City of Miami
City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 www.miamigov.com
Meeting Minutes
Thursday, July 29, 2010
9:00 AM SPECIAL MEETING
City Hall Commission Chambers
City Commission
Tomas Regalado, Mayor Marc David Sarnoff, Chairman Frank Carollo, Vice-Chairman Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Commissioner District One Francis Suarez, Commissioner District Four Richard P. Dunn II, Commissioner District Five Carlos A. Migoya, City Manager Julie O. Bru, City Attorney Priscilla A. Thompson, City Clerk City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
9:00 A.M. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Present: Vice Chairman Carollo, Commissioner Gort, Chairman Sarnoff, Commissioner Suarez and Commissioner Dunn II On the 29th day of July 2010, 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 meeting was called to order by Chair Sarnoff at 9:42 a.m., recessed at 11:32 a.m., reconvened at 11:49 a.m., and adjourned at 2:03 p.m.
Note for the Record: Commissioner Suarez entered the Commission Chambers at 9:43 a.m.
ALSO PRESENT:
Julie O. Bru, City Attorney Carlos A. Migoya, City Manager Pamela L. Latimore, Assistant City Clerk
Chair Sarnoff: Good morning. I'd like to welcome everybody to the July 29 meeting of the City of Miami Commission in these historic chambers. The members of the City of Miami Commission are Frank Carollo, the Vice Chair, Francis Suarez, Wifredo Gort, Reverend Dunn, and myself, Marc Sarnoff, the Chairman. Also on the dais are Carlos A. Migoya, the City Manager; Julie O. Bru, the City Attorney; and Pamela Latimore, the Assistant City Clerk. The meeting will be opened with a prayer by Commissioner Dunn and the pledge of allegiance led by Commissioner Carollo.
Invocation and pledge of allegiance delivered.
ORDER OF THE DAY
Chair Sarnoff: We will now begin this special meeting called by Mayor Regalado. The City Attorney will state the procedures to be followed during this meeting.
Julie O. Bru (City Attorney): Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, Mr. Mayor, Madam City Clerk, and Mr. Manager, and members of the public. Any person who's a lobbyist must register with the City Clerk before appearing before the City Commission. A copy of the Code section about lobbyists is available in the City Clerk's office. The material for each item on the agenda is available during business hours at the City Clerk's office and online at www.miamigov.com. Any documents that are offered to the City Commission that have not been provided seven days before the meeting as part of the agenda materials will be entered into the record at the City Commission's discretion. Any person requesting action from the City Commission must disclose at the commencement of the hearing or continuation of a previous hearing on the issue any consideration provided or committed for an agreement to support or withhold objection to the requested action. This is found in Section 2-8 of the Code, and you should consult it if you want to determine what consideration means. Formal action may be taken on any item discussed or added to this agenda -- well, not in this case. This agenda is limited to the matters that were called by the Mayor. All decisions of the City Commission are final, except that the Mayor may veto certain items within ten calendar days of the Commission action. Commission may override the veto by a four-fifth vote. Anyone who wishes to appeal any decision that's made today may need a verbatim record. No cell phone, beepers, or other noise-making devices. Please silence those now. And if anybody becomes unruly in the Commission chambers, you will be barred from further attending Commission meetings. Any person who needs any kind of auxiliary aid, any person with a disability, please notify the City Clerk for assistance.
Chair Sarnoff: All right. I don't think I need to ask -- or do we need to approve --? There's no minutes to approve yet, right? And of course there's no Mayoral vetoes. Okay. City of Miami Page 2 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
SP.1 DISCUSSION ITEM 10-00869 DISCUSSION OF A CHARTER AMENDMENT RELATED TO THE MIAMI PARKING AUTHORITY. 10-00869 Draft Resolution.pdf 10-00869 Memo.pdf DISCUSSED
(SP.1) RESOLUTION 10-00869a A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, FOR CONSIDERATION AT AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 2, 2010, PROPOSING, UPON APPROVAL OF THE ELECTORATE, TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY COMMISSION, BY ORDINANCE, TO DISCONTINUE THE DEPARTMENT OF OFF-STREET PARKING ("DOSP") AND THE DOSP BOARD, MODIFY THE DOSP BOARD, TRANSFER DOSP'S ASSETS TO THE CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY"), ALLOW FOR THE OPERATION, MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL OF PARKING FACILITIES BY THE CITY OR DOSP, AND AUTHORIZE THE MANAGEMENT, LEASE OR SALE OF ANY OR ALL OF THE PARKING FACILITIES TO A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE ENTITY, AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CITY COMMISSION, DETERMINED BY WHICHEVER PROVIDES THE GREATEST EFFICIENCY AND FINANCIAL RETURN TO THE CITY.
Motion by Vice Chairman Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Dunn II, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Carollo, Gort, Sarnoff, Suarez and Dunn II
R-10-0332
(SP.1) RESOLUTION 10-00869b A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), APPROVING, SETTING FORTH AND SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORATE A PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT, AMENDING THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, KNOWN AS CHARTER AMENDMENT NO. 1, TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY COMMISSION, BY ORDINANCE, TO DISCONTINUE THE DEPARTMENT OF OFF-STREET PARKING ("DOSP") AND THE DOSP BOARD, MODIFY THE DOSP BOARD, TRANSFER DOSP'S ASSETS TO THE CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY"), ALLOW FOR THE OPERATION, MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL OF PARKING FACILITIES BY THE CITY OR DOSP, AND AUTHORIZE THE MANAGEMENT, LEASE OR SALE OF ANY OR ALL OF THE PARKING FACILITIES TO A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE ENTITY; CALLING AND PROVIDING
City of Miami Page 3 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
FOR A REFERENDUM SPECIAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 2, 2010, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING CHARTER AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE ELECTORATE AT SAID REFERENDUM; DESIGNATING AND APPOINTING THE CITY CLERK AS THE OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CITY COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF VOTER REGISTRATION BOOKS AND RECORDS; FURTHER, DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO CAUSE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE HEREIN RESOLUTION TO BE DELIVERED TO THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, NOT LESS THAN FORTY-FIVE (45) DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SUCH REFERENDUM SPECIAL ELECTION.
10-00869b Exhibit. pdf
Motion by Vice Chairman Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Dunn II, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Carollo, Gort, Sarnoff, Suarez and Dunn II
R-10-0333
Chair Sarnoff: So I think we could begin the meeting, and I believe this is a meeting called by you, Mr. Mayor, and you are recognized for the record. Good morning. I should give you a little bit of volume.
Mayor Tomás Regalado: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Vice Chairman Carollo, Commissioner Suarez, Commissioner Gort, Commissioner Dunn. This is indeed a special meeting called to discuss several items with the understanding that when we end this meeting, the Chairman will call for the regular meeting that was continued last Thursday. And so, there is a lot of work to do. And this is precisely what we are doing in the City of Miami. I don't think that there is a City Commission that has faced, at least for the last 15, 20 years, challenges as we and you face. Last week, the Commission sent a clear message by not raising the property tax, and that has a domino effect on all the decisions that the City Commission has to take. What we are proposing here today, there are two Charter amendment [sic]. One that has to do with the civil service rules and the Administration would explain the -- and the other one is about a discussion on the Charter amendment related to the Miami Parking Authority. What -- the need for this special meeting is that we have certain time to place it on the ballot of the general election of November 2, 2010. This will be an important election. This election, all political pundits and experts say, will bring many, many voters to the polls. We have to decide on a senate race, on the governor of the state of Florida, congressional races. We have amendments, several, to the state constitution. We have amendments to the county Charter in the ballot. So there will be, we believe, and everybody does, a large number of people that will be going to the polls, which is precisely what is important, that the people will get to decide what is their will. And the will of the people was to have you here, us, to make decision. We have to make decisions. You have to make very hard decisions in the month, and maybe in the years to come. And it's all about accountability. We are the frontlines of the people of Miami. Everything that goes on in the City of Miami, the first one to get calls, the City Commission members and the Mayor. That's the norm. You all have seen -- recently there was a media article about parks in the unincorporated Miami-Dade County charging for parking. And I can tell you that the amount of calls that we have, in our office, asking why are we raising money, imposing a parking fee in the parks, it's incredible. That is how the people react. And mind you, these are residents of the City of Miami. So it's all about accountability. We're accountable. As you work for the budget, as you prepare to change the structure of the system of the City government, which is what we are trying to do, I know all of us are trying to do, we need to have on the table everything. And today, I'm asking that you consider and approve a resolution to place on the ballot -- on Tuesday, November 2,
City of Miami Page 4 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
2010 -- for approval or disapproval by the voters -- not by us -- of the following questions. And I will read the question as it will appear if you choose to approve this item. Shall the Miami Charter be amended to authorize the City Commission by ordinance to discontinue the Department of Off-Street Parking "DOSP" and the DOSP Board, modify the DOSP Board, transfer DOSP assets to the City of Miami "City," allow for the operation, management, and control of parking facilities by the City or DOSP, or authorize the management, lease, or sell of any or all of the parking facilities to a public or private entity? As you see, these questions will give authority to the City Commission to decide what is in the best interests of the City of Miami. This is not an attack on the Off-Street Parking. This is not -- does not reflect at all on the board and the work that they do. It's just that we need to have the flexibility of knowing what we can do with the assets of the people of Miami. I know that they -- some people will say, well, you know, the City Commission wants to appoint friends or themselves or something. This is not about this. It is about having the flexibility of deciding what to do and, more important, more important, listening to the people. The people will decide what they want for the City Commission to do about their assets and about their facilities. It is -- parking is an important issue. Not only for downtown, but for every district in the City of Miami, and we all know that. And since the most small issue to the biggest picture, it is something that is important. I do not want to like engage in a debate today about whether we have issues, what we should do. That will be your call. That will be in the future because first, we have to wait for the people's will in November 2. We do have some information, but, Mr. Chairman, I know that it's going to be a long day for you and the members of the Commission. And my request to you, members of the Commission, is that we let the voters decide, we let the voters opine on the future of these assets. And the Commission to decide, after a thorough analysis, what would we -- should do with this important issue, that is, parking in the City of Miami. Thank you.
Chair Sarnoff: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Vice Chair Carollo: Mr. Chairman.
Chair Sarnoff: You're recognized for the record, the Vice Chair.
Vice Chair Carollo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is an item that the Mayor told me about, and we had discussed quite a few weeks ago. I had ample time to study it. However, I do have a question, and it's more for the City Attorney. I think in the past, this was tried before, and apparently the language was either incorrect or there was issues with it. So my question is, is this language correct, and is it going to be translated? When it is translated, what is the process? Do we get to see it? If not, what --?
Julie O. Bru (City Attorney): There have been various attempts in the past to alter or modify this particular Charter amendment. There was one occasion wherein the language as drafted by the City Attorney was appropriate. However, the translation that was done by Miami-Dade County -- and I would defer to the City Clerk, who is the supervisor of elections for purposes of the City, to explain more the process about the translation -- but it is the County who translates the ballots. That's my understanding. And the translation was done incorrectly. And, therefore, the Court enjoined the question from being voted upon.
Vice Chair Carollo: The reason why I ask, like you very well said, in the past, we had an issue with it. I don't see the translation here. Not that I'm an expert.
Ms. Bru: Yeah.
Vice Chair Carollo: But I don't know how we could assure ourselves that, you know, it makes it to the ballot, and, you know, we actually let the people decide should this Commission wish to vote in favor of this resolution.
City of Miami Page 5 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
Pamela L. Latimore (Assistant City Clerk): I will let the elections coordinator address that issue.
Dwight Danie (Office of the City Clerk): Good morning. Dwight Danie, Elections Coordinator, City of Miami. We can do the translation in-house, or actually, we have on -- was retaining -- we retained -- where we can have the translation pretty much, Todd, done within one week? By a professional service.
Vice Chair Carollo: Okay, so you don't --
Mr. Danie: Or we can have the County do it. Either way, we'll pay for it.
Vice Chair Carollo: So you don't foresee an issue?
Mr. Danie: No.
Vice Chair Carollo: Okay, I just wanted to make sure of that. And with that said, I make a motion to approve this resolution.
Chair Sarnoff: All right, we have a motion by the Vice Chair.
Commissioner Dunn: Mr. Chairman.
Chair Sarnoff: You're recognized for the record, Commissioner Dunn.
Commissioner Dunn: I second, but I would like to ask a question. But I do second it for discussion.
Chair Sarnoff: Let me ask a question. This requires a public hearing, Madam Attorney?
Ms. Bru: This is a resolution, and first of all, the procedure is that before you actually vote on a resolution calling for the election, you need to actually have a separate resolution that directs the City Attorney to draft the language. So, you know, usually that's done in -- at different meetings, but it can be done at the same meeting. But procedurally, you would have to first direct the City Attorney to prepare the Charter language, and that would be one resolution that you vote on. And then immediately there following, you can adopt a resolution calling for the election to provide for whatever language it is. If you want to incorporate word-for-word the language that has been proposed by the Mayor, that's what we would read into the record.
Chair Sarnoff: Well, do you have adequate time with another meeting not scheduled till Septem --?
Ms. Bru: No. We have, in anticipation of this matter being approved, already drafted a resolution directing the City Attorney to draft the Charter language. And then we've prepared this resolution that the Mayor read into the record, that I've distributed and you have on your dais. So we've -- we have -- you know, we've done it, and we can do it so --
Chair Sarnoff: And we're talking past each other. If all this is is a discussion, which is then to bring this to another Commission meeting, and then we pass a resolution, as you said, do we have adequate time to put --?
Ms. Bru: No, no. At this time, because the Miami-Dade County Elections Department requires that all language for ballot questions be submitted by August 20, you have no other meeting but this one at which time to take this action. So you would have to do it today.
City of Miami Page 6 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
Chair Sarnoff: So let me make it clear with the mover. The mover understands that he is making a motion to have the resolution directing the Clerk to put this on the agenda?
Vice Chair Carollo: Not the agenda.
Chair Sarnoff: Put this as a referendum.
Vice Chair Carollo: Not to the agenda; to the actual voters. In other words --
Chair Sarnoff: Right.
Vice Chair Carollo: -- directing to -- yes, go ahead and draft for the November election, and if that's not what I stated, that's my intention --
Chair Sarnoff: Okay.
Vice Chair Carollo: -- with my motion.
Chair Sarnoff: And Commissioner Dunn, you understood that this is for the resolution? You understood that this -- is not a discussion item any longer by the mover. It is a designation to put it as a referendum.
Commissioner Dunn: So move.
Chair Sarnoff: You second it, in other words.
Commissioner Dunn: Yes, sir.
Chair Sarnoff: Okay.
Commissioner Dunn: Yes.
Chair Sarnoff: Commissioner Gort, you're recognized.
Commissioner Gort: I have a question. My understanding is that the deadline is August 20? And anyone -- the Mayor or any three Commissioners can call a special meeting.
Ms. Bru: A special meeting can be called by the Mayor, by the chairperson, or any three Commissioners.
Commissioner Gort: And the deadline is the 20th?
Ms. Bru: Correct.
Commissioner Gort: Okay, thank you.
Chair Sarnoff: All right. Let me open it up to the public hearing, so this way when we make our comments, we'll at least have the opportunity of -- heard what the public has to say. Anyone from the public wishing to be heard on SP.1, which was a discussion item of a charter amendment related to the City of Miami Parking Authority, please step up. It is now being discussed as a resolution for a referendum. You're recognized for the record, Mr. Cruz.
Mariano Cruz: Yes. Mariano Cruz, 1227 Northwest 26th Street. I'm also the chairman of Allapattah Business Development Authority. I know people have complain to me, you know, this being brought to this Miami Parking Authority by themselves 'cause they don't deal with the
City of Miami Page 7 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
public. Two buildings there in 12th and 20, they don't have parking 'cause it's a Metrorail station there. And now, you know (UNINTELLIGIBLE) putting parking meters on the side street. Pretty soon they will put a parking meter in front of my home, you know. That's -- I go to Versailles now. Well, okay, I have a handicap sticker. Oh, talking about handicap, I go to the radio station, I park behind a person using my handicap space with no handicap tag there. And he doesn't get a ticket. I get a ticket. Lucky, you know, I know how the system works, so I get the ticket -- but it shouldn't be that way. No. It shouldn't be the people -- the people should have a -- and years ago, years ago, I was with Regalado when he was Commissioner at the TV (Television) program, and we were in favor of keeping the Miami Parking Authority. But they have become -- I don't know. They are in the ivory towers there in Northeast 3rd Street, and they don't realize the street, the people are -- no. Pretty soon you got machines all over the place, collecting meters all that. And where is the money going? I mean, I know it's good, but you know it's a lot of cash money. I would take like the Vegas casino, no you can skim all this cash money. It's not a check. No? I write a check (UNINTELLIGIBLE), no; or credit card, no. Cash. Cash there. I say that the people of Miami, the residents and taxpayers, in a referendum they will have a say-so on what is good for the City. And now, I praise the Manager because we have to be looking for revenue -- recurring revenue -- I mean, new funding sources for the City that we control them, we, the people that we elect. Mr. Gort, as my Commissioner, he's doing a good job. And I tell him, Chairperson, Mr. Carollo, Suarez, all of them, Mr. Dunn, good. Just put it on the ballot. Let's see the residents. 'Cause many people that (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the parking, they have -- they provide the wherewithal to live in Coral Gables, Pinecrest, and other places. Thank you.
Chair Sarnoff: Thank you. Anyone else from the public wishing to be heard on SP.1, please step up. Anyone else wishing to be heard on SP.1? You're recognized for the record, Mr. Metral.
Ricardo Metral: My name is Ricardo Metral. I am a parking operator in the City of Miami and Miami Beach. I have some information to give you guys. Every time the City of Miami has gotten into financial difficulty, or what have you, they have always looked at the parking industry to kind of save them. In 2000, I believe, the City of Miami was in trouble, and they passed a surcharge on the parking of 20 percent to help. Now it's 15 percent. But it's -- and it was only supposed to last five years. Now it's forever. So we are today in kind of the same predicament. How many times is the City going to use the parking industry to kind of save themselves from financial difficulty? And that's what it's really about. It's about taking the Miami Parking Authority and making it, you know, at the end of the day, either private or having the City run it. Now, if the City has intentions of running the Authority, they have to also think about how are you going to work with the parking? Is it a service where you are going to give it as inexpensive as possible to the public? Or make it a profit -- you know, make it a profit organization where you're going to try to take as much money from the people to cover whatever costs the City has? So you must think a parking not just as, you know, a cash, taking money in, taking money in, taking money in, but, you know, it's a service to the City of Miami. And, you know, not look at us -- you know, my whole issue with this matter is that we are always looked as the savior of -- or we're always looked at as, you know, this big pile of cash, like the gentleman was saying, that we, you know -- we're taking in. That's not true. You know, we work very hard. And, you know, it's just -- we're not looked on as -- most of the time as part of the City. And that's the only thing I have to say.
Chair Sarnoff: Thank you, Mr. Metral.
Mr. Metral: You're very welcome.
Chair Sarnoff: Thank you for coming up. Anyone else from the public wishing to be heard on SP.1, please step up. Hearing none, seeing none, it comes back to the Commission. Any Commissioner wish to be recognized?
City of Miami Page 8 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
Commissioner Dunn: Mr. Chair.
Commissioner Gort: Yes.
Chair Sarnoff: First Commissioner Dunn, then Commissioner Gort.
Commissioner Dunn: I had a few questions, even though I moved for this item. With this prospective, if we vote in favor of this item, what other possibilities of -- what kind of fiscal impact that this may have on the City of Miami if we were to --? I mean, what are our options in terms of a fiscal impact? Because that's my biggest concern. And what type of items -- I know you might have articulated that at some point, but what options does it give the City?
Mayor Regalado: Commissioner, the language that has been proposed, if approved by you, it will give the City Commission, by vote and by public hearing, all the options, every imaginable option in terms of the parking. Let me just say that always the City Commission has had the power of setting the rates. So this is not about we need $35 million; oh, let's raise the rate. The rates are the responsibility, always have been, of the City Commission; of course, proposed by MPA, Miami Parking Authority. What we're asking the people here is to give the members of the City Commission, after the referendum passes, and when we have time to analyze each and every one of the options, the possibility of you making decisions. You can make the minimal decision. You can make the maximum decision. Every option that it's [sic] on the table will have to be approved by the City Commission with public hearings. And we really believe that this is the most simpler, cleaner way and transparent way to do this question to the electorate. It is -- it doesn't have a back door. It doesn't have a backroom deal. It is -- all the options are here for the City Commission to decide after the outcome of the election.
Commissioner Dunn: One last question, Mr. Chair, if I may. If everything remains status quo, where does that leave --? That lessens, of course, our options. And fiscally, what would that --?
Mayor Regalado: And that would be up to the City Commission, and we need to understand in more details what it is. If the referendum fails, well then, everything goes to the way it is now, and the City Commission will have to depend on the board of the Parking Authority to do things that the City Commission would want, either -- you know, whatever option it is. I believe that we -- I always believe that we should present to the voters of Miami something that is understandable, something that is simple. And here, we're doing this. Here, we're bringing to the voters of the City of Miami very clear questions for them to decide. It will be interesting. The process will be interesting in November because the electors will have, you know, amendments to the state constitution, very important and sensitive amendment to the state constitution, very radical changes to the Charter of Miami-Dade County, and, of course, in the City of Miami. Other cities, by the way, have already placed several Charter amendment [sic] because this is the way to do it. And this is the reason that we're having this meeting now. You know, some members of the Commission will be out of town in the next two or three weeks. And we have the timeline of the Miami-Dade County Elections Department. So this is why after consulting with all of you, we called for this special meeting. But, Commissioner, I think that we will be able to determine, once the voters have decide, what are the fiscal impact with this new situation or with the status quo.
Commissioner Dunn: Thank you.
Chair Sarnoff: Commissioner Gort.
Commissioner Gort: Well, when I decided to run in January, I knew it was difficult times and we had to make some tough decisions. At the same time, in the past -- and I was here about ten years ago -- the budget director will fix the budget for this year; next year, we'll see what happens. What this Administration is doing because of what we inherit, and we want to make
City of Miami Page 9 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
sure it doesn't happen again, we're planning a budget for the next five years. What's happening today, we want to make sure it doesn't happen again. And we all know that the economy will come back. When that economy comes back, we want to make sure that we create a reserve, that we don't use all those funds. And to answer the question for the gentleman in the parking business, one of the biggest problems the City of Miami has is we paying for the growth of Miami-Dade County. We have maybe 450,000 residents, but at any one time, the City of Miami it is providing service to over a million people that they don't pay taxes within the City of Miami. So this is one of the ideas why the tax on the parking came up. I'm ready to vote.
