GAS, BOTTLED GAS, TELEPHONE SERVICE
TELEGRAPH SERVICE & WATER SERVICE
CLAIM SETTLEMENT - JAMES WILLIE THOMAS & CLARA
BELL THOMAS
CLAIM SETTLEMENT - LESTER GREEN JR.
CLAIM SETTLEMENT - ARLENE WEISBERG
CLAIM SETTLEMENT - HELEN SCHARRER
CLAIM SETTLEMENT - RICHARD WITT & JEANIE WITT
CLAIM SETTLEMENT - DAVE BARRETT
CLAIM SETTLEMENT - FLORENCE DAVIS
CLAIM SETTLEMENT - EDWARD KATZ
CLAIM SETTLEMENT - EDMUND G. MAYHALL
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING - HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT
PROPOSED FOR N.W. 62 ST.
ACCEPT PLAT - MIAMI CLUB APARTMENTS
ACCEPT BID - S.E. 14 ST. Highway Improvement
H-4352
ACCEPT BID - LE JEUNE GARDENS STORM SEWER OUT -
FALL - 1972
ACCEPT BID - ALLAPATTAH-COMSTOCK PARK -FENCING
- 1972, JOB No. 2554
ACCEPT BID - MANOR & MOORE PARKS - FENCING - 72
ACCEPT BID - MANOR & MOORE PARKS - TENNIS COURT
RENOVATION - 1972
ACCEPT BID - LUCALUX LIGHTING CONVERSION
ACCEPT BID - PRE -STRESSED CONCRETE POLES
INSTALL LUCALOX LIGHTING - LIBERTY CITY, EDISOI
CENTER & COCONUT GROVE AREAS
MIAMI LIBRARY SYSTEM REVENUES & EXPENDITURES
TRANSFER - METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY
ALLOCATE FUNDS - LUCALOX LIGHTING - LIBERTY
CITY, EDISON CENTER & COCONUT GROVE AREAS
ACCEPT BID - ORANGE BOWL SOUND SYSTEM IMPROVE-
MENTS
WITHOUT COMPETITIVE BIDDING - PARK IMPROVEMENT
- MOORE & MANOR PARKS
amid I6T1
ACUON
DISCUSSION
R-72-145
R-72-146
R-72-147
R-72-148
R-72-149
R-72-150
R-72-151
R-72-152
R-72-153
R-72-155
R-72-156
R-72-157
R-72-158
R-72-159
R-72-160
DISCUSSION
R-72-162
R-72-163
R-72-164
R-72-165
R-72-166
R-72-167
R-72-168
RETR__
con; t[0.
0063
72-145
72-146
72-147
72-148
72-149
72-150
72-151
72-152
72-153
72-155
72-156
72-157
72-158
72-159
72-160
0064
72-162
72-163
72-164
72-165
72-166
72-167.
72-16r