city of miamiegov.ci.miami.fl.us/meetings/2009/9/1906_m_seopw... · tuesday, september 29, 2009...

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

4:30 PM

Meeting Minutes

City of Miami

City Hall

3500 Pan American Drive

Miami, FL 33133

www.miamigov.com

City of Miami City Hall

3500 Pan American Drive

Miami, FL 33133

SEOPW and OMNI

Community Redevelopment AgenciesMichelle Spence-Jones, Chair

Marc David Sarnoff, Vice Chair

Angel González, Commissioner

Joe Sanchez, Commissioner

Tomas Regalado, Commissioner

**************************

CRA OFFICE ADDRESS:

49 NW 5th ST, SUITE 100, Miami, FL 33128

Phone: (305) 679-6800, Fax: (305) 679-6835

Meeting Minutes September 29, 2009SEOPW and OMNI

Community Redevelopment Agencies

Present: Commissioner Regalado, Chair Spence-Jones and Vice Chair Sarnoff

Absent: Commissioner González and Commissioner Sanchez

On the 29th day of September 2009, the Board of Directors of the Community Redevelopment

Agency (CRA) for the Southeast Overtown/Park West and Omni Districts of the City of Miami

met in special session at Miami City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida. The

meeting was called to order by Chair Michelle Spence-Jones at 5:04 p.m. and was adjourned at

6:47 p.m.

ALSO PRESENT:

James H. Villacorta, Interim Executive Director, CRA

Gail A. Dotson, Assistant General Counsel, CRA

William R. Bloom, Special Counsel, CRA

Priscilla A. Thompson, Clerk of the Board

Pamela E. Burns, Assistant Clerk of the Board

RESOLUTIONS

09-010761. CRA RESOLUTION

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE OMNI

REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY,

WITH ATTACHMENT(S), ACCEPTING THE ATTACHED AMENDED 2009

OMNI REDEVELOPMENT PLAN ("AMENDED 2009 PLAN"), PREPARED BY

ZYSCOVICH ARCHITECTS, INC. AND UPDATED BY THE CITY OF MIAMI'S

PLANNING DEPARTMENT; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE EXPANSION OF

THE BOUNDARIES TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY TO INCLUDE THE PORT

TUNNEL PROJECT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OMNI FINDING OF

NECESSITY STUDY; DIRECTING THAT A GOAL OF 50% PARTICIPATION

BY RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES FROM THE OMNI REDEVELOPMENT

AREA OR THE CITY OF MIAMI BE IMPLEMENTED FOR THE PARK

COMPONENT OF THE MUSEUM PARK PROJECT; URGING THE CITY OF

MIAMI ADMINISTRATION TO REQUEST A MINIMUM OF 10%

PARTICIPATION BY RESIDENTS OF THE OMNI REDEVELOPMENT AREA

IN CONSTRUCTION-RELATED POSITIONS NECESSARY FOR THE PORT

TUNNEL PROJECT IF NEGOTIATIONS ON THE PORT TUNNEL PROJECT

ARE REOPENED; DIRECTING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO TRANSMIT

THE AMENDED 2009 PLAN AND THE CRA'S RECOMMENDATION FOR

APPROVAL TO THE CITY MANAGER FOR REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION,

AND TO REQUEST SUBSEQUENT TRANSMITTAL TO THE MIAMI CITY

COMMISSION AND MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COMMISSION FOR

LEGISLATIVE ACTION.

09-01076 Legislation 09-24-09.pdf

09-01076 Amended 2009 Plan Attachment 09-24-09.pdf

09-01076 Cover Memo 09-29-09.pdf

File # 09-01076 Legislation Version 2- 09-29-09.pdf

Motion by Vice Chair Sarnoff, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, that this matter be

ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote.

Votes: Ayes: 2 - Vice Chair Sarnoff and Chair Spence-Jones

Noes: 1 - Commissioner Regalado

Absent: 2 - Commissioner González and Commissioner Sanchez

City of Miami Printed on 12/4/2009

http://egov.ci.miami.fl.us/Legistarweb/Attachments/53438.pdf






CRA-R-09-0049

Direction by Chair Spence-Jones to the Interim Executive Director to include a requirement, if

the contract negotiation is reopened, that 10 percent from the CRA's (Community Redevelopment

Agency's) contribution be considered for the local participation on the project if funding is

received from the CRA.

Chair Spence-Jones: (INAUDIBLE) meeting for the -- special meeting for the Community

Redevelopment Agency, September 28 [sic]. Madam Clerk, this is a new meeting altogether,

correct?

Priscilla A. Thompson (Clerk of the Board): That is correct.

Chair Spence-Jones: All righty. So we'll -- I believe we only have one item, correct?

James Villacorta (Interim Executive Director, Community Redevelopment Agency): Correct.

Chair Spence-Jones: Okay. So Mr. Executive Director, officially turn it over to you now.

Mr. Villacorta: Item number one is a resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the Omni

Redevelopment District Community Redevelopment Agency, with attachments, accepting the

attached amended 2009 Omni Redevelopment Plan prepared by Zyscovich Architects, Inc. and

updated by the City of Miami's Planning Department; and directing the executive director to

transmit the amended 2009 plan and the CRA's (Community Redevelopment Agency's)

recommendation for approval to the City Manager for review and consideration and to request

subsequent transmittal to the Miami City Commission and Miami-Dade County Commission for

legislative action.

Chair Spence-Jones: Okay. I'm actually going to turn this over to the district Commissioner for

the area. I understand that this is something --

Vice Chair Sarnoff: I'd ask you to hold it 'cause I'd like to make a motion, if possible.

Chair Spence-Jones: Oh, okay.

Vice Chair Sarnoff: I'd like to make a motion to approve.

Chair Spence-Jones: So we have a motion. Do we have a second?

Commissioner Regalado: Second for discussion.

Chair Spence-Jones: Okay, second for discussion. Do you want the presentation part before the

discussion, Commissioner Regalado? Yeah, you want the --? Okay. You can present.

Gregory Gay (Planner II): Commissioners, Gregory Gay, with the City of Miami Planning

Department, presenting on behalf of the City Manager's office and the CRA. This is a master

plan redevelopment plan for the Omni redevelopment area. Basically, as Jim has outlined as a

part of the resolution, this particular redevelopment plan is highlighting several things. It's

highlighting the expansion of the boundaries of the CRA going westward, northward and

southward to include the Museum Park area, portions on the west side of the FEC (Florida East

Coast), and including an area known as the Wynwood Free Trade Zone that's closer to the west,

closer to I-95. So it's including those particular areas. It's also extending the timeline of the

CRA to be active in this particular area to March of 2030. We also like to include some

modifications on the record that -- within the document that you've received today, it is including

the port truck tunnel project and also it is addressing the Museum Park project as a project




within the Omni CRA area. As Jim was stating, this was originally done in 2006 by Zyscovich

Architects. As you all well know, things have been modified and changed within the CRA area

since that time period. And we would hope that the document would be viewed as a fluid

document in concept and would allow for projects that may not be listed within the document to

be added or possibly deleted as warranted by -- within the CRA. If there are any questions, I can

address them at this time.

Chair Spence-Jones: Do you want to just show the map just to make sure that everybody's

clear?

Mr. Gay: Basically, within the map area, we're extending the boundaries to the west, matching

up with the Southeast Overtown/Park West, which was already previously approved by this

particular body, and going upwards into the northern portion and including the Wynwood Free

Trade Zone. It's also going southward, including the Museum Park area. And there were some

modifications to the boundary in the northern area to capture some projects that were partially

in and partially out of the redevelopment area.

Chair Spence-Jones: Can I just ask one quick question just on -- Greg, on the --? I know that

part of the Omni part of the CRA also picks up a portion of the Overtown area where it ends, to

my understanding. Is it at 1st Avenue? How far does it go west?

Mr. Gay: It's actually 1st Place.

Chair Spence-Jones: First Place.

Mr. Gay: So it is approximately --

Chair Spence-Jones: So it directly connects.

Mr. Gay: It directly connects.

Chair Spence-Jones: There's no space in between?

Mr. Gay: There will be no gaps in between.

Chair Spence-Jones: Okay. I'm going to actually -- you want to --?

Vice Chair Sarnoff: Commissioner, you want to --?

Chair Spence-Jones: Commissioner Regalado. Now I know that there's some comments that

may also want to be -- Madam Clerk, I believe we do have to open it up to the floor if anyone has

any comments on the plan, so I do want to make the -- that available to any public that wants to

speak on behalf of this issue. But I'll go ahead and take your comments, Commissioner

Regalado.

Commissioner Regalado: No, no. I'd rather listen --

Chair Spence-Jones: You want to hear the public? Okay. So I'd like to open it to the public.

Fred Joseph: Fred Joseph, 1717 North Bayshore Drive, Suite 3856, 20-year resident of the

Grand Condominium, also on the Omni Advisory Board for many years, now standing with the

past president. I am now president of the Omni Advisory Board; Eleanor's vice president. Our

biggest concern in regards to this meeting today is not only timing, notice, also as you used the

question of boundary, I don't -- Commissioner -- Madam Chair, you used the boundary item. I

don't know how Watson Island would be a boundary connector other than by another body of




water, which you could have skipped over the Boulevard or done any other type of divide.

Chair Spence-Jones: Okay.

Mr. Joseph: Also, we had no (UNINTELLIGIBLE) of the trade area in our discussion and

studies into Wynwood for over -- I believe since 2005. We also had a lot of reservation because

our district Commissioner had brought up one of the major factors of a CRA, the TIF (Tax

Increment Fund) recovery. I would like to be explained how the museums are going to be a TIF

generator. Also, I would like to ask the question -- on the resolution for Bicentennial Park, they

had specific guidelines that had to be generated and met. To expand into that area just doesn't

make any sense until we know whether the -- that entities that put together that proposal are ever

going to be able to meet those criterias [sic] to build that park. When you use the terminology of

slum and blight, it probably does qualify. Back in 2000, we had homeless people in boxes living

there. But as you can go by there today and it's been cleaned up quite well. My problem is,

again, timing, no input other than seeing the Zyscovich study for -- I think from 2005 and this is

just -- it's gotten expanded and expanded and I don't see the timing on this other than trying to

get a $50 million bond letter or something for the tunnel. How can you explain it from your

constituents? Thank you.

Chair Spence-Jones: Okay. Can we at least --? No problem. Ms. Kluger, do you have any

comments you want to add or Fred wrapped -- summed it all up?