Chair Sarnoff: Well, let me -- I guess because essentially the Miami Parking Authority accounts -- probably 80 percent of its revenues derive from District 2, and probably about 70 percent from the CBG, I think there are some things worth saying. And I will tell you at the inception, I certainly support this Mayor, and I certainly support this Manager, and I certainly support what I think they are making organic changes in how we look at everything in the City of Miami. 'Cause if we don't make structural changes -- if we don't create a new path for the City of Miami, there's not much left to find of a path to go down. And the only reason I'm even contemplating this favorable vote is because they are approaching it from a new path. But I think it's worth saying what we've done, what we asked for from the Miami Parking Authority. It is an authority created long before anybody became [sic] on this dais. It is a parking authority that was charged with creating an artificially low parking rate in the downtown urban core to stimulate businesses and prevent or maintain a path that would create a lower basis for other parking (UNINTELLIGIBLE) standard or right, the Metrals, the Mermellis, so that they couldn't charge 50, $60 an hour when you go to see a LeBron James play his first game. So that $100 a parking doesn't occur. And that is the charge you give them, that you say to them, you must keep parking at -- I don't know what it is -- 7 or $8 an hour, and forgive me for not knowing that. And without that, you'll have the free market determining exactly what the market will bear. And you will have gouging. So that's their charge. On the other hand, then we say to them, you got to throw back as much revenue as possible to the City of Miami. You can't raise the rates, but you got to throw back as much revenue. I don't remember us handing them a printing press, and I don't remember giving them a dryer with a brick in it to create money. So we give them an impossible task. We ask them to keep parking at an artificially low rate, but derive and generate as much revenue as possible for the City of Miami. Now, my next concern is where is this going? When we take this back and we decide to either bond out this revenue stream or we decide to privatize it in some modified plan, what is it that we're going to do with this money? Because in the past, we haven't done well when we've been given a lot of money. And candidly, I've sat on a Commission before, along with the Mayor, that I thought spent pretty wildly, didn't hold people accountable, and whatever the result of those votes were, they were always political. And I question, you know, what is our end game? Because one of the things that attracts me to doing this is the Manager's suggestion, let's diversify. Because, let's face it, folks, you don't mortgage your house simply to mortgage your house. You have a desire to do something. You want to buy a frivolous product, a frivolous thing, you can do that. You're certainly a private citizen and able to do that. If you're a business person and you have an idea to make money, well, of course, you're going to say, if I mortgage my house for $100,000, then I believe the 5 percent interest I'm going to pay on that house, I have an idea that's going to net me 16, 17, 18 percent interest, so I'm -- I should say it's going to gross me, and then I'm going to net 11 or 12 percent interest. So you have a plan. The reason I'm for this is because the Manager does have that plan. And what he's trying to do is diversify the revenue that the City of Miami can create. The diversification he believes comes from marinas. He believes Miami is a marine city. And he believes that there's more money to be found by creating additional marinas. And I think he's right, because we can't only look to parking as our only revenue source. You know, in line with what Commissioner Gort just said, is everything happens to and in the City of Miami. Every prisoner from all parts of Dade County get released in Miami. Every homeless person that's found citywide -- or countywide, I should say, essentially comes to the City of Miami. You do not -- you have how many office buildings from the federal government, the county government that don't pay taxes? A million people swell our ranks, and you simply expect a parking surcharge to make up for
City of Miami Page 10 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
those million people. It is a very difficult task. It is a model that most economists -- if you went to FIU (Florida International University) or UM (University of Miami), they would say to you, "This model will fail." And where do we find ourselves? In failure. And so, what the Manager is saying is, let me take this money, a portion of it, so I understand it, and let me diversify our portfolio of revenue sources. And that's why I can support this because he's going to diversify the revenue sources. He believes the marina, with the amount of money he can spend, will give him a 16 percent return. Am I correct on that?
Carlos A. Migoya (City Manager): That is correct, sir.
Chair Sarnoff: And I don't know many people in their portfolios today that are deriving 16 percent on their return. And I think the one thing we have to do in the City of Miami is stop depending upon one revenue source. Whether that revenue source is parking -- You've heard it at the last Commission meeting; you can't keep depending on ad valorem revenues to support the City of Miami. You simply have to diversify. I think -- my only concern, quite candidly, is the politicalization of parking. I can't help but voice my concern, Mr. Mayor, that while I trust you and while I trust this particular board, I don't know what comes after us. And I don't know what comes after you. And that has always been my concern when passing a law. You never pass a law for good people. You pass a law for bad people. And there are good people up here. The best people I've ever served with. There's a good Mayor up here. The best Mayor I've ever served with. But I don't know what comes next. And that's why I'm guarded in what I'm saying. I watched -- when we had street bonds come in, I think we had $20 million. You would think we would have put the money towards the streets of Miami. Well, we did, sort of. District 2, downtown, has 60 percent of the streets, has 65 percent of the F-rated streets. It got 20 percent of the money. That's called the politicalization of money. And my only concern is, it's in our nature, each one of us -- we want to take care of our own districts. And that's why there was an independent agency formed, to prevent the politicalization of money. So that when streets need to be fixed, you figure out what street needs to be fixed. When parking needs to be kept at an artificially low rate, we maintain that artificial low rate. I'm going to support this simply because this Administration has a plan. I like their plan. I like their intentions. I think the City of Miami, in the Mayor's words, needs -- I call it an ultra change or an organic change, and he's getting us to a completely different way of looking at things, and a different way of creating different revenue streams. I just thought it was worth putting some things out there. We have asked the Miami Parking Authority to do an impossible task. Keep it low, boys, but derive us as much money as you can. And that's a very tough job. So I thought it was worth saying that. And, Commissioner Gort, you're recognized.
Commissioner Gort: There's something I forgot to mention, which I think the DOSP, it's a great department. They've done a great job, and I would like to see them continue to do their job as the Department of Off-Street Parking. At the same time, it's important to let people know that the board of directors, they're volunteers, they don't receive any pay and they spend a lot of time looking at and making sure that it does function the way it should be functions [sic]. And I want to thank all of you, because not too many people have meetings at 7:30 in the morning. The DOSP Board does, and they get the business done. So this is something -- I have the same (UNINTELLIGIBLE) that you have. I don't want to see this become very political. I like to see, if possible, more of an integration, us working very close with DOSP. And I look at it the same way you do.
Chair Sarnoff: Thank you.
Mayor Regalado: If I may, Mr. Chairman?
Chair Sarnoff: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Regalado: Oh, sorry.
City of Miami Page 11 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
Commissioner Dunn: No, go ahead. Okay. One last question. Is there a paradigm for cities in similar situations like us who've gone in this area, explored doing what we -- if approved by the voters, is there a paradigm or a model across the country?
Mr. Migoya: I can say a model that hasn't worked all that well, which is the City of Chicago that got themselves in trouble. And what they decided to do was opposite of what we're talking about here, which is basically a long-term lease or sell of their on- and off-street parking, to which they basically allowed the new vendor to price the parking, and their city's way out of whack, and they got an upfront sum for -- without putting any restrictions on the parking payments. And that city's out of control. So if anything, we've learned how not to do these things. Actually, what we're proposing is the opposite. We want to make sure that we continue to operate and work with the Parking Authority as a way to deal with this, and not necessarily just send it to a third vendor somewhere.
Commissioner Dunn: Okay. Thank you.
Mayor Regalado: And --
Chair Sarnoff: Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Regalado: -- just -- I share your concerns. I understand. However, I would like to point out that the most difficult political decision that has to be made on parking has been made by this Commission and prior Commission, which is setting the parking rates. And so, it is something that it will not change, whether the referendum goes either way, it would always be the elected officials. But there is more. There is a need for more flexibility and a need to change, a structural change. And I -- Mr. Chairman, I think that, hopefully, all of us will be here next year. And during next year, we have to make so many decisions, that all the work of the referendum has to be done, because this is what we're trying to do. To do this year and next year the structural changes that the City will need to live within its means, and providing the same services to everyone in the next 15, 20 years, if we do that, and that is part of what we are seeking today. I think that what we're seeking today is your approval so the voters will have a say, and the City Commission will have the possibility of having a very long and detailed debate about the options that we have. This is all we're asking today. We're pressed by time because we have to go to the Elections Department, and this is why we're bringing this today. Thank you.
Chair Sarnoff: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. All right, gentlemen, it's my understanding that we're going to have to take two separate votes, directing the City Attorney to draft the Charter amendment based on the discussion, and calling for a resolution for a special election upon the amendment. So right now, there is a motion resolving to direct the City Attorney to draft the Charter amendment based on the discussion. That is before us right now. So any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, please say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chair Sarnoff: All right. Mr. Vice Chair, I believe you would like -- probably make the next resolution?
Vice Chair Carollo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I believe the resolution is directing the City Attorney to call for a special election upon the amendment.
Ms. Bru: Mr. Vice Chair, that one was the one that you just voted on. The next one would be -- you have a copy of the resolution, the title being "A resolution of the Miami City Commission, with attachments, approving, setting forth and submitting to the electorate a proposed Charter amendment." That would be the next one to vote on.
City of Miami Page 12 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
Vice Chair Carollo: Okay. So that will be my motion, as stated by the City Attorney.
Commissioner Dunn: Second, Mr. Chair.
Chair Sarnoff: I'm with his confusion, by the way. All right. We have a motion, we have a second. Any further discussion?
Vice Chair Carollo: All you have to say is aye.
Chair Sarnoff: All in favor, please say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Ms. Bru: Mr. Chair, before you go on to the next item, I'd like to put something on the record. By Charter, the City Attorney serves as counsel to the Department of Off-Street Parking, and the executive director has asked me regarding the possibility of the agency retaining counsel in the event that they decide to do so in connection with this process, and I've consulted with the Florida Bar, and indeed, there would be a conflict for my office to represent them should they wish to proceed to retain counsel for that particular purpose. So I just want to put on the record that I would not be representing them in connection with this process, this election, or anything that could come about -- you know, as a result of it.
Chair Sarnoff: So then, they can choose their own lawyer is what you're saying?
Ms. Bru: Yes, they would.
Chair Sarnoff: Okay. All right. Thank you very much.
SP.2 DISCUSSION ITEM 10-00870 DISCUSSION OF A CHARTER AMENDMENT RELATED TO CIVIL SERVICE RULES. 10-00870 Draft Resolution.pdf 10-00870 Memo.pdf DISCUSSED
(SP.2) RESOLUTION 10-00870a A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF MIAMI FOR CONSIDERATION AT AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 2, 2010, PROPOSING, UPON THE APPROVAL OF THE ELECTORATE, THE CONVERSION OF THE CIVIL SERVICE SECTION TO AN ORDINANCE TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI.
Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Commissioner Gort, that this matter be ADOPTED FAILED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 2 - Commissioner(s) Sarnoff and Suarez Noes: 3 - Commissioner(s) Carollo, Gort and Dunn II
Chair Sarnoff: All right, Mr. Mayor, I guess you are now recognized for SP.2.
City of Miami Page 13 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
Mayor Tomás Regalado: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a discussion of a Charter amendment related to civil service rules. Again, this Charter amendment, it's all about accountability. It's all about the City Commission having the flexibility, having the possibility of fixing some of the things that the City Commission believe that have to be fixed in order to structure a new system, in order to create a budget, in order to move forward. What we have now is we have some minute things that if you were to deal with it, we have to go to a referendum one by one. This language in the Charter has been in place for 50, 60 years, and since then there has been federal laws, state laws that are giving the workers a large amount of protection. To me -- and I have been briefed, as you all have -- it is not something to take away rights of the workers. It is nothing to do away with the process. It is nothing to attack the workers. It's just giving the City Commission the flexibility of acting in this difficult times the way that we need to act. If I may, I'm just going to read the language, and maybe the City Attorney and the Administration can supplement what I'm saying. But the language that has been drafted by the City Attorney is very clear; it's very simple. And it says “Shall the Miami Charter be amended to convert Section 36, entitled “Civil Service,” to an ordinance, thereby authorizing the City Commission to, from time to time, after advertising public hearings, adopt, amend, or repeal employment rules and regulations as determined by the City Commission to be in the interest of promoting greater productivity and efficiency in the workforce and enhancing the delivery of services in a cost-effective manner. I guess that some employees may think or believe that this is something that we're doing to take away any right. It is not. It's just asking the voters to give the Commission the flexibility to act in this difficult times. We are in unchartered waters in the next several months in terms of the economy. And we have many things to do and many hours to discuss many issues, so if -- maybe the City Attorney can help us on -- I mean, it's clear what we are trying to do here.
Julie O. Bru (City Attorney): I can just speak as to the process. And what this would have is the -- the same thing that this Commission did back in, I think, 2001. We used to have our purchasing code in the Charter and it became very inefficient and burdensome to try to micromanage the purchasing code to meet the needs of, you know, a more modern operation that the City, you know, is involved in. So we took the purchasing code and converted it to an ordinance and now you have your purchasing code in the code of ordinances.
Chair Sarnoff: All right. Let me ask if there's a motion or how the Commission wishes to act. You want to open up to a public hearing first?
Commissioner Suarez: Move it.
Chair Sarnoff: All right. I got a motion by Commissioner Suarez.
Commissioner Gort: Second for discussion.
Chair Sarnoff: Second by Commissioner Gort. Let's open it up for a public hearing. Anybody from the general public wishing to be heard on SP.2, a discussion -- is your motion as a resolution directing the Clerk? All right, so -- and the sec -- and does the seconder accept that?
Commissioner Gort: Yeah.
Chair Sarnoff: Yes? Okay. All right, Mr. Cruz, you're recognized for the record.
Mariano Cruz: Yeah. Mariano Cruz, 1227 Northwest 26 Street. I'm going to talk as a former member of the Civil Service Board for nine years. I was first appointed in the year 2000 by then Commissioner Regalado, and then reappointed again and confirmed by the City Commission. And I am glad to see things being changed because as a quasi-judicial board, the Civil Service Board has a lot of power, a lot of power there, and sometimes get in the way of the Administration. But it's good in a way because I tell you, 90 -- a lot of percentages of the cases
City of Miami Page 14 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
that go there -- 'cause you got some frivolous cases going there -- most of the time are abuse of power, abuse of power by administrator or some of the managers, okay. because I've been pressured to get that guy out of there. No, you have to vote against this. You don't tell me what to do. Even Commissioner Regalado never told me what to do or any of the Commissioners how to vote there, 'cause I go -- always vote in a fair decision, a fair way, looking at the evidence there. And I'm glad to see maybe something -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE) to check it, but remember, it's a very important board of the City of Miami. To me it's considered the most important board to me of the relationship because it keeps a check and balance of abuse of power. The County doesn't have that. The County has a professional team, whatever, Ethics Commission. But they don't have a Civil Service Board because here employees are being abused 'cause we know cases employees that were put in a cubicle there without computer, without phone, without anything. You know, we pay you eight hours, you stay there. And that employee have the right to go to the Civil Service Board, which votes, that department head, unanimously against her and she have to resign. She have to resign her department and then she left the City. But cases like that, people won't know about them if there were no Civil Service. So I am glad that they going to revisit that, change that, and do whatever it is, but remember, keep always that they there not only to serve the employees, to serve the people, the residents out there, that we don't need employees either that abuse the system. And you've got some of them there, frivolous grievances and all kind of problem there. Thank you.
Chair Sarnoff: Thank you. Anyone else from the general public wishing to be heard on SP.2? Mr. Cox, you're recognized for the record.
Charlie Cox: Charlie Cox, Local 19 -- president of Local 1907, 4011 West Flagler Street. The leading champion of Civil Service reform movement was Theodore Roosevelt, who later became a republican president. He based his philosophy on -- for reform on three principles. Opportunities made equal for all citizens. Only those who had merit would be appointed to their jobs. Public servants should not suffer for their political beliefs. Those were his three beliefs.
Commissioner Dunn: Could you repeat that, Mr. --? I didn't hear that last part.
Chair Sarnoff: I didn't hear the last one either that well, Charlie.
Commissioner Dunn: Yeah. I want to make sure.
Mr. Cox: The last one?
Chair Sarnoff: Yeah.
Commissioner Dunn: Yeah, the last one.
Mr. Cox: Public servants should not suffer for their political beliefs.
Commissioner Dunn: Okay.
Mr. Cox: I'm a City employee with over 35 years of service. I've served as an electrician, electrical line worker, electrical line superintendant, and president of AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) Local 1907. When I came to the City, I was trained by Florida Power & Light. Like anyone in the trade, I had the proper licenses to work for the City and qualify for a position. I had to take a written test and pass it, according to Civil Service rules and regulations. Statements were made that the old-time employees know how to beat the system. The statement was unfair and uncalled for, in my opinion. I proudly represent probably the oldest workforce in the City. The dedicated employees who have been here much longer than most of you and who have been loyal to their employer and who have forgiven higher private sector wages in exchange for public service and benefits, they're a great
City of Miami Page 15 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
asset to the City, not just because of their work ethic; because they have experience, which most employees value. The City finds itself in a financial crisis, but I want to make one thing clear. I do not represent anyone who makes any financial decisions for the City. I read the newspaper every day, and it seems though everyday elected officials in the City of Miami are blaming the City's financial problems on unions and the employees, stating that our benefits and salaries are out of whack. Thirty-five years ago I took a pay cut of $1.55 an hour to come to the City to work for $5.05. Until last month's Commission meeting, I thought I had made the right career decision, but I guess loyalty, dedication, experience, and hard work are meaningless in your eyes. I believe the City's older workforce who have made a career out of the service of this City love their jobs and this City, and work just as hard if not harder than any of the other employees. They deserve your respect, not your criticism, and they deserve to know after many years of hard work, their jobs are secure, and they will not be discriminated against on account of their age because they are paid more as they should be than new hires off the street. I have heard and read that you all -- some of you want to claim bankruptcy or declare a financial emergency. I've had to listen to all the negative propaganda that goes with it and all the blame that has been directed to the employees, and I truthfully have had enough. I was here when the Oversight Board came in to fix the problems that plagued the City back in the 19 -- mid-1900s -- 1990. Now the unions and employees are being blamed again. I think that those Commissioners are here -- while Mr. Arriola was here and manager for three years, we did not have a contract. After Arriola left, we negotiated the contract that we are now in. We received a 2 percent cost of living for those three years that Mr. Arriola refused to negotiate, and 3 percent for the next three years. Have you forgotten, the last year we gave up our 3 percent wage increase to the pension, thereby reducing the City's pension obligation. The City of Miami CPI (Consumer Price Index) increase average during that was 3.14 percent during that last five years that we had wage increases. But the employees I represent lagged way behind, earning an average of only 2.4 during that same period of time. The only pension benefit that was received during those six years was one year extra in the DROP (Deferred Retirement Option Plan). We had the three, we went to four. And yet, every politician wants to blame the unions when we don't make the problems that we're facing and been brought on by the dropping housing market and the market collapse, the recession, including the hiring of unnecessary, costly outside consultants. And most of you, I have given you that information. These are the worst times I've seen, and I am older than most of you on this dais. Some of you play the blame game and blame the employees. I have never once come to a Commissioner or a Mayor and asked for you to ratify a contract that I -- or lobbied for a contract that I have negotiated and I never will. But yet, the first to blame is the unions. My history speaks for itself. I'm the only union sitting here with more than 80 layoffs and rollbacks in my bargaining unit. This City has operated under Civil Service rule since its inception, and now all of a sudden you're blaming the same rules and regulations that all of us had to live by somehow hindering your ability to fix the financial crisis. It's preposterous. If you believe that older employees are a burden to this City instead of hard working and dedicated individuals, then why don't you start by firing me? I'll lead the example. Come on and do it. And I'll tell you, I don't mind working for free. Every time the City has a problem and (UNINTELLIGIBLE) employees (UNINTELLIGIBLE) --
Chair Sarnoff: Charlie, I need you to conclude.
Mr. Cox: I have ten people here that signed up for me to speak.
Chair Sarnoff: I understand, Charlie. I've giving you about seven or eight minutes, and I'm asking you to conclude.
Mr. Cox: Thank you.
Chair Sarnoff: Thank you. You're recognized for the record.
Armando Aguilar: I won't be very long. Armando Aguilar, president, Miami Fraternal Order of
City of Miami Page 16 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
Police, 710 Southwest 12th Avenue. I'm here to urge that you vote this down. You're going to make a mockery out of the Civil Service rules and regulations. It's going to be no different than holding a trial in communist Cuba. What it's going to do is going to cost the City millions and millions of dollars 'cause it's going to force the unions to take each and every item into arbitration. You're going to have to end up paying for arbitration. You're going to have to end up paying for an arbitrator 'cause it's going to make a mockery of the system. I urge you to please vote this down. This is wrong. It's wrong for the employees, and it's wrong for the citizens to have to spend all this money in the long run. Thank you.
Chair Sarnoff: Thank you. Anyone else in the general public wishing to be heard on SP.2, please step up. You're recognized for the record.
Joe Simmons, Jr.: Joe Simmons, Jr., president of sanitation workers, AFSCME Local 871. There's been a whole lot of discussion about the Civil Service rules and regulations. I really don't see the urgency in politicizing a system that is based upon competitiveness, and that's the reason why it's there. Number one, you want a system where it encourages people to compete for various positions. People don't come to the City -- especially in our line of work, it's very competitive. So it gives people pride. It affects the morale of the employees that work there because they have a sense of pride of knowing that they've competed and someone hasn't given them something for nothing. I ask you to vote this down. Number one, it is still not clear on what the intent of the City of Miami are [sic] when it comes to the Civil Service rules and regulations. Thanks.
Chair Sarnoff: Thank you. You're recognized for the record.
Osnat Rind: Thank you. Osnat Rind. I'm the attorney for AFSCME 1907. With me is Jorge Garcia. He's the vice president of the union. I have represented the union now for a number of years and you know in those years I've appeared before the Civil Service Board almost every other week. And of all the Commissioners who are sitting on the dais, I think the only one that I've actually seen at a hearing is you, Mr. Chairman. And I know that you believe in the system. I know that when somebody was accused of wrongdoing who had worked in your office, you were willing to step up to the plate and go to the hearing and defend that person because it was the right thing to do. You have to think about what it is that the Administration really wants in removing this from the Charter. Those provisions of the Charter, your voters, they've spoken. They've said that these rules are that important, that these Civil Service rules, which are protection against discrimination, protection against abuse, you know, making sure that promotional opportunities are available not just to friends and not just to supporters , but to all of the employees, and they are very important to the workers. And what essentially they're saying to you is like saying to Congress or to the people, listen, you don't need the 14th Amendment, the 1st Amendment, the 2nd Amendment. Listen, just give it to us, give it to Congress, and let us amend it from time to time. Your voters have said that these are the -- are rules that are quite important to them and that's why they're included in this Charter. And so, you know, on behalf of these employees who've come before you -- and, you know, if you really want to see what goes on in those hearings, then appear before them. I mean, I have not witnessed, you know, abuses at Civil Service. I've witnessed people who think it's important that they have their day in court, to be able to go to a body and say here are my rights that are being abused, and they are rights that go -- that are important to them that go beyond the law that give them a quick and reliable process. And I -- and that's why I think the unions and all of the employees are urging you to say no to this. Your people have already determined that these are important rights that they want protected.
