Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2016-07-20 MinutesCity of Miami City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 www.miamigov.com Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 20, 2016 9:00 AM Special Meeting City Hall Commission Chambers City Commission Tomas Regalado, Mayor Keon Hardemon, Chair Ken Russell, Vice Chair Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Commissioner District One Frank Carollo, Commissioner District Three Francis Suarez, Commissioner District Four Daniel J. Alfonso, City Manager Victoria Mendez, City Attorney Todd B. Hannon, City Clerk City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 9:00 INVOCATION AND PLEDGE ORDER OF THE DAY Present: Commissioner Gort, Vice Chair Russell, Commissioner Carollo, Commissioner Suarez and Chair Hardemon On the 20th day of July 2016, the City Commission of the City of Miami, Florida, met at its regular meeting place in City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida, in special session. The Commission Meeting was called to order by Chair Hardemon at 9:01 a.m. and adjourned at 12:59 p.m. ALSO PRESENT: Daniel J. Alfonso, City Manager Victoria Mendez, City Attorney Todd B. Hannon, City Clerk Chair Hardemon: Welcome to the July 20, 2016 special meeting of the Miami City Commission in these historic chambers. The members of the City Commission are Wifredo Gort, Frank Carollo, Francis Suarez; Ken Russell, the Vice Chairman; and me, Keon Hardemon, the Chairman. Also on the dais are Daniel J Alfonso, the City Manager; Victoria Mendez and the City Attorney --I'm sorry --the City Attorney; and Todd Hannon, our City Clerk. The meeting will be opened with a prayer, and the pledge of allegiance will be led by the Vice Chairman. All rise, please. Invocation and pledge ofallegiance delivered. Chair Hardemon: Fortunate today, we don't have any presentations and proclamations, and we only have a few short items of business. One is a -- SP.1 is the discussion of the City Manager's recommendation. And then SP.2, there is a resolution rejecting all bid proposals, RFP 12-14-077. However, what I'm going to do first is I want to ensure that we give our public a reasonable opportunity to be heard on this agenda so they can speak on all the items that are on this agenda. So at this time, I'm going to open up the floor for public hearing. During this time, if you need to speak either on item SP.2 or SP.I -- you can pick which one you want to speak about, but I want you to clearly identify yourself, your address, and which item you're speaking about. So this is going to be your opportunity to be heard. This is your reasonable opportunity to be heard for two minutes to speak on those items. I will open up the public hearing at this time. Once the public hearing is closed, there will be no further comment from the public regarding the issues that we're discussing today. So I'll open up the floor for public hearing at this time; not for counsel, so just -- Al Dotson: Bringing the mike. Chair Hardemon: Okay. Is there anyone from the public that would like to speak on these items? If you do, please approach any of the lecterns. Unidentified Speaker: Me first? Unidentified Speaker: Let him go. Unidentified Speaker: Well, I got to get my --no, go ahead. You can go ahead. Chair Hardemon: You know, let me -- one thing I forgot to do before you -- because I see you all getting yourselves together. So while you're doing that, we're going to begin the regular meeting. The City Attorney will state the procedures to be followed during this meeting. City of Miami Page 2 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 Victoria Mendez (City Attorney): Thank you, Chairman. Any person who is a lobbyist, including all paid persons or firms retained by a principal to advocate for a particular decision by the City Commission, must register with the City Clerk and comply with the related City requirements for lobbyists before appearing before the City Commission. A person may not lobby a City oficial, board member or staff member until registering. A copy of the Code section about lobbyists is available in the City Clerk's Office or online at municode. com. Any person making a presentation, formal request or petition to the City Commission concerning real property must make the disclosures required by the City in writing. A copy of this Code section is available in the City Clerk's Ojjice or online at wwwmunicode.com [sic]. The material for each item on the agenda is available during business hours at the City Clerk's Office and online 24 hours a day at wwwmiamigov.com [sic]. Any person may be heard by the City Commission through the Chair for not more than two minutes on any proposition before the City Commission, unless modified by the Chair. If the proposition is being continued or rescheduled, the opportunity to be heard is at such later date. The Chairman will advise the public when the public may have the opportunity to address the City Commission during the public comment period. When addressing the City Commission, the member of the public must first state his or her name, his or her address, and when the -- what item they are speaking about. Anyone wishing to appeal any decision -- well, that doesn't -- I apologize. No cell phones and other noise -making devices are permitted in Commission chambers. Please silence those devices now. No clapping, applauding, heckling, or verbal outbursts in support or opposition to a speaker or his or her remarks shall be permitted. Any person making offensive remarks or who becomes unruly in Commission chambers will be barred from further attending Commission meetings and may be subject to arrest. No signs or placards shall be allowed in Commission chambers. Any person with a disability requiring assistance, auxiliary aids and services for this meeting may notify the City Clerk. The lunch recess will begin at the conclusion of the deliberation of the item on the agenda being considered at noon. And the meeting will end either at the conclusion of deliberation of the agenda item being considered at 10 p. in. or whatever -- or at the conclusion of the regularly scheduled agenda, whichever occurs first. Please note, Commissioners have generally been briefed by City staff and the City Attorney on items on the agenda today. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: I will amend the directions just one -- in one instance. I want the Chair of the Virginia Key -- what is it? -- Virginia Key -- Vice Chair Russell: Advisory Board. Chair Hardemon: -- Advisory Board to have five minutes to make their presentation. Other than that, all other individuals here for public hearing will have two minutes to respond. You begin, sir. Greg Bush: Okay. Good morning. My name is Greg Bush. I Chair the Virginia Key Advisory Board, and I want to make a brief presentation with some historical facts. And basically, I'm questioning the Master Plan process and how it's developed. Igo back to February 2007 when the Urban Environment League held a meeting at the Rosenstiel School, attended by the City Manager, Commissioner Sarnoff, but there was no EDSA (Edward D. Stone, Jr. and Associates) people present, so we essentially pushed EDSA -- thank you -- we pushed EDSA to have more public input into the process. As most of you know, there was a public revolt, essentially, against the EDSA Plan that was overdeveloped in October 2009; and then after many meetings and compromises involving hundreds of people, there was a July 22, 2010 consensus Master Plan that was passed. This is from your website, and it's an important document, it seems to me. And it shows that July 22, 2010 adopted Master Plan versus a presentation to the City Commission. What I'm going to be suggesting to you is the presentation to the City Commission is what you voted for unanimously, but the adopted Comprehensive Master Plan -- or consensus Master Plan is what has been used in far too many instances since that time, bringing a lot of this process into serious question. So which one is the real one passed by the Commission? The wrong Master City of Miami Page 3 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 Plan was passed out at the newly -established V rginia Key Advisory Board at its first mating -- meeting --excuse me --in May this year. Which Master Plan was cited on the Marina RFP (request for proposals)? Very good question. I think you'll find that it was the amended -- if you will, the second one. What are the legal ramifications presenting an invented or rewritten Master Plan that was not voted by you all? I think that's rather serious. That's a picture of the rewritten Master Plan. A lot ofpeople don't realize it -- probably some of you Commissioners -- which one is the real one, okay? We had no problem, for example. And we had a meeting with Francis Suarez -- I'm sure you'll acknowledge that -- with the City Manager and the City Attorney, and Francisco Garcia, bringing this to their attention. There was agreement at that meeting that we would start the new Virginia Key Advisory Board with the original Master Plan that was passed by you. We could amend it, add material from EDSA that has more detail, but let's start from a clear place. That has not been done, and I -- that's my major beef with a lot of this. There's a lot of detail in terms of, what are the changes: provide new revenue, generating boat facility, provide a site for Marine Exhibition Center. That was not in the original Master Plan that we passed. Some of it was the same, but some of it is significantly different. The in -- I mean, there's language like this: The implementation strategies assume that all publicly -owned lands of Virginia Key will not be sold to private development, " blah, blah, blah. That was not in the original Master Plan. So these issues are significant. And then near the end of the rewritten Master Plan was what was called "community recommendations, " and a whole series of them, and they're largely true. That was what you passed. That shouldn't go by a label of "community recommendations" to bidders or to the public in general. That is misleading, it seems to me, to a major degree. This is an image of the scoring mechanism of the bidders, and look at the Master Plan. You can't see it very well. Up near the top is one of many items, but financial returns to the City is more important. So I'm basically saying, this matters. The integrity of the planning process should matter. The manipulation of basic documents passed by the Commission should matter to you. Who is responsible for this, and under what circumstances? What drives this process? Is it merely the Department of Real Estate & Asset Management? I would argue that a lot of wealthy boat owners, lobbyists and others are the winners of this process. And I urge you to please reconsider the RFP process, rewrite it, and bring it before the Virginia Key Advisory Board and back to the Commission with more thought, because otherwise there's legal ramifications and the overall process, I think, will be besmirched. And we need to get to a better day in Miami in terms ofprocess. Thankyou very much. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, sir. Thank you very much, sir. I appreciate your time. Hello, sir. You're recognized. Philip Purcell: Good morning. Good morning, Commissioners. Good morning, Chairman. Phil Purcell. I'm the executive director of the Marine Industry Association of South Florida. That spans from South Dade all the way up to Palm Beach; $11.5 million industry; employs a little over a 136, 000 people. Those wages actually pay about 28 percent higher than the State average, so those wealthy boat owners that were mentioned actually employ 136, 000 people in this region; one of the biggest forces in this region, actually. That said, we also own the Fort Lauderdale International Boat Show. So when you put out RFPs and the winning bidder wins it, it takes a great deal of certainty, at the end of the day, to commit to a $100, 000 million project, plus project. It also takes a great deal of certainty to deal with government. And what's missing in our world, I think if you look, whether it's on the State, Federal, or global level, is certainty. Whether you want to go to travel to Europe, whether you want to do business, what these elections are going to look like. What you have is a bidder that won, per your process, and what he's looking for is the certainty to continue in that process. It's a huge industries [sic] here that's not a wealthy industry, by any means; if not, then we should attack aviation, too. Let's attack all the jets, because they, too, are the wealthy. That's not the answer. Those provide amazing jobs. Aviation's one of the number -one exports in Florida. Boating is right there with it. Its bigger than citrus. It's bigger than tourism. More importantly, it pays 28 percent higher than the State City of Miami Page 4 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 average wage of $40,000 a year. So when you have an opportunity to work with an entrepreneur that went through your process, I would urge you to follow through on that process, and let someone invest the monies that procure a lot of jobs that supports our region and our lifestyle. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you, sir. Robert Deresz: Good morning. Bob Deresz, 200 Southeast 15th Road, 7K just off ofBrickell on the water. I'm fortunate enough to live on the water. I can't thank you for working on this. I came down here in 1970 when I was 20 from Michigan, because I wanted to sail, and I got a little boat in my first job at Merrill Stevens, which is Grove Harbor here now. And Grove Harbor is extending now all the way out to the Spoil Islands because they had this little hidden thing in the lease. That's why I'm up here now. Even if you -- of course, I'd rather you keep this a public marina, because I know I worked for about the last five years, until recently, over at the South Beach Marina, which is owned by the gentleman that wants to get this proposal. His rents are 45 to $75 a month. I mean, who can afford that? You know, Dinner Key is like $15; maybe 20 if you live aboard. A normal resident can't -- that lives here permanently can't afford to keep a boat here. Just going to have foreigners with lots and lots of money, probably drug money since, you know, they don't even care where that money comes from. So if you -- if-- I was watching on -- been watching this on TV (television), and I saw where the -- they came and proposed the proposal without the slips, but at the same time, the border of their lease went all the way up to the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) on the other side of the basin, so that's just like Grove Harbor here. You know, in 5, 10 years from now, we're just going to be doing this all over again. They're going to come, they're going to get their lobbyists, and they're going to talk to this department here, which is -- I think is bias, and they're going to want to put like a -- maybe try to put slips out there again and put moorings out there, even -- maybe even barges with residences they can rent, like they wanted to do at Mall Lake here. Chair Hardemon: Sir. Mr. Deresz: Yes. Chair Hardemon: Your time has come to an end. Thank you so very much for your public comments. Mr. Deresz: Thank you very much. Chair Hardemon: Thank you. Hello, sir. Joseph Neber: Good morning. Joseph Neber, president, owner, and CEO (Chief Executive Ojf1cer) of Contender Boats, Incorporated. We currently reside at 1820 Southeast 38th Avenue, Homestead, Florida. We employ approximately 225 full-time employees in your community, as well as generating about $50 million a year in revenues for the community. I'm here to speak to you this morning as to waterways access and the RFP. I'm in favor of the RCI Group's RFP. As was mentioned earlier, they won this through the fair bidding process. As a community member here, a lifelong resident of Dade County, our primary recreational activity in Dade Country is the waterways. And it is our leaders' responsibility not only to create a very viable economic and safe residential community, but we have to have good, high-quality recreational opportunities. And this RFP I see as being an excellent way to rejuvenate an obsolete facility and turn it into something that's going to give us a first-class opportunityfor not wealthy people, but as well as middle class and upper -- lower/middle class people, because boating is not just an upper-class recreational activity. If you go to any of the waterways on a weekend, you will see all ranges of vessels from canoes and paddle boards all the way up through mega yachts. So it's a community -oriented project. I think it's an excellent application, and I think the RCI Group has a track record that's proven that they can take these projects not only from start to finish and do City of Miami Page 5 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 it in a very professional manner. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Hello, ma'am. Sunny McLean: Good morning, Commissioners, City officials. My name is Sunny McLean. I live in Coconut Grove. Commissioner Suarez, at the last meeting, I recall you saying, "What's the rush? Why should we rush ahead, and why should we reject RCTs approval? " It's a huge project. It's a legacy project. It goes -- 75 year lease. It's a premiere project that will change the look of Virginia Key. All the condo owners in Brickell are going to look across and see it. It will have a huge impact. I'm here today to say to you, "What's the rush? " But what's the rush to pass it and to put this plan to referendum? I think the process is flawed. I think it's flawed in many ways, but I don't have time to go into all of them, so what I'm going to talk about is the Virginia Key Plan. As far as I can see, there are four -- although, I actually found a fifth -- so what's the official Virginia Key Plan? Igo online; I put in "official Virginia Key Plan. " Nothing really comes up. Try it. So what do I find? I find in Planning & Zoning on July 22, 2010, the City of Miami completed a comprehensive Master Planning process for Virginia Key. The City of Miami completed it. Then Igo down for the attachments. July 22, 2010, presentation to the City Commission. Now, I know, Commissioner Suarez, you found this out yesterday, too. 'Cause I said, "How am I going to compare all these plans?" To go item by item, you go nuts. So the July 22, 2010 presentation, 90 pages. The July 22, 2010 adopted consensus plan, which is a very reduced version, 18 pages. Then we get to the final report, which is Exhibition "E, "I believe, in the RFP -- 123 pages. What does that tell you? Chair Hardemon: Ma'am? Ms. McLean: Yes. Chair Hardemon: Your time has expired. Ms. McLean: Oh. Chair Hardemon: I know. Thank you so much for your public comment. Ms. McLean: Oh, I have so much more. Chair Hardemon: I can imagine. I think everybody's going to help you, though. Yes, sir. Ray Rosher: Hello. Thank you all for letting me speak. My name is Ray Rosher. I'm a second -generation Miami native. I've been a full-time fishing guide for 36 years and live in Kendall. I know one of the toughest parts of your job must be making good decisions and deciding what the eventuality of those decisions will be. What I can offer is my personal experience. I started docking at Momy's, which became Bayshore Landing, in '99, and during -- and I currently reside there now with my boats. In the years that I've been there, I think the RCI Group owned it about 11 years, and my experience was a good one. The first thing they did was come in and upgrade the facility. They did a great job managing staff. And the bottom line is, my experience there personally was a good one. I'm not a lobbyist. I have nothing to gain by being here. I'm just trying to help the process by helping you understand what I think the eventuality will be of their efforts, and I think it will be a positive one. And as someone who grew up on the water, I think improving these facilities not only help us locally as residents, but I fish about 50 percent -- I probably run about 500 charters a year, and about half of those people, you know, contain some people from out of town. And the impression and the image that they get of Miami is affected by projects such as these. When they pull into somewhere that is run --you know, run poorly or is poorly maintained, I think it's a negative impact on Miami. So I think this will be a positive result years down the road, and I appreciate your time. City of Miami Page 6 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, sir. You're recognized, sir. Anthony Parrish: Good morning, Commissioners. My name's Andy Parrish. My offices are at 3444 Main Highway, Suite 7, here in the Grove. And it's been quite a while since I've been down here in front of you. I used to come down a lot when I was building houses in the West Grove with the Local Development Corporation. I know Commissioner Gort was here for many of the meetings, and I also -- two Commissioners, Frank Carollo and Mr. Suarez, both look vaguely familiar. I don't know why, but I used to -- you do look like you belong here. My partner is -- also, he's the general contractor. He's an avid baseball fan. And I woke up this morning thinking about baseball, which is not my sport, and you guys are kind of like baseball players, depending -- like the Marlins -- depending on how you're hitting and fielding, people love you or hate you, but there's one thing -- and that's all short term; but long term, what people remember is the World Series. This Commission won one World Series back on Vizcaya and the Mercy Hospital, when they were going to build high-rise buildings next to Vizcaya, one of the crown jewels of Miami. And, you know, ifyou remember, Vizcaya also was ravaged by Hurricane Andrew. Nobody went there. It was a wreck. I used to walk my dogs there. Everything was overgrown. Nothing had been repaired. Because of what this Commission did, Vizcaya is now restored, its grounds restored. They have quinces, they have birthday parties, weddings; night and day, all kinds of festivals, and that's because you, this Commission, took the time to get it right. And those Commissioners should have their names up in the rafters, because they got it right, and Vizcaya is now restored. Now we're in the World Series again. Another crown jewel has been battered by this same Hurricane Andrew, and it sits vacant. Nobody uses it. It's an eyesore. Agreed. It's still one of the crown jewels of Miami. Once it hosted concerts, regattas, triathletes night and day. It's got the best view of Miami of anyplace in the City. If you go around opposite the Rickenbacker where they do all the photo shoots, you'll see a view of Miami that you've never seen before. Chair Hardemon: Sir. Mr. Parrish: But if you haven't done that -- I'm just almost finished, sir. Chair Hardemon: Your time is expired. Mr. Parrish: So -- Chair Hardemon: Sir. Mr. Parrish: -- if you will just do this, you will win another World Series and your names will be remembered, just like the Commissioners who saved Vizcaya. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, sir. Mr. Parrish: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Have a nice day. Applause. Chair Hardemon: No. Everyone, please refrain from clapping. You may hear a lot of different speeches that you think are very good. You may hear some that you think are very bad. I wouldn't want anyone to boo. I don't want anyone to clap. If you will, just raise your hands if you're in support and wiggle them in the air. That's all that I ask you to do, okay? Thank you so very much. Yes, sir. Shawn Adams: Good morning, Commissioners, Chairman. My name is Shawn Adams. I City of Miami Page 7 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 currently reside on Vista Court here in Coconut Grove. I was born in Coconut Grove. I was raised here, and I currently live here. Second generation. I've been a professional sport fishing captain since 1987. I currently own a marine management company, and I was in the marina industry. And I'm herein support ofRCI and their winning bid. I am highly skeptical of local government when someone goes through the process, wins the bid, and then suddenly that is called into question or attempted to be thrown out. My point that I want to make is that this is a world-class city with world-class people and world-class facilities. I would hate to see another battle between us and them and the wealthy boaters be pointed out again, when they produce so much to the community, so many jobs, and make Miami what it is. I've known the owners of RCI since they moved to Miami. And I'd also like to point out that Miami Beach Marina was a failed project when they took it over, and I'd like everybody to look at what they've made Miami Beach Marina, and I think they would do the same with Rickenbacker, having grown up there. And what a great world-class facility it would be under their management. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you. You're recognized, sir. John Kearns: My name is John Kearns. My address is 4101 Braganza, at District 2, Miami, Florida. I must confess that I did get my start by RCI. We are now -- Kearns Construction is now one of the larger marine contractors in the State of Florida, but I come here to speak as a private resident. I've been following this process very closely. And I attended in this very chambers about a month and a half ago, where the City Attorney stated at the Virginia Key Advisory Board that if they removed the wet slips from the basin that will require a new RFP. I was here. I witnessed the City Attorney state that. One of the things is, if you remove the basins -- the slips in the basins, about 300 slips. And anyone can do the math and say, "300 boat slips is equivalent to about $20, 000 million. " But that's one component of it. The permitting -- the marine permitting required to get those slips is a material change. Currently, I have an agreement to replace the docks at Key Biscayne Yacht Club. Because they added a small little area to it -- or during the permit process, they found some seagrass bed, the size of this desk right here. They've been in permit limbo for four and a half years with Army Corps. That is a material change not only of the slips, but it's also -- the permitting requirement is vastly district [sic] from removing them from the basin and only doing dry stacks. So for that reason, I encourage the City of Miami to go back and look at their own tapes with their own City Attorney stating that if they remove the boat slips, it requires a new RFP. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you, sir. You're recognized, sir. David Brennan: Good morning. My name is David Brennan. I grew up hereon Biscayne Bay. I currently reside on Trapp Avenue in Coconut Grove. You may remember, my father, he was head of the Waterfront Board, and the Southern Channel is named after him. And I've done quite a lot of race management for sailboat racing here on Biscayne Bay, Miami Olympic classes, regatta high-end events, and many of the events were run out of Miami Beach Marina. It's a world-class facility, and they have done a terrific job. And I'm here in support of RCI maintaining the bid. I think they'll do a great job enhancing the waterfront and the accessibility for people that want to use Biscayne Bay. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, sir. You're recognized, ma'am. Marina Sanchez: Good morning. My name is Marina Sanchez. I'm a Coconut Grove resident. I'm going to keep this very short and sweet. When I was at the University of Miami in the Real Estate Development & Urbanism Program, I remember studying the 2010 Master Plan at great length. Ms. Mendez: Miss, could you please get closer to the microphone? Ms. Sanchez: Oh, sure. City of Miami Page 8 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 Ms. Mendez: Because your voice doesn't carry. Ms. Sanchez: Oh, sure. Ms. Mendez: Okay, thank you. Ms. Sanchez: Should I start over? Ms. Mendez: I think, if the Chairman -- Ms. Sanchez: Did you catch any of it? Chair Hardemon: That's fine. Go ahead. Ms. Sanchez: Okay. Well, as I was saying, I'm going to keep it very short and sweet. So, when I was a student at the University of Miami Real Estate Development & Urbanism Program, I remember studying the 2010 Master Plan at great length, and it makes absolute sense; so much so, it was approved. So I would like to see an RFP that's in accordance with that Master Plan. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you. Tricc Adams: My name is Tricc Adams. Excuse me. I've been a resident of Coconut Grove for about 60 years now; presently on Park Avenue in South Grove. When I came here, the Coast Guard was still operating seaplanes over next here. Last night, I completed a history that I hadn't found before this very building, which used to be a little patch of mangroves off the shore here, and the fight over this was really interesting back then, but I'm glad it's here now. What I have noticed in growing up here and working and living here is that development is inevitable. If it was up to me, it would all be still mangrove out there, with a few houses peaking over them, but you can't do that because people keep moving inhere. They think it's a nice place to live, for some reason. So at any rate, what we have over on the slips over there that we're talking about is a --has been a deteriorating facilityfor many years. Having worked and lived around the waterfront all this time, I've watched it come and go. I've watched the good guys and the bad guys. Everything that RCI has touched has turned to pure gold. Good for people. Good for everything. I used to work at the old Dinner Key back in the day, and unfortunately, it got pushed out, not because it wasn't needed or wanted, because somebody else wanted the place. They wanted the money. RCI bid for this thing. They did it fair and square. They have a good record. And this is being pushed forward by, basically, sore losers, and I don't think you should let that camel's nose get under the tent. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, sir. Joyce Landry: Good morning. Chair Hardemon: Good morning. Ms. Landry: Joyce Landry, 3900 Wood Avenue, in Coconut Grove. It's nice to see the marine industry show up for a meeting. We haven't seen you at these meetings, so it's nice to see you. Chair Hardemon: Ma'am, can you address the Commission? Ms. Landry: No. I just want to make a point. Chair Hardemon: I just want you to address the Commission. City of Miami Page 9 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 Ms. Landry: Because I'm not opposed at all to the marine industry. I know how important they are to our community. What I am opposed to is the bid process. And I've been at everyone of these meetings to have a conversation about this, a project that is worth so much, so much money, and so long of a lease. The fact that it has been pushed through in such a short period of time, I think we all have to take pause and say, "Why is that? " You all talk about process, you know, but the bidders now handed over the wrong -- we hand -- I'm sorry -- we handed over the wrong version of the Master Plan to the bidders, as was pointed out by Greg Bush, and it was the EDSA Plan. Now, that's 25 percent of the overall points. So if that's not a -- constitute a material change in the bid process, I don't know what does. If we have to go back to this again and start over, we're going to start with a different Master Plan. I spent a couple of years working on the Master Plan, and it seems to me that in the last six months, it's being deconstructed. So I've heard a lot about --from different Commissioners. I've met with you individually -- "Oh, if we throw this out, it's going to be a long process to start all over again. " Why do we have to worry about it being such a long process? We have the time to do this right. We have the time to do a good plan, a plan with the citizens, because the only -- by the way, I'm taking time from someone else. Debby White, I'm taking her time. Chair Hardemon: I'm not going to allow people to take time from anyone else. Two minutes is what you have, ma'am. Ms. Landry: Thank you very much. I hope you do the right thing. Think of the voters. Chair Hardemon: Thank you so much, Ms. Landry. Michelle Niemeyer: Good morning. Chair Hardemon: Good morning. Ms. Niemeyer: I'm Michelle Niemeyer. Kind of like Andy, I haven't been herein along time. Ken, I don't think I've ever spoken before you, but I've spoken before everyone else sitting here in this room on the Waterfront Master Plan in Coconut Grove. I was also involved in the Virginia Key Plan, and my involvement derived from the fact that I'm a boater. I live in Coconut Grove. And since I left my husband in 2008, I've lived on my boat at Dinner Key Marina. So I am a resident of the City of Miami, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) facility, and I'd like to just touch base about that, because the thing that struck me about this plan was different from what a lot ofpeople are talking about. I think it's important to have boating facilities. We have a lot ofpeople who live here who live in Miami because they like to be on the water. Having as much access as possible is a good thing in my book. We also have a city with a lot of residents who live here who can't afford. Just look at the statistics of Miami and the income diversity we have here. We have a lot ofpeople who can't afford expensive marinas, and we have City -owned properties which can be run at a profit for the City. Dinner Key and the other City marinas bring an enormous amount of money into the City's coffers. Why are we giving that away for a 75 -year lease to a private developer when we could bond it out and develop the property ourselves, allow our own marina facility to run it and do it at prices that are affordable for residents who live here and should have these benefits coming from the government that they support? That's my purpose for being here today. I hope that you all consider that, and throw out not just this bid process, but reconsider the whole thing in a way that the City can run this marina for the benefit of the residents. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Hadley Williams: My name is Hadley Williams, 2441 Trapp Avenue, here in Coconut Grove. I have spoken before you quite a bit in the past when we were working on the Parks Master Plan for the whole City and when we were working on the Coconut Grove Master Plan, and I was tangentially involved in the Virginia Key Master Plan. My concern is that the we have the City of Miami Page 10 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 situation ofRFPs being prepared by the Administration that are looking more at revenue for the City than at meeting the plans, which were designed with great deal of effort and public input, including consideration of the economics of the project. So I think we really have to throw out this RFP and change the process of preparation of RFPs, to have public participation as the RFP is being designed, and at that point in time, the Master Plan comments and public input from the various boards, et cetera, should be included, and the RFP should reflect that. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, sir. Peter Ehrlich: Good morning, Mr. Chair, Commissioners. Peter Ehrlich. My address is 720 Northeast 69th Street, and I'm here speaking in solidarity with Greg Bush from the Urban Environment League, and Joyce Landry, who made excellent comments and substantial points. I hope you'll vote "no" on item number 1 and vote "yes " on item number 2. The Master Plan that was approved 5-0 by the City Commissioners was not the document that was submitted with the RFP. That was another document, another Master Plan that some people called the `fake" Master Plan, but I hope you'll vote for a new -- to throw out this RFP and start the process over again. Thank you very much. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Yes, sir. Roger Bernstein: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Roger M. Bernstein, 3608 Royal Palm Avenue, Coconut Grove. I smile when I come into this building. This is apiece of Miami history that was restored and saved. It makes us all happy. It makes us all proud. We have a gem in the Marine Stadium and the whole basin there, and it's one of the few places where everybody can get access to the water in this area. I'm opposed to proceeding with this RFP. I think it's a flawed process. It's not just a matter of not having more wet slips or any wet slips in the basin. We really need to rethink this, and we really need to do it right so that the energy and the resources of the community can be brought to bear on this. We can do a better job with this, and we could proud of it like we're proud of this building. So please don't proceed with this on this basis. And there's nothing wrong with these developers and what they're trying to do and the money they've spent. They'll get another chance. Maybe other people will come out and do it, but let's do it right. Thank you. Christine Rupp: Good morning. Christine Rupp from Dade Heritage Trust. I appreciate the opportunity to be here and speak with you. As you know, Dade Heritage Trust has gone on the record both in letters to you and in a letter to the Miami Herald supporting a new RFP and stating that the -- we believe the process was flawed, and that's mainly because our focus is the Miami Marine Stadium and the basin, because our mission is to preserve Miami -Dade County's architectural and environmental heritage. And as we all know, the Marine Stadium and that beautiful basin are community gems. And I believe it was many years ago when Mayor Regalado actually referred to Virginia Key as having the opportunity to become Miami's Central Park. So this really requires afresh look, because we do believe the process was flawed. We're not here to disparage any of the bidders, and I know we're all here to do what's best for Miami, what's best for our residents, and what's best for the future of this beautiful place we call home. So I do hope you'll reflect on everything that's been stated today and in the past, and ensure a better future for Virginia Key, and especially the Marine Stadium and that lovely basin. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you. Arva Parks: Thank you. My name is Arva Parks. I live at 1601 South Miami Avenue. And I served on the first Preservation Board in Dade County, the chair, and also on your first Preservation Board as vice chair, and had a preservation -- a presidential appointment to the Federal Advisory Council and on the National Trust, so I'm a passionate preservationist, as well City of Miami Page 11 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 as a historian. I also spent two years as a volunteer working on the 2010 Master Plan. It was a wonderful opportunity to have input from the citizens, the Commission voted unanimously for it, and I think I felt as happy about the process as anything that I've ever participated in. Also, I went along with the Boat Show on Virginia Key because I was told the Marine Stadium would be restored, there would be a park, and all this has been ignored, and that is very upsetting as a citizen who pays attention. This whole situation we're here today took the public totally by surprise. I think it took some of the Commission by surprise. It did not follow the 2010 Master Plan. We did not have any public input until after it came out. My --I've been a boater my entire life; owned boats; been involved in Biscayne Bay. I care about the boating industry, I care about boating, butt also care about historic and environmental preservation. And one thing that has not been mentioned is the Marine Stadium and the basin were listed by you as historic, so this should go -- The Marine Stadium had [sic] international attention right now. All over the world people are raving about the architecture. And if you -- I don't know that -- I think some of you may have been as lucky as I was to sit in the Marine Stadium, look at the downtown, and listen to music, or to be in a boat in the bay, anchor off, and listening to music, as well as watching the boat shows -- I mean, watching the races. Thank you very much. New RFP. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Sir, you're recognized. Neil Preston: My name is Neil Preston. I make my living on a charter boat in Key Biscayne. I've run the operation since 1990. I've passed this Marine Stadium. I'm really representing no one, other than just voicing my opinion. I've passed this dilapidated facilityfor years now, and you have a world-class operation in RCI that wants to do a project that is, you know, worthy of the venue in question, and they won the bid. And whose interest does it serve to go backwards as opposed to forward? The environmental impact; yeah, there'll be environmental impact. It's been discussed. It'll be -- continue to be discussed, but it's in the best interest of the boating community and, really, South Florida, to let this project go forward. They won the bid. Why are we even here discussing going backwards as opposed to going forward ? Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, sir. Ron Shultz: Thank you. My name is Ron Shultz, 1457 Sailboat Circle, Wellington. I'm a marine engineer. I've been doing projects for about 40 years; over 300 projects. I've done over a hundred RFPs. In that 40 years, I've never seen a process like this. Thirty addendums were issued during the process. They were inconsistent throughout -- Unidentified Speaker: (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Mr. Shultz: Sorry. Chair Hardemon: But -- Unidentified Speaker: He's a principal. Chair Hardemon: I understand, but it's -- Unidentified Speaker: He's a principal. Chair Hardemon: Okay. I want to make something very clear. They just made us known that you are a principal of one of the other bidders. Mr. Shultz: Yes. Chair Hardemon: You are -- City of Miami Page 12 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 Mr. Shultz: I thought I said that. I'm sorry if I didn't. I'm with Edgewater Group. Chair Hardemon: I understand. He's a member of the public; he doesn't have an opportunity to present, like you will have, to this Commission. So I will allow you to speak, and I'm not going to let that be held against you. But thank you for the notice. Continue, sir. Mr. Shultz: Okay, thank you. So we've seen over a hundred of these RFPs. I've never seen one like this. And I realize things happen and change and so forth, but there were radical inconsistencies, you know, throughout it. The wrong Master Plan was in the RFP to begin with, and then it was entirely ignored. In fact, the boundaries changed. The marina expansion was supposed to be to the west; it ended up in the north. It's interfering there, obviously, and completely inconsistent with the Master Plan. So, to me, you really need to start over, get proper public input, adopt a Master Plan that's real, and then follow it in the RFP process. It's pretty straightforward. Secondly, we've heard a lot of, really, things that -- you know, comment about RCI and how they turn things into gold. Well, let's talk about that. In the RFP process, you have the responsibility to check on the background of the bidders and so forth, and no one looked at the environmental damage that 25 million gallons of raw sewage that came out of his marina caused to the City of Miami properties and the beaches. You know, there were -- if you lined up trucks on the highway, it's 30 miles of trucks; eight, 10,000 gallon tankers dumping into the bay and estuary and the beaches. How can that be ignored? How can you reward someone for doing that, when your RFP process clearly calls for throwing out, you know, bidders that have done that? So, you know, how do you turn 25 million gallons into gold? I don't know. In conclusion, thank you for letting us speak. Toss out the RFP process, adopt a proper Master Plan, and please follow it. That's the right thing to do. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. You're recognized, sir. Manuel Hernandez: Good morning. Dear Commissioners and residents, my name is Manuel Marcelo Hernandez. I have been a licensed captain for over the past 10 years, and I have formerly served in the United States Coast Guard. I truly love the Key. I spent most of my childhood years attending Key Biscayne Elementary and being raised on the Key in a lifestyle of boating and loving. My family is currently members of the Key Biscayne Yacht Club, and we have plenty of past and present family members that have been members at the Yacht Club. Dockage is short on the Key. There is not sufficient dockage for the residents of Key Biscayne, especially the City of Miami and other residents in Miami -Dade County. I have and must say, I feel very fortunate to have grown up in such a culturally rich environment. I believe these experiences shaped me and my exposure to such a unique community taught me early on to earn a way of life by doing right by others in business and in life. I learned how to make -- how to take care of boats from my family and from my grandfather, uncles, and parents; all avid boaters. Today I operate a business in very sim -- in a very similar community; that is, Miami Beach, south of 5th. Through the opportunity afforded to me by RCI Marine Group, my business was able to thrive with reasonable terms and time to nurture and grow. Today, Turner Key Marine provides full-time jobs for 21 employees, and has become a very sustainable yacht management company within their marina. Excuse me. With over $2 million in gross sales and growing every year, I am truly lucky. I should mention, this all happened while the economy was tanking in 2006 and 2008, and I was totally dependent on a small charter business of only four boats. I literally pounded the pavement at their marina to meet yacht owners and focus on the niche that is an international of absentee yacht owners and vessel owners. The world knows Miami all too well and is waiting for the latest in technology-based, environmentally friendly marina storage and management services. Proven solid management and desirable, attractive product make for a positive economic impact. Chair Hardemon: Sir, you time has expired. Thank you so very much. Mr. Hernandez: Last statement. I know Key Biscayne residents will benefit in the long run from City of Miami Page 13 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 the state-of-the-art -- Chair Hardemon: Sir. Mr. Hernandez: --storage and yacht maintenance facility. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Barbara Lange: My name is Barbara Lange. I reside at 3901 Braganza Avenue, Coconut Grove. I'm here today because I think this RFP has been wrong from day one, and I hope that you throw it out and start the process all over again. I was work -- I worked on, along with Arva and other people here, the 2010 Master Plan for Virginia Key, and the RFP does -- acts like the Master Plan never existed. I was unhappy that the Boat Show got to pave over part of Virginia Key, but at least there was a promise in that paving over that there would be soccer fields, and I'd like to know what happened to the soccer fields. Can anybody tell me what happened to the soccer fields, Commissioner, now? Chair Hardemon: Yeah, we can have someone from the Administration tell you exactly what happened, but utilize this time for your public comment, please. Ms. Lange: Okay. So in conclusion, there was always no commercialization on --in the Virginia Key Master Plan. There was also no intrusion in the basin. And I think, once again, you need to throw out this RFP and start all over and act like there's a real Virginia Key Master Plan that citizens worked on. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, ma'am. Can someone from Administration please address her question about what happened? Thank you very much. Sir. Leonard Levy: Good morning. I'm Leonard Levy, 1121 Crandon Boulevard, Key Biscayne. As a very active participant of using the basin at Virginia Key at the Marine Stadium, I and many of my friends and many people that I know really fear any further development, such as what is being planned with this RFP. We've also already been very adversely affected by the development of the Boat Show changes; that what has happened to property that used to be used for recreation is now turned into nothing more than a big asphalt field that cannot be used as it used to be. This RFP doesn't just seem flawed, it really seems -- it really smells badly from corruption, graft, back-office dealing that does not ring well with the public, especially people who are affected by such a plan. It's not necessary. This idea of extending a 75 foot boat handling area is only going to interfere with any possible activities of the Marine Stadium as it was planned to be. We're going to have larger boats in that area. We don't know what this boat storage area is going to be. Is it going to be more expensive boats? Already, we're being affected by boats using the basin and interfering with the rowing and paddling activities in that area. Unfortunately, it's only going to get worse with larger and more expensive boats. We don't need any further developments that benefit only the wealthy. We should think of the everyday person who wants to use this area for recreation. Thank you very much for your consideration in objecting to this RFP and starting anew. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, sir. You're recognized. Christopher Trogner: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Christopher Trogner. I live in City of Miami, and I'm here on behalf of the winning bidder, RCI Marine. Chair Hardemon: Can you come a little closer to the microphone. Mr. Trogner: I am here this morning on behalf of the winning bidder, RCI Marine, and I support this project. I'm a Miami boater. I've worked in marinas for most of my career. I've worked for City of Miami Page 14 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 Miami Dade Parks & Recreation. I've seen projects go bad on the water. And currently, what you have are two marinas that are greasy, smelly, rundown that absolutely need to be redeveloped and open to the public. The RFP should move forward. The winning bidder has a great plan, and I think you should continue with this really good project. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, sir. Steven Leidner: Morning, Commissioners. Steven Leidner, 555 Northeast 34th Street. All of you have seen the existing marina, I assume. One of the things that --first of all, I support the Virginia Key Master Plan. But one of the things that impresses me when I drive by the existing marina is the huge warehouse that sits on prime waterfront property, and my understanding is the new marina is going to include an even bigger warehouse. I just -- that doesn't sit right with me. I don't know how it sits with you to have a warehouse that belongs in an industrial park sitting on our prime waterfront, but I hope, if the marina does get built, a warehouse is not part of the project. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Robert Altman: Thank you. My name is Bobby Altman. I live at 6050 Southwest 109th Street, Miami. I come here as someone who was born here long time ago, close to the Orange Bowl. I'm a rower and I'm an architect The first thing that I recognized -- and I've -- in rowing there for 30 years, and growing up going to the marina -- is that the marina is a world-class building. It's the crown jewel of the City of Miami. It's like Miami's Eiffel Tower, like City's Opera House. We have an unusual building, an extraordinary building on an extraordinary site. To crowd that building with a dry stack unit to the scale that it is, I really wish that in the renderings that were presented to all of you, it included the scale of the warehouse in relation -- the dry stack in relationship to the Marine Stadium. It's completely out ofscale with the building. I couldn't imagine putting up a huge building next to the City Opera House, the Eiffel Tower. It would diminish its importance, and that would diminish -- if we do that, it'll diminish the importance of that building as an important factor in the -- what the City of Miami is about. Not only that, but also in the basin, the project is not just putting a gangway out 75 feet, but that with the gangway, then comes boats and then comes a channel, and all of a sudden, the marina basin is crowded. It's not the same foreground that we have right now. So I think it's a great idea to include more dry storage racks. I like the whole idea of it, but I think that this project, the way it's been designed as an RFI (request for information), is wrong headed, and it just doesn't make sense the way it's designed. I think you need to go back and make a design that is -- that cooperates and works hand in hand with what we have out there, instead of killing it, the beautiful Marine Stadium and Miami's crown jewel. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Ma'am, you're recognized. Leah Kinnaird: Hello, Commissioners. My name is Leah Kinniard. I live at 9040 Southwest 97th Terrace, which is in the County. My husband and I come here hoping for a new RFP, an RFP that takes the opportunity to negotiate the ideas that have been brought forth in this process, in this public process that you've had over the meetings in the past few months. I don't see it as starting all over. I see it as coming up with a plan that will serve the entire community better. The decisions you make within the City of Miami have a huge effect on people who use the space, all the way from Jupiter to Homestead and beyond. It's regularly used by many, many people that go beyond the City. I've been impressed. I'm here as an individual today, but I'm also familiar with the water there, because I'm a breast cancer survivor who paddles on the SOS" dragon boat team, so I know what the water's like, I know what the dolphin are like, I know what the space is like. I believe in development, and I believe it can be done very well. I'm concerned about over -commercialization of the space, which right now is a passive boating community that could potentially bring more motorboats than we can manage, but I think that that can be planned. I think that additional storage can be planned, and I think that -- I'm impressed with City of Miami Page 15 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 the people who know the history of Miami and who can pro -- and are interested in protecting the Marine Stadium. So I would like to see a new RFP that includes many ideas and respects the opportunity that the planners have already put into their proposals. Thank you very much. Carolyn Koslen: Hi. My name is Carolyn Koslen. I am a lifetime Key Biscayne resident, 255 Sunrise Drive. And I would like you to toss the flawed RFP and respect the Master Plan. Tm -- I grew up on the water, in the water. I'm also the daughter ofa 78 -year-old dragon boating, breast cancer survivor, who stands to lose her space, and I -- please do the right thing. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, ma'am. Fleur Lobree: Mr. Commissioner. I'm Fleur Lobree. I work at 1350 Northwest 12th Avenue within the City. I also have family who lives in Coconut Grove within the City, and I, too, am a dragon boater and breast cancer survivor who spent the last 10 years in the basin. I am acutely aware of the commercial impact and fiscal impact to the City that this marina project will provide, and I understand the need for revenues to drive all the City services that you, thankfully, provide to our residents, but this is a gem of an environmental location that cannot be treated like any other plot of land. Already with the development that's existed around the Marine Stadium, there's a flex park that's not quite a flex park yet, it's a parking lot. And a lot of people talk about the -- a trite expression about the Joni Mitchell song about "Paving [sic] Paradise to [sic] Put up a Parking Lot. " I'm afraid that we're going to go one step further and not only have a parking lot in lieu ofa flex park surrounding the Marine Stadium, but that we're not going to have recreational use of the basin due to the over -commercialization of this area. It's a historic area. It's an environmental gem. It's a unique landscape with the City and within South Florida. There is no other basin like this that's got land on three sides that's protected waters. Lots of people like to use this water recreationally. The Marine Stadium development would be affected. To spend -- you know, there's all these historians who want to spend tremendous amounts of money to redevelop the gem that was the Marine Stadium, but if it can't be accessed, if it can't be utilized to its full potential, that would all be wasted. So I'd ask you to reconsider sticking to the Master Plan and starting over with the RFP process for this marina. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you, Your Honor. Javier Gonzalez: Hi. Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Javier Gonzalez, 3622 Solano Road, Miami, Florida. I'm here as an individual. I don't have any skin in this game. I know I've been brought out by a lot offolks and asked a lot of questions about this. As vice chair of the Village Council and as an elected official, when I make a decision -- when I'm asked to make a decision, I make it knowing that the process is correct, that the process is not flawed, and I think with all of the comments and all of the meetings that have happened, we have a flawed process. For us, as elected officials, to get up there and make a decision to go forward with this RFP, I truly believe that we're not serving our public, the people who elect us, the people who put us in here. This is not an indictment against the marine industry. We love the marine industry. We know it's one of our main profit makers. This is not against RCT. It's not that. This is about a process that we are calling into question, and we, as officials, as elected individuals of this community, of this City, we have to look out for everyone. This is flawed. We know it goes against the Master Plan. We know that our advisory board is against it. Just do the right thing. We can wait on this thing. Put out a good RFP, put out correct --hopefully, RCI wins it again. "They're wonderful people. " That's all I've heard. Again, this is a process. Be fair to our community. Be fair to the folks who put us in this place. Please, just reconsider it, toss it out, and we'll get it right. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Dolly Maclntyre: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Dolly Maclntyre, 409 Vizcaya Avenue, in Coral Gables. You'll be relieved to know that I will be your shortest speaker. Regardless of what City of Miami Page 16 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 you decide on the RFP, the restoration of the Miami Marine Stadium is essential, and it must get started. So please use your skills and your talents and your money, and let's get it started. Restore the Marine Stadium regardless of what happens with the RFP. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Renita Holmes: Good morning, gentlemen and Commission. I'm Madam Renita Holmes, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) of Women. I'm also a resident of Miami. And fora longtime as a little girl, when we attended the Virginia Key Beach, it was a historical and a heritage place for my family and I. And when I speak, I will speak in regards to the African-American community. Back then, we knew that we were swimming and our kids were swimming around in sludge, and we as children were swimming around in sludge, and environmental justice was not an issue or environmental restoration, which I believe that's what the Marine Stadium is about, restoration of the marine area, about the beaches, about the environment; not just about a stadium, because if that be, it's -- the cost of the stadium cost us a lot more. And for me, it's very important that we keep promises that were made back in the days to Athalie Range and so many others of you who sat here and said that we needed justice when accessing a black beach. Well, the beach is back. It's still black, but it's very dim with gray. Now, I'll fast forward to the CDMP (Comprehensive Development Master Plan) process, as I read it according to the EAR (evaluation appraisal report) of 2003, and then I'll fast forward to 2009 EAR report. And there were some things that we were amiss of, and some of these things were amiss of in the RFP, or properly addressed. It talked about water and sewage. It talked about a lot of things. It talked about land use. It talked about planning. And quite often, when I would come and ask that question, it was like "Whew. We're going to do it anyway. " But because the CDMP process is about comprehensive -- and because Eomprehensive7neans that we fully understand, and you fully understand by the information and documentation that's provided. We're amiss of a lot of that in this process and in this RFP. And so, keeping with the facts and staying up -- still keeping the feelings, we should be more motivated to comply with the State regulations and the Federal regulations, and I challenged those, and so I protest. And I believe that you should keep a promise, like I want to keep promise to my children about black beach participation and justice. It wouldn't hurt. Thank you very much. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Seeing that no -- seeing that there are no other persons here for public comment, I'll close the public comment at this time. Oh, you have two. You can't sit down in your seat now. Mike Ohana: Sorry about that. Mike -- Chair Hardemon: Please. Mr. Ohana: Sorry. Mike Ohana. I live on the beach. I've lived here in Gables for about six years now. I used to live on the beach for 22 years. Me and my wife are boaters, and I think it would be a sin to take back this RFP. And I think that having a local marine [sic] operator, like RCI, would be one of the best candidates. And I know that you guys are wanting to maybe push this and change it. I think that the best thing to do is to keep it and go forward and stop this waste of time of the residents. And I think that, most importantly, you have a local operator that knows what he's doing and can save us time and money to all the residents. And that's all. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Sir. Ralph Navarro: Good morning, Commission members. My name is Ralph Navarro. I'm the CEO (chief executive officer) and founder of Florida Yachts International on Monty's in Coconut Grove, 2550 South Bayshore Drive; been at that location for over 20 years. Over 11 years, RCI was the -- were the owners of Monty's, and they did nothing but great things for that property. City of Miami Page 17 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 Not only are they a great partner for the City, but in my opinion, they're a great partner for the people of the City. People always forget, but I'll never forget when crisis hit in 2007, and there was a financial need in my company, RCI, which was my landlord at that time, were the only people that came to help, and thanks to them and thanks to their great support, my business is thriving today. And the only sad thing is that they're not the owners of Monty's in Coconut Grove anymore. So I strongly support this project, and I strongly support the people that won this RFP, because they well deserve it, and they're home people. They're from here. So if anybody deserves to win it, I think they do. And I think this progress --its all progress for the City not only in revenue, but this City's being left behind when it comes to the marine side, and I think this project will put us back on the map. I thank you all for your time today. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Robert Valdivieso: Good morning. Robert Valdivieso, 41 Southeast 5th Street. I'm a resident in Miami for the last 10 years. I'd seen the City grow from the times when the real estate plunge. I've seen also that Miami has reduced its open space to the public, park space on the water. Development is good. It's great. It has to be well managed. And I see that to do that, we have to have a solid foundation. The foundation is the rules. The projects that were done long before in order to get to this point where there will be bidders providing a proposal to create a new development. So far we have seen that there are different opinions on what is right, what is wrong. It's on your side to look at what is solid to build this. I'm not talking just about myself. I'm talking about my son, my grandson. This is a project that's going to run for three or four generations. You want to make sure that it's --runs in a solid base. And also, look at the risks that you are going to face, legal risks. If you think that the solid is --foundation is solid, it'll be fine, but if it's not, this is going to get more complicated in the future, so you have to get it right from the very beginning. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Sir. Jay Flynn: Good morning. My name is Jay Flynn. I live at 3734 Matheson Avenue, Miami, Florida 33133. I was born and grew up in Coconut Grove. I spent most of my 67 years here. I'm a boat owner. I've been very active in the marine community here. I'm also a former County employee. I worked with the Countyfor 35 years. I've been involved in writing a number of RFPs. I've been on the selection committee of countless RFPs. I know the process. And I can tell you, something in this process broke. All's we're asking is that you fix it. We're not asking you not to develop this area. We're not asking you to throw out RCI. We're just asking you to fix what broke. That's all. I can also tell you that I just came back from Ohio; 16 hours in a car. There's a rowing regatta there. Thousands of people attended that. If you go to Sarasota, they have a world-class rowing facility there. They have regattas there. They're going to have the nationals there next year. Thousands of people attended that. It's a huge economic engine. Things like that can be considered if we redo this process. The Master Plan can be followed. That's all we're asking, is fix what was broken. Thank you very much. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Is there any other person that would like to speak on public hearing? Seeing no other persons, I'll close public hearing at this time. SPECIAL MEETING ITEM(S) SR1 DISCUSSION ITEM 16-00851a City Commission A DISCUSSION ITEM OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION REGARDING REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. 12-14-077, FOR THE LEASE AND DEVELOPMENT OF CITY OF MIAMI OWNED WATERFRONT PROPERTY FOR MARINAS/RESTAURANT/SHIP'S STORE USES LOCATED IN VIRGINIA KEY, TO EITHER ACCEPT THE MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION, REJECT City of Miami Page 18 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 THE MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION, REJECT ALL PROPOSALS, REJECT ALL PROPOSALS AND INSTRUCT THE CITY MANAGER TO ISSUE A NEW REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS, OR SEEK THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE, WITH CITY COMMISSION ACTION FOLLOWING THE DISCUSSION. 16-00851a Summary Form.pdf 16-00851a RFP Request For Proposal.pdf 16-00851a Sketch And Submerged Land Legal Description.pdf 16-00851a Marine Resource Survey.pdf 16-00851a Master Plan Final Report.pdf 16-00851a Master Plan Presentation. pdf 16-00851a Back -Up from Law Dept.pdf 16 -00851a -Submittal -Albert Dotson -Documents re-RFP12-14-077.pdf 16 -00851a -Submittal -Bernardo Fort Brescia -Virginia Key RFP.pdf 16 -00851a -Submittal -Jeremy Gauger -Presentation -2010 Virginia Key Master Plan.pdf 16 -00851a -Submittal -Greg Bush -Virginia Key RFP Presentation. pdf 16 -00851a -Submittal -Brian May-RCI-Emails Supporting Project.pdf 16 -00851a -Submittal -AI Dotson on behalf of RCI -RCI Proposal and VA Key Master Plan Comparis 16 -00851a -Submittal -Brian May -Letters between MRC & RCI re-RFP.pdf 16 -00851a -Submittal -AI Dotson re VA Key Advisory Board.pdf 16-00851 a -Submittal -AI Dotson -City of Miami Resolution R -10 -0331 -VA Key Master Plan.pdf 16-00851 a -Submittal -AI Dotson -Memo -Analysis of Comm. Russell's reasons for rejecting all RFPs 16-00851 a -Submittal -AI Dotson-DERM Certified Ltr-Miami Beach Marina Sewage Spill of June 20( 16 -00851a -Submittal -Brian May -Descriptive Use Plan.pdf 16 -00988 -Submittal -Albert Dotson -Straw man -Arbitrary and Capricious.pdf DISCUSSED Chair Hardemon: We're going to move on with SP.1. SP.1 is the discussion of the City Manager's recommendation. I don't know. Has the City --City Manager has provided a recommendation? Because I know that we had some -- you had some direction before not to do any negotiating, so I don't know if you have nego -- SR2 RESOLUTION 16-00988 District 2 - A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH Commissioner Ken ATTACHMENT(S), REJ ECTI NG ANY AND ALL PROPOSALS IN RESPONSE Russell TO CITY OF MIAMI DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE AND ASSET MANAGEMENT REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS ("RFP") NO. 12-14-077, FOR THE LEASE AND DEVELOPMENT OF CITY OF MIAMI OWNED WATERFRONT PROPERTY FOR MARINAS/RESTAURANT/SHIP'S STORE USES LOCATED IN VIRGINIA KEY; REQUESTING THE DRAFTING OF A NEW RFP ADDRESSING RELEVANT NOTABLE PROVISIONS OF THE VIRGINIA KEY MASTER PLAN AND CONSIDERING RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE VIRGINIA KEYADVISORY BOARD AND OTHER INTERESTED STAKEHOLDERS; FURTHER DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT THE PROPOSED NEW RFP TO THE CITY COMMISSION FOR THEIR REVIEW, COMMENT, AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO ISSUANCE. Citv ofMiami Page 19 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 16-00988 - Legislation.pdf 16-00988 - Exhibit.pdf 16 -00988 -Submittal -Albert Dotson -Documents re-RFP12-14-077.pdf 16 -00988 -Submittal -Bernardo Fort Brescia -Virginia Key RFP.pdf 16 -00988 -Submittal -Jeremy Gauger -Presentation -2010 Virginia Key Master Plan.pdf 16 -00988 -Submittal -Greg Bush -Virginia Key RFP Presentation. pdf 16 -00988 -Submittal -Brian May-RCI-Emails Supporting Project.pdf 16 -00988 -Submittal -AI Dotson on behalf of RCI -RCI Proposal and VA Key Master Plan Compariso 16 -00988 -Submittal -Brian May -Letters between MRC & RCI re-RFP.pdf 16 -00988 -Submittal -AI Dotson re VA Key Advisory Board.pdf 16 -00988 -Submittal -AI Dotson -City of Miami Resolution R -10 -0331 -VA Key Master Plan.pdf 16 -00988 -Submittal -AI Dotson -Memo -Analysis of Comm. Russell's reasons for rejecting all RFPs 16 -00988 -Submittal -AI Dotson-DERM Certified Ltr-Miami Beach Marina Sewage Spill of June 200( 16 -00988 -Submittal -Brian May -Descriptive Use Plan.pdf 16 -00988 -Submittal -Albert Dotson -Straw man -Arbitrary and Capricious.pdf Motion by Vice Chair Russell, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner(s) Russell, Carollo and Suarez Noes: 2 - Commissioner(s) Gort and Hardemon R-16-0345 A motion was made by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, and was passed unanimously, to allow Miguel De Grandy 10 minutes to make a presentation on the material variation/changes associated with Virginia Key, LLC's (RCI Group) proposal as it relates to RFP No. 12-14-077; in addition to allowing S minutes for Miguel Diaz de la Portilla to respond to statements made by Albert Dotson during his presentation. Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chair. Chair Hardemon: Yes. Vice Chair Russell: I'd like to move that we throw out this RFP (request for proposals). Chair Hardemon: It's been moved. Is there a second? Commissioner Carollo: Second. Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved and seconded that we reject the RFP. Vice Chair Russell: Discussion. Chair Hardemon: Discussion. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I really, sincerely want to thank everyone that came out today. As you know, this marina, this stadium, this island, this is in District 2, and it's very dear to me; but as you can see from the input on this dais, this is a gem of the City, and it's of the utmost importance that we get it right. When we write an RFP to buy hammers, I don't think we need a lot ofpublic input. But when we write an RFP to change something this drastic in the City that will affect how we pay for the renovation of our Marine Stadium, we need to get it right. And I believe that our RFP process, as a whole, needs to be revisited, and now is the time to start. I know we've come a long way on this one already, but the public is screaming that they have not been heard in the way this RFP was generated. I heard a very good statement today that was never even considered: Should the City manage this marina itself? You know, Citv ofMiami Page 20 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 Miamarina and Dinner Key right behind this building are managed by the City. Dinner Key generates over five million in revenue for the City a year. That's not the profit; that's the revenue. Miamarina over a million, I believe, as well. There's 582 slips -- wet slips in this marina. This City is capable of managing this, but I don't know whether that was considered in this RFP process, because all we have before us is what was put together within the management and the RFP process itself. I just don't believe there was enough public input. I, as a Commissioner, wasn't here at the time, but I am now, and I would love to be involved in this process to really make sure that the public's voice is heard, that the Master Plan is completely respected, because it really did take it into account. It's not just a document. I've watched the video of when it was adopted in 2010. Commissioner Carollo, you spoke very well on it. There was a different City Manager here at the time that actually said -- his quote was that, "This intention in this Master Plan was that the City manage its own marina. " That was City Manager Migoya at the time. So why aren't we considering that? Our Master Plan says that we should have a maximum of 210 wet slips. That's the initial 190 that we have now, plus 10 percent. The RFP calls for 490; an additional 300 over the 190 that's there. That's 15 times greater than what was contemplated in terms of an increase. That's more than double the wet slips than what the Master Plan intended to have in total. The dry slips, the Master Plan says no more than 700. Every single bidder put in more than 700 in their dry storage. Clearly, this Master Plan is not accounted for in this RFP. And most importantly in the Master Plan is that the marina is a sole -- is a crucial piece in redeveloping the Marine Stadium; yet that's not fully stated in this RFP. It's left up to us as Commissioners to later direct the funds, because we still haven't captured the funds on Virginia Key to go toward the Marine Stadium. So I think it could have been written better. I think that it didn't take into account -- well, it did take into account the issue of contamination, but it did not word it in a way that would force anyone who was guilty of any contamination to disclose. Whether RCTs case of the 25 million gallons of contamination and sewage is going to keep us from choosing them or not is another decision to be made, but the way the RFP was worded, they may not have even had to disclose that it happened, and I think that's the fault of the RFP, not RCI. So I do believe we need to start over. I believe that with our own Virginia Key Advisory Board telling us that they are against this, or the Dade Trust telling us that they are against this, and so many of our residents telling us that they are against this, any of us that are elected officials, if we truly believe that we are supposed to be serving the public, we need to stop, start over, and take them into account, and I know for a fact because I've spoken with other marinas, developers who would have bid on this had the scope of the RFP been smaller. What we've asked of them in the RFP is a large-scale project that scared away other bidders, potentially, and maybe more than what we want on that island, because commercialism and profit was prioritized over environmentalism, access to the water for the average resident, and, you know, we can still have a beautiful facility. We can still have an operator that manages the upland and the retail and the stores and everything like that, and produces -- manufactures the -- develops the marina, and the City could possibly manage it. These are all just things that we should have discussed at the beginning; not leave it at the end for the voters to have an up or down on what we've put together. So I'm imploring you as fellow Commissioners to listen to the public and to be with me on this, because I think we can do it right; and at the end, our decision will be respected by our community, and we won't have done it in the wrong way as a means to justify an end. And so I'm hoping for your support in starting over. Chair Hardemon: Commissioners, before we get into further discussion, I know that I have some unreadiness in coming to vote at this time. There are a few different things that I need to hear. Well, one, last time we were here, we talked about the issue about whether or not pulling boats out of the slip would constitute a significant change or a material change to the contract, so I at least want to hear some discussion on that. And also, I don't think the public has had an opportunity to actually seethe project that's being presented, so I want at least the RFP winners to have an opportunity to present their project before all of us so we know exactly what we're talking about here. I respect the fact that everyone has spoken, but the only information that I have ever received about this project has been what we've done in the sunshine, besides the City of Miami Page 21 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 information that's been passed to us that all of us have received, and I want to be able to see exactly what the project is so all of us are on the same page with what we're voting for. Is -- and so before we go into further discussion -- because if we go to vote, I mean, I'm not ready to vote. I'm unready to -- Commissioner Gort: I'm not ready to vote. I'd like to hear from the Administration. I mean, a lot of things been stated about all the mistakes we have made in the Administration, so I'd like to hear from them. I'd like to know a little bit more about that. At the same time, you know, people worry that the Marine Stadium -- I think this Commission is the most committed to the Marine Stadium than anybody else. We the one that begin the mooring to create this area where people could not be mooring there. I mean, the Bayside, you go over there right now, how many sailboats you have parked in there -- not parked. I'm sorry. I used the wrong language. -- are anchored in there? I count at least about 30 -some sailboats anchored in there. Who supervise them? How do we know where the waste goes to? And all that things. We are beginning to have -- working with the engineers to do something back here with the mooring that's illegally back here and the one over there at the Marine Stadium. At the same time, the commitment from this Commission from the beginning is to Marine Stadium, and that's number one. That's the number -one goal of all of us, because we all have history in the Marine Stadium, so -- but I'd like to hear from the Administration and from the Planning Department. Keep hearing about we've had the wrong plan. And I remember, we had one plan, it was great; even created a bridge in the middle of it so that boats -- they can lift the bridge and the boat can go through and stop the traffic. That was not accepted. So I'd like to hear from the Administration. Chair Hardemon: So what I'd like to do --the motion is on the floor. There is a second. However, I want to give -- Commissioner Gort: Part of the discussion. Chair Hardemon: -- the R -- what is it? -- RFI [sic] an opportunity to speak, and then I want to hear from the Administration so you can have some response, so that all of us are on the same page with what we need to do. So, please. Al Dotson: Mr. Chairman, just for the record, Al Dotson with Bilzin Sumberg, 1450 Brickell Avenue, representing the responsible and responsive proposer that's recommended, RCL. We're going to put on a presentation for you, because the very definition of lirbitrary and capricious Is to make a decision without having all the facts. So we're going to put on the record all of the facts. We're going to rebut all of the stuff that's been out in the media, all of the statements that have been said before you about RCI. And I really appreciate you, Commissioner Russell, saying that you don't have a problem with RCI, and I appreciate all of the people who came up and spoke about that, too, because RCI is a responsible proposer. And now we're going to give you the facts. You're going to make a fact -based decision. And we're going to share with you exactly what it is we're proposing, why your Administration got it right, why the Master Plan is respected, and why keeping the slips out of the basin is not a material change. You don't take our word for it. We're going to give you facts and the law to support each and everyone of the statements that I just made. I'm going to start first with Mr. May to go over the actual plan. Brian May: Thank you, Al. Commissioners, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Manager, and to the public, I appreciate the opportunity. I want to start by putting into the record 86 emails that have been emailed to all of your offices in support of moving forward with the selection of RCI and with the project. I want to start by just recapping the actual process, because there's been some statements made that this was a rushed process, that somehow this was not out there in the public realm for anybody to see or be aware of for some period of time. This RFP was issued on June 15, 2015, almost 13 months ago. In December of 2015 the Virginia Key Advisory Board was actually formed by the City Commission. The City issued multiple addenda, claming issues and answering questions through January of 2016, and the proposer submitted their responses on -- City of Miami Page 22 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Dotson: Just a second. Could we ask that the IT (Information Technology) place this board on at least one of the screens so that the audience can see what it is you all are making a decision on? Mr. May: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Do you have an electronic copy of this? Or you're saying for them to broadcast it? Mr. Dotson: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) broadcast. Chair Hardemon: Okay. Do we have a camera that comes from there? Oh, yeah, that one there. Mr. May: So just to continue. The proposers submitted their responses on February 1, 2016 The Selection Committee met on March 16 to hear oral presentations from all three bidders; 45 minutes of presentation for each bidder; 30 minutes of questions and answers. The Selection Committee met again on March 16 and ranked all the proposers and ranked RCI number one. The Manager made his recommendation to the Commission on April 4, and since then, the Commission has held now three public hearings on this issue, and rejected the bid protest from Suntex unanimously. In addition, the Virginia Key Advisory Board has met twice, and also took public testimony. In the RFP, the City asked proposers to come with their best ideas for designing the site and maximizing revenue to the City, while also being mindful of the Virginia Key Master Plan and existing conditions on-site. As such, RCI viewed the site as a marina -oriented site; not a retail or commercial destination, but a site designed to maximize revenues for the City primarily through marina slips, both wet and dry; providing a realistic retail proposal of 52, 000 square feet, 41, 000 square feet of which is new, to service the marina and watersports uses in the basin; and also two restaurants to serve the marina and dry dock patrons and the visiting public; and most importantly, most importantly, to provide a continuous bay walk that would stretch from the Rusty Pelican all the way to the historic Marine Stadium property, and that is the most important element of this project, because today the public does have access to much of that waterfront because of the dry dock storage that exists. So there are really two other components that are also very important in our scheme: A creative parking configuration that does away with, if the City chooses, the need to construct a stand-alone parking garage on the site; and also a state-of-the-art, automated dry dock storage system, the efficiency of which does away with the use of forklifts and is much more environmentally friendly, allows for the ability to store and retrieve a third more boats on the very same footprint that the dry dock storage sits today, and provides a continuous bay walk for the public to enjoy without interruption. They're not interrupted by boats entering the water due through the forklift system. Now let me walk through the actual project itself. As you can see on the diagram, the wet slips -- there are 162 wet slips that we show on this diagram. We actually submitted slips in the basin in accordance with the RFP. When we heard from the public and we heard from this Commission that unanimously, essentially said you don't want slips in the basin, we have --now presenting the project without the slips in the basin. The dry dock storage: There are three buildings, three dry dock storage buildings connected by an automated storage mechanism that provides three separate open-air pedestrian corridors to the public waterfront, a total storage capacity of 973 boats, again, on the very same footprint that today accommodates 648. One of the most important things about this system, as I said, is that it's more efficient stacking of the boats than a conventional system that has -- incorporate forklifts and its operation. And the automated system also stores more boats, as I said, on the same footprint. The other major advantage of the storage and retrieval system is that it is environmentally friendly. Now let me get to the retail, restaurant, and commercial. There's 52, 000 square feet, as I said. 9,980 of those square feet exist today in the Whiskey Joe's location, which is right here on your (UNINTELLIGIBLE). City of Miami Page 23 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 There's also a thousand square feet -- Chair Hardemon: Sir, can you take the microphone? Mr. May: Oh, I'm sorry. That makes life a lot easier. Thank you. There's also a thousand square feet right here, which is an existing marine -oriented building to service the wet slips, and those -- that building will be retained as it is. In addition to that, we have 29,500 square feet that is on the ground floor of the three dry dock storage facilities. We also have --in addition to that, we have 9, 000 square feet that's separate -- that's divided between two restaurant building -- two restaurants in one building; one is a more casual dining alternative with a swimming pool to service marina patients -- patrons, and the other on the second level is a more up -scale facility to take advantage of the beautiful vistas back to downtown Miami. That is essentially the commercial development on the site. And I would submit to you that because it's contained within the dry dock storage facilities, primarily, it is hardly one that people would call a commercial or retail destination. It's thereto serve the patrons and the users of both the marina facility, but also the users of the basin as well. Now to continue forward. The other piece of this is also -- there's one other commercial piece. There is 2,800 square feet for the harbor oJTices that would be located on -- equivalent of the second level of the dry dock storage facility to the west, and it would be located right in that corner. Now, as to the bay walk, there's approximately 1, 440 square feet of linear bay walk, 25 feet wide that extends from the Rusty Pelican to the Marine Stadium. The bay walk is, again 25 feet wide. In addition, we have a 600 foot promenade that stretches the length of the dry dock storage facilities that is 20 feet wide and located directly behind the bay walk. So at that point we actually have a 45 foot wide promenade to the waterfrontfor the public, fully accessible to enjoy, and 1,440 feetfor the public fully to enjoy, largely which, today, they cannot enjoy. Now, we also have -- I'm going to put up another board here. We also have on-site a full contingent of pedestrian and bike pathways to encourage non -vehicular movement around the site. As I discussed earlier, we have three corridors for the public to access the waterfront going through the three boat storage buildings. We have ingress and egress, both east and west, from Rusty Pelican all the way over, but also on the outer edge of the property; and that is because what we proposed in our preferred plan was not to construct a parking garage on this edge of the RFP, but to do it in a smarter way that would do away with that massing for the public to see, and protect the vegetation and green space, which is a key part of the Virginia Key Master Plan, as we develop the site. In addition, you can see that we have bike pathways similarly along the same corridors, primarily going east and west. I also want to just point out to you, you have a rendering here of actually what that promenade, along with the bay walk, would look like, and this is coming through one of the buildings. You can see, we proposed lush landscaping to try to preserve green space. You can see also here on the bay walk the uninterrupted access all the way around. Also another view just -- this is the restaurant building going back to downtown. Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chair. Chair Hardemon: Yes. Vice Chair Russell: I feel that this conversation is leaning more toward the quality of the bid, and the presentation is going toward how well the bid satisfied the RFP, where the motion on the floor has to do with whether the RFP is appropriate as a whole -- the larger umbrella -- with regard to the Virginia Key Master Plan. I'm actually more interested in what Commissioner Gort wanted to hear about the Administration's position on the RFP versus the Master Plan and the actual -- I don't want to put words in your mouth, Commissioner Gort, but I just -- Chair Hardemon: Not -- I could understand what your interest is. The bottom line is that your motion on the floor would be to dispose of the item that the Manager will be presenting, which is his recommendation, and so there are a number of issues that come with that. That motion may pass; it may fail. But to vote on that motion, I think that it's essential that we know, one, the City of Miami Page 24 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 Administration's position about things; two, what we're voting on; and three, how is it that -- I'm sure that even the Manager and probably RFI [sic] will tell us whether or not they believe that removing the slips from the basin is not a material change to the agreement. And so, those things need to be answered. I know that those things have to be answered for me to have a well-informed vote, and that's why I want everything to be put on the table; if not, then there was no need to have a public discussion; there was no need to have any type ofpresentation. We could have come with a vote, and it would have been up or down. But still, I think that it's best that we have all of the information put before us before we make a decision. But we will get to the Administration. Vice Chair Russell: Please. Mr. May: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The other thing I want to point out for the Commission is the actual phasing plan of the development. You can see here, when you take the slips out of the basin, instead of four phases, there's actually three phases, and I'll walk you through them. The first phase will be to rebuild the slips, the inner-most wet slips in the western basin; to build the first dry dock storage facility, the retail associated with it, and the parking, as well as the surface parking to the west, and also to put together the restaurant building that we discussed earlier. The second phase would be to rebuild the remaining slips in the basin, in the western basin; getting the total to 162, which is exactly what is on the site today, 162; and then also to build the middle dry dock storage facility. The third phase would essentially be to --and also some of the requisite parking over here. The third phase would actually be to build a third building and the parking to the east. I just want to point out on the parking, the parking that we have proposed provides 305 spaces underneath the dry dock storage facility, and then provides another additional 192 in surface lots on the outer edges and also along some of this waterfront here, okay? And that is important because, again, we're taking care of the parking without having to build a massive structure on the -- this area right here, which we think would be detrimental and not follow the Virginia Key Master Plan. I want to just conclude my remarks by talking briefly about the slips in the basin, because there have been a lot of -- there has been a lot of controversy around it, and really, two concerns. One is that slips in the basin would not be consistent with the Virginia Key Master Plan; we agree with that. And also that the operation of the dry dock storage might interfere with the historical uses in the basin, such as the rowing activities, kayaking, paddle boarding, and the dragon boat. We understood clearly from the last Commission hearing and also from the Virginia Key Advisory Board's first meeting that the slips should be removed from the basin, and we have moved forward in that regard and are confident that we can build this project without slips in the basin, okay, without impacting revenues that we have proposed to the City. After your last Commission meeting, we took that into consideration. We also went to length to meet with the Miami Rowing Club, who was the one entity that would meet with us and actually discuss it. And we made three commitments to the Miami Rowing Club, and they, in turn, have come out and supported moving forward with the RFP. And we made three commitments. One is that we ensure that the staging area docks in our plan do not extend any more than 75 feet from the shoreline into the basin, and help ensure there's proper and orderly staging of boats entering our dry dock storage and leaving the facility so that they do not impede on the Rowing Club or any other activities in the basin. The second: We fully committed to work with the Rowing Club, Parks Department, and all Virginia Key stakeholders to establish a mark channel close to the shoreline to manage the flow of boats to and from our storage facility and the bay so as to minivize [sic], again, interference with any of those activities in the basin. And third: We agreed that we would work with the Rowing Club and all other stakeholders to assist in any way possible to establish a clearly marked mooring field in the middle portion of the basin, which is a real problem for those activities now, because people moor, you know, a lot in the courses of the Rowing Club. So I want to also just put those letters into the record. Now I will turn it over to Bernardo Fort -Brescia and Jeremy Gauger, who, as part of our presentation, would like to demonstrate to this Commission, point by point, how the proposed plan, without the slips in the basin, complies with the Virginia Key Master Plan, because that's very important. But I want -- before I do that, I want to conclude by saying two City of Miami Page 25 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 things. Number one, as part of the Virginia Key Master Plan, we're preserving essentially two things, right? One is the Marine Stadium -- right? -- which is historically significant, and the basin of the Marine Stadium, which is historically significant. What we're not here to do is actually preserve the existing dry dock storage or existing wet slips marine on-site, which is antiquated and really in dire need of upgrade. And let me remind you, as Commissioner Russell stated, the revenues from this project are there essentially for the Commission to use in the refurbishment or the continued operation of the Marine Stadium. That's a good thing for the City. That's a very good thing for the City. It's important to the public. So I would ask, when you look at this, you consider a couple of things. Throughout this process there's been a lot of spaghetti thrown up on the wall, that's for sure. And not a lot of it has stuck, but there's been a lot of it. And I would ask, as you deliberate today, to sift through that and not focus so much on where we've been, because all that spaghetti is fooled with, you know, some truth and some not so much truth, okay? But focus on where we are. Does the project in front of you comply with the Virginia Key Master Plan? We would say, Yes. "Is it a material deviation? No, because we're preserving the revenue to the City that we proposed. And the third thing is, is it worth throwing this out at the expense of moving forward and taking the next important step to preserve the Marine Stadium and actually better the conditions in the basin and better the development that's on-site in this current configuration? Thank you. I'll turn it over to my colleagues now to continue. Thank you. Bernardo Fort -Brescia: Good morning. I'm Bernardo Fort -Brescia. I'm a principal of Arquitectonica. I'm going to take you through the design so that it's better understood and judged for what it is. And Jeremy Gauger, from my office, will take you to the specific compliance with the Master Plan of the project that you will see in this presentation. This is a view of the skyline from the boardwalk that we're proposing and the restaurant and drop-off at the entrance to the project, but I'll take you first through some of the important facts that this project represents for you because of its consistency with the intent of the Charter amendment and of the Miami 21 Code. The first one is that our project is set back the required 50 feet from the waterfront. The buildings do not encroach into that sacred space that our City, over 30 years ago, proposed as an amendment to the Charter to protect the use and access to the waterfront. In doing so, it actually creates a connecting pathway all the way from the tip of the point and all the way back and through and past to the Marine Stadium that we're all seeking now to preserve. The second aspect is that Miami 21 requires a cross -block connection, and we provide that in two different points along the storage building. We're able to connect from the bicycle path and pedestrian paths along the Rickenbacker Causeway all the way through to the water so that there's porosityfor the building and access to that waterfront uninterrupted by any other vehicles or any other way. The third aspect is that we are using the FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) base flood elevation. We did the same thing in the Miami Heat Arena, which our office designed, because when you comply with FEMA levels, you're left with a space underneath the building that is either not utilized and is a crawl space or you can use for parking, as we did in the Arena. What does this allow? That we provided -- we proposed this alternative as an option to the creation of a vertical parking garage that would be visible from the Rickenbacker Causeway. Instead, the cars disappear underneath the facility, and bring the cars very close to where the users are going to receive their boats and reach their boats; and this is very important, because proximityfor boaters -- including myself, people who go fishing -- is to be as close as possible and not take elevators and stairs. You carry your stuff into the boat, and it is -- and this is a functional -- almost a functional given in the best marinas in the United States and overseas. In addition to that, the fact that we're raising all the retail to the flood level is thinking ahead of any potential reality that may occur with regard to sea level rise, and also, these are the boat market trends that the -- that dock the storage of the boats is done above any flooding levels so that there's no buoyancy that will push the boats up in case of a hurricane. This shows you how the facility is ideal for the boater. You see where the system is organized linearly and how it goes out through these series of tombs, and how one is able to reach out directly into that boardwalk. It also shows you the safety aspect, because the boats are delivered above the walkway. There's no cross path between equipment, forklifts, and boats and people City of Miami Page 26 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 that are trying to make it through, and this is what results in an uninterrupted walkway. We have a bay walk that has never existed in this neighborhood, that is -- that at the same time, people can look at the spectacle of the boat delivery as part of the scenery of this boat facility. This is the section that shows you how we have delivered this potential. You seethe commercial space on the level -- at the flood level in a porch height, looking over to the view of the boats in the marina; how the cars are concealed and disappear from sight, which is the ideal in --from planning purposes, how you can go from the --from your car directly to your boat, and how the boat storage occurs above it within the permitted height of 65 feet. You can see here the approach with a direct view of the water on arrival and easy visibility of --for the first-time visitor of where the restaurants are, an easy way to way -- find your way to the drop-off and to the parking garage entrance, and how the parking disappears from sight under the building. And this also shows you the vantage point that orients visitors into the property and engages the pedestrian. This is not just for the boater; it's also for the pedestrian that may want to take a stroll along the waterfront. We have a centralized harbor master that looks out in both directions towards the marina and into the delivery of boat area, and you can see here the continuity and the safety where there's no dripping boats, no forklifts to contend with. And this shows you the passage where people can make it through and under, directly to the boardwalk from the parking. So pedestrians that come to stroll or those coming to pickup their boat are able to reach directly in --to the waterfront. Sothis gives you an idea of the phasing. I think you've already seen it. It's very clear how we organize our phasing from phase one to phase two to phase three, and, logically, all the way to phase four, and how the parking is proportional to the amount of boats and facilities that we're building. They're built at the same time. It is a logical solution. And we all dream in the planning world to hide parking garages. The garages are unsightly; that no matter what you do to them, they are there; they're a big, massive structure, and we're going through the effort to create actually a way to make them disappear and be user friendly for those who have boats or choose to reach the waterfront. Jeremy Gauger: Hello. My name is Jeremy Gauger; also with Arquitectonica, and also a Coconut Grove resident; and not a boater, but a paddle boarder. And I'd like to actually show what everybody's been talking about, which is the Virginia Key Master Plan, as presented by Jorge Hernandez to this board, some of who [sic] were here. This is the presentation, this -- some of these slides that I'm referencing. It's not the Consensus Master Plan. I'll be very clear when we're showing one or the other. Sothis is what was presented during that meeting. This was what showed up in the video. I was at that meeting. I was involved in some of the process. I wasn't at the first one; I was at the LaSalle meeting. Sothis is what was consensus. This was what was drawn by the University of Miami students. This is what's in the Consensus Master Plan, which has been portrayed as being completely different plans. I'd like to show them side by side. Whoops. I'd like to show them overlaid, but they're the same drawing. They're the same drawing. So I would like to get a little more specific about how these are completely different plans that were presented. What I can tell you as an internal design process was that the guiding principles that we used in creating our plan were the ones that are presented during the presentation, because that's where it went into a lot of detail about the goals, the aspirations, all that public input that was -- that went into it. So this, just to be clear, is the area laid out by the RFP. This doesn't include Rusty Pelican. We're asked to maintain access throughout. It doesn't include the future Miami Marine Center and Island Orientation, which is where the potential museum would be. That's the area just to the right on the slide. It doesn't include the Miami Marine Stadium. We would not be interfering with anything. In fact, we'd be greatly contributing to the restoration of that Marine Stadium. And it doesn't include that -- Unidentified Speaker: (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Chair Hardemon: Sir, sir. Mr. Gauger: Excuse me. And it doesn't include that public green space, although -- be great if we could improve it. So this is our proposal overlaid on the Master Plan, again, keeping within City of Miami Page 27 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 that boundary; not interfering with any future development, any other aspect of the Master Plan. So I want to break it down a little more, zoomed in. This is the marina proposed in the Master Plan, and this is our marina as proposed. Those are the same scale. Those are overlaid to the same scale. And then this is side by side. So what I would like to submit is that these are substantially similar. We did a couple of changes. We reduced the number of wet slips from 300 to 162. We're not building a harbor master building out in the bay. We're not going beyond the property. And we're also replacing the deteriorating docks instead of preserving them, which was --you know, we're a few years on now, so they're that much worse off. And then I think where most of the controversy has been on the dry dock storage building. So just to be clear, this is what was presented; page 69 of what was presented to the Commission; not some allegedly changed plan, although they are the same plan. And this -- I would also like to make clear that this dry dock storage facility always contemplated three things, just as ours does; it includes three things. It had a retail component or a commercial component; it always did. It always talked about lining the garage and making a pedestrian experience that was great by not looking at cars, by not looking at storage facilities. So it always had a retail component, a commercial component on-site. Also, an acknowledgment: You know, keep in mind, our commercial label that includes offices, it includes facilities, back -of -house stuff to run the place, just as this did. So as you can see highlighted in pink there, that's all the commercial space contemplated in the MasterPlan. This is the commercial space we contemplate in our plan. And then the other thing that was included was parking. They had a six -level parking garage, accommodating 300 spaces. Again, this is from their slide presentation. It says so right there: `Parking structure for 300 cars and a state-of-the-art dry dock storage facility. " So, yes, we changed that. We got rid of a garage. We took the great views away from the cars and gave them to the people. We did that by going with the one -level garage. The other thing it contemplates is five levels of boat storage building or -- sorry --five levels of boats -- in -boat storage buildings divvied up into four buildings. We did that -- you know, we did more of a sandwich. We didn't keep everything separated so it'd read nice and planned, but we have three buildings with four levels of boats. So on each of these, I would suggest, we're substantially similar. You know, what we did here, we increased the depth of the retail to make it rentable around the liner of the garage. We reoriented everything. You can see in the original Master Plan, they had most of it sort of oriented towards the street, and they had a really thin path along the bay with no shade trees. I think we actually improved on the Master Plan by sort ofshifting that around, bringing it up to the bay and making it a shaded path, and keeping that activity on the water. And then, again, the parking -- we're just reshuffling things a little bit --and the boat storage. So I think, you know, once we adapted this to real-life boatlift technology; once we adapted this to, you know, the size of boats that we need to have -- because what was shown in the plan, which was a plan created by students at University of Miami -- this is a more realistic scenario. And what we were trying to do throughout this is really execute this goal of the Master Plan, which is maximizing that public access. Just to revisit this, everything we did when we worked with Pininfarina on this waterfront, when we worked with them to develop this really -- I think, something we're quite proud of, this waterfront promenade where we solve a lot ofproblems, what it does is create this incredible public benefit along the waterfront. I mean, you're talking about a facility that could start to be as great for people that aren't necessarily boaters, as the art museum is for people sitting on the steps overlooking the water. That's what we were trying to create, to some extent, and I think that's what we've been able to execute. And I'd just like to be clear that -- Chair Hardemon: One second. The V ce Chairman has a question. Vice Chair Russell: I have a question and just a backup from this last slide you went to. You referred to the Consensus Master Plan versus the other Master Plan. And since you were involved in thatprocess, could you explain a little more between -- the difference between those two and which one you feel that we should be considering with regard to this RFP? Because I feel there may be confusion created by referring to two master plans. Mr. Gauger: Yes. So let me go all the way back here. So keep in mind, I draw fora living, so all City of Miami Page 28 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 I know is the drawings; they're identical. The one on the right is the Consensus Master Plan that is from the website that Mr. Bush pulled up. They're both --these are both from that website. The one on the left is from what was presented to City Hall. There's no difference. I overlaid them. Vice Chair Russell: Other than the drawings, there is no difference between the Consensus Master Plan and the adopted Master Plan? I mean, and the -- Mr. Gauger: Now, this text on the right-hand side was added to make sure that that was clear. I mean, when it was presented by Mr. Hernandez, whose office I worked in, he didn't say, This is what's getting built. "It wasn't a construction document. So that note just makes that clear. What I can only speak to personally is the drawing, what I tested. I put one drawing over the other; there's no difference. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Mr. Gauger: So just to wrap up, I think -- you know, I was involved in that planning process throughout. I used to go to Jimbo's when it was there. I used to mountain bike out there when there were no trails, when it was just trash. And I was involved in the process at a number of steps, so to suggest that this plan doesn't consider the Master Plan is absurd. I think we've done it one better, if anything. And every meeting I've been to, every time we've heard complaints about it, I've never heard a specific complaint about how our scheme doesn't match the Master Plan. I've got a stack of business cards here; I will hand them out. I welcome the hate mail, -just be specific. If it really doesn't match the Master Plan, be specific. So I think that's all. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair, can I ask -- Chair Hardemon: You're recognized. Commissioner Suarez: -- one question? Can I ask a question? Mr. Gauger: Sure. Commissioner Suarez: My question is: You allude to the schematic that's in the Master Plan, and in whatever you want to call the document that is subsequent to that, as a document that has a six -story parking garage and a five -story dry dock or five -level dry dock -- Mr. Gauger: Yes. Commissioner Suarez: -- with five boats, and then you compare that to the proposal, which has four levels. Do you have heights on any of those levels? Because there -- I've had residents that have come and have -- that have concerns about the height -- the scale of the project in comparison with the Marine Stadium which abuts the project, so -- you know, it's -- you can have -- I mean, in Miami 21, you can have a 25 foot ground floor or you can have a 10 foot ground floor; and so, if you do the math -- depending on how you do the math and how you draw it out, it changes the height of the project, and I think that's important. Mr. Gauger: Yes. So let me address that. The Master Plan specifically says -- and even the RFP specifically said you can't exceed the height of the Marine Stadium, which we do not do. The drawings that were in the Master Plan as adopted don't show elevations on those dry stack buildings. I tried to scale it, and they look about the same. It looks like it's about 65 feet tall. You'd have to, to get any -- to get the little -- You know, the little drawing of the boats that they show to get to that height with any boats, you'd have to be about there, so -- and we're at 65 feet at the top of our building as well, at the very top. So the -- and I don't know what the assumption is on the garage. What I did was count the spaces that are shown here and, you know, multiplied City of Miami Page 29 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 or divided by 300. Commissioner Suarez: But also, just to be clear, the fact that you say that there's four levels of boat parking versus five or six doesn't necessarily mean that it's a shorter building, per se. Mr. Gauger: No, no, no, no. I didn't mean to imply that. No. Commissioner Suarez: Just wanted to clam. Mr. Gauger: Yeah, and it's not taller. Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chair. Chair Hardemon: Yes. Vice Chair Russell: Question. Could you say again the number that you reduced the wet slips to in your revised proposal? Mr. Gauger: 162. Vice Chair Russell: And in your original proposal? Mr. Gauger: 302, I think. Vice Chair Russell: 302. And the RFP requested 190, plus 300, correct? So 490 was the RFP. Your proposal was 302. Mr. Dotson: That's not an accurate statement with respect to what the RFP said. The RFP asked for approximately, not a minimum number of 300. Vice Chair Russell: In addition to the 190. Mr. Dotson: Right. In fact, I'm going to go through that in exhaustive detail so that you'll have an answer to that question. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Commissioner Suarez: I've never seen a scarecrow in City Hall before, by the way; just FYI (for your information). I don't know if that's a good or bad omen. Mr. Dotson: Mr. Chairman, again, for the record, Al Dotson, with Bilzin Sumberg, 1450 Brickell Avenue. You know, throughout this process, a lot of strawmen arguments have been placed in front of you, including at the last meeting. And my esteemed colleague talked about spaghetti; throwing spaghetti up against the wall and seeing whether it sticks. And I think this is not the second time a motion has been made to throw out all bids, but it's the first time you're receiving a full briefing on what is being proposed. The first time you got a motion to throw out all bids, there was a list of reasons given for why the RFP should be thrown out; many of them parroted by the people who came up to this podium. We're going to walk you through each and everyone of those reasons that were given, why they were factually inaccurate and legally insufficient, every single one of them. So let's take a look at the strawman arguments that have been placed up here. First, I'm going to go to -- Mr. Bush came in front of you earlier and got five minutes as the chairman of the Virginia Key Advisory Board. Now, you know, as Commissioners, when the Commission makes a decision, a single Commissioner can't come up to another body and say, Well, this is what we really ineant,'br This is what we really said. "You actually speak through resolutions that are passed. You know that the Virginia Key Advisory Board met twice. At the first meeting, we were there, because as a responsible proposer, we needed to make sure we were City of Miami Page 30 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 not only responsive to the Master Plan, but also to the Virginia Key Advisory Board, as we heard their concerns. They debated at that first meeting whether to throw out all bids. They decided not to do that. They then had this discussion about the various different master plans. And as my colleague has said, all you've heard is that there's all these master plans. No one has said to you specifically how they are different, and specifically how the RFP and our response to the RFP does not comply -- I want to pass out the first item, the comparison -- but now we're going to give you specifics about how we do comply. See, the staff was very clear in their RFP, and that keeps getting forgotten, both at the Virginia Key Advisory Board meeting, by all the people who stood up here and parroted what was said at the last meeting that the RFP says that every proposer, including the selected proposer, must comply with Miami 21, must comply with the Master Plan. And guess who gets to decide whether or not that happens. And we're talking about the community input. The community gets to decide, as well as their elected officials. If you don't trust yourselves to abide by Miami 21, if you don't trust yourselves to abide by the Virginia Key Master Plan, it doesn't matter how many times you go out to bid, doesn't matter how many changes to the Virginia Key Master Plan are made, because you get to decide. Before one shovel hits the ground, the community will have input. Before one shovel hits the ground, compliance with Miami 21 will be determined. Before one shovel hits the ground, compliance with the Virginia Key Master Plan will be determined by you. So to say that they have to go out and change the plan, change the RFP, guess who gets to decide at the end of the day. You do. And that's exactly what's going to happen in the process that your Manager and your staffput together. So let's walk through all of these arguments. And Commissioner Russell, because you made the motion, I may refer to you, with all due respect as I go through my presentation, because you listed out a series of reasons at the last meeting why you thought, prior to our presentation, all the bids should be thrown out. You then listed a number of reasons today -- and I'll pause -- why you thought all bids should be thrown out. Joyce Landry: Excuse me. This is not a presentation. Chair Hardemon: Ma'am, you don't have the opportunity to speak right now. You are out of order. If you don't have a seat, I'm going to have you removed. So, please, let's have a seat so we can maintain order. Ms. Landry: (INAUDIBLE). Chair Hardemon: Ma'am, ma'am, this is not your opportunity. Thank you so much, Ms. Landry. Mr. Dotson: Mr. Chair, I will pause, because I think the Vice Chair has a question. Vice Chair Russell: I just -- thank you very much, Mr. Dotson. Mr. Dotson: Yes, sir. Vice Chair Russell: And I've been very impressed with your presentations from the start to the finish, absolutely. But I just wanted to enter into the record a letter that I received from Mr. Dotson; I believe he sent it also to the other Commissioners. And if I could just read from it briefly, because it does speak to the Virginia Key Advisory Board's resolution that they did pass. And, you know, in the Master Plan itself, I believe it calls for the formation of the Virginia Key Advisory Board; that this board would be created to help with these sorts of decisions; it was not until after this RFP was issued. Once it was created -- and I really appreciate Commissioner Suarez', you know, really spearheading that effort to make sure that board got assembled and put together and the right people were on there, the people that really had the history of it and all, and they came to a decision. But in your letter, you basically said that if we, as a Commission, listened to our advisory board, it would be capricious, it would be arbitrary, and it would not be based on facts or logic. I have to say on behalf of that advisory board, I take a little bit of offense to that, because I really feel that they are the specialists in this situation who weren't in City of Miami Page 31 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 place when this RFP was issued, who should have been, and are now screaming to be a part of the creation of this RFP. So I know at this point, you're going to go through probably what's exactly in this letter, and I just wanted to make sure it was in the record. Mr. Dotson: Actually, I wasn't going to go through the letter at this point, but I will go -- I will respond to you very succinctly. At that second meeting, there were 81 minutes of discussion; 81 minutes. Prior to the meeting, there was a resolution prepared by the Chairman, prior to the meeting that even members of that board thought was overreaching. Matter of fact, one of the members of the board abstained from voting, and at that meeting said that he thought that the action by the board in recommending the rejection of all bids was overreaching. And of the 81 minutes -- Vice Chair Russell: He abstained for conflict, I believe. Mr. Dotson: -- I under -- he abstained for a conflict, but in abstaining, this is what he -- that's what he said. And of the 81 minutes, only 61 of them were spent talking about throwing out all bids; 20 of them were asking us questions. The prior meeting, the first meeting, during that meeting, the whole discussion about whether or not there's one or two or three master plans, the board asked for a presentation from staff to compare the master plans. Did they get that prior -- between the first and second meeting, prior to coming with a motion to reject all bids to see whether there actually is a difference? No, they did not. But I'm going to go through why -- and I'm glad you went there --this is arbitrary and capricious. You've asked your City Attorney, What is 'arbitrary and capricious? "'And then you went through a list of eight different reasons why you were going to recommend rejecting our bids; and two more today. And the motion was seconded, but the answer was never given whether or not those reasons were arbitrary and capricious. Now, we're going to deconstruct the strawman that was erected to reject all bids, because if we don't deconstruct it, you'll be making a decision based on faultyfacts and incomplete law. The first category -- Victoria Mendez (City Attorney): Chairman, if I may -- and I apologize, but just -- I want to be very clear for the record that one thing that this Commission can very well do, if they so choose to, is throw out all bids, and it would not be based on anything that you're regarding as arbitrary and capricious. They could do -- you know, it's in the RFP, it's in the Code. We went through that ad nauseum last time, so I just -- I want this Commission to know that they could do that, and it does not have to be based on anything, really. I just want you to know that. But, obviously, this Commission would not do something like that. They would have to say why they make any decision and base it on facts and such, but thank you. Mr. Dotson: We're going to pass out a memorandum, because the law doesn't say that. You just can't do -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE). You can't throw out all bids and do so arbitrarily and capriciously. It is incorrect that you can do whatever you want to, however you want to do it, based on whatever you want to base it on. But when you state the reasons for throwing out all bids and those reasons are arbitrary and capricious, the law -- not Al Dotson -- says that is an invalid and unsustainable action. So what is brbitrary and capricious? There were several reasons that were given at the last meeting as relates to process. The first sort of category I'm going to talk about is too many addenda. And again, Commissioner Russell, I'm mentioning your name only because you made the motion. Vice Chair Russell: Appreciate it. Mr. Dotson: But I respect you greatly, and I know when you vote in favor of moving forward, I'll respect you even more. With respect to the addenda, you mentioned 30 addenda, but what you did not say is that of the 30 addenda, the way that the Administration actually issued addenda was every time there were questions, they issued an addendum to answer them. When they sent out documents and attached them, they issued an addendum to attach the documents. For City of Miami Page 32 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 example, when they issued the addendum on the basin, they issued three addenda, attaching three different documents. When they issued addenda answering the questions, they issued five addenda answering the questions. There were only 18 of those 30 addenda that actually had any substance to them at all, and only a handful of them actually change anything. For example, five addenda changed the due date of the response and the number of pre proposal meetings. Two addenda communicated various documents that were sent. There was --one provided a copy of the environmental assessment, and even one addendum provided copies of the dates of the proposals that were received and how many were received. So to state that, We got to throw out all bids because there's too many addenda,'and using 30 as the number, without asking yourself, Now many addenda actually changed? '=- And guess what? After those 30 addenda were issued, three proposers responded. After those 30 addenda were issued, not a single proposer complained. After those 30 addenda, all of the proposals were reviewed. And guess when the complaints came? After somebody was selected. Not one complaint about the 30 addenda -- and I can count --City of North Miami Beach issued 26 addenda on a particular proposal. Itis not uncommon, the way this Administration issues addenda, because they issued it the way they did that you had as many that were issued. And there's no logical connection between the number of addenda if you're not analyzing the content of the addenda to say that it led to a confusing process, because three proposers responded, three proposers were evaluated. None of the proposers complained until somebody was selected. The second one was the bid protest process. Bid protest period was too short. Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chair. Chair Hardemon: Yes, sir. Vice Chair Russell: If I could just respond to that one. The reason I brought up the 30 addenda -- and we did -- I went through them, line by line, every one of them -- was to point out, without being arbitrary or capricious, that we did take consideration, and that the need for that many addenda showed that the initial RFP was so nebulous that it needed a lot of clarification. It really needed a lot of steering, and the three bidders helped steer that with the addenda. If it had been clear within the original RFP, perhaps more bidders would have come in, but that's -- that was why I brought that up. The definition of lirbitrary and capricious has to do with making a decision on unreasonable grounds or without any proper consideration of circumstances. My resolution, which I'm going to put in the record as part of my motion; as well as that of the Virginia Key Advisory Board, their resolution, listing so many Vvhereas,'fhere was consideration. This wasn't just pulled out of the air. So I just wanted to respond to the issue of why I brought up the addenda. Mr. Dotson: And I'm going to take you at your word, and assume that each one of the items Igo through, you had a very good reason for mentioning them. I'm merely responding to the very good reasons that you shared and the other side of the story. With respect to --you also said the bid protest period was too short; the three days, too short. But in those three days -- make sure that I got this right -- Suntex filed a 14 -page protest, with 86 -page exhibits in those three days; the exact same three days that exist throughout the entire State of Florida for filing bid protests. It exists throughout all of Miami -Dade County for filing bid protests. It was in the RFP if you wanted to file a bid protest that was the time period you had to respond to. So the fact that the Administration followed the law, the law that exits throughout the City of Miami, existed before the RFP, nobody complained, it's difficult for me to understand, even though I take you at your word that it was a good reason for it, that the fact that the law was followed is a reason to throw out all bids. The County Code, the State Statute, your Code have always had that period. It wasn't made up for this RFP; it's been the case forever. The third one -- Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chair. Mr. Dotson: -- are we going to go one at a time? City of Miami Page 33 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 Vice Chair Russell: It just -- yes -- Mr. Dotson: Okay, that's fine. Vice Chair Russell: -- because you're asking what I had meant when I had stated those, and I'm really actually enjoying this, because it's actually setting up -- it's really laying the ground that it -- if an appeal is filed or a lawsuit is filed that we actually have gone through this, and so that it'll actually -- you're helping show that we were not capricious, because we're actually vetting this out right now. We're airing it out on what was intended and meant, and what was stated on this dais, and that's very helpful. In this particular issue -- what were we speaking about? I'm sorry. Mr. Dotson: You said thatfollowing the County -- Vice Chair Russell: Yes. Mr. Dotson: -- City Code, the three days -- Vice Chair Russell: I absolutely agree. Mr. Dotson: -- was improper. Vice Chair Russell: I absolutely agree that that is the law, but -- and so after five days. On the seventh day, the protesters had found more information that they wanted to enter that seemed pretty substantial, but they are actually, obviously, limited to, and that included the contamination issue that the initial -- the bidder brought about. And so my thought was to bring in a change to the RFP process; that the RFP process needs to be altered, and that's one of the main reasons that I would like to give more time. Of course, the Administration pushed back on me on that, because, obviously, the more time, the more information. For me, I want more information so I can make a fair decision. There were many issues in that protest that we could not discuss within the four corners of that protest, because those items weren't got -- put in the protest in time. Mr. Dotson: Expecting you would go there, I'm going to give you a case when I'm done where a Commissioner sat, made a decision to throw out all bids because they wanted to add a board, they wanted to change the law, they didn't like the way the law existed. And the court said, That is arbitrary and capricious to throw out all bids. "I'm going to come to that. And the other thing I want to say to you is June 2000 -- You said one of the proposers came back with some information they'd just found out. In June of 2000, the Board of County Commissioners -- item 15-E-3 -- discussed that spill. And the very person, the very counsel who said they just found out about it was a County Commissioner at that time. I've got the minutes of that meeting, and I'm going to go through that in a minute, too. But to say that you're going -- you needed more time to find out something that -- I'm going to talk about whether it was consequential or not in a moment -- in June 2000, sitting at the County Commission dais when that item was discussed by Commissioner Bruno Barreiro was the counsel for Suntex, but I'm going to come back to that in a moment. With respect to selection committee reports, the next thing you said --and matter of fact, I'm going to look this way so you don't feel compelled to respond. The other thing that other guy said was that the selection committee was obligated -- You don't know what the selection committee thought, because they didn't write something down on the sheets of paper. What you did not say is that they were oral presentations where questions and answers were given back and forth between all the proposers. What you did not say: That the law does not require that the selection committee writedown anything. Your RFP didn't require it. In fact, I've got a case that says even when the RFP requires that the selection committee write down what it is they're supposed to say and they do not, that's not basis for throwing out all bids, City of Miami Page 34 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 because doing so on that reason is arbitrary and capricious. But I was looking over here. The next one -- Commissioner Suarez: I can ask the same questions as him if you want. Mr. Dotson: -- Mr. Rotenberg had a conflict; that was your next statement. But you recognized that no conflict existed. In fact, you received facts that Mr. Rotenberg did not work with Mr. Tate during a two-year hiatus, and never, ever, ever, ever, ever worked with RCI. And there's no Ethics Commission investigation into Mr. Rotenberg that you've been presented to say that he had a conflict of interest. That's mis-speculation; it's more of the spaghetti that was thrown up against the wall. And then the whole discussion about rhe rush, the rush. "The rush, both -- We've talked about the fact this process started over a year ago, and then the three days for the bid protest and the five days to submit something else, Commissioner Russell, what wasn't mentioned was the 45 days that Suntex and Tifon had a copy of our response; 45 days to find out what we said, what we represented and what we did not; 45 days. And they said that was not enough time to discover something that took place in June 2000 that was all over the paper, where counsel was actually at the County Commission meeting when it was discussed. So while we may have a disagreement, this process issue that is here to deconstruct the strawman, basically, because the Cityfollowed the law, you want to reject our bids. And I've given you specific cases and specific reasons why what I'm saying to you is not just my oral argument, but cases that support it. Now, the second category of reasons that you've heard today that were parroted from the motion that was made is that we have to protect Virginia Key. You've already heard this whole discussion about the Master Plan. No one has come up to you yet in the two public meetings of the Virginia Key Advisory Board -- I was there. We've got the transcripts here. If anyone can point to anything specific in the Virginia Key Master Plan that was put before the Virginia Key Advisory Board or this Commission up to now that shows where we did not comply with the Virginia Key Master Plan; which, by the way -- and I want to pass out the resolution that approved the Virginia Key Master Plan -- the one paragraph that was added that shows the difference, because the pictures are the same, is that the Virginia Key Master Plan was a guideline. It was not -- it did not say -- and this is in both the original one and the one that has the extra paragraph -- it was a guideline. There are no development parameters that typically go in a master plan. It was a guideline, and we chose to be guided by it. And your Manager said in his RFP, You shall use the Master Plan as a guideline. "So to say that the Master Plan wasn't respected as a guideline, we showed you how we were guided by it. And look at that resolution that was adopted by this Commission in approving the Master Plan. You didn'tsay, Thou shalt build exactly what is in the Master Plan," that's not what your resolution says. Your resolution says, Thou shalt use the Master Plan as a guiding tool, 'bnd that's exactly what your staff required, and that's exactly what we did. The Virginia Key Advisory Board meeting, the two of them -- you have one resolution; I've got both. The first resolution says, Take the slips out of the basin. "The second meeting came with a predetermined resolution by the Chair that they ended up having to revise, because they thought some of it was incendiary. They then went forward, and on a vote of 7 for T figainst T absent, 1 abstaining, they then come before you with a rejection of all bids. But what happened in between? The very analysis that they requested between the Master Plan that they claimed was adopted versus the Master Plan they claim that we used had never been presented to them. Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Dotson, are you implying that the resolution we have from -- the second resolution was actually predetermined and prewritten? Because I remember listening that they altered it, not for the incendiary, but also for whether or not just to put the removal of the boats in the basin versus throwing everything out. And they actually had quite a long discussion about whether to go that route, to be as specific -- or it seemed to be they were very clear on their will as a board that they wanted the whole thing to start over. And so it seems it wasn't so arbitrary and capricious or that it was predetermined and that they didn't into that account [sic]. They had the discussion. You may disagree with what they came up with; you may disagree with what I'm saying, but for sure, we're not being arbitrary and capricious by just pulling things out of the City of Miami Page 35 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 air. We are considering and then we are bringing forth our opinion. Mr. Dotson: Okay. I believe that you are not --you don't believe that you're being arbitrary and capricious. I believe that. I believe that you believe that the Virginia Key Advisory Board thinks they were not being arbitrary and capricious. But where I disagree with you is the very instrument that the Virginia Key Advisory Board requested at the first meeting to determine whether, in fact, there was a difference, they never got, they never reviewed. But the resolution was prepared prior to the meeting. In fact, we got a copy of it prior to the meeting, not dissimilar from other resolutions. But it was very clear that prior to the meeting, the chairman had prepared a resolution to reject all bids. And, yes, the incendiary language was taken out; that is correct. And what you just suggested was also added in to address that, as well; that is correct. Now -- and I believe that the resolution that was prepared before the meeting, the one that resulted in the incendiary language taken out, the one that was not unanimous was actually passed out in advance of the meeting. Ms. Mendez: I just want to clam for the record, because I really do not like the insinuations of counsel. Just so that you know, before any meeting, there is a preliminary resolution that is crafted so that the board is able to make a decision, and then they remove things that they don't like, they add things they don't like [sic]. But obviously, some paperwork needs to be given to the board so that the community can know what's happening, or the board can actually know what's happening, and they are well within their right. And it always happens that things are changed and amended on the floor, and that's when you get amended resolutions. So Ido not like how counsel is trying to, you know, muddy our process. Our process is very transparent. Everything is given to the boards beforehand; that is why you received a copy of whatever resolution you received. So I just do not like the tone. Mr. Dotson: I appreciate and I like -- I do like your interruption, and I agree with you -- in fact, I noted it -- that normally, that's exactly what happens. At 11 a.m. before the meeting is when that resolution was -- Vice Chair Russell: Correct. Mr. Dotson: -- distributed. Vice Chair Russell: But they did discuss it; they changed it. Mr. Dotson: Thank you very much. Vice Chair Russell: So it wasn't cooked beforehand. Mr. Dotson: Thank you. Vice Chair Russell: What I would like to flip the script on you a little bit is that this Virginia Key Advisory Board has given us their opinion, and for us to not listen to them would be arbitrary and capricious. That we are really taking into account what they have brought forward to us, and you're telling us we should ignore them, that would be arbitrary and capricious. Mr. Dotson: Actually, I'm not. I'm saying, Listen to what they did and what they didn't do ''- matter of fact, I've been very clear what they did and what they didn't do -- 6nd then you take all of that into consideration. "Absolutely, you should listen. You should listen very carefully to the fact that they asked for a tool, did not get it, and then went the other direction. You should listen very carefully to the fact that I told you that they did have 61 minutes of discussion on throwing out all bids, but 20 minutes of back and forth with us, without any presentation that you've just received today on why this proposal meets the Virginia Key Master Plan. But I want to end on this part: To remind you, City Commissioners, that what complies with the Virginia Key Master City of Miami Page 36 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 Plan and Miami 21 and historic preservation, you get to decide. No matter how many times the Master Plan is changed, no matter how many times the RFP goes up and out, no matter how many times you throw it out, the ultimate arbiter of what complies with the Virginia Key Master Plan, before any shovel hits the ground will be you, through a public process of the development approval. So to suggest that approving this today removes public comment, moots the residents; by throwing out all bids, somehow, someone else is going to make a decision; by having the Virginia Key Master Plan come up with a new plan, it's somehow going to change who ultimately gets to decide, that's not true. You get to decide. You get to decide. Now, the boats in the basin, that has been bantied [sic] about a lot. We have shown you the required development in your RFP. Nowhere in the RFP does it require boats in the basin; nowhere. It's permissive, it's allowed. You would say, Well, it shouldn't have been allowed, because it's inconsistent with the Master Plan. "Well, the one thing your staff did -- and I'm assuming the CityAttorney also reviewed the RFP before it went out; I do not know -- but the one thing your staff did was to make sure that you put all of your policies on the table. There maybe inconsistencies between Miami 21 and the Virginia Key Master Plan. There may be inconsistencies between the historic preservation and Miami 21. You wanted a educated and professional proposer to review all of that and determine what was the best response. It was not that you picked one document and said, Thou shalt comply with this, and this only, even when it's inconsistent with Miami 21 or even if it's inconsistent with the historic preservation. "You wanted us to review all of it. And any responsible proposer who reviewed it knew that you could not build within the 50 foot setback that your Charter provides; knew that it was only a 65 foot height. If they really paid attention, the way we did, you wouldn't have gotten the proposals that they submitted. And you've also made the point that, Well, you know, if the basin hadn't been added, we probably would have gotten so many other proposers,'but that ignores the fact that the basin was not in the RFP at the very beginning. Vice Chair Russell: But 490 boat wet slips is in the RFP. Mr. Dotson: I got that, but