Eleanor Kluger: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) to speak. I'd like my two minutes.

Chair Spence-Jones: Okay. So you want to do it now? Sure.

Ms. Kluger: Am I next?

Vice Chair Spence-Jones: Yes.

Ms. Kluger: Good afternoon, Commissioners and CRA Board. Eleanor Kluger, Omni -- well,

Omni Advisory Board past president. But I'm here really as a -- as someone who has worked in

the Omni area for 35 years or more, lived and worked there and live nearby now. In 2005, it

was very active where we were able to participate with the CRA and to make very nice plans and

try to rehab the Omni area. Today we have high-rises along the Biscayne Boulevard, but we

have very little action in the poor areas of West Omni. So I came here today once finding out

that the meeting was going to be here -- I only found out this morning. I personally was here on

Thursday and came down at 10 o'clock and then again at 2 o'clock, had to arrange my business

affairs. I had a gentleman flying in from China to talk with me and I had to give him over to

someone else in order to be here all day at your request -- or my request to be here. But I have

long complained of the Omni citizens never receiving notice of any of the meetings. The CRA

staff has all of our e-mail (electronic) addresses and phone numbers but has never used them.

Why are only Overtown citizens notified, even when the meeting is in Omni and the agenda

concerns issues that affect the Omni community? Also, if one attends the meeting, they do not --

have not -- do not take comments from the floor, as one is not allowed to speak unless permission

is given before the meeting and put on the agenda. Five years ago, things were a lot different.

There was participation by the residents and property owners. Today we have been completely

shut out. At one of the last meetings, there was a vote to extend -- I'm talking about five years

ago in 2005 -- the Omni CRA boundaries and, therefore, extending the life of the CRA. We voted

not to extend the boundaries because we thought we had time in the 2017, which was when our

CRA would end, to improve the slum and blight that was then in the Omni area. Today West

Omni shows little to no improvement under the control of the current CRA Board. West Omni

encompasses approximately two-thirds of the land within the boundaries of the CRA, yet few

dollars have been spent to upgrade the area. Today's agenda, if approved, will take even more

funding away from the poorer areas and give it to the areas not intended under the bylaws of the




Omni CRA redevelopment plan. I urge you to vote against 09-01076, the current proposal of the

amended 2009 plan. I have just now received the plan and have never seen any of this. So

here's what community input has been in these last five years. Thank you.

Chair Spence-Jones: Thank you, Ms. Kruger [sic]. Any other comments from the public

regarding Omni?

Mary Hill: Good afternoon.

Chair Spence-Jones: Good afternoon.

Ms. Hill: I'm Mary Hill, founder/CEO (Chief Executive Officer), national director private sector

of the Federal Act. And also, our fiscal year is October 1. And I'm noticing that the CRA is

using October 1. What criteria and what procedure that you using to accept October 1 as your

fiscal year?

Chair Spence-Jones: Mr. Director, do you want to respond to this?

Mr. Villacorta: That's the date the CRA has always used, and I think it follows the City's fiscal

year as well.

Ms. Hill: Follow the City's?

Chair Spence-Jones: Yes.

Ms. Hill: Okay. I believe that you had some mandate orders here in 2005, I think, back there

from the federal level that this procedure is unconstitutional. And I would like for you to take a

deeper look of your power and your control and also cutting out funds from these poor areas

when the fund is coming in here to benefit these poor areas and not extend your boundaries to

take on your criteria and your power and your control.

Chair Spence-Jones: Thank --

Ms. Hill: And I would like very much for you all to look in this, straighten it out 'cause we

having a lot of problems -- we have economic downturns. We have a lot of things. And it's not --

it is somewhat according to y'all agendas. Thank you.

Chair Spence-Jones: Thank you.

Mariano Cruz: Mariano Cruz, 1227 Northwest 26 Street. I agree with Ms. Kluger saying

because I remember going to many meetings at the Grand Hotel of the CRA because I believe

that anything that happens in Miami have a ripple effect, you know, effects me too 'cause I am

very close to the neighborhood and I go by there almost -- I just came by there. I saw your sign

right there. When I turn on 8th Street, I saw one of your big signs there. So whatever it happen

before people have to participate and have to be transparency in everything we do because we

are under Sunshine Law, okay. And you know, whatever things are done have to be done, but I

agree with what she say. I support you 100 percent in what you say.

Chair Spence-Jones: Thank you.

Mr. Cruz: It used to be that way.

Chair Spence-Jones: Thank you. Okay. Before we bring it back to the overall public, I do want

to have some of the questions answered before we get so far down, but just give -- I don't -- I

want to make sure the answers were -- the questions were answered. Jim, on the first one, I




believe it was in reference to Watson Island. Do you want to respond to that?

Mr. Villacorta: We prepared a finding of necessity study showing Watson Island -- concluding

that Watson Island qualified as being a slum and blighted area under the redevelopment statute.

When that finding of necessity came before this board, the City Administration substituted

another map that eliminated Watson Island from the area that we were seeking to include in the

CRA. The --

Chair Spence-Jones: So you're saying at this point it is not in the --?

Mr. Villacorta: Watson Island is not --

Chair Spence-Jones: So I just want to make sure we -- that stands corrected. Watson Island is

actually not in this particular plan. I just don't want wrong information to be out of there. It is

not in this existing plan. The other thing that came up, real fast, is the TIF generator of the

museums, that it not being a TIF generator. You want to respond to that?

Mr. Villacorta: I imagine that the museums will be tax-exempt and not be paying property taxes,

but that does not mean that it's not a project that will enhance the overall TIF of the area. If you

look at the Performing Arts Center, they don't pay property taxes and, thus, don't generate TIF,

but I don't think we can argue that they have not helped to drive up the property values and

eliminate some of the slum and blight in the area. So some of these catalytic projects, while they

themselves do not generate tax revenue, they will cause the area surrounding it to be better

utilized and redeveloped.

Chair Spence-Jones: Okay. So just to make sure that we have a response to that statement, in

some instances, I guess, you will have projects that will generate TIF and that will be able to

provide the revenue to do other things in the overall area. But in this instance, it does more than

just the -- the focus is not just on the TIF, it's what it does to enhance the overall area to

generate TIF in maybe some other aspect, another project that might be taking place 'cause it

upgrades the overall area. So that's not how they're looking at Museum Park. I'm assuming that

is your response to it --

Mr. Villacorta: Correct.

Chair Spence-Jones: -- so that at least the folks that have made comments on this, this is how

the CRA is seeing this as a project, correct?

Mr. Villacorta: Correct. It's not a requirement for the CRA to support a project that it be a

generator of property taxes. The CRA does many things, rebuilding roads, rebuilding sewer and

water lines, that those are tax-exempt infrastructure. They're not going to generate taxes

themselves, but the adjoining properties, their values will be enhanced and then developers will

be encouraged to come to the area as they see the CRA and the City investing in the area.

Chair Spence-Jones: Okay, cool. And I think that one of the existing projects that we can say

that about is the Women's Club, which I was a huge, big supporter of, which is not necessarily a

TIF generator, but it does so much to enhance the Omni area. And you know I supported the

Women's Club and you didn't, right?

Vice Chair Sarnoff: Correct.

Vice Chair Spence-Jones: So there are instances where we support projects where we think that

it will generate -- that go beyond just generating TIF, that really go, you know, to -- you know,

go to the fact of helping the overall community. The other issue was notice. I don't know if this

is a question that my Madam City Attorney would like to address regarding the overall notice.




Gail Dotson (Assistant General Counsel): With respect to notice, the CRA was within its

guidelines in terms of notice. It's my understanding that the CRA provided notice via a Web

blast, a e-mail blast, and they posted it at City Hall, as well as other governmental buildings

within the City.

Mr. Villacorta: Yes. The notice of the meeting was posted at the CRA offices, at City Hall, a

press release was issued. The agenda was made available at City Hall and at the MRC (Miami

Riverside Center) building.

Chair Spence-Jones: Okay, so --

Mr. Villacorta: This was a special meeting that was called on short notice, but the -- under

advisement from the City Attorney, we did the particulars to make it satisfy the notice

requirements.

Chair Spence-Jones: Okay, so at this point, staff is saying -- and the City Attorney is saying that

we have done what's necessary to address the overall notice-related issue. I'm sure there's still a

feeling out there that it should have been more -- or people feel as though there might have been

more time needed to -- in order to get the information out, but I just wanted to make sure that we

have not violated any way. So that's the reason why I'm asking Madam City Attorney and my

executive director because I do not want us to do something that is not correct.

Ms. Dotson: Right.

Chair Spence-Jones: So I'm hearing that we are within our bounds, correct?

Ms. Dotson: Yeah. What the CR -- the notice that the CRA provided was legally sufficient.

Chair Spence-Jones: Okay. One of the other questions that came out of this -- 'cause, again, I

want to make sure I address whatever your issues are or concerns are -- would be the notice

itself -- not the notice, the CRA making sure that all of the Omni residents hear about the

meetings, know about the meetings, receive the information. Because according to Ms. Kruger

[sic], the only folks that really get information are the -- is the Overtown folks. I would like for

the CRA staff to address that issue 'cause I know I see Fred almost at every meeting we have. So

is that not correct, Fred? Okay.

Mr. Villacorta: We --

Chair Spence-Jones: But I still want it to be addressed.

Mr. Villacorta: -- post the notice of our meetings on our Website. Anyone that asks is put on our

e-mail blast list. Except where there's special meetings on very short notice, such as today, the

meetings are advertised in the Daily Business Review, Miami Today, the Miami Herald, and the

Miami Times. They're posted at City Hall. They're posted on the Web. They're posted at the

CRA building.

Chair Spence-Jones: I just want to make sure because, again, I don't like anything floating out

there that we're treating one group of people different from the other group of people, meaning

Overtown folks are getting -- you know, get more attention or get more information than the

Omni people. So I want to make sure that you're treating everybody fair and equal so that that's

not an issue. Is that correct, Madam City Attorney and Mr. Executive Director?

Mr. Villacorta: That is surely our endeavor.




Ms. Dotson: Yes.

Chair Spence-Jones: Okay. I just wanted to make sure that that was cleared up. Let me just say

this really quickly. I mean, we know that we talked about this issue in the last CRA meeting. We

talked about this in the last CRA meeting, and I know that this issue came up as to whether or

not we should be voting on the plan. And I know the district Commissioner at the time felt that

he did not have enough time to actually go through the plan or felt that he digested the plan well

enough. So my understanding is that he's taken this whole weekend, outside of whatever had to

happen with FOP (Fraternal Order of Police) and getting that resolved, to kind of swallow and

address this issue of the CRA. The question came up -- the expanded boundaries for the CRA.