Chair Sarnoff: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to be heard on SP.2, please step up. Hearing none, seeing none, comes back -- closing the public hearing; comes back to this Commission. Discussion? Commissioner Dunn, you're recognized.
City of Miami Page 17 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
Commissioner Dunn: Mr. Chairman, I want to pose a question to the Manager. What is the -- 'cause I'm feeling uncomfortable -- timeframe? What's the sense of urgency? Is this something that can be deferred because I don't have a comfort level that I would like to have to vote in favor of this because I'm not feeling comfortable with it?
Carlos A. Migoya (City Manager): The urgency relates to the fact of the vote and the election of November 2, which is the reason for it to be heard today. The intent, which is different than what you've heard predominantly from the unions, is we're not looking to eliminate Civil Service. As the City Attorney talked about --
Commissioner Dunn: A little louder. I couldn't hear you. I'm sorry.
Mr. Migoya: I'm sorry. I've never heard -- I'm happy to speak louder. The intent was never to eliminate Civil Service. The intent has always been to move Civil Service from the Charter to the Code so that the City Commission can look at the individual items that are out there and look at where we can -- looking -- there's a lot of -- you know, the Civil Service was created in the '50s. There's been an awful lot of laws. There's bargaining, there's the unions, a lot of the issues that are -- that we deal with with Civil Service are trumped by the collective bargaining. So the idea behind this is that the Commission will have the right to be able to look at the different parts of Civil Service and amend or do whatever is necessary with Civil Service to streamline the redundancies that are dealing with all the different labor laws that we have out there and Civil Service, not necessarily about the elimination of Civil Service.
Commissioner Dunn: Mr. Chair.
Chair Sarnoff: Continue to have colloquy.
Commissioner Dunn: Does this have any fiscal impact whatsoever on what we're trying -- or could it have?
Mr. Migoya: It's not necessarily the fiscal impact, but it's really about the streamlining -- for example, in the creation and the hiring of many jobs, the way the procedures that we have today take months for us to be able to hire people. And there's ways to streamline this that we could work on improving some of those -- the areas. There are probably some fiscal impact from the standpoint of when you were dealing with redundancies instead of having people sit for hours and try to deal with Civil Service where we could go directly with the unions and have collective bargaining on -- as it relates to vacations or other pieces. And I personally feel strongly that the grievance process of Civil Service is an important piece that we have here. But again, we are not proposing the elimination of the Civil Service Board in any way, shape, or form. We are really talking about you having the opportunity to be able to look at the different pieces and figure out where do we have redundancies and how to work with it. So that's really what we're talking about here.
Chair Sarnoff: Mr. Mayor, you're recognized.
Mayor Regalado: Thank you. I have to do something personal and -- because I have historical memory, and I know that the Chairman has been in before this board. But in the past years, I have been before the Civil Service Board I think three times, subpoenaed by an employee to defend an employee. As a Commissioner, I came before the Civil Service Board two or three times to defend an employee. One, mind you, that send me information. As a Commissioner, I pass it on to the Manager at that time, and that employee was punished for giving the information as a whistleblower, and I came and defend that employee. So I'm all for the Civil Service Board. I have been an advocate for the employees. I did not heard [sic] so many complaints as we are hearing now. Back in the past Administration, when the Administration decided to cancel the TV (Television) transmission of the Civil Service Board -- because when I
City of Miami Page 18 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
asked, I was told “We do not want to air our dirty laundry. We rather do it in secret.” I have a file, like 15 e-mails (electronic) and memos requesting that the Civil Service Board will be back on TV. And I failed as a Commissioner because the past Administration did not want scandals to be aired. Finally, they brought it back and the Civil Service Board is back on TV for everyone to see. And it was funny because, you know, the reason that I was told several times and the reason that I was asking is because of transparency. I mean, you have a problem, people should know. And the reason that I was told the fact that the Manager and the Mayor wanted to, in the past Administration, cancel the TV show of the Civil Service Board is because, oh, when there was a hot case, every employee will not be working in the City and watching the Civil Service Board, and we lose a lot of productivity. That was, to me -- yeah, yeah, I remember. And you know, it was a hot case because it was a case of a love triangle or something like that. But you know, I believe that the Civil Service Board is done good. I believe that the Civil Service Board should be air, that the employees have the right to express their grievances. That's the first amendment. And I don't believe that this does away with the Civil Service Board. If we have five members of the Commission who wants to do away with the Civil Service Board but -- well, so be it. But I will still -- I will be opposed, as Mayor, to eliminate the concept of the Civil Service Board, but I do believe that you need to have again the flexibility to do things that could expedite some of the employee issues that we have in the City of Miami, and maybe we can detail these issues. And you know, maybe we can place in the Charter -- in the ballot something -- two lines about changing a small provision. But it -- I personally thought that this will give the City Commission the authority and the possibility to fix some of the things that needs to be fixed. And by the way, with public hearings, an ordinance have two hearings and public hearings, and the same concern that the unions have expressed here will be expressed in each and every item that you all be discussing, at least like -- and this is not in a ten-year cycle. These are things that need, again, to be addressed with this same Commission next year and it's -- I think it's important. And I -- maybe the Manager can give you some details of what cannot be fixed now and what could be fixed by ordinance.
Mr. Migoya: If I may. There are 19 rules of Civil Service that today, if we wish to change any of them, we have to go to Civil Service Board. If they do not agree, the Commission has no say-so; they will not be heard. Different from zoning or any other items where you have a board that may be reject, in this case, there is no appeal to the City Commission. What we are looking to do is to be able to have an amendment so that any changes that would like to be heard, it may be even rejected by the Civil Service, but at least we have the opportunity to appeal to the City Commission. That is things like how to hire people, how to terminate people, how to deal with flexibility on classified/unclassified, all those other items. Today, it is a hundred percent up to the Civil Service Board and you, the City Commission, do not have any say-so on those rules.
Commissioner Dunn: Okay.
Chair Sarnoff: Go ahead. You're recognized.
Commissioner Dunn: Mr. Chairman, thank you again. So I just want to make sure that I'm clear and I'm understanding this clearly. If this item passes today, it is not an item to abolish the Civil Service Board? I just want to make -- 'cause I -- that's one part of it. Go --
Mayor Regalado: No, sir.
Commissioner Dunn: -- ahead, Mr. Mayor. Okay. So that -- we're not abolishing -- we're -- Yes.
Ms. Bru: Commissioner, if this item passes today, it goes to the voters. And if the voters approve this amendment to our Charter, then all the rules regarding Civil Service, the classification of employees, whether they're classified or unclassified, the rules regarding appointment and promotions, all those things, the way that the board functions, all those things would become an
City of Miami Page 19 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
ordinance which gets codified. And then from time to time, if this Commission wants to change something, repeal something, abolish something, discontinue something, add something, it would be up to the vote of the Commission.
Commissioner Dunn: So now we're not going to get caught up in the micromanagement of civilian issues? That's -- but at the same time -- I'm just trying to get clarification. I need this. But at the same time, as it stands now, the Civil Service Board, on these 19 rules, have the authority over the Commission. And so this item, if passed by referendum, would give us the opportunity to review, to tweak if need be, if the Commission unanimously agrees upon making some changes. So we will not proverbially be throwing out the whole baby with the bath? Is that what I'm saying?
Ms. Bru: You would --
Commissioner Dunn: That'd be left up to us.
Ms. Bru: You would have the authority to do that if you were to vote that way in the future. You're not doing it by virtue of this Charter amendment.
Commissioner Dunn: So this is just another way of providing an option for us to revisit this as it is now?
Ms. Bru: Correct.
Commissioner Dunn: Okay.
Chair Sarnoff: You're recognized, Commissioner Gort.
Commissioner Gort: My understanding is that if the Administration were to make any changes, it would go to the Civil Service Board. The Civil Service Board is the one that would make the decision. The flexibility would be if by any chance we do not agree with the decision made by the Civil Service Board, it can come and we could -- Administration can appeal it to the Commission. Is that my understanding?
Ms. Bru: I think -- we have to remember that the Civil Service system that is established in the Charter addresses many different aspects of the workplace and employment. It establishes a classification of employees. It provides for the establishment of a board. It describes what the authority and power of the board is. It gives the board rule-making authority and that's one of the things that management has expressed as an impediment, and that is is that it is up to the board to determine the rules that governs how employees are appointed and how employees are promoted. And at this time, the way the Charter expresses those rules, it is up to the Civil Service Board and this Commission only has the authority to ratify that which the board determines with respect to appointments and promotions. So it has been expressed by the Administration that they feel that that is too much of a constraint and that they would rather have the flexibility to, in the future, recommend to this board a change so that if they wanted to modify the ways that employees are classified or employees are appointment -- appointed or promoted, it would be done by this -- by their recommendation and subject to your approval.
Mayor Regalado: But if I may, I think I understand what Commissioner Gort is saying. What he wanted to establish was that -- suppose that this passes, suppose that they vote for it and this goes to the voter, and suppose that this passes, that a City Manager will not have the authority to just say by a signature I'm going to change everything. It's not. It does not have the authority. That was -- I mean, the City Manager would not have the authority. It would be the Commission that has to change the ordinance or ordinances. In other words --
City of Miami Page 20 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
Ms. Bru: And remember that, at the end of the day, you still have collective bargaining and any terms and conditions of employment that is bargained and established in your contracts trumps anything that is provided for in terms of Civil Service rules.
Commissioner Gort: I want to make sure that the message is sent. First of all, I want to make sure that people knows [sic] that we have a lot of good people in the City of Miami that provide a lot of good services, and I want to make sure that everybody understands that. Our safety departments is one of the best and the police and the fire, and a lot of the workers that we have are very good workers. And we want to recognize that. This is not anything against -- that we blame anything on the workers. This is something that we've been working on for a long time. We're trying to get together the budget, a projection of five years. And now my understanding is -- and I want to make sure we have this, and I want to make sure that the unions and employees understand this. Any changes that the Administration would want to make, it would have to go to the Civil Service Board first. They will make a decision. But it gives us the flexibility -- and that, my understanding is before the Administration would want to make any changes, they probably would get together with the unions and talk to the people and see if those changes are really agreed. If that takes place, then that would have to go in front of the Civil Service Board and the Civil Service Board is the one that will vote on it like it's been done in the past. The flexibility that it gives us is it'll gives us an opportunity if we do not agree with the decision made by the Civil Service, then we can -- it can be appealed to the City Commission; City Commission makes the final decision. Now, on the final decision in cases like this, could be a majority -- not the majority of the vote, but unanimous vote?
Vice Chair Carollo: No.
Ms. Bru: Commission, once -- if you were to obtain the authority to amend these rules because it becomes an ordinance and you can modify ordinances, you could impose upon yourselves a requirement that there be a super majority vote or a four-fifth vote with respect to any modification of the existing rules.
Vice Chair Carollo: Mr. Chairman.
Chair Sarnoff: You're recognized, Vice Chair.
Vice Chair Carollo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The irony of this right now is that I remember in the June 10 meeting, after the Manager gave his update, he mentioned as far as layoffs. He said that we were not looking at increasing the millage and we were looking at slashing our expenses, and obviously negotiating with the unions, but should that not occur, it may ultimately lie back with this Commission. And whatever happens, the bottom line is we will not go into bankruptcy because if we didn't slash enough expenses, there will be layoffs. As a good businessperson, I thought, okay, our contingency plan is going to be layoffs so I wanted to know more about it. And I think we had a healthy discussion, which the intent was to explore best practices. I'll be honest with you. I raised concerns with, you know, certain issues with Civil Service. I'll be honest with you. At the same time, there was discussion whether we will have a committee of one, whether Commissioner Suarez or myself to discuss this and really be able to analyze this to see where -- you know, explore the best practices. That was June 10. However, other than a week and a half ago or so when I was speaking with the City Attorney on a amendment or resolution for this meeting so it goes to the voters, I asked what's going on with the Civil Service and so forth. And she says -- and she told me various things, but the bottom line is, we had nothing concrete. We didn't discuss, you know, the various options and so forth until now, July 29, and it's to a vote to bring it to the voters. You know, like I said in the last resolution, I made the motion. I had spoken to the Mayor, I don't know, some weeks back. I had ample time to analyze what was going to the voters and like the Mayor very well said, you know, let the voters decide. However, I think we have some type of a fiduciary duty to explain to the voters what we're bringing to them, and I also do believe that I was elected to give them guidance whenever
City of Miami Page 21 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
we put something before them as far as a resolution to amend our Charter. I don't feel comfortable right now in exactly what we're putting beforehand -- before them. I actually, if I read my colleague correct, I think Commissioner Dunn has some reservations about what's there in the resolution, and it went from exploring best practices and really seeing what we can and cannot do to this is what we're doing and we need to put it before the voters in order for us to then discuss what we're going to do. And I don't really necessarily feel that's correct and I don't see me voting in favor of this, which is ironic because in June 10, I wanted to really, as a good businessperson, see what our contingency plan is and really be able to see the pros and really fix the problems that we face. So that's what I have to say for now. I'll, you know, keep listening to my colleagues and see, you know, where this goes. Thank you.
Chair Sarnoff: Commissioner Suarez.
Commissioner Suarez: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A couple of things that came to mind as I've been listening to this discussion. First and foremost, I agree with what Mr. Aguilar said about the grievance process of the Civil Service Board. My mother served on that board. I think Commissioner Gort may have appointed her, I'm not sure, but I agree that that's a good process by which we should resolve grievances. It's much less expensive than going to arbitration on every single issue. And I think what the Vice Chairman's concern is, it's a good concern, I think. In that meeting -- in the -- you know, in the July or June -- was it June 10 meeting?
Vice Chair Carollo: June 10.
Commissioner Suarez: In the June 10 meeting, we talked about looking at best practices. And I think one of the issues here today is if we were to find that -- within that analysis of the best practices that there are some things in the Civil Service rules that are not good -- a good practice, we really wouldn't have any way to modify those rules. And I think what this is giving us an opportunity to do is, if the voters agree by the way -- I mean, I don't think there's anything that should be presupposed when you consider the referendum process. There's been many times where many referendums have been shot down. So ultimately, the first thing that we're doing is we're telling the voters we believe in you to decide what is the best way you want to govern yourself through the charter system. They have to either agree or disagree with that process. If they agree with that process, what that does is it takes this process out of the charter system so that if we later find that there is a best practice that is not in coherence with the way it was drafted in the Charter, then we have the authority to modify that. So that's why to me it seems to make sense. I don't think that any Commissioner here or the Mayor is committed to abolishing the Civil Service system or the grievance progress. I'm certainly not in favor of abolishing the grievance process, in favor of arbitration on every single matter. That wouldn't make any sense whatsoever from my perspective. But we have to analyze the entire rules and see what are the best practices; and to change those rules, we can't do it under the current system. So that's why I move the item and that's why I support it.
Chair Sarnoff: Thank you.
Vice Chair Carollo: Mr. Chairman.
Chair Sarnoff: You're recognized, Vice Chair.
Vice Chair Carollo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for that, Commissioner. When we discussed it at the June 10 meeting, we wanted to have a discussion about it. And I understand what you're saying as far as in order to actually change something, we need to put it before the voters and so forth. However, I would have liked to have discussed that before this meeting because now in this meeting is when I really -- we really have the first discussion about it. And although maybe the will of this Commission, the will of this Mayor is not to change the board, let's, you know, have a reality check. We're not going to be here forever. So maybe
City of Miami Page 22 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
another Commission in the future could change it and it could, you know, open the door for cronyism. So what I'm saying is that, you know, we really need to analyze this, you know, and I haven't had that opportunity. You know, since our meeting in June 10 to now, July 29, this is when we really have the first chance to discuss it and put everything out there. And like I said, just like there's issues with Civil Service -- and I'm the first one, you know -- and, you know, with all due respect to every one of you unions, there are some issues with Civil Service, but that doesn't mean that without analyzing, without making an educated decision that I am going to vote on something or go one way and possibly, possibly make it even worse. I'm not sure right now. I haven't had the opportunity to analyze it to see if this direction is better or not. 'Cause, once again, I respect the Mayor, I believe in what the Mayor has said, that he will not abolish Civil Service, I believe in this Commission. But once again, we will not be here forever and what we're doing, we're setting the path for the future and Commissioners before -- that come -- you know, that will come be -- after us and the Mayor that will come after us. So again, my thing is, I need ample time to, you know, be educated with this, to analyze it, think about it before, you know, I vote on something with this importance. So right now I couldn't vote for this.
Commissioner Dunn: Mr. Chairman.
Chair Sarnoff: You're recognized, Commissioner Dunn.
Commissioner Dunn: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe the issue -- and I want to publicly commend you, Mr. Vice Chairman, because you had repeatedly, since I've been on this Commission, stated that we need ample time. When you make a major decision like this, it's a good -- I believe it's a good policy. I -- certainly, I would be out of my mind to not provide Commissioners with the necessary authority that they need, but at the same time in our efforts to have authority, there needs to be some type of balance, accountability of balance. That's not to suggest no personalities. We know we have a wonderful Mayor. We know we have a wonderful Manager. But we also -- the time issue of having time, even though I was briefed, but then you hear other things that create in your mind -- 'cause you could argue probably pro and con all day long, but before you present it to the voters -- my main issue for me at this point in time -- I've always asked and that's why I've been asking and I've been consistent at least the last few meetings -- what kind of fiscal impact does this have? If it's not an emergency fiscal impact on the City, I don't see the need to rush when, you know, this might could be put on the ballot for next year or whatever or whenever. And I know time is of the essence. Believe me, I believe -- since we undergo all the scrutiny of the media, we're at the mercy of the residents, our constituents. Sometimes this is probably a thankless job. You really have to have a servant's heart to be a Commissioner because it is about service and servanthood. But I do feel, as I stated from my outset, some uncomfortability [sic] and I, you know -- there's some issues that the Attorney brought up that makes me -- you know, I don't want to do something that could have a negative effect. And so I do believe that one of the messages that we have to send to the Administration is that when it's a major decision, we need the time to be able to work through these things and discuss these things because it's -- I feel like -- almost like a gun is pointed to my head and I have to make a decision and I -- so I'm going to probably not vote in favor of this today. I have to state that because I believe -- and I may very well be in favor. I believe -- I love what I hear in terms of the distinction and I was briefed on it, but you know, we're talking about 24 to 48 hours. That's not a long time.
Chair Sarnoff: Commissioner Gort.
Commissioner Gort: Let me give you a suggestion. The Administration, you know I've been very supportive of your ideas and everything come up. Mayor, you know I support you 'cause I know you're trying to do the right thing. Let me come up with a suggestion. All we -- we all talked about we're going to take an August vacation. We're going to stay here because we know have to take [sic] some tough decisions. Why don't we do this? Why don't you, the Administration, gets together with the unions and look at the 19 amendments that you would like to see and see how
City of Miami Page 23 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
many of them you are in agreement and we can bring that in the Charter. I mean, we have until the 20th of this month to make a decision. And then maybe we will not change the whole thing, but maybe we can change some of the amendments that everyone agrees with that'll be a benefit of the City of Miami.
Vice Chair Carollo: Mr. Chairman.
Chair Sarnoff: You're recognized --
Commissioner Gort: That's a suggestion.
Chair Sarnoff: -- Mr. Vice Chair.
Vice Chair Carollo: And that's exactly my point. Before I could even vote on this -- because normally I would say, you know what, the Commission should have the last say. That's my normal way of thinking. I think the Commission should have the last say. However, before I can even think about voting on this, I need to know what those 19 amendments are. I don't know what they are. So I mean -- and that goes exactly to my point, you know. I don't even know what those 19 amendments are, so that's why I couldn't vote for this right now. Thank you.
Chair Sarnoff: Commissioner Gort.
Commissioner Gort: Let me add something else this. I mean, this is something that we're working on it. I've seen two or three different copies that have come up in sort of a rush. My -- I think my suggestion is a good idea. Get together, sit down, look at the amendments. We can take it and we can take it to the Charter and we can vote on it on the changes that you want and everybody agrees to that.
Vice Chair Carollo: Mr. Chairman.
Chair Sarnoff: Mr. Vice Chair.
Vice Chair Carollo: The only thing is, Commissioner Gort -- and you know, I will yield to the City Attorney with this, but it's my interpretation, it's just -- it's not just those 19 amendments. I think this has bigger -- I don't know what's the word to say, but --
Commissioner Dunn: Ramifications.
Vice Chair Carollo: Yes, yes. I mean, literally, what we're asking is to -- this board be able to, from what it seems to me, either abolish Civil Service, to set the rules and so forth, and I'm -- you know, I don't know if -- again, I'm not pretending to be the City Attorney, but it seems to me it's just -- it's much larger than just those 19 amendments.
Chair Sarnoff: Madam City Attorney.
Ms. Bru: I'm sorry. What is the question?
Chair Sarnoff: Well, I think the Vice Chair said he believes that the amendment or, I should say, the ballot language is much more than 19 amendments.
Ms. Bru: Again, I think maybe we're straying off the path of where it is that we are today. Today we're simply -- today the Administration has simply asked you to consider the possibility of putting this on the ballot so that in the future, any modification to the rules governing Civil Service, including whether or not there is a Civil Service, whether or not there is a appeal process to a board, is determined by the Commission. They're not giving you any specific
City of Miami Page 24 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
examples of what it is that would happen in the future or what it is that they would recommend in the future, so that is -- that's where we are today. I don't think that there has been any in-depth analysis of, you know, how it is that we would want to change, if at all. So it's -- basically what they're asking you to do is to take this onto your responsibility, to take the future of the Civil Service system in the City of Miami and put it right smack on your lap.
Vice Chair Carollo: Mr. Chairman.
Chair Sarnoff: You're recognized, Mr. Vice Chair.
Vice Chair Carollo: With what the City Attorney said, it seems to me like this is to have it approved and then come back to us to see how we're going to move forward with this. Am I correct?
Ms. Bru: To give you the authority and the responsibility to make decisions about Civil Service --
Vice Chair Carollo: Right.
Ms. Bru: -- in the City of Miami.
Vice Chair Carollo: Right. Now, I'm just going to mention what the Chairman Sarnoff had said when we voted for the last resolution. You said the reason why you were voting in favor of it is because the Administration clearly had a plan. It seems to me in this situation, we clearly do not have a plan. So, going by what you said on how you voted or how you came into the conclusion of voting in favor of the last resolution, in all fairness, in this resolution it doesn't seem we have a well-thought out plan like we did in the last resolution. So it seems to me that what we're saying is I don't think we're ready to vote in favor of this.