the basin was not in the RFP as it -- when it was first issued. And the same people who were at the very beginning ended up being the same people who responded. So all this group that's out there in theory that was scared by the basin, but never showed up, I don't know who they are, but I do know that before the basin was added, the same group was there before that -- was there after. I'll come to that point that you mentioned, but the issue that you put on the table was boats in the basin, if -- since it was in the RFP, somehow it then led to a thwarting of competition, because you never know what might have happened. Well, we do know. Actually, we have facts. We know exactly what happened before the basin was added to the RFP. We know exactly the industry who was responding. Now, more community input. After your very first Commission meeting, after the first Virginia Key Advisory Board meeting, as a responsible proposer should do, we reached out and had a meeting right outside this building with the people who stood up and opposed our plan, and said, Clive us an opportunity to share with you what it is we're proposing. "In writing, the response was, Well, I think we've made up our mind. No, we don't want to be prejudiced by your proposal. "We then met with the Miami Rowing Club. You have -- and we heard what their concerns were, and as a responsible proposer, we plan to address those concerns. Now, the Protect Virginia Key'f`alls into those categories, and I would say to you, continuing to deconstruct the strawmen, all the protections that V rginia Key has asked for, the City still gets to approve the development, no matter how many RFPs you send out, no matter how many revisions you have, no matter how many times the Virginia Key Master Plan is changed. You get to interpret it, you get to decide it, so to throw out all bids in a process that gives the City Commission the right to make all the decisions that you've said need to be made, listen to all the input you claim that -- and you say that needs to be had, to make sure that all the community gets to participate, and you still get to have the decision, nothing will change. Unless you're saying, We're not going to make a decision, we're going to give it to somebody else to make, 'the City still gets to approve the development. Now, the last two issues; the two issues, Commissioner Russell -- and I am going to be talking to you, but to everybody else -- that you said you really wanted to hear about, and the first one is the City of Miami Page 37 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 material change. Now, there's been a lot of talk about the material change, and I believe, notwithstanding what you heard at the podium, the City Attorney did not say -- and she will correct me if I am wrong, I am sure -- that throwing out all bids automatically leads -- it's not arbitrary and capricious, based on a material change. In fact, she said it can go either way. She had cases and presentations from lawyers that could go either way. And if I -- again, if I'm incorrect, I'm sure she will interrupt me --but the gither way, 'let's look at the cases. You received a letter from Holland & Knight, from my esteemed colleague, Mr. DeGrandy, with whom I -- in whom I have the most -- utmost respect. You know what comes after that; right, Miguel? In whom I have the most -- utmost respect, even when he's wrong. In order to remove the slips from the basin, every single case -- and I challenge anybody -- City Attorney, the other side -- to present you any case that found a material change where the City ended up with a better deal. Every single one of them; every single one of them, the proposer had a better deal, every single one of them. We're getting less development. You're getting the same amount of payment. We're getting less revenue opportunity. You're getting the same amount of guarantee. Not a single case results where it's contemplated in the RFP and the City gets a better deal, and there's a change, and the court says, Well, you can't do that. "In fact, we gave you a case where the court said it should be applauded, it should be applauded when you get a better deal, not condemned. That's what the law says. That's what the law says. So to go through and to say that, A change that removes a $10 million investment for a $300 million return, somehow, we're better off 'how do you reach that conclusion? We're better off because a $10 million investment --we're losing a $300 million return. And I don't have to talk to the lawyers to come to that conclusion. I think anyone who can count will tell you, you make that $10 million investment any day and take the $300 million in return. We're giving that up. That's the change that is being asked of us, and guaranteeing you the same revenue. So not sure how you come to the conclusion it's a material change, so that leg, that last -- this right leg of the strawman, you got to get rid of it, because the City gets a better deal. The City gets a better deal. Can't be a material change when the City gets a better deal. So find one case in the United States ofAmerica, find one case where the City got a better deal and it was contemplated in the RFP and a court said, Oh, that's a material change. "Not one case. And I --I've had other people do the research, so I'm relying on them, but I bet not -- no one's going to come up here and say they got a case where it was contemplated in the RFP and the City got a better deal and the court said, That's a material change. "Now, the last issue, the last leg, this is the issue that was thrown up at the last minute regarding the spill, and I want to talk to you about that in detail, because I -- and Commissioner Russell, you were kind enough at the last meeting to make a statement, and we greatly appreciated it. You were kind enough to say, f know there's another side to this story," matter of fact, those are almost your words verbatim. You know that somebody -- and we know who the gomebody'fs -- has been putting out there all this horrible information about RCI. I can't tell you how difficult it was to sit here while the disparaging -- great citizens of this community who this City has done business with for 11 years. They turned around a City asset that was in horrible condition 11 years ago. You've been doing business with them, and you have a better Monty's as a result of their involvement. And, oh, by the way -- and I'm going to get into this in a moment -- the City of Miami Beach loves, loves RCI. And I'm going to share with you -- you've heard oral argument, you've heard spaghetti; but DERM (Department of Environmental Resource Management), Miami -Dade County DERM, third party independent verification. I have certified copies of their records. I'm going to put it on the table, because now you're going to hear the other side of the story; notwithstanding what's been in the paper, what's been on social media, the websites that have been put up, the communications you received about this horrible developer, this marine operator and developer. Let's talk about what really did happen in June 2000. What really happened? A permit was secured by a subcontractor to do work off of Miami Beach. A permit was issued to do work off of Miami Beach, and the very moment that that subcontractor punctured a line, didn't run and hide; we didn't say, We're going to sue the City, because they didn't tell us where the pipe was. "We self-reported. We went to DERM and said that, There's a pipe that had not been identified that has been punctured, and we need somebody out here right away. "That's the kind of developer and marine operator that you want, not one that runs and hides and -- maybe the tide will take it out. Maybe someone will come and discover it. We City of Miami Page 38 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 self-reported. My partner, Carter McDowell, who's behind this scarecrow, he was sitting out there on the docks for two and three days at the very beginning to make sure that DERM and all of the other regulatory agencies were in place. We self-reported. Once we self-reported, we -- asking ourselves, Well, where did this pipe come from? Why couldn't anyone have found it? "You know why? Because the pipe was put in place by an easement that had never been recorded; never been recorded. Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Dotson, and I appreciate that when this came up, you all came to my Office and discussed the issue with me about how it happened. And please correct me if I remember incorrectly. In our discussions in my office, you mentioned that the subcontractor had the sounding equipment that they could have found this pipe, but because it was so far in the channel, they thought, We'll never hit anything out there,'bnd they didn't use it; am I incorrect there? Mr. Dotson: Yes, you are incorrect. I wasn't at that meeting, first. Secondly, my partner -- Vice Chair Russell: Then how do you know I'm incorrect? Mr. Dotson: -- because the person who was at the meeting -just told me so; Carter McDowell. Carter McDowell: They didn't have sounding equipment. What they -- what we said was they didn't call the utility locate service, which they should have; there was no question, they should have, but they didn't. Having said that, since there was no recorded easement, the utility locating service would have had no basis to locate thatpipe anyway, because there was no physical evidence or legal evidence of its location. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you for claming it I just wanted to make sure I remembered it correctly. I did remember incorrectly. What he said sounds very familiar and -- but I wanted it on the record that the subcontractor should have called that utility locating service and they did not. Mr. Dotson: And had they called, we may have ended up in the same place. Vice Chair Russell: Maybe. Mr. Dotson: Maybe. Okay? Next, we've talked about all this sewage that's been out in the water. And first, you heard, Dh, my gosh, it damaged City property. "Then when we came with the deed that showed that Dodge Island was not Cityproperty, it's, Dh, it's big 'C,' little 'c'," Big C 'little E. "If you read the papers that were published before that Big 'C,' little 'c"brgument came up, in public, they were talking about Damage at Dodge Island. "And guess what? In your City Charter, in the RFP, the only place you see a little Pis when it's city -owned. Now, for sure; for sure, you weren't asking, Did you at any time do anything in Moscow? Any city in the world? " That's not what you meant. Its incredible to believe that someone interpreted gig 'C,' little 'c "hs meaning the City of Moscow or the City of Las Vegas or the City of -- some city in Jamaica. It meant the City of Miami. "ButI want you to know that we're not going to rely on a technicality. We just know that in response to an RFP, we have an obligation, and that is to be responsive to the RFP and answer the questions asked, because you could be determined nonresponsive if you provide information that's not been requested; you can be determined nonresponsive. We had a big debate about whether we should -- where, how and -- this should be disclosed. But it's a couple things you said; couple of things you said in the RFP. City -owned -- and I'm going to get to all of the issues, not just this one, but I want to make sure that the public who heard this gig 'C,' little 'c "conversation, we can dismiss with that right away, because the City of Miami nor the City of Miami Beach nor the city of anything that we call caused damage, because Miami Beach and Miami -Dade County, in response to our self -reporting, redirected; redirected what was in that pipe to go offshore. It's the redirection that resulted in what you continually have heard City of Miami Page 39 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 about, not that we spilled anything into the ocean; not that, as a result of that pipe, we spilled anything in the ocean, but the redirection. Now, I get it; but for the puncture, no redirection would have been required. Let's talk about the water quality test that DERM actually took. Can you present the certified copies of the DERM report? Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Dotson, the big 'c,' little 'c "argument, I agree with you; to get into those sort of technicalities and find the loop hole through which you needed to disclose is not what was intended. But the spirit of that part, that paragraph in the RFP, was to find out if any of the applicants had been party to a local contamination. And the very reason that it was actually worded so poorly, in my mind, allowed you to not disclose that you had -- your client had a contamination in the bay; and that, more specifically, they punctured the actual pipe that runs to Virginia Key. So, no, that's not a City pipe. Let's say that's a Countypipe; or, no, that's -- I mean, there's so many technicalities, which, by your same argument, you could get out of having to disclose. But I believe the spirit of that and -- goes back to why I think the RFP wasn't written as well as it should have, because I, as a Commissioner, and the community certainly want to know if any of the participants in the bid process had been party to any contamination in the area, whatsoever. The fact that you chose not to disclose that because you found the wording to be able to not disclose it, to me, shows a lack of transparency in the process. Maybe the case would have been thrown out in terms of, Yes, they can continue to bid, because we found many reasons that the contamination isn't as drastic as it seem '=- lhay seem,'but I would have wanted it disclosed so that we could deal with it. The fact that we went through the whole bid process and the protest and still never discussed the contamination issue, to me, was a flaw in the RFP -- not your fault -- a flaw in the RFP. Mr. Dotson: The good news about what you just said: The process isn't over. Today's part of the process. The evaluation committee did not --does not review and rate --and rank that issue. You should be asking us, as you've finally -- we finally got a chance to share with you -- what really happened, in a public forum, so that we could publicly tell you. So you're right; the process should include it, the process isn't over, and we're discussing it. But to have two motions to throw out all bids, listing that as a reason while the process is still going forward, and we haven't had a chance to discuss it, arbitrary and capricious. My words. I'm almost done. Chair Hardemon: Please, Mr. Dotson. Mr. Dotson: The -- so on the past experience, I will tell you the last leg of the strawman has been erected. You have the most responsible marine operator and developer who will -- You want someone that's not going to sue you, but rather help you; going to have self -reporting, not wait until something is found. So the last part of the strawman is the head, and it's really where -- if you're doing this based on facts and law, there's really only one conclusion to reach, because there was no issue with the process and the RFP and Virginia Key Master Plan until somebody got selected. Until somebody got selected. For a year, this RFP's been out there, but not until somebody got selected did all these problems come up. So if you are making a decision based on the facts and the law, the smart thing to do is to move this forward. And we believe -- and we put on the record a response to everything. Did we do the Russell memo? We put in a --excuse me -- the memo that would be sent out to all Commissioners that happens to mention Commissioner Russell. Vice Chair Russell: I never had a memo named after me. That's great. Mr. Dotson: There's a first time for everything. But we have put out a response to every issue that was mentioned, everything that was said, and this is the process. To throw out the process while you're right in the middle of it when you can ask the questions and get the answers; to come and have a discussion about throwing out all bids of the Virginia Key Master Plan before a hearing with Virginia Key Advisory Board, before hearing all of this; to come right out of the box with a motion to reject all bids when this is the process where the questions can be asked and City of Miami Page 40 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 answered suggests to me -- and only to me -- that lirbitrary and capricious7s clearly potentially what is being done. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. I want to direct our attention to CityAdministration. City, you have an opportunity to present and answer any questions that the Board has. Yes. Miguel DeGrandy: Mr. Chairman, in all fairness, you've allowed over an hour and a half presentation by counsel. Can we respond to the issue of material variance? Chair Hardemon: So you're not -- he doesn't represent the City? Unidentified Speaker: No. Chair Hardemon: No. No, that's not -- it's not at this time. Thank you very much. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair. Chair Hardemon: City --yes. Commissioner Suarez: Question: Well, I'd like to get some clarity on how we're going to move forward here, because, obviously, there's a motion and a second, and that's part of it. I think, in fairness, the winning proposer has had a -- an extended opportunity to make their presentation. I think you should allow the other parties to address some specific things that go to legal issues that are related to claims that have been made and that have not been rebutted. I think that's the right thing to do. I don't think you have to take an hour and a half more, certainly; I really hope you don't, actually. Unidentified Speaker: No more than 15 minutes. Vice Chair Russell: Which party? Chair Hardemon: There are no other -- Mr. Dotson: Right. Chair Hardemon: -- let me -- I just want to say this, Commissioner Suarez: First, there are no other parties at this moment. The parties that are here are the winning proposer and the City, and we come with our decision. Second, we've heard many arguments from opposing counsel during the bid process. And what I foresee is us now introducing more information into the record that was -- seemed to be a part of the bid process -- the bid protest process that opposing counsel did everything that he could do to introduce into the record, even at this Commission's -- well, against this Commission's will when we stated there are certain things that should not be included within the bid protest, and so I did not anticipate having to hear any argument from opposing counsel. I anticipated to hear the unreadiness that I had and that Commissioner Gort expressed that he had, and that Commissioner Russell also wanted to hear from the City Manager and the City staff. I think it's the right thing to do; to hear what that unreadiness is before we move on to our vote. To move now into a legal argument from opposing counsel, who is not a party to what we're discussing today, who had an opportunity to speak during public hearing, who did not speak would be -- that would be, to me, unfair; however, it's not -- you know, as Chair, I can only try to direct this Commission. If a majority of you all want to hear this discussion from opposing counsel, then that's your decision. Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chair. Chair Hardemon: Yes. City of Miami Page 41 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 Vice Chair Russell: I -- to Commissioner Suarez' point, if -- I would say that if there are specific questions that we're -- that you have regarding what was raised by Mr. Dotson and the others that you would like to address to the other side to clam on a specific point, I would definitely agree with you. If, however, we're just opening the floor to the other side completely making the case again, at this point, we're going to start beating a dead horse with a dead horse. Commissioner Suarez: Right. And -- Vice Chair Russell: And I think all we need at this point is for us to find as much information as we need to get a consensus on a decision and a vote, and that's three of us -- Commissioner Suarez: Sure. Vice Chair Russell: -- at the minimum. Commissioner Suarez: Sure. So, I mean, I've been -- I've read all the documents that have been presented legally by both parties that have talked about material variation and whether or not excluding the 300 wet slips would constitute a material variation or not. I've read them. I don't know if anybody else wants to hear that perspective. That's not part of the bid protest. That was not in the bid protest. That is separate and apart from the bid protest. I think the City Attorney has opined that -- or has essentially said that it could sort of go either way, if I'm not mistaken on that issue. Vice Chair Russell: Which issue? Commissioner Suarez: Material variation. Ms. Mendez: With regards to the material variation is basically if this City Commission determines that the removal of the 300 slips is -- Commissioner Suarez: Right. Ms. Mendez: -- material or not after, you know, listening to the facts. It's something for you to consider, but it could go either way. Commissioner Suarez: Right. And so -- that's what I just said. So I think, you know, we've heard from counsel on his perspective on whether or not the 300 slips constitutes -- or removal of the 300 slips constitutes a material variation, and I'm just wondering if the Commission is interested in hearing the other side of that argument or not. I've read it so -- Chair Hardemon: What's interesting, Commissioner, is that I believe the opposing counsel was the first -- if my memory serves me correctly -- was the first person -- well, one of the first groups to say that removal of those basins [sic] would be a material change. Then at length, we had a discussion about whether or not our CityAttorney would give us an opinion about whether or not it was a material change. Her -- and so what it's come down to is it's a matter of opinion. It's a legal argument that counselors are going to have. Obviously, one opposing counsel who did not successfully win the bid is going to say one thing, and the other opposing counsel is going to say another, and so I think that's the best that we can do with those opinions. But to -- I'm not going to belabor the point. What I'd rather do is just to take a small straw vote on whether or not we want to hear from opposing counsel. If a majority of us want to hear from them, then we will hear from them; if not, then I think we should move on. Mr. Dotson: Mr. Chair, we will do whatever you want us to do, but I just want to -- you may have misspoken, and it's gotten repeated several times that we're removing 300 slips. That's not City of Miami Page 42 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 true; it's 151. Commissioner Suarez: Let -- can I say it another way? Maybe you'll agree to this way: Taking the slips out of the basin; how about that? Not putting a number on them, but taking the slips out of the designated area or the expanded leasehold that was an 800 feet --foot -- approximately 800 foot expanded leasehold out of the basin. Mr. Dotson: With that, I agree. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. Mr. DeGrandy: And Mr. Chairman -- Chair Hardemon: Well, I'll go to the -- Commissioner Suarez: My apologies for the misstatement. Mr. DeGrandy: -- I will not be taking more than 10 minutes of your time, and it's only on the issue ofmaterial variance. Chair Hardemon: I understand that, but already, this has already taken another eight minutes of our time to just discuss this -- Commissioner Gort: Yeah. Mr. DeGrandy: It's not long. Chair Hardemon: -- so it's going to continue to prolong it. Commissioner Gort: Go ahead. Chair Hardemon: So my vote -- I mean, what I'm asking of this Commission is to take a small vote that basically decides whether or not we want to hear from opposing counsel, okay? Vice Chair Russell: Can we narrow that to what we want to hear from them so we can actually -- if it's specifically about limiting slips in the basin and that material change? And I do want to clarify, slips in the basin, it's not just about that, because the RFP doesn't say, Put boats in the basin,'bnd now that we're taking it out, that's the material change. It's about the quantity of wet slips which forced everyone to put boats where they could, because they couldn't exist outside, and changing that changes the math, changes the material. If-- I would be open to hearing from opposing counsel, but specifically to the issue that you're -- you have a question about, and that's where I would be, if that's what the vote is, but if it's -- if the vote is simply to open it up -- because I really do think it'll get into almost a bid protest again. Commissioner Suarez: No, I definitely don't want to go into that. I definitely do not. Chair Hardemon: I will tell you this -- City Attorney. Ms. Mendez: It should be limited in scope because you just don't -- if not -- Chair Hardemon: But I'll show you my experience with having a limited in scope discussion with (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Vice Chair Russell: Flip it. City of Miami Page 43 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 Commissioner Gort: Doesn't make sense. Chair Hardemon: We had a limited scope discussion in the bid protest. It went well far and beyond that. As a matter of fact, as I routinely remember, one of the counselors had to have a seat, because he routinely went beyond the scope. And so, you know, my experience here hasn't been something that I have the confidence in where we're going to have a limited discussion. So if you want to amend this vote to be whether or not we're going to have a limited discussion, I advise that you say exactly what that limited discussion is and -- Commissioner Gort: Yeah. Chair Hardemon: -- you know, it becomes rather difficult in my duties to have such revered and important gentlemen before me to control them in what they choose to say or not, and that part, to me, is part of where it becomes, you know, difficult as Chairman. Mr. DeGrandy: Again, I'll limit -- Vice Chair Russell: I have a suggestion. Mr. DeGrandy: -- my comments to material variance, and I will not take more than 10 minutes of your time. We've taken 10 minutes discussing whether I should. Chair Hardemon: I know, but these are things that happen. Vice Chair Russell: I have a suggestion. Chair Hardemon: I'm listening. Vice Chair Russell: I have a suggestion that we put our City Attorney on the spot a little bit. I know that you've stated that you actually didn't want to opine on whether or not it was a material change, because it could be argued either way. Could you clam for us -- playing a little bit of the devil's advocate --how it could be argued either way? We've heard the part of how it would be a material change. What could be the argument that it would not be a material change? Ms. Mendez: Okay. So the main issue is whether this type of material variance could be --cause a substantial advantage to other bidders or not. In this case, there was -- there's the opportunity now to provide for a smaller project. If there is an opportunity to provide for a smaller project, it could be argued that, you know, other people did not have the opportunity to bid on this type of smaller project, so that's one way that it could be argued in saying that it's a material change. The other thing is that now, because it is a smaller project, it is less revenue to the City, because you can't get the -- you know, the extras, the plusses that come with, you know, more slips or more -- or different types of slips and what have you. That could be argued that that is a material change with regard to more revenue that the City had received versus the standard revenue that they're going to receive now. On the flip side, you can say that you've heard the other arguments for why it's not a material change, because the City's technically getting a better deal, because there was always the minimum floor, I guess, that the City could have received. So those are -- you know, you've heard -- I think Mr. Dotson gave the litany of reasons why it would not be considered a material change. So, you know, it -- at the end, you know, it's whether this Commission determines that, in whatever decision you make, whether it's a material change or not. It's very fact -specific, and that's why, based on the things that have been discussed, you've heard, you know, changes in the Master Plan versus no changes in the Master Plan; compliance with the Master Plan versus no compliance with the Master Plan. So these are all, unfortunately, nothing that I can give you a true answer on. I know that sometimes, that is frustrating, because the law is gray in many areas with regard to these things, but this is very fact -specific on either way that you were to take it. City of Miami Page 44 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 Chair Hardemon: So if we can, then, can we move on to the City Manager and his presentation, if that satisfies you? Vice Chair Russell: Commissioner Suarez? Chair Hardemon: Commissioner Suarez. Commissioner Suarez: No, I mean, I just -- you know, look, we heard a very cogent hour -and -a -half -long presentation from the winning proposer. I think, ifI recall, the last meeting, one of the things that we did -- we started to get into and then didn't get into totally was the material change argument. It's been briefed. I've read all three parties' briefs, all three parties' letters, and I'm comfortable in my knowledge of it, of that issue. I don't want to belabor this or beat a dead horse or whatever the case may be, but, you know, I thought maybe it would be fair to let, you know, the other proposers make a small 10 -minute presentation on how they feel it's something that may be an issue that we should consider. Chair Hardemon: So make that motion then. Commissioner Suarez: I move to allow the other proposers to make a 10 -minute presentation on material variation. Chair Hardemon: Do you mean -- by lather proposers,'do you mean -- Commissioner Suarez: Two other -- yeah. Chair Hardemon: 2 and 3? Vice Chair Russell: Can we make a motion -- Commissioner Suarez: Do you need 10 minutes, or will you piggyback off his argument? Miguel Diaz de la Portilla: If I may? Vice Chair Russell: We have a motion on the floor. Can we make a second motion? Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Yes. This is considered a subsidiary motion. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Mr. Diaz de la Portilla: If I may, Mr. Chairman, Miguel Diaz de la Portilla, 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, 36th Floor, Arnstein and Lehr. I'm here on behalf of Suntex. Mr. DeGrandy will speak about the material change and how the new proposed plan that you just saw today by the RCI folks materially differsfrom what they bid and what was ranked and what was scored, and what was originally presented to you. He's going to do that. I'm going to just highlight a couple ofpoints. I only need about five minutes. And I also need to respond to a statement --and I need to do it -- that was made about who knew what, when, because it specifically -- Mr. Dotson specifically referred tome when I sat on the County Commission 16 years ago. So I need, as a point ofpersonal privilege, to address that. But as far as the materiality arguments, I'm going to let Mr. DeGrandy take the lead on that, and I'll just take two minutes to highlight a couple of points. Chair Hardemon: Can we call that the nose -- the camel's nose into the tent? Commissioner Suarez: Nah. So -- wait, wait. City of Miami Page 45 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 Mr. de la Portilla: No. I think it's called -- Commissioner Suarez: Wait, wait. Mr. de la Portilla: -- when somebody opens the door, you need to have an opportunity to address it -- Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. Mr. de la Portilla: -- because it's only fair if you want to provide due process for all the parties; that's what I think it's called, with all due respect. Ms. Mendez: So am I hearing five minutes -- Mr. de la Portilla: With all due respect. Ms. Mendez: -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE)? Chair Hardemon: (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Since we are in the business of till due respect,'bpening the door7s a legal argument -- right? -- that is done before a Judge, and it is a part of what you, when you're giving -- putting on evidence that creates the opportunityfor opposing counsel to then bring on evidence to show something different. In this situation, this is not a legal argument in front of a judge. You are not a party to this. The bid protest has been settled, and what we are doing today -- right now, we have a motion on the floor. The true motion on the floor is to throw out the RFP; that is what the motion on the floor is. All that we're doing now is trying to gather more information so that we're ready to make our informed vote. And when you choose to bring in other information, the reason why I talk about the nose on the tent is it just belabors other issues and other discussion that we don't necessarily need to have in order for us to come to our decision, and that's just -- that's it. Mr. de la Portilla: I was asked a question, Mr. Chairman. I'm okay with the 10 minutes for Mr. DeGrandy. All I need are two minutes on my end. If you don't want to give me the two minutes, then you don't give me the two minutes, and it's just part of the overall record of, you know, how this process has gone. But I'm okay with the 10 minutes Mr. DeGrandy will have to clearly address the issue of materiality, because these changes are clearly material, so I'm good with that. Chair Hardemon: Can you clam what your motion is again, sir? Because I think he wants you to amend your motion to include -- Commissioner Suarez: No, my motion was to give one of the opposing counsels 10 minutes to provide their argument on whether or not removing the boats -- wet slips from the basin constitutes a material variation. I think we should give Mr. de la Portilla one minute so that he can at least -- you know, he -- his name was invoked, and I think we've always been respectful, if someone's name is invoked, to give them a minute at least to respond to that invocation, and that's it; that's 11 minutes. It's 12:08. That means we should be done by 12:20. Chair Hardemon: I actually don't recall him actually saying his name. I didn't know who he was speaking of. I thought it was one of the other counsel. I didn't realize it was -- but that's the motion. The motion is 10 minutes. Commissioner Suarez: 10 plus 1; 11. Chair Hardemon: 11. 10 minutes -- City of Miami Page 46 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 Commissioner Suarez: Right. Chair Hardemon: --for discussion about the issue as aforementioned and then one minute for -- Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. It's 12:09. We could be done by 12:20. Chair Hardemon: Okay. Is there a second to that? Commissioner Carollo: Second with discussion. Chair Hardemon: Go ahead, sure. Commissioner Carollo: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't think it should just be one minute. I think, you know, he should have a reasonable amount of time to state what he was going to state. With that said, I don't mind -- and it was mentioned before with regards to taking as much time as we need, and I don't mind taking as much time as we need. I just want to know what's going to be the timeline. Are we doing away with lunch altogether? And are we -- Chair Hardemon: Well -- Commissioner Gort: Yes, we are. Chair Hardemon: --typically -- Commissioner Gort: Yes, we are. We got to get this -- Commissioner Carollo: -- so I just want to go -- I just want to see what the timeline is. Are we doing away with lunch altogether? Chair Hardemon: Yeah. Commissioner Gort: Yeah. Commissioner Carollo: And we plan on finishing -- 1 or 2 or 3 or 4, or how are we doing? Because I want to be able to adjust my schedule accordingly in order to prepare for this, but I don't feel that not having the other side speak or just having the Manager speak is fair. I think if we're going to listen to it, and this is the meeting that we set to listen to everything, I think we should have an opportunity to listen to everything. Chair Hardemon: Right. So I will say that, you know, as Chairman, I've tried my best to limit our discussions over the last -- I don't know how many public hearings we've had about this related issue altogether. And, I mean, it has been incredibly difficult to do this, even with such experienced counsel that are on all sides; that's probably what made it a bit more difficult. So the way that our rules end up being is that we're -- our -- we're supposed to go to lunch once we're finished with an item that -- once we've concluded an item that was started just before noon. We have not concluded an item that was just before noon; we're still in discussion about it. I don't anticipate that anyone wants to prolong this issue by having a two-hour lunch to come back to continue discussing the issue. So, therefore, because we haven't concluded an issue, and I'm sure everyone wants to get this process over with, I want to move through the process, which is allowing the Manager to speak -- we haven't made a decision about this vote yet -- but allowing the Manager to speak so that we can continue our discussion, if we have further discussion. We may not have further discussion. There's a motion on the floor. There was some unreadiness. There may be no more unreadiness and we come to a vote, and we can move on from there. But, certainly, I don't want this one issue to be an issue that lasts for the rest of the day for the lack of expedient meeting scheduling. City of Miami Page 47 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Chair Hardemon: Yes. Commissioner Carollo: Fair enough. With that said, I made the second. I made -- I will continue that second with a friendly amendment that Mr. Diaz de la Portilla receive the five minutes that he had originally mentioned. Commissioner Suarez: That's fine; fine with that. Commissioner Carollo: Then let's call the -- Chair Hardemon: So that's -- Commissioner Carollo: -- question. Chair Hardemon: -- 15 minutes. Commissioner Suarez: I'm okay with it. Chair Hardemon: Is there any further discussion on it? Commissioner Suarez: No. Chair Hardemon: Seeing none, the motion on the floor is for there to be a total of 15 minutes to address the issues as aforementioned. All in favor of the motion, say Bye. " The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Hardemon: All against? Motion passes. Mr. DeGrandy: Mr. Chairman, if I may, for the record, my name is Miguel DeGrandy. My address is 701 Brickell Avenue and along with my partner -- Chair Hardemon: 10 minutes. Commissioner Suarez: 10 minutes and that's fine. Mr. DeGrandy: --Richard Perez, we represent New Rickenbacker. Now, Commissioners, the issue before you is whether allowing RCI to amend its proposal to delete the slips proposed by RCI in the historic basin constitutes a material change. RCTs counsel acknowledged in the June 22 hearing that if the additional slips in the historic basin constituted a material requirement to the RFP, then Florida law would require re -solicitation. Now, incredibly, RCI argues that the additional slips they proposed in the historic basin was not a material requirement. So let's first look at the law. Well settled Florida law defines a Ynaterial variance'bs one that: One, affects the price or financial terms of the bid, or, two, gives the bidder a competitive advantage not enjoyed by others. However -- and Florida case law also informs that an agency may not use the request for proposals process for ranking purposes only and then negotiate a contract with a successful bidder that materially deviates from the original proposal submitted. Now, it should be beyond dispute that the building of the additional wet slips was a material requirement to the RFP. How do we know that? Very simple. Page 6 of the RFP states that the proposer must build approximately 300 additional wet slips. Page 30 of the RFP document, under the heading, Required Redevelopment,'blso mandates building of the additional wet slips. Now, RCI has tried to cloud the issue by pointing to subsequent addenda regarding whether 300 was an absolute City of Miami Page 48 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 requirement or an approximate number -- and I'll get to that in a second -- but what has never changed in all of the 30 addenda that occurred in this RFP is the language at page 26, under the heading, Deficient Proposals and RFP Modification. "And that provision lists a number of mandatory requirements of the RFP and states the proposals which do not conform to those requirements are, quote, tiutomatically disqualified and ineligible for further consideration, " unquote. One of those requirements is the construction of the additional wet slips. Again, I emphasize, in all the 30 addenda, that language has remained intact. And so it is beyond dispute the proposers were -- and it is also beyond dispute the proposers were in no way in doubt as to the fact that it was a mandatory requirement. Indeed, in the first pre proposal conference, Mr. Carter McDowell, one ofRCl's lawyers, stated, quote, The RFP states that 300 slips are a mandatory requirement, "unquote. And in the second pre proposal conference, Mr. Christoph, Sr., one of the principals of RCI, acknowledged that, quote, This is a mandatory; not a permissive requirement, "unquote. And so the record unquestionably demonstrates that: One, the RFP mandated the construction of the additional wet slips; and, two, proposers -- and specifically RCTs counsel and principals -- knew that it was a mandatory requirement. Now, during the second pre proposal conference, there was much discussion from proposers about the fact that you could not fit the required additional wet slips in the initial footprint set forth by the RFP, which was this. Mr. Rotenberg, on behalf of the City, then states, quote, We just added another 800 linear feet going out. "The RFP requires approximately 300 spaces. I think that within the 800 lineal [sicl feet, right now, that question is probably answered. And so, it is beyond dispute the construction of the additional slips was a mandatory material requirement and that the City acknowledged that addition of the historic basin to the RFP footprint was the means by which proposers could comply with the mandatory requirement. Now, we already know that, based on the language of page 26 of the RFP, the failure to propose the additional wet slips disqualifies your proposal. Logically, it also follows that the City cannot enter into a contract with RCI that does not include the required wet slips, because the amended proposal would be nonresponsive. Now, let's apply the case law on material deviations to the facts we have here. But before I do that, let me address the issue discussed at the previous hearing as to whether building less than 300 slips would disqualify your proposal. The requirement was to build approximately 300 wet slips. In the prior hearing, RCI counsel invited your attention to question 9 ofAddendum 18, but he only emphasized the answer of the City to that question. And the answer was: In the event a proposer provides for only 100 additional slips, the proposal shall not automatically be deemed nonresponsive. But he forgot to emphasize the question. The question was: If the proposer fills the entire leasehold -- available leasehold -- but proposes only 100 slips, will that proposal be considered nonresponsive? And that's exactly what they did. However, RCI did not propose less than 300 slips because they were environmentally sensitive, as RCI would now have you believe. They did so in order to maximize revenue potential. Don't take my word for it. In a letter from Carter McDowell to Jacqueline Lorenzo and Jason Spalding, dated February 16, 2016, Mr. McDowell argued the reason they proposed less slips, same footprint, 60 feet instead of 40, was to be responsive to the market in order to maximize revenue for the City; a material consideration. Nowhere in that correspondence did they claim to be environmental stewards. Now, going back to the application of the law to the facts at hand, we know the following, and we know this from the RFP and from their proposal: First, the financial aspects of this proposal constituted 30 percent of the evaluation criteria; the single most important factor. Now, according to RCTs own financial analysis presented in its proposal, the wet slips in the historic basin account for over 18 percent of the overall revenue of the project and 19 percent of the percentage rent due to the City. So in terms of materiality, we're talking about almost one-fifth of the total revenue, according to their proposal and one-fifth of the percentage rent due to the City. We also know from their proposal that the capital investment in building the wet slips was close to $10 million of a total capital investment of 98 million. So we know that the capital investment in the historic basin was approximately 10 percent of the total investment. So now, we apply the law to the facts. The law tells us that a material variance is one which affects the price or financial terms of the proposal. Here, we're talking about deletion of a component that constitutes 10 percent of the capital investment, 18.3 percent of revenue, 19 percent of percentage rent to the City. Clearly, the deletion of the additional slips in the historic City of Miami Page 49 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 basin significantly affects price and financial terms of the bid. Thus, under Florida case law, deletion of that portion is a material variance. However, as they say in the commercials, But wait, there's more,'because the law also tells you that a material variance is one that gives proposers a competitive advantage not enjoyed by others, and that's exactly what you would be doing if you allow only RCI to delete this part of its proposal and amend its development plan and financial terms. Now, why does the law prohibit giving a competitive advantage to only one proposer? Very simple. The crux of the policy behind competitive bidding in public procurements is to provide everyone with a level playing field in order to enhance competition and allow apples -to- apples comparison of proposals. Moreover, by unilaterally allowing one proposer to amend its development plan and financial terms, you no longer know whether you're getting the best deal. For example, RCTs proposal now offers 5 percent rent on the existing wet slips. My client, who is currently operating the marina, is paying you 15 percent on those wet slips. And it is axiomatic that without a fair competitive process where all proposers can offer their best deal on the reduced development plan, you will never know whether 5 percent, 10 percent, 15 percent or more is the best deal for the City. You will also not know how many other proposers would have participated if there were smaller required capital investment and less permitting risk. The only way you will truly know who can offer the best proposal to the City is if you simply re -solicit it with the revised development plan. Now, Commissioners, don't let yourselves be fooled in closing by a lot of smoke and mirrors; strawmen that they bring up in order to tear them down themselves, et cetera. The bottom line is building the additional slips has always been a mandatory and material requirement. A post -submission change to delete the additional slips clearly affects the financial terms of the proposal, and allowing only RCI to do that gives it an unfair advantage and allows an unfair advantage to only one proposer. And Commissioners, I thank you for your time. Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, you got 19 seconds to spare. Vice Chair Russell: Yeah. Commissioner Suarez: Pretty good. Vice Chair Russell: 20 seconds to spare. Commissioner Suarez: Good. Five minutes, bro'. Mr. de la Portilla: (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Commissioners, you heard very cogent, very clear arguments why removing slips from the basin is a material change that affects the competitive nature of the -- of a public procurement, and those arguments are very compelling, because there is no way that anyone can stand up here -- or that almost anyone can stand up here with a straight face and tell you that something that affects almost 20 percent of the revenue, that affects a significant amount -- 10 percent -- of the capital investment, taking that out and changing it and allowing just one proposer to change that isn't giving that proposer a competitive advantage not enjoyed by the other proposers and any prospective proposers out there. And so Mr. DeGrandy has made a very, very clear case. It's in the memoranda that we've submitted. I'm not going to belabor that point. This is clearly a material change; a material change in the plan. This whole hour and a half dog and pony show, with strawmen and nice graphics, and pictures that you saw here by -- Chair Hardemon: Sir, you're not speaking on anything that you (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Mr. de la Portilla: -- Mr. Dotson -- I'm talking about the materiality issue, which I said I was going to mention. I was given five minutes -- Chair Hardemon: That's not what we agreed on, but continue on. I just want you to know -- City of Miami Page 50 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 Mr. de la Portilla: That's what understood the motion to be. Chair Hardemon: --this is -- thank you. Mr. de la Portilla: That's what understood the motion to be. Anyway, so you saw this wonderful presentation and what have you on anew proposal; anew plan, in essence. That wasn't what was submitted. The plan that you saw today for an hour and a half wasn't what was submitted to the City; it wasn't what the selection committee saw; it wasn't what they were ranked on or anybody was ranked on, because that's a brand new plan that is significantly different than what was submitted, what was ranked, and what was presented to the City throughout this whole process. For the first time now, they have this brand-new plan. It's post -proposal, it's post -bid, it's post -ranking, it's post -protest, it's post -everything, and it significantly changes the capital investment required, the credit risk required. It significantly changes the revenue to the City. The only way the City can get the same revenue is that they make another material change by changing percentages. And now, I would submit to you that you've heard a number of promises here by these proposers and what have you. It isn't the first time that certain proposers have come up and proposed one thing and ended up having to come back and amend later. However, in the context of a competitive procurement process, you cannot submit a proposal, have it ranked by a selection committee, have it set forward to the Commission, and then come back and change 20 percent of the revenue, change 10 percent of the capital investment required, and you be the only one allowed to do that -- none of the other two proposers were allowed to do that, no prospective proposer is allowed an opportunity to do that --and say that isn't material. To argue that this isn't a material change doesn't even survive the straight face -- the -- yeah, the straight face test. So now, let's go to what the City can do and what is in the best interest of the City. The City can throw out all RFPs at any time. The City can reject RFPs at any time. That's in the document, in the RFP. That's established case law. And everybody knows, and I think anybody who's watching this knows that given the history of this procurement process, how it was flawed from the very beginning that there are ample reasons stated on the record and have been stated on the record at three prior hearings that the Commission has every logical reason to throw it out. That the Commission can reject all proposals is 101 in procurement law. I tell you this, not only as an attorney who has practiced in this community for 29 years, but as somebody who served in local government on a County Commission that handled and heard many, many RFPs and many proposals and many protests, and I will tell you, that right is something that anybody who knows anything about procurement law will tell you is something that the City Commission has. You have an opportunity to reject this RFP, start all over; really not just only give lip service to those people who participated in the charrette and the Virginia Key Master Plan, but actually listen to them and have them be part of the process. You can do it better than what you --it has been done. You can have a better proposal in return to the City; and more importantly, you can have proposals or a proposal before you for award that actually complies with the Virginia Key Master Plan. Very quickly, the Virginia Key Master Plan provides for 700 storage docks. The proposer before you, RCI, is providing 973, clearly exceeding it. The Virginia Key Master Plan stated there should be a maximum of 210 wet slips. All proposers in this exceeded the maximum number of the Virginia Key Master Plan and further exceeded the 300 additional slips that the City required in the RFP. And there was no input at all from the oversight committee, from the Virginia Key Advisory Board Committee in formulating the RFP. You have ample reasons; they've been stated on the record. Commissioner Russell has done a terrific job in laying them out before you. You have the right, you have the authority, and I think under the circumstances and the cloud under this procurement that this procurement has moved forward under, you should reject all proposals. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. The one thing you forgot to talk about was the thing you got -- Mr. McDowell: The only reason he was allowed to speak? City of Miami Page 51 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 Chair Hardemon: -- it was before you -- before -- Commissioner Suarez: It wasn't that painful. It was only five minutes, though. Chair Hardemon: I want to say this: Look, I'm going to tell you how I feel. I feel misled. I feel lied to. I feel like when I told -- when I -- as the Chairman, when I say -- look, I put my skunk on the table. The last time I allowed counsel to speak, he did not follow the directions of this Board and went all outside of the directions, and I thought that that would have laid the -- really, the foundation that, you know, let's just do what we've all granted you permission to do. Not only was the two minutes that you asked for was the -- at first you said one, then it went to two; and Commissioner Carollo, you made it five -- and essentially, what it turned into was a 15 -minute discussion about the first issue, and not the respect that you all were giving to address the issues that we stated. And, you know, it's disheartening to me, because I just want to move the meeting the way that I believe the meeting should be moved with everyone's support. And, you know, and it makes it very difficult when, you know, we have such respectable people that make it so. You know, if this were a citizen that got up and were speaking about an issue, we would have stopped that citizen. And, you know, and I think that's part of the unfairness behind it all. And I just ask that anyone, if you're granted permission to speak at this meeting or any meeting in the future, you know, that you stay within the confines of what the Commission has granted you permission to do. Now, there were a number of issues that I'm sure that opposing counsel -- or RFI [sic], rather -- would want to bring up to clam. Now is going to be the time that you have to decide whether or not you want to hear that, also. And so I know that I don't have any questions for anyone just yet, but that's for us to decide. Are there issues that you want to speak to? Mr. McDowell: Solely because my name was invoked by Mr. DeGrandy, I'd like to take one minute to respond. Unidentified Speaker: (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Mr. McDowell: But I will limit my comments to -- Chair Hardemon: Your name was actually -- Mr. McDowell: -- to what -- how my name was used. Chair Hardemon: Please. Mr. McDowell: Very simply, there was no mandatory requirement for 300 slips. There is no mandatory requirement in the RFP to put slips in the basin. The basin didn't exist at the time the original RFP --the north basin wasn't part of the RFP. When he was reading from page 26, it's not a mandatory requirement. In fact, the response, which is an addenda to the RFP, specifically indicated that more or less slips in the basin would not be a basis to disqualify and would not be considered a basis to -- well, to disqualify anyone. That's -- and in terms of the revenues from the wet slips, we had 151 slips in there. We did not fill the area at all; we specifically, intentionally did not. We also specifically, intentionally had our overall slip count meet the minimum requirements of the RFP without the basin. It was intentional, it was clear. And the revenue from the wet slips, the 151 wet slips is $200, 010 [sic] a year as projected -- they're all projections. Commissioner Suarez: What was that? What was that? Mr. McDowell: And the total is 3,203,000. That's less than one and a halfpercent ofthe proposed rent in our proposal. City of Miami Page 52 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 Commissioner Suarez: Are you saying annual revenue from the wet slips was what? Mr. McDowell: The --in our proposal, we projected we would pay the City 200,000 -- $210, 000 from the revenues from the 151 slips in the wet basin -- in the north basin. You -- in response to this Commission and the Virginia Key Advisory Board, saying you did not -- and this Commission was unanimous -- that you did not want slips in the basin, we agreed not to put them there. We didn't suggest that upfront. We agreed in response to your position and the --every issue in the RFP is subject to your approval anyway. So with that, it was only one and a half percent of the projected rent we would be paying you, that 200, 000, and we've said, We will make that up. "We still have negotiations, we believe, to go through, and you will not be harmed. You will, in fact, be in a better economic condition, I believe, by the time we finish. Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chair. Chair Hardemon: Yes, you're recognized, Vice Chairman. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. I just wanted to clarify my motion and make sure it's good with our City Attorney, to make sure I'm not arbitrary or capricious, that my motion includes all the language within the resolution that I put forward that's on our agenda. And if you need, I can read that; otherwise, if it's in the record, it's fine. Ms. Mendez: I would --just so that everybody's clear on what the basis of your motion would be, I think you should state the -- Chair Hardemon: You should probably -- I mean, it would be best to rescind the motion and then move the item, because the item has everything that you want in it, correct? Ms. Mendez: Well, definitely -- I mean, the motion was to reject all bids, and he would just have to say the reason why, which is -- there are certain criteria that you asked us to place in the -- in your reso, and there's a little section that says all the reasons why, and you just read those, 1 through -- Vice Chair Russell: And then at that point, Mr. Chair, and if there's no further need of information for this Board to make its decision -- Chair Hardemon: The City Manager; we still have the City Manager. Vice Chair Russell: Does anyone have questions for him, specifically? Chair Hardemon: The -- Commissioner Gort did. He had -- Commissioner Gort asked specifically for the City Manager to speak. Commissioner Gort: From my understanding, they're stating -- Ms. Mendez: The City Manager -- Commissioner Gort: -- stating in here that the RFP was -- is not legal, the process was not legal, so I'd like for the Administration to explain the process. Daniel J. Alfonso (City Manager): All right. So I'll say a few things, with all the things that have been said -- Commissioner Gort: Let me talk to you a minute. Mr. Alfonso: Yes, sir. City of Miami Page 53 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 Commissioner Gort: My understanding is we have received -- I don't know if you continue to do so -- but copies of the RFP before they go out, we get a copy of it, right? Mr. Alfonso: I believe -- yes. Every time we issue an RFP, we -- the Commission gets a copy. Commissioner Gort: I want to make sure that you continue that practice. Make sure the Commissioners know and they acknowledge that they have received the copies of the RFPs that go out. Mr. Alfonso: I understand. All right. So the City of Miami started a RFP process over a year ago. We followed the process that are within the rules of the City of Miami. When the RFP was out, yes, it was modified. We believe because the process was followed that we have made a valid recommendation. The proposal that was made and deemed the winning bidder, when the proposal was made, complied with all the rules of the RFP. There was plenty of language in that RFP and in the addendums that all phases of the project may not come to completion, based on regulatory rules, et cetera. The questions have been made as to the percentage rent. We have not had an ability to negotiate necessarily with the proposer. We had discussions prior to being stopped by this Commission. When they were deemed the winning bidder, we started some discussion before we were told to stop, so we had an idea of where we wanted to go. We have put that idea into language that is in the agenda for the 29th as to what we would like to see financially. At the direction of this Commission, we were told we could do that, as long as we didn't talk to the other counsel. So the City of Miami, if this RFP moves forward, and if we come to terms that -- partial terms that the proposer has stated here on the record that they're willing to accept, we're actually are asking for more than what they have stated, but we haven't negotiated, so we don't know, but we have an agenda item on the 29th that will let this Commission know. As of right now, I mean, I can ask Francisco to come up here and talk about whether that complies with the V rginia Key Master Plan or not, but I think that that has been discussed at length; unless you want to hear our version of it. I would be more than glad to have that discussion. The process had been followed. We have made a recommendation. It is up to this Commission to decide whether we move forward with this process or not. Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Manager. I wanted to be very clear for you and for Commissioner Gort to know that I am not saying by throwing out this RFP that the City has done an illegal action with the RFP or the process was illegal in any sense, whatsoever. Basically, what I have stated is that the RFP and what's being requested in the RFP far exceeds what is foreseen in our historic zoning and, of course, the Master Plan. And that has forced all the bidders to create something -- a proposal that meets those needs. Well, in that RFP, it says, But you must comply with the Master Plan. "In there is a circular problem, because now, they have to almost create a bait and switch of a big, beautiful rendering, and the winning bidder -- and I'm sure Bernardo's furious with me right now, because he spent a lot of time on these beautiful renderings of what the winning bidder's proposal could be. It'll have to be scaled back in so many different senses, and that's a bait and switch to the public. And so the RFP, while not illegal, has created a circular process that needs to start over, in my opinion. And I almost agree with Commissioner -- with the Chair that the more appropriate might be to withdraw -- the simple motion to withdraw the RFP, and I'll defer to the Clerk's opinion on this, though, because I just want to make sure that all the language in my resolution is included to make sure there's no arbitrary or capricious argument to be made; or if it is, that it would be not correct; and that, basically, all of us have what we need to vote on in this moment, because at this -- I know it sounds like I'm grand -standing and being combative, and I'm not. I'm simply trying to convince two more of you that this is the right thing to do, and I'm hoping that we've accomplished that today, as I will call the question once this is clarified. Mr. Clerk, what is your recommendation? Mr. Hannon: And Chair and Commissioners, I'm simply just going to state on the record I'm interpreting your motion as simply to move item SP.2, and I believe the City Attorney wanted you City of Miami Page 54 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 to read a certain Whereas clause; the fourth Whereas'clause, on page 2 of the resolution that basically identifies the reasoning for the rejection of the proposal. Chair Hardemon: Well, if he is interpreting it as moving SP.2, then there's no reason to read it on the record. I, as the Chair, when I heard the motion, the motion was not moving SP.2. It was a motion to throw it out. That is a completely different motion to SP.2. But if, you know, you all want to move SP.2, if that's what your intention is -- Vice Chair Russell: I can amend my motion to include all of the wording and verbiage in SP.2. Would that work? Chair Hardemon: (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Mr. Hannon: Yes, sir. Chair Hardemon: And the seconder accepts, correct? Commissioner Carollo: Yes. Commissioner Suarez: Can I make a comment? Vice Chair Russell: Do you need me to read anything to make it clear? Ms. Mendez: As long -- I would just ask -- Vice Chair Russell: It's all in the record; it's all in the agenda. Ms. Mendez: Yes, it is all in the record; as long as all the Commissioners know which item -- you know, it's SP.2 with all the Whereas'clauses, basically stating all the reasons why you feel that the -- that this RFP should be thrown out; all the reasons that you've stated are not arbitrary and capricious; there are several reasons why, based on all the public testimony that you have heard; and as long as everybody understands that. Vice Chair Russell: It was all in the record and on the agenda and public notice. Ms. Mendez: Yes. And it's on the record. Chair Hardemon: Commissioner Suarez. Commissioner Suarez: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a couple of issues -- or one issue, specifically, with the reso. And I have something that I want to say on another issue that came up and hasn't really been addressed. One of them is -- and I'll just make the statement. I don't think anybody has to agree or disagree with it or -- you know, I don't think anyone -- we need to have any sort of comment on unless you feel it's necessary. One, there was an allegation that our DREAM (Department of Real Estate and Asset Management) director had a conflict. And I think that's important to clam because, you know, all of us here have reputations; all of us here, you know, work in this community. And, you know, I think, while there were certainly some things in the public realm that show a connection between that director and someone that's connected somehow to one of the proposers, I think that person's actions were not in conformity with a bias, and I think that's important to state in the record. I think, you know, if you label an allegation against someone, you know, and their actions don't demonstrate what it is that's being alleged, I think it's important that that be clarified, so that's issue number one. Secondly, I have an issue with -- and I just read this for the first time, by the way, and I'm embarrassed to say that I did, because I've read everything else in advance, and I just saw this right now, but I read through it all. Item number 7, I'd like that struck, strucken [sic] from the reso, because I think it gives also City of Miami Page 55 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 the impression -- and I think it's an incorrect impression -- that the winning proposer, the selected proposer somehow is not environmentally conscious or conscientious or hasn't acted in an environmentally conscientious way, and I just -- I don't agree with that. I mean, he was -- his company was a vendor of the City and a lessee of the City. That never came up; it was never brought up. I mean, if it was a real legitimate major issue, then I think we all would have known about it. We all would have -- you know, everyone here -- there's members of the environmental community that are here, and it never came up when that person was a tenant of the City. It's -- I've never heard of the issue. It came up even after the bid protest perspective. So I have an issue with that one. I'm not saying that -- if we throw this out, I'm not saying that that can't be part of the discussion on how you build an RFP. Tni just saying I don't like it put in this resolution, because it gives the impression that that is, in fact, the case or a finding of this body. And what I don't want to see happen here is, you know, that this be used as a tool to avoid competition. And let's face it, this has been a very ugly and public process; and there's been a lot of things that have been done publicly that are improper and incorrect, in my opinion; a lot of misinformation that's been put out there, and, you know, I don't think it's fair. And I think that that's something -- that's one of the reasons why I wanted Mr. -- Senator Diaz de la Portilla to have an opportunity to respond to a specific mention of him, and Mr. McDowell to have a specific opportunity to respond to a specific mention of him. I think that's something that people should have the ability to do. So I personally have an issue with resolution item number 7 because of the implication -- or the purported implication there. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. And just to respond, it should be very clear that Mr. Rotenberg is not mentioned at all in this resolution. Commissioner Suarez: Sure. Vice Chair Russell: And I spoke with him afterward in the last meeting, because I do realize that that perception may have been read off of my words. But I've watched the tape, and I was very clear to make sure I was not saying there was any conflict. Commissioner Suarez: I'm not saying you did. Vice Chair Russell: And I apologize, sincerely, ifI was implying a conflict in that sense. And for sure, it's not mentioned in here, because that's not one of the reasons. And I will strike number 7 if you would like to -- if you would like that as an amendment -- from the reso. I understand where you're coming from on it. I will be looking for simply more disclosure availability within the RFP, but it does not need to be mentioned in the resolution here. I agree with you. Chair Hardemon: So the Clerk -- does the seconder agree to that striking? Commissioner Carollo: Yes. Chair Hardemon: So, Mr. Clerk, just ensure that the resolution properly reflects that it's been modified. Is there any further discussion? Commissioner Carollo: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized. Commissioner Carollo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before we finally take a vote, in anticipation that the motion on the floor is approved, I want to make sure that we also take into consideration what Ms. Niemeyer said. And I do want to point out -- and I've been quiet, especially about the financial issues or the financials regarding this RFP, but I do want -- make mention that Mr. Migoya, which I clearly have said public and will continue to say public, was the person who steered the ship in the right direction when the City was facing one of, if not the most -- the worst City of Miami Page 56 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 financial crisis in its history -- was asked prior for him --prior to him leaving if he could give us any financial advice. And on the December 16, 2010 meeting, he mentioned with regards to the City having to diverse [sic] its funding sources. And it mentioned that -- specifically mentioned the marinas as one of the jewels of the City of Miami. And I will read now verbatim from the minutes: And the other thing that I strongly recommend is that you look at any new marinas as a way that the City manages them and directs them. If the City manages the marinas, you make 70 percent of the revenues. If you lease them out, you only make about 15 percent of the revenues. So it's obvious, a huge difference. So wherever possible that you are looking at a new marina or anything else, I would strongly recommend that you would go with the public marinas. "So I think that that is something that needs to be looked at that was not initially looked at. Chair Hardemon: I will say that, I mean, revenue and the cost of actually -- the production of the -- or managing is two completely different things. I mean, revenue doesn't take in consideration the cost of actually managing that type offacility. So, certainly, I mean the revenues can be the same, but the expenses could be very different. And so that's in the -- that income that -- essentially, that you have at the end and -- the net income, at least, could be to the detriment of the City. That's just a simple point. Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Chair Hardemon: Yes. Commissioner Carollo: One of the reasons that I didn't get into the financial aspects, because I don't believe that this is just regarding the financial aspect. There were many other things that I think has equal, if not more weight with regards to, at least, my decision. And I'm not going to get into all the different parameters; however, what I am saying is that is something that we do need to look at. And I am telling you what our former City Manager, the one that steered the ship in the right direction and made sure that once it was headed in the right direction, handed over the steering wheel to someone else, and made sure that it will continue; and that, furthermore, has gone to another one of our jewels here in Miami -Dade County, which is Jackson Memorial Hospital, and has steered that ship in the right direction. So I am telling you what he left saying to us as advice. And again, I didn't want to really get into the financial aspects about it, because I didn't want everyone to think that I was just looking at the financial aspects. I mean, realistically, especially with this jewel of Virginia Key that we have, we really need to look at our decision as a whole, not just financially. Thank you. Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chair, I move that we call the question. Chair Hardemon: Is there a second? Commissioner Carollo: Yes, second. Commissioner Suarez: I have -- Chair Hardemon: It's been moved that we call the question -- Vice Chair Russell: I'm sorry. Chair Hardemon: -- by ending debate. There's no discussion on that. All in favor of calling the question, say 11ye. " The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Hardemon: All against? Motion passes. Call the question, Mr. Clerk. City of Miami Page 57 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 Commissioner Suarez: Again -- Vice Chair Russell: He -- Chair Hardemon: That's the power of calling the question. We had this -- Mr. Clerk -- Mr. Hannon: --Again -- Chair Hardemon: -- let me say this, Mr. Clerk: In -- Commissioner Suarez: I can have discussion by calling the question, right? Chair Hardemon: -- but let me say this before we go into it. Mason's and Robert's Rules of Order -- I mean Robert's Rules of Procedure -- Robert's Rules of Order do not allow discussion on calling the question. Mason's itself specifically -- I'm going to get there, Mr. Clerk -- Mason's itself does not allow discussion on E°all of the question. "Mr. Clerk will want to tell you that we are a body which we can create our own customs that can differ from Mason's. I've always recommended that where you have rules in place, such as Mason's, you follow those rules. Where you don't have rules in place, then allow the custom to be. But part of the reason --I will tell you this: Part of the reason you don't have a discussion on a Lull the question'{ ote is because when you call the question, you're essentially saying, We want to end debate. We've heard too much. We've talked too much." There couldn't be anything else that you want to say. And so, when you then invite discussion as to whether or not you want to call the question, you're going to discuss that for an additional 10 minutes before you come to a vote. That vote will either be positive, Yes, we're going to end the discussion,'or negative. Say, for instance, the vote is in the negative, which is what's going to happen, because one Commissioner wants to discuss. So the vote is in the negative. Now, we've discussed calling the question for 10 minutes, and now we have to go and -- voted it down -- and now we have to go back and discuss further the issue that was at hand in the first place, which was going to take additional time. So, essentially, you're wasting everyone's time when you discuss calling the question. If you believe that there's more that needs to be said, then you simply vote it down; the E°all the question, That is. That way, we can -- Commissioner Suarez: I think there's more that needs to be said. Chair Hardemon: -- continue the discussion. Or the polite thing to do would be to not call the question, because you can see that there's more discussion that's at hand. That's why, when someone calls the question -- and you weren't the first person to call the question ever on this dais. Call -- the question has been called, if you will, by a Commissioner more than one time, and never has that vote been carried in the past, because there was never a second. And you can clearly see there was further discussion. As Chair, I would recommend that we follow the rules of Mason's; and as comrades, I would say that if you see that there's someone that wants to discuss something, allow that person to discuss it, because we wouldn't have to go through the efforts and the -- Vice Chair Russell: I withdraw my motion if -- Commissioner Suarez: You know, I -- Vice Chair Russell: -- Mr. -- Commissioner Francis would like to say -- Commissioner Suarez would like to say something further. I did not mean, you know -- Commissioner Suarez: I was going to say, I could just explain my vote when I actually take the vote. I presume that's also allowable under the rules. City of Miami Page 58 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 Mr. Hannon: It is; however, it just depends on how much discussion you want to have after you've taken your vote, so (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Commissioner Gort: So would I. I don't think -- Commissioner Suarez: I don't want to have -- I don't think anybody wants to have any discussion after we've taken the vote. I'm saying -- Mr. Hannon: You just want to explain what -- Commissioner Suarez: -- I can explain and then vote, correct? Chair Hardemon: I think what the Clerk is saying -- Mr. Hannon: Correct. Vice Chair Russell: Then in that case, I withdraw -- Mr. Hannon: Yes. Vice Chair Russell: -- the call of the question. I withdraw my motion to call the question, and I defer to Commissioner -- Commissioner Suarez: Right. So -- Vice Chair Russell: -- Suarez, if he'd like to say something. Commissioner Suarez: -- you know, for me, I've pored over this at length; spent a lot of time, agonized over this decision, because it is a very long decision; long-term impact. And to me, there's several things that are very, very clear in this process. The first is that I feel the winning bidder won the bid, fair and square. I don't feel that -- I mean, despite all the hoopla about, you know, whether or not people were biased, scores were biased, things of that nature, I think they won, fair and square. Ido believe that. I also believe that there was consternation throughout this process, which has -- as a lack of spending time before the process with the public, with the Virginia Key Oversight Board, would have potentially prevented where we are here today. For example, the RFP was issued with a requirement that there be 300 additional wet slips, but three -- there wasn't space available for those 300 available wet slips [sic]. So there was then space added to accommodate those wet slips; which, by the way, is a revenue -based decision, I think. You know, the decision to have 300 additional slips is based on -- particularly when you don't have it. It's like saying, We want you to build something without the capacity to build on it. "And I think the bidders, in my review of the notes, expressed reservations about that. You know, there was -- there's no space to do it; then they added the space, and now, we're taking it out. Whether or not that's a material variation -- I think you've heard argument on both sides, and you've heard our City Attorney not wanting to opine on it, but the point is that it's going to lead to litigation, without a doubt. And rather than litigate, which I had proposed to all the bidders beforehand, which was to go through an expedited arbitrator -- arbitration process, you know, without having litigation as a component of it -- and in fact, I've followed it up with an ordinance that will create a process that calls for a special master with, hopefully, appellate experience or better to deal with some of these legal issues. There is a secondary component, which is the public policy. And even as far back as another waterfront project --the Scotty's Project --there was a lot of concern that Commissioners were not involved and that the public was not involved. And it was a different Manager, it was a different time, but it doesn't seem like those concerns were heeded. And so I've always taken the position that if you don't do the hard work on the front end, you pay for it on the back end, and that's precisely what's happening here. And so it's unfair and it's unfortunate that we're in this position, but that's what happens when you don't City of Miami Page 59 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 have a process that incorporates the public, that incorporates the important stakeholders, and you contaminate it, and that's essentially what's happened. Chair Hardemon: Commissioner Gort. Commissioner Gort: No, I'm ready to vote, but let me tell you something: A lot of the people don't come to bid for the City of Miami because just what's happening here. I mean, I been in the business that I'm in for the last 30 years. I have to go out for bid constantly. You can't please everybody. Always, the losers want to send a protest, a bid protest. This is a very important -- I think the City, in the '90s, had started working on the -- on all of the mooring and we trying to create the mooring site, back here, where people are diluting the waters. I never heard anybody say anything about that. Right now, we're working on the same thing in the Historic Marine Stadium, but nobody is saying anything about that. And you want to waste the environment? Follow the trail of those boats, of those sailboats that park in those area. We have been working on it. And I admire your passion, and you just came in and you been doing a great job, but there's a lot of people that been working on this for a long time now. This, I understand is in your district, but this belongs to the City of Miami and to Miami -Dade County. I mean, everyone uses this facility. I was not born in Miami, but I been here since 1955, so I've seen a lot of the difference that have taken place inhere. I use that place constantly. We call it los pinitos. " That's how it was named by the Cuban community, because that's the beach where they would go. We used to water-ski within that area. I respect you. I'm not going to support you on this one, because I think that we have a process we have to continue. We still need to negotiate. We need to see --I know people talked about the 75 years. It's 45 years, basic. We can request any extensions has to come to the Commissioners. At the same time, the funds, once we build -- rebuild the Miami Marine Stadium, we need to support it. Look how many museum we have right now that people cannot support or pay for it. They have to come to the tax -write, and we have to pay taxes in order to keep them. We got to make sure --and it was stated from the beginning, we need some income to support the Marine Stadium. That's the main goal that everybody's talking about, the historic side of it, and so for that reason, I will not be able to vote in your favors. Chair Hardemon: Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of the motion, say so by saying liye. " Vice Chair Russell: Aye. Commissioner Carollo: Aye. Commissioner Suarez: Aye. Chair Hardemon: All against? Commissioner Gort: No. Chair Hardemon: Motion passes. Ms. Mendez: As amended and with the -- all the -- as the resolution -- Commissioner Gort: By the way -- Ms. Mendez: --drafted as Whereas'clauses. Commissioner Gort: -- Ilike your resolution. END OF SPECIAL MEETING City of Miami Page 60 Printed on 1011912016 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 20, 2016 NA.1 RESOLUTION 16-01060 ADJOURNMENT NON -AGENDA ITEM(S) A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO CONDUCT A STUDY TO ASSESS THE FEASIBILITY OF WHETHER THE CITY OF MIAMI'S ("CITY") MARINAS DIVISION SHOULD OPERATE, DEVELOP, AND MANAGE A NEW CITY MARINA ON VIRGINIA KEYAS DESCRIBED HEREIN. Motion by Commissioner Gort, seconded by Vice Chair Russell, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon R-16-0346 Commissioner Gort: I want the management to come back with the feasibility study of the City running the marina. That's my motion. Vice Chair Russell: You're making a motion? Commissioner Gort: Yeah. Vice Chair Russell: I second it. Victoria Mendez (City Attorney): There was a motion and a second to look at a study based on the Administration running the marina? Commissioner Gort: Yeah. Ms. Mendez: That was your motion? Commissioner Gort: Yes. And the restaurants and all the facilities. Chair Hardemon: All in favor, say aye. " The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Hardemon: Motion passes. SP.1 will be withdrawn from the agenda. We don't need to discuss it. Commissioner Carollo: Meeting adjourned? Chair Hardemon: We already did get that, right? Or would -- do you consider we did it or it's withdrawn? Chair Hardemon: Todd is (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Meeting adjourned. END OF NON -AGENDA ITEM(S) The meeting adjourned at 12:59 p.m. Citv ofMiami Page 61 Printed on 1011912016