The question came up as to why was it such a rush to do it today. I don't know if -- Mr.

Executive Director, do you want to respond to that or Mr. -- or I guess, Commissioner Sarnoff, I

don't know if you want to respond to it 'cause I know it was your request originally for this item

to be dealt with later. Do you feel as though you've had sufficient enough time to digest it?

Vice Chair Sarnoff: When this was brought to us -- I guess it was last Thursday -- I noticed that

missing from the document, the plan, was any discussion or input or actually expression that we

were going to be abiding by agreements that this Commission had passed almost two years

earlier with regard to the funding of the port tunnel and the funding of the 20 acres for the park

improvements at Bicentennial Park. So when I saw it wasn't in there, I was concerned and I

approached the CRA and wanted to make sure that that comported with the December 31, 2007

interlocal agreement and subsequent contracts that we entered into on behalf of this City and on

behalf of the CRA. And I wanted to make sure that we were abiding by our commitments to other

governmental entities and not to be in breach of a contract, especially one that's going to bring

$1 billion into the City of Miami, create jobs that I will discuss in a moment. I just didn't want to

see us be in breach. Once those were brought into the agreement -- and to be quite frank with

you -- and once the streetcar and Baylink were taken out -- 'cause I am absolutely with great

certainty knowing they're not going to be in there -- I also wanted to see us rework some

numbers, but I'm told that we're not married to those numbers. 'Cause I -- you know, I like to do

things in as forthright and honest manner as we can. Once those were part of the plan and, like

I said, the two thing redacted, I'm very much in favor of moving this along in terms of expansion,

in terms of chronology and geography. And for those two projects, for us to abide by the

agreements that we entered into with numerous other governmental entities, and I don't want to

see this Commission be in breach of contract because, you know, the only thing the City of

Miami has is its word. Once you break your word, you have nothing else.

Chair Spence-Jones: Okay. So I just wanted to make sure we cleared up that as well. And then

I'll respond in the end as we -- before we close out on this particular meeting regarding opening

up the floor to have comments on issues regarding the CRA 'cause I am the Chair and I do run

the meetings. But I do want to make sure that I explain from the last particular meeting that we

had regarding the Overtown CRA and expansion of its life and its boundaries or at least dealing

with the agreement that was attached to that. Of course, you guys know we were in the middle of

a serious budget meeting and I did not want to take a lot of time to have public comments on the

CRA meeting, especially when we had a long meeting ahead of us regarding the overall City

budget. So that is the reason why we didn't take up anything beyond that. So I apologize for

those individuals that came and sat all day, but I did not want to have the other meeting go even

longer than it had already gone. I try to, as the Chair, at least address any of the public

comments really after the meeting has taken place or unless your name has been added or you

have at least checked with the CRA staff to at least be put on the agenda. I don't have a problem

ever with having -- allowing for anyone to speak at any meeting. But at the last meeting, it was

an issue. So let me take this last and final comment and then, hopefully, we can bring it back to

really talk about this issue amongst the three Commissioners. Brad.

Brad Knoefler: Hi. Brad Knoefler, 697 North Miami Avenue. I just have a letter I'd like to read

into the record, please.




Chair Spence-Jones: Sure.

Mr. Knoefler: Dear Commissioners, last week we attended the special CRA meeting in order to

comment on the utter lack of public participation in this plan. The item was deferred to the

October 26 meeting and it was mentioned that a town hall meeting would be held to discuss the

plan with the community. We thought the matter was done. Imagine we're surprised to receive

notice less than 24 hours ago of the same item. Feel this is unacceptable, does not constitute

proper public notice and would like to put on the record that we formally contest the validity of

this meeting. FS (Florida Statutes) 163, which governs community redevelopment, clearly states

the governing body shall hold a public hearing on a proposed modification of any community

redevelopment plan after public notice thereof by publication in newspaper having a general

circulation in the area of operation of the agency. On page 2 of the 2009 plan introduction it

states clearly that the last public meetings on this plan were held in April and May of 2005.

Well, a lot's changed since then. Plan's obviously been updated, hence the title “2009 Update.”

There's supposedly a slightly modified version of the 2006 Zyscovich plan. What are the

changes? How's the community to evaluate a major change to the redevelopment plan with no

public hearing or even a presentation by the CRA staff to the community? I'd like to read to you

an excerpt from page 3 of the 1986 Omni redevelopment plan. A citizens' advisory committee

was established to provide input to the master plan. The group includes representatives from the

Omni neighborhood and provides a forum where interested citizens, civic leaders, and public

officials join forces to address development issues and community concerns. During a series of

workshops held over a six-month period, a draft downtown policy has been formulated. This

was the process back in 1986. Why, in 2009, are we being asked to approve a plan released only

days ago, which has had absolutely no public participation and community input? This

potentially violation of state law should be taken very seriously by the City. And now let's look at

the plan itself. FS 163 requires that community redevelopment plans provide for the

development of affordable housing in the area or state the reasons for not addressing in the plan

the development of affording housing. Why is there no affordable housing component in this

plan? Where's the revitalization component in this plan? Why are we not rehabbing existing

housing rather than constructing more big developments that forcibly gentrify the

neighborhood? And is the new plan consistent with the Neighborhood Comprehensive Plan?

Where is the study showing this? Where's the impact study showing the differential impact on

the community from this new plan compared to the 1986 plan? The four-page impact

commentary with standard disclaimers at the back of the plan hardly constitutes public -- proper

impact study. These are just some of the questions that have come up in the past few days, and I

think it shows that this plan and its implementation have some serious procedural and legal

issues. Commissioners, this is not a game. These rush decisions affect our lives and the future of

our community. Forcing through redevelopment plans and the bond issuance without properly

involving the community is a mistake and may be a violation of Florida law. With this time of

budget crises and unfunded liabilities, the City should be extremely careful about not following

correct legal procedures to avoid any additional liabilities. Please allow us the respect and

dignity of properly evaluating this plan and allow the community to comment and have the input

as the future of their neighborhood. We urge you to defer this item until the correct legal

procedures, including public hearings and a comment period, are followed. Thank you.

Chair Spence-Jones: Thank you, Brad. Let me -- let's respond to some of the stuff that's actually

been put on the record. Madam City Attorney, do you have any comments regarding the issue of

us violating any laws or doing anything that's inappropriate?

Ms. Dotson: Okay. This Board has not violated any laws. The governing body is the Board of

County Commissioners of Miami-Dade County. They -- this board would simply adopt and

accept this redevelopment plan and it will be forwarded if the City Commission approves it as

well. It will be forwarded to the County for the final approval of the plan. The Miami-Dade

County Board of County Commissioners has the final approve it -- approval, and that's where




the public hearing takes place.

Chair Spence-Jones: Okay. So I just want to be clear, Brad, 'cause, again, I always want to

make sure you have all the information you need. So basically, there -- when it comes to the City

-- the County Commission, they'll have the opportunity to also speak regarding this overall issue.

Is that correct? So that's what this -- that language is --

Ms. Dotson: Yes.

Chair Spence-Jones: -- in reference to, correct?

Ms. Dotson: Yes.

Chair Spence-Jones: Okay. There was a comment that was also made, Brad, about the town

hall meeting. I'm not really sure whether or not that communication took place as far as the --

this particular Omni plan. I don't remember the district Commissioner mentioning having a

town hall meeting. I know that I mentioned it, but I'm going to tell you what I mentioned it in

reference to. I mentioned it in reference to the bond issuance and making sure that everyone

understood what needed to take place regarding projects that would be funded under that first

tranche of money or the monies itself for the Overtown/Park West side of it. So I just want to be

very clear of what my recommendation was to staff regarding the town hall meeting. It wasn't a

town hall meeting for the plan. It was to make sure that before any dollars or any projects were

going to be funded, that at least the community had an opportunity to vet the projects and at

least know what was going on in the process in which it would be done. So I just want to be

clear of what the town hall meeting was in reference to. Any other comments that was made, Mr.

Director, that you need to address on this issue?

Mr. Villacorta: In the plan, which was approved in 2006 after quite a bit of community input,

the plan talked about creating affordable housing and the difficulty in doing that as the

developers were more interested in creating high-end housing along the water. We have added

what we refer to as “the wedge,” the area from the railroad tracks to Northwest 1st Place, into

the Omni CRA. And this is an area that is ripe for creation of affordable housing. This is where

Habitat for Humanity is operating currently. And by bringing this area in, we'll be able to

acquire property or to fund projects that would have an affordable component that might not be

economically feasible in properties that were closer to the water.

Chair Spence-Jones: Okay. Thank you. This is our last comment on this, and we're going to

officially close the comment, and I'm going to bring it back to the CRA Board. Again, we have a

budget hearing that we're already behind on right now. It is 5 -- I think it started at 5:05 p.m.

And what time is it now?

Unidentified Speaker: 5:35.

Chair Spence-Jones: 5:30. So we're going to go ahead and take this last and final comment on

this issue, and then we're going to officially close out. Mr. Sanchez.

George Sanchez: George Sanchez, 75 Northwest 12th Street. Ms. Dotson, I don't believe you

answered the question. The question was referring specifically to sending the information out so

people are notified, which referred back to the original comment made by the Omni Advisory

Board president and previous president that they have never been notified and have not received

this until today --

Chair Spence-Jones: Okay --

Mr. Sanchez: -- until a few minutes ago. So it wasn't as to -- we understand the process, which




is --

Chair Spence-Jones: Yeah.

Mr. Sanchez: -- from here, if it gets approved, it will go to the County, and then the County will

give final approval. I think we all understand that.

Chair Spence-Jones: Right.

Mr. Sanchez: Why did she and he not receive -- or anyone else for that matter in the area -- any

notification? Because the last of our understanding was on Thursday that this would take place

later in October. So it's that point. And the other thing is, I think some of these people are really

owed an apology. I mean, Ms. Kluger's family has invested profoundly and paid millions of

dollars in TIF revenue to that neighborhood.


Mr. Sanchez: She used to be the president of the board. Someone else is the president of the

Omni Advisory Board now. They were never notified, but you're still saying that -- don't blame

us here, blame the County if they approve it? I don't understand. It's -- there was a couple

really specific questions. Why weren't people properly notified and two people came up and

asked why. If you could answer that, I'd greatly appreciate it.