Chair Sarnoff: Let me just say a few words and -- 'cause the Vice Chair brought up something that I said. It becomes an organic issue. Organically, do you want the City Commission having the ability to make determinations? Most of what you're hearing is not doing away with the board because they don't want to do away with the due process afforded to an employee associated with disciplinary action at a very cost-effective basis. That's what due process is. That's what Armando was saying. That was what I think Charlie was saying in between yelling, and that was that they wanted a modicum of due process that was affordable, quick and obtainable. And what I'm hearing from this board is nobody wants to do away with the due process argument. That's what I call the tail because that's obviously the employee that is suffering or at least the consequences associated with disciplinary action. At the inception process, which is I think what the City Manager was suggesting, is that his hands are tied in the ability to hire personnel, that he's got to have -- it's a very slow, inordinate process that may mandate a certain number of people must be either in a union, a nonunion, classified, unclassified, and forgive me if there's another area of employee that I don't know about. And I think what he's trying to say is that board actually sets that process at the very beginning part of a hopper, which is the hiring process. And what I'm understanding, and contrary to the Vice Chair, I don't know that you should have a plan going into this. I'm not sure it is wise to have a plan going into this. I think it's more important you should ask yourself should this Commission have any involvement whatsoever, if any, regarding how the City of Miami hires its employees. If you can't accept that postulate, then you shouldn't vote for this. The purpose of the Civil Service was -- I always thought of it two passages in -- or two primary doctrines. The first doctrine is to the victor go the spoils. That means the guy who wins brings his friends. That was the purpose behind Civil Service was to prevent a guy who wins from clearing house of all of the good people or all the people, let's say, 'cause good or bad is certainly a subjective qualification, and throws out a bunch of people who are doing their jobs. And then there's Huey P. Long. Everybody remember the phrase, “A chicken in every pot.” Huey P. Long believed -- and stayed in power
City of Miami Page 25 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
for 37 years -- that if he had enough employees loyal to him, very simply the state of Louisiana would always vote for him. And he made sure there were more than 60,000 employees that would always vote for him. And that was a chicken in every pot. So the laws were created many, many years ago to at least diminish the ability of “to the victor go the spoils” and to make sure there wasn't “a chicken in every pot.” Where we are today, you're in a modern society followed by modern rules and regulations that have -- there are more employment laws on the books since 1980 that have ever been written prior to 1980. There's a whole new schematic out there. There's the Americans with Disabilities Act. There's the 1973 Rehab Act. There's Title VII. There are so many rules and regulations that did not exist in 1950 when very simply you didn't even have the Civil Rights Act. That's a 1964 feature. So the question you have to ask yourself is, do you want to modernize, do you want to move forward with a process that puts squarely upon five people's shoulders how you start the employment process of an employee? Do you wish to be dictated to what that employee must be, what qualifications that employee must have in regards to whether he is a union, nonunion, whether he is a classified, unclassified, and once again, forgive me if I've missed one qualification or category of person. And that's the issue before this Commission. And of course, the Mayor would say we're making no decisions here today. What we're doing is we're asking the voters to make that decision, clear and simple. We're not deciding it; the voters are deciding it. And I suspect both sides will come up with their own lobby efforts to determine, to influence, and create a certain excitement or lack thereof in a voter to determine what it is that they want. Inevitably, it comes on our shoulders. Inevitably, we then start the process. I don't think any Commissioner up here -- and Ms. Osnat , you're absolutely right. I have seen the Civil Service Board work. I like due process. As a lawyer, it's almost running through my bloodstream. And I saw it protect an employee that I thought was unfairly harmed. I watched Commissioner Regalado -- and I called him Commissioner Regalado -- sit at three meetings because he was concerned about three employees that he thought did not get proper process and receive their due process at the board. So my concern very simply is do we wish to have these rules put out to the voters so that they come upon our shoulders? And, you know, in my way of seeing things, this is part of the organic change to the City of Miami. Now, I have no intentions of changing the Civil Service Board at the disciplinary process because at the disciplinary process, that is where the employee is to receive their due process. With that said, are y'all ready to vote? Why don't we do a roll call?
Pamela L. Latimore (Assistant City Clerk): Roll call. Commissioner Suarez?
Commissioner Suarez: Yes.
Ms. Latimore: You were the mover. Commissioner Carollo?
Vice Chair Carollo: No.
Ms. Latimore: Commissioner Gort?
Commissioner Gort: No.
Ms. Latimore: Excuse me?
Commissioner Gort: No.
Ms. Latimore: Commissioner Dunn?
Commissioner Dunn: No.
Ms. Latimore: Chairman Sarnoff?
Chair Sarnoff: Yes.
City of Miami Page 26 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
Ms. Latimore: Fails, 3-2.
Applause.
Commissioner Gort: I'd like to make a motion.
Chair Sarnoff: All right. Go ahead. You're recognized.
Commissioner Gort: I'd like to make a motion directing the Administration to come up with the rules that most affect you, Administration, and try to come up with a language so we can take it to the voters on November 2. There's certain rules that affects the Administration. I'd like for you to come up and we can vote on each one of them.
Chair Sarnoff: Let's be in recess for five minutes.
[Later…]
Chair Sarnoff: Mr. Manager, why don't we move -- I don't know where the Mayor is, but why don't -- will you handle SP.3? Well, it's a -- it's an -- it's the ordinance -- Commissioner Gort's here, so maybe we can have him finish what he wanted to do.
Commissioner Gort: I offered a motion. For the record, my understanding is, you're having some problems and you believe that some of the process to hire some of the individuals takes a long time. I think some of those issues that you have that really bother with the Administration, bring them back to us and let's put them in the November election.
Mr. Migoya: Mr. Commissioner, if you don't mind, I -- based on the time issues that we have with the summer and frankly a lot of the issues that -- because a lot of these rules are very complicated for people to understand and so forth, I would prefer that we would take a whole year to discuss this and kind of work together on it, and we can have a better time for everybody to understand this and make sure that we get better at it. But if you want us to look at it in any different way, I'm happy to, but I think that may make more sense at this point.
Commissioner Gort: But if you have any one urgency that you think you need, we should try to put it. I mean, I'm willing -- and I don't know -- I think we discussed that we would probably have to be here in August. We have some decisions that are going to have to be made, so I don't think the Commission would mind coming back in a special meeting.
Chair Sarnoff: All right, we have a motion. Is there a second?
Commissioner Dunn: Second.
Chair Sarnoff: Second by Commissioner Dunn. Any discussion, gentlemen? Hearing no discussion --
Commissioner Gort: Wait a minute.
Chair Sarnoff: He is good on one leg.
Ms. Latimore: Excuse me, Chair.
Chair Sarnoff: Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Latimore: For the record, can we get clarification as to exactly what it is that this motion is
City of Miami Page 27 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
for?
Chair Sarnoff: Yeah. I'll let the mover state it as clearly as possible.
Ms. Latimore: Okay.
Commissioner Gort: I'll try it one more time. My motion is to instruct the Administration to look at the items within Civil Service that bothers them the most or that they have more problem with and try to put them in a referendum language and bring it back to us, and it has to be before November -- I mean, it has to be before August 20.
Chair Sarnoff: All right. I -- the only one that wasn't here was Commissioner Carollo. There's been a second by Commissioner Dunn. You want to be recognized?
Vice Chair Carollo: Yes.
Chair Sarnoff: You're recognized for the record.
Vice Chair Carollo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's my understanding that the Administration had the possibility of calling for a special Commission meeting towards the end of August. If all that can be coincided with the same meeting and maybe called before the 20th so we don't have three special Commission meetings.
Mr. Migoya: We would not be able to do that other meeting before the 20th.
Vice Chair Carollo: So, in essence, what you're saying is we're going to have two special Commission meetings in August?
Mr. Migoya: The one I need will be at the end of August.
Chair Sarnoff: And if I heard you correctly, you would not be prepared before August 20 to have those issues brought before this Commission?
Mr. Migoya: That's correct, sir.
Chair Sarnoff: So then -- all right, then it's not a motion -- well, does the mover withdraw?
Commissioner Gort: The Administration (UNINTELLIGIBLE), fine. Withdraw it.
Chair Sarnoff: Okay.
Vice Chair Carollo: Now I do want to point out, three Commissioners or the Chairman or the Mayor can call for a special Commission meeting, so it doesn't necessarily mean that we can't have a special Commission meeting. If, you know, we meet with the Administration, we really go over the details and so forth, and you know, we feel like three of us or the Chairman or, you know, the Mayor calls for a special Commission meeting. So it's not like it's all lost. I just want to point that out.
Chair Sarnoff: Okay.
Commissioner Gort: All right.
Chair Sarnoff: Mr. Mayor, you wish to --?
Mayor Regalado: No. I'm sorry; I went outside. But you know, this Commission will have to
City of Miami Page 28 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
deal with so many issues during the month of September. And you know, the deadline to place anything on the ballot is on the 20th, so it would be up to the will of the Commission. There is a scheduling problem to call for a special Commission meeting, I believe, before the 20th, and it is not right, I think, not to have a full board to discuss these issues that is very important. So it's up to the Commission. But there's nothing we can do today, anyways, because I don't think that even today we can call for another special meeting because it isn't on the agenda of the special meeting and we have to adhere to exactly what it is here. So it's something that we shouldn't even discuss.
Ms. Bru: Well, I think that the issue is is that to sit down, as was directed by Commissioner Gort, and work with the unions and work with the stakeholders. I thought I had heard that before, to work on the issues. No? And then --
Commissioner Gort: Come up with the issues that's most important to the Administration and bring them up and take it to the voters.
Ms. Bru: Yeah. I think realistically, the Manager has expressed that we wouldn't be able to get all that done in time.
Commissioner Gort: I understand the Manager stating that.
Ms. Bru: Yeah.
Commissioner Gort: But at the same time, I think we can be getting together, we can do some work, and I'll have some of my staff do some work also, and I'm sure we might be able to come up with something. It's worth a try. And if you need to set up a special meeting today, then we can do that; and if it takes place, it takes place. If we don't have enough time, then we won't do it. But we can call for a meeting for the 18th.
Mr. Migoya: Can we do something? Kind of try and figure out if we can work on any of these things and later on call a meeting if we feel that that's a right way to do it?
Commissioner Gort: You need to call it because you need “X” amount of time to advertise.
Mayor Regalado: No. We -- Commissioner, we only need like 24 hours, 48 hours to call a special meeting.
Commissioner Gort: That's all? Okay.
Mayor Regalado: And I can do that.
Commissioner Gort: Yeah.
Mayor Regalado: But we won't do that before talking to all of you.
Commissioner Gort: Right. No, no.
Mayor Regalado: Because if you don't feel comfortable today, you won't feel comfortable in a week or -- so it's all about each of you.
Commissioner Gort: But we might have certain suggestions that I think it might work, it might be worth your while.
Mayor Regalado: Fine. But we don't have to do the -- call the meeting today.
City of Miami Page 29 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
Commissioner Gort: Okay, no problem.
Chair Sarnoff: All right.
SP.3 ORDINANCE Second Reading 06-01053zt City Manager's AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION CREATING THE OMNI Office MEDIA TOWER REGULATIONS AND AMENDING CHAPTER 62 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "ZONING AND PLANNING," MORE PARTICULARLY BY AMENDING ARTICLE XIII, ENTITLED, "ZONING APPROVAL FOR TEMPORARY USES AND OCCUPANCIES; PERMIT REQUIRED," TO CREATE A NEW DIVISION 8 ENTITLED "OMNI MEDIA TOWER REGULATIONS"; PROVIDING FOR INTENT AND PURPOSE; REQUIRING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PLACEMENT OF AN OMNI MEDIA TOWER; CREATING DEFINITIONS, CRITERIA, A PERMITTING PROCEDURE, APPROVAL PROCESS AND FEES; PROVIDING FOR APPEALS, AND A COUNTY OPT-OUT PROVISION; PROVIDING FOR RESOLUTION OF CONFLICTS AND ENFORCEMENT; AND ALSO FURTHER AMENDING CHAPTER 62 ENTITLED "URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD", SPECIFICALLY, ARTICLE IX, ENTITLED "FUNCTIONS, POWERS AND DUTIES GENERALLY" SECTION 62-258 (1) TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL REVIEW POWERS TO THE UDRB WITH REGARD TO OMNI MEDIA TOWERS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
06-01053zt Legislation (Version 1).pdf 06-01053zt CC 07-22-10 Summary Form.pdf 06-01053zt-Submittal-District 3.pdf 06-01053zt-Submittal-District 2.pdf 06-01053zt-Submittal-Dusty Melton.pdf 06-01053zt-Submittal-Barbara Bisno.pdf 06-01053zt-Submittal-William E. Pino, P.E..pdf 06-01053zt-Submittal-Disclosure of Consideration-Mark A. Siffin.pdf 06-01053zt-Submittal-Memo-Bercow Radell & Fernandez.pdf 06-01053zt-Submittal-Bercow Radell & Fernandez.pdf 06-01053zt-Submittal-Signatures of Support.pdf 06-01053zt-Submittal-Support Letters and Signatures 06-01053zt-Submittal-Dusty Melton 1 (7-29-10).pdf 06-01053zt-Submittal-Dusty Melton 2 (7-29-10).pdf 06-01053zt-Submittal-Miami-Dade County Memo.pdf 06-01053zt-Submittal-Disclosure of Consideration-Mark A. Siffin 7-29-10pdf.pdf
Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Commissioner Dunn II, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Sarnoff, Suarez and Dunn II Noes: 1 - Commissioner(s) Carollo
13190
Chair Sarnoff: Let's move on to SP.3. Mr. Manager, you're recognized.
Carlos A. Migoya (City Manager): This is around the media tower. I believe the Mayor is the City of Miami Page 30 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
one that was making the presentation.
Chair Sarnoff: All right. This is the ordinance of the City of Miami creating the media tower, so why don't I let those folk set up.
Julie O. Bru (City Attorney): Okay. Mr. Chair, again, just for purposes of procedure, this is the second reading on the ordinance, and then you also have the development agreement that will be the second public hearing and the first time that you take action on it. At the last meeting, you heard commentary and you heard from the public on both items at the same time, and then you had two separate votes on the item, so -- and I leave it up to you to decide if that's how you want to conduct the hearing again today.
Chair Sarnoff: Well, let's open up SP.3, SP.4. If the City is [sic] not oppose it, let's allow the record to reflect on both items. I know we're only -- we only need to vote on the ordinance, correct?
Ms. Bru: No, no. Today would be the --
Chair Sarnoff: On the --
Ms. Bru: -- vote on the development agreement also.
Chair Sarnoff: Okay, understood. Let's open them up both so that the record would be reflected for both issues. They really are hand in glove. And why don't I just recognize the attorney, Mr. Bercow.
Jeffrey Bercow: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Commissioners, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Manager, Madam City Attorney. Jeffrey Bercow, with the law firm of Bercow Radell & Fernandez, 200 South Biscayne Boulevard. I'm here today representing Maefield Holdings, the proponent of the media towers. I am joined by Mark Siffin and Mae Siffin from Maefield Holdings; Jon Cardello from ADD, our architect; Glen Wiebe, our lighting expert from Daktronics; my partner, Ben Fernandez; and my colleague, Melissa Tapanes-Llahues. I know that there are also a number of supporters of this project who would like to speak as well, but first a few housekeeping matters. I would like to incorporate by reference the record from last week's hearing on PZ.16 and PZ.17 into the record of this hearing. Last week I put a large document into the record and distributed copies to you all. I do want to identify those documents. They included an economic and fiscal impact study prepared by Miami Economics Associates, Inc., letters, resolutions, and petitions in support of the media towers, the lighting study prepared by Daktronics, a copy of our PowerPoint presentation, and a memo regarding consistency of the media towers with the City's Comprehensive Plan, and the Omni CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) plan. I'm also submitting today additional support letters and petitions into the record, with copies to each of you. And as a final housekeeping matter, we will also be placing into the record a disclosure affidavit signed by Mark Siffin of Maefield Holdings, pursuant to your City code, stating that he has reached an agreement with the Venetia Condominium Association that requested and he agreed to assist their efforts to obtain mural signage with financial support. Also at the request of the Mayor, I do want to confirm that the Boulevard Shops will be preserved and restored to their historic grandeur, and that's all part of this program and part of the development agreement. I'd now like to respond to some of the concerns we heard last week regarding legal issues.
Chair Sarnoff: Can I ask a question --
Mr. Bercow: Yes, sir.
Chair Sarnoff: -- Mr. Bercow, because --
City of Miami Page 31 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
Mr. Bercow: Yes.
Chair Sarnoff: -- being the drafter of the disclosure ordinance, I'm trying to understand what it is that you agreed to with the Venetian [sic] Condo Association.
Mr. Bercow: We agreed to provide them with financial assistance in their efforts to obtain mural signage. That's what they asked us to do, and Mr. Siffin agreed.
Chair Sarnoff: And would we be privy to that agreement? Is that something that you would make privy to us?
Mr. Bercow: We have been asked to keep the agreement confidential. However, in terms of the amount of the consideration, if you're asking me how much was it, we have an out in the disclosure agreement and we are required to indicate that. It's in the affidavit and it is $300,000.
Chair Sarnoff: So -- and Ms. Dodge, I take it, will not need to present today?
Mr. Bercow: That's correct. We do have a letter of support, but she's not here.
Chair Sarnoff: All right. I'm sorry. I just wanted to hear that.
Mr. Bercow: That's okay. That's what we're required to disclose. Now, again, back to the legal issues. Mr. Melton, last week, who stated that he doesn't trust my client or the City of Miami, placed several documents in the record, one of which was the agreement between Florida DOT (Department of Transportation) and the United States DOT from 1972, setting standards for outdoor advertising in the state of Florida. We're extremely familiar with this document. We've been studying it for almost five years. It recognizes that the urban areas of the country are treated differently than the rural areas under the Highway Beautification Act, which sought to preserve the scenic vistas along our highways. So the agreement and the act allowed a different treatment in accordance with the concept of customary use for urban areas zoned industrial or commercial. The Highway Beautification Act delegated to the states the right to regulate those areas, and Florida's 1972 agreement with USDOT grants the state the jurisdiction to regulate in those areas, provided that the regulations limit size, lighting, and spacing, and that's exactly what this ordinance does. We're confident that this ordinance is consistent with the federal Highway Beautification Act and with the concept of customary use under this act. We're confident that the media tower will be designed to be completely consistent with the state laws regarding outdoor advertising, and we have actually begun to reach out to the Florida Department of Transportation on this issue. So that brings us to the County code, which Mr. Melton claimed the media towers violate. We studied this issue as well, and we're confident that the County code should not apply along expressways in the City of Miami and here's why. The County code applies to cities and regulates all types of signs. For example, billboards, point of sale signs, signs with flashing lights, roof signs, et cetera. It also regulates commercial signs within 600 feet of expressway right-of-ways [sic], such as the media tower, and that's in Division 5 of the County's sign code. And that division also has a clause that allows cities to opt out of the County's regulations and establish their own regulations within this area, within 600 feet of the right-of-ways [sic]. The City, in fact, opted out last year. The regulatory scheme of Division 5 makes it very clear that if a sign is within the protected area, Division 5 preempts all other code provisions because it regulates the exact same things that the rest of the code regulates for commercial signs.
Chair Sarnoff: Is that any sign?
Mr. Bercow: Any commercial sign.
City of Miami Page 32 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
Chair Sarnoff: Any commercial sign.
Mr. Bercow: Correct. That size, height, orientation, spacing prohibitions, locations, types of signs, et cetera. So when we apply the rules of statutory construction to this code provision, we determined that this actually is an example of the concept of occupying the field. And what that means is when the regulatory scheme is so pervasive that it doesn't allow for any other regulations, that it preempts all other regulations. So if a sign is within the protected area, Division 5 is the only County regulation that applies. And if it's the only County regulations that applies in a protected area and the City opts out of Division 5, it follows that the opt-out provision -- with the opt-out provision, the County -- the code is not at all applicable to media towers in Miami in the protected areas. And one last point on Mr. Melton's testimony. He argued last week that the media tower was 800 feet from the expressway and therefore not within the protected area of Division 5. To be clear, our media towers are approximately 800 feet from the middle of I-395, but they are within 600 feet of the official right-of-way of I-395 and that's what's got -- that is what governs and therefore they are exempt from County regulation. Mr. Chair, our entire team is here to answer any questions that you might have. We do request your approval of items SP.3 and SP.4. At the appropriate time, Mr. Chair, I would like to be recognized to discuss some fairly minor clarifications that we would like to seek to both the ordinance and the development agreement.
Chair Sarnoff: Do you --
Mr. Bercow: Thank you.
Chair Sarnoff: -- want to make those clarifications now? Because the only reason I say that, I don't -- I think it's fair for the public, those in favor, those opposed, to know what you're seeking so they can at least comment on it.
Mr. Bercow: Absolutely. I'd be happy to. The first relates to the increased permit fees that were discussed last week. And I have to tell you that it did not hit us immediately that the increased permit fees were based on monthly fees, as opposed to annual fees. And we're not going to quarrel with the increased fees. However, the way the ordinance is drafted, those increased fees would go into effect when the Omni permit -- Omni Media Tower permit issues. And what happens is the Omni Media Tower permit issues, that's sort of a master conceptual permit. Then we would apply for a building permit, obtain the building permit, commence construction, complete construction, and then turn the lights on. You can easily imagine that that's going to be a year to a year and a half process. I don't -- with Mr. Siffin, I don't think it'll be any more, but I think that's a reasonable estimate. We don't think it's fair that these fees begin to run before we in fact are able to turn the lights on and obtain any revenue from the media towers. So we would ask that these fees begin to be paid when the signs become operational. That would be the first clarification. Second, we have -- we worked our plans internally to accommodate the requirement announced last week, that the garage have at least 1,600 spaces. Before it was a range and now it's at least. We have also, at the request of the Planning director, reworked our plans internally to make sure we have additional ground floor retail, 'cause I think we want to activate the streetscape in this area. So therefore, we would ask for two clarifications to the development agreement. The height of the rooftop of the parking garage would range from 112 feet to 142 feet. The towers themselves on top of the garage would still remain at 250 feet and 350 feet and still be less than the 500-foot maximum allowed under the ordinance. And we would have just accomplished this with a mark-up of Exhibit B to the development agreement. And with respect to the ground floor retail increase, I think that you can read the development agreement today to say that it does mean at least 2,000 square feet. We would just like to clarify that it would be at least 2,000 square feet, but we think we need to put in a maximum, to protect the public, of 10,000 square feet, so --
Chair Sarnoff: I listened to you and I know what you were saying, but I didn't get your ask. Like
City of Miami Page 33 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
I don't know what you're asking for. You're --
Mr. Bercow: What we're asking for is there's an exhibit to the development agreement --
Chair Sarnoff: Okay.
Mr. Bercow: -- that reflects the height, the proposed height of the parking garage.
Chair Sarnoff: Right.
Mr. Bercow: We would mark that up to indicate that the rooftop would range in height from 112 feet to 142 feet maximum, but the tower heights on top of the rooftop would remain the same. In total, it would still be less than 500 feet. So the mark-up is just the rooftop height would be in a range from 112 to 142.
Chair Sarnoff: The Vice Chair is recognized. Go ahead.
Vice Chair Carollo: It'll still be higher, though, than what it is currently.
Mr. Bercow: Excuse me?
Vice Chair Carollo: It would still ultimately be higher than what it is currently right now.
Mr. Bercow: It would be slightly higher, correct, but less than the 500 feet. The other clarification is we just want it to be clarified that the 2,000, it's somewhat -- it's not as clear as it could be in the development agreement -- the 2,000 square feet is a minimum.
Chair Sarnoff: Can you --
Mr. Bercow: And as long as we're putting in --
Chair Sarnoff: -- show me the -- can you just get me to the section?
Mr. Bercow: Sure. It's Section 3v, as in Victor, of the development agreement, as well as 8a.
Chair Sarnoff: Wait a minute.
Mr. Bercow: You'll see the word "at least," and it clearly modifies 1,600 parking spaces. It's not as clear that it also modifies the 2,000 square feet.
Chair Sarnoff: Help me out page wise.
Mr. Bercow: Okay.
Vice Chair Carollo: Page 6, I believe.
Chair Sarnoff: Page -- 3v, Media Tower. I saw this too. That was a question I had.
Mr. Bercow: Right.
Chair Sarnoff: All right.
Mr. Bercow: So --
Chair Sarnoff: Read it again. Now you want it --
City of Miami Page 34 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
Mr. Bercow: -- it should be --
Chair Sarnoff: I have for a minimum 1,600 cars and approximately 2,000 square feet of retail and/or services.
Mr. Bercow: Yes. And I think in 8a it says "at least."
Chair Sarnoff: 8a.
Mr. Bercow: Two thousand.
Chair Sarnoff: I actually have that same question there.
Mr. Bercow: Okay. So the 2,000 is a minimum. And if we're going to specify a minimum, we should specify a maximum as well.
Chair Sarnoff: A minimum of 2,000 square feet of retail. That's the pedestal. And what is the maximum?
Mr. Bercow: Ten thousand.
Chair Sarnoff: Why --
Mr. Bercow: Just to give you an idea, the previously approved parking garage in the City Square residential had about 14,000 square feet, and --
Chair Sarnoff: I'm trying to figure out the purpose for you limiting yourself. Why?
Mr. Bercow: Why? I'll tell you why. Under state law -- and this is an analogy -- in a comprehensive plan, you must specify minimums and maximums. And this is not a comprehensive plan, but I don't want somebody to say by putting in at least 2,000 feet, you left the door wide open to put in a whole lot more, and that's not what the public anticipated.
Chair Sarnoff: So -- and I think -- and I'll ask the City Attorney. First off, let me do it. You're agreeing with what he's saying, that it should be put in there?
Julie O. Bru (City Attorney): I think that's a question for the Building official or the Planning official.
Chair Sarnoff: Or better known as Lourdes Slazyk. We should just call you "The Lourdes." 'Cause when we lose you, we're just going to go where's The Lourdes?
Lourdes Slazyk (Zoning Administrator): Mr. Bercow was not incorrect. A comprehensive plan -- and you just went through this with your EAR (Evaluation Appraisal Report) in the comp plan amendments. They like a range, a minimum and a maximum. You don't leave things open-ended. And he's right, while this is not a comprehensive plan, it's a development agreement and it might not be a bad idea to do that.
Chair Sarnoff: Okay. So stay up there. Let me ask you a question. If you take his east/west/north/south pedestal, 10,000 square feet doesn't seem like a lot of retail to me.
Ms. Slazyk: No. You could make the maximum bigger than that and they can work -- but providing a range is not a bad idea, whether ten is the cap --
City of Miami Page 35 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
Chair Sarnoff: But wouldn't I want from a good planning and schematic more retail, wouldn't I want him to have more retail versus less retail?
Ms. Slazyk: The more --
Chair Sarnoff: Wouldn't I want to engage that?
Ms. Slazyk: Yes. The more ground floor active pedestrian uses you can provide, the better for the neighborhood.
Chair Sarnoff: Okay. So what I'd like you to do in the next five minutes is look at the pedestal and come up with a minimum number that you're going to make a recommendation to me that he needs to activate. That's why you're The Lourdes.
Mr. Bercow: Can -- Mr. Chair, if I can just add. We would like to add more. Obviously, if we can have more ground floor retail, it's more revenue. The problem is that the more ground floor retail you add, it disrupts the functionality of the garage and it ultimately increases the height of the garage and -- because if you add it on the ground floor --
Chair Sarnoff: I thought they --
Mr. Bercow: -- you're taking --
Chair Sarnoff: -- act just like hangers. I thought they like hang.
Mr. Bercow: You would be eliminating spaces on the ground floor that need to be made up elsewhere.
Chair Sarnoff: Okay. What -- then isn't it -- so correct me if I'm wrong. As Commissioners, shouldn't we be looking for engagement of the street, retail uses that don't need much depth? But don't we want to make it as much of an engagement on the full breadth?
Mr. Bercow: But the problem is that when you say without much depth, then you're really impeding the marketability of those spaces. And the problem with a lot of the street-front commercial retail that we have all along Biscayne Boulevard is that a lot of it is -- although it's there, it's not functional, it's not rentable because it's not deep enough for the average merchant, so you can't go too deep.
Chair Sarnoff: So I --
Mr. Bercow: I mean, you can't go too shallow. I mean, you can go deep. When you go deep, you eliminate the parking spaces.
Chair Sarnoff: To me, I have this vision of, you know, some sort of outdoor cafés that I don't know -- and I'm not a restaurateur; I don't know how much depth you need, but I certainly don't want to put up blank walls --
Mr. Bercow: Correct.
Chair Sarnoff: -- for no activity to happen. I mean, I just engaged (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the other day and they're talking about putting hangers literally on for burgers and beer joints, claiming they don't need much depth for that and they want to be able to come out and engage the street. To me, that's good planning. What I don't want to have happen, Mr. Bercow, is create some minimums and you just meet the minimum and not have engagement of the street. And under -- and I'm not trying to say a guise or surreptitious way, but it is that, in a way, to me -- of
City of Miami Page 36 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
reducing the cost associated with the parking pedestal.
Mr. Bercow: We will show you a preliminary plan that we're working on. We do have outdoor seating in the northeast corner of the ground floor garage. And bear in mind also that we are preserving the existing Boulevard Shops on the west side of the property in --
Chair Sarnoff: No.
Mr. Bercow: -- their entirety.
Chair Sarnoff: I -- and you're right. I'm not factoring in my own mind that one of your base level sections is going to be abutting what is going to be retail, and I don't have that paper in front of me, so --
Mr. Bercow: Just to show you again a preliminary plan that we are working on to -- and this was intended to give us an idea of how much retail we can actually incorporate into the ground floor. The previous two versions of the plan only had the retail spaces here and here. And we've now put them in as -- in these areas as well. We've got an outdoor seating here -- area here and here, valet parking area here, retail, retail. There's not really much more space that we can put without losing parking spaces on the ground floor.
Chair Sarnoff: And how much retail square footage is that?
Mr. Bercow: This is approximately 6,500, so that's why I put in the max of 10,000. I mean, I don't mind increasing the maximum to a reasonable amount, and we'll use our best efforts to get there, but I --
Chair Sarnoff: So if that's 6,500, would you be agreeable to going to 20,000 minimum?
Mark Siffin: Yes.
Mr. Bercow: Yes.
Chair Sarnoff: I should just talk to your client; he's --
Mr. Bercow: Yes, you should.
Chair Sarnoff: -- much quicker than you.
Mr. Bercow: Avoid the middle man.
Chair Sarnoff: Did I go too low there, Mr. Siffin? Could I have pushed a little higher? I think I get what you're saying. So you would be agreeable to a minimum of 20,000 square feet?
Mr. Siffin: Yes.
Chair Sarnoff: All right.
Mr. Bercow: I'm sorry. Is it a minimum or a maximum?
Chair Sarnoff: I'm trying to get to a minimum. What your maximum is, I don't mind. I mean, you guys put whatever you want. I -- did you understand me, Mr. Siffin? I said minimum.
Mr. Siffin: Okay, I'll talk.
City of Miami Page 37 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
Chair Sarnoff: Be careful. As your -- I'm not a lawyer for you, but you always want your lawyer to do the talking.
Mr. Siffin: Thank you very much, Commissioner -- Commissioners. I understood you to say you'd like to see, if I heard you correctly, 20,000 square feet --
Chair Sarnoff: Right.
Mr. Siffin: -- as the minimum on the ground floor.
Chair Sarnoff: Correct.
Mr. Siffin: And all I would ask, 'cause we worked together on this, that I want to think through carefully and would care for your input. One of the things we have to think about is our objective to make certain that as we allow people to have ingress and egress for the purposes of the Performing Art [sic] Center, I'm happy to do whatever you think is most appropriate; that we make it so -- I know, as we've all become experienced with the Performing Art [sic] Center, one of the concerns is the ease with which you could leave and the ease with which you can arrive. So I'm just trying to take into account that we have -- an event-oriented parking structure requires more than just a couple lanes in and a couple lanes out, so I'm not trying in anyway shortchange --
Chair Sarnoff: No. I know that.
Mr. Siffin: -- your vision.
Chair Sarnoff: I'm trying to have a structure that doesn't have blank walls.
Mr. Siffin: Absolutely. I respect that completely.
Chair Sarnoff: And I know you've agreed to put lighting on those walls, and I think lighting's a great idea. But I happen to also think -- and I don't know if the Performing Arts Center asked you to do this or if this is something you're considering. When I met with them many, many months ago, maybe not even on your issue, there was discussions about putting ten, fifteen minutes, whatever number you come up with, of the actual art being performed in the Performing Arts Center so people can see what they're missing --
Mr. Siffin: Correct.
Chair Sarnoff: -- and hopefully, it would be its own advertising to come to the Performing Arts Center.
Mr. Siffin: Absolutely.
Chair Sarnoff: Actually, I think that will grab -- people will actually go just to watch that.
Mr. Siffin: Right.
Chair Sarnoff: And you would have people literally just engaged right below there wanting to have coffee, drinks, whatever it is that people like to do and -- You know, obviously, you have Prelude in there already. Maybe Prelude would like to even expand to a street level and have an outdoor, you know, type of engagement. Bacardi is opening up a -- some sort of outdoor facility right next to them, to the -- just to the south of you. So what I want to make sure I do is not just create media towers --
City of Miami Page 38 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
Mr. Siffin: Absolutely.
Chair Sarnoff: -- but I create an exciting area that, coupled with your phase II, people are going to want to mill about. And then we can have everybody screaming the cars go too fast, we gotta slow down the traffic. That's a good thing. That's a good problem to have.
Mr. Siffin: I totally respect your vision, and I concur with it. I'm just asking that we don't put ourselves in a position whereby stipulating things we end up actually not achieving. I will do whatever you wish. I will work with you. I just don't want us to put a box around ourselves that then inhibits your vision.
Chair Sarnoff: You don't want to put a collar that you can't fit into.
Mr. Siffin: I will fit into it. I'm just trying to think in a practical manner.
Chair Sarnoff: I understand. I understand. You have any other issues, Mr. Bercow, that you want to make changes to?
Mr. Bercow: No. I don't know that we've gotten a concurrence on the minimum. I think that we could live, in speaking to the architects and to Mae, with a 12,000 square foot minimum.
Mr. Siffin: Could I -- what is the footprint --? Sorry to interrupt.
Mr. Bercow: The footprint of the ground floor is 55,000 square feet, so 20,000 is going to take up a very large part -- we now -- if you look at the plans in front of you, you'll see we have one entrance in and one exit out with -- and that --
Mr. Siffin: Commissioner, if you wish it to be 20,000, let's make it 20,000.
Chair Sarnoff: No. I'm --
Mr. Siffin: No. I don't want to be --
Chair Sarnoff: And I don't want to put you in default. I don't want to put you in violation. And I'm not an architect. What I'm trying to do is engage the street. And engaging the street, to me, is equally just putting tables out there further down than necessarily where the restaurant stops.
Mr. Siffin: Mr. Fernandez suggested that the 20,000 include the outdoor seating. I'm just trying to keep the lanes free --
Chair Sarnoff: No. I -- you're right.
Mr. Siffin: -- for the flow of traffic.
Chair Sarnoff: I'm not -- look, I'm not an architect. I can't factor every issue into that. I'm okay with 20,000 if you want to factor in the outdoor seating.
Mr. Siffin: Fine, sir.
Chair Sarnoff: Okay.
Mr. Siffin: Thank you so much.
Mr. Bercow: Thank you. That concludes our presentation. And we're --
City of Miami Page 39 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
Chair Sarnoff: All right, so --
Mr. Bercow: -- available to answer any questions you may have.
Chair Sarnoff: I have a question. Because you want to make a change -- you want to only start paying permit fees, which was -- and I'm going to let the Vice Chair, to some degree question you on this. But you want to only allow the permit fees once you start the operation of the --
Mr. Bercow: Correct.
Chair Sarnoff: How does that affect your requirement for any of your other fees under this agreement --
Mr. Bercow: It'd be the --
Chair Sarnoff: -- since I'm not a lawyer up here looking at the words as carefully as you are. How does that affect the Museum Board [sic] Trust? How does that --?
Mr. Bercow: It would be the same request for the Museum Park Trust.
Chair Sarnoff: You kind of lost me there. Did you say the same?
Mr. Bercow: Yes.
Chair Sarnoff: See, now --
Mr. Bercow: That would be the request. We would be willing to pay some sort of alternative minimum fee in the interim between Omni Media Tower permit issuance and turning the lights on for both, Museum Park Trust fund and for the permit fee.
Chair Sarnoff: My recollection of Museum Park Trust fund, it starts to -- the required payment occurs upon the issuance of the building permit.
Mr. Bercow: No. Upon the issuance of the Omni Media Tower permit.
Commissioner Gort: Right. The fee starts with the issue of the permit.
Chair Sarnoff: Now the permit to you is the operation of the -- what is --?
Mr. Bercow: The Omni Media Tower permit is the --
Chair Sarnoff: Is defined under --
Mr. Bercow: -- is the --
Ms. Slazyk: It's what the Manager will actually sign off on to authorize --
Mr. Bercow: Right.
Ms. Slazyk: -- them to then go get a building permit.
Chair Sarnoff: Correct.
Ms. Slazyk: Exactly.
City of Miami Page 40 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
Mr. Bercow: Correct.
Chair Sarnoff: So I am right, it doesn't require the flick of the switch.
Commissioner Gort: Right.
Ms. Slazyk: For the Omni --
Mr. Bercow: No.
Ms. Slazyk: -- the Media Tower permit --
Mr. Bercow: No.
Commissioner Gort: No.
Ms. Slazyk: -- does not --
Commissioner Gort: No.
Ms. Slazyk: -- it's not when the lights --
Chair Sarnoff: Right.
Ms. Slazyk: -- will be turned on.
Mr. Bercow: Correct.
Chair Sarnoff: And that was --
Ms. Slazyk: That will be --
Chair Sarnoff: And forgive me --
Ms. Slazyk: -- like a CO (Certificate of Occupancy).
Chair Sarnoff: -- but that was the point that was important to me. Mr. Siffin, is that a point that's important to you?
Commissioner Gort: It's important to the City.
Chair Sarnoff: I just want him to say yes.
Mr. Siffin: When we were here last time, there was an increase in fees. I respect that. No, Commissioner.
Vice Chair Carollo: There was actually a decrease in fee. Didn't we go from $10 to $2?
Mr. Siffin: No, sir. As I understood, sir, we went from $10 a year to effectively what equates to $24 a year, sir?
Vice Chair Carollo: Well, I'm going to speak specifically with regards -- and I still have the amendment, Section 62-808, Annual Permit Fees -- Permit Renewal Fees, where the administrative fee shall be adjusted from the mural level of $1, which was actually $2 per square foot, to $10, okay. And then instead of that, which you all accepted, I said no, no, no, not $10;
City of Miami Page 41 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
2.5. I was actually trying to be nice. I thought it should be 3, but I said 2.5. And then I had the Commissioners here say $2, so we actually went down from $10 to $2 per square feet.
Unidentified Speaker: He made it per month.
Chair Sarnoff: On a -- yeah, but there's a difference -- distinction between an annual and a monthly.
Vice Chair Carollo: Well, of course. We were talking monthly.
Mr. Siffin: We -- the $10, Commissioner, was annual, sir.
Chair Sarnoff: Annual, right.
Mr. Siffin: And that's why, sir, when it went to $2, I didn't say a word, and I respect your will. And I didn't feel it was right.
Commissioner Gort: That was the original contract.
Vice Chair Carollo: But --
Commissioner Gort: The way I read it, the original was two -- the fee was $2 per square foot.
Vice Chair Carollo: Monthly.
Mr. Siffin: No.
Chair Sarnoff: Well, it didn't say that. Right.
Unidentified Speaker: No. It was annually originally.
Commissioner Gort: Annual.
Chair Sarnoff: Right.
Mr. Siffin: And I respect that.
Chair Sarnoff: So you had an increase of -- correct me -- from -- I'm always going to use your maximums. I can't imagine you putting a little billboard up or a little --
Mr. Siffin: Right.
Chair Sarnoff: Right. So your -- you went from 1.2 million to 2.2 or 2.4. I don't remember which.
Mr. Bercow: In that area.
Mr. Siffin: In that area. Yes.
Chair Sarnoff: In that area. So you had an in -- a significant increase in revenue to the City of Miami.
Mr. Siffin: Absolutely, which I'm happy to --
Chair Sarnoff: You're just -- I'm sorry. I'll let him talk. Go ahead.
City of Miami Page 42 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
Mr. Siffin: Please.
Vice Chair Carollo: What -- I mean, significant. What do you call significant?
Chair Sarnoff: A million dollars.
Vice Chair Carollo: A million dollars. Well, I just saw that some -- I don't know the exact name -- just received $300,000 and -- or will be receiving $300,000 for -- let me go back to the notes -- assistance on two mural signage --
Commissioner Gort: Yeah. Chair Sarnoff: Right.
Vice Chair Carollo: -- $300,000.
Chair Sarnoff: The Venetia, Plaza Venetia.
Vice Chair Carollo: I mean, of course, we forget about these numbers, you know, 'cause -- I mean, it's petty cash. But the truth of the matter is, I was asked for a cap on the garbage fee a few weeks ago, and I said no, I will not do it. You know what. Instead of hitting our residents for those $30, you know, for 1.2 million or so forth, I think, you know, here's where we need to really negotiate. That's what I truly believe.
Chair Sarnoff: And I think he's agreeing to the additional million dollars that you're suggesting. He's -- his question --
Mr. Siffin: I was just asking for clarification, sir.
Vice Chair Carollo: When it starts.
Chair Sarnoff: Right. So I think you've heard him say that that's an important million dollars to him.
Mr. Siffin: I respect that.
Chair Sarnoff: And what I was trying to get with Mr. Bercow was, I want to leave the date of the Museum Trust funds first annual payment to the way I understand it and it's written in this agreement.
Mr. Siffin: Fine.
Chair Sarnoff: That's agreeable?
Mr. Siffin: Yes, sir.
Chair Sarnoff: You're listening, Madam City Attorney?
Ms. Bru: So the Museum Trust fund payment will be coming in before the City's money to the general fund comes in?
Commissioner Gort: No.
Chair Sarnoff: Right now he's asking for an amendment to the permit fee to begin when the flick of the switch goes on.
City of Miami Page 43 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
Commissioner Gort: Right.
Chair Sarnoff: That's what's being proposed.
Ms. Slazyk: Can we --
Chair Sarnoff: Let's --
Ms. Slazyk: -- clarify --
Carlos A. Migoya (City Manager): Can we be more specific in that flip of the switch?
Ms. Slazyk: Like a TCO (Temporary Certificate of Occupancy) or a CO. When the building is done and able to be --
Chair Sarnoff: Yeah. What is your --
Ms. Slazyk: -- the switch is --
Chair Sarnoff: -- term of art? What is your operative moment?
Ms. Slazyk: A TCO or a CO --
Mr. Bercow: Well, when the --
Ms. Slazyk: -- is what we would suggest.
Mr. Bercow: -- visual media display becomes operational, which wouldn't occur until the issuance of a TCO or a CO.
Ms. Slazyk: A TCO or a CO.
Mr. Migoya: Whichever occurs first.
Mr. Bercow: Correct.
Ms. Slazyk: A flicking switch is -- I can't --
Chair Sarnoff: No. I understand.
Ms. Slazyk: -- enforce that.
Mr. Bercow: Correct, whichever occurs first.
Chair Sarnoff: You're looking for the term of art. You're looking for what it is.
Ms. Slazyk: Yes.
Chair Sarnoff: All right. So before this board right now is he does not want to pay the annual permit fee until a TCO is issued.
Ms. Slazyk: Correct.
Chair Sarnoff: Whereas before the annual fee commenced upon the issuance of the permit by the
City of Miami Page 44 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
City Manager.
Ms. Slazyk: Which is about a year and half before the TCO.
Chair Sarnoff: That's what's before the board. Let's discuss that issue.
Commissioner Gort: Well, my understanding is, when they were -- the first contract that we received, I understand they worked a lot with you all. You all agreed to all those terms. Now we come to second reading, you want to change it. I don't want to go for the change. I will not go for it.
Chair Sarnoff: Anyone else? Commissioner Dunn.
Commissioner Dunn: My issue is -- if I may?
Chair Sarnoff: Just stay -- let's stay on the permit --
Commissioner Dunn: Okay.
Chair Sarnoff: -- amount and how it starts.
Commissioner Dunn: I'm fine.
Chair Sarnoff: You're okay?
Commissioner Dunn: I have another issue later.
Chair Sarnoff: Okay.
Commissioner Dunn: Yeah.
Chair Sarnoff: Commissioner Suarez. Vice Chair.
Vice Chair Carollo: Yes, I have an issue.
Chair Sarnoff: Sorry?
Vice Chair Carollo: I do have an issue.
Chair Sarnoff: You have an issue?
Vice Chair Carollo: Yes.
Chair Sarnoff: I think you're seeing, Mr. Bercow, three attorneys -- I'm sorry -- three Commissioners -- actually, they're not attorneys -- are having issues with your commencement time.
Vice Chair Carollo: Thank you for that clarification.
Mr. Bercow: Well, if --
Chair Sarnoff: Never want to call you a lawyer.
Mr. Bercow: -- I can just clarify. And specifically, Commissioner Gort, yes, it was in the agreement when the fee would commence, but the fee at that point in time was significantly lower
City of Miami Page 45 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
than what it is today. So in the spirit of compromise -- and I don't -- maybe my client is going to shoot me for this -- but if we --
Chair Sarnoff: Wait, wait, wait. Don't say anything. Let your client stand next to you 'cause he -- I notice that --
Mr. Bercow: So he doesn't miss?