Chair Spence-Jones: Okay, thank you, Mr. Sanchez. Do you want to, once again, Mr. Executive

Director and Ms. City Attorney, address that issue really fast? And Doris, this is the last

comment after that. I really need to close the hearing, okay? This is it, the last one -- Doris will

be the last comment.

Ms. Dotson: I believe we answered the question. Legally sufficient notice was provided by the

CRA --


Ms. Dotson: -- for this meeting.

Chair Spence-Jones: Okay. Derek, I'm going to let you -- take you last and that's it, and then we

have to close the hearing. Doris.

Doris Hall: Thank you. Doris Hall, 7730 (UNINTELLIGIBLE). What we are here today to put

on the record is first of all to address the citizen participation element. Pursuant to the

attorney's comments regarding state statutes, she is correct in respect to a 24-hour notice on

emergency issues.


Ms. Hall: However, we're looking at the citizen participation element that is the spirit and the

context of the citizen participation plan here in the City of Miami. It basically -- and again, we

would ask that the City consider providing this emergency hearing, but then delaying any

approval until such time as there is a 14-day window, which is the requirement in the City's

citizen participation plan for proper comments. And without a advisory board to the CRA, we're

not finding proper citizen participation. So thank you for considering that because it would

provide for a proper window of at least 14 days since going on record again that there was no

backups from the Clerk's office and the Clerk's office said we did not receive any backups from

the CRA.





Ms. Hall: So not having the proper documentation, how can we then stand here before you and

provide any legitimate comments? Secondly, going on record, we would like to put on record

the following resolutions regarding the CRA. Resolution CRA R-08-001, 11248, Resolution CRA

R-09-0014, Resolution CRA R-07-002b, 82-755, 79-724, 85-1217, and CRA 08-001. What we

are basically calling to your attention is the fact that the CRA plan has been, over the years,

modified and it has been amended numerous times. The question is how does the findings of

necessity, as originally created, meet its requirements to focus on the factors that are involved in

these particular resolutions? As part of these resolutions, the different components of the plan

have to address not only the revitalization but the rehabilitation and the preservation and the

redevelopment. Today, as the items are coming before you, what we are hearing is pure

redevelopment, and we're submitting to you that that is not the spirit or the legal magnitude and

capacity of the CRA plan. I submit to you that inside of each one of these demographics is

USHUD (United States Department of Housing and Urban Development) entitlement money that

is basically at work in a different plan. Under the State guidelines under modifications of the

plans, we're submitting to you that the Office of Community and Economic Development in the

County is -- may have -- has a planner who plans inside of these arenas as well. And we're

submitting to you that if there is a conflict with the plans, there is a 90-day window in which the

citizens have an opportunity --


Ms. Hall: -- to come before a joint hearing with the CRA director and the representatives of the

County to examine any conflicts that might exist between the existing CRA plans and these

resolutions and any modifications thereof.

Chair Spence-Jones: Thank you, Doris.

Ms. Hall: Thank you.

Chair Spence-Jones: Okay. So we need to -- I want to make sure your -- Doris, your questions

get answered. Madam City Attorney, Mr. Executive Director, can you please respond?

Mr. Villacorta: Can I just say that the 2006 plan has been up on the CRA Website for a number

of years. The chairperson of the Omni Advisory Board receives every agenda. A copy is sent to

him on the distribution list at the same time the Commissioners receive it. The amendment to the

plan is on the City's Legistar system. This -- there were some changes made, Commissioner, the

District 2 Commissioner explained about eliminating references to the streetcar and making

clear that the port tunnel and the museums projects were in here. That version just came out, but

it was announced at the last meeting that those were concerns and we've incorporated those in.

But this -- the basic plan has been up on the CRA Website since 2006.

Chair Spence-Jones: Okay. So, Doris, basically, what he's communicating is that this is not

something that is just being brought up today or yesterday, that the plan itself has been on the

Website since 2006. The only amendments that have been made is what the Commissioner has

proffered today. And I guess when he gets the chance to speak about the area -- because he is

the representative for the area -- he'll explain exactly his position on those things. But I just

wanted to make sure you know that this -- I don't want us to send out the wrong message to the

public that there -- this plan is the first time that anyone's seeing it or hearing it today in this

session. The plan has actually been on-line for -- you said since --

Mr. Villacorta: 2006.

Chair Spence-Jones: -- 2006.




Ms. Hall: Not the modifications.

Chair Spence-Jones: Okay. So -- no, no, no. Fred, you've already had an opportunity to speak.

I'm going to allow for Mr. -- Derek, let's go ahead and take your comments. Derek, are you

ready?

Derek Cole: Yes.


Mr. Joseph: I appreciate it, Commissioner. But they made a comment -- executive director

made a comment that I had received. That is incorrect, and I delivered what I received after

asking for a copy and the Clerk's office had no copies --

Chair Spence-Jones: Okay, so --

Mr. Joseph: -- of the final as it was supposedly stamped final.


Mr. Joseph: I want that on the record because the executive director said the Omni Advisory

Board chair received.

Chair Spence-Jones: Okay. Thank you, Fred. Doris, we've already taken your comments. That

is it. Derek --

Ms. Hall: You were answering the question.

Chair Spence-Jones: Okay. We --

Ms. Hall: It was interrupted.

Chair Spence-Jones: Okay, but we've already had the answer responded to. Mr. Derek Cole --

Ms. Hall: So, for the record, the modifications have just come out today and we have not

received them. Thank you.

Chair Spence-Jones: Okay. Thank you very much. Derek, please. Your name for the record.

Mr. Cole: Yeah. Derek Cole, 1010 Northwest 11th Street.


Mr. Cole: I have a question about if Watson Island is not part of the area, then how is the tunnel

going to go through? And the other question I had was there's a six -- approximately a $6

million rollover of funds in the CRA. Why aren't we looking at using that to save some of the

jobs in the City with the budget crisis we're having right now?

Chair Spence-Jones: Very good, Derek. Thank you. Can we get a response to the first

question? I guess our planner will be able to respond to the first question from Derek. And then

as far as the budgetary issue regarding the CRA, whether or not some of those dollars could be

used to offset some of the costs to support the shortfalls in the budget --

Mr. Cole: Right.




Chair Spence-Jones: -- so I'm assuming that the executive director maybe perhaps could

respond to that. But let's deal with the first question. And then after that, we're going to bring it

back to the CRA Board and we're going to make a decision.

Mr. Gay: Okay. In answering the question regarding the port tunnel, the port tunnel is viewed

as a global project and that is basically serving an overall need of the entire community. And

there has been a ruling that hopefully the City Attorney will be able to address in more detail

that would allow for funding to be spent with -- for this particular project because of its regional

impact.

Chair Spence-Jones: Okay, so that handles one question. The second portion of it is the monies

-- could some of the monies be used to assist with the budget --

Mr. Cole: No. The attorney was going to -- I think you said the attorney could answer that

better, the --

Chair Spence-Jones: Well, she's going to -- he's going to --

Mr. Cole: -- global --

Chair Spence-Jones: -- she's going to respond, Derek. She's going to respond. The hearing is

officially closed at this point, but can we answer these questions so we can come back and

deliberate on it, please?

Ms. Dotson: Can you restate the question?

Mr. Cole: The question was if you -- if Watson Island is not part of the area, how is the tunnel

going to access these funds if it's not part of the CRA?

Chair Spence-Jones: Well, that would be more of your -- that would be more your response.

Mr. Gay: Well, as I previously stated, there hasn't -- there has been an opinion rendered legally

that allows for global projects or projects that have a regional impact that are in close proximity

of a CRA that would allow for funding to be spent with -- for those specific projects that have

been identified.

Chair Spence-Jones: Okay, Madam City Attorney.

Ms. Dotson: Just to try to answer your question, the community redevelopment statute provides

for a number of things. And the TIF can be used in accordance with the redevelopment plan, so

that is how you evaluate or determine whether you would use the TIF. And to that extent, we do

have a City Attorney's opinion that provides for use of the TIF for -- specifically for the port

tunnel project.

Chair Spence-Jones: The other portion of the question was regarding the monies, the suggestion

of whether or not some of the funds from the CRA -- I'm assuming you're saying Omni or --

either/or, right? -- could be used to assist with shortfalls in the current City budget. Is that a

possibility?

Mr. Villacorta: If it was the will of the Board and they wanted to return the CRA funds to the

City and the County, that could be done. You can't return to just one taxing authority. And the -

-





Mr. Villacorta: -- split is roughly 60 percent would go to the City and 40 percent to the CRA

[sic], but you would be stopping CRA projects.

Chair Spence-Jones: I think -- Derek, that's it. The --

Mr. Cole: But --

Chair Spence-Jones: -- hearing --

Mr. Cole: -- there's a Florida statute that requires this.

Chair Spence-Jones: Derek. Now I've been -- we've been re -- I want you to be respectful of the

hearing. They're answering the questions, and we're going to officially close the hearing. Come

on now. I want to give the district Commission [sic] the opportunity to respond to the actual

issue. I think it's important for him to be able to respond, okay. Allow for us to finish making the

comments and we'll officially bring it back to the Board to deliberate it. That's all. We all are

going to have some comments on this, believe me. We all have something to say about it, but we

want to be able to allow for the process to go through, please. I -- the question really was can

any of the CRA funds can be used to assist with the shortfall period of what's happening in --

with the City right now?

Mr. Villacorta: The Board would have to vote to take the funds from the CRA and return them to

the City and the County.

Chair Spence-Jones: So is the answer yes or no?

Mr. Villacorta: If it was the --

Chair Spence-Jones: I mean --

Mr. Villacorta: -- if the Board decided to do that --

Chair Spence-Jones: -- if the Board decides to do that -- yes.

Mr. Villacorta: -- they could do that, but you would be cutting funding to some CRA project.

Chair Spence-Jones: Okay. All right. Not a problem. All right, so we have answered the

questions. I do want to de -- I want us to at least talk about it from the City board side of it. I do

want to respond one -- to Ms. Kruger [sic], though, regarding the Omni West real fast. The

Omni West area, Greg, that she talked about, can you show us where that is on the map?

Because the communication was that there's not -- nothing really happening or things are not

happening in the Omni West area. And then I wanted to know if anybody from the CRA staff can

respond to that as well, to let us know if there's anything happening in the Omni West area.

Mr. Villacorta: Actually --

Chair Spence-Jones: Are there any projects happening in the Omni West area --

Mr. Villacorta: Yes.

Chair Spence-Jones: -- that you would -- could bring at this particular point so at least the folks

that are concerned about it can at least know whether or not something is or is not happening?

Mr. Villacorta: We're in the process of rebuilding Northwest 14th Street, from the PAC




(Performing Arts Center) all the way through the Omni, including the west Omni, all the way to

Northwest 7th Avenue. We have the waterline upgrades going on which includes the western

portion of the Omni CRA. We have -- we've been big supporters of some of the entertainment

venues over there, Karu & Y, the Ice Palace; a new restaurant just opened with support of the

CRA, Urbanite Bistro on Northwest 14th Street. We are -- we've supported the development of

the lofts project over on the western boundary of the CRA. That's all along the current western

boundary of the CRA. Also, Bayview Marketplace is right on that boundary.

Chair Spence-Jones: So there are project -- I just want to make sure when we make comments in

an open forum like this, it's important to make sure that we put the information out for you to

know and for the people watching it to know 'cause we don't want it to be assumed that nothing's

happening on one side of Omni when it is. And then I think that there's also a park project that

you guys are working on as well.

Mr. Villacorta: Yes, a skateboard park at Biscayne Park is another project in the western

boundary. We've gone in and provided funds to upgrade the Miami Cemetery. We've provided

funds to a number of small businesses in that western boundary. We've provided funds for

infrastructure that was required for developers in the area. Funding is going into the western

half of the Omni.

Chair Spence-Jones: Okay. All right, with that being said, you want to just show us --

Mr. Gay: And if I could just --

Chair Spence-Jones: -- the western boundaries?

Mr. Gay: -- add, as part of the western boundary as we cross over the FEC right-of-way, there

are projects that are being proposed through some of the not-for-profit organizations, like St.

Johns Community Development Corporation and Habitat for Humanities [sic], who has already

been active in that western portion. There are a couple for-profit developers -- developments

that were proposed early on and they are looking at trying to reposition those particular projects

to be more of a affordable housing project, one along 1st Avenue and 20th Street that could be

viewed as another project that will provide another source of affordable housing for the

community.

Chair Spence-Jones: Okay, thank you. All right. We're going to officially bring this back to the

CRA Board for us to discuss. I do want to just add before I turn it over to Commissioner

Regalado 'cause he actually second it but had discussion on it -- I think what we're hearing

today, this afternoon is that more so than anything else, there's just a concern with the public

notice part of it and the participation on the actual Omni plan, being able to have -- and not only

Omni plan but also on the board -- I mean, during the actual meeting or hearing itself, to be able

to have more participation. My understanding -- and I want Madam City Attorney and the

executive director to at least be clear on the reason for the rush to actually get it done today just

so that at least if there is a issue or concern around that, that can be addressed today. Is there

an issue that's creating the sense of emergency right now that -- because I think that if that's at

least communicated to the public, then at least they'll have an understanding as to why it's

happening right now.

Mr. Villacorta: It's happening today because the City Administration requested that it happen

today.

Chair Spence-Jones: Okay, that's why it's happening.






Commissioner Regalado: Madam --

Chair Spence-Jones: All right. So --

Commissioner Regalado: -- Chair.

Chair Spence-Jones: -- at this point, I would like to officially turn it over to Commissioner

Regalado, then I'll turn it over to the district Commissioner of the area for him to bring

comments.

Commissioner Regalado: Well, first of all, Jim, thank you very much for telling the truth. But I

don't know what happened between the last meeting and today or yesterday, but I remember that

the Board defer this item for October 8. That was the date that was set. Is that correct?

Mr. Villacorta: I think it may have been the 26th, the last Monday in October.

Commissioner Regalado: Okay, so it was longer than I thought. But I remember that it was

deferred so the area Commissioner and the people have time to look into it. Now I still don't

know -- and I'm sure that most of the people share this issue with me -- why are we doing this

today. 'Cause the response the City Administration wants it is a response that is truthful, but it

doesn't explain. For all I know --

Chair Spence-Jones: Let him respond to that question.

Commissioner Regalado: No, no.

Chair Spence-Jones: What he's saying, why today? We want to know --

Commissioner Regalado: Yeah.

Chair Spence-Jones: City Administration, it's on you guys to tell us why today.

Commissioner Regalado: Right, but you know, if it's the wish of the City Administration, we

could be here debating Miami 21 in second reading. But my point is that what is going on here

today is very uncomfortable, very, very uncomfortable because it's being rushed and then the

explanation is guess what? The decision is not yours. It's in the hands of the County and there

where the people should go and discuss the issue. If that is the case, why are we meeting here?

We should just all go to the County, whatever is in the agenda and just speak in favor or against.

The Chair was very clear in saying that we don't want to send a wrong message to the people

watching and all that. But let me tell you, in the last 45 minute [sic], we have sent the wrong

message. Nobody knew or if they knew, they didn't understood [sic] what is this going on. And I

just want to tell you that I just don't want to get in the middle of important projects and I

understand that we all support the Museum Park. I understand the area Commissioner totally

on his effort on the port tunnel. I don't mind a port tunnel. I just don't think that the City of

Miami should be involved because tunnels are regional projects, like the planning official said,

regional. We pay taxes to the County to get regional services, and they should be taking care of

the five blocks that we have all these trucks on, but that's a discussion for another moment. I'm

just so uncomfortable, you know, with this situation of the residents and the stakeholder

questioning why are we doing this and why are you doing this and why no notice. I mean, we

now are being told that notice is a paper on the door of City Hall and the CRA. So if you guys

didn't come by City Hall or by the CRA, well, you know, that's your problem. You should have

come by and see and read the paper. Maybe read another paper you can -- the passport hours

are from 9 to 4 p.m. I'm just so uncomfortable, and I'm not going to debate the merits of this.




I'm just -- I think that we are not doing the -- this the right way. I don't know why don't we have

a full board here, but I still feel very uncomfortable. So that's only -- that's my only comment. I

hope to hear the debate if there is -- I thought that we were here to do the main job that the City

Commission does in one year, which is the budget process. I thought that we were here at 5:05

to do the budget, to celebrate that we have an agreement with the union to try to understand why

are we laying off people, but we're doing this. I don't have to go anywhere. I'm going to be

here, but I'm telling you. I'm not going to support this, not today, maybe later. But that's okay

because in the -- according to the CRA rules, it's going to be okay, no problem, 2-1. But --

Chair Spence-Jones: Can we get a response, though, 'cause your question -- my original

question, I got an answer from Jim on, then you asked the same question around the timing

issue. Is there a timing issue? So now Larry's -- which is the Administration -- it's on you now.

What is the rush?

Larry Spring: Commissioner, Larry Spring, chief financial officer, City of Miami. The -- again,

this is something that was brought back to the City again -- the City Commission to consider. I

know that the district Commissioner had some concerns. The rush or the urgency, if you will --

we have a couple of projects that are moving through the development stage, particularly the

Museum Park, that, you know, we're almost ready to move into construction. This process still

needs to go through a few County Commission committees and then to the full County -- the

Board of County Commissioners. So we just wanted to, you know, while we're here, try to get the

opportunity to rehear the item having hopefully allayed some of the concerns of the district

Commissioner with regards to the content of the plan and clarifying those two projects,

specifically Museum Park and port tunnel, so that we could move it forward to the next step. It's

still going to take a good amount of time to move through those steps and we just wanted to move

it out, similarly [sic] to what we did with Southeast Overtown/Park West. We really wanted to

push it so that we could get those bonds issued and start moving forward with the projects that

we agreed to.

Commissioner Regalado: Larry --

Mr. Spring: But --

Commissioner Regalado: -- can I ask you -- I'm sorry, Madam Chair, just a question.

Chair Spence-Jones: Sure.

Commissioner Regalado: Who's going to pay for the famous letter of credit that has to be issue

for the port tunnel? I mean, the City of Miami or the CRA?

Mr. Spring: Eventually, it would be our hope that it would eventually be picked up as part of the

financing costs associated with our contribution to the port tunnel, which would be picked up by

the CRA.

Commissioner Regalado: But we don't know?

Mr. Spring: Well, we still got to go through the process. We have to get the plan and the

amendments and all that stuff approved by the County Board.

Commissioner Regalado: I understand perfectly. And -- so the process is a long one because

you had -- it has to go to several committees, has to go to Government and --

Mr. Spring: The --

Commissioner Regalado: -- Development Committee --




Mr. Spring: -- Government Housing and --

Commissioner Regalado: -- Housing Committee --

Mr. Spring: -- TIF Committee as well.

Commissioner Regalado: -- in the County to reach the full board of the County Commissioners.

But by then, the letter of credit should have been in place already because I read in the paper --

not that you told me, but I read in the paper that by the 8th, we need to had the letter in place.

So it's the City paying for the letter of credit.

Mr. Spring: In the interim right now, the City will be paying --

Commissioner Regalado: In the interim.

Mr. Spring: -- for the letter of credit, yes, sir.

Commissioner Regalado: We already lost $175,000.

Mr. Spring: Yes. Unfortunately, we did.

Commissioner Regalado: Okay, on the old letter of credit. So we don't know -- so I -- this is my

concern. This is -- I mean, in a few minutes, we are going to approve a budget that will have

many, many layoff, and it is one of the worst budget votes ever, although we celebrate that we

keep basic services. But I don't know. I don't know and you don't know because we don't know

the County. We don't probably understand the County and their agenda. I'm very

uncomfortable with this letter of credit. And I'm not going to discuss the merits of the project,

but I thank you for the information. That's what I thought, that we will be paying for the letter of

credit and not the CRA. Hopefully, the CRA will, but we don't know yet. It's very difficult to say.

So that's all I wanted to understand. I knew it had to do with the tunnel, but I didn't know the

details of -- so I thank you, Madam Chair.

Chair Spence-Jones: No problem, Commissioner Regalado. Let me just add -- thank you, Larry,

for expounding on, I guess, the reason why the City is trying -- the Administration is trying to

move it on to, I guess, find itself moving the additional projects, like the port tunnel and Museum

Park so -- in order to make that happen, that's why it was necessary to deal with this -- in your

opinion, to deal with this today. Let me just say -- I'm going to actually turn it over to the district

Commissioner. And, you know, we all, as colleagues up here, try to support the area

Commissioners regarding projects and area plans that they have going on. I got all of the

support I needed from all of the Commissioners sitting up here regarding the Omni/Park --

excuse me, the Overtown/Park West plan, and there was a lot of rushing that actually took place

with that because we wanted to make sure that we were able to at least bond out to at least start

some of these projects. So you try to be respectful what the -- at least the area Commissioner

wants to see happen within their overall area. And I'm sure that he has -- Commissioner Sarnoff

has his reasons for wanting to address this right now, but I just wanted to be clear on -- 'cause

the question came up to me before why -- because I am the Chair of the CRA, why are we

dealing with this right now. And as the Chair, we -- every single last one of these board

members that sit on the CRA Board, if any one of them asks for us to put on an item, whether or

not it be Commissioner Regalado, whether or not it be Sanchez, whether or not it be González,

'cause we all sit on the board, we are to respect that request. And it was requested for the Chair

to present this item, and I wanted to make sure that I afforded him the opportunity to do that

because he felt that it was important to his district. So I just want to be very clear why we're

dealing with this item right now. So I'm going to turn it over to Commissioner Sarnoff at this

time.