Chair Sarnoff: No, he doesn't miss.
Mr. Bercow: But in the spirit of compromise --
Mr. Siffin: I don't wish to compromise with you. I respect what you're saying. I hear what you're saying, and I just wanted to raise the issue with you. I've heard your concerns. I respect your concerns. Thank you very much. I'll agree to what you want to agree to.
Chair Sarnoff: So we can interpret that as you're going to withdraw your request?
Mr. Siffin: That's correct.
Chair Sarnoff: Okay.
Mr. Siffin: Thank you.
Commissioner Gort: Thank you.
Chair Sarnoff: All right. Let's now open it up to whatever issues each Commissioner has. Just -- we're only dealing with build agreement right now, then, if you want, we can go into the ordinance. But let's --
Commissioner Dunn: I'll follow your lead.
Chair Sarnoff: All right. He's talking about -- you've pretty -- Mr. Bercow, you've restricted yourself pretty much to the build agreement in terms of your questions, right?
Mr. Bercow: The clarifications?
Chair Sarnoff: Yes. They're all --
Mr. Bercow: Now with the withdrawal of the permit fee issue, yes, the clarifications are on the development agreement.
Chair Sarnoff: Okay.
Mr. Bercow: Yes.
Chair Sarnoff: Does any Commissioner wish to address any issues just in the build agreement right now? Let's restrict it to that. All right, I have a couple, and I think it's just wording. Actually, you addressed the first one with -- when you characterized the 1,600 cars and 2,000 square feet of retail. We've amended that to 20, correct?
Mr. Bercow: Yes.
Chair Sarnoff: All right. I have a question on -- go to page, permitted development uses and intensities. It's Section --
City of Miami Page 46 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
Mr. Bercow: The twenty thousand was inclusive of outdoor seating.
Chair Sarnoff: I'm sorry. You're correct.
Mr. Bercow: Yes.
Chair Sarnoff: I didn't mean -- yes. Go to section -- go to page 9, section 8, permitted uses. You have a -- it says the agreement shall toll the City Square residential MUSP (Major Use Special Permit) until such time as a CU (Certificate of Use) is issued. And then -- I think it does say that the -- it goes on to say that once that's issued, then the MUSP shall be abandoned.
Mr. Bercow: Correct.
Chair Sarnoff: Is that, Madam City Attorney, the negotiated language you wanted? Yes?
Ms. Bru: That reflects what has been discussed and agreed to and what was requested by the Commission.
Chair Sarnoff: So you're satisfied that that language satisfies the request that the MUSP not be tolled?
Ms. Bru: Yes.
Chair Sarnoff: Okay. I have a question. I'm going to direct it to you, and I'm going to try to do it as delicately as I can 'cause I do not want to create a record for anyone. Are you comfortable with Section B, which is on page 10 -- I am. I'm on page 10. I'm in subsection 8b. You have given examples of things. Are you comfortable, under a constitutional challenge, giving those examples?
Ms. Bru: The examples of the category killers?
Chair Sarnoff: Yeah.
Ms. Bru: Well -- I mean, I -- personally, I didn't like that, so I had a little bit of research done in my office and they told me that it was appropriate. So yes, I'm comfortable.
Chair Sarnoff: So we have other jurisdictions -- other governmental entities using that that have been challenged under equal protection and there's no problems?
Ms. Bru: This is all being done for the public safety, public well being of the City. This is a legislative determination that you're making, that this is in the best interest of the City's public health and welfare.
Chair Sarnoff: Okay.
Mr. Bercow: May I, Mr. Chair. Just to make the record reflect --
Chair Sarnoff: Go ahead.
Mr. Bercow: -- to let the record reflect. This --
Chair Sarnoff: You represented a big box once.
Mr. Bercow: One time. I think they still exist. I'm not sure. But let the record reflect, this is our
City of Miami Page 47 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
voluntary restriction on -- as proposed on the property.
Chair Sarnoff: Okay. That's a good point. You're volunteering that. All right. Section 10 is your museum trust -- Museum Park Trust. You're going to be creating the Trust, Mr. Bercow?
Mr. Bercow: Yes, we will.
Chair Sarnoff: And will you be creating a 501(c)3?
Mr. Bercow: If that is your request, absolutely.
Chair Sarnoff: Mr. Siffin.
Mr. Siffin: Yes, sir.
Chair Sarnoff: Is that okay with you?
Mr. Siffin: Yes, sir.
Chair Sarnoff: All right. I had given you some language, Madam City Attorney, on Section 11, and what I wanted to make sure was in the event there was found to be a more regulatory or more onerous or burdensome document, that that document would govern. In other words, if the development agreement were found to be in any way, shape, or form to be in contrast or something varying from the ordinance, that the development agreement would govern. Are you satisfied with that language?
Ms. Bru: Sorry, but I don't see that on Section 11. Let me see.
Mr. Bercow: No. I believe that's in the ordinance.
Chair Sarnoff: It's in the ordinance?
Mr. Bercow: Yes, sir.
Chair Sarnoff: Okay.
Ms. Bru: Okay, then in the ordinance. Let me look at the ordinance, the conflict section.
Mr. Bercow: Eight oh two.
Chair Sarnoff: Eight oh two?
Ms. Bru: Right.
Mr. Bercow: It's the last sentence of 62-802 in the ordinance.
Chair Sarnoff: To the extent there are any incon -- you're right -- there's any inconsistency or more onerous specific obligations in the development agreement than required by this division, the development agreement shall control. Thank you. It is in there. Thank you. Those are my comments, Mr. Bercow.
Mr. Bercow: Thank you.
Chair Sarnoff: Thank you. All right, Commissioner Dunn, I think you had some comments.
City of Miami Page 48 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
Commissioner Dunn: Not relative to --
Chair Sarnoff: No. I went through the development agreement, so --
Commissioner Dunn: Okay. Mr. Bercow and --
Mr. Bercow: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Dunn: -- Mr. Siffin, I certainly appreciate your willingness to try to accommodate the request of this Commission, and particularly, Chairman Sarnoff, as it relates -- one of the things that I was intrigued by and comforted by in this item was the fact that it has potential to provide jobs, not just for district of our Chair -- the district of our Chair, but for the entire City of Miami. One of the things that I'm constantly being bombarded by, particularly in my district, is that when these mega projects come online, that we show some good faith and not just verbally or mere rhetoric as to a good faith -- a sincere good-faith effort to work with local job commitments. And there's a Miami Works program that we have implemented, and could you also give some assurances, as far as you can, that you will make a sincere good-faith effort? Because this thing is constantly affecting -- you know, when we -- we need justification not just from the global perspective of how this will make Miami -- and certainly, it's a wonderful project. I support it. But constantly, these kinds of things are being challenged to me, and rightfully so, by the people of our district, who suffer -- and Commissioner Gort's district and other districts -- all the districts, for that matter, who suffer for the lack of employment opportunities. And could you speak to that?
Mr. Siffin: Commissioner, in that regard, I sought out the labor unions in this City, not because I necessarily was being pro one type of workforce or another, but I thought it was important in respecting the workforce to see that they get fair wages, because all those dollars come right back into our community. The more -- several people in the development community said to me, oh, my gosh, you're not serious, are you? That's going to cost you another million or two million dollars to build that project. I said, every one of those dollars expended will come right back into our City. They said how can you not understand that in order to support or education system, we need to be able to have people who make meaningful income so they then can be participants in the middle class. You can't just talk about it and not do something about it. I consciously made that effort. I've worked closely with the carpenter's union, with the steelworkers' union, with the labor federation because I thought they represented people seeking to assure that the workforce was able to get good wages in return for their efforts. Now, granted when I spoke with them, I said obviously, you're working on productivity so you can reflect why people receive good wages so they can deliver things even more productivicly [sic] -- with more productivity, so I respect that. I know they work with the workforce. I know they're an active part of it.
Commissioner Dunn: And just for the record, I want the Miami Works program -- I don't know your involvement or familiarity. But do -- we have been in the process, even in the CRA, of -- and that's going -- we'll be coming forth with something in the very near future -- who have a infrastructure in place that can address these concerns 'cause oftentimes what has happened in the past is when these type of programs come online, many of the developers and GCs (General Contractors) will say, well, we can't find qualified people to do these kind of things. And I hear you when you say the unions, and so -- but there is a Miami Works programs [sic]. It's in -- they're working together in unison with the unions in this regard. So I would ask you to look into that, as far as you can.
Mr. Siffin: I'm happy to work with the Miami Works program. And I think that the Commissioners are aware, but in the event you're not, I sought out and gave to the unions labor agreements that I produced that assured them that there was a contractual relationship; that it wasn't just an oral representation that would later be forgotten. And I know the Commissioners'
City of Miami Page 49 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
offices in receipt of such an agreement, and I'm very committed to living by those agreements.
Commissioner Dunn: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Gort: And I'm sure you're also going to be using a lot of the competitive local suppliers?
Mr. Siffin: Absolutely, sir.
Commissioner Gort: Thank you.
Mr. Siffin: You're welcome, sir.
Chair Sarnoff: All right. I have not opened up a public hearing. Anyone from the public wishing to be heard -- and by the way, you don't need to use your full two minutes -- please step up to the microphone.
Fred Frost: Can I go first?
Chair Sarnoff: Absolutely. You're --
Mr. Frost: Thank you.
Chair Sarnoff: -- recognized for the record.
Mr. Frost: Fred Frost, president South Florida AFL-CIO (American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations), 2500 Northwest 97th Avenue, Doral, Florida 33172. Thank you for the opportunity. I'm going to be very quick. I have represented and fought for working people my entire working life and things aren't going so well for union people. There's not enough fundamental fairness, there's not enhancing quality of life for my liking, and I think right now we have an opportunity to change that around. Mr. Siffin just brought up something that -- he gave my speech. This is an opportunity we cannot let get away. It's going to build the middle class. That's what I spoke to about last time. What does build the middle class mean, Fred? You know what it means, it means allowing people to go to the doctor, putting a roof over their head, putting food in their mouths. You want to change this community for the positive? You build City Square the right way. The best thing that public officials can do is retain and create middle-class jobs. As you know -- we hear the word “unions,” and I heard Charlie Cox say it before. We're almost vilified. I don't know why. We're teachers. We're nurses. We're City workers. We're County workers. We're the fabric of this community. We built this community. We're its backbone today. The City Square project is what's going to make and turn around a culture change where developers, like I said before, they decided how we were going to build this community; now we have a developer with a heart in his body that signed a contract so people can go to the doctor, can put food on the table. That's the new change we have in this community. Support this City Square project. Thank you very much.
Chair Sarnoff: Thank you. You're recognized for the record, ma'am.
Anne Louise Harms: Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Sarnoff, members of the Commission. My name is Louise Harms, and I serve as the junior warden, which means the vice president of the executive board of Trinity Cathedral, which is located at 464 Northeast 16th Street, next to Plaza Venetia and the Biscayne Bay Marriott. Trinity is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and we are most grateful to this Commission for the CRA grant to assist us with our 40-year recertification. However, we are concerned about all large-scale development in our neighborhood. Past developments surrounding the Cathedral has caused settling and structural damage. We hope we will not experience similar damage from any new
City of Miami Page 50 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
development. We met with developer Mark Siffin this past Monday and he described his plans to us in general terms. He did not have any actual site about the project to evaluate its impact on us. However, he did decide to tell us he would bring plans to share with us in the future. However, in general, we favor the concept of lower density, pedestrian-friendly development in our neighborhood. We understand that phase I of the City Square project consists of two parking garages, each with a 40-story electronic billboard. We do believe -- not believe, I'm sorry, the billboards will improve our neighborhood, and ask this Commission to consider their impact and the precedent the billboards will set for our community before approving them.
Chair Sarnoff: Thank you. Yes, sir.
Mariano Cruz: Yes. Mariano Cruz, 1227 Northwest 26 Street. I don't come here -- I'm not being paid by Maefield or Mark Siffin. I'm not a paid lobbyist, high-paid lawyer or anything, land use attorney, but I am a City resident and taxpayer (UNINTELLIGIBLE) I live close by. And you know, this morning -- I read at 5:30 in the morning -- I get the Herald, I -- cartoon. I laugh, I laugh. Look what it say, drop-dead backroom deal. The Herald talking about backroom deals. Look at the deal they made in the late '50s and early '60, and I know because I was here with the Jones -- with the Knight Brothers -- you got to call the Knight Brothers before you read anything about building the monster on the bay there. And you know, when it was built, they save millions of dollars in (UNINTELLIGIBLE) fee. The barge came right through the back door. The new stream was right there. They didn't have to truck in from the port there. They save millions of dollars. See if you can put that building now in the bay like they did it. That was a big backroom deal or smoke-filled room, whatever you want to call it. But I tell you, I like that group, McClatchy, 'cause I know Gary Pruitt, the CEO (Chief Executive Officer) of McClatchy. At least, I called them and they called me back at Sacramento, California. Right now it's now about, you know, 10 in the morning there, okay. So I am glad also, like I mentioned before, we used to have Mayfair Theater, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Grill, Johnny (UNINTELLIGIBLE), Jordan Marsh, everything there, and we drove there. And now I have to drive to Pembroke Lakes, but I have the wherewithal and the car to go there. Most of my neighbors, they don't have the money; they got to take the bus to go there and they -- be able to go shopping. And also, tax pay base, our funding sources, and that will be jobs. As a union organizer and member of different unions and all that, I am glad that the jobs will be created, okay, and permanent jobs too, not just Mickey Mouse jobs. Thank you.
Chair Sarnoff: Thank you, Mr. Cruz. You're recognized for the record, Mr. Kurland.
Nathan Kurland: Nathan Kurland, 3132 Day Avenue. Quoting Beth Dunlap's article in the Miami Herald on 7/24/2010: “Even more puzzling than the City Square garage with two bigger than gigantic electronic billboards atop it is the rush by the Commission to approve a project that poses lots of questions and offers few solutions.” Let me offer you, Commissioners, some of those questions. In the words of Commission Dunn just this morning regarding the Civil Service question, “What's the rush? It took 114 years to erect a ten-foot statue of Julia Tuttle, but only seven days to pay a forty-story homage to feminine hygiene products and McDonald's.” It is my belief that this development project violates due process. As a nonemergency issue, a 30-day review process between readings is required. We don't seem to be meeting that here. The City Square project, in my opinion, is a classic example of illegal spot zoning, but that hasn't been part of the discussion, even though I have enjoyed the horse-trading session from Commissioner Dunn, Commissioner Carollo, and you, Commissioner Sarnoff. It is my opinion that this development project violates 1305, which, for those of you who don't know, regulates spillover of light. It is my opinion that this measure was not, as required by law, presented to the PAB (Planning Advisory Board), now known as the PZAB (Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board). And finally, and most importantly, I would like to just talk about substantial modification . Mr. Chairman, if you would be so kind -- and I do have two minutes from Sue McConnell, who is signed in from -- with the City Attorney [sic].
City of Miami Page 51 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
Chair Sarnoff: I'm going to give you one more minute to clear up.
Mr. Kurland: One more minute'll be perfect.
Chair Sarnoff: I don't trade minutes.
Mr. Kurland: If you would be so kind, please, I don't know who it is -- who the Planning director is right now. But if you would be so kind in front of this body of citizens, please ask the City Planning director a simple question that will require a yes or no answer. Is a change from two 70-story residential towers to two 35 -- a 40- and a 35-story advertising towers, is that a substantial change or not? I plead to you that if the answer is yes, this hearing is improper and illegal. And if the answer is no, then I truly don't understand what the definition of substantial change is. Commissioners, there is no right way to do the wrong thing. Please, find the courage to oppose this measure. Thank you, sir.
Chair Sarnoff: Yes, sir.
Pepe Carocio: Good afternoon, Mayor and the City Commissioner [sic]. My name is Pepe Carocio, 799 Crandon Boulevard, Key Biscayne, Florida, and I'm the president of a ready-made company, and I am a former Miami-Dade County Commissioner. When they did, you know, the Performing Art [sic], lack parking. When I go, you know, to the Performing Art [sic], if I don't get out five minutes before to get the valet parking, going to take me about 50 minutes to get out of the theater. To me, it's a great project; going to bring jobs; going to bring revenue to the City; and going to bring a bunch of job that we needed. I am not in favor 100 percent of that going to be a union job because I am a member of the ABC, Associated Builder [sic] Contractor [sic], and we are (UNINTELLIGIBLE). But I seen that it's great and we are in the 21 Century. In four years, when we have the next World Cup and we're going to see, maybe Sunday, 50,000 people looking at that game. We're going to put Miami more in the picture of the world. I think that it's great, and I commend you to have the courage because sometime, you know, people, they have a pressure from one side or the other side. It have been said that, you know, the politician, they're like running back, sometime you have to fake to the side. But when I was the County Commission [sic], I play football and I was a linebacker. If you hit me, I hit you. Thank you.
Chair Sarnoff: Thank you.
Commissioner Gort: I was the left guard. I used to block you all the time.
Grady Muhammad: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Sarnoff: I was a swimmer; I avoided all contact. You're recognized for the record.
Mr. Muhammad: Wide receiver; I got hit. I was a wide receiver; I got hit too many times. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Grady Muhammad, representing Contractors Resource Center, 1702 Northwest -- North -- Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 202. Got to commend you, Chairman, for being able to extract the concessions you've extracted for the betterment of this City, the betterment of Museum Park. You must be commended. All Commissioners should definitely take a -- become lawyers, I guess, because you're a great negotiator. Grady Mu -- we're here -- I know -- talk with Mr. Bercoff [sic]. Contractors Resource Center represents a network of small minority black contractors, right across the street from the old Omni mall, three blocks from City Square. With all the work that contractors, union members need workers, black contractors need some of this great development, and I would hope this Commission would consider looking at Contractors Resource Center. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) certified, they're licensed, and more importantly, they're insured, and they experienced and they can do the job. So please consider Contractors Resource Center as part of the development agreement as well. Thank you.
City of Miami Page 52 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
Chair Sarnoff: Thank you. Yes, sir, you're recognized.
Enrique Salvador: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, good morning. My name's Enrique Salvador. I'm not a lawyer. I'm a resident. I live three blocks away at the 1800 Club, on the 21st floor. And I want to thank you for having me go to that last public hearing, where I learned a lot and I really -- I'm really proud of all the planning, you know, what we saw on the videos. We need to move on with it. You know, right now Biscayne Boulevard's all torn up, fine. I use another way -- construction 'cause I got to -- bother me at all. I want lights. I want a lot of lights. Like I said before, when I go over to a Heat game, which I will be selling tickets here shortly, you know, I take a cab. I mean, I walk over to the Heat game. And if it's dark, I got to take a cab back home, you know. It's too dark. We need this and we need it now. And I'm sure we wouldn't be here if it wasn't proper to be here, so move on. And thank you for your time.
Chair Sarnoff: Thank you. Yes, sir, you're recognized for the record.
Jorge Tapia: Yes, sir. Jorge Tapia, at 440 Ocean Drive, Miami Beach, Florida. I'm a business owner, representing a lot of subcontractors, small subcontractors. I'm here to restate basically that I'm a proponent of the project, not only this project; for anything in this time and era basically to help the economic times. I feel that it's an incredible project for the City, as far as what I've heard from the revenues that it creates. I think the decision was solid, and I'm here to just state that fact. Thank you.
Chair Sarnoff: Thank you very much for coming, sir. Yes, sir, you're recognized for the record.
William Riley: Yeah. My name is Bill Riley. I'm here representing the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 349, and as president of the South Florida Building Trades Council. And we're here in support of the project. The project needs to be built down there to help with the City, with taxes, and to help revitalize that area that's down there. We have worked with Mr. Sirnoff [sic] and he's a very honorable guy. This is a great project, and we're just here to support it and to make sure it goes. And we would appreciate you all's consideration in voting for this project today. Thank you very much.
Chair Sarnoff: Thank you, sir. Yes, sir, you're recognized for the record.
Jose Viana: Good afternoon. My name is Jose Viana, president of Adsum Group. My office is located at 169 East Flagler Street, downtown Miami. As an owner of a business in downtown, I believe this is a great project to have in the downtown neighborhood, and it's also a great project for the City of Miami in terms of urbanism, job creation, and City revenues. So I'm definitely supporting this project.
Chair Sarnoff: Thank you, sir. Yes, ma'am.
Dolly MacIntyre: My name is Dolly MacIntyre, 409 Vizcaya Avenue. Yesterday I witnessed the unveiling of the beautiful statue of Julia Tuttle. If she were here today, she would say “Please, don't do this to my city.” I'm speaking to the signs, not to the project. I don't have any objection to the project, only the signs. In her day it was the snake oil salesman who promised an elixir that would cure everything. Today, according to the documents you are about to sign, it is the towering neon, animated, flashing billboards that will cure all of Miami's ills, perhaps with the exception of AIDS (Acquired Immuno Deficiency Syndrome) and breast cancer. I'm afraid you're dreaming an impossible dream. These neon towers will create great wealth for a few at a cost to many and create visual pollution seen for miles. And have you thought about the impact these signs will have on traffic on the Venetian and McArthur Causeways? We worry about the distraction caused by texting, but what about the distraction of these colorful moving scenes flashing different pictures and causing drivers to take their eyes off the road? After all, what is the goal of these neon towers? To get people's attention. I hope you will keep an eye on
City of Miami Page 53 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
accident statistics when these signs are up and running. The other thing is I appreciate your making lemonade out of a lemon by ensuring that the Boulevard Shops will be restored and appropriately used and cared for. We thank you very much for that. Thank you.
Chair Sarnoff: Thank you. Yes, sir.
John Bennett: Thank you, Jim, and thank you, Commissions [sic] for the opportunity. My name is John Bennett. I'm vice president of Baker Concrete Construction, and we're proponents of SP.3 and SP.4. I'll give you a little bit of background on where Baker Concrete stands. At the present time, going along with Commissioner Dunn's theory, we need job growth. We have 900 employees in Dade County, 70 percent of those employees are Dade County residents. We have 465 employees right now on the Marlins Stadium project. We've been working two shifts since October 6. On September 1, thereabouts, we're going to lay off 400 people. We're doing the Orange line, the People Mover, and other project at the Miami Airport. We're going to lay off another 300 there by October 1. Two years ago, we had 1,600 employees. By October 1, we'll have 200 employees. So I think this project is critical. I think the number one problem in America as we know is unemployment. So I think you gentlemen are very profound servants and I think you'll vote this project in a positive way. Thank you for your time.
Chair Sarnoff: Thank you, sir. Yes, ma'am.
Sallye Jude: I'm Sallye Jude, and I live at 200 Edgewater Drive. And I'm here to oppose the mechanical towers that would top this building. I am here representing the Citizens for a Scenic Florida and the Federation of Florida Garden Clubs. We do not believe that this is going to be something that the citizens will be better who live in our City because you're putting this forward. The city of Los Angeles, which is a progressive city, properly sent this type of contrivance to their city government and studied it, and they voted a resounding no not to let it happen. So I think maybe with the type of study that needs to be in place before this is done, you, too, would come to a different conclusion. Thank you.