Vice Chair Sarnoff: First, let me say there have been many votes that this Commission has taken

that I have lamented over, haven't agreed with, don't agree with to this day. But when this Board

acts, it is our obligation, after this Board takes an action, to support what three out of five

Commissioners have to say. Let me be clear. I absolutely lamented over the vote to give the

Women's Club $4.5 million. I thought that was the wrong thing to do. I lamented over the vote

to give the Trinity Church $1 million. I could go in detail to you why I lamented over that vote

because they are non-TIF generators, because they have never paid a tax in their life and they

allowed their 40-year certifications to lapse without taking any affirmative action whatsoever to

put their house in order. I lamented over those votes, and yet, I hear people saying, how can you

put a non-TIF generator like a park onto the Omni CRA, a park that thousands of people will use

in comparison to two -- a church and a women's club that will be for discreet few people to

enjoy. And in that process of lamenting, I even had a meeting with Eleanor Kluger to ask her

when is the last time the Omni Advisory Board met. She told me, Commissioner, it's been four to

five years. So I lament on many things, but it is my obligation, as a Commissioner, to support

whatever this Commission decides to do. And on December 31, 2007, this Commission -- and

you may say in its wisdom or you may say in its own downfall -- decided that it was going to

create an interlocal agreement between the City of Miami and the County. Some of you refer

that -- to that as the global agreement. It was the will of this Commission that we enter into that

local [sic] agreement. You could say now jobs, you could say whatever you like. We acted. We

had an obligation. And what did we do? Well, in that agreement, we agreed to extend the life of

the CRA to March 31, 2030, expand the boundaries of the CRA, add the port tunnel to the

project, add the Museum Park as projects eligible for CRA tax increment funding. We acted on

December 31, 2007. Then we instructed the City Manager to go and execute this agreement, a

master agreement for the Port of Miami tunnel and access improvement project. We told him,

"Go sign this agreement. This Board has acted." So what does he do? On page 8, he agrees to

give 5 million -- $50 million and $5 million of right-of-way rights to the tunnel. Now, you all

may not like that, but let me convince you for one moment. There are 25,000 vehicles that go up

and down Biscayne Boulevard everyday. In 2035, it is estimated there will be 70,000 vehicles

going up and down that boulevard. How important is this damn port, right, 'cause you all are

pissed, right? Ninety-eight thousand jobs are created in the tri-county area, four thousand more

in the state of Florida. It brings $5.6 billion in personal income to this area; 5.4 billion of that

stays in the City -- in the County of Dade; 2.2 billion stays in the City of Miami. The private

sector jobs created by that port, 81,000 jobs. You know, HUD (Department of Housing and

Urban Development) allows us to spend $40,000 of CDBG (Community Development Block

Grant) money on a job and here we are imperiling jobs? Are they under stress, the Port of

Miami? Oh, absolutely. Port Mariel -- y'all remember that one? -- received $300 million from

the Middle East to improve their container port. Port Jacksonville, Port Everglades -- you don't

think if you don't pay attention to your port, you don't pay attention to the access routes in and

out that your port is not going to fail, the second biggest economic engine in the City of Miami is

going to fail? Well, you say to yourself, well, it's only 20,000 jobs. That's the amount of jobs

you've lost in '08. And how important are these jobs that each district Commissioner -- District

1, 1,705 jobs; my district, 10,153 jobs; District 3, 1,603 jobs; District 4, 1,951; District 5, 1,882

jobs. How many jobs in total? Seventeen thousand, two hundred and ninety-four jobs in the City

of Miami. Well, how much income is that? What's the big deal? Come on. District 1, $75

million; District 2, $318 million; District 3, $104 million; District 4, $122 million; District 5,

$65 million. I used to joke with Commissioner Spence-Jones it's the rule of 70. Seventy percent

of African Americans that make $70,000 do it as longshoremen in this port. Not important, no

big deal. Look, this City, years ago, didn't honor its contracts. It was known as a slouch city.

You know, we entered into a contract, so what. We got sued. Do you really want to take on a $1

billion contract and find out what is the breach thereof? If you don't think the State of Florida

wants to kill the tunnel project, you have not been a part of every meeting that I have been that

Stephanie Kokolis [sic] -- I apologize if I bastardized her name -- but she is the Secretary of

Transportation for the State of Florida. Every opportunity that they have, they are trying to take

over $500 million of money away from our area. And if you don't think that's important, how are

you going to generate $500 million of income? So now they stand on the precipice of one more




chance of killing this project and bringing this money to the I-4 corridor in Tampa, Florida. And

you know who they're going to blame for that failure? The City of Miami. Why? 'Cause we're

going to do -- we're not going to do something. We're going to fail to do something. Whether

you call it ceremonial, whether you call it actual, they are waiting for us not to provide the $50

million, period, end of report. Because there's no way they want to fund this project. And yet,

through political pressure, through every state representative, through every state senator, we

sat in a meeting with her at the port and impressed upon her how important this project was.

The Mayor of the City of Miami sat there with her. The Mayor of the County of Dade sat there

with her, and they impressed upon them and they brought as much political pressure to bear as

you can find mustered from South Florida to make sure that this project goes forward. But we

have one more opportunity to give them an excuse not to fund this project, and that's for the City

of Miami not to give them the $50 million, and what a shame that will be. 'Cause when that

doesn't happen, there will be the sounds of champagne being opened in Port Everglades. There

will be the sounds of champagne being opened in Port Bahamas. There will be the sounds of

champagne being opened in Port Mariel. Every port in our region will take full advantage of the

fact that we failed to improve our port. And little by little, we will watch that port wither and die.

And if you don't believe that, take the chance and watch it happen. And you think to yourself,

well, what's the big deal? It's just jobs. It's just jobs. Look, from the time I got on this dais, I

thought two things. One, there's no plan in the City of Miami of the creation of jobs. And two,

everybody was talking about affordable housing and all I was doing was looking around

thinking to myself there's going to be plenty of it, all these high-rises. Now maybe I was right

and maybe I was wrong, but I never understood one thing about the City of Miami and I really

don't get it. The only way a man or a woman has any self-value and self-worth is to get up and

work, work for a living and work hard. And from that, everything that they do, whether it's a

car, a house, a home, affordable housing, is created. If you take the number-two generator of

jobs away from the City of Miami, you may as well take number one, which is the port airport --

which is the airport. So when it comes to perspective on why I'm supporting this, very simply, I

can't even believe anybody would ever consider the fact that of the $1 billion project, we're

putting our $50 million towards it. Should we have to put that $50 million? No. I guess we

shouldn't have to. But you know what? Without that $50 million, I can guarantee you the State

will pull this project. They're looking for any excuse, period, to pull the project. We also

entered into an agreement with the museums, and we did so because we said we would improve

the park. And let's be clear about one thing. I've met with the museums and I've said to them

very clearly, unless you have a funding plan in place to demonstrate how it is you're going to

operate each museum, we have a clause in the lease that we will not site the museums. So it

won't happen. Those museums have to demonstrate the ability to operate, whether it's going to

be through endowment, whether it's going to be through some other form of revenue source.

They have to be cited. So to me this is pretty easy. It's not difficult. I would not allow the City of

Miami to breach a $1 billion contract, which I can only imagine what the damages would be. So

I absolutely support, I absolutely endorse this, and I'd like to make one modification to my

motion because I think it needs to say "further authorizing the expansion of the expanded

boundaries if and to the extent necessary to include the port tunnel project in accordance with

the finding of necessity." And I would hope the seconder of the motion would accept my

amendment.

Commissioner Regalado: I would. If I -- Madam Chair?

Chair Spence-Jones: Sure. I just -- I wanted to also, Commissioner Regalado, add some -- I

know that I cannot -- I just want to be clear. Madam City Attorney, I just asked something about

the plan itself, but I guess what Mr. Director said was I would have to -- if I wanted to make

sure, as far as the jobs and the small businesses from those areas have the opportunity to

participate because this is -- you know, this is a lot of money, you know what I mean? So to have

monies being spent out of the CRA from either one of these areas, it would be awesome to make

sure that at least the small businesses in the Omni area and also in the Overtown area have the

opportunity to participate in the project -- or in the CRA areas, period -- in these projects. So




would I offer this as a separate resolution? I'm just asking. Should I offer a separate --?

Mr. Villacorta: You could do --

Ms. Dotson: You could do it that way, or I don't know if they want -- if you want to include it in

the plan.

Mr. Villacorta: Or you could ask that the plan be amended to include that language.

Ms. Dotson: Right.

Mr. Villacorta: Language that small businesses in the Omni and Overtown CRA be given an

opportunity to participate in the --

Chair Spence-Jones: And as far as the jobs portion of it, to make sure especially our

apprenticeship program with the unions -- we have the opportunity to have some individuals

working on these projects. Because, you know, if we're -- and I hope -- I'm hoping that the

district Commissioner is in support of that. I know I'm doing that with the Overtown CRA -- is to

make sure that, you know, we don't have millions and millions come in the area and the local

small businesses or the individuals that live in the community have the opportunity to actually

participate on these projects. So I don't know if I should offer it as a resolution? I don't --

Vice Chair Sarnoff: Why don't I accept it as an amendment --

Chair Spence-Jones: Okay, all right.

Vice Chair Sarnoff: -- and see if the seconder will accept?

Chair Spence-Jones: So Madam --

Commissioner Regalado: Yeah, I would. Yes.

Chair Spence-Jones: Okay. So Madam City --

Ms. Dotson: Is it an amendment to the plan or to the resolution?

Vice Chair Sarnoff: A strong endorsement that they consider using the area local job market. I

could tell you this, Commissioner, when we met with Stephanie Kokolis [sic], one of the things I

brought up was who would be able to get these jobs. And they were very clear, if you have a

pickup truck, there will be work.

Chair Spence-Jones: Okay. Well, let me say this. I don't believe in recommenda -- I mean,

considerations. We have to -- in order for it to happen, we have to say it has to -- we have to

make it a part of it because when you say consideration, they can say I considered, and guess

what? I considered it and nothing came out of it. So if there's any way we can use language that

says that it is, you know --

Mr. Villacorta: Currently, the plan on page 120 states that market-oriented and economic

development strategy for the Omni CRA has five fundamental objectives. Objective number two

is to generate jobs for the residents of the City and the CRA. So that may -- the plan may already

have addressed your concerns. If you'd like to make that stronger --

Chair Spence-Jones: Yeah. I think it needs to be stronger. I think that it needs to be stated --

somehow in there we need to amend it to include that local small businesses from the Omni area

should have participation in the overall plan.




Mr. Villacorta: Okay.

Chair Spence-Jones: And then also, we need to make sure that from a job's perspective that, you

know, local jobs also should be -- residents from these areas should have consideration for those

jobs as well. I don't know if you want to use consideration. You might use -- want to use another

word. But I would like to know, before we close out on it, what the words are going to be. But I

do not want to see this kind of money be spent on people outside of our city or our county 'cause

this is exactly what happens. We spend this money and then people come from Broward, West

Palm Beach, other parts of the country, you know, to benefit from all these dollars. So I would

like the proper language to be amended, if you don't mind, the district Commissioner, because I

just want to make sure -- ensure that the local residents actually have the opportunity. There's a

lot of small businesses in the Omni area. Whether or not they be caterers, whether or not they be

small contractors, they should have the opportunity to participate on these projects. And if you

don't put it in there -- if they're using CRA money, they need to -- we need to make sure that our

citizens and our businesses actually benefit from it.

Mr. Villacorta: Perhaps we could put language into the plan that says with regard to these two

projects, they should make a particular effort to follow the economic development strategy,

which lists creation of jobs in the City -- for residents of the City and the CRA and comply with

the CRA's initiatives, which are listed on page 123, to provide access to job training, access to

employment. So we could add language that these two particular projects should make an extra

effort to comply with the CRA initiatives and the economic development strategies listed on page

120 and 123.

Chair Spence-Jones: Okay. I just would want to have that added as my amendment. And then

in closing -- I know you have a comment, but I do want to just add this, Commissioner Regalado.

Again, we try to support each other on the dais when it comes to overall initiatives and projects

and plans. As you guys know, I had the same situation take place with the Overtown CRA,

rushing to at least make sure we got something in so that at least all of the promises that we have

been making to the Overtown people finally we delivered on some of those. And I thank you guys

all for supporting me on that to make sure that that actually happened and at least we're well on

our way to at least hopefully be able to float some bonds so that we'll start to see some kind of

changes happen in the Overtown area. So I do want to make sure that I'm clear because the

same thing happened that we're asking maybe we had a little bit more time on ours, I think

maybe two days or three days, but clearly, I mean, I know this situation is something that, you

know, the area Commissioner wants to move as quickly as possible. And I have to also put on

the record that the longshoremen, which is operating out of the CRA district in the Overtown

area, are big supporters of the port tunnel happening right now. And one of the things that they

have encouraged me to do is to support it only because of the fact that there's so many

longshoremen being laid off left and right and not working. And having a major, mega project

like this would at least put a lot of those guys back to work. So I just wanted to at least -- that

was communicated to me by some of the brothers of that particular union, really wanting to

make sure that we understood how important it was to have their -- to have our support. You're

recognized.

Commissioner Regalado: I think Jim was saying that the number-one mission of the CRA is to

create -- generate jobs, right? So that's by state statute. That's what CRAs are for. So I believe

that we could sort of draft some kind of language forcing a percentage because when the

stadium thing came up, the percentage was not allowed because of this and that. But this is

specially a CRA money issue that the County would have to accept in terms of City residents

getting employment. This is leverage. And let me tell you. I --

Chair Spence-Jones: That's a good point.




Commissioner Regalado: -- fully, totally support Museum Park. I think that best money that

could be used, whether the museums are built or not, is to do this park that has been abandoned

for so many years. I mean, the homeless programs is directed every night to go and look for

homeless doing drugs in Bicentennial Park. So this is the best thing that can happen with CRA

money and I do support that. And I believe that other projects that the Commissioner mentioned,

he may and he may not support, but they're a part of the whole area. I do think that if you -- and

you're right. We have to honor this contract, but I -- one thing that I really believe is that the

City has not been used the leverage of this important contribution to the tunnel to make a

dramatic reforms in the way that the Port of Miami work because the City has no say at all in the

Port of Miami, whether it's in operation, whether it's in traffic hours, whether it's in work hours.

And they are within the City boundaries. And now the City -- although this should be a regional

project -- is contributing with a lot of money. Now the problem that I have with this issue is not -

- I would vote for it because it has the Museum Park. The problem that I have is that the

perception that has been given here tonight is that this was highly irregular, and I just don't want

to be part of it. And -- but that's another story. I really believe, Madam Chair, that you should

push the CRA executive director and attorney to get some kind of numbers because remember the

Marlins contract. We aspire, aspirational. And now you have a huge leverage to put numbers

on this contract. Whether the County would accept it or not, that's their problem. But I just

want to say that I fully support Museum Park on this matter. I think it's the best use for the

money of the CRA. Thank you.

Chair Spence-Jones: So, Commissioner Regalado, you're saying that as we have it in the

language from a local participation standpoint, I believe, and small -- in the -- if we're using the

Marlins' agreement as an example, I think that it was 50 percent of the jobs portion of it would

have to come from the City or the County. I don't mind -- if you don't mind adding the County

portion on this as a part of it only because the County's portion of it would also be included as

well. I mean, this is the County's money as well.

Commissioner Regalado: No. I understand that.

Chair Spence-Jones: I mean, the CRA.

Commissioner Regalado: I understand.

Chair Spence-Jones: I mean, ultimately, it will --

Commissioner Regalado: And I understand that it will get -- what I'm saying is that now that we

are doing this, now that the CRA Board is doing this, use it as leverage because, you know,

eventually --

Chair Spence-Jones: No. I -- listen, I agree. If you don't put percentage or put like hard, cold

facts in it, you'll have words like "we aspire to do," and it'll never happen. So I mean, I would

have to agree with Commissioner Regalado on that, and I would like to have a percentage added

on there. I mean, 50 percent may be a bit high, and I don't have a problem with, you know,

going to 35 percent. I think that was one of the highest we had on one of them. But we got to

have a percentage on that because if not, they'll put 1 percent and none of the local businesses

will benefit from it.

Mr. Villacorta: I think part of the problem is the CRA certainly -- and the City are not a party to

that construction agreement for the port tunnel.

Chair Spence-Jones: Yeah, but we're a party to this money we're going to put in.





Chair Spence-Jones: So if we're going to put some money in it, we're going to get some benefits

out of it, period. Because it did not happen on the Performing Arts Center, and I think that that

was -- to me, it was a big mistake. We got no benefits really out of it, you know. So I think that if

-- I mean, if you have -- if you need my support today, it's got to have local jobs and it has to

have local, small businesses from the area. If not, you can just count me out. So I'm very clear

on that. So if y'all need to sit over there and talk for a little bit to get it straight, that's fine. But I

think that we need to -- for monies that the CRA's going to invest in it, we got to make sure that

people locally get something out of it.

Mr. Villacorta: Perhaps we could put in language that these -- it's the Board's desire that these

two particular projects make an extra effort to comply with the CRA's initiatives for job training

and access and for economic development, and that the goal would be for 35 percent or 50

percent --


Mr. Villacorta: -- of the residents --

Chair Spence-Jones: Okay, you're getting closer. That sounds a little better. Because when you

said "extra effort," that kind of meant like -- what's extra effort for you may not be extra effort for

me, which means -- so if you guys can come up with a number that makes sense --

Ms. Dotson: I think what we're trying to say is that with respect to the construction of the port

tunnel, we don't know at this time whether we can make those types of commitments to you

because the City is providing the -- some funding for the port tunnel --

Chair Spence-Jones: Well, I think we --

Ms. Dotson: -- as I understand it. But we're not constructing the port tunnel.

Chair Spence-Jones: I understand that. But these are the dollars -- I mean, this -- you guys

can't get everything you want. So I mean, do you need to make a call or do whatever you need to

do? But district -- the district Commissioner -- I mean, I hope you understand -- I mean, I

definitely --

Vice Chair Sarnoff: No. I understand what you're doing. What they're trying to tell you is we

are voting on the --

Chair Spence-Jones: Plan.

Vice Chair Sarnoff: -- Zyscovich amended plan.


Vice Chair Sarnoff: And I know your heart is at the port tunnel, as mine is, because if there ever

was a project that pretty blue collar workers would have a good shot at getting -- as I said to you

a moment ago, everybody with a pickup truck will have a job for a long time, and they will.

Because if you think about it, think of what they're dredging out of there and how they have to

get it out of there.


Vice Chair Sarnoff: So it's a great job generator, maybe not of the most highly skilled because,

believe it or not, to build a tunnel requires about 50 really skilled people and then about 1,000

unskilled people 'cause it's very difficult work. But we're not a party to that contract. And bear




one last thing in mind. Of the $1 billion contract, we're putting $50 million in there. So it's not

a very high percentage. As a matter of fact, it's hard to believe in my mind that without our $50

million the State would let this fail. So if you're thinking in terms of numbers for the port tunnel,

think in terms of our contribution, which -- somebody want to help me? What is 50 million of a

billion? Since I'm -- I didn't go -- I'm not the CPA (Certified Public Accountant). Look at it.

Everybody there is a lawyer all sitting there. Where's Larry? Five percent. And if you wanted

to put a higher percentage on the museums because there's a lot more control there, I would

absolutely support that.

Chair Spence-Jones: Well, definitely, I take your recommendation on the museum. And if we

could -- because I do know we have a little bit more control over that. If we can definitely add

that -- add a higher percentage in that, that would be awesome, which, you know, for me, I'd like

for us to aspire for 50 percent and not 35, though. Okay. I think that that's what the aspiration

should be. As far as the port tunnel is concerned, I know you're saying that it -- probably about -

- be about maybe 5 percent. I'd like to at least maybe perhaps double that. I'm just telling you --

'cause that same pickup truck that you talking about, Commissioner Sarnoff, it'll be coming all

the way from Broward County.

Vice Chair Sarnoff: I understand.