Chair Sarnoff: Thank you. Yes, sir.
Charles Christopher: Hi. My name is Charles Christopher. I'm from Universal Music Group, and I support the City Center [sic] because just like I work with Gloria Estefan, look what she did to South Beach. You know what I'm saying? What I'm saying is you do things, you create jobs. You do things. I'm in the entertainment business. Entertainment business has no downfall. And what they're talking about is putting entertainment at the bottom of the building. Or whatever they're talking about, I disagree with it. I agree with it vehemently. So anything that has to do with City Center [sic], I'm just letting you know Charles Christopher agrees with it.
Chair Sarnoff: Thank you, sir. Yes, sir.
Joe McManus: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. My name is Joe McManus. I work -- I lived at the Venetia directly across from the site for eight years, from the year 2000 to 2008, when I retired. Now, obviously, I do not speak for the Venetia Condominium Association. I'm appearing for myself in opposition to this project. I was pleased to serve in the Planning Department of the City of Miami for 22 years, from 1973 to 1995, most of that time as an assistant director. My opposition to this project is based on the fact that these 40-story revolving towers are going to be a visual blight on the neighborhood. But more important, as I think you've seen it start to play out today, this will set a precedent if these are built because other billboard operators, the billboard industry will come to you and say because of this precedent, we want to use this to have more billboards in downtown Miami, more murals. The question is do you want downtown Miami to be blank-walled murals, flashing signs and lights ? Thank you very much.
City of Miami Page 54 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
Chair Sarnoff: Thank you. Yes, sir.
Jerry McDonald: Good morning, Commissioners. My name's Jerry McDonald. I'm president of GT MacDonald Enterprises, a contract company, for 30 years here in Florida. You know, my children were born here. And as a taxpayer, I'm happy to see that the project like this brought today with private funds. But as a contractor, last year, you know, I had 275 people working with me on my projects. We have an office in Miami Beach on Lincoln Road. It'll be an improvement to the area. And I believe that the jobs (UNINTELLIGIBLE) will be created, as people spoke about, you know, will help revitalize the area no matter who does the work. So I'd like to speak in support of the project. Thank you.
Chair Sarnoff: Thank you, sir. Yes, sir.
Ignacio Garcia Du-Quesne: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Ignacio Garcia Du-Quesne, 2655 LeJeune Road, Suite 500, Coral Gables, Florida. Thank you for the opportunity to express my support for this ordinance. I think media towers are going to prove to be a vibrant, exciting new project for the City with benefits that extend far beyond the income that these towers will produce to the City. This attraction will result in new economic activity for an area in need, new development projects, job creation, and a significant impact on your tax base. I encourage you to adopt the ordinance as presented by the City staff. Thank you.
Chair Sarnoff: Thank you, sir. Yes, sir.
Victor Labruzzo: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Victor Labruzzo, 3301 Northeast 1st, Midtown (UNINTELLIGIBLE). I'm a developer/investor here in Miami. I have two projects right now on both sides of Mr. Siffin's project; Portico, on Northeast 4th Avenue, 300 units; and 300 units in Overtown, affordable housing project that we're all looking forward to be built soon. This project that Mr. Siffin has presented to the City of Miami has sort of created a buzz amongst my investors. And while it will create a tremendous amount of jobs for the City of Miami, I think even more importantly than that, it's going to mushroom into other developments now being more viable, your approval of the Publix, your approval of the north -- the Second Avenue project, that six-acre parcel there for Mr. Ignacio, and my projects where -- I'm personally right now receiving phone calls, and we had the project ready to go before the spike, the project failed, and now -- but we're ready to go. We have the construction drawings all done. What we need is construction lending or public equity financing. That's what I think is even more important than that. It'll create the buzz for other projects and other projects to get going in the immediate area on both sides. Thank you very much. I fully support the project.
Chair Sarnoff: Thank you. Terry Darling: Terry Darling, with Florida Carpenters. First of all, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity and the consideration of this project. I believe Mr. Siffin's project is very much needed for this community for a number of reasons: jobs, jobs, jobs. Reenergizing and vitalizing that end of town I think is a good opportunity for everybody. Reverend Dunn and the rest of the Commission, I do thank you guys. Miami Works program, you know we're heavily involved in that and we're a firm believer. Our organization stands ready to bring in the kids from the neighborhood, give them an opportunity, give them the training that they need to move on to other jobs. Let it be a gateway opportunity for these kids in this neighborhood, provide them with training, skills they need to move on. I think Mr. Siffin has demonstrated he's what we call a responsible corporate citizen. He's come into town. He's given back to the community. He's willing to put his name out there, his money where his mouth is, and he's doing these jobs with responsible contractor language and giving everybody the opportunity to work a job with benefits so they can get off the county health rolls, the indigent care programs, give them a job with a little bit of dignity and a little bit of respect. And I think it's good for the whole area. Thank you.
City of Miami Page 55 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
Chair Sarnoff: Thank you. You're recognized for the record.
Fred Joseph: Fred Joseph, 1717 North Bayshore Drive, Suite 3856. I would like anybody in the audience that would be looking out of the Grand to raise their hand. We have two people that will be looking at these towers and instead of the 70-story that the James L. and John S. Knight swapped for the right to build the Performing Arts Center on one of their parcels, they got this enormous zoning. As Julia Tuttle did, she got Flagler by bribing him to come to Miami and swap some land. So what are you getting better? You're getting better that the Boulevard Shops are going to stay, that this building is not 70 stories, and you will not have big- box store -- not that I'm against Wal-Mart. I love Wal-Mart. But what is better are the Boulevard Shops styles and the promenade. When I go to the Performing Arts and my wife has to put all her jewelry in my pocket, you know, make me the target until she gets inside, and I cannot get -- and everybody's afraid of light. We need the light.
Commissioner Gort: How much is your insurance policy?
Mr. Joseph: Yeah, thank -- she's paying that also. Thank you very much. Please support this.
Chair Sarnoff: Thank you. You're recognized for the record.
Dusty Melton: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. I'm here briefly today to put some documents on the public record, and I would ask at the outset to be afforded a little bit of latitude to talk about the laws that I believe attach to this project, perhaps about as much time as Mr. Bercow was afforded when he was speaking about my presentation last week. It won't be very long. I've given the Clerk a copy of the following documents, and I'll just briefly explain why I think they're germane to your consideration of SP.3 and SP.4 today. The first is the January 1972 agreement between the Florida Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of Transportation. And some of us read this document and conclude the customary use, which was the term used earlier today, limits signs along federal -- primary highways, which US 1, at 1401 Biscayne Boulevard, is to no more than is 1,200 square feet maximum size. The second document I'd like to enter into the record is a copy of the Dade County Sign Code, which, since 1985, has been the governing statute for signs of all kinds in all cities. It is in Division 2 that the prohibition on rooftop signs, such as proposed here today, can be found. It is in an early Division 2 section of the County Sign Code that signs that are not specifically defined in the County Sign Code are, by lack of definition, prohibited. In SP.3 today you're being asked to approve a definition of a media tower as a new kind of sign. Media tower, LED, and light emitting diode sign does not appear anywhere in the Dade County Sign Code; therefore, those kinds of signs are illegal. And the Dade County Sign Code also has ten criteria for programmable signs, of which these generally are, the media tower generally is, and these media towers, as proposed, violate several of those ten criteria. The next document is an e-mail (electronic) to civic activist Barbara Bisno, who cannot be with us today, from Mayor Regalado, dated Friday, May 7, in which the Mayor agrees that the Dade County Sign Code must be amended to make these media towers legal. I'd like to introduce a letter from the County to the City from County Manager George Burgess to then City Manager Joe Arriola, dated October 27, 2004, when the Administration at that time was trying to legalize the proliferation of illegal murals by putting a definition of mural sign in the City sign code. And what the County manager told the City was you can't make legal by City ordinance that which is illegal by the County Sign Code. That's what this letter said to the City. And that is why the prior Administration retreated from its effort to, on its own, as you're being asked to do today for media towers, create a legal mural structure. And in fact, the next document I'd like to introduce from March 9, 2006 is the actual agenda item from the Miami City Commission meeting, where the Commission formally asked the County to amend its sign code to allow murals to be legal -- finally be legal in the City of Miami. The County Commission easily agreed to the City's request, first on April 26, 2007, and then when the City sent over some more requests, made a further amendment on July 10, 2007 to allow the City in 2008 to finally do -- in this room -- make murals legal at the end of a
City of Miami Page 56 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
process that is equally and identically required for media towers today. This document is the City Commission's adoption of its municipal mural ordinance finally at the end of a process that commenced at County Hall. Mr. Bercow had two explanations for why he believes that the County Sign Code does not apply to the media towers, and he gave you a short explanation of Division 5 of the County Sign Code, the famous opt-out provision. The media towers could be 50 feet away from I-395 and still be governed by the County Sign Code because the opt-out, which the City Commission did last fall, only opts the City out of one of the six divisions of the County Sign Code, regulating commercial signs very close -- within 600 feet of expressways. The rooftop sign prohibition is over in Division 2. It doesn't go away. The prohibition against signs that aren't defined by specifically in the County Sign Code is over in division -- it doesn't go away. The regulations on programmable signs, which make these proposed media towers illegal in several respects, is in Division 2. You cannot and the City has not opted out of Division 2. Those regulations remain in place. But since there is discussion by Mr. Siffin's attorney about the opt-out, I'd like to put in the record for clarity going forward the County ordinance that allows municipalities to opt out and, in fact, the City's opt-out ordinance last fall. The second reason that some of us respectfully disagree with Mr. Bercow's legal analysis is that these media towers are not within the 600 feet distance that Division 5 is speaking about. And I'd like to introduce his -- as he describe it, his Daktronics sign experts' illumination report to the City, dated May 18 of this year, in which, by his own exhibit, these media towers are shown to be approximately 780 feet from the edge of 395. And that (INAUDIBLE) -- so you can see what I'm talking about.
Chair Sarnoff: When he was measuring that, was he measuring it from the right-of-way or was he measuring it from the midline of the 395?
Mr. Melton: Mr. Bercow -- and I do not want to misquote him -- said that he believes from the middle of 395 to the signs was approximately 800 feet, but his assertion was that from the right-of-way -- and I agreed with Mr. Bercow, that the measurement should be done from the right-of-way to the location of the media signs -- was within 600 feet. I've already explained why the distance doesn't matter because Division 2 regulations still attach. But by the Daktronics' exhibit, by my rough estimation, the edge of the right-of-way and the locations of the sign by the Daktronics scale is 780 square feet, well out of the area that's governed by Division 5. The next document -- and I'm coming to a close in just a couple of minutes, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Sarnoff: You have one more minute.
Mr. Melton: Thank you. -- is an exhibit that was introduced at the County during its contemplation of the mural ordinance back in '07 because it's a beautiful photographic chronicle of the dozens and dozens and dozens of murals that the City had allowed to proliferate because the City has a history of not enforcing the Code. And in fact, the last two documents, the City has a tradition of going into business with illegal sign companies -- this goes to the trust issue -- starting in July '03 when the City became business partners with Carter Outdoor Advertising on its illegal expressway billboards, followed by the July 2004 contract to take money from Clear Channel as well for illegal billboards, subsequently, by -- to take more money from CBS (Columbia Broadcasting System) for its illegal expressway billboards and become business partners. Probably the most perverse business deal made in this hallowed room between the City of Miami and rogue sign companies were the -- was the settlement reached in Code Enforcement hearings, a rare moment of Code Enforcement by the City of Miami against illegal mural companies when the City said “If you'll pay us $250 a day for every location, we'll let the signs that we know are legal remain up and illegal.” And finally, Mr. Chairman, in that vein, last July's amendment to that perverse Clear Channel agreement giving permission -- notwithstanding paragraph 13 where Clear Channel says “We will abide by County statutes, like the governing County Sign Code, notwithstanding that worthless assurance in your document, the City Commission took more money to make illegal Clear Channel billboards more illegal by authorizing Clear Channel to install programmable signs on some of its billboard spaces .
City of Miami Page 57 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
Chair Sarnoff: In conclusion.
Mr. Melton: And I appreciate the opportunity to explain why some of us have a trust issue with the City, not personally, because the history of this municipality is to empower and authorize behavior by sign companies and developers who go to Clipper Circle, brandish the City's approval, and go break the law in exchange for giant wads of cash. And frankly, that's what some of us are fearful that that's what we're seeing again today. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Chair Sarnoff: Thank you. Anyone else from the public wishing to be heard on SP.3 or SP.4, please step up. Hearing none, seeing none, it comes back to the Commission. Is there a motion on SP.3?
Commissioner Suarez: Move it.
Chair Sarnoff: All right, we have a motion by Commissioner Suarez. Is there a second?
Commissioner Dunn: Mr. Chairman.
Chair Sarnoff: You're recognized for the record.
Commissioner Dunn: Second.
Chair Sarnoff: Commissioner Dunn has second it. Any further discussion, gentlemen?
Vice Chair Carollo: Mr. Chairman.
Chair Sarnoff: You're recognized.
Vice Chair Carollo: Thank you. First, I have a question for our City Attorney. Madam City Attorney, why do we have two readings?
Julie O. Bru (City Attorney): Okay. On an -- the ordinance, which is what you're voting on now, SP.3 requires two readings. It's by state law. That's how we adopt ordinances.
Vice Chair Carollo: I understand that. But what's the purpose of having two readings?
Ms. Bru: It's just that's what the law requires, and I guess, you know, obviously, the purpose being to give it full -- an opportunity for it to be discussed on first reading and then any changes are brought back on second reading for final adoption.
Vice Chair Carollo: So in other words, on second reading, it doesn't automatically say you're going to rubberstamp something?
Ms. Bru: No, no. I mean, that's -- you discuss it on first, and if there's any modifications, then -- as long as it doesn't change, you know, the purpose of the ordinance, then you bring it back for second reading.
Vice Chair Carollo: Thank you. I want to say that I lost track of how many e-mails I have received with regards to the media towers asking me for a deferral, raising questions, and so forth. As a matter of fact, even today, as one of the persons that came before us speak mentioned the "Miami Herald," thinking that we did some backroom deal or so forth. And my issue is why are we rushing this? Why did we just approve it in a week and now it's coming for second reading in a week? And I think another person that came before us to speak said what is the rush. I don't
City of Miami Page 58 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
know if anyone can answer that or not.
(OUTBURSTS FROM THE AUDIENCE)
Commissioner Gort: Hello.
Chair Sarnoff: All right, all right. I don't think he was really asking a question. I think he was making a rhetorical statement.
Vice Chair Carollo: That's fine though. You know -- and jobs is a very good answer; however, I don't think that jobs are going to start in August, you know. And when we discuss as far as the fees and the amounts and so forth, there was obvious to me some confusion. And even when, you know, you mentioned a million dollars, which was the last meeting, which I was the person who requested the additional fee, you know, I say to myself a million dollars, it seems like a lot of money, but then again, you know, when I start looking at the project as a whole, how much are they paying for the land, you know. That's a lot of money. That would definitely -- a piece of that would definitely clear up our reserves. And then -- when I'm starting to look at their estimated revenues -- which, in all fairness, I haven't completely analyzed it. You know, I started to -- I'm seeing a lot of money, a lot of revenues coming in. And then when you take that into perspective with, you know, a million dollars, I don't know. I think the City should be receiving even more money, to be honest with you, especially when we're tackling reducing expenses of $84 million and thinking about whether we're going to actually approve a garbage fee. Where I'm going with this -- and by the way, I actually appreciate the fact that you are meeting with different people that have concerns and so forth, and you've made some improvements or agreements. I actually -- you know, I commend you for that 'cause you said you would in the last meeting and you are. My main issue is why are we moving this so quickly. Why can't we just go through the normal steps where in September, it will come for second reading?
Commissioner Gort: That's a valid question.
Vice Chair Carollo: I pose that question out there, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Sarnoff: Who wants to answer that, Administration?
Commissioner Gort: It's a good question.
Johnny Martinez (Assistant City Manager/Chief of Infrastructure): Seems to me that --
Commissioner Dunn: Can't hear you.
Mr. Martinez: -- we have concessions today that the -- as soon as the permit is issued, we're going to start collecting money that's going to go to Museum Park. We have a deficit in the general revenue that the sooner this project gets on board, the quicker the money will be going toward the general revenue. There's blight in the area. Money will go to the CRA. There's a parking demand around the PAC and several other issues. We're following a process that's legitimate. And I guess, whether you're rushing or not, it's just a matter of opinion.
Vice Chair Carollo: Well, the process is 30 days after the first reading you have the second reading, correct?
Ms. Bru: The requirements of state law with respect to the adoption of ordinances is that there be two readings, and really, you just need to advertise it ten days before a final adoption. It doesn't mandate how long you have between the two hearings.
Vice Chair Carollo: Ten days before final adoption?
City of Miami Page 59 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
Ms. Bru: You advertise the ordinance ten days before final adoption.
Vice Chair Carollo: Didn't we meet a week ago?
Ms. Bru: But we had advertised it within the ten-day period.
Vice Chair Carollo: So you actually advertised it for second reading, I guess, assuming that it was going to pass?
Ms. Bru: Correct.
Vice Chair Carollo: You know, perception is something that, you know, in the accounting world, we look at very closely because it's not just having a conflict, but the perception of having a conflict, and I'm not saying we're having a conflict. I'm just saying this is why some people think we may be fast-tracking this, some may -- some people may -- hey, the Miami Herald, thinking that we had backroom deals, you know, and that clearly looks to me like fast-tracking it when we advertised it before we even took a vote for the media towers, so -- in all fairness, I will want to defer this. If it's not deferred, you know, I'm going to be voting against it. I don't mind being on the losing side, by the way, but I think I need to make a point. Thank you.
Commissioner Dunn: Mr. Chair.
Chair Sarnoff: You're recog -- I think Commissioner Gort wanted to --
Commissioner Dunn: Oh, I'm sorry.
Commissioner Gort: That's all right.
Chair Sarnoff: He'll yield to you and --
Commissioner Gort: Yes.
Chair Sarnoff: -- we will go to you, Commissioner Dunn. Commissioner Dunn.
Commissioner Dunn: Oh, okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to show my level of consistency today in the questions that I've raised. And certainly, I have the utmost respect and appreciate my colleague in the personage of Vice Chairman Carollo. He brings really valid issues to the table. Two of the questions that I raised in two of the previous items was what fiscal impact, what fiscal impact. The reason I did not go with the other item because there was no real significant fiscal impact. It was pretty much inconsequential. It is clear to me that this item will have fiscal impact for a city that desperately needs an infusion of fiscal -- of cash for individuals who need opportunities for employment. We're talking about the working-class people. It is not often that we have developers who go on record -- and that was my reasons for raising that question, because I believe we have a pretty much well-rounded Commission here, and I could take time to give each person what they bring to the table, if we had time. I don't think that's -- But I do want to commend all of our colleagues. We really, sincerely want to see what's best overall for the City. Another factor that I use in determining how I vote, given the legalities of a situation, who is in support of it? It is clear to me that people who live closest to the area, the district Commissioner. There a plethora of supporters for this item. He, in the chairmanship of Mr. Sarnoff, has done a marvelous job, I think, in extracting and extrapolating a great deal of concessions that will benefit the City and, of course, you've done the same, Commissioner Carollo. And so I'm definitely inclined as -- that's my reason for voting for it, because this will have fiscal impact. While it is best practices that these items are given an appropriate time frame, I think given the crisis that the City is facing, given the crisis that our
City of Miami Page 60 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
people are facing, any delay could be very costly and could be a deal breaker.
Chair Sarnoff: Commissioner Gort.
Commissioner Gort: I have two questions. My understanding, people made statement that we're listening to an illegal meeting. Is this a legal meeting?
Ms. Bru: This item is properly before you. It has had all the notice that is required both for the ordinance and for the development agreement.
Commissioner Gort: Thank you. My question -- I think you already answer it -- why we needed to expedite it? Okay.
Mr. Siffin: I wanted to address the Commissioner's appropriate question. You make a very good point regarding jobs. You said these jobs won't be immediate in nature. Obviously, just like an iceberg, a project like this has a large base associated with it, Commissioner. And the number of hundreds of people from architects, engineers, civil and structural, that work here in our City who are part of our downtown community, who are firms based here, from surveying to civil engineering to structural engineering to the architectural firms, all of whom reside here. That employment, sir, is all the precursor to then the jobs that the people will actually go out and execute, the physicality. Those people are also, like you state, they're correctly part of our community. And those jobs will be generated by this project moving forward now, sir, if that answers the questions.
Chair Sarnoff: Commissioner Suarez.
Commissioner Suarez: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner Gort: No. I haven't finished. Sorry.
Chair Sarnoff: Oh, I'm -- I apologize.
Commissioner Suarez: I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
Commissioner Gort: How long has the Performance Center has been open, five, six years?
Chair Sarnoff: It's going on its sixth year.
Commissioner Gort: Going to be six years, right?
Chair Sarnoff: Going on its sixth year.
Commissioner Gort: I believe we spend millions of dollars and it really has not really taken off. And I can understand the -- 'cause I receive the same e-mails about the urgency of this, but at the same time, being a business person, I understand you're paying interest and you're paying a lot of money to maintain the project on the go. And one of the reasons I'm in favor of this because I think this -- a lot -- the other thing is, a lot of the complaints that I get are people who don't live within the City of Miami. I mean, the people that are going to be directly affected by this development are in favor of it. I mean, and they have had a lot of meetings in the area. They had one large meeting where a lot of people went over it and looked at it and present it. And the people that live there, that are going to be looking at it are in favor of it, the majority of the people. When I looked at it and I did the research, I don't have any problem. I think this will be something exciting for that area. That area needs something. We have spent -- the government, the County, and the City, who has spent millions of dollars in that area, and we have not seen the result of that expenditure. I think the private sector coming in -- please, don't, don't -- with a
City of Miami Page 61 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
very unique project is going to be very important for that area. And for those reasons -- and I've done my research -- I'm in favor of it.
Chair Sarnoff: Thank you. All right, Commissioner Suarez.
Commissioner Suarez: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think perception is important. I think, unfortunately, in life a lot of times perception becomes reality, but perception is not always reality. And I would like for you, Mr. Siffin, if you could, to explain what has been the reality of the public outreach of this project, because there is a perception out there that has been created by several people that this was somehow not vetted by the public or what I see is, in addition to this booklet full of signatures, I see the three neighboring homeowner associations are, as far as I can tell from the last meeting, they're on board with this. One of them, you disclosed today, will receive some sort of help with something that they're asking for, which -- Yes, $300,000, so we're going to be receiving $2.2 million, so -- You know, as a board member from my homeowners association, I always advocated to try to get something out of neighboring developers if there were consistent goals, and I think that there are consistent goals obviously between the neighboring areas. So could you please just detail -- because I was at the community meeting that the Chairman called and that Commissioner Gort spoke about, and I think -- I don't want to misestimate, but there may have been 2, maybe 300 people there, members of the public who spoke at length. I was there for more than an hour, maybe more than two hours listening to all the members of the public, and that was months ago. That wasn't last week. That wasn't the week before. That wasn't the month before. That was, what, two or three months ago? How long ago was that? What --?
Chair Sarnoff: It was April, wasn't it?
Commissioner Suarez: It was --
Chair Sarnoff: May?
Commissioner Suarez: Okay, it was in May, so that was three months ago. So I think there is a perception out there, unfortunately, that this wasn't vetted by the public, but I'd like for you to detail a little bit about who you've met with from the public, what public meetings have been held, so that to the extent that that perception can be dispelled because I don't believe that perception to be accurate. I'd like for you to explain that, please.
Mr. Siffin: Thank you for the opportunity. And I think you make a very good point. I think we read about the larger-scale meetings, but we don't hear about all the individual meetings which are the true representative as you all I'm certainly equally engaged with. I sat down with -- I sought out for individuals, one-on-one meetings, two-on-one meetings, three-on-one meetings on Saturdays, on Sundays, in my home till late at night, on Sunday evenings, on Saturdays, and I'm not saying I did anything extraordinary at all. I did what my responsibility was to all of you seated up there so you knew that I had reached out. And as buildings will tell you, sometimes when I couldn't get through to a building, I would show up and I would speak to the property manager and they'd say, “Well, we can't get a hold of the HOA (Homeowners Association), and I'd come back. And in one building's instance, I went back six times before I could actually finally meet with the homeowner association president, who then was kind enough to sit down with me and then called a meeting that consisted of about 20 people in a room and we sat for several hours. I didn't take my attorneys to any of these meetings. I would sit with the individuals and speak with them and let them ask me any questions and get their thoughts or invite them to come to my home just to get a sense of whatever they thought. I reached out to any people. The Commissioner asked for the meeting that took place on the 5th of May at the Performing Arts Center. That was a meeting which was basically a larger-scale opportunity, as you correctly stated. I recollect that you were there and I believe approximately 40 people spoke; and of the people that spoke, approximately 37 or 38 spoke in favor. But the more
City of Miami Page 62 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
important meetings were the ones that don't get talked about, the ones that don't get the press. They were the ones where Greg Carney (phonetic) came over to my house and sat there with myself and my wife and talked until 10 o'clock at night. They were the ones where Stewart Calve (phonetic) sat down with me in the restaurant at the Grand and we talked about the project for an hour. They were the ones where I met with the individual board members at the Lofts and sat there and spoke with them. All the individuals who I talked with, that's what a democracy is. It's those individuals who have the right to express their concerns, and I have the obligation to hear them, be open and available to them. Those don't get the attention of newspapers, like the "Miami Herald," which is doing its job, but it's not fair for it to assess a situation based off of one public event. The events were the way democracy works, the way you're all elected, one by one, each vote is tallied up. One by one, each individual expresses their opportunity to say what they think. My home phone, I answer. My cell phone is listed on the Web. Over 8,000 people came to the Web site. The people that came to the Web site, there was one individual that lived at 900 Biscayne, who said the following. It was the only statement of opposition. He said, “My wife and I get accosted whenever we go outside by people who are doing things such as you described in the last meeting. We don't think any more development should occur until that is stopped.” Well, I think the way in which we stop it is by executing the delivery of well thought-out, inclusive development. I know that the gentleman, Mr. Labruzzo, who spoke to you earlier, whenever I found out that a building was going to hold an event, I would show up by myself and just go and speak with people and mingle with them. And they would say, “Why are you here?” I'd say, well, I'd like to have the opportunity to speak with you. I'd like to share the project with you. They're like, “Well, do you have your attorneys?” I'm like, I don't need attorneys. I'm here to speak to you. So, Commissioner, those are all the unmentioned meetings. There have been hundreds of those meetings. Those are the real people who live in our community. Those are the ones who have expressed themselves. You don't know how many comments I've received from people who live in the area who said, “We've been waiting for this. We need this for our property values. Our property values have fallen to a third or a half of what they were. This will change that in a positive light.” At one meeting that took place at 1000 Venetian, the people were there. They were listening to the presentation. Finally, a gentleman stood up and he said, “If you get this approved” -- and granted, this was back in May -- he said, “How quickly can you get it built?” And I said, well, it will take me about, you know, 14 to 18 months to actually complete it. And the whole room broke into applause. Now this -- sorry --
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chairman, if I may?
Chair Sarnoff: Absolutely.
Commissioner Suarez: Thank you. And I think you're -- you've -- you made your point, and I think the point is that how many months would you estimate that you met with members of the public? How many months before this actually came to the Commission and was heard last week by the Commission would you say that you discussed it with homeowner associations, whether they be big or small, community events held by the Commissioner, by the Chairman, and just other members of the public. How many months would you say you've been discussing this publicly?
Mr. Siffin: For over nine months.
Commissioner Suarez: I have no more questions, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Chair Sarnoff: Vice Chair.
Vice Chair Carollo: Thank you. Thank you for your answers, Mr. Siffin.
Mr. Siffin: Yes, sir.
City of Miami Page 63 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
Vice Chair Carollo: I actually appreciate it. And the irony is that when I was campaigning, I was criticized quite a bit because I didn't do too many big forums or big debates. I actually went one voter at a time. And I was so confident in what the people wanted and so forth because I had that direct contact, which I do know that I still have with my district, so you know, it's ironic. However, with that said, you know, if -- this becoming [sic] before us in September, maybe my vote would be different; however, you know, I have to, you know, stay with what I've said. And you know, I do believe that this should have come before us in September and not, you know, in a special Commission meeting one week after we just voted in, you know, favor of this. So, you know, I will vote for no. I will vote no. And as a matter of fact, you know, even shortly after I started speaking, I said, you know, I may not be on the winning side or if you call it a winning side, you know, so the point is that, you know, I truly believe that this should have, you know, gone into September, and it shouldn't have been fast-tracked. I believe it's wrong that before we had our first meeting, it was already advertised, assuming that it was going to pass and we were going to have our second meeting today. I think that's wrong. I think you should never assume. I didn't know that occurred. I mean, just think about it, think about it. How could you advertise for a second hearing when you haven't even had the first hearing? It just sounds wrong. It just, I feel, is wrong. So that's why, you know, I have a big concern. And with that said, Mr. Chairman, since we will be voting on this soon, can I at least verify some of the terms that we have? As you know, I always -- I wanted to obtain more money, but I'm not going to get into that issue. I just want to make sure that what we have is what we have since there were issues.
Chair Sarnoff: Go ahead.
Vice Chair Carollo: Thank you. Madam City Attorney, I want to make sure, it's $2 per square foot per month?
Ms. Bru: That is in the ordinance, in 62-808.
Vice Chair Carollo: Okay. And that the permit fee shall be increased by the greater of 2 percent or the annual -- or the CPI (Consumer Price Index), okay, which I see in there. Question, this money is going to go, in its totality, to the general fund, correct?
Ms. Bru: The annual permit fee is to be deposited in the City's general fund.
Vice Chair Carollo: And when you say the annual permit fee, it's the $2 times the square --
Unidentified Speaker: Per month.
Vice Chair Carollo: Okay. I just want to verify that. The 800,000 for the Museum Park, that will be placed in a trust that will be paid for by Mr. Siffin or the developer? Okay. That is separate from this amount? Okay. I just want to verify that. And the part that will be going to the CRA will be from the --
Chair Sarnoff: There is none that I'm aware of.
Ms. Bru: The CRA would obtain whatever --
Chair Sarnoff: The TIF (Tax Increment Fund) revenue.
Ms. Bru: -- TIF revenues.
Chair Sarnoff: Right.
Vice Chair Carollo: Whatever TIF revenue? What about the parking surcharge?
City of Miami Page 64 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
Chair Sarnoff: City of Miami.
Vice Chair Carollo: Back to the general fund.
Ms. Bru: That's City of Miami revenue.
Vice Chair Carollo: Okay. Thank you.
Chair Sarnoff: I don't often quote Republicans, but why not. America is the land of opportunity. It's not the land of guarantees. And I think a lot of us forget that. Nothing in life is guaranteed, other than you know you're going to die and you know you're going to pay taxes. What we do in between that is who we are as a people. Once upon a time, a very young elected official in District 2 came up to this dais with a activist background, not a promoter or liker of murals, not a promoter or liker of billboards, and was met by a very distinguished County lobbyist. And he said, “Commissioner, you're about to be run over with a mural ordinance.” And he said, “You have two ways of dealing with it. You can be run over and have railroad tracks all over your back or you can get in front of it and you could guide it, you could change it.” Mural ordinance at that time would have put $150,000 a year, annually, into the City of Miami's general fund. When I was done with the mural ordinance, it puts in approximately 2.7 and it will put in $4.2 million a year, annually, into the City of Miami's general fund. I took the issue. I may not have believed 100 percent with the issue, but I was able to count to three and understood I would lose the issue. I happen to like murals right now. I've changed my view on them. I think everybody in the City of Miami is enjoying the benefits of murals. I have taken the billboards. If you see these electronic billboards and you don't like them, that's my fault. I'm the one promoting those. They're smaller. They look different and they're more exciting. I can tell you this. The city of Dallas, Texas, today, presently, with two more murals than the City of Miami earns annually $150,000 a year. I received a call from the Mayor of Dallas asking me how it is we can be generating approximately $3 million a year. We did it because we had the intestinal fortitude to do it. Luckily, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, four weeks ago, in worldwide rush, has probably created an ordinance or a schematic that the City of Miami will be upheld as to how it now taxes or, if you will, permits or creates this revenue stream. I should -- probably should remove the word "tax" from that. Creates this permit revenue stream, and it will be sustained throughout this country. And that's because there is now an acknowledgment out there that cities have to do things differently and cities should have the right to do things differently. For everyone who came up here and complained about this particular, if you will, project, they will also come up here and say I want my taxes lowered. You can't have one without the other. There should be a day that we live in the City of Miami that your taxes, you may not even need to pay taxes; where we come up with and create adequate revenue streams based on the resources that we have, that you shouldn't have to pay ad valorem taxes. I don't know that we'll ever get there, but the modeling that we have got to create should start us on that path. You heard the City Manager talk about creating additional dock space, City marina space. Well, why not? How many cities in the United States are port cities? Very few. And yet, we have how many Miami marinas? Not enough. And if we really use our resources correctly, judiciously, and like businessmen, we would be generating tens of millions of dollars that wouldn't have to come from taxes, wouldn't have to come from you all having to earn a living and pay pretty high taxes. I mean, unless you're fortunate to have lived in this City for 20 years or 10 years, you're paying high taxes because that's the way we do things here. So, you know, I believe that the advertising industry has done pretty well for the City of Miami. I didn't believe that when I first got up here. I didn't like murals, didn't want murals, didn't want billboards. But I think I've come into a relationship that is extremely cooperative with them and we understand a better way of doing and becoming partners. Now, for anyone who thinks we should be extracting more money, you just don't know. This has never been done before. You can't say what has the state of California done? What has Los Angeles done? What has Memphis done? What has Toronto done? There really isn't this type of mu -- well, let's call it tower anywhere else. There's no model to do this, and to our credit. We're the first. We're not -- we're usually a following city. We're not a city of
City of Miami Page 65 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
creativity. We're usually a city that says, look, Los Angeles did it, San Francisco's doing it, Washington just did it, and they're doing it in Atlanta. Okay, Miami, your turn. Never before have we taken the lead on anything. Never before have we said this is an iconic structure that nobody else has. And in the words of Commissioner Suarez, he believes Miami is hitting its golden age. This is part of it. I doubted whether he would ever make this project financially. Truthfully, Mr. Siffin paid way too much money for this property. He is going forward with it either because he's either insane or he is going to somehow get this done. But when we got LeBron James, Chris Bosh, and Dwyane Wade, the paradigm shifted for Miami. In the words of the Mayor -- and these are not my words. And I'm really commending the Commissioner, and I'm commending the Mayor -- you have 42 Super Bowls coming to the City of Miami a year. If you don't think there's going to be a helicopter for 40 of those games looking down and his project going up, it's going to put us on the map, in a manner of speaking, in a way that the City of Miami has never been put on the map. And for those of you who think, oh, how horrible, has anybody seen the American Airlines Arena? Okay. Is it horrible? Is it oh, my gosh?
Unidentified Speaker: It's incredible.
Chair Sarnoff: Right. It's a very interesting-looking sign that right now is only a point of sale sign, and I'm not trying to draw too many comparisons, but it is a feature -- a very interesting feature. And I got news to [sic] you, in ten years when a whole new group of guys are sitting up here, these venues are going to be different than even what we're discussing right now as technology completely outpaces us.
Unidentified Speaker: The Arena (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Chair Sarnoff: No, no, no. Don't, don't, don't.
Unidentified Speaker: It only (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Chair Sarnoff: Don't.
Unidentified Speaker: Sorry.
Chair Sarnoff: So, you know, I think this process has had a significant amount of public input. I think with the amendments that every Commissioner has put in, especially the Vice Chair, I think you have extracted as much blood as you're going to get because you just don't know what the cost of this construction will totally be, what the technology will be like. And I think your CPI index is -- I give you a lot of compliments for that. I think this is -- and for those people who oppose this, those people who say this was wrong, you know, Museum Park, Bicentennial Park, whatever you'd like to call it, will be built. It will be built. So if you want to get respite from living in a high-rise condo or you want to find Miami Central Park, it'll be right there on the water for you, and I think that's important. 'Cause somebody said to me, what's the best impact you can mitigate on something like this? And I said a park, a park, green, open space. So with that said, I think we had a motion, we had a second.
Unidentified Speaker: Yes.
Chair Sarnoff: And this is an ordinance, Madam City Attorney.
The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney.
Ms. Bru: And this ordinance has been modified based on all the revisions that were made and approved by the Commission at the prior meeting.
Chair Sarnoff: Maker understands the modifications?
City of Miami Page 66 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
Commissioner Suarez: Yes.
Chair Sarnoff: Seconder accepts?
Commissioner Dunn: Yes.
Chair Sarnoff: Okay. Madam City Clerk, it is an or -- roll call, please.
Ms. Latimore: Roll call. Vice Chairman Carollo?
Vice Chair Carollo: No.
Ms. Latimore: Commissioner Gort?
Commissioner Gort: Yes.
Ms. Latimore: Commissioner Dunn?
Commissioner Dunn: Yes.
Ms. Latimore: Commissioner Suarez?
Commissioner Suarez: Yes.
Ms. Latimore: Chairman Sarnoff?
Chair Sarnoff: Yes.
Applause.
Ms. Latimore: The ordinance is adopted, 4-1, on second reading.
SECOND PUBLIC HEARING
SP.4 RESOLUTION 06-01053da City Manager's A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH Office ATTACHMENT(S), APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 163, FLORIDA STATUTES, BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI (CITY), FLORIDA, AND RICHWOOD, INC., THE MCCLATCHY COMPANY, AND MAEFIELD HOLDINGS, L.L.C., (COLLECTIVELY RMM) RELATING TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECTS KNOWN AS "CITY SQUARE RETAIL PROJECT" AND "CITY SQUARE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT," ON APPROXIMATELY ± 8.24 ACRES, LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1401 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, 360 NORTHEAST 14TH TERRACE, 1410-1420 NORTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, AND 1431-1451 NORTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY AND IDENTIFIED BY MIAMI-DADE COUNTY TAX FOLIO NUMBERS 01-3231-011-0160, 01-3231-012-0050, 01-3231-012-0080, 01-3231-012-0090, 01-3231-009-0020, 01-3231-054-0010, 01-3231-018-0010, AND 01-3231-018-0011, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FOR THE PURPOSE OF REDEVELOPMENT OF SUCH LAND; APPLICABLE ONLY TO PROPERTY OWNED BY RICHWOOD, INC., THE MCCLATCHY COMPANY, AND
City of Miami Page 67 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
MAEFIELD HOLDINGS, L.L.C. AND AFFILIATED PARTIES; AUTHORIZING THE FOLLOWING USES: MIXED USES, DWELLING UNITS, RETAIL USES, PARKING, A MEDIA TOWER, AND ANY OTHER USES PERMITTED BY THE ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS, TRANSECT "T6-36-OPEN" ON THE MIAMI 21 ZONING ATLAS, WHICH ARE CONTEMPLATED IN THIS AGREEMENT; TOLLING THE ORIGINAL PHASE I PARCEL MUSP AS APPROVED AND IN EFFECT FOR THIS SITE (AS IDENTIFIED IN THE AGREEMENT); AUTHORIZING ALTERNATIVE PERMITTING PROCEDURES; AUTHORIZING A MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL DENSITY OF 500 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, FOR SAID PURPOSE.
06-01053da CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf 06-01053da Development Agreement.pdf 06-01053da Exhibit A.pdf 06-01053da Exhibit B.pdf 06-01053da Exhibit C.pdf 06-01053da Exhibit D.pdf 06-01053da CC 07-22-10 Summary Form.pdf 06-01053da-Submittal-District 3.pdf 06-01053da-Submittal-District 2.pdf 06-01053da-Submittal-Dusty Melton.pdf 06-01053da-Submittal-Barbara Bisno.pdf 06-01053da-Submittal-William E. Pino, P.E..pdf 06-01053da-Submittal-Disclosure of Consideration-Mark A. Siffin.pdf 06-01053da-Submittal-Memo-Bercow Radell & Fernandez.pdf 06-01053da-Submittal-Bercow Radell & Fernandez.pdf 06-01053da-Submittal-Signatures of Support.pdf 06-01053da-Submittal-Support Letters and Signatures.pdf 06-01053da-Submittal-Dusty Melton 2 (7-29-10).pdf 06-01053da-Submittal-Miami-Dade County Memo.pdf 06-01053da-Submittal-Disclosure of Consideration-Mark A. Siffin 7-29-10pdf.pdf
Motion by Commissioner Gort, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Sarnoff, Suarez and Dunn II Noes: 1 - Commissioner(s) Carollo
R-10-0334
Chair Sarnoff: All right, we have the resolution, and I have one comment to make on the resolution. Madam City Attorney, I want to -- I want you to ensure this Commission that the hold harmless and indemnity provision has a financial backing to it. I'm going to let you do so in your own discretion, but a man's word or an LLC (Limited Liability Company) single purpose company is a concern to me. It should be a concern to you. I want to make sure the hold harmless and indemnity has a financial component to it.
Julie O. Bru (City Attorney): Okay. So if I'm understanding correctly, you're going to approve the resolution approving the development agreement, but you want the City Attorney to make sure that the indemnification agreement provides for sufficient backing, that it's clear who the entity is that will be indemnifying the City to assure that the City will be able to collect on any indemnification that arises?
City of Miami Page 68 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
Chair Sarnoff: Let me add an element to it. It's all on your head, so it better be satisfactory to you and it better not be a single purpose company and it better be some -- it better be an entity and/or guarantor that has the ability to indemnify and hold harmless the City of Miami.
Ms. Bru: Okay, so we will do the due diligence. And if we're not able to feel comfortable with that, we will bring it back to you for further consideration.
Chair Sarnoff: Thank you. All right, it is a resolution. Do we have a motion?
Commissioner Gort: Move it.
Chair Sarnoff: We have a motion by Commissioner Gort --
Commissioner Suarez: Second.
Chair Sarnoff: -- second by Commissioner Suarez. Any discussion, gentlemen? Hearing no discussion, I --
Jeffrey Bercow: Mr. Chair.
Chair Sarnoff: Yes, sir.
Mr. Bercow: If I just might add, is that with the requested modifications that we had asked for earlier relating to the modification of Exhibit B to reflect the roof height of 112 to 132 feet, as well as the minimum retail of 20,000 square feet, including outdoor seating area? I would just ask --
Chair Sarnoff: That is my understanding of the motion. Let me see if the maker accepts. It says it is.
Commissioner Suarez: Yes.
Chair Sarnoff: Is -- the seconder understand that?
Commissioner Dunn: Yes.
Chair Sarnoff: Okay.
Mr. Bercow: I -- did I -- I think -- well, I meant to say 142, 112 to 142. Is that what I said?
Chair Sarnoff: I wrote down 142. Did you not say that?
Mr. Bercow: Yes, I did.
Chair Sarnoff: Okay. Maker understands that?
Commissioner Suarez: Yes.
Ms. Bru: Mr. Chairman, and additionally, Exhibit D was substituted because Exhibit D was the ordinance, and since the ordinance has been adopted with modifications, that would be a substitution to the exhibit.
Chair Sarnoff: So understand that the modified ordinance will be the exhibit. Okay. Maker and seconder understand that?
City of Miami Page 69 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
Commissioner Dunn: Yes.
Chair Sarnoff: All right. Any further discussion, gentlemen? Hearing no further discussion --
Dusty Melton: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Could I just put on the record that all of the documents that I have laid on the public record for SP.3 are equally and clearly part of the public -- on SP.4.
Chair Sarnoff: We opened up the public hearing, Mr. Melton, for both issues, so it will be for both issues.
Mr. Melton: Thank you.
Chair Sarnoff: Hearing no further discussion, all in favor, please say “aye.”
Commissioner Suarez: Aye.
Commissioner Dunn: Aye.
Chair Sarnoff: Any opposed?
Vice Chair Carollo: One no.
Chair Sarnoff: One no.
ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made by Commissioner Dunn, seconded by Commissioner Gort, and was passed unanimously, to adjourn today's meeting.
Chair Sarnoff: All right, gentlemen, I understand we have an executive session -- affirmative executive session. I know Commissioner Suarez will not miss lunch, so -- oh, we have lunch upstairs. He will be missing lunch. When do you want to -- you guys want to come back, 3:30?
Commissioner Dunn: No problem.
Ms. Latimore: Chairman, will you please adjourn the special meeting?
Ms. Bru: Yes.
Ms. Latimore: Chairman, I need an adjournment for the special meeting.
Chair Sarnoff: All right, we're going to adjourn the meeting until 3:15.
Ms. Latimore: No, no. No.
Ms. Bru: No.
Commissioner Gort: No. Move to adjourn.
Ms. Latimore: I need this meeting adjourned. You have no more items for this meeting.
Chair Sarnoff: I'm sorry. Is there a motion to adjourn?
Commissioner Dunn: So move.
City of Miami Page 70 Printed on 9/10/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes July 29, 2010
Chair Sarnoff: Sec -- we have a second.
Commissioner Gort: Second.
Chair Sarnoff: All in favor?
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chair Sarnoff: You guys -- we will remeet [sic] at 3:30 for the continuation of the P&Zs (Planning & Zonings).
Ms. Latimore: Thank you.
City of Miami Page 71 Printed on 9/10/2010