Chair Spence-Jones: It would pass every person in Dade County and every person in the City of

Miami to go dump trash and everything else --

Vice Chair Sarnoff: But what I don't want to have happen -- and I know you haven't been to

every meeting, and probably of anyone in the City of Miami -- and this may include the Mayor

and it may not include the Mayor -- I've been to all these meetings. I have watched the State at

every turn come up with a reason why this project should not go forward. I would hate to give

them any excuse in the world to say, you know what? The City just put a new criteria that wasn't

found in this contract. They want the $50 million. It's their business how they get their money.

We didn't tell them how to give us this money. If they want us to do this -- you know, I -- you

know and I know there's going to be a lot of jobs from the tunnel, just 'cause of the nature of

what they're doing. With regard to the museums, I will support you upwards and down, inside

and out because that control element is there.

Chair Spence-Jones: Okay. I definitely -- so are we clear on the museums part so we can -- the

50 percent?

Olga Ramirez-Seijas (Assistant City Attorney): Commissioner --

Mr. Villacorta: I mean, if you'd like, we can put into the plan that it is our goal that 50 percent

of all -- of the jobs for all CRA-supported projects come from the City or CRA areas.

Chair Spence-Jones: Okay. Yeah, but not for the -- as Commissioner Sarnoff is saying, but we

can't do that with --

Vice Chair Sarnoff: Tunnel's different.

Chair Spence-Jones: -- the tunnel.

Ms. Ramirez-Seijas: Commissioner, if I may.

Chair Spence-Jones: You're recognized.

Ms. Ramirez-Seijas: Olga Ramirez-Seijas, Assistant City Attorney. The City is not a party to the

contract for the construction of the port tunnel.





Ms. Ramirez-Seijas: The master agreement is simply an agreement between FDOT (Florida

Department of Transportation), the County, and the City to fund the construction of the tunnel.

The construction will be by the concessionaire under a contract with FDOT. So we cannot

impose any kind of job hiring requirements because our only obligation is to convey eight

easements, right-of-way for the construction of the tunnel, to provide a letter of credit, and to

fund $50 million. With respect to the museums, there is an agreement in place already and the

agreement doesn't involve the CRA.


Ms. Ramirez-Seijas: The agreement is between the museums and the City and it has goals

already in it. I just wanted to bring that to your attention because the CRA is not a party to that

document either.

Chair Spence-Jones: Well, I can accept the port tunnel. I mean, I can accept -- I understand

that, you know, especially since our contribution is not all that big. But it's extremely hard for

me to accept that on a contract that I know the City itself for the museum is responsible for.

Ms. Ramirez-Seijas: I'm just letting you know.

Chair Spence-Jones: And I understand how important this is, but I'm just telling you, sometimes

you have to stand up for what you think is right. And if you want -- if the chairperson -- if you

want my support on that, I have to know that the local people are going to get support because

I'm just -- I just know what I'm even dealing with on projects that we have voted on, I mean,

literally having to bird-dog them on agreements that we've made up here that has not happened.

Ms. Ramirez-Seijas: There is --

Chair Spence-Jones: Which it's not my role or my responsibility. I'm a policymaker, should not

be trying to help people run a program to make sure they live up to their commitment. And I

could only imagine if I just say yes on this and not put it in there, I would rather you guys, you

know, wrestle and try to figure out a way to make it work and me put it in there than have a

situation where you tell me you're going to do something and it doesn't happen.

Ms. Ramirez-Seijas: There is a park component that is what is -- what we're looking to fund

from the CRA and that park component is a City project. Certainly, the City can include the

requirements that you want with respect to the park component.

Vice Chair Sarnoff: Put the 50 percent on the park component.

Chair Spence-Jones: I mean, yeah, that's -- whatever it is that needs to happen, I want to make

sure that those dollars are coming from the -- even though it's from your area --

Vice Chair Sarnoff: No, no, no. I'm supportive --

Chair Spence-Jones: -- that are coming from --

Vice Chair Sarnoff: -- of what you're saying.

Chair Spence-Jones: -- the Omni CRA, that the little guy that has a construction company, or

the little person that has a catering company, or the little person that just needs to work, you

know, will get a job. I don't want the jobs to come from everywhere else but from the




surrounding area. So if you're telling me that I will -- you have my support if I know that 50

percent of those jobs or 50 percent of those small businesses for the additional part on Museum

Park, if it's just the park portion -- whatever dollar the CRA puts in, it has to come from there.

Ms. Ramirez-Seijas: There is no restriction on that, Commissioner.

Vice Chair Sarnoff: Yeah. That's --

Ms. Ramirez-Seijas: I just wanted to point out the museum component.

Chair Spence-Jones: I just want to make sure.

Vice Chair Sarnoff: Let's amend the motion to reflect 50 percent of the jobs for the port -- for

the construction of the park portion must come from the City of Miami. And let's put in of the

City of Miami, just so you'll feel comfortable, 50 percent must come from the CRA neighborhood.

Chair Spence-Jones: I'm more --

Ms. Ramirez-Seijas: Should that be --

Chair Spence-Jones: -- than happy with that.

Ms. Ramirez-Seijas: -- a goal or --? A goal. I mean, to the extent available.

Vice Chair Sarnoff: That's a fair statement --

Ms. Ramirez-Seijas: Okay.

Vice Chair Sarnoff: -- because not everybody may be able --

Chair Spence-Jones: Okay, not a problem. So at least -- as long as we have that language in

there -- and then as far as the port tunnel is concerned -- so are we able to at least put the 10

percent aspirational language in there?

Vice Chair Sarnoff: You want to put aspirational? I think that's fine.

Chair Spence-Jones: No. I don't want to put the word "aspiration." So what --

Vice Chair Sarnoff: You can --

Chair Spence-Jones: -- can we do on that side of it, Olga?

Ms. Ramirez-Seijas: Commissioner, unfortunately, I don't think there's anything you could do

with respect to construction of the port tunnel other than engage in, you know, discussions with

FDOT to the extent that, you know, you may be able to get some concessions from them. But that

agreement is very set, and I would hate for this Commission to make a decision based on a

possibility that, frankly, it doesn't exist. We are just contributing $50 million and a easement.

Chair Spence-Jones: Okay. Can I ask this question, Madam City Attorneys? What -- and you,

you're an attorney as well. What is the possibility, Commissioner Sarnoff, that if there's any

amendments that come up on this regarding -- in regarding this overall contract with the port

tunnel -- because right now you're telling me you already have a contract and you can't make

any changes basically on the contract, correct? Because we're making a contribution; it's not

really our contract, correct?




Ms. Ramirez-Seijas: Well --

Vice Chair Sarnoff: No, no.

Ms. Ramirez-Seijas: -- the contribution is our obligation under the contract.

Chair Spence-Jones: Right. Okay, but do you understand what I'm asking?

Vice Chair Sarnoff: Yeah. We're -- I think I do. Let me try to say it.


Vice Chair Sarnoff: We're fulfilling the December -- we're fulfilling this agreement, okay? So

far, there has been no modification request of this agreement. But if and when there are

modification requests, you are absolutely right. You can then re -- but you can't be the one to be

the opener.


Vice Chair Sarnoff: In other words, if this comes back to us for any reason whatsoever, I will

support you in requiring a 10 percent requirement for the City of Miami. But as it stands right

now, these folks are looking for any reason in the world whatsoever, whatsoever to say the City

of Miami has not lived up to its obligation, and therefore --

Chair Spence-Jones: I got it.

Vice Chair Sarnoff: Okay.

Chair Spence-Jones: And I'm perfectly cool with that because, again, we do need the jobs in the

area. I know the longshoremen would probably kill me if I don't support it, so it's not even the

issue. I just want to make sure that if it opens up -- the negotiations open back up for whatever

reason, there needs to be amendments -- 'cause I believe there will be amendments on this

contract. I believe that's going to happen. It's too big for it not to be. If that is the case, I want

it to actually be put on the record that part of our requirement or part of the requirement would

be that that 10 percent be considered from our do -- from our contribution be considered for the

local participation on the project if the money's actually coming from the CRA if the negotiation

is open -- or the contract is actually opened back up again.

Ms. Ramirez-Seijas: Yeah. At that point, you can bring it up and --


Ms. Ramirez-Seijas: -- it's a matter of negotiations whether you agree or not.

Chair Spence-Jones: So I don't want to hear that it got -- that it was brought up again and some

amendments were made and we were not included.

Ms. Ramirez-Seijas: We will make sure that --

Chair Spence-Jones: This is official right now, right?

Ms. Ramirez-Seijas: That you can bring it up. I cannot assure you that that would be complied

with. It is a matter of the amendment and what it is that the parties could ultimately agree to.

But, certainly, any amendment that may come before this Board, we will bring up the issue of the

10 percent.




Chair Spence-Jones: Okay. All right, so Madam City Attorney, you have that?

Ms. Dotson: Yes.

Chair Spence-Jones: Mr. Executive Director, are you comfortable with that?

Mr. Villacorta: Yes. My understanding now is these are going to be amendments to the

resolution and not the plan. Is that --?

Chair Spence-Jones: Should it be to the resolution or to the plan?

Vice Chair Sarnoff: To the resolution.


Chair Spence-Jones: Okay. All right. And are we comfortable with that? Does that make --

does that secures our participation?

Mr. Villacorta: Yes. There'll be a 50 percent goal on the --

Chair Spence-Jones: Just want to make sure.

Mr. Villacorta: -- Museum Park and a --

Ms. Ramirez-Seijas: Park component.

Mr. Villacorta: -- on the park component, yes, and a -- should there be a reopening of this

agreement, we will strive to get a percentage included in there of 10 percent.

Chair Spence-Jones: At least 10 percent.


Chair Spence-Jones: Okay. With that being said, I guess we are ready to call this --

Vice Chair Sarnoff: Call the question.

Chair Spence-Jones: -- to -- right. I think we had a motion, Madam City Clerk --

Ms. Thompson: Yes.

Chair Spence-Jones: -- and a second, correct?

Ms. Thompson: Yes, you do.

Chair Spence-Jones: All right. All in favor?

Vice Chair Sarnoff: Aye.

Chair Spence-Jones: Aye.

Commissioner Regalado: One no.

Chair Spence-Jones: This item passes, and I'd like to thank everybody for coming out for the




CRA meeting. This meeting is officially adjourned.


city of miamiegov.ci.miami.fl.us/meetings/2009/9/1906_m_seopw... · tuesday, september 29, 2009...

